HomeMy WebLinkAbout111715 CC Adjourned Regular Meeting AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 17, 2015 – 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can
be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference
Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City
Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation and will
discuss whether to initiate litigation against a certain defendants. A point has been
reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and
circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council
will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Claim of
James Richardson and Larraine O'Canna, City of Temecula Claim No. 15-24.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: 15-13
Resolution: 15-63
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Prelude Music: Natalie Schumann
Invocation: Sylvester Scott of Baha'is of Temecula
Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Naggar
ROLL CALL: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Presentation of Certificate of Achievement to William C. Dull of Troop #384 and Brayden
Phillips of Troop #934 for Attaining the Rank of Eagle Scout
1
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each
speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on
an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to
Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council
addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to
speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form
may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each
speaker is limited to five minutes.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate action.
1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and
resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the
Government Code.
2 Approve the Action Minutes of November 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of November 10, 2015.
3 Approve the List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
2
4 Approve a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for the Proposed Community Facility
District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT
5 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Temecula and the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (At the Request of Mayor Comerchero and Mayor
Pro -Tem Naggar as the City Council Pechanga Tribal Representatives)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 That the City Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City
of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians as mitigation for the
impacts of the Pechanga Resort and Hotel Expansion Project as detailed in the
Draft Tribal Environmental Impact Report — August 2015.
********************
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND
THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
********************
3
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: CSD 15-01
Resolution: CSD 15-07
CALL TO ORDER: President Maryann Edwards
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards
CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of
Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the
Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to
the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the
speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form
may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each
speaker is limited to five minutes.
CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
6 Approve the Action Minutes of November 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 10, 2015.
CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT
CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
CSD ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula,
California.
4
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: SARDA 15-01
Resolution: SARDA 15-05
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of
Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the
Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to
the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the
speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Agency Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form
may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each
speaker is limited to five minutes.
SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency request specific items
be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
7 Approve the Action Minutes of November 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 10, 2015.
SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
SARDA ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula,
California.
5
TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: THA 15-01
Resolution: THA 15-02
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
THA PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of
Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the
Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on
the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior
to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once
the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Authority Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak
form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item.
Each speaker is limited to five minutes.
THA CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Temecula Housing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
8 Approve the Action Minutes of November 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of November 10, 2015.
THA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
THA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
THA ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula,
California.
6
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: TPFA 15-01
Resolution: TPFA 15-06
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerhcero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of
Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the
Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the
agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to
the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the
speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Authority Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak
form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item.
Each speaker is limited to five minutes.
TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members
of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
9 Acknowledge Receipt of a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for the Proposed
Community Facility District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch, and Authorizing and Directing
Actions to Execute Agreements
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE TO
THE FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT,
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH
RESPECT THERETO
7
TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
TPFA ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula,
California.
8
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or
may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at
the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
10 Adopt Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE
LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT,
AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
10.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON
SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING
CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING
THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT
BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
9
10.4 Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Ordinance and
continue the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to introduce and read
by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW
IS REQUIRED
10.5 Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Resolution and
continue the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to adopt a resolution
entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE"
10.6 Direct staff to prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area;
10.7 Direct staff to change the name of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
11 Community Development Department Monthly Report
12 Police Department Monthly Report
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, California.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main
Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council
meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be
available for public viewing at the respective meeting.
Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda
Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the
agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula,
8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be
available for public review at the respective meeting.
If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694-
6444.
10
PRESENTATIONS
City of Temecula
Certificate of Achievement
The City Council of the City of Temecula commends
the outstanding achievement of:
William C. Dull
of Troop #384
We congratulate William for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the
highest achievement earned in Scouting. We are proud of William's accomplishment and
wish him continued success in his promising and bright future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto affixed my hand and official seal
this seventeenth clay of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Randi Johl, City Clerk
City of Temecula
Certificate of Achievement
The City Council of the City of Temecula commends
the outstanding achievement of:
Brayden Phillips
of Troop #934
We congratulate Brayden for his achievement on receiving the rank of Eagle Scout, which is the
highest achievement earned in Scouting. We are proud of Brayden's accomplishment and
wish him continued success in his promising and bright future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto affixed my hand and official seal
this seventeenth clay of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
Randi Johl, City Clerk
COUNCIL CONSENT
CALENDAR
Item No. 1
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions
PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard
ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the
Government Code.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws
of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City
adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the
full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: None
Item No. 2
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 10, 2015 – 7:00 PM
5:45 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference
Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City
Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential
litigation and will discuss whether to initiate litigation against a certain
defendants. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney,
based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to
litigation involving the City.
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council
will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to two matters of pending litigation: (1)
Anthony Dragonetti v. Mad Madeline's, City of Temecula, et al., Riverside County
Superior Court No. MCC1300275; and (2) Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
v. City of Temecula et al. Riverside Superior Court No. RIC1512880.
At 5:45 P.M. Mayor Comerchero called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to
Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda.
The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Prelude Music: Serena Sepersky
Invocation: Pastor Luke Kirkendall of Southwest Christian Church
Flag Salute: Temecula Valley Young Marines Color Guard
National Anthem: Allison Chan
ROLL CALL: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Presentation of #GivingTuesday Proclamation
Presentation by President Dr. Karen Haynes (CSUSM Update)
Action Minutes 111015 1
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individual addressed the City Council:
• Michael Petrofsky
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances
Recommendation (5-0) Council Member
seconded by Council Member McCracken;
by Council Members Edwards, McCracken,
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
and Resolutions - Approved Staff
Edwards made the motion; it was
and electronic vote reflected approval
Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and
resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the
Government Code.
2 Approve the Action Minutes of October 27, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation
(5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council
Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members
Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of October 27, 2015.
3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council
Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member
McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards,
McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 2015 - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was
seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval
by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
Action Minutes 111015 2
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of
September 30, 2015.
5 Approve Financial Statements for the 4th Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 - Approved
Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was
seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval
by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the 4th Quarter June 30, 2015;
5.2 Approve an increase of $12,000 in revenues and an appropriation in Fund 160
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) Transfer Out to General
Fund Transfer In, due to the late receipt of FY2013-14 grant revenue;
5.3 Approve an appropriation of $27,000 in the Vehicles and Equipment Fund 310 to
cover higher depreciation expenses;
5.4 Approve an appropriation of $153,000 in the Technology Replacement fund 325
to cover higher depreciation expenses.
6 Approve the First Amendment to Temecula Public Financing Authority Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, to Provide for Withdrawal of Successor Agency to the Temecula
Redevelopment Agency as a Member and Addition of Temecula Community Services
District and Temecula Housing Authority as New Members - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was
seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by
Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
7 Approve Updated Community Support Funding Policies and Application Forms -
Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the
motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote
reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and
Comerchero.
Action Minutes 111015 3
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 That the City Council approve the updated Community Support Funding Policies
and Application Forms.
8 Approve a Cooperative Agreement Between City of Temecula and Non-profit Our
Nicholas Foundation in Support of Various Human Services Programs and Activities -
Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the
motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote
reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and
Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 That the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Temecula and non-profit Our Nicholas Foundation in support of various Human
Services programs and activities.
9 Approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement with Environmental Science
Associates for the Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the
Temecula Valley Hospital Heliport Relocation - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-
0-1, Council Member Comerchero abstained) Council Member Edwards made the
motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote
reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar and Rahn
with Council Member Comerchero abstaining due to the fact that he serves on the
Board for the Temecula Valley Hospital.
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 That the City Council approve the Third Amendment to the Agreement with
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), in the amount of $16,000, for the
preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital Heliport Relocation, for a total agreement amount of
$124,155.
10 Approve Participation in the Riverside County Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
Program - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made
the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote
reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and
Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE
(MCC) PROGRAM
Action Minutes 111015 4
11 Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for
the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Overland Drive, PW12-15 - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was
seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval
by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public
Works to solicit Construction Bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program —
Overland Drive, PW12-15;
11.2 Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical
Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
12 Approve Tract Map 36571 (Located at the Southwest Corner of Deer Hollow Way and
Peach Tree Street) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member
Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and
electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken,
Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 That the City Council approve Tract Map 36571 in conformance with the
Conditions of Approval.
13 Receive Temporary Street Closures for 2015 Winterfest Events - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was
seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval
by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City
Manager:
Temporarily close certain streets for the following 2015 Winterfest Events:
OLD TOWN CHRISTMAS TREE INSTALL
HOLIDAY MAGIC ON MAIN STREET
TEMECULA ON ICE
SANTA'S ELECTRIC LIGHT PARADE
WINTER WONDERLAND
Action Minutes 111015 5
14 Establish an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Mercedes Street at Third Street
- Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the
motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote
reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and
Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL
AT THE INTERSECTION OF MERCEDES STREET AT THIRD
STREET
RECESS
At 7:48 P.M., the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services
District Meeting, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting and
Temecula Housing Authority Meeting. At 7:53 P.M., the City Council resumed with the
remainder of the City Council Agenda.
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
21 Approve an Amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code that Would Replace
Chapter 17.32 Entitled Water Efficient Landscape Design with a New Chapter to be
Consistent with the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance - Approved
Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was
seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by
Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 That the City Council read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-11
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS; DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS ORDINANCE
IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15308, CLASS 8
City Attorney Thorson read by title only Ordinance No. 15-11.
Action Minutes 111015 6
22 Approve an Amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to Revise the Expiration Date
and Time Extensions for Development Plans - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0)
Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member
Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards,
McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 15-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME
FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER
OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR SAID PERMITS
(LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR15-1285)
City Attorney Thorson read by title only Ordinance No. 15-12.
• Matthew Fagan addressed the Council on this item.
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
23 Approve Recommendation for Community Service Funding Program for Fiscal Year
2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made
the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Naggar; and electronic vote
reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and
Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 That the City Council approve the Community Service Funding Ad Hoc
Subcommittee's recommendation to allocate a total of $59,000 to fund 16 out of
33 grant applications received from nonprofit organizations for the Fiscal Year
2015-16 Community Service Funding Program.
24 Receive and File 2015 Federal Legislative Update from David Turch and Associates and
Consider Revised Scope of Services and One -Year Extension to Term of Agreement for
Consultant Services - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member
Naggar made the motion to receive and file the 2015 Federal Legislative Update
and consider the revised scope of services and approve a one-year extension to
term of agreement for consultant services; it was seconded by Council Member
Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards,
McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
Action Minutes 111015 7
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 That the City Council receive and file the 2015 Federal legislative update from
David Turch and Associates and consider revised Scope of Services and one-
year extension to term of Agreement for Consultant Services.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
25 City Council Travel/Conference Report — November 2015
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Thorson reported in regards to the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
Litigation, the City Council Authorized the City Attorney to aggressively defend the City and the
City Council in this action. In regards to the Anthony Dragonetti Litigation, the City Council
authorized to settle the case in the amount of $80,000 based on the agreement reached in the
mediation. There were no other actions to report under Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:25 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to an adjourned Regular Meeting
on Tuesday, November 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session
commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Action Minutes 111015 8
Item No. 3
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands
PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager
Jada Shafe, Accounting Specialist
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review
and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached
claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or
authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies
and procedures.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. List of Demands
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on
file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and
that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $5,171.467.01.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
10/29/2015 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 3,938,373.01
11/05/2015 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 778,309.38
11/05/2015 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 454,784.62
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 11/17/2015 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 5,171,467.01
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
001 GENERAL FUND $ 3,826,774.66
135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 1,999.44
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,532.94
150 AB 2766 FUND 1,704.90
165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1,987.52
170 MEASURE A FUND 190,866.06
190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 206,825.30
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 135.52
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,149.63
196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 488.79
197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 46,451.21
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 308,064.38
300 INSURANCE FUND 3,565.92
320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 40,693.87
330 CENTRAL SERVICES 17,975.94
340 FACILITIES 42,166.37
375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 477.51
380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,150.13
472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 15.09
473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 15.09
474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 15.09
475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 15.09
476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 15.09
477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 90.39
501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 379.69
502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 403.57
503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 50.57
504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 9.35
505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 971.60
506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 289.47
507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 310.74
508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 2,063.91
509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 84.60
510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 15.42
511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 177.36
512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 117.15
513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 283.61
514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 629.64
515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 238.37
516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 4,691.03
517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 18.21
518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 1,714.58
519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 309.53
520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 566.30
521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 265.49
522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 90.13
523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 6.94
524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 499.55
525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 744.46
526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 2.00
527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 371.78
528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 220.55
529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 2.86
700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 5,978.00
$ 4,716,682.39
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
001 GENERAL FUND $ 261,721.91
135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 1,818.69
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,830.22
165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4,158.63
190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 99,436.77
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 245.38
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,147.01
196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 454.28
197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 616.21
300 INSURANCE FUND 2,160.50
320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 25,306.84
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 6,059.55
340 FACILITIES 11,478.44
375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 1,196.30
472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 64.40
473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 64.40
474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 64.40
475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 64.40
476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 64.40
477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 386.45
501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 92.79
502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 62.29
503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 74.20
504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 13.45
505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 149.81
506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 27.12
507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 38.52
508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 254.55
509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.70
510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 11.59
511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 7.86
512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 169.85
513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 36.28
514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 20.96
515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 18.31
516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 42.30
517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 3.69
518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 157.49
519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 84.17
520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 228.25
521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 386.04
522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 9.19
523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 10.16
524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 217.21
525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 69.93
526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 3.10
527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 10.16
528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 320.17
529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 4.41
700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 32,918.89
454,784.62
TOTAL BY FUND: $ 5,171,467.01
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
2823 10/27/2015 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT 40,874.60 40,874.60
RETIREMENT)
2824 10/20/2015 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) unemployment tax 3rd qtr 2015 15,125.69 15,125.69
173596 10/23/2015 017251 VENGOECHEA PERFORMANCE: 10/2/15 ART OPENING 150.00 150.00
173597 10/29/2015 018248 42 TARDUS WAY settlement:merc rental 10/20 350.00 350.00
173598 10/29/2015 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES, LLC HVAC REPAIR SVCS 951.50
HVAC Repair: Sta 92 238.60 1,190.10
173599 10/29/2015 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Nov '15 Employee assistance prgm 4.40
LLC
Nov Employee assistance prgm 664.40 668.80
173600 10/29/2015 016450 AIR EXCHANGE, INC. plymovent maintenance: Sta 84 972.33 972.33
173601 10/29/2015 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT ECON DEV - TABLE CLOTH CLEANING 77.20 77.20
173602 10/29/2015 009787 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC vehicle repair & maint svcs: pw traffic 131.84 131.84
173603 10/29/2015 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY signal batteries: pw traffic 581.69
CORPORATION
signal batteries: pw traffic 266.84 848.53
173604 10/29/2015 018397 ARCHULETA, COLLEEN refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 150.00 150.00
173605 10/29/2015 018249 ASI ASSOCIATES INC MISC SUPPLIES:CHILDREN'S MUSEUM 531.12 531.12
173606 10/29/2015 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC.
173607 10/29/2015 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC
173608 10/29/2015 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC,
THE
173609 10/29/2015 013482 BAS SECURITY
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
485.10
450.45
519.75
1,455.30
BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 139.07 139.07
settlement:cabaret at the merc 10/25 518.00 518.00
billing adj:short pd Inv#965a 755.90
SECURITY SVC:HEALTH & RESOURCE F.
238.80 994.70
Pagel
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
173610 10/29/2015 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES
Description
SEP -OCT DUI & DRUG
SCREENINGS:POLICE
SEP -OCT DUI & DRUG SCREENINGS:POI
SEP DUI & DRUG SCREENINGS:POLICE
Amount Paid Check Total
956.94
1,530.42
572.00 3,059.36
173611 10/29/2015 012583 BLANCAY PRICE JUL LDSCP PLAN CHCK & 17,159.00 17,159.00
REVI EW:PLNG
173612 10/29/2015 018400 BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC gym 200.00 200.00
173613 10/29/2015 017115 BUREAU OF OFFICE TRANSCRIPTION SVCS:TEM POLICE 850.14 850.14
SERVICES, INC
173614 10/29/2015 014718 BURT, KRISTAA.
173615 10/29/2015 003138 CAL MAT
173616 10/29/2015 004248 CALIF DEPT OF
JUSTICE-ACCTING
TCSD Instructor Earnings 205.80 205.80
asphalt supplies:pw street maint div 359.39 359.39
Aug '15 drug & alcohol screenings:police 525.00
SEP '15 DRUG &ALCOHOL SCREENING: 350.00
JUN '15 DRUG & ALCOHOL SCREENING
105.00 980.00
173617 10/29/2015 011813 CALIFORNIA VETERINARY EMERGENCY EXAM:POLICE K-9 UNIT 152.67 152.67
SPCLST
173618 10/29/2015 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY SEP '15 CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES 2,087.12 2,087.12
INC
173619 10/29/2015 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel:Police 1,217.26 1,217.26
173620 10/29/2015 018396 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
173621 10/29/2015 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL
DIST.
173622 10/29/2015 017542 COX, KRISTI LYN
173623 10/29/2015 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING &
HVAC INC
refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC
refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC
refund:credit:rm rental:TCC
refund:credit:rm rental:conf ctr A/B
200.00
150.00
1,967.05
2,105.00
MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:CRC 312.55
var park site elect supplies:park maint
MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:LIBRARY
189.00
31.32
TCSD instructor earnings 302.40
TCSD instructor earnings 504.00
replace pressure washer pump:foc 1,648.76
STATION MAINT:STN 92
PLUMBING SVCS: CRC
appliance repair: pbsp snack bar
INSTALL REGULATOR:SENIOR CENTER I
832.28
920.00
5,225.00
780.00
4,422.05
532.87
806.40
9,406.04
Paget
apChkLst
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 3
Bank : union UNION BANK
Check # Date
Vendor
173624 10/29/2015 011870 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN,
LLC
173625 10/29/2015 000209 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES
173626 10/29/2015 014580 DANCE THEATRE COLLECTIVE
173627 10/29/2015 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC
173628 10/29/2015 016756 DOCTOR'S NUTRITIONAL
PRODUCTS
173629 10/29/2015 018247 DOKKEN ENGINEERING
173630 10/29/2015 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL&
LUBRICANTS
173631 10/29/2015 007319 EAGLE ROAD SERVICE & TIRE
INC
173632 10/29/2015 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DIST
173633 10/29/2015 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA,
AILEEN
(Continued)
Description
BIO -HAZARD CLEAN-UP:#TE152680059
9/25
equipment maintenance: Sta 84
settlement:danceXchange 10/20
refreshments:college fair event
K-9 Food - Police FY 15/16
design svcs for southside parking:pw
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:LAND
DEV/NPDES
Fuel for City vehicles:Police
Fuel for City vehicles:TCSD
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PARKS MAINZ
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PW
Fuel for City vehicles:traffic div
replacement tires:pw street maint fleet
Sep water meter:Murr hot springs rd
Sep water meter:39569 Seraphina Rd
Sep water meter:39656 Diego Dr
Sep water meter:Murr hot springs rd
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
Amount Paid
Check Total
750.00
117.54
80.50
1,435.00
82.80
6,787.64
46.36
55.94
214.43
827.06
563.92
177.66
1,215.20
76.33
364.84
225.80
20.57
70.00
189.00
189.00
157.50
227.50
262.50
227.50
189.00
262.50
141.75
87.50
280.00
750.00
117.54
80.50
1,435.00
82.80
6,787.64
1,885.37
1,215.20
687.54
2,283.75
173634 10/29/2015 013367 ELECTRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY misc small tools & equip: pw traffic 929.96 929.96
Page3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
173635 10/29/2015 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
ASSOC.
Description
AUG '15 JEFFERSON CORRIDOR SPEC
PLN EIR
APR '15 AUDI AUTO DEALERSHIP SEIR
APR '15AUDI AUTO DEALERSHIP SEIR
Amount Paid Check Total
2,150.13
18,980.56
6,859.80 27,990.49
173636 10/29/2015 015090 EVAPCO PRODUCTS, INC. maint svcs for water system:civic ctr 550.00 550.00
173637 10/29/2015 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. IRRIG REPAIRS:HARVESTON LAKE 350.02
PARK
Irrig repairs:Riverton park 183.05
Irrig repairs:Paloma del sol park 166.46
Irrig repairs:PBSP 221.72
Irrig repairs:Butterfield median 166.46
irrigation sys repairs: various slopes 258.77
IRRIG CONTROLLER INSTALL:VILLAGES 1,340.00
Idscp imprvmnts:tradewinds slope 4,662.00
WATER MAIN REPAIR SVC:TCC 327.66
IRRIG REPAIRS:MEADOWS PARK 326.28
IRRIG REPAIRS:HARVESTON SPORTS Pi 286.36
IRRIG REPAIRS:PAUBA RIDGE PARK 417.51
IRRIG REPAIRS:SONOMA MEADOWVIEVV 114.26
IRRIG REPAIRS:TEMEKU HILLS 288.00
IRRIG REPAIRS:HARVESTON SPORTS Pi 159.93
IRRIG REPAIRS:DUCK POND PARK 170.44
irrigation repairs: villages slope 221.72
irrigation repairs: villages slope 221.72
overseeding turf:redhawk dog park 360.00
Idscp improvements:pablo apis park 5,603.00
irrigation sys repairs: various slopes 105.15
irrigation sys repairs: various slopes 408.97
IRRIG REPAIRS:WOLF CREEK 342.91
IRRIG REPAIRS:RRSP 257.20
Irrig repairs:temeku hills slopes 107.28
Irrig repairs:campos verdes slopes 104.93
Irrig repairs:mirada slope 225.72 17,397.52
173638 10/29/2015 018268 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, CONSULTING SVCS:COMM OUTREACH 16,487.50 16,487.50
PRGM
173639 10/29/2015 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
173640 10/29/2015 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK
173641 10/29/2015 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK
173642 10/29/2015 018398 FRANCIS, LESLI
Sep Express mail services 51.16
10/1 EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 31.53 82.69
settlement:carnival of the animals 6,450.56 6,450.56
settlement:seussical 10/9-25 5,553.84 5,553.84
refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 200.00 200.00
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
173643 10/29/2015 000795 FRED PRYOR TRAINING REWARD
SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC MBRSHP:ROBINSON, S.
173644 10/29/2015 014865 FREIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY BLDG & SAFETY INSPECTOR
UNIFORMS
Amount Paid Check Total
299.00 299.00
125.34 125.34
173645 10/29/2015 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC misc supplies:var csd special events 429.02 429.02
173646 10/29/2015 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT DJ SVCS:HALLOWEEN FAMILY
CARNIVAL 10/30
173647 10/29/2015 001937 GALLS INC
400.00 400.00
equip:Police volunteers FY15/16 23.76
equip:Police volunteers FY15/16
12.19 35.95
173648 10/29/2015 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC settlement:classic at the merc Oct '15 319.90 319.90
SOCIETY
173649 10/29/2015 003792 GRAINGER misc stage supplies: Theater 95.88 95.88
173650 10/29/2015 015451 GREATAMERICAFINANCIAL OCT '15 LEASE COPIERS:CITY 520.09 520.09
SVCS HALL/OFF-SITE
173651 10/29/2015 018406 HAIGHT, CANDY refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctrA/B 112.50 112.50
173652 10/29/2015 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC HARDWARE SUPPLIES: VARIOUS FIRE
STNS
173653 10/29/2015 002109 HD SUPPLY CONSTR. SUPPLY var maint supplies:street maint
LTD
var maint supplies:street maint
173654 10/29/2015 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, misc maint supplies: various facilities
THE
misc supplies: senior center rehab
173655 10/29/2015 005449 I E F E A POST 860
320.89 320.89
309.79
144.67
57.33
589.53
454.46
MISC SUPPLIES:SENIOR CENTER REHA 354.30 1,001.16
explorer post academy:adv regis fees 790.00 790.00
173656 10/29/2015 009135 IMPACT MARKETING & DESIGN promo items:theater anniversary event 200.79
INC
PROMO ITEMS:THEATER ANNIVERSARY 541.09 741.88
173657 10/29/2015 010766 INLAND VALLEY SYMPHONY Performance 10/24 1,500.00 1,500.00
173658 10/29/2015 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT
SOLUTIONS
SEP COPIER
MAI NT/R E PAI R/USAG E: CI TY WI D E
SEP COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:CIr
7,407.76
901.25 8,309.01
Pages
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
173659 10/29/2015 003296 INTL CODE COUNCIL CODE BOOKS: PREVENTION
173660 10/29/2015 010607 INTL SOCIETY OF Tree & Drought wrkshp 11/17 S. Fox
ARBORICULTURE
173661 10/29/2015 010412 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS GENERATOR PREV MAINT:FIRE STN
#84
GENERATOR PREV MAINT:CIVIC CENTEI
GENERATOR PREV MAINT:CRC
GENERATOR PREV MAINT:FOC
EMERG GEN PM SVCS:FIRE STN #95
GENERATOR PREV MAINT:LIBRARY
GENERATOR PREV MAINT:TVE2
EMERG GEN PM SVCS:FIRE STN #73
EMERG GEN PM SVCS:FIRE STN #92
Amount Paid Check Total
90.59 90.59
90.00 90.00
507.11
675.76
542.08
663.97
502.44
546.81
546.44
501.94
501.50
4,988.05
173662 10/29/2015 012285 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER 169.61 169.61
173663 10/29/2015 014312 KAMM INDUSTRIAL, INC. pole covers:tvhs tennis courts 621.00 621.00
173664 10/29/2015 015358 KELLY PAPER COMPANY, INC. wide format poster rolls & cardstock 646.15 646.15
173665 10/29/2015 001091 KEYSER MARSTON AUG '15 UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPEC 3,703.75 3,703.75
ASSOCIATES INC PLAN
173666 10/29/2015 000548 KIPLINGER LETTER, THE '15 KIPLINGER LTR SUBSCR:NAGGAR, 99.00 99.00
M
173667 10/29/2015 017946 LANDRUM, KAREN TCSD instructor earnings 840.00 840.00
173668 10/29/2015 014772 LOTA, RAYMONDA PHOTO BOOTH:HALLOWEEN FAMILY
CARNIVAL
173669 10/29/2015 018399 MCMILLIAN III, ANDREW refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston
173670 10/29/2015 015259 MERCURY DISPOSAL HOUSEHOLD BATTERY RECYCLING
SYSTEMS, INC. PRGM
698.00 698.00
200.00 200.00
272.84 272.84
173671 10/29/2015 016445 MKB PRINTING & BUSINESS CARDS:PW:JULIE TARRANT 100.99
PROMOTIONAL INC
BUSINESS CARDS:CHRISTINE DAMKO 171.70
173672 10/29/2015 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY INC repair damaged fence: pbsp 513.31
272.69
513.31
Page6
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173673 10/29/2015 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. PROMO ITEMS/DESIGN WORK:CSD 450.00
EVENTS
TCSD instructor earnings 115.50
TCSD instructor earnings 42.00
TCSD instructor earnings 616.00 1,223.50
173674 10/29/2015 004490 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC field lighting sys parts:tem middle sch 2,336.28 2,336.28
173675 10/29/2015 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC IT MONITORING SVCS: TVE2 100.00 100.00
173676 10/29/2015 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES: STA 19.83 19.83
84
173677 10/29/2015 000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION FIRE PREV WEEK 3,027.86
ASSN SUPPLIES:PREVENTION
12/1/15-11/30/16 mbrshp:E.W. 2508570 165.00
173678 10/29/2015 017700 NEVERLAND PARTIES & ENTERTAINMENT:SKIP PGRN 50.00
ENTERTAIN
173679 10/29/2015 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:Finance 98.59
DIV
Misc office supplies:HR
Misc office supplies:HR
Misc office supplies:Finance
173680 10/29/2015 007409 OLD TOWN DINING, LLC dep:ee quarterly luncheon 12/3
173681 10/29/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Street Maint
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Windstar
33.43
13.45
7.55
1,925.10
47.50
974.41
143.17
170.98
483.95
3,192.86
50.00
153.02
1,925.10
1,820.01
173682 10/29/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 47.50
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 50.39
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint 667.47
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Traffic 273.45
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Code Enf 55.00
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW CIP 50.39 1,144.20
173683 10/29/2015 002344 OSVOLD, HEI DA REIMB:UNIFORMS:B&S 98.74 98.74
173684 10/29/2015 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC HELMETS:POLICE MOTORCYCLE 902.30 902.30
FLEET
173685 10/29/2015 013910 PACIFIC RESTORATION
GROUP INC
Dec '13 -Sep '15 const:rrsp desilting
Ldscp maint:caltrans Idscp improve
11,970.18
20,272.50 32,242.68
Page:7
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173686 10/29/2015 002800 PACIFIC STRIPING INC citywide traffic striping:var streets 151,844.48 151,844.48
173687 10/29/2015 015923 PCMG
Small tools and equip:Info Tech 412.56
Small tools and equip:Info Tech 1,886.74
Small tools and equip:Info Tech 206.29
Small tools and equip:Info Tech 259.20
173688 10/29/2015 000249 PETTY CASH petty cash reimbursement
173689 10/29/2015 010338 POOL& ELECTRICAL
PRODUCTS INC
2,764.79
577.50 577.50
water chemical supplies:splash pad 274.84
pool supplies:chemicals:var pool sites 283.50
water chemical supplies:splash pad 342.90 901.24
173690 10/29/2015 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED VEH MAI NT & REPAIR:POLICE 136.58 136.58
173691 10/29/2015 003155 PRICE CHOPPER INC Wristbands for Aquatics programs 160.00 160.00
173692 10/29/2015 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL Sept uniform/mats/twl rentals:City facs 1,059.24
SUPPLY
Sept uniform/mats svcs:pw parks/c.cntr 661.05 1,720.29
173693 10/29/2015 017648 RAHN, MATT reimb:LCCAC conf 9/30-10/1 284.91 284.91
173694 10/29/2015 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER
DISTRICT
173695 10/29/2015 018239 RI RIE-WOODBURY DANCE
173696 10/29/2015 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR
173697 10/29/2015 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK &
RECORDER
173698 10/29/2015 014027 RIVERSIDE CO ECO DEV
AGENCY
173699 10/29/2015 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS
DEPT
173700 10/29/2015 018401 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Oct var water meters:TCSD svc lev C 13,560.17
Sep var water meters:PW YMCA 710.47
Sep var water meters:41951 Moraga Rd 113.38
Sep var water meters:Calle Elenita 22.28 14,406.30
THEATER PERFORMANCE: 11/07/15 5,000.00 5,000.00
LAFCO FY 15-16 fees 7,633.13 7,633.13
Exemption Ntc filing fee:Murr.Crk pwl 507 50.00 50.00
JUL-SEP STAFFING:LIBRARY 41,860.00 41,860.00
7/23-8/19 law enforcement 1,672,603.97
8/20-9/16 law enforcement 1,698,485.90 3,371,089.87
refund:Cake decorating w/Jill 6060.204 59.00 59.00
Page6
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173701 10/29/2015 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Aug '15 transit agreement pmt 1,704.90 1,704.90
173702 10/29/2015 000220 ROBINSON PRINTING & Print & prep budget docs: finance dept. 106.92 106.92
CREATIVE
173703 10/29/2015 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC settlement:Lifenote event 10/24 1,035.00
173704 10/29/2015 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
SETTLEMENT:JAZZATTHE MERC 10/22
Sep 2-30-099-3847:29721 Ryecrest
Sep 2-30-296-9522:46679 Primrose Ave
Sep 2-27-560-0625:32380 Deerhollow way
Sep 2-29-974-7568:26953 Ynez Rd TC1
Sep 2-31-693-9784:26036 Ynez Rd TC1
173705 10/29/2015 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Sep 015-575-0195-2:32211 Wolf vly rd
Sep 055-475-6169-5:32380 Deerhollow wa)
462.00 1,497.00
25.53
535.13
3,451.63
142.19
401.10
89.54
131.93
4,555.58
221.47
173706 10/29/2015 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS Office supplies:CRC 6.92
ADVANTAGE
Office supplies:CRC 96.31
Office supplies:City Clerk 71.86
Office supplies:TCSD Admin 161.99
Office supplies:TCSD Admin 274.14
Office supplies:TCSD Admin 196.57
Office supplies:TCSD Admin 26.69
misc ofc supplies:mall storefront:police 197.51
Office supplies:TCSD Admin 13.42 1,045.41
173707 10/29/2015 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL AUG -SEP SUNSHINE FUND 611.78 611.78
173708 10/29/2015 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY Ann'I SponsorshipAgrmnt:Econ Dev 50,000.00 50,000.00
CONVENTION &
173709 10/29/2015 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Oct high speed internet:fire stn #92 119.86 119.86
173710 10/29/2015 004759 TWIN GRAPHICS GRAPHICS:POLICE MOTORCYCLE 378.40 378.40
FLEET
173711 10/29/2015 004794 VALLEY WINDS COMMUNITY performance:concert in the park 10/25 1,500.00 1,500.00
173712 10/29/2015 004261 VERIZON Oct xxx-5072 general usage 2,142.82
Oct xxx-0073 gen usage:sr ctr, skate prk 125.59 2,268.41
173713 10/29/2015 004789 VERIZON Oct Internet svcs:city hall 289.99
Oct Internet svcs:senior center 144.99 434.98
173714 10/29/2015 015199 WINTER ADVERTISING photo purchases:economic dev 290.00 290.00
AGENCY
Page9
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
173715 10/29/2015 016864 WOOD, RANDY
173716 10/29/2015 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL
1000736 10/16/2015 018372 AREVALO, SHANA
1000737 10/16/2015 018372 AREVALO, SHANA
1000738 10/16/2015 018375 AUSTIN, GINA
1000739 10/16/2015 018379 CHENG, NEMELYN
1000740 10/16/2015 018369 CHUPP, CYNTHIA
1000741 10/16/2015 018373 GAY, LAURA
1000742 10/16/2015 018364 GONZALEZ, IRENE
1000743 10/16/2015 018377 HITTSCHAAF, LISA
1000744 10/16/2015 018374 JULIUS, LOLA
1000745 10/16/2015 016983 LAKE, JENNIFER
1000746 10/16/2015 016983 LAKE, JENNIFER
1000747 10/16/2015 006787 MANN, SILVA
1000748 10/16/2015 018362 MATA, TAMMY
1000749 10/16/2015 018363 MATHENY,AIDA
1000750 10/16/2015 018366 MENDEZ, ANA
1000751 10/16/2015 018368 PANINGBATON, SABRINA
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
mileage reimb:post disaster trng 9/23 57.50
REIMB:POST DISASTER TRNG 9/23/15
85.00 142.50
Reimb:Halloween carnival pgrm 146.10
reimb:refreshments for concerts 10/24-25
171.24 317.34
refund:Basketball tiny tots 2300.206 25.00 25.00
refund:Basketball skills beg 2305.206 38.00 38.00
refund:Creative beg for parent & me 55.00 55.00
refund:Basketball tiny tots 2300.206 25.00 25.00
refund:Microsoft Excel Level II 60.00 60.00
refund:credit:picnic shelter:RRSP 55.00 55.00
refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 200.00 200.00
refund:Gold - adult clinic 1503.205 50.00 50.00
refund:Creative beg for parent & me 55.00 55.00
refund:Microsoft Excel Level II 60.00 60.00
refund:Microsoft Excel Level II 60.00 60.00
refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 200.00 200.00
refund:sec dep & rental:CRC 669.10 669.10
refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctr A/B 150.00 150.00
refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 200.00 200.00
refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC 200.00 200.00
Pagel 0
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
1000752 10/16/2015 018370 QIU, YUHUA
1000753 10/16/2015 018367 RAMIREZ, XOCHITL
1000754 10/16/2015 018378 STEDFIELD, CYNTHIA
1000755 10/16/2015 018365 SOUTHWEST HEALTHCARE
1000756 10/16/2015 018380 VEREJNIKOVA, NATALIA
1000757 10/16/2015 018371 ZOLNA, WHITNEY
1000758 10/16/2015 018376 ZUREIGAT, MAHER
1000759 10/22/2015 016177 ANTHONY, RAQUEL
1000760 10/22/2015 018390 ARAMBULO, HELEN
1000761 10/22/2015 018391 AVILA, GUADALUPE
1000762 10/22/2015 018392 DELAHUNTY, CHRISTINE
1000763 10/22/2015 018393 OZUNA, VICTOR
1000764 10/23/2015 018394 GRANA, GLENN
1000765 10/23/2015 018377 HITTSCHAAF, LISA
1000766 10/23/2015 018395 ORLEBECK, FLORA
1000767 10/23/2015 015372 WADE, KAREN
1000768 10/27/2015 018396 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
1000769 10/27/2015 018403 SIKES, ASHLEIGH
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
refund:Cupcake craze for kids 25.00 25.00
refund:sec dep:picnic rental:harveston 200.00 200.00
refund:Ballet barre stretch & tone 9.00 9.00
refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 200.00 200.00
refund:Int'I cooking series 1602.202 70.00 70.00
refund:Miss Cathy's tiny tots 1040.205 75.00 75.00
refund:Creative beg for parent & me 55.00 55.00
Refund:Friday Scooter Night #9700.204 5.00 5.00
Refund:Microsoft Excel Level II 60.00 60.00
Refund:International Cooking Series 35.00 35.00
Refund:Golf:Adult Clinic #1503.205 50.00 50.00
Refund:Health Series:Meatless Mondays 70.00 70.00
Refund:Microsoft Excel Level 11#4425.202 60.00 60.00
Refund:Petite Chefs & Petite Pasty Chefs 90.00 90.00
Refund:lnternational Cooking Series 70.00 70.00
Refund:Temecula Wine and Paint Class 8.00 8.00
Refund:TCC Multipurpose Room 504.40 504.40
Refund:Security Dep:Harveston Center 150.00 150.00
Page:11
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
1000770 10/27/2015 018404 VERNIER!, LARRY Refund:Security Dep:Harveston Center
1000771 10/27/2015 018405 VINCENT, SANDY Refund:Security Dep:Harveston Center
Amount Paid Check Total
200.00 200.00
200.00 200.00
Grand total for UNION BANK:
3,938,373.01
Page:12
apChkLst
Final Check List
10/29/2015 9:54:28AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 13
159 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks:
3,938,373.01
Page:13
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK
Check # Date Vendor
2825 11/05/2015 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD
SUPPORT
2826 11/05/2015 017429 COBRA ADVANTAGE INC.
2827 11/05/2015 000194 I CMA RETIREMENT -PLAN
303355
2828 11/06/2015 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
SUPPORT PAYMENT 1,128.45 1,128.45
REIMBURSEMENT FSA PAYMENT 6,355.98 6,355.98
I CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 8,555.33 8,555.33
PAYMENT
STATE TAXES PAYMENT 24,733.62 24,733.62
2829 11/06/2015 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT
2830 11/05/2015 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT
SOLUTION PAYMENT
2831 11/05/2015 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT
SOLUTION
87,240.81 87,240.81
2,376.34 2,376.34
12, 722.24 12, 722.24
2832 11/05/2015 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PERS HEALTH INSURANCE PAYMENT 0.00
PREMIUM
PERS HEALTH INSURANCE PAYMENT 97,508.36 97,508.36
173717 10/29/2015 013482 BAS SECURITY fire security watch:Theater 7,683.85 7,683.85
173718 11/05/2015 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD instructor earnings 525.00 525.00
173719 11/05/2015 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY
CORPORATION
173720 11/05/2015 011304 AMEZCUA, MICHELLE
173721 11/05/2015 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE
VALLEYS
173722 11/05/2015 000101 APPLE ONE INC
173723 11/05/2015 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO
173724 11/05/2015 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC.
eoc generator batteries:foc and crc 202.68
BATTERIES FOR EOC GENERATOR: CRC 338.52
reimb: '15 Calbo trng conf 10/26-10/27 124.20
541.20
124.20
Aug 15 animal control svcs: temecula 10,000.00 10,000.00
Aug 15 Temp staff srvcs: cc/fin/plan/IT 3,213.61 3,213.61
Oct drinking water systems:senior center 34.83
Oct drinking water systems: jrc 28.35 63.18
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
1,501.50
1,459.50
3,402.00
6,363.00
Pagel
apChkLst
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 2
Bank : union UNION BANK
Check # Date
Vendor
173725 11/05/2015 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO
173726 11/05/2015 007385 BAUDVILLE, INC.
173727 11/05/2015 008605 BONTERRA PSOMAS
173728 11/05/2015 013265 CALIF BUILDING
173729 11/05/2015 000638 CALIF DEPT OF
CONSERVATION
173730 11/05/2015 017698 CALIFORNIAAVERLAND
CONST INC
173731 11/05/2015 010514 CAMPINI'S ITALIAN DELI
173732 11/05/2015 018422 CENGAGE LEARNING
173733 11/05/2015 014726 CHAPTER 13 STANDING
TRUSTEE
173734 11/05/2015 017449 CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH
173735 11/05/2015 017392 CLS CONSTRUCTION
173736 11/05/2015 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH
CHARITIES, CIO WELLS FARGO
BANK
173737 11/05/2015 013379 COSSOU, CELINE
173738 11/05/2015 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING &
HVAC INC
173739 11/05/2015 018420 CREGUT, DEBORAH
173740 11/05/2015 013812 DFITSUBS, LLC
173741 11/05/2015 011202 EMH SPORTS USA, INC
(Continued)
Description
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
Visitor Login Books:Front Reception
7/30-10/1 CNSLTNG SRVCS:RRSP
DESILTING B
7/3-730 CNSLTNG SRVCS:RRSP DESILTII
2015 3rd qtr pmt of SB1473 (Jul -Sep)
2015 3rd Qtr pmt:strong motion (Jul -Sep)
Stop Notice: Lowry's Inc.
p/e 11/1/15 retention release: PW12-04
refreshments:CERTtraining 11/8/15
refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctr A/B
SUPPORT PAYMENT
refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC
Sep 15 Citywide concrete repairs: pw cip
EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS
PAYMENT
TCSD Instructor Earnings
install kitchen & restroom pump: crc
reimb: '15 Calbo trng conf 10/26-10/27
Refreshments:college fair event
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
Amount Paid
Check Total
140.00
227.50
421.71
2,561.25
2,091.38
657.00
2,208.08
-44,846.01
132,870.81
485.00
150.00
205.85
200.00
39,021.58
24.00
252.00
813.61
60.38
1,300.00
245.00
815.50
245.00
367.50
421.71
4,652.63
657.00
2,208.08
88,024.80
485.00
150.00
205.85
200.00
39,021.58
24.00
252.00
813.61
60.38
1,300.00
1,305.50
Paget
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173742 11/05/2015 017432 EYEMED VISION CARE VISION PAYMENT 869.85 869.85
173743 11/05/2015 011145 FOSTER, JILL CHRISTINE
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
173744 11/05/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT
173745 11/05/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT
173746 11/05/2015 014865 FREIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY
173747 11/05/2015 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC
173748 11/05/2015 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M.
173749 11/05/2015 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL
SVCS
1,668.04
3,402.00 5,070.04
350.00 350.00
150.00 150.00
promotional items - economic 623.42
development
promotional items - economic development 1,135.89 1,759.31
Apparatus maint supplies: Sta 84/73 89.92 89.92
TCSD instructor earnings 336.00 336.00
Oct 15 lease copiers:city hall 1,341.70
Oct 15 lease for 6 copiers:Library 788.41
Oct 15 Lease copiers:City Hall/off-site
289.44 2,419.55
173750 11/05/2015 003342 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Settlement:World Habitat Day 10/27/15 79.76 79.76
173751 11/05/2015 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Earnings 875.88 875.88
173752 11/05/2015 009306 HILLCRESTACADEMY '15 Halloween Carnival Booth Fee 100.00 100.00
173753 11/05/2015 018417 HIVELY, HEATHER refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 200.00 200.00
173754 11/05/2015 011049 HOSPICE OF THE VALLEY '15 Halloween Carnival booth fee 100.00 100.00
173755 11/05/2015 010766 INLAND VALLEY SYMPHONY Performance: symphony & chorus 11/11 4,500.00 4,500.00
173756 11/05/2015 018184 INLAND VLY BUS & COMM Sttlmnt:"Comedy at the Merc" 10/31/15 3,540.00 3,540.00
FNDTN
173757 11/05/2015 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING FY 2015-16 mbrshp:Kitzerow, C. 50.00 50.00
1571846
173758 11/05/2015 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 40.00 40.00
PAYMENT
Page3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
173759 11/05/2015 013555 JJJ ENTERPRISES emergency repairs: replace fire panel
173760 11/05/2015 016110 LDCO, INC. SEP 15 RENOVATION OF FIRE STN 73:
PW CIP
173761 11/05/2015 013982 MCI COMM SERVICE OCT XXX -0346 GENERAL USAGE
173762 11/05/2015 017427 MATCHETT, VIVIAN
173763 11/05/2015 009541 MEYER AND ASSOCIATES
Oct xxx-0714 gen usage:PD mall alarm
Amount Paid Check Total
9,968.00 9,968.00
109,608.15 109,608.15
31.97
35.00
66.97
TCSD Instructor Earnings 327.60
TCSD Instructor Earnings 318.50 646.10
Sep 15 Theater remediation: PW CIP 7,590.00 7,590.00
173764 11/05/2015 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. 4/27-8/30 dsgn srvcs of Park & Ride
173765 11/05/2015 012962 MILLER, MISTY
173766 11/05/2015 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C.
173767 11/05/2015 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J.
173768 11/05/2015 009443 MUNYON, DENNIS G.
173769 11/05/2015 018424 MYERS, SHALENE
173770 11/05/2015 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC
173771 11/05/2015 015164 NATURES IMAGE, INC
173772 11/05/2015 014391 NICHOLS, KELLIE D.
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
5,176.83 5,176.83
280.00
280.00
63.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 665.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 266.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 199.50
TCSD Instructor Earnings 66.50
TCSD Instructor Earnings 332.50
623.00
1,529.50
TCSD instructor earnings 283.50
TCSD instructor earnings 731.50 1,015.00
Oct -Dec '15 lease pmt:O.T. Prkg Lot 2,875.00 2,875.00
refund:returned lost materials:Library 4.99 4.99
IT monitoring srvcs: TVE2 100.00 100.00
SEP 15 ENVIRO MITIGATION:FVP
OVERCROSSI N
Sep pechanga pkwy environ mitigation:pw
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
905.35
1,221.46
277.20
176.40
331.80
277.20
378.00
252.00
128.10
430.50
264.60
2,126.81
2,515.80
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173773 11/05/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Street Maint 95.00
City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Parks Maint
173774 11/05/2015 016585 PACIFIC PLAY SYSTEMS, INC. PRGS PMT: MARGARITA PARK SPLASH
PAD
Retention w/h pmt:Marg park splash pad
173775 11/05/2015 001999 PITNEY BOWES
39.96 134.96
34, 511.63
-3,451.16 31,060.47
9/16-12/15 postage rental: Sta 84 76.95
Postage meter: Sta 84
215.96 292.91
173776 11/05/2015 018423 PLUMMER, KELLEY refund:Creative beg for parent & me 70.00 70.00
173777 11/05/2015 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES PAYMENT 384.70 384.70
INC
173778 11/05/2015 017431 PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE DENTAL PAYMENT 8,218.14 8,218.14
CO
173779 11/05/2015 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS Comedy @ The Merc 10/31 126.00 126.00
173780 11/05/2015 013725 PROCRAFT INC Garage door maint: Sta 92 520.00 520.00
173781 11/05/2015 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE Banner program:econ dev 39.74 39.74
ADVERTISING
173782 11/05/2015 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING Replacement bulbs: Sta 92 375.00 375.00
173783 11/05/2015 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & Ntc exemption fee:Overland Dr pw12-15 50.00 50.00
RECORDER
173784 11/05/2015 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & Ntc exemption fee:Margarita Rd pw12-11 50.00 50.00
RECORDER
173785 11/05/2015 010777 RIVERSIDE CO EXECUTIVE OCT -DEC' 15 SHELTER SERVICES 39,236.97
OFFICE
FY 15/16 SCFA MISC REIMB EXPENSES 794.17 40,031.14
173786 11/05/2015 018421 ROBINSON, TAMMY refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 200.00 200.00
173787 11/05/2015 012251 ROTH, DONALD J.
173788 11/05/2015 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE
TCSD Instructor Earnings 252.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 315.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 315.00
567.00
315.00
173789 11/05/2015 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 11/8/15-11/9/16subscr:Finance 4754566 259.01 259.01
Page5
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173790 11/05/2015 018012 SAUNDERS, CATHY TCSD Instructor Earnings 157.50
TCSD Instructor Earnings 157.50
TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00 819.00
173791 11/05/2015 015364 SEASIDE ICE, LLC deposit:ice skating rink/winterfest pgrm 20,000.00 20,000.00
173792 11/05/2015 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES repair & maint of cameras: C. Museum 139.00 139.00
INC
173793 11/05/2015 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - SUPPORT PAYMENT 311.44 311.44
CENTRAL
173794 11/05/2015 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - SUPPORT PAYMENT 100.00 100.00
CENTRAL
173795 11/05/2015 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ The Merc 10/29 367.50 367.50
173796 11/05/2015 018418 SMITH, MICHELE refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctrA/B 125.00 125.00
173797 11/05/2015 002718 SO CALIF CITY CLERKS ASSN general mtg 11/19/15 G. Flores 40.00 40.00
Page6
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
173798 11/05/2015 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
173799 11/05/2015 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
Description
Oct 2-29-807-1093:28079 Diaz Rd PED
Oct 2-29-807-1226:28077 Diaz Rd PED
Oct 2-31-031-2616:27991 Diaz Rd PED
Oct 2-31-282-0665:27407 Diaz Rd PED
Oct 2-33-357-5785:44747 Redhawk pkwy
Oct 2-31-419-2873:43000 Hwy -395
Oct 2-29-224-0173:32364 Overland Trl
Sep 2-34-624-4452:32131 S Loop rd lot
Oct 2-28-904-7706:32329 Overland Trl LS3
Oct 2-21-981-4720:30153 Tem pkwy TPP
Sep 2-28-331-4847:32805 Pauba Rd
Oct 2-35-164-3770:43487 Butterfield stg
Oct 2-32-903-8293:41000 Main St
Oct 2-31-912-7494:28690 Mercedes St
Oct 2-18-937-3152:28314 Mercedes St
Oct 2-14-204-1615:30027 Front st rdio
Oct 2-02-351-4946:41845 6th St
Oct 2-29-933-3831:43230 Bus park dr
Oct 2-31-536-3655:41904 Main St
Oct 2-31-536-3481:41902 Main St
Oct 2-34-333-3589:41702 Main St
Oct 2-35-164-3242:44270 Meadows pkwy
Oct 2-35-164-3515:32932 Leena Way
Oct 2-35-164-3663:42335 Meadows pkwy
Oct 2-29-657-2787:41638 Winchester Rd
Oct 101-525-1560-6:27415 Enterprise cir
Oct 117-188-6393-6:32131 S Loop Rd
Oct 095-167-7907-2:30650 Pauba Rd
Oct 055-461-2483-4:40135 Village Rd
Oct 091-085-1632-0:41951 Moraga Rd
Oct 125-244-2108-3:30600 Pauba Rd
Oct 091-024-9300-5:30875 Rancho vista
Oct 026-671-2909-8:42051 Main St
Oct 028-025-1468-3:41375 McCabe Ct
Oct 021-725-0775-4:41845 6th St
Oct 129-582-9784-3:43230 Bus park dr
Oct 133-040-7373-0:43210 Bus park dr
Oct 181-383-8881-6:28314 Mercedes St
Oct 101-525-0950-0:28816 Pujol St
Oct 129-535-4236-7:41000 Main St
173800 11/05/2015 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST pest control srvcs: theater
CONTROL INC
pest control srvcs: wolf creek park
pest control srvcs: stn 95
pest control srvcs: stn 92
pest control srvcs: city right-of-ways
Amount Paid Check Total
26.15
25.57
26.61
26.61
33.16
25.54
1,410.90
1,075.06
152.00
23.88
104.89
27.89
19,229.36
1,292.33
757.58
46.21
1,500.29
1,982.00
198.79
241.09
27.02
27.11
26.15
26.00
25.68
13.81
22.36
127.88
18.56
13.81
16.65
658.59
24.26
17.61
53.71
25.21
16.65
18.56
15.71
542.70
98.00
49.00
80.00
42.00
94.00
28, 337.87
1,586.07
363.00
Page:7
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
173801 11/05/2015 017381 SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA '15 Halloween Carnival n/p booth 100.00 100.00
PAGEANTS
173802 11/05/2015 018347 SOUTHWEST HEALTHCARE refund:overpmt for event permit #22245 7.50 7.50
SYSTEM
173806 11/05/2015 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT 8,303.71 8,303.71
COMPANY
173807 11/05/2015 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE 925.40 925.40
COMPANY PAYMENT
173808 11/05/2015 018419 STEPHENS, TOMMIE refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 200.00 200.00
173809 11/05/2015 016262 STEVE ADAMIAK GOLF TCSD Instructor Earnings 224.00
INSTRUCTION
TCSD Instructor Earnings 420.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 525.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 224.00 1,393.00
173810 11/05/2015 014420 STEVE SPANGLER, INC. Misc supplies:pennypickle's pgrms 29.98 29.98
173811 11/05/2015 003840 STRONGS PAINTING facility rehab:senior ctr 8,000.00 8,000.00
173812 11/05/2015 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC Oct sweeping svcs:parking structure 500.00 500.00
173813 11/05/2015 010924 T & D COMMUNICATIONS, INC. general cabling services:C. Museum 820.00 820.00
173814 11/05/2015 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 UNION DUES PAYMENT 5,025.00 5,025.00
173815 11/05/2015 009470 TEMECULA LIONS CLUB '15 Halloween Carnival n/p booth 100.00 100.00
173816 11/05/2015 004260 TEMECULA STAMP & Invoice stamps:Finance 241.70 241.70
GRAPHICS
173817 11/05/2015 000311 TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH '15 Halloween Carnival n/p booth 100.00 100.00
SCHOOL
173818 11/05/2015 009194 TEMECULA VALLEY NEWS Oct advertising: Temecula Presents 515.52
Advertising:2015 FIT 5k Run Pgrm 558.44 1,073.96
173819 11/05/2015 017534 TEMECULA VALLEY refund:sec dep:rm rental:MPSC 200.00 200.00
PROSPECTORS
Page6
apChkLst
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 9
Bank : union UNION BANK
Check # Date
Vendor
173820 11/05/2015 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY
CENTR
173821 11/05/2015 003941 TEMECULA WINNELSON
COMPANY
173822 11/05/2015 003862 THYSSENKRUPP
ELEVATOR.BRNCH 37
173823 11/05/2015 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE
173824 11/05/2015 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC
173825 11/05/2015 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL
173826 11/05/2015 010558 TRADE IN.COM INC
173828 11/05/2015 017430 TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE CO
173829 11/05/2015 014866 TWM ROOFING, INC
173830 11/05/2015 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE
173831 11/05/2015 000325 UNITED WAY
173832 11/05/2015 014848 VALUTEC CARD SOLUTIONS,
LLC
173833 11/05/2015 004261 VERIZON
173834 11/05/2015 004789 VERIZON
173835 11/05/2015 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS
173836 11/05/2015 006248 WALKER, JESSICA
173837 11/05/2015 016864 WOOD, RANDY
(Continued)
Description
locksmith srvcs: rrsp
locksmith srvcs: tes pool
misc plumbing supplies:civic center
misc plumbing supplies:various parks
credit:billing adj/city facs
Oct -Dec elevator maint svcs:city facs
Nov high speed internet:Police
Nov high speed internet:41000 Main St
Sound & lighting:Valley Winds 10/25
Sound & lighting:youth symphony 10/24
parts for pressure washer:pw street
Deposit:MPSC renovation furniture
TRANSAMERICA ACCIDENT A DVA NTAG
PAYMENT
roof prey maint srvcs: var facilities
Apr '15 postage meter deposit
EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS
PAYMENT
Sept ticketing services: Theater
Oct xxx-0074 general usage
Oct Internet svcs:Library
9/16-10/15 broadband svcs:citywide
TCSD Instructor Earnings
uniform reimbursement
Amount Paid
Check Total
20.00
25.92
23.87
509.51
-163.92
5,212.92
1.58
4,352.56
1,200.00
750.00
45.18
1,577.88
2,891.58
13, 580.00
4,812.03
5.00
39.00
4,377.43
184.99
1,967.09
285.60
45.92
533.38
5,049.00
4,354.14
1,950.00
45.18
1,577.88
2,891.58
13, 580.00
4,812.03
5.00
39.00
4,377.43
184.99
1,967.09
285.60
91.69 91.69
Page9
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
1000772 11/02/2015 018409 BURSCH, JENNIFER
1000773 11/02/2015 018410 CIACIURA, MARTYNA
1000774 11/02/2015 018411 KIM, SHARON
1000775 11/02/2015 018412 KRATZER, CARYN
1000776 11/02/2015 018413 MARNELL, STACY
1000777 11/02/2015 018414 NEELY, NICOLE
1000778 11/02/2015 018415 PADILLA, JOCELYN
1000779 11/02/2015 018415 PADILLA, JOCELYN
1000780 11/02/2015 018416 SALAZAR, CYNTHIA
Description
Amount Paid Check Total
refund:Music for toddlers 2900.206 48.00 48.00
refund:Microsoft Excel Level II 60.00 60.00
refund:ACT practice test 9030.201 16.00 16.00
refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 150.00 150.00
refund:Wonders! Speed math 1800.202 52.00 52.00
refund:Teen radio Temecula 2035.203 155.00 155.00
refund:Bear cub univ 4005.202 180.00 180.00
refund:Bear cub univ 4005.201 150.00 150.00
refund:Bear cub univ 4005.202 144.00 144.00
Grand total for UNION BANK:
778,309.38
Pagel 0
apChkLst
Final Check List
11/05/2015 9:18:50AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 11
134 checks in this report.
Grand Total All Checks:
778,309.38
Page:11
Item No. 4
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Approve a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for the Proposed Community
Facility District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Temecula Public Financing Authority (Authority)
issued bonds to finance public improvements for the benefit of Community Facility District No.
03-02 Roripaugh Ranch (CFD). Since that time, a portion of the CFD has been developed (the
area known as the "pan handle") and the larger portion of the CFD (known as the "pan")
remains undeveloped. Staff, in conjunction with the CFD financing team, is currently evaluating
the feasibility of refinancing the 2006 Bonds and forming a new CFD No. 16-01 to update the
rate and method of apportionment related to the undeveloped properties and raise additional
capital needed to complete major infrastructure in order to spur further development in this area.
City Staff has engaged the services of Quint & Thimmig, LLP to draft a Deposit/Reimbursement
Agreement (attached as Exhibit A) related to the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch. The parties to the
Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement include the City of Temecula, the Temecula Public
Financing Authority, Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC (RVR) and Wingsweep Corporation.
The purpose of the Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement is to provide the necessary funding to
initiate the formation of the proposed CFD. Eligible uses of the deposited funds include:
Fees and expenses of consultants employed in connection with an amendment to
the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for CFD 03-02 and the
formation of CFD 16-01
•
•
Costs of a market absorption study and a property appraisal
Costs of publication of notices, preparation and mailing of ballots and other costs
associated with an election
Reasonable charge for City Staff time to analyze CFD 16-01
Any and all actual costs incurred by the City or the Authority with respect to the
formation of CFD 16-01 or the issuance of new bonds after the date of execution of
the agreement
If the formation of CFD 16-01 is successful and new bonds are issued, the Authority shall
provide for the reimbursement of the amounts deposited to RVR and Wingsweep Corporation.
If the formation of the CFD is not successful, any unexpended deposits will be returned to RVR
and Wingsweep Corporation.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City has received $45,000 from RVR and $5,000 from
Wingsweep. These funds will be expended in accordance with the Deposit/Reimbursement
Agreement. There is no Fiscal Impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A — Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC and Wingsweep Corporation (collectively,
the "Landowners") have submitted to the Finance Director of the City of Temecula (the "City")
checks in the total amount of $50,000 (the "Deposit"), to be used by the City to pay costs of the
City and the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") in connection with
proceedings under Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act") to
create a community facilities district to be designated "Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 16-01" (the "CFD").
Section 2. There has also been submitted a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement (the
"Agreement"), to be entered into by the Landowners, the City and the Authority (for itself and on
behalf of the CFD), and the City now desires to enter into the Agreement with the Authority and
the Landowners in order to assist with the formation of the CFD and the possible issuance of
Bonds by the Authority for the CFD.
Section 3. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to
execute and deliver the Agreement, in the form on file with the City Clerk and to take all actions
on his part necessary to implement the Agreement. The Director of Finance is hereby
authorized and directed to accept the Deposit and to use the Deposit (and any subsequent
Deposits, as defined in the Agreement) in the manner contemplated by the Agreement.
Section 4. The Mayor, City Manager, Director of Finance, City Clerk and all other
officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things
necessary or desirable hereunder with respect to the implementation of the Agreement,
including but not limited to the execution and delivery of any and all agreements, certificates,
instruments and other documents, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or
desirable and not inconsistent with the purposes of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Quint & Thimmig LLP 9/29/15
DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Proposed
Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 16-01
THIS DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is by and among
the City of Temecula (the "City"), the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") for
itself and on behalf of the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities
District No. 16-01 (the "CFD"), and Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("RVR") and Wingsweep Corporation ("Wingsweep").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, RVR and Wingsweep (collectively, the "Landowners") own land located within
the current boundaries of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District
No. 03-02 (Roripaugh Ranch) ("CFD 03-02"); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has heretofore issued, for and on behalf of CFD 03-02, its
Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-02 (Roripaugh Ranch)
2006 Special Tax Bonds (the "2006 Bonds"), the net proceeds of which have been and are being
used to finance public improvements authorized to be funded by CFD 03-02; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has advised the Landowners that it is considering the formation
of a new community facilities district ("CFD 16-01") to include the land currently owned by the
Landowners in CFD 03-02 (the "Property") and the issuance of bonds for CFD 16-01 (the "New
Bonds") under Sections 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act"), in order to
provide funds (a) to prepay the special taxes levied by CFD 03-02 on the Property and thereby
refund the portion of the outstanding 2006 Bonds allocable to the Property, and (b) to finance
public infrastructure improvements necessitated by development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has advised the Landowners that, in addition to the prospective
formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of the New Bonds, it is considering the issuance of
refunding bonds under the Act for CFD 03-02 (the "Refunding Bonds") in order to refund the
portion of the outstanding 2006 Bonds that are not allocable to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Landowners are willing to deposit funds with the Authority to ensure
payment of the costs of the Authority and the City in forming CFD 16-01 and otherwise in
connection with the issuance of the New Bonds, provided that such funds so advanced are
reimbursed to the respective Landowner that advanced the same from the proceeds of the New
Bonds issued by the Authority for CFD 16-01 to the extent provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, the City and the Landowners now desire to specify the terms
of said deposit and reimbursement.
20009.13:J13515
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants set forth
herein, and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. The Deposit: Additional Advances. Subject to the provisions of Section 6
hereof, the Landowners hereby agree to provide to the City, in the form of one or more checks
made payable to the "City of Temecula, California" $50,000 (the "Deposit"), to be used by the City
to pay the costs in conducting proceedings for the formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of
the New Bonds for CFD 16-01 (as more fully described in Section 2(a) below, the "Initial Costs"),
said check or checks to be delivered by the Landowners to the Finance Director of the City. The
City, by its execution hereof, acknowledges receipt by the City of the Deposit. The check or
checks representing the Deposit will be cashed by the City, and the Deposit may be commingled
with other funds of the City for purposes of investment and safekeeping, but the City shall at all
times maintain records as to the expenditure of the Deposit.
The Landowners hereby agree to advance any additional amounts necessary to pay any
Initial Costs incurred by the City or the Authority, in excess of the amount of the Deposit, promptly
upon written demand therefore by the Finance Director of the City stating that the then unspent
and uncommitted balance of the Deposit is less than $5,000 (the "Additional Deposits" and,
collectively with the Deposit, the "Deposits"), subject to the provisions of Section 6 hereof. In the
event that the Landowners shall fail to remit the full amount of any such demand for additional
amounts to the Finance Director of the City within ten (10) days of such a written demand, the
City Manager may, in his sole and absolute discretion, direct City and Authority staff and
consultants to cease all work related to the formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of the New
Bonds until the full amount of any additional amounts so demanded has been received by the
City.
Section 2. Use of Funds. The Deposits shall be administered as follows:
(a) The Finance Director of the City may draw upon the Deposits from time to time to pay
the Initial Costs, including but not limited to: (i) the fees and expenses of any consultants to the
City or the Authority employed in connection with an amendment to the rate and method of
apportionment of special taxes for CFD 03-02 to allow the Landowners to use proceeds of the
New Bonds to prepay special taxes levied for CFD 03-02 on the Property, the formation of CFD
16-01, the issuance of the New Bonds and the proposed expenditure of the proceeds of the New
Bonds to finance public infrastructure improvements (such as legal counsel, including the City
Attorney and Bond Counsel, and municipal advisor and special tax consultants); (ii) the costs of
any market absorption study, an appraisal and other reports necessary or deemed advisable by
City staff or consultants in connection with the New Bonds; (iii) costs of publication of notices,
preparation and mailing of ballots and other costs related to any election with respect to the
formation of CFD 16-01, the rate and method of apportionment of the special taxes to be levied
therein and any bonded indebtedness thereof; (iv) a reasonable charge for City staff time, as
determined by the City Manager in his sole discretion, in analyzing CFD 16-01, the New Bonds
and the expenditure of the proceeds thereof, including a reasonable allocation of City overhead
expense related thereto; and (v) any and all other actual costs and expenses incurred by the City
or the Authority with respect to the formation of CFD 16-01 or the issuance of the New Bonds
after the date of execution of this Agreement. Costs of the City or the Authority related to the
-2-
issuance of the Refunding Bonds are not Initial Costs, will not be charged to the Deposits, and
will be paid with proceeds of the Refunding Bonds or other available funds of CFD 03-02.
(b) If CFD 16-01 is successfully formed and the New Bonds are issued under the Act by
the Authority secured by special taxes levied upon the Property, the Authority shall provide for
reimbursement to the Landowners, without interest, of all amounts charged against the Deposits,
said reimbursement to be made to the Landowners in the respective amounts advanced by them
solely from the proceeds of the New Bonds and only to the extent otherwise permitted under the
Act. On or within ten (10) business days after the date of issuance and delivery of the New Bonds,
the Finance Director of the City shall return the then unexpended Deposits to the Landowners in
the respective amounts advanced by them, without interest, less an amount equal to any costs
incurred by the City or the Authority or that the City or the Authority is otherwise committed to pay,
which costs would be subject to payment under Section 2(a) above, but have not yet been so
paid.
(c) If CFD 16-01 is not successfully formed and the New Bonds are not issued, the
Finance Director of the City shall, within ten (10) business days after adoption of a resolution
stating the intent of the Authority to terminate proceedings under the Act with respect to the
formation of CFD 16-01 and/or the issuance of the New Bonds, return the then unexpended
Deposits to the Landowners in the respective amounts advanced by them, without interest, less
an amount equal to any costs incurred by the City or the Authority or that the City or the Authority
is otherwise committed to pay, which costs would be subject to payment under Section 2(a) above
but have not yet been so paid.
Section 3. Reimbursement of Other Landowner Costs. Nothing contained herein shall
prohibit reimbursement of other costs and expenses of the Landowners incurred in connection
with the formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of the New Bonds, from the proceeds of the
New Bonds, including, but not limited to fees and expenses of their respective legal counsel and
any special tax or other consultant expenses incurred by them. Any such reimbursement shall
be made solely from the proceeds of the Bonds and only to the extent otherwise permitted under
the Act and otherwise provided for, at the reasonable discretion of the Authority, in the
proceedings for the issuance of the New Bonds.
Section 4. Agreement Not Debt or Liability of City or Authority. It is hereby acknowledged
and agreed that this Agreement is not a debt or liability of the City or the Authority, as provided in
Section 53314.9(b) of the Act. Neither the City nor the Authority shall in any event be liable
hereunder other than to return the unexpended and uncommitted portions of the Deposits as
provided in Section 2 above and provide an accounting under Section 8 below. Neither the City
nor the Authority shall be obligated to advance any of their own funds with respect to the formation
of CFD 16-01, or the issuance of the New Bonds or the expenditures of the proceeds thereof, or
for any of the other purposes listed in Section 2(a) hereof. No member of the City Council, the
Board of Directors of the Authority or officer, employee or agent of the City or the Authority shall
to any extent be personally liable hereunder.
Section 5. No Obligation to Form CFD 16-01 or to Issue New Bonds. The provisions of
this Agreement shall in no way obligate the City or the Authority to form CFD 16-01, to issue the
New Bonds, or to expend any of their own funds in connection with the formation of CFD 16-01,
or the issuance or expenditure of the proceeds of the New Bonds.
Section 6. Allocation of Responsibilities Between Landowners. The Authority and the
City acknowledge that the Landowners have agreed between themselves that all monetary
-3-
obligations of the Landowners under this Agreement are to be allocated ninety percent (90%) to
RVR and ten percent (10%) to Wingsweep. While it is the expectation that the Landowners will
provide for the Deposit and any Additional Deposits in such percentages, the Authority and the
City will accept the Deposit and the Additional Deposits from both or either of them, and any
reimbursement from proceeds of the New Bonds of Deposits pursuant to Section 2(b) or release
of any unused Deposits pursuant to Section 2(c) will be made to the Landowners in the respective
percentages of the Deposits so advanced respectively by them. In the absence of written notice
from the Landowners otherwise, the return of any Deposits pursuant to Section 2(b) or (c), or the
reimbursement of Deposits pursuant to Section 2(a), will be made 90% to RVR and 10% to
Wingsweep.
Section 7. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the
fullest extent reasonably possible.
Section 8. Accounting. The City Finance Director shall provide the Landowners with a
written accounting of proceeds of the Deposits expended pursuant to this Agreement, within ten
(10) business days of receipt by the Finance Director of the City of a written request therefore
submitted by an authorized officer of one of the Landowners. No more than one accounting will
be provided in any calendar month and the cost of providing the accounting shall be charged to
the Deposits.
Section 9. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
Section 10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original.
-4-
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year written alongside their signature line below.
LANDOWNERS:
Executed on: RORIPAUGH VALLEY RESTORATION, LLC,
October , 2015 a Delaware limited liability company
Executed on:
October , 2015
Executed on:
October _, 2015
By.
R. Patterson Jackson,
Chief Executive Manager
WINGSWEEP CORPORATION
By:
Corry Hong,
President and CEO
CITY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Aaron Adams, City Manager
Executed on: AUTHORITY:
October _, 2015
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY, for itself and on behalf of the
proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District 16-01
By:
Aaron Adams, Executive Director
20009.13:J13515
[Signature page to Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for Community Facilities District 16-01]
-5-
Item No. 5
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Temecula and
the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (At the Request of Mayor Comerchero
and Mayor Pro -Tem Naggar as the City Council Pechanga Tribal
Representatives)
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement
between the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians as mitigation for the
impacts of the Pechanga Resort and Hotel Expansion Project as detailed in the Draft Tribal
Environmental Impact Report — August 2015.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the provisions of the 2006 Amendment to the Tribal -
State Compact between the State of California and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (the
Tribe) on November 10, 2014 the Pechanga issued a Notice of Preparation of a Tribal
Environmental Impact Report (TEIR) that would assess the potential off -Reservation
environmental impacts of the Proposed Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion project (the Project).
On August 7, 2015 the Tribe released the draft TEIR which analyzed the potential impacts from
the Project. Areas of potential concern that were identified and studied include: Aesthetics, Air
Quality, Land Use, Noise, Population & Housing, Public Safety/Public Safety Services, Public
Utilities, Recreation, Traffic and Water Resources. Per the above referenced compact the
issuance of the draft TEIR started a period of 45 -days during which the Tribe may receive
comments on the draft TEIR.
The City reviewed the draft TEIR and provided written comments to the Tribe regarding the
identified impacts to the City, proposed mitigation measures, as well as other areas of concern
not clearly identified in the draft TEIR. Specifically the City requested clarification on the size
and scope of the outdoor event stage and lawn area, requested that the Tribe limit the hours of
operation on the portion of the project nearest to adjacent residential homes to minimize noise
impacts, and requested that the Tribe consider limiting the time a piece of equipment or vehicle
would be allowed to idle to 5 -minutes to provide consistency with air quality mitigation
measures.
The City also requested that consideration be given to off reservation Public Safety impacts;
advising that it would be reasonable to conclude that the increase in the number of trips
associated with the resort expansion would result in a corresponding increase in the need for
public safety services in the area of the resort.
Finally, the City agreed that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) included in the draft TEIR
accurately identified the impacts of the increase in trips generated by the Project and that the
proposed mitigation measures, namely financial contributions toward the I-15/Temecula
Parkway Interchange project; improving Pechanga Parkway in the vicinity of the Wolf Valley
Road/Via Eduardo Intersection; fair share contributions toward future improvements of
Temecula Parkway near La Paz Road, and the intersection of Temecula Parkway & Margarita
would adequately address the Project impacts.
Pursuant to section 10.8.8 of the above referenced compact, the mechanism to address the
identified impacts is an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the Pechanga
Tribe. The City and Pechanga have negotiated the attached IGA which includes terms that will
mitigate the impacts of the proposed hotel and resort expansion.
The IGA will require the Pechanga Tribe to pay the cost of the roadway improvements mitigation
measures shown in the table below:
Roadway Mitigation Measure
Costs to be Paid
by Tribe
3.10-1 I-15/SR-79 Southbound Off -ramp [Interchange Improvements]
$14,454,823 has
been paid by Tribe
over the last five
years
3.10-2 SR-79[Temecula Parkway]/La Paz fair share contribution
toward the future improvement of Temecula Parkway between Bedford
Court and Pechanga Parkway
$125,000
3.10-3 SR-79[Temecula Parkway]/Margarita fair share contribution
toward the future addition of WB right turn lane
$25,000
3.10-4 Pechanga Parkway/Wolf Valley Road — Fund improvements to
widen Pechanga Parkway to 3 -lanes in each direction from Via
Gilberto to the North Casino Drive entrance
$5,000,000*
*estimated cost, the Tribe to cover all costs associated with this mitigation measure
The IGA will also require the Tribe to pay to the City annual payments of $289,000 subject to
annual adjustment, to offset off -reservation impacts to public safety.
Although the impacts on public safety are mitigated by the IGA, it also provides that the City and
the Tribe will continue to meet and confer in order to develop further public safety resources and
maintain appropriate levels of police services.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement will provide one
time revenue of $5.0M to complete the construction of the Pechanga Parkway widening,
contributions of $150,000 to be used toward the future improvement of Temecula Parkway at
the locations noted in the table above, and acknowledge the $14,454,823 prior contributions of
the Tribe to the I-15/Temecula Parkway Interchange. The Intergovernmental Agreement will
also provide for ongoing revenue of at minimum $289,000 for the next 15 -years or until the
expiration of the Compact between the State of California and the Tribe for the gaming facility,
hotel and resort and any amendment to it that authorizes the casino and resort.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Preparation
2. September 21, 2015 Draft TEIR Comment Letter
3. Intergovernmental Agreement
Notice of Preparation
Tribal Environmental Impact Report
Date: November 10, 2014
To: State Clearinghouse, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Interested
Parties
The Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians (Tribe) is the Lead Agency for the preparation of a Tribal
Environmental Impact Report (TEIR) to assess the potential off -Reservation environmental
impacts of the proposed Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion Project. The Project is located
adjacent to the existing Pechanga Resort and Casino on the Tribe's Reservation in Riverside
County, California. The TEIR is being developed in accordance with the requirements of the
Tribal -State Gaming Compact (Compact) between the Tribe and the State.
The Project involves the development of new resort facilities, including a new hotel wing, events
center, detached spa, resort pool and stage area, and event lawns. All proposed development is
located on the Tribe's Reservation within a previously disturbed 42 -acre Project site. The new
hotel wing includes two connected towers (one 9 -story tower and one 14 -story tower) with
approximately 550 hotel rooms, meeting rooms and restaurant space that would be connected to
the existing Pechanga Resort and Casino. The events center would have a ballroom with a
capacity of 3,000 seats, adjoining indoor and outdoor space, as well as a green roof. Total indoor
building floor area for all new uses, including below grade area, is approximately 800,000 square
feet. The Project includes 25,000 square feet of tenant improvements to existing building
facilities and reconfiguration of internal access roads, parking and site utilities. The Tribe is also
considering the development of a wastewater treatment plant with tertiary treatment and reuse of
recycled water on site. While the Project would support the Tribe's existing gaming facility, the
Project does not propose additional gaming uses. Further information regarding the project
description and location is included within the attached materials.
The Tribe is hereby requesting comments regarding the scope and content of the TEIR, including
probable off -Reservation environmental effects and reasonable mitigation measures to address
off -Reservation environmental effects. The attached information includes a description of the
environmental effects which are proposed to be discussed in detail in the TEIR.
The Tribe requests your comments be sent at the earliest possible date, and postmarked no later
than December 9, 2014. Pursuant to Section 10.8.2 of the Compact, Interested Persons shall be
provided the opportunity to comment within 30 days of the date of receipt of the Notice of
Preparation by the State Clearinghouse and the County.
Please send your comments to:
Jennifer Wade
Environmental Science Associates
2600 Capitol Ave, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
jwade@esassoc.com
The NOP and future documents will be available on the Tribe's website: (www.pechanga-
nsn.gov).
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion Project
November 2014
Notice of Preparation
Project Title
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion Project
Lead Agency
Pechanga Band of Luise no Indians
Contact Person for the Environmental Document (TEIR)
Jennifer Wade, Environmental Science Associates
(916) 564-4500
Project Location
The Project is located near the City of Temecula, adjacent to the existing Pechanga Resort and
Casino on the Tribe's Reservation in Riverside County (Figure 1). All proposed development is
located within a 42 -acre Project site which has been previously disturbed (Figure 2). Regional
access to the Project site is provided by Interstate 15. Local access is provided by Temecula
Parkway and Pechanga Parkway.
Project Description
The Project involves the expansion of the Tribe's existing resort hotel including the following
components:
• Hotel — new hotel wing with two connected towers (one 9 -story tower and one 14 -story
tower) with approximately 550 hotel rooms, meeting rooms and restaurant space
• Events Center — 40,000 square foot ballroom with a capacity of up to 3,000 seats, 27,000
square foot indoor pre -function area, 19,000 square foot outdoor plaza, and a 40,000
square foot green roof space
• Detached Spa — 23,000 square foot detached spa and fitness center
• Resort Pool and Stage - 12,750 square foot resort pool area with performance stage
• Event Lawns_— 25,000 square feet of event lawns with capacity of up to 2,700 seats
• Wastewater Treatment Plant — Tertiary treatment with use of recycled water on site
• On-site warehouse storage
Total indoor building floor area for all new uses, including below grade area, is approximately
800,000 square feet. The Project also includes 25,000 square feet of tenant improvements to
existing building facilities and reconfiguration of internal access roads, parking and site utilities.
These numbers are preliminary and subject to refinement prior to release of the Draft TEIR.
Potential Off -Reservation Environmental Effects
The TEIR will discuss the potentially significant off -Reservation impacts, including cumulative
impacts, associated with the Project for the following resources areas: aesthetics, air quality,
biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, noise, public
services, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, and water resources.
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 2 November 2014
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion Project
Notice of Preparation
Aesthetics. The TEIR will evaluate potential effects to scenic resources and the potential
for the Project to create new sources of light or glare.
Air Quality. The TEIR will evaluate short-term air quality impacts from construction,
and long-term air quality impacts from operations, including increased vehicular traffic
associated with the Project.
Biological Resources. While the Project will be constructed primarily in areas that are
already paved or developed, the TEIR will evaluate the potential for off -Reservation
impacts such as downstream water quality degradation and indirect effects from lighting.
Geology and Soils. The TEIR will discuss the potential for off -Reservation impacts
related to seismic events and soil erosion. Compliance with building standards and the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit standards is anticipated
to reduce any potential impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The TEIR will evaluate potential off -Reservation
impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials resulting from the Project.
Land Use. The TEIR will include an analysis of the Project's potential to conflict with
off -Reservation land use plans and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating environmental effects.
Noise. The TEIR will evaluate noise associated with construction and operation of the
Project, including increased traffic noise.
Public Services. The TEIR will discuss potential impacts to public service providers,
including law enforcement, fire protection, and solid waste services. The Project is not
anticipated to create additional demands on schools or parks.
Transportation and Traffic. The TEIR will evaluate the Project's impact on off -
Reservation roadways and will discuss potential mitigation measures for significant
impacts.
Utilities and Service Systems. The TEIR will evaluate the potential for the Project to
impact off -Reservation stormwater and sewer utility systems. The Project is not
anticipated to impact off -Reservation water service providers as water would continue to
be provided by the Reservation's water system.
Water Resources. The TEIR will evaluate the potential for the Project to impact off -
Reservation water quality, drainage patterns, or stormwater drainage. Compliance with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit standards is
anticipated to reduce potential impacts related to water quality.
For the following resources areas, potentially significant off -Reservation impacts are not
anticipated: agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. It is
Pechanga Band of Luiseflo Indians 3 November 2014
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion Project
Notice of Preparation
likely that these resource areas will be briefly discussed in the TEIR and dismissed from further
analysis.
Agricultural Resources. The Project is not anticipated to result in conversion of off -
Reservation farmland to non-agricultural use.
Cultural Resources. Project ground disturbance would be limited to the Reservation and
thus no impacts to off -Reservation cultural or paleontological resources would occur.
Mineral Resources. The Project is not anticipated to result in the loss of availability of
important off -Reservation mineral resources.
Population and Housing. The Project is not anticipated to induce substantial off -
Reservation population growth. The Project would not displace existing housing.
Recreation. The Project is not anticipated to increase the use of existing off -Reservation
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be
accelerated.
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 4 November 2014
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion Project
MURRIETA
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
TEMECULA
PECHANGA RESORT AND CASINO
RIVERS DE COUNTY
SAN DIE + "'ET-Di—At-TY-
2
OU TY -
L
2
Miles
j
SOURCE: DeLorme Street Atlas USA, 2000; ESA, 2014
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion . 120594
Figure 1
Regional Location Map
•
ltinti,lhiti}iri911Il1FHfHHIA '
omuumuuv ,
pl' soma '1
I.
t,WIIll/, `"' ilii '�
r��!l1�1,y„Yrr Id : �„�,�
�ntt;'irtlR7iAlfl��� linjiiil� !;l'"""
h1i ft[tlp' rll W
jG11G n Alllif r.^
?nji111iyym •• Tiii;
��,
ll1
--rnatz
;Tat 5,11
X'
PECHANGA CREEK
a
- n
- Project Site
- New Building
0 240 ® Existing Building
J J
Feet Drive Aisle
SOURCE: Delawie, 2014
n
c
— - Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion . 120594
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
1
Is= ill 11 Ill .
XNIlem ■
NI
PI Ni PI
7:7".
SOURCE: Delawie, 2014
Pechanga Resort Hotel Expansion . 120594
Figure 3
Architectural Rendering
September 21, 2015
City of Temecula
City Council/City Manager
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951) 506-5100 • Fax (951) 694-6499 • www.cityoftemecula.org
The Honorable Mark Macarro
Tribal Chairman
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians
12705 Pechanga Road
Temecula, CA 92593
SUBJECT: Pechanga Resort and Hotel Expansion Project — Draft Tribal Environmental
Impact Report
Dear Chairman Macarro:
The City of Temecula (City) is pleased to have the opportunity to review the draft Tribal
Environmental Impact Report (TEIR) for the Pechanga Resort and Hotel Expansion Project. The
City recognizes and appreciates that this effort fosters continued government to government
cooperation and the strengthening of a valued relationship. Following review of the TEIR, the
City compiled a list of comments. We look forward to working with you and your team in
discussing these matters:
General Comments:
1. Table 2-1: Please verify the square foot values in this table as they do not appear to
correlate with the project description. It is our understanding that the size and use of
the proposed outdoor event stage and lawn area may have changed. If that is the case,
please update the project description to reflect any modifications.
2. Page 3.8-10. Please have the consultant consider adding to Mitigation Measure 3.8-1,
limiting the hours of construction of the warehouse storage facility to between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, as this part of the Project is in close proximity
to neighboring residents.
3. Page 3.8-10. Please have the consultant consider amending Mitigation Measure 3.8-2
by limiting the idling of equipment and vehicles, which are not in use, to a maximum of
five minutes when feasible. Doing so would make this mitigation measure consistent
with Mitigation Measure 3.3.2.
Printed on Recycled Paper
The Honorable Mark Maccaro
September 21, 2015
Page 2
Public Safety Comments:
In reviewing the TEIR, there are several aspects of the proposed expansion project that will
result in an increased number of trips, thus people, visiting the resort. To the extent that this
increase in population at the Pechanga Resort enters the City, we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that the Temecula Police Department (TPD) and Temecula Fire Department (TFD) will
experience an increase in off resort associated calls for service and request that your consultant
review these impacts. Specifically, the following aspects of the 54 acre resort expansion seem
to suggest an increased number of people will be drawn to the resort:
• 568 new hotel rooms
• 1,628 added parking spaces
• A new 3,000 seat ballroom
• A new 2,400 seat outdoor event area hosting 12-15 shows a year
• A new 25,500 square foot Spa, Salon and Fitness Center
• An additional 560 permanent employees
The TEIR addresses the project's impact to public safety in section 3.9 Public Services (pages
3.9-1 and 3.9-5). However, this section of the TEIR is focused on the public safety impacts on
the resort property serviced by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) and the
Pechanga Fire Department (PFD). It does not identify/address any potential public safety
impacts in the City. However, it is safe to conclude there will be more people drawn to the
expanded Pechanga Resort and Casino thus resulting in an increase in the number of people
entering the City.
It is reasonable to conclude that persons traveling through the City on their way to/from the
resort may necessitate additional TPD traffic enforcement resources. Based on the high volume
of traffic already in the vicinity of the resort, TPD traffic officers routinely conduct proactive traffic
enforcement as a means to prevent traffic collisions.
Within the City, TPD and TFD has the responsibility to respond to traffic collisions in the vicinity
of the resort when they occur. It is reasonable to conclude that additional visitors (trips) drawn
to the resort due to the expansion will result in an associated increase in the need for TPD and
TFD to respond to additional collisions in the area. In addition to responding, TPD also
performs investigations related to collisions, the number of investigations would also be
impacted.
To mitigate this potential impact to City law enforcement resources, we believe It would be fair
to estimate the increase of visitors (population) at the expanded resort that will likely be entering
the City and then calculate any additional needed TPD officers based on the City's desired
staffing level of 1.0 officer per 1,000 population. Based on the information in the TEIR, here are
some factors to consider:
The Honorable Mark Maccaro
September 21, 2015
Page 3
• With 568 additional hotel rooms, and 1,628 additional parking spaces, it would seem
reasonable to calculate the associated daily increase to the number of people
(population) at the resort and then project the potential influx of these people into the
City.
• The TEIR indicates the new 2,400 person outdoor event area would hold 12 to 15 shows
each year (page 2-5). At 2,400 seats per show these concerts would add 28,800 to
36,000 people per year. It is anticipated that these special events would cause an
additional strain on TPD resources based on the need to conduct the traffic enforcement
as described above.
To mitigate this potential impact to City fire department resources, we believe it would be
reasonable to conclude that the relative increase in trips generated by the resort expansion
would result in a corresponding relative increase in the number of traffic related calls for service.
Traffic Comments:
The City is in agreement with the proposed Transportation and Traffic mitigation measures
outlined in section 5.10 of TEIR.
• Acknowledge prior contributions toward SR -79/I-15 Interchange
• Fair share contribution to planned widening of Tem Pkwy at La Paz
• Fair share contribution to WB right turn lane at Margarita Rd/Tem Pkwy
• Widening of Pechanga Parkway from south of Via Gilberto to the North Casino Driveway
We have several minor comments on the traffic impact analysis (TIA) that concern items such
as street names, speed limits, and intersection lane configurations. Our specific comments
related to TIA, that may benefit your consultant are provided in Attachment A to this letter. We
believe that the comments will help make the TIA reflect the most current information and
provide consistency but will not affect the outcome of the analysis.
It is our understanding that the mechanism to address the identified mitigation measures is an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), pursuant to section 10.8.8 of the Amendment to the Tribal -
State Compact between the State of California and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.
Based upon our productive discussions thus far in the process, we feel we can arrive at an IGA
that is fair and equitable to both governments.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this project. If you have any questions,
please contact me at (951) 694-6415 or by e-mail at aaron.adams@cityoftemecula.org.
Sincerely,
Aaron Adams
City Manager
The Honorable Mark Maccaro
September 21, 2015
Page 4
Attachments: A — Traffic Impact Analysis Comments
cc: Jacob Mejia
Director of Public Affairs
Pechanga Development Corp.
45000 Pechanga Pkwy.
Temecula, CA 92592
Steve Bodmer
General Counsel
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians
12705 Pechanga Rd.
Temecula, CA 92593
Jennifer Wade
Environmental Science Associates
2600 Capital Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager
Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works
Luke Watson, Interim Director of Community Development
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTACMENT "A"
PECHANGA RESORT HOTEL EXPANSION TEIR COMMENTS
Item # Chapter Section Sub -Section Page/Paragraph
2
3.
Comment
TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS
ure 3.10-1 Revise .er the comments identified in the Traffic Im
3.0 3.10 - Fi
3.0 3.10 - Fi ure 3.10-2 Revise
3.0 3.10 - Fi ure 3.10-3 Revise .er the comments identified in the Traffic Im
3.0 3.10 - Table 3.10-2 Verify delay and LOS shown per comments identified in the Traffic
Im act Anal sis
3.0 3.10 Table 3.10-4 Revise per the comments identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
3.0 3.10 3.10.2 Page 3.10-13 — Paragraphs Revise paragraph based on completion of 1-15 at Temecula
3 and 4 Parkway ramp improvements prior to 2019
er the
comments identified in the Traffic Im
act Anal
Anal
Anal sis.
3.0
3.2
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS
Page 7 — Street Network • Clarify Southern City Expressway is this Eastern Bypass
extension
• Loma Linda Road speed limit is 25 MPH
• Under Wolf Valley Road after Circulation Element add "between
Pechanga Parkway and Wallaby Way and a Secondary Arterial
between Wallaby Way and Redhawk Parkway"
• Second Sentence of Wolf Valley Road after roadway add "to
Wallaby Way and four lane undivided to Redhawk Parkway"
• Fourth sentence of Wolf Valley Road after Parkway add "Wolf
Creek Drive and Redhawk Parkway".
• Second sentence of Via Eduardo after roadway add "which
functions as a residential collector
• Add to Via Eduardo "Curbside parking is allowed on both sides of
the street"
3.0
3.3
Figure 3-1 Please revise the following and all subsequent Figures (global).
• Intersection 6, 3 NB left -turn lanes and one right -turn lane
• Intersection 6, eastbound U-turn lane not left -turn
• Intersection 9, two left -turn lanes and separate right -turn lane
• Add "2U" to Rainbow Canyon Road
• Add "4D" Wolf Valley Road east of Pechanga Parkway
• Change Wolf Valley Road to 4U east Wolf Creek Drive
• Add "4D" to Margarita Road
• Change Redhawk Parkway to 4D
• Change Deer Hollow Way to 4U
9.
3.0
3.3
Figure 3-2
Please revise the following and all subsequent Figures (global).
• Include volumes for Interstate 15, Margarita Road, Redhawk
Parkway, Temecula Parkway east of Redhawk Parkway, Wolf
Valley Road, Deer Hollow Way, Rainbow Canyon Road, and
Pechanga Road
10.
6.0
6.1
6.1.1
Page 18 — Table 6-1
11.
7.0
7.3
Figure 7-2
12.
7.0
7.3
Figure 7-3
Please revise the following and all subsequent Tables (global).
• Intersection 6, verify delay and LOS per revised lane
configuration see Item 8
• Intersection 8, other studies conducted indicate this intersection
operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour. Verify
• Intersection 9, operationally queue lengths affect LOS at this
location. Other studies show this operating at LOS F during PM
peak due to extended queues Verify queue length and available
storage
Please revise the following and all subsequent Figures (global).
• Intersection 17, missing eastbound through traffic
• Verify percentages west of La Paz; only adds up to 35%;
missing 15%
• Verify percentage on Deer Hollow Way; seems high and road
does not continue through
• Verify percentages into residential area located west of
Pechanga Parkway 3% seems high
13.
8.0
8.1
8.1.1
Page 33 — Table 8-1
Please revise the following and all subsequent Figures (global).
• Include project volumes for Interstate 15, Margarita Road,
Redhawk Parkway, Temecula Parkway east of Redhawk
Parkway, Wolf Valley Road, Deer Hollow Way, Rainbow
Canyon Road, and Pechanga Road
Please revise the following and all subsequent Tables (global).
• Intersection 17, verify delay based on addition of eastbound
through traffic
14.
9.0
9.1
Page 41 — Paragraph 1
• It is likely the 1-15 Ramp improvements will be constructed prior
to 2019 Near Term Conditions. Assume improvements in place
and new ramp configuration for Old Town Front Street/I-15 SB
Ramp and 1-15 NB Ramp
15.
9.0
9.2
Page 41
• Add Section 9.2.3 Existing Plus Project Volumes
16.
9.0
9.2
9.2.1
17.
10.0
10.1
Figure 9-1
Pages 47 — Table 10-1
Please revise the following and all subsequent Figures (global).
• Assume ramp improvements for intersection 2, 3, and 4
Please revise the following and all subsequent Tables (global).
• Verify delay based on new ramp configuration
18. 10.0
10.2
10.2.1
Page 52 — First bullet point
• Verify impacts based on revised intersection configuration
19.
10.0
10.2
10.2.2
Page 52 — First bullet point
• Verify impacts based on revised intersection configuration
20.
11.0
Page 56 — First bullet point
21
11.0
Figure 11-1
22.
12.0
12.1
12.1.1
Page 63 — First paragraph
23.
12.0
12.2
12.2.1
Page 66 — First paragraph
• Move bullet point to Near Term 2019 section of report
• Temecula Parkway should be studied as an 8 lane facility to be
consistent with City General Plan and other EIR's.
Please revise the following and all subsequent Figures (global)
• Intersection 3, verify lane configuration
• Intersection 4, verify lane configuration
• Intersection 5, change lane configuration to accommodate 8
lane facility on Temecula Parkway
• Intersection 5, change lane configuration on La Paz to 2 SB
left -turns, through/right lane, 1 NB left -turn and through/right
lane
• Intersection 18, should be 1 EB left -turn lane, and 1 EB right -
turn lane
• Intersection 19, 1 EB left -turn lane, 1 EB right -turn lane, add SB
through lane, and NB through lane
• Verify that General Plan roadway configurations were assumed
at the 3 intersections shown
• Verify that General Plan roadway configurations were assumed
at the 3 segments shown as being deficient
24.
12.0
12.2
12.2.2
25.
14.0
Page 66 — First paragraph
Page 70 — Summary of
Significant Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
• See Item 23
Please revise Impacts and Mitigation Measures, where
applicable, per comments identified on this document.
Fair share contribution identified as mitigation may need to
include cost for traffic signal modification improvements and right-
of-way acquisition as needed.
Final Draft November 5, 2015
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
This Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement") is dated and effective as of November 17,
2015, by and between the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe
(the "Tribe"), and the City of Temecula, California (the "City"), which are referred to herein
collectively as "the Parties" and as to each as a "Party". The terms "City" and "Tribe" as used
herein shall include the Parties' governmental entities, departments and officials unless otherwise
stated.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Tribe is a federally -recognized Indian Tribe located on federal trust
lands which are located within the geographic boundaries of Riverside County (the "County")
and abut or are near City boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe has inhabited the Temecula Valley for more than 10,000 years
(and according to tribal history and culture, since time immemorial); and
WHEREAS, the Pechanga Indian Reservation was established by Executive Order of the
President of the United States on June 27, 1882, affirming the Tribe's sovereignty and land -base;
and
WHEREAS, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.
("IGRA"), the Tribe may engage in gaming as a means of promoting tribal economic
development, self-sufficiency and strong tribal government; and
WHEREAS, IGRA generally requires that Class III gaming be conducted pursuant to a
Tribal -State Class III gaming compact; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 10, 1999, and effective in May, 2000, the Tribe
entered into a gaming compact with the State of California, as contemplated under IGRA, which
compact was amended effective March, 2008, and which compact and amendment is referred to
herein as the "Compact;" and
WHEREAS, the Tribe desires to operate tribal economic development projects in a
manner that benefits the Tribe, its members, and the community as a whole, and the City
recognizes the mutual benefit that can be derived if those goals are achieved; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe determined that a casino featuring Class II and Class III gaming
activities, as authorized under IGRA and, with respect to Class III activities, the Compact, and a
hotel and related parking, common areas and amenities (the "Gaming Facility" as more
specifically defined in Section 2.9) would be a way in which to generate independent tribal
resources to provide for the health, education, employment, government, general welfare, safety,
and cultural needs of the Tribe. Accordingly, the Tribe has successfully developed and now
operates and maintains the Gaming Facility, which as of the date of this Agreement consists of
an approximately 200,000 square foot casino; several restaurants and related amenities; a thirteen
story 522 -room hotel; three parking structures plus surface parking that in total can
1
Final Draft November 5, 2015
accommodate at least 8,567 cars, recreation vehicles (RVs), buses; administrative, regulatory,
maintenance and service structures; and common areas related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe employs more than 5,250 people. The City's proximity to the
Reservation makes Temecula the primary beneficiary of the Tribe's economic activities, with
more than 1,715 residents of Temecula receiving wages, benefits, and other payments of more
than $127 million in 2012. The Tribe and the Pechanga Resort & Casino purchased nearly $25
million worth of goods and services directly from merchants and suppliers in Temecula that year.
Since opening the Pechanga Resort & Casino in 2002, the Tribe has provided over $21.5 million
to the City of Temecula for road improvements and public safety services, helped secure a $6
million federal grant for widening the bridge at Pechanga Parkway over Temecula Creek, and
has donated more than $14 million to local schools and hundreds of regional charitable
organizations; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the Gaming Facility, which has become a major tourist
attraction and brings millions of dollars into the local community, the Tribe has successfully
developed on its lands other economic development or governmental projects that service the
Tribe and the community, including a convenience store, golf course, cultural center, museum,
gas station, car wash and RV park; and
WHEREAS, the Compact requires that before commencement of a "Project", as defined
in the Compact, the Tribe must engage in certain specified environmental review processes and
further provides for the Tribe and any impacted city and county to enter into enforceable written
"Intergovernmental Agreements" for mitigation of off -reservation Environmental Impacts,
public safety services, and other necessary programs attributable to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that this Agreement therefore is an important and
mutually beneficial means for furthering the government -to -government relationship between the
Parties and in building trust, mutual respect, good will and cooperation for the benefit of the
entire community. Further, this Agreement is intended to provide the Tribe and City with greater
certainty concerning future planning and development activities; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe now anticipates commencing a Project, as defined by the
Compact, further defined below as the "Hotel Expansion". In accordance with its obligations
under the Compact, the Tribe has properly submitted a Notice of Preparation of the Draft Tribal
Environmental Impact Report ("TEIR"), issued the Notice of Completion of the Draft TEIR,
satisfied the forty-five (45) day public comment period, and formally offered to begin
negotiations of the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe's Hotel Expansion will include the development of new resort
facilities only, which shall not exceed the scope of the project described in the Final Tribal
Environmental Impact Report, including a new hotel wing; events center and meeting space;
detached spa, salon, and fitness center; resort pool area, multi -use outdoor area; and warehouse
storage; and parking improvements. All proposed development is located on the Tribe's
Reservation within a previously disturbed 54 -acre Project site. The new hotel wing is expected
to include two connected towers (one 9 -story tower and one 13 -story tower) with approximately
568 hotel rooms, additional meeting rooms and restaurant space that will be connected to the
2
Final Draft November 5, 2015
existing Pechanga Resort and Casino. The events center is expected to have a ballroom with a
capacity of 3,000 seats, adjoining indoor and outdoor space, as well as a green roof. Total indoor
building floor area for all new uses, including below grade area, is approximately 800,000 square
feet. The Hotel Expansion includes 25,000 square feet of tenant improvements to existing
building facilities and reconfiguration of internal access roads, parking, and site utilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
1.1. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth certain agreements of the Parties that
are intended to:
a. Assure the implementation of measures for mitigating the off -reservation
impacts of the Hotel Expansion, as set forth in this Agreement;
b. Establish a mutually agreeable process to identify and mitigate potential off -
reservation environmental impacts of the Hotel Expansion and possible Future Gaming Facility
Expansion projects related to the Gami cility, including a process that meets or exceeds the
processes required under the Compact;
c. Create a process to resolve disputes that may ise between the City and the
Tribe under this Agreement;
d. Create a framework for continuing to build and maintain a mutually beneficial
government -to -government relationship between the Tribe and the City; and
e. Identify ways for the Tribe and the City to work together to provide additional
services and benefits to the Tribal community and the residents of the City of Temecula.
f Provide certainty with respect to future planning and development activities
rela the Gaming Facility.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. Capitalized words not otherwise specifically defined in this
Agreement shall have the definitions of such words as may be set forth in the Compact. The
following terms shall be defined in this Agreement as set forth in this Section:
2.1. "Agreement" means this agreement, which shall be deemed to be the
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Parties as required under Section 10.8.8 of the
Compact.
2.2. "City" means the City of Temecula, an incorporated California city that is located
within the boundaries of the County.
3
Final Draft November 5, 2015
2.3. "Compact" means the Tribal -State Compact between the State of California and the
Tribe entered into on or about September 10, 1999, and effective in May, 2000, and amended
effective March, 2008.
2.4. "County" means Riverside County, California.
2.5. "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is executed by both Parties and so
designated above in the introduction to this Agreement.
2.6. "Future Gaming Facility Expansion" shall mean any increase in the number of
Gaming Devices within the existing footprint of the Gaming Facility beyond five thousand
(5,000), or any increase exceeding ten percent (10 %) or more of the existing footprint or height
of the buildings or structures within the Gaming Facility, provided that alterations, renovations,
maintenance, refurbishments, improvements, changes in configurations or uses, construction, or
reconstruction, within the footprint or height of the existing Gaming Facility, or improvements to
the spa, porte cochere, surface parking, walkways, pool and common areas that serve or are
within the Gaming Facility, shall not be deemed to be a part of a Future Gaming Facility
Expansion.
2.7. "Gaming Device" means a Gaming Device as defined in Section 2.6 of the Compact.
2.8. "Gaming Facility" means: (1) the gaming facility and hotel existing on the date of
this Agreement that are located on the Reservation and consisting of approximately two hundred
thousand (200,000+) square feet of gaming space plus back of the house and administrative
offices and facilities that can accommodate various gaming and casino activities, including up to
five thousand (5,000) Gaming Devices, employee rooms, offices and related space; a thirteen
story hotel with five hundred twenty-two (522) guest rooms and supporting kitchens, offices,
retail, housekeeping, telecommunications and other utility facilities; maintenance and storage
spaces; convention, ballroom, classroom and meeting spaces; restaurants, bars, food courts, night
clubs, retail spaces, lounges, regulatory, public safety, surveillance and guest services amenities
and facilities; a one thousand two hundred (1,200) seat theater; swimming and Jacuzzi pools,
porte cocheres, spa facilities and related areas located outside the hotel; surface parking and three
parking structures for buses, trucks, SUVs and similar vehicles and automobiles, that can
accommodate approximately eight thousand six hundred (8,600) vehicles; and related common
areas, roadways, sidewalks, storage and administrative facilities; all of which primarily serve the
Gaming Facility; and (2) the Hotel Expansion.
2.9. "Hotel Expansion" means the development of new resort facilities only, which shall
not exceed the scope of the project described in the Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report,
including a new hotel wing; events center and meeting space; detached spa, salon, and fitness
center; resort pool area, multi -use outdoor area; warehouse storage; and parking improvements.
All proposed development is located on the Tribe's Reservation within a previously disturbed
54 -acre Project site. The new hotel wing is expected to include two connected towers (one 9 -
story tower and one 13 -story tower) with approximately 568 hotel rooms, additional meeting
rooms and restaurant space that will be connected to the existing Pechanga Resort and Casino.
The events center is expected to have a ballroom with a capacity of 3,000 seats, adjoining indoor
and outdoor space, as well as a green roof. Total indoor building floor area for all new uses,
4
Final Draft November 5, 2015
including below grade area, is approximately 800,000 square feet. The Hotel Expansion includes
25,000 square feet of tenant improvements to existing building facilities and reconfiguration of
internal access roads, parking, and site utilities.
2.10. "IGRA" means the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.
2.11. "Mitigation Measures" means the Tribe's obligations and payments set forth in
Section 3.3 below, which shall provide final mitigation with respect to the Hotel Expansion.
2.12. "Reservation" means those lands held in trust by the federal government for the
benefit of the Tribe, including but not limited to the lands on which the Gaming Facility is
located.
2.13. "Project" means an activity defined as a "Project" in Section 10.8.7(a) of the
Compact and shall not include an exempt project under CEQA.
2.14. "Significant Effect on the Environment" shall be as defined in Section 10.8.7 (b)
of the Compact as a Significant Effect on the Off -Reservation Environment.
2.15. "Tribal Environmental Impact Report" or "TEIR" is the report described in, and
subject to, Section 10.8.1 of the Compact. .�.
2.16. "Tribe" means the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized
Indian tribe.
2.17.
Agreement.
"Term" meas the term of this Agreement as provided in Section 13.8 of this
SECTION 3. HOTEL EXPANSION MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1. Review of Existing Gaming Facility Environmental Reports.
a. Prior to the construction of the Gaming Facilities described in Section 2.8 as it
exists as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Tribe conducted and completed an
environmental study and process under the Compact, which included the adoption of mitigation
measures designed to address the casino and resort facilities analyzed in the study. Commencing
with the legislative approval of the Amended Compact in August 2006, and on a government -to -
government voluntary basis, the Parties have met periodically to review the off -reservation
impacts of the Gaming Facility.
b. The Parties acknowledged that the establishment of the Gaming Facility may
create off -reservation impacts, including but not limited to the generation of vehicle traffic and
traffic -related events, law enforcement services, fire and emergency medical services, noise and
light and related factors, and other effects. The Parties also acknowledged that the Gaming
Facility has provided substantial benefits to the Tribal, City, and surrounding communities,
including increased employment, an important market for local vendors, and an attraction for
patrons, tourists and revenues from out of the area. The Parties further acknowledge that as
described in the Recitals, the Tribe has provided over $21.5 million to the City of Temecula for
5
Final Draft November 5, 2015
road improvements and public safety services, helped secure a $6 million federal grant for
widening the bridge at Pechanga Parkway over Temecula Creek as well as generating jobs and
economic benefits for the region.
3.2. Hotel Expansion Intergovernmental Agreement.
a. The Parties recognize that both the positive and negative effects of the Hotel
Expansion on the interests of the Parties may be difficult to quantify, but in the government -to -
government spirit that underlies this Agreement, and in order to address any off -reservation
effects of the Hotel Expansion and resolve differences of opinions between the Tribe and the
City as to the extent and materiality of any such effects, the Parties have agreed to add certain
Mitigation Measures that take all of those positive and negative effects into account. The
Mitigation Measures embodied in this Agreement, and this Agreement itself, are intended to
constitute the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Tribe and the City to the extent
required under Section 10.8.8 of the Compact with respect to the Hotel Expansion.
b. The Tribe and the City agree that any Significant Effects on the Environment
from the Hotel Expansion will be adequately mitigated by the Tribe as required by the Compact
through its mitigation efforts identified in the Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report, this
Agreement, and through the Mitigation Measures provided in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
3.3. Mitigation Measures. As agreed upon by the Parties, the Tribe shall undertake the
following Mitigation Measures:
a. Road Improvements.
i. Widening of Pechanga Parkway — The Tribe shall fully fund the
widening of Pechanga Parkway from four (4) traffic lanes to six (6) traffic lanes from Via
Gilberto to North Casino Drive, estimated not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00), as
identified in the Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report (Mitigation Measure 3.10-4) and
pursuant to RBF Engineers Design attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The $5,000,000.00 payment
shall be made on or before December 31, 2015. The Tribe shall be permitted to review all
applicable accounting related to the use of the $5,000,000.00 payment throughout the
construction of the road widening. In the event the actual cost of the improvement is less than
$5,000,000.00, the City shall return all unused amounts to the Tribe.
ii. SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) and La Paz Road — As identified in the
Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report (Mitigation Measure 3.10-2), the Tribe shall provide a
one-time, fair share contribution of 2.5%, which equates to One Hundred and Twenty -Five
Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00) of an estimated Five Million Dollar ($5,000,000.00) project for
the widening of SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) to 8 -lane urban arterial standards as identified in the
City's General Plan Circulation Element. This payment shall be made on or before December 31,
2015.
iii. SR -79 (Temecula Parkway) and Margarita Road — As identified in
Final Tribal Environmental Impact Report (Mitigation Measure 3.10-3), the Tribe shall provide a
one-time, fair share contribution of 3%, which equates to Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00) of the estimated Eight Hundred Thirty Three Thousand Dollar ($833,000.00)
6
Final Draft November 5, 2015
project for the implementation of a westbound right -turn lane on SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy.) to
accommodate future growth at this intersection. This payment shall be made on or before
December 31, 2015.
iv. CEQA — City shall complete the design of the mitigation,
undertake appropriate environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), and obtain applicable resource agency permits. City Council shall certify all CEQA
documents and approve the plans and specifications for each mitigation improvement.
Following City Council approval, the City shall cause the mitigation- „to be constructed in
accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Council.
b. Law Enforcement — The Tribe shall provide annual funding during the Term
of this Agreement for City law enforcement services in the amount of Two Hundred and Eighty -
Nine Thousand Dollars ($289,000.00). This amount shall be adjusted upward or downward in
accordance with the percentage increase or decrease in the City's cost of law enforcement
services provided by one (1) sworn peace officer for the period of July 1 of one year to June 30
of the following year beginning with the base year of July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. Payments
shall be made as follows: The first payment for law enforcement services shall be made on or
before December 31, 2016, in the amount of One Hundred Forty -Four Thousand and Five
Hundred Dollars ($144,500.00). This first payment is the prorated equivalent of one half (1/2) of
the agreed upon $289,000.00 and shall be payment for the period of January 1, 2017 to June 30,
2017. The second payment for law enforcement services shall be made on or before June 30,
2017, in the full amount of $289,000.00 and shall be payment for the period of July 1, 2017 to
June 30, 2018. Each subsequent payment for law enforcement services shall be made on or
before June 1 of each year thereafter in the amount of $289,000.00, as may be adjusted in
accordance with this provision, for the Term of this Agreement.
3.4. Fire and Emergency Services.
a. The Parties acknowledge that the Tribe's development, construction,
operation and maintenance of the Gaming Facility require fire protection and emergency
response services. Much of that need is fulfilled by the construction and operation of the Tribe's
own fire department on the Reservation. Nevertheless, from time to time, the fire protection and
emergency response services available from the Tribe's own departments may require
supplemental services from the City.
b. The Tribe and the City shall cooperate on a government -to -government basis
to promote public safety and to provide the Tribe with such mutual aid and automatic aid for
supplemental fire and emergency services, on a cooperative basis, as is offered to neighboring
cities and unincorporated county areas. At present, a mutual aid agreement exists between the
Tribe and the appropriate agencies concerning fire and emergency services. If necessary, the
Parties agree to diligently and in good faith negotiate a more detailed mutual aid and automatic
aid agreement, similar in its terms to those between the Tribe and other jurisdictions, to further
implement the intent of this Section that the City and the Tribe cooperate in providing effective
and efficient fire and emergency services to the Gaming Facility and the surrounding
community.
7
Final Draft November 5, 2015
c. The Tribe has in place an emergency preparedness plan that addresses
evacuation and access issues. The City and Tribe shall consult and coordinate services to further
develop the plan and to prepare to respond to any emergency at the Gaming Facility.
d. The Tribe shall consult with the City, and the City shall cooperate with the
Tribe, regarding the use, storage, disposal, and transportation on roads within the City of any and
all hazardous materials to be used by the Gaming Facility. Nothing in this Agreement shall
expand the City's jurisdiction regarding regulation of hazardous materials.
3.5. Meet and Confer Concerning Further Public Safety Programs. Both the Tribe and
the City agree that it is in their respective best interests to develop and fund further public safety
and community enhancement programs in and around the Gaming Facility. There are many
federal and state programs to enhance public safety and community enhancement that the Tribe
and the City can take advantage of in a cooperative joint application for those funds. Therefore,
the Parties agree that they will continue to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to seek
sources of funding and cooperative programs to enhance public safety and the community and to
work towards approval of these programs by the opening of the Hotel Expansion.
3.6. Regular Meetings of the Parties. In an effort to maintain and promote good
government -to -government relations between the Tribe and the City, the Parties' designated
representatives shall meet on a regula w.every six (6) months to discuss issues of mutual
interest.
SECTION 4. FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND MEASURES
4.1. Traffic Studies TEIR. In the event that a Future Gaming Facility Expansion is
undertaken, the Tribe shall prepare a TEIR pursuant to Section 10.8.1 of the Compact and shall
follow the processes required in Sections 10.8.2, 10.8.3, 10.8.4, and 10.8.5. The Tribe shall
notify the City of the filing of the Notice of Preparation of the Draft TEIR and provide the City
with a copy of the Notice of Preparation at the time the Notice of Preparation is filed with the
State Clearinghouse in the State Department of Planning and Research ("State Clearinghouse").
The Tribe shall notify the City of the filing of the Notice of Completion of the TEIR and provide
the City with a copy of the TEIR at the time the Notice of Completion is filed with the State
Clearinghouse. The Tribe shall maintain an administrative record of the TEIR process, the
documents cited in the TEIR, the comments received on the TEIR during the public comment
periods, and such other studies and documents relied on in the preparation of the TEIR and the
Final TEIR so as to provide an adequate basis for the resolution of any disputes pursuant to
Sections 7, 8, and 9 of this Agreement.
4.2. Existing Off -Reservation Impacts. The Parties agree that any existing off -reservation
environmental impacts from the Gaming Facility, including future additional traffic impacts from
the Gaming Facility, but not a Future Gaming Facility Expansion, will not be the subject of any
additional Mitigation Measures pursuant to this Agreement. However, the Parties do agree and
commit to having continued dialogue with regard to mutual collaboration on future governmental
projects benefiting both the Tribe and City in the areas of roadway infrastructure, law
enforcement, public safety and other such programs as may be feasible.
8
Final Draft November 5, 2015
4.3. Meet and Confer Requirements Regarding the TEIR and Intergovernmental
Agreement.
a. Not later than fifteen (15) days following the filing of the Notice of
Completion of the Draft TEIR with the State Clearinghouse, the Parties shall commence diligent
and good faith negotiations, to discuss and reach agreement on the contents of the Draft TEIR,
the primary objective of which is to provide for the timely mitigation of Significant Effect on the
Environment, where such off -reservation impacts:
i. Are primarily attributable to the Future Gaming Facility Expansion
being proposed;
ii. Occur outside of the geographic boundaries of the Tribe's existing
or proposed trust lands and within the geographic boundaries of the City; and
iii. Are within the jurisdiction or responsibility of the City.
b. Not later than fifteen (15) days after the filing of the Notice of Completion of
the Draft TEIR with the State Clearinghouse, the Parties shall commence diligent and good faith
negotiations to discuss and reach agreement on an amendment to this Intergovernmental
Agreement to implement additional mitigations measures, modified Mitigation Measures
described in this Agreement or a combination of both, to the extent the Parties agree that such
measures are reasonably required to address the environmental impacts described in the TEIR or
the comments thereto.
4.4. Binding Arbitration. If the Parties, after meeting and conferring consistent with
Section 4.3(b) above, have not approved, executed and delivered an Amended Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Expansion, within fifty-five (55) days after the date of the publication of the
Final TEIR, or such other date as the Parties may mutually agree in writing, either Party may
initiate the binding arbitration dispute resolution processes contained in Section 8 of this
Agreement and 10.8.9 of the Compact.
SECTION 5. EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
5.1. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the Parties acknowledge that the
Tribe is subject to federal laws and regulations regarding the environment and health and safety,
including but not limited to the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species
Act, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and Occupational Safety and Health Act, and permit
conditions. Except as provided below, the Parties agree that the matters regulated by these laws,
regulations, and permits shall be matters that are between the Tribe and the federal agency
having jurisdiction over such statutes, regulations, and permits, and a violation of such statutes,
regulations, and permits shall not be considered in conflict with this Agreement or a required part
of it. Consistent with the above, the City shall retain whatever rights it may have with respect to
participation in the matters regulated by these laws, regulations, and permits, including without
limitation, the rights to take such administrative or legal actions as may be necessary to protect
its rights in accordance with the statutes and regulations applicable to the federal agency
conducting the proceedings, shall be deemed to have waived any right it might otherwise have
9
Final Draft November 5, 2015
under this Agreement to compel arbitration or meet the City's concerns about that aspect of the
Project under this Agreement.
5.2. Any dispute or disagreement the City has with a federal process or its outcome thus
shall only be subject to the remedies available in such process and not through the dispute
resolution or other provisions of this Agreement.
5.3. Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the Parties' respective rights to reach
agreement on a voluntary basis with each other over such matters outside such federal process,
subject to applicable law and the sole discretion of each Party as to whether or not to negotiate or
agree on such matters outside the context of the federal process itself.
SECTION 6. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
6.1. To the extent authorized by the California Public Records Act (Government Code
Section 6250, et seq.), and subject to all provisions of such Act, the Parties agree that proprietary
and confidential operational and financial information concerning the Gaming Facility shall be
deemed confidential and shall not be shared with any third party. The Parties acknowledge and
agree that such proprietary information includes all documents obtained, observations made, or
conclusions drawn directly or indirectly under this Agreement concerning the proprietary
operation or financial information concerning the Gaming Facility, including without limitation,
where the source or information comes from, inspection reports, plan reviews, and all documents
related to examinations of financial information, negotiations, consultations, disputes or other
activities under this Agreement. ®®®®®®
6.2. Prior to providing such information to the City, or permitting the City access to such
information, but without implying that providing such access or information is necessarily
required, the Tribe shall notify the City in writing that such information is confidential or
proprietary.
6.3. The City shall promptly provide the Tribe notice of any Public Records Act request
related to this Agreement and shall afford the Tribe, within the time limits allowed under the
Public Records Act, an opportunity to seek an injunction by the Court against any such
disclosure.
SECTION 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
7.1. Meet and Confer Process. In recognition of the government -to -government
relationship between the Tribe and the City, the Parties shall make their best efforts to resolve
disputes that occur under this Agreement by good faith negotiations whenever possible.
Therefore, the Parties hereby establish a threshold requirement that disputes arising under this
Agreement shall first be subject to a good faith meet and confer procedure to give the Parties an
opportunity to work together to solve identified issues.
7.2. Disputes arising between the Parties regarding a Party's alleged failure to meet its
obligations imposed by this Agreement, including a refusal to meet and confer, shall be
addressed through the following process:
10
Final Draft November 5, 2015
a. The Parties may meet and confer informally to discuss their concerns. This
stage may include an informal exchange of views among Tribal and City personnel and shall
remain confidential in accordance with applicable law.
b. A Party invoking the meet and confer provisions of this Agreement shall
provide written notice to the other Party, identifying with specificity the alleged issue or issues,
the specific provision breached, and the actions requested to resolve the dispute. Within seven
(7) business days after receipt of the notice, the recipient party shall provide a written response
agreeing or disagreeing with the complaint. If the Parties agree upon the issues complained of,
they will set forth detailed steps to address the alleged breach of the Agreement. If the Parties
disagree, they shall proceed in accordance with the next subsection, 7.2(c).
c. The Parties shall formally meet and confer in good faith within ten (10)
business days of receipt of such notice, or at such other time as the Parties may agree in writing,
to attempt to resolve the dispute. If both Parties agree, a mediator may be used to help resolve
the dispute at this stage. The Parties and mediator, if any, shall ensure that any disputed issues
are clearly and directly communicated according to any agreed upon process and timeline.
Multiple meetings under this step may be reasonably required depending upon the nature of the
dispute, provided that the meet and confer process shall be completed within thirty (30) days of
formal initiation unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of the Parties. Failure to
substantially comply with the procedures and timelines contained in this Section with respect to a
Future Gaming Facility Expansion shall entitle th- complainingarty to proceed directly to
®®®®®
arbitration.
d. To the extent allowed by law, such writings as may be prepared and
transmitted between the Parties pursuant to this Section 7 shall be confidential.
SECTION 8. BINDING ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
8.1. Subject to compliance with the meet and confer process stated above and the
limitations herein as to the scope of any order, either Party may initiate binding arbitration to
resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement, regarding the interpretation of any the
Agreement's provisions and/or rights and obligations of the Parties under the Agreement.
8.2. The arbitration shall be conducted by arbitrator(s) in accordance with the JAMS
Comprehensive Arbitration Rules & Procedures (the "Rules") then in effect at the time of the
initiation of arbitration. The arbitration shall take place in or near Temecula, including any
location on the Reservation, or at another location mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The
arbitrator shall be a retired federal or California superior court judge selected pursuant to the
following terms:
a. The arbitrator shall be from the list of prior approved arbitrators with
experience in matters concerning the CEQA.
b. In the event the Parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the Parties agree that
Rule 15 of the Rules shall govern the selection of the arbitrator.
11
Final Draft November 5, 2015
c. Subject to the terms of this Section, the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to
interpret and apply the terms of the Compact and this Agreement, but shall lack jurisdiction to
modify the Agreement or relieve a Party of its obligations, or add to those obligations under the
Agreement, except in the event that material terms of this Agreement are determined to be void
or that the provisions of the Compact are in material conflict with the terms of this Agreement.
In the latter instance, the arbitrator may order the Agreement modified to conform to the
Compact, with the least change necessary in order to maintain the relative positions of the Parties
at the time the Agreement was entered into.
d. This Agreement does not provide for, and the arbitrator shall not have
jurisdiction to order, remedies with respect to federal, state, or City laws, regulations, ordinances,
codes or other laws against the City, including its government entities, officials, members or
employees or its real property, and shall only consider or evaluate such laws and issue such
orders as expressly permitted under this Agreement.
e. In the event the dispute concerns the failure to prepare a TEIR or the adequacy
of a TEIR for a Future Gaming Facility Expansion, the arbitrator shall have the authority to order
the Tribe to comply with the requirements of this Agreement with respect to the TEIR, including,
without limitation, the revision and recirculation of the TEIR.
f In the event the dispute concerns the adequacy or extent of measures
necessary to mitigate Significant Effects on the Environment, the arbitrator shall have the
authority to impose such mitigation measures as are described in the TEIR, the comments of the
City or other persons commenting on the TEIR, the Final EIR and such other mitigation
measures as are reasonably necessary and feasible to mitigate the Significant Effects on the
Environment, but in accordance with the limitations in this Agreement.
g. Except as provided above with respect to the impact of a Future Gaming
Facility Expansion, arbitration orders and awards may not include monetary awards, and such
monetary awards related to a Future Gaming Facility Expansion shall be limited to the amount
the arbitrator determines as necessary to mitigate a Significant Effect on the Environment on the
basis of the information contained in the administrative record of the Tribe's proceedings to
approve the TEIR and adopt mitigation measures, and shall not exceed the limits in this
Agreement.
h. Equitable relief shall be limited to compelling some actual performance that is
expressly described in this Agreement or preventing a Party from failing to take such action.
i. Any controversy regarding whether an issue is subject to arbitration shall be
determined by the arbitrator, but the arbitrator's jurisdiction shall be limited to ordering forms of
relief agreed to in this Agreement.
j. The arbitrator shall render an award consistent with Rule 24 of the Rules. The
Parties agree to be bound by the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules relating to informal and
formal discovery rights and obligations, subject to the agreement of the Parties or order of the
arbitrator otherwise. In any event, any discovery conducted shall be subject to the confidentiality
12
Final Draft November 5, 2015
provisions of this Agreement to the extent such provisions may be lawfully enforced, and the
arbitrator shall make such orders as are necessary to enforce such provisions.
k. Following an arbitration order or award, either Party may appeal pursuant to
the JAMS Optional Arbitration Appeal Procedure as set forth in Rule 34 of the Rules. In the
event appeal is sought, no order of the arbitrator shall be considered to be final until the appeal is
concluded, including any matters that may be pending as to such order by a reviewing court
under Section 9.
SECTION 9. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT
9.1. The Parties agree that the prevailing party in any arbitration contemplated under
Section 8 hereof may seek to confirm and enforce any arbitration award that has become final by
filing a petition with any Superior Court in the State of California, pursuant to the provisions of
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1285, et seq. In any arbitration or court action, each
Party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees in any court action or arbitration proceeding
brought pursuant to this Agreement.
9.2. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude or restrict the ability of Parties to
voluntarily pursue, by mutual agreement, any other method of dispute resolution.
SECTION 10. NOTICES
10.1. Notices pursuant to this Agreement and service °' f process in any judicial or
arbitration proceeding is waived in favor of delivery of documents by (i) delivery by a reputable
document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt
showing date and times of delivery or (ii) by Certified Mail — Return Receipt Requested to the
following:
10.2. For the Tribe:
Tribal Chairperson
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
12705 Pechanga Road
Temecula, CA 92592
Tel: 951-676-2768
With a copy simultaneously delivered to:
General Counsel
Pechanga Office of General Counsel
12705 Pechanga Road
Temecula, CA 92592
Tel: 951-770-6171
10.3. For the City:
13
City Manager
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: 951-694-6444
With copy simultaneously delivered to:
Peter M. Thorson
Richards, Watson & Gershon
355 South Grand Ave., 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: 213-626-8484
10.4. Either Party may change the names and address to which n
process may be delivered by written notice to such persons as listed in the
subsequent notice of changes.
SECTION 11. MUTUAL LIMITED WAIVER OF SdVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Final Draft November 5, 2015
and service of
ection or by
11.1. The Parties agree that the Parties' waiver of immunity from arbitration or suit, or
the enforcement of any order or judgment related thereto, is limited to the express provisions of
Sections 8 and 9 of this Agreement, and neither the agreement to arbitrate nor any other
provision of this Agreement shall be construed as creating any implied waiver of such immunity.
11.2. The Parties each expressly covenant and agree that they may each sue and be
sued, including the resolution of disputes in arbitration and the judicial enforcement thereof, as
provided in Sections 8 and 9 above, to resolve any controversy arising from this Agreement or to
enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as provided for in this
Agreement. The Parties, their officers and agents expressly agree to waive governmental
immunities, including sovereign immunity, in connection with any claims arising from this
Agreement, as provided for herein for the enforcement of any arbitration award, or judgment to
enforce such an award, or enforcement of any easement created as a result of this Agreement.
The Parties further consent to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator and/or specified court under this
Agreement including the consent to be sued and bound by a lawful order or judgment, to the
extent provided for herein. Each of the Parties represent that its agreement to such dispute
resolution processes and waivers has been effectively and lawfully granted and that nothing
further needs to be done to effectuate those processes.
11.3. With respect to any action arising out of the Agreement for which there is a
waiver of sovereign immunity, the Tribe and City expressly consent to the jurisdiction of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California and, as limited herein to, the
Superior Court of the State of California for Riverside County and all related appellate courts,
and/or an arbitrator selected pursuant to this Agreement and specifically waive sovereign
immunity for that purpose. The Parties specifically agree that the applicable court shall have
jurisdiction to enter judgments enforcing rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement
which shall be binding and enforceable on the Parties, subject to the limitations set forth in this
14
Final Draft November 5, 2015
Agreement. No Party to this Agreement shall contest jurisdiction or venue of the above -
referenced courts, provided their jurisdiction and venue are invoked in the order specified, but
only for disputes or claims arising out of this Agreement. Neither the Tribe nor the City shall
plead or invoke the doctrine of exhaustion of Tribal or other administrative remedies, defenses of
immunity or indispensable Parties beyond those contemplated in this Agreement.
11.4. The City and the Tribe may not join or consent to the joinder of any third party to
any action (including but not limited to any arbitration) contemplated herein, unless failure to
join such party would deprive the court or arbitration tribunal of jurisdiction; provided that
nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity or
other protection from lawsuit (or other dispute resolution process), or the effect, orders or
judgments thereof, of either the Tribe or the City with respect to any claim of any kind by any
such third party. In the event of intervention by any third party into any such action without the
consent of the Tribe and the City, nothing herein shall be construed to constitute a waiver of any
immunity with respect to such third party, and no arbitrator or court shall have jurisdiction to
award any relief or issue any order as against the City or Tribe with respect to such third party in
that or any other proceeding. A 4&,
SECTION 12. REVIEW UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOT
REQUIRED
12.1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 12012.49, and in deference to tribal
sovereignty, the approval and execution of this Agreement by the Parties is not a project within
the meaning of the CEQA because this Agreement has been negotiated pursuant to the express
authority of the Compact, specifically Section 10.8.8 of the Compact.
12.2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 12012.49, if the City determines that it is
required to comply with the CEQA with respect to any construction of any public improvements
or other projects subject to the CEQA related to this Agreement, the City shall comply with the
CEQA at such time, but other than as specifically authorized under this Agreement, such
compliance shall not in and of itself preclude or delay commencement or completion of the
Project by the Tribe.
SECTION 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
13.1. No Authority Over Tribal Activities. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to
confer or expand the jurisdiction of any local, state or federal agency or other governmental
body, nor is this Agreement intended to infringe or otherwise usurp the authority of any
regulatory body including local, state, federal or Tribal agencies that may have jurisdiction over
or related to Tribal activities, development or Projects. Further, nothing in this Agreement shall
be construed to relieve the Tribe's obligation to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) as may be required as part of any trust application or any other Project requirement.
13.2. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is not intended to, and shall not be
construed to, create any right on the part of a third party including, without limitation, no rights
in any Interested Persons, nor does it create any private right of action for any third party nor
permit any third party to bring an action to enforce any of its terms.
15
Final Draft November 5, 2015
13.3. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by mutual and
written agreement of the Parties.
13.4. Final Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Intergovernmental
Agreement of the Parties as to the subject matter herein and supersedes any other agreements of
the Parties to the contrary. However, this Agreement shall not prohibit any future agreements
contemplated by the Parties. The Agreement is intended both as the final expression of the
agreement between the Parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement consistent with California Code of Civil
Procedure section 1856. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until
such modification is evidenced by a writing approved and signed by the Parties.
13.5. Severability of Provisions. The invalidity of any provisions or portion of this
Agreement as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or any State or federal agency
having jurisdiction and thereof and the authority to do so, shall not affect the validity of any
other provisions of this Agreement or the remaining portions of the applicable provisions, unless
such provision is material to the reasonable expectation of the Parties. Without limiting the
foregoing, if any provision of the Agreement is declared invalid as aforesaid, then the Parties
shall use their best efforts to renegotiate the terms of the invalid provisions.
13.6. Force Majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for any failure to perform, or for
delay in performance of a Party's obligations, and such performance shall be excused for the
period of the delay and the period of the performance shall be extended when a force majeure
event occurs; provided however that the party whose performance is prevented or delayed by
such event of force majeure shall give prompt written notice (i.e., within seventy-two (72) hours
of the event) of such event to the other party. For purposes of this Section, the term "force
majeure" shall include, without limitation, war, epidemic, rebellion, riot, civil disturbance,
earthquake, fire, flood, acts of governmental authorities (other than the City or Tribe), acts of
God, acts of terrorism (whether actual or threatened), acts of the public enemy and in general,
any other severe causes or conditions beyond the reasonable control of the Parties, the
consequences of which in each case, by exercise of due foresight such party could not reasonably
have been expected to avoid, and which by the exercise of due diligence it would not have been
able to overcome, when such an event prevents the Tribe from performing at a level sufficient to
meet its obligations under this Agreement due to substantial changes in the Tribe's ability to
offer gaming activities, ceasing the gaming or hotel operations for an extended period, or
prevents the City from meeting its obligations under this Agreement due to an interruption of
City government operations. An interruption of performance, or the delayed occurrence of any
event, under this Agreement caused by an event of force majeure shall as far as practical be
remedied with all reasonable dispatch. During any period in which a party is excused from
performance by reason of the occurrence of an event of force maj eure, the party so excused shall
promptly, diligently, and in good faith take all reasonable action required in order for it to be
able to commence or resume performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
13.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed according to applicable
federal and California substantive law to the extent not inconsistent with the express provisions
of this Agreement, unless federal law as to the Tribe or the City, or California law as to the City,
prohibits such Parties from abiding by such express provision, in which case the provision will
16
Final Draft November 5, 2015
be deemed to be invalid and resolved, if possible, under the severability provisions in Section
13.5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, California rules of construction shall be applied in
interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the
Parties and shall not be construed as having been drafted by, or construed against, one Party
against another.
13.8. Term; Obligations to Continue. The Term of this Agreement shall be from the
Effective Date until the expiration or termination of the Compact as now exists or as may be
amended, restated, or extended by the Tribe and the State to provide for the use of Gaming
Devices at the Gaming Facility, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement or extended by mutual agreement of the Parties. Unless specifically designated
otherwise, all of the Parties' obligations under this Agreement shall continue through the Term,
including any extensions thereof. Notwithstanding the end of the Term, any covenant, term or
provision of this Agreement which, in order to be effective, or is necessary to enforce an
unfulfilled material term of this Agreement or obligation that may continue beyond the end of
the Term shall survive termination.
13.9. 2010 Intergovernmental Agreements. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the
Intergovernmental Agreement, dated as of March 9, 2010, and the Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning Law Enforcement Services at Pechanga Casino, dated as of March 9,
2010 are terminated and of no further effect. The agreements did not become effective due to the
fact that the Tribe and the County of Riverside did not enter into an intergovernmental
agreement.
13.10. Payments. Unless otherwise indicated, all payments made pursuant to this
Agreement shall be made payable to the City of Temecula on the schedule set out above.
13.11. Representations. By entering into this Agreement each signatory represents that,
as of the Effective Date, the undersigned has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf
of their respective governing bodies.
13.12. Duplicate Originals. At least two copies of this Agreement shall be signed and
exchanged by the Parties each of which shall be considered an original document.
13.13. Approval. Each Party's execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement
shall be approved by resolution of each Party's respective governing body, which shall provide
that the Party shall not enact a law impairing the rights and obligations under this Agreement.
13.14. Obligation on Related Entities. This Agreement binds the Parties and their
departments, affiliates, agents, representatives, successors, contractors, officials and related
entities, which such Agreement shall also be reflected in a resolution of each Party's respective
governing body approving the Agreement.
13.15. Authority/Authorization. The City and Tribe each represent and warrant that each
has performed all acts precedent to adoption of this Agreement, including but not limited to
matters of procedure and notice and each has the full power and authority to execute this
Agreement and perform its obligations in accordance with the above terms and conditions, and
17
Final Draft November 5, 2015
that the representative(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of each Party is duly authorized to
so execute and deliver the Agreement.
18
Final Draft November 5, 2015
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereby execute and enter into this Agreement with
the intent to be bound thereby through their authorized representatives whose signatures are
affixed below.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
BY:
Mark Macarro, Tribal Chairperson
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians
Attest
Louise Burke
Tribal Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Steve M. Bodm
General Cou
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Jeff Comerchero
Mayor
Attest
Randi Johl, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
Final Draft November 5, 2015
20
--=__M= EAEEEEEEEEEEREE=EMEMEMEMEEMME=EMM===EMMEME=MMEM=AAEmEE=MEMAMME=EMAMMEMEMEM=EEEE MMMMMMEMMEMEMEMEMgEM MMA A=EAAA=A--
== MEEEEM=EEEEE=MEmmAAasMMAAAAAE== AM as ARAE EEEEE =Ea EEEaEEE�EEEEgEEEEEER_AMEMMEEEEMEEE-R BENE MEmmAEAMMA =EAE==a
88888EEEEAEE1MEAMM:M==EEMEMMAa3111 =11 I EEEEE;EEEE=liE '-T3'EI EEE�EEENAEEE=AA4EEEEEEEEEEE EiMERMISE ENIEMmMAMAEEAEEEENE
_�====E a=E 3A=aaa========EE=EEEE==EES=�E�EEE==_=_______=__= --. • M----m=E=EEEE-====a=E====E=a 3 E= --==E =EEEmE=EaEEEEE
=MM==_EEEE MEIN==M====—a=_=E=M =aa==a=76Rm ==EE-EE===-=iir-=M-=MEan=M =a-M=_=-aPAMMM===M-;..Em= EA�AAAEM=�-=AA=-M-_
=aMa= =-a==ae=MA=MMMmE=E ==MEMEAsa A - a==MEQ= �aaM-�M===ME =a g; _ � '=EM M MEMMAMIMEMMEEMEEA-E _
EEE E= EEEEE EA_ = ==Asa EEEEEEM= E ���EMEMEIEE g2-MMMM ;NEM=M==E® E1EAEA-Em m EENEEEEE EE EEEEE MMMM®M.AMEMM=M
_===EEEE EMEEMEMEIEMEIEEE , EEMfMM=MMMEE = . M M E tea' i���MM t 'E aE a L � EE = �= =aMMMMd=E-=M= ME� M M E_.- E__
aEE MESE=E=_> ate_ ,�M �M a-MMM=M E �m________„. EES E3 _aa gM==Aa-=M==== M =M =M �=MME= E E
_=_EEaEEEE qga=a=E=E�3r`a===r1NNEREMEEEEEEmm E=E�a3 =_MEEEEeEEaE-EEE�MM=---ME=EMM==�E�= as A�=ESE =E=EE= ma
=_EM== CHEM s=MM-=ME=EEAME=E=m-=EA AEE MIN AE E=9= A==-E==aE=M ==MEMO=MA=gm= ____ = ARAB A- MAMMEMEEmEE==EEM==E
EEa ,Ta=mA EEM_ L.,EEEaMEMaaMMIMMEMEEMEMmvE mE� MEmmEEmmEENNmOmEmm=EEM=EMAM'E3msmMEEEMEMEM =M= E! 1=E;EMEmmM=EEMEMEMEMEEMEMMEM
_=Es_=gg'E EMMMMMME=eEMEMMa MM MM E=MM=E MMM M= MMAEE==E 0mAMMAM;EMMEMMEmM=EE==E=:�=ME M " MMMMMM M�MEM M==MMsaMM_
EMEM=aE=4 Eg=EEMEE M=MMEMMMEMMEMEMEE= MEMMEa MEM- Es gE===''iM=EmiMEAM===MUMUEE=MEEEEEEEM'; .MM ' MM ,MMf_MM EEEE MEM MMMMEM=M =
EMMEMENEN MMA E m-= mm-Mmml»A= MM=MEMMEMMM mammM AaMMp.=MFT',EEEi�arMEMM=E a. ; ®MM MM -. l-
_ I a F�E�T�- MM a�AE�E EEE EEE
EMEMaaaa= EaE E ffnaam-MEMVElMa EMMsMMEMOCIME =MMM EEEE=a ,mE�IIEaE F.-I'1EEaEEE m ______ _ aaa�a Noma ;ESE MMENMEMm
MEM=EEEE= 9,_EmEEMMM3 mm=MMM TME EmEMIEEmunp, mmmeEEEEaR 3EM:_IEE=umeEmIAmm EEM@=MEMmoM m E me E MEM M EMilmm1881=E MEMEMM
====EE3a m=aE=NF`MamL M-�'M =EEE= MERn1%mmom--E =- =m=ama =E==E 3s:.m - �= =AAE=E mmEEAAEM
_---- g a =� a mm=e.mE a s =M.e===aaEEaME==aM - - -. _ -AE=oN=�NAemEaMME EEMEEEEM
- =rte E __ =a .__� MmEEMEEEMMEE MEREEEMEEM M Mag'MAMEEAMMAMAMMEMMEE==MMa aEME M® M IE RE -E mM _ EE=MgMmmEMMEMAEAE
EEE�aaE E =EEE==EE_mEEEnEEEEarM g^a> a ; M MMMMM =MamMM moEEEEEEMEEEEEEEE EEeEEEEE �M , EAEEEEaEm• MM- EggMM M MEaaMM M
E=EEEEEEg EEEEEEg M MEMMEM-M E= E E MgMM M ggMMMME E EaE 1111`E� UNEMEM;EM�gRO MAMMEM-M p - g ANAMEae N mmm-gAM
==aMMEMM_ A E MMM-- m =NEMA==A===E=MEME EANe=�, NEEa= M EEM-: , =ME _�4iE=_ E�E��.EkNnIrg'-aAAAAME= g= M� .m==a=
EEEE MEaa 11111E=EM= IE=====EM �====E=A EEn=aaa zAg• aoEEAA=a B ' =N iMMEM5m s M-mmm _ E aEaAE.= TmAmAmMmEEEMME EMEMEM=MEEM-,-
EMEM_E=EE ° MMEMM_RWEEMMEEEEMEMMEEEEE-Mm3Mmmilmmmu'��E_,LEE m a = E EJJ mwmA MEE E amE=EEEE-- EmoE6MeoMMmoE mmm M=MMMMA=
NNW
EaMEEaMM M�®EEEEEE EaEEME M M��'�= M = E aM- te'=M MMMM mM°��MZ' ommmmaEEmEEEE= M� MMEMMM ME Ea III
EEEE=M=ate =aM as==- MEM==a EMPBM = M=MM EmME@-MME=AME=EEEE EEEEEEm EumraEEEEEEE AEMEEmm� =EM
AmMMEMEMN a R=MmMMA===MAMAST.7 E PMEMMEMM mT MoA=AM E_==mm=_ =i MA=AAMA=a_ME= AMM® �M�� ==E _EM
E=B=aaEME - ==M=MM ==E=MEMEMM MMEM MEz= ENEMMSa:=® ME -MMEEE AAM -M==M= -MMM A MMEE=EEAE = AMMEMMEEEE= MEM= MMEMM EM
=EEEEE==_E EEEEMEEaEMmmMMMMMMMMMNMAwa mMMMMME9E0 EEEmmmm E;EEEEmoEEEEEAEEomMMMME E MmmEMMMEEEMM MMMMM�MmmEoEBMEmmomEEEEammom
MMMMEMMEE E =MAMA=A AA=AEAEEL,:JsvME M MEM- EEE
E=EEEEEE- E MEEEEEa `AEE=EEaEEE EE===E MME�AEaA=Ea M�Ma MMMMMMEMJE=M
EEE=EEE=E gnarllim
�EEEEEEEEppaM9=N= mg= maAEAESgagg fgmo»� =E � EMMM
=EEE=E =E EE M M E = E ME=M�MMaEEMM ilkil
EEEE
EA EEMNEa AAnEE E JMEAMAAMA=ANA=gEMa MEM MM �MEMM ___=MME
EAE=EAaE EEEMEOMMe MEE=EEEMEEMEMEMEMEM EMMMRE ===M MMMEEMM�MEE= M MM_M = EES====�-=.a
MMM =EEE=_MM==MM MM o®MMMM`aEEEEEEEEEEEaEE;a�=-= E Ee=== scM00 c_A7=MENMA=MM=gaE=E=A=a=AMA=E=s=_EMEM._=s=MME==EE==.E_=_==_Ma
MMM=MEM=-EEMEMEEM-MM EMEN=MEEMMEEMEEEEEEaMEEEEEREE®NMM==EE== 11 49' 0001 = _- MEN=E EEEEMEREREAMEEMEEENEEN MEMEEN NEEMafgEg ®gN
EE=EEE==EEEE=EE---=EEEE=aaEA= EEEEEEE=°=�=�EM�M��=-EEEE - _ _ _
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
111Iti1. tl7DRM DRAIN GRANH9L-Er MGR- SOUND-{VALETO 13ltON9inRT - - - - -woo .=la ogymaphighy
—rir - — — — — - _ — _ _ _ BY STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES OR
SEE SEWER NOTCH ,2
MIL SHEET 2=
-SUHSEQOENT OWNER.
Ed
93
94
—r T-29aDa
—m
INSI LL M OV.V "32
�3O 00. NUR ST
OCL INT -aG
$
+�• $ O
a y
rn
RPR ® Q
_ i� �� Z w
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
Cell: TOIL PREM
1-800
227-2000
TWO M010NG OARS MIRE TOO DIG
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 40 80
1N 00010 1
1 Inch = 4D ft.
120
01
1BE08'P4-
CURVE -DATA
zee
200
HURON STREET
PECHANGA PARKWAY
VIA GILBERTO TO CASINO DRIVE (NORTH)
6 LANE WIDENING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
MINIMUM LANE WIDTH -REDUCED CHNL IMPACT
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
0 CONSTRUCTCURBTT 0 T. T 201
D 401
0 CONSTRUCT CROA
SSGUTTER PERPCO.T
O CONSTRUCT ACCESS RAMP PER C.O.T. STD. 402
0 CONTRUCT MED1AN CM REP C.O.T STD. 204
0 CONSTRUCT 6" AC PAVEMENT OVER 12" C.A.B.
O SMUT MN REMOVE EXISTIN, CURB gc GUTTER
0OAWGUT AND REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK
G MEDIAN CURB
0 SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING CROSS GUTTER
0 SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING A PAVEMENT
0 RELOCATE T
0 ^NS CONSTRUCT T L IEPRESION
RUC PCC PAVEMENT
0 RELOCATE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND APPURTANCES.
IVIL ST2UC0URAL EN0INEERs
s`UN IPAL CON$UtiANiS / PLANNERO
NRPErans ! cPs
MIen 10-0000 ".1r0 9 i1 es-xie
MNST MIM MM
CONTRACTOR
MMM
HR
REVISIONS
ACM/
DATE
BENCH NARK
IMIM EMIT IMMM fen -S-111
?...-.4211M DM IN COlit VIMATIZ
"MOJA Or NOw76Niin/Vma Mt NW 4v 0�x'�sa'5ar�vo MASS 7600
VITA cls -a nn. mA17
M.
Horleentel
AS SHORN
Vertical
BEBIMMI BY
MUM
CHECKED BY
Recommended67±1 0006 a��1
CITY OF TEMECULA
OEPMRIENN Of PURUC R0Rt5
M. Plane Were Prepared Under''.^'SupevAM0a 00
000.1v L1a. 0000: Rye J
MUM MAIM MM. P.N.
N0E. No. 417138 0ghoR 0-81-80
AecePted BR — 4047 loh / 1
n 0 rv604 Iae®%m 76017076
WE No
76010 gpy,M 0-00-00
PROJECT No. PW 99-11
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
PECHANGA PARKWAY
STA 85+00 TO STA 94+00
14
OP VR SHITS
■■■■■■ omommommmum
■• ■ ��MOM , R1E!fE ■■■■■■■■■■■. M'!'�J■11■■■■■■■IIIa
=MI MAME=
"mild
■■■■■I��d■ ■EE■ ■ ■ mum .iuii.l�' i " ILS■■■••_ �!■ fit _ii}7■■ 11 ��AMME . ■■ IM1 ■■it■■■■■■■■■■
til ■ a■■■t �� Ji
■■■■Ea E
il■iitsL�w■ E !■ ■■
■IIEEE ; _ �■ �7 E iiiinE1
iiiiiiiii 1 1
■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■EE■■EE■■■ IRINA;
-■■ ■■ E'1■■■■■■: ■.:!■■■ ■■"!i 11114111iiilli
S _..._s .mus.rMtE►
EEEE■■■■■ " ■■■■■■■■�� ■■ ry4. ;■■■il■ iFi■■■■■i3Ei■�1i■Yi i�1.a■I_CI::■ iI��■■■�■■■SJ �Qi ■■■■\
EEEEEEEEE EEE=iEE E ■■ ■ ■ 1■■�1■.u.;i.iOYl.P s.d.■S.il■i■■■■■■■■E ■■■■■■......■E■■■ ■■ Y•■'Cr
E■IC EE A _ �_ 3 �MII■I■'IIiIf
mIEMEMEMEMEMENEmilis■ ■IETEMEMEMEMEMI - 1MW EEM
■ Ri
■■ ■■ 'E EEMEEemE= ENEMMINNUMM
■ ■■■■■■■E■ ■■■P1 ■ ■■■C■i■■■■m ■■■■ ■■■ -m umm
EMI EMU ME MMEmM E
1
mmu MEM
EEE
EEEEEEEE m AEEmErEEEEEE!■0 ■■ElEE!■ I! �EiiE'����i■■ �1��eii�!!!�■l�=COii l��■$■� ■E .9!W■ u:®Ei ■m�m
�� !■■i� ■■����l�li
EMMEEEE �1 ■ u I E E EEE EEEmmEmmum
R mi As■■■ = ■ ■ ammo eu■.,r=awa i Gi■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■ii, gic ' gra ■■■
I1 ■¢, : memmem■■.i�■■■Ei!..s v...ee■■mail■..■ ■■srslaalai�!■ m i■■■■■■■ ■■ : ■■■■■■■■■ �■■■■■i ■■■■e
a .��_ ■..■aii��r�.■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■,■■■■■i�■■i�■minimm ■■■Eli■iumm .■■EE�EE
■■EEE■■E==iiai■■■■ ■ tiAric■omo■■ ami ' I"Ti1TfL:il`Id7■ : ■■■■■ ■■ ■ ; ■■■ ■■■■■ ■ I■■ '1■ ■
i-ir�iE ■■■■■■ . �i■.�■.. �...■na.■■. ■ Ri ■■■■ECCE ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■
! ■■..■..l■■■ .. Sae■. .■E __ ■•■EEE�EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE ■ E
EEE EE
BEECHEN MET EE
EEEEEEEEE
E■E■EMCEE
EE�'Js'EEEEE
EEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEE
M IEM
EEEEEEEEEEE■■ ! pix
EE=EEEEEEEE■E3■■■E■i11■■■ M■■■ ME_ EMON fit■■E■■■■■41 i■■■■■EM■■E ' ■■■ E■EEE A=.,.N��asG MEMEME■ ME ■■■ E ■■E■■E■■■■■■■■■!
Ea EEEEEE■MEMS■■■■FI■■■■ - ■■■ T q■■ _ ■Eumm = ummo■■■■■s,1 mmam AmilisiC■■■■■■■■m■umwilmmum 'Ih mmam I�■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!■
Ammgm===_mEMELT:!■■■■F3Ei■■■ kl■■kdkl■Ef�3€mmuum'momm■s.E.CCE NummEm='■.■■■■■■■E■■■l1E■M■ ■■■EE E■■m■■■■■■■E �E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
4EEEE=EEarAM9E■■MMEM■■MUUM■illNME■■=!C E=iLMCME■EMESE■■■■■■■■■EE■■■■■■■■■■■■■Iiiiva liiill W■■■EM P■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■
aREEEEEEE■BEMEiiEMME■■eE_A.GedeEC■EC■Emg�jLEBEZZMELM^,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■EE i■■■■■■E■■a=■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
AEEEE=Ea='EzIGEWe■■■■G■■mm■■■■■■■■E■E■■■■E■■E■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■E■■■■■■■E■EME ■■■■■■■■.■■E■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mammumEE;E-■.EE.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■E■■■■iiifillli/awia■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■E■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
EmmEmmammos■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EG a3raIla■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■E■■ ■■■•EWQ4i■■■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ _� ■ga■mE EEEIEEEEEEsE
■■■■■■■■■
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE EEEEEEE•EEE•EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECEEMia-EM :EEEEEEEEEEMEEEEE:EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
■iE EE■■EE■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■7S■Gil■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■E■E■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�j■■i!■1•■9C G■E■■■■ ■ E■■■■ ■■■■■■■E■■■■■_ ■ ■■■ lam!
EEEE■■E■■E■E_ E ■■■■ SCALE F� -. _E_■■.■■=_E■E>;■li■■■■■ EEEIII
1 -40 RORIz =�_=E=EEEEI�E=�E■=ii■■.■■ ■■
_mm_ _ — _ - - r01 VERT m-m-Mmmmmmmm=m_mm ==ma !-a - - - - - -
=1V ! sII
NDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
94
95
96
B' HIGH SOUND WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED
▪ _..\ _ _ LY STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES OR 1
—SOMSE EENT OWNER. =Ftm — — C. Iy1, STO- RM DRAIN MIA- MI I 1
97
98
99
WIILP 09990 ORYRLOPMRNT
f 0-9BSO8-
9
100
101
102
103
WOLF VALLEY ROAD
SEE CRY OF TEIECUU NOTE: POP. POLES LOCATED IN PROPOSED STREET
ONT. ROL 1000-12000 WILL BE RELOCATED BY OLITY COOOINANON
SREE 2_ _ _ _ DE.STANOARD-RACIFIFRORES
W50n0 CURB t GUTTER
8
Q 0
Del TOLL FREE
1-000
221-2000
000 ROMIG DAYS DBMS TOU DID
loomIIn ?_ rl.
POLD
GRAPHIC SCALE
M1O 20 40 RO 120
( MI 755er 5
1 inch = +0 IL
0
1800001
13TAT
1
CURVE DATA
zoo'
zW
21.01
0.00
01'3017
25.00
0000
PECHANGA PARKWAY
VIA GILBERTO TO CASINO DRIVE (NORTH)
6 LANE WIDENING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
MINIMUM LANE WIDTH -REDUCED CHNL IMPACT
Elb
o
VIA EDUARDO
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
0 CONSTRUCT CURB AND GUTTER PER C G -T STD- 201
0 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER T
0 CONSTRUCT O, GUTTEP PEP .,T. ST, 210 Se 211
O CONSTRUCT O.T 0, 402
O CMPTRUCT MEDIAN CURB PER C.O.T. STD.
0 CONSTRUCT T OVER ,
O SAWCUT T A GUTTER
O SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING
SIDEWALK
0 SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING MEDIAN CURB
O SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING CROSS
GUTTER
SAWCUT O3 RELOCATE EEXISTING REMOVE PAVEMENT
EXISTING STREETLIGHT
0 CONSTRUCT CATCH E LOCAL LEPRESION
coNs— PAVEMENT
RELOCATE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND APPURTANCES
CONSTRUCTION 510)00
Mfg
i
BY
*6000066
U
act
BATE
BEM Mux
CONTRACTOR
El0PE0009
DATE COIIPLSTRD•'
a 514651.01071 � r i
a%e YY, ae.Y a w ualn eolA
SCALE
Horizontal
19 SHOWN
Pm0esl
N/A
0®6NEU NY
=CUD BY
These Plans Sere Prepared Under Phe BupeMAon 0I:
STEVEN bit 060070. P.E.
RC.1ENe. FLMBD Wires: 0-01-00
...mended Oulo. bii0�0]
Accepted Ey '✓'J 44(_- Oe1s 6015(105
omlrmp nr �T1m rneaan
6.01 No. 2 99007 gam: d-90-00
CNIL / 31fl0CIUM0 EN5INEERS
MUNIEIPPL CCNSUL(PNTS / P NERS
CURJFYORC / GCS
Co OW
TO (9511 652-413. • FMA(95) 7506542
CITY OF TEMECULA
OEPARIMENI W 70610 6000
PROJECT Na. PW 09-11
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
PECHANGA PARKWAY
STA 04+00 TO STA 103+00
15
Of TT 21509
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
103
Call: ROIL 5000
I -BOO
229,000
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU BE
104
105
NOTE: P�P>EB POLES LOCBTFI T1_5r0 OSEDSTREET
'TALI WE DEROGATED 1140 UTILITY COODINAIIUN
OF STANDARD PACIFlC HOMES
Sf B s
m 8
106
?Ig
107
OTIOY. OIOISM GRAIN 611ANNSL — -'c _.
8HIGH SOUN
BY STAND
SUB
108
109
WORD OABSK 09YBLOPMRAIT
ArtdSOFT- — —
ry
�***Ave
---..
WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED
D PACIFIC HOMES OR
QUENT OWNER.
o 8 13
110
111
112
"MI WAVE riffiNVelf "*"--gmyr-'14111e"
• 11,9
GRAPHIC SCALE
a 20 40 BO
( NT P6NT )
1hash -40 01
120
PECHANGA PARKWAY
VIA GILBERTO TO CASINO DRIVE (NORTH)
6 LANE WIDENING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
MINIMUM LANE WIDTH -REDUCED CHNL IMPACT
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
o CONSTRUCT CURB AND GUTTED PER C.O.,. STD. 201
07 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER C.O.T. ST . 401
0 CONSTRUCT CROSS GUTTER PER COT. STD 210 tt 211
<O CONSTRUCT .0.T- STD.
011 CONTRUCTMED1AN
.0.7. STD. 204
CONSTRUCT 6" T OVER 12" C.A B.
O SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
o s ; AND
REMOVE
EXISTING
E ; NG SIDEWALK
N URB
11 o SAWCUT T TT
sAT T PAVEMENT
RELOCATE EXISTING STREET L1,17
0 CONSTRUCT CATCH BAS1N & LOCAL DEPRES1 ON
0401000.0. P.C.C. PAVEMENT
RELOCATE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND ARPURTANCEs.
5 I l SCQ G54 0307 I1"'
� ml raVaat'.' Ost"IT 1 Te"
E-aa. Idamdatcmmd.caa
COMMUCTION BECOA0
DATE
BY
RIVISHONS
ten
CONTRACTOR
WBPECTOR
DATE COMPLETED
MCA MN
MUM COM WM= �yy _�
g a-BIBeiO Il P/!NYN
YaK`�"a..v 43N e1173
Oath ahlaral net 08.1
SPAN
Rezlitmtal
BE MOAN
Vertical
N/A
Ammer BY
ON. BY
LINICEED NA
��}}�� Thede Plans Were Prepared Under The Super.. OG
�eAW�r -40' a LTi+- 4 Dots 'VO J
SIM W DESNICR. P.6.
N.C.E. No. 44700
wk. 9 -9I -0B
Dascanmsadal Bp' wa�u 6NB1� Geta: I B%WO/O>
Acm9tad Bf •'-" L ' Patau l0/TPA
ONCEICIMAY
B.C.E. No. OTOI'I EwBea B -DO -Os
CITY OF' TEMECULA
BEPNRIENT OF PMC WOW
PROJECT No. PR 99-11
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
PRCTTANGA PARKWAY
SI'A 103+00 TO STA 112+00
16
05 IT SUS
EME_MM
Nt__N>� _-MMM-MMMO
MMEMMMIta ittEMMEM
BENIIIEgg Ric a:VamMM nn
MM �� INS _EmmU
11 M mot -MM
MM t amts tmLm ffit
NN imp fggW m k
=a -
Ef'
a, A, 7
a
706 70 um 82
do01,00,0,*0,11,0-
E@MMM=MaR 4 Mr RiM 1 iWt
11MZSE0B-3 11 mi1_ 11 0 1111 g'
I01--01--
--
la 1 Maf 11111111_
mmmmmmgg
upec6600N1-9-
SCALES. -E1U: 16!T
e=40' HORIZ
I"=8' VER*
l
112
a
113
114
115
116
n1 au.fa __
_ NOTE: POKER POLES MATO IN FIRMSTREET --- — W6L0f06J�6K—IlI0�0II
—
—MILL TA DAR°R280PACIFIC NOLIFSY CDODINAOOR - _--
_
STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES — — — — -.-— _ -- _ _ _ _ —
5z-R'�ILGILSDUND WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED ie�11'i-f}}j�'-1j'r-,jr'}M—tN1}]�]_l;'.}]aj,J)\J�I•
-.--__--_7= -- _ - -'-av 9 BY STANN)pARD PACIFIC HOME OR ---1-_--
/
'7'x
SLEHSEQUEIYT OWNER
117
118
119
Aor
MOI P
0rT0,
0
Icl
JJ
.HL fon lndlnn.Re W:
— - --r-----
120
121
I
0 00
40
GR20 HICCD SCALE BD
( IN FRET )
120
A
210'00"
1'59'59"
230'00
730'05'
1884.755'
CURVE DATA
2011 OR
mod
0000.00'
1990110'
44.81'
,A11.60-19 k601 0fOril
89.20'
70.
87.011
0480'
111
PECHANGA PARKWAY
VIA GILBERTO TO CASINO DRIVE (NORTH)
6 LANE WIDENING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
MINIMUM LANE WIDTH -REDUCED CHNL IMPACT
14410134177 rifir
Fig.
%, r
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
01 CONSTRUCT CURB AND GUTTER PER C.0_T. STD. 201
0 CONSTRUCT 0.7 T. 1
O CONSTRUCTCROSS
RR
TT _0T. T_ 211
• CONSTRUCT RAMPPERO.T. STD. 402
O M" ..TT
OCONSTRUCT 6" AC PAVEMENT OVER I
C A.P
T T GUTTER
0 s
0 SMUT AND REMOVE EXISTING MEDIAN (URB
O SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXIST
0 SAM UT ANDVE EXISTL NT
• „ T �.�Nc STPEET , T
0 CONSTRUCT CATCH BASIN & LOCAL DEPRESI w
0 CONSTRUCT INC,. FAVEMENT
RELOCATE Ex STT . TPA, IC SIGNAL AND APPURTANCES.
(rInis��
MUNKIP0L Cg0SUL1748l7S EE040020ERS
SURVEYORS / /
R0 Iil n "1103 .` � 4 00 "e' s;,
E DM.
CONSTRUCTION RBCOBB
C00mACf0R
IN9IIM.
DATE 0M.=
6 8 018 10118
ACC'U UATB BHiC0 MARK SCADS
IBM. FENT% RIP -6-01
00101110 07111179 MLR.
m°1°°' 03:7 10.1.1�iunix MR B. 087
OP MON 04
war Ka
OM 0-18-1180 war, BM 082 Meal
AS 91101 N
Ye0Uw8
N/A
089M. BY
LIMO BY
MOONED
Vase Plana Ilona Prapered Und07'P. 3,0,1e100 OP.
" ��y� a £04882 bele:
9./F4-4 ']
9060811 WA YNR UNPICK P.R.
6.0.8. Vey 417138 88plee1 S-81-00
802Ommended R C/ ,�/��///� Da. 10130 O
Ace.. 9r: t J Dela: 10/300,MIMI .
BMWS
NMI. OPAMC CRY MOM
RC9. 110. SOON *.7p3000: O -0U -Ila
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARIPENT OF PUBIC YIUMB
PROJECT No. PR 99-11
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
PECHANGA PARKWAY
STA 112+00 TO SPA 121+00
17
Or TO SHT8
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item No. 6
ACTION MINUTES
November 10, 2015
City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:48 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: President Maryann Edwards
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards
CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None)
CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
15 Approve the Action Minutes of October 27, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation
(5-0) Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Director Rahn;
and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors McCracken, Naggar, Rahn,
Comerchero and Edwards.
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of October 27, 2015.
16 Approve Financial Statements for the 4th Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 - Approved
Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Comerchero made the motion; it was
seconded by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors
McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero and Edwards.
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the 4th Quarter Ended June 30,
2015;
16.2 Approve an appropriation of $11,500 in the Service Level B Street Lights Fund
192 to cover higher cost for utilities services.
17 Approve the First Amendment to Temecula Public Financing Authority Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, to Provide for Withdrawal of Successor Agency to the Temecula
Redevelopment Agency as a Member and Addition of Temecula Community Services
District and Temecula Housing Authority as New Members - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded
by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors McCracken,
Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero and Edwards.
CSD Action Minutes 111015 1
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 15-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT APPROVING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TEMECULA
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWERS AGREEMENT
CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT
CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
CSD ADJOURNMENT
At 7:51 P.M., the Community Services District Meeting was formally adjourned to
Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000
Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000
Temecula, California.
Maryann Edwards, TCSD President
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]
CSD Action Minutes 111015 2
an adjourned
Session, with
Main Street,
Session, with
Main Street,
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO
THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY CONSENT
CALENDAR
Item No. 7
ACTION MINUTES
November 11, 2015
City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
The Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency convened at 7:51 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR
18 Receive and File Financial Statements for the 4th Quarter Ended June 30, 2015 -
Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was
seconded by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors
Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 That the Board of Directors receive and file the Financial Statements for the 4th
Quarter Ended June 30, 2015.
19 Approve the First Amendment to Temecula Public Financing Authority Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, to Provide for Withdrawal of Successor Agency to the Temecula
Redevelopment Agency as a Member and Addition of Temecula Community Services
District and Temecula Housing Authority as New Members - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by
Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards,
McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 15-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE SUCCESSOR
AGENCY'S EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY JOINT
EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
SARDA Action Minutes 111015 1
SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
SARDA ADJOURNMENT
At 7:52 P.M., the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting was
formally adjourned to an adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 2015, at 5:30
PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council
Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerchero, SARDA Chair
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]
SARDA Action Minutes 111015 2
TEMECULA HOUSING
AUTHORITY
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item No. 8
ACTION MINUTES
of
November 11, 2015
City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California
TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Temecula Housing Authority convened at 7:52 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero
THA PUBLIC COMMENTS (None)
THA CONSENT CALENDAR
20 Approve the First Amendment to Temecula Public Financing Authority Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement, to Provide for Withdrawal of Successor Agency to the Temecula
Redevelopment Agency as a Member and Addition of Temecula Community Services
District and Temecula Housing Authority as New Members - Approved Staff
Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by
Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards,
McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero.
RECOMMENDATION
20.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. THA 15-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY APPROVING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TEMECULA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT
THA Action Minutes 111015 1
THA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
THA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
THA ADJOURNMENT
At 7:53 P.M., the Temecula Housing Authority Meeting was formally adjourned to an adjourned
Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 8, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with
regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerchero, Chair
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk/Secretary
[SEAL]
THA Action Minutes 111015 2
TEMECULA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item No. 9
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Treasurer
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Acknowledge Receipt of a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for the Proposed
Community Facility District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch, and Authorizing and
Directing Actions to Execute Agreements
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Treasurer
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ACKNOWLEDGING
RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE TO THE FORMATION OF A
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Temecula Public Financing Authority (Authority)
issued bonds to finance public improvements for the benefit of Community Facility District No.
03-02 Roripaugh Ranch (CFD). Since that time, a portion of the CFD has been developed (the
area known as the "pan handle") and the larger portion of the CFD (known as the "pan")
remains undeveloped. Staff, in conjunction with the CFD financing team, is currently evaluating
the feasibility of refinancing the 2006 Bonds and forming a new CFD No. 16-01 to update the
rate and method of apportionment related to the undeveloped properties and raise additional
capital needed to complete major infrastructure in order to spur further development in the pan
area.
City Staff has engaged the services of Quint & Thimmig, LLP to draft a Deposit/Reimbursement
Agreement (attached as Exhibit A) related to the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 16-01 Roripaugh Ranch. The parties to the
Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement include the City of Temecula, the Temecula Public
Financing Authority, Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC (RVR) and Wingsweep Corporation.
The purpose of the Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement is to provide the necessary funding to
initiate the formation of the proposed CFD. Eligible uses of the deposited funds include:
•
Fees and expenses of consultants employed in connection with an amendment to
the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for CFD 03-02 and the
formation of CFD 16-01
• Costs of a market absorption study and a property appraisal
• Costs of publication of notices, preparation and mailing of ballots and other costs
associated with an election
• Reasonable charge for City Staff time to analyze CFD 16-01
•
Any and all actual costs incurred by the City or the Authority with respect to the
formation of CFD 16-01 or the issuance of new bonds after the date of execution of
the agreement
If the formation of CFD 16-01 is successful and new bonds are issued, the Authority shall
provide for the reimbursement of the amounts deposited to RVR and Wingsweep Corporation.
If the formation of the CFD is not successful, any unexpended deposits will be returned to RVR
and Wingsweep Corporation.
Additionally, this Resolution authorizes the Executive Director of the Authority to execute the
Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement, as well as the following consultant agreements:
• Stifel, Nicolaus & Company (Underwriter to the Authority of the Bonds)
• Albert A. Webb Associates (Special Tax Consultant to the Authority for the CFD)
• Fieldman Rolapp & Associates (Municipal Advisor to the Authority)
• Quint & Thimmig (Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel to the Authority)
• Empire Economics (Market Absorption Consultant to the Authority)
• Stephen G. White, MAI (Appraiser to the Authority)
FISCAL IMPACT: The City has received $45,000 from RVR and $5,000 from
Wingsweep. These funds will be expended in accordance with the Deposit/Reimbursement
Agreement. There is no Fiscal Impact to the Authority.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A - Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEM ECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE TO
THE FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT,
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH
RESPECT THERETO
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC and Wingsweep Corporation (collectively,
the "Landowners") have submitted to the Finance Director of the City of Temecula (the "City")
checks in the total amount of $50,000 (the "Deposit"), to be used by the City to pay costs of the
City and the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") in connection with
proceedings under Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act") to
create a community facilities district to be designated "Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 16-01" (the "CFD").
Section 2. There has also been submitted a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement (the
"Agreement"), to be entered into by the Landowners, the City and the Authority (for itself and on
behalf of the CFD), and this Board of Directors now desires to direct the Finance Director of the
City to accept the money to be advanced by the Developers, to authorize the execution and
delivery by the Authority of the Agreement, to employ certain consultants necessary for the
formation of the CFD and the sale of bonds of the Authority for the CFD (the "Bonds"), and to
authorize and direct Authority staff to take actions necessary to present to this Board of
Directors for approval the documents necessary to form the CFD and issue the Bonds of the
Authority for the CFD.
Section 3. The Finance Director of the City is hereby requested to accept the Deposit,
and to use the Deposit in the manner contemplated by the Agreement. The Executive Director
of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of
the Authority, and to take all actions necessary, in his discretion, to implement the Agreement.
Section 4. City staff, acting for and on behalf of the Authority, are hereby requested to
take all actions necessary or advisable to present to the Board of Directors for its review and
approval all proceedings necessary to create the CFD and issue the Bonds of the Authority
therefor. The passage of this Resolution shall in no way obligate this Board of Directors to form
the CFD or to issue the Bonds.
Section 5. The firm of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated is hereby designated as
underwriter to the Authority for the Bonds, if any, to be issued for the CFD.
Section 6. The firm of Albert A. Webb Associates is hereby designated as Special Tax
Consultant to the Authority for the CFD, the firm of Fieldman Rolapp & Associates is hereby
designated as municipal advisor to the Authority for the CFD, the firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP is
hereby designated as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel to the Authority for the CFD, the
firm of Empire Economics is hereby designated as market absorption consultant to the Authority
for the CFD to analyze the proposed development and marketing of the land in the CFD, and
Stephen G. White, MAI, is hereby designated as appraiser to the Authority for the CFD to
provide an evaluation of the value of the property in the CFD. The Executive Director is hereby
authorized and directed to execute agreements with said firms and appraiser for their services
in connection with the CFD and any bonds issued for the CFD, in the respective forms on file
with the Finance Director of the City. In any event, the fees and expenses of such consultants
shall be payable solely from Deposits (as defined in the Agreement) and/or the proceeds of the
Bonds when and if they are issued by the Authority for the CFD.
Section 7. The Executive Director, Treasurer, Secretary, legal counsel to the Authority,
and all other officers and agents of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to take all
actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula
Public Financing Authority of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Chair
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of the City of
Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 15- was duly and
regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of
the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS:
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
Quint & Thimmig LLP 9/29/15
DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Proposed
Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 16-01
THIS DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is by and among
the City of Temecula (the "City"), the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") for
itself and on behalf of the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities
District No. 16-01 (the "CFD"), and Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("RVR") and Wingsweep Corporation ("Wingsweep").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, RVR and Wingsweep (collectively, the "Landowners") own land located within
the current boundaries of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District
No. 03-02 (Roripaugh Ranch) ("CFD 03-02"); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has heretofore issued, for and on behalf of CFD 03-02, its
Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-02 (Roripaugh Ranch)
2006 Special Tax Bonds (the "2006 Bonds"), the net proceeds of which have been and are being
used to finance public improvements authorized to be funded by CFD 03-02; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has advised the Landowners that it is considering the formation
of a new community facilities district ("CFD 16-01") to include the land currently owned by the
Landowners in CFD 03-02 (the "Property") and the issuance of bonds for CFD 16-01 (the "New
Bonds") under Sections 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act"), in order to
provide funds (a) to prepay the special taxes levied by CFD 03-02 on the Property and thereby
refund the portion of the outstanding 2006 Bonds allocable to the Property, and (b) to finance
public infrastructure improvements necessitated by development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has advised the Landowners that, in addition to the prospective
formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of the New Bonds, it is considering the issuance of
refunding bonds under the Act for CFD 03-02 (the "Refunding Bonds") in order to refund the
portion of the outstanding 2006 Bonds that are not allocable to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Landowners are willing to deposit funds with the Authority to ensure
payment of the costs of the Authority and the City in forming CFD 16-01 and otherwise in
connection with the issuance of the New Bonds, provided that such funds so advanced are
reimbursed to the respective Landowner that advanced the same from the proceeds of the New
Bonds issued by the Authority for CFD 16-01 to the extent provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, the City and the Landowners now desire to specify the terms
of said deposit and reimbursement.
20009.13:J13515
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants set forth
herein, and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. The Deposit: Additional Advances. Subject to the provisions of Section 6
hereof, the Landowners hereby agree to provide to the City, in the form of one or more checks
made payable to the "City of Temecula, California" $50,000 (the "Deposit"), to be used by the City
to pay the costs in conducting proceedings for the formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of
the New Bonds for CFD 16-01 (as more fully described in Section 2(a) below, the "Initial Costs"),
said check or checks to be delivered by the Landowners to the Finance Director of the City. The
City, by its execution hereof, acknowledges receipt by the City of the Deposit. The check or
checks representing the Deposit will be cashed by the City, and the Deposit may be commingled
with other funds of the City for purposes of investment and safekeeping, but the City shall at all
times maintain records as to the expenditure of the Deposit.
The Landowners hereby agree to advance any additional amounts necessary to pay any
Initial Costs incurred by the City or the Authority, in excess of the amount of the Deposit, promptly
upon written demand therefore by the Finance Director of the City stating that the then unspent
and uncommitted balance of the Deposit is less than $5,000 (the "Additional Deposits" and,
collectively with the Deposit, the "Deposits"), subject to the provisions of Section 6 hereof. In the
event that the Landowners shall fail to remit the full amount of any such demand for additional
amounts to the Finance Director of the City within ten (10) days of such a written demand, the
City Manager may, in his sole and absolute discretion, direct City and Authority staff and
consultants to cease all work related to the formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of the New
Bonds until the full amount of any additional amounts so demanded has been received by the
City.
Section 2. Use of Funds. The Deposits shall be administered as follows:
(a) The Finance Director of the City may draw upon the Deposits from time to time to pay
the Initial Costs, including but not limited to: (i) the fees and expenses of any consultants to the
City or the Authority employed in connection with an amendment to the rate and method of
apportionment of special taxes for CFD 03-02 to allow the Landowners to use proceeds of the
New Bonds to prepay special taxes levied for CFD 03-02 on the Property, the formation of CFD
16-01, the issuance of the New Bonds and the proposed expenditure of the proceeds of the New
Bonds to finance public infrastructure improvements (such as legal counsel, including the City
Attorney and Bond Counsel, and municipal advisor and special tax consultants); (ii) the costs of
any market absorption study, an appraisal and other reports necessary or deemed advisable by
City staff or consultants in connection with the New Bonds; (iii) costs of publication of notices,
preparation and mailing of ballots and other costs related to any election with respect to the
formation of CFD 16-01, the rate and method of apportionment of the special taxes to be levied
therein and any bonded indebtedness thereof; (iv) a reasonable charge for City staff time, as
determined by the City Manager in his sole discretion, in analyzing CFD 16-01, the New Bonds
and the expenditure of the proceeds thereof, including a reasonable allocation of City overhead
expense related thereto; and (v) any and all other actual costs and expenses incurred by the City
or the Authority with respect to the formation of CFD 16-01 or the issuance of the New Bonds
after the date of execution of this Agreement. Costs of the City or the Authority related to the
-2-
issuance of the Refunding Bonds are not Initial Costs, will not be charged to the Deposits, and
will be paid with proceeds of the Refunding Bonds or other available funds of CFD 03-02.
(b) If CFD 16-01 is successfully formed and the New Bonds are issued under the Act by
the Authority secured by special taxes levied upon the Property, the Authority shall provide for
reimbursement to the Landowners, without interest, of all amounts charged against the Deposits,
said reimbursement to be made to the Landowners in the respective amounts advanced by them
solely from the proceeds of the New Bonds and only to the extent otherwise permitted under the
Act. On or within ten (10) business days after the date of issuance and delivery of the New Bonds,
the Finance Director of the City shall return the then unexpended Deposits to the Landowners in
the respective amounts advanced by them, without interest, less an amount equal to any costs
incurred by the City or the Authority or that the City or the Authority is otherwise committed to pay,
which costs would be subject to payment under Section 2(a) above, but have not yet been so
paid.
(c) If CFD 16-01 is not successfully formed and the New Bonds are not issued, the
Finance Director of the City shall, within ten (10) business days after adoption of a resolution
stating the intent of the Authority to terminate proceedings under the Act with respect to the
formation of CFD 16-01 and/or the issuance of the New Bonds, return the then unexpended
Deposits to the Landowners in the respective amounts advanced by them, without interest, less
an amount equal to any costs incurred by the City or the Authority or that the City or the Authority
is otherwise committed to pay, which costs would be subject to payment under Section 2(a) above
but have not yet been so paid.
Section 3. Reimbursement of Other Landowner Costs. Nothing contained herein shall
prohibit reimbursement of other costs and expenses of the Landowners incurred in connection
with the formation of CFD 16-01 and the issuance of the New Bonds, from the proceeds of the
New Bonds, including, but not limited to fees and expenses of their respective legal counsel and
any special tax or other consultant expenses incurred by them. Any such reimbursement shall
be made solely from the proceeds of the Bonds and only to the extent otherwise permitted under
the Act and otherwise provided for, at the reasonable discretion of the Authority, in the
proceedings for the issuance of the New Bonds.
Section 4. Agreement Not Debt or Liability of City or Authority. It is hereby acknowledged
and agreed that this Agreement is not a debt or liability of the City or the Authority, as provided in
Section 53314.9(b) of the Act. Neither the City nor the Authority shall in any event be liable
hereunder other than to return the unexpended and uncommitted portions of the Deposits as
provided in Section 2 above and provide an accounting under Section 8 below. Neither the City
nor the Authority shall be obligated to advance any of their own funds with respect to the formation
of CFD 16-01, or the issuance of the New Bonds or the expenditures of the proceeds thereof, or
for any of the other purposes listed in Section 2(a) hereof. No member of the City Council, the
Board of Directors of the Authority or officer, employee or agent of the City or the Authority shall
to any extent be personally liable hereunder.
Section 5. No Obligation to Form CFD 16-01 or to Issue New Bonds. The provisions of
this Agreement shall in no way obligate the City or the Authority to form CFD 16-01, to issue the
New Bonds, or to expend any of their own funds in connection with the formation of CFD 16-01,
or the issuance or expenditure of the proceeds of the New Bonds.
Section 6. Allocation of Responsibilities Between Landowners. The Authority and the
City acknowledge that the Landowners have agreed between themselves that all monetary
-3-
obligations of the Landowners under this Agreement are to be allocated ninety percent (90%) to
RVR and ten percent (10%) to Wingsweep. While it is the expectation that the Landowners will
provide for the Deposit and any Additional Deposits in such percentages, the Authority and the
City will accept the Deposit and the Additional Deposits from both or either of them, and any
reimbursement from proceeds of the New Bonds of Deposits pursuant to Section 2(b) or release
of any unused Deposits pursuant to Section 2(c) will be made to the Landowners in the respective
percentages of the Deposits so advanced respectively by them. In the absence of written notice
from the Landowners otherwise, the return of any Deposits pursuant to Section 2(b) or (c), or the
reimbursement of Deposits pursuant to Section 2(a), will be made 90% to RVR and 10% to
Wingsweep.
Section 7. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the
fullest extent reasonably possible.
Section 8. Accounting. The City Finance Director shall provide the Landowners with a
written accounting of proceeds of the Deposits expended pursuant to this Agreement, within ten
(10) business days of receipt by the Finance Director of the City of a written request therefore
submitted by an authorized officer of one of the Landowners. No more than one accounting will
be provided in any calendar month and the cost of providing the accounting shall be charged to
the Deposits.
Section 9. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
Section 10. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original.
-4-
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year written alongside their signature line below.
LANDOWNERS:
Executed on: RORIPAUGH VALLEY RESTORATION, LLC,
October , 2015 a Delaware limited liability company
Executed on:
October , 2015
Executed on:
October _, 2015
By.
R. Patterson Jackson,
Chief Executive Manager
WINGSWEEP CORPORATION
By:
Corry Hong,
President and CEO
CITY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Aaron Adams, City Manager
Executed on: AUTHORITY:
October _, 2015
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY, for itself and on behalf of the
proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District 16-01
By:
Aaron Adams, Executive Director
20009.13:J13515
[Signature page to Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement for Community Facilities District 16-01]
-5-
COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Item No. 10
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Adopt Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE
LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND
THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON
SPECIFIC PLAN
3. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC
PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE
TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT
BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
4. Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Ordinance and continue
the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to introduce and read by title only
an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE
AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW
IS REQUIRED
5. Hear the Staff Report and public comments on the following Resolution and continue
the Public Hearing to December 8, 2015 in order to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE "UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE"
6. Direct staff to prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area;
7. Direct staff to change the name of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCES: The first Ordinance adopts the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan, which establishes new zoning and development standards for future development within
the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries. This Ordinance also amends the Zoning Map
by changing the zoning classification of parcels located within the Specific Plan area to the
zoning classification of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. Finally, this Ordinance removes the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan parcels from the boundaries of the Adult Business Overlay,
which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1. The second Ordinance adopts the New Streets
In -Lieu fee, which will fund new internals streets within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
boundary.
BACKGROUND: In January 2011, the City Council determined that it was
necessary to enhance opportunities within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area to ensure
long term economic viability. The City Council established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc
Subcommittee, which then directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning workshops with
the community to develop a long term vision of the Specific Plan area.
From October 2011 through July 2012, six community visioning workshops were conducted in
an effort to develop the community's vision for the Uptown Jefferson Area. From this process,
eight Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals were established to guide the
development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan.
In February 2013, the Jefferson Specific Plan Steering Committee, consisting of two members
of the Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and Public/Traffic Safety
Commission, was created to guide the technical development of the Plan.
To date, 37 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through the Envision
Jefferson public visioning process, Steering Committee meetings, City Commission meetings,
and a Developer Forum. The City has also engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson
and the City of Temecula websites. Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to
determine the best land uses and development standards necessary to create a new and
vibrant Uptown Jefferson.
DISCUSSION
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan provides for a range of uses including mixed use residential
development, access to open space and recreational areas, and improved pedestrian, bicycle,
vehicular mobility and connectivity. The development standards of the Plan follow principles of
a form based code, which focus on building form, building placement, and the creation of a
pedestrian scale environment to achieve the community's vision for the area. The administration
of the Plan allows for a streamlined review of planning applications and phased compliance with
the Plan, adding flexibility to the permitting and approval process. All aspects of the Specific
Plan considered the guiding principles, recommendations and the community's vision for the
area.
Market Assessment — In order to ensure the Specific Plan is based on economically feasible
development and an appropriate mix of uses, staff consulted with Keyser Marston Associates
Inc. (KMA) to perform a market assessment of the types of land uses that the Study Area could
support based on prevailing market factors, trade area growth projections, and anticipated
macroeconomic changes within each major land use category. The focus of the KMA market
assessment was to evaluate the potential for development of new mixed-use development in
the Study Area. The assessment relied upon readily available third -party demographic and
market data sources. KMA reviewed both existing and historical market trends to better
understand future development potential. KMA also prepared 10 -year market demand
projections for various land uses within the Study Area.
Plan Administration — All planning applications (with the exception of an application for a
variance) will have the ability for administrative approval. In lieu of holding a public hearing, a
Notice of Intent to Approve would be posted on site and mailed to all property owners within 600
feet of the proposed project, 20 days prior to the date of the Director of Community
Development's decision to approve the application. The Notice of Intent to Approve will include
the follwing information: 1) the date and time that the Director of Community Development will
administratively approve the proposed project; 2) an explanation of the matter to be considered;
3) a detailed description of the proposed project and a summary of the project scope; 4) the
findings being made for approval of the proposed project; 5) the general description (in the form
of text or a diagram) of the property's location; 6) the location where the plans and/project file
can be reviewed by the public; and 7) the procedures for requesting a public hearing.
A public hearing may be held when any member of the City Council, Planning Commission, the
applicant, or an affected party owning real property within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the proposed project requests the item be scheduled for public hearing. If a hearing is
requested, the hearing will be conducted by the Director of Community Development, unless the
Director of Community Development defers such a decision to the Planning Commission.
Districts and Land uses — The Specific Plan establishes the following six zoning districts and
two overlay zones:
Zoning Districts
1. Uptown Center District (UC)
2. Uptown Hotel/Tourism District (UHT)
3. Uptown Sports/Transit District (US)
4. Uptown Arts District (UA)
5. Creekside Village District (CV)
6. Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR -OS)
Overlay Zones
1. Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zone (CV -CO)
2. Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO)
Each zoning district and overlay zone has specific land uses and development standards which
vary slightly by district in order to achieve differences between the districts and neighborhoods
as envisioned by the community. The boundaries of each district and overlay zone were
established based on the existing land uses, geographic and surrounding physical features, and
the desired vision of the community. Vertical or horizontal mixed-use development is
encouraged to promote a more urban style environment which was also desired by the
community.
The allowable land uses within the Specific Plan varies from what is currently allowed under the
existing zoning. Industrial and heavy automotive repair uses would no longer be allowed under
the Specific Plan. Residential uses, which are currently not allowed under the existing zoning,
would be allowed under the Specific Plan. The industrial and heavy automotive repair uses that
currently exist in the proposed Specific Plan area would be considered incompatible uses when
located adjacent to residential uses. However, it is also the policy of the Specific Plan that legal
non -conforming uses that were legally established prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan are
allowed to continue as they were, without any restriction to their operations. Should the legal
non -conforming land use be discontinued for a continuous period of 365 days or more, the legal
non -conforming use shall not be reestablished. It should also be noted the Specific Plan also
allows a property owner to apply to extend the legal non -conforming status beyond the initial
365 day period due to hardship, and there is no limit to the number of one-year extensions of
time that may be granted.
Mobility Infrastructure — The infrastructure needed for enhancing mobility within the Specific
Plan area was analyzed with the goal of improving mobility for vehicular travel, bicyclists,
pedestrians and transit users to achieve the community's vision for a bicycle and pedestrian
friendly urban experience. To accomplish this goal, the existing right-of-way (ROVV) and curb -to -
curb street cross sections were analyzed to determine if on -street parking, bicycle facilities, and
20 -foot sidewalks were feasible throughout the Specific Plan area. The result was a series of
new street cross sections that include 20 -foot sidewalks, on -street parking, bicycle facilities,
curb bulb -outs at intersections, bus turn -outs, and painted or raised medians. The new cross
sections fit within the existing ROW and curb -to -curb sections, enabling the existing street cross
sections to be retrofitted with the new street cross sections without acquiring additional ROW or
the need to widen any of the existing streets.
New streets have been added to the Specific Plan in order to create a grid pattern street
network with smaller blocks. Smaller blocks and a grid pattern street network create more
pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods, by reducing the size of existing blocks and
creating additional connections resulting in improved mobility throughout the Specific Plan area.
The location of new streets is proposed as a hypothetical street network to allow for flexibility in
their location as development occurs. The hypothetical street network will be constructed as
new development occurs where new block size standards are exceeded. The construction of
new streets will be equitably funded by all new development via an in -lieu fee, which is
described in further detail below.
Utility Infrastructure — The infrastructure needed to support the anticipated development of the
Specific Plan area was analyzed for water supply, sewer capacity, storm water conveyance,
electricity, natural gas, solid waste disposal and telecommunications. Staff coordinated with
service providers to determine if there is adequate infrastructure for future development in
conformity with the Specific Plan. All utility service providers indicated that adequate capacity
exists, with exception to wastewater system capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)
is the service provider for wastewater collection and treatment in the Specific Plan area. EMWD
indicated the existing sewer pipelines in the Specific Plan area do not have ample capacity to
accommodate the additional wastewater flow that would be generated under the Specific Plan
at build -out. However, developers will pay their fair share of the EMWD mitigation fees to upsize
the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, Via Montezuma and Del Rio Road.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Land Use Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use
designations for parcels within the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area to a single
General Plan designation of "Specific Plan Implementation" from their current designations of
Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC),
Industrial Park (IP) and Open Space (OS).
The purpose of the Specific Plan Implementation land use designation is to ensure consistency
between the land uses and development characteristics of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
area and the General Plan by referring directly to the Specific Plan for the intended uses and
development characteristics for this area. If approved, the General Plan Amendment would
change the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU -3) for the area within the proposed Specific
Plan boundaries, add Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas
(Table LU -4), remove Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas
(Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and add the description of the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text within the Land Use Element.
Circulation Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Roadway Plan
(Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, by changing the classification of
Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from Principle Arterial (6 -lane divided) to Major
Arterial (4 -lane divided). The proposed change is consistent with the community's vision, the
transition of Jefferson Avenue at the City's corporate boundary with the City of Murrieta, and
with the proposed Jefferson Avenue street cross section that is south of Winchester Road.
Community Design Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the
description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element.
It would also amend the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay
Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland
Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying
Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvement.
ZONING MAP AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Zoning Designations — The proposed Specific Plan requires a Zoning Map amendment
changing the zoning designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist
Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), and Light Industrial (LI) to the
designation of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also requires an amendment
to Section 17.16.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan to the list of approved specific plans.
Adult Business Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Amendment — The Specific Plan requires an
amendment to Chapter 5.09 Adult Business Regulations of the Temecula Municipal Code by
removing the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary from the Special Use Overlay No.1.
In 1998, the City adopted the Adult Business Overlay Zone as Special Use Overlay No. 1, which
designated commercially -zoned parcels as possible locations for the establishment of adult
businesses ("Overlay Zone"). All of the parcels in the Overlay Zone have adequate lighting,
sidewalks, access roads, power and other utilities to support a commercial enterprise.
Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040 requires a 1,000 -foot buffer between adult
businesses in the Overlay Zone. In addition, no person shall operate an adult business without
first obtaining an adult business license and a modified version of a conditional use permit. At
this point, the City does not have any adult businesses operating within its borders.
The Specific Plan area overlaps with 58 parcels in the Overlay Zone. Due to concerns about the
secondary effects of having adult businesses operate in the proposed Specific Plan area and
the incompatibility of land uses, the proposed Specific Plan and the proposed amendment to the
Adult Business Ordinance would limit adult businesses to only those portions of the Overlay
Zone that are located outside of the proposed Specific Plan area. If the City adopts zoning code
and zoning map amendments to remove the parcels located in the proposed Specific Plan area
from the Overlay Zone, 426 parcels would remain in the Overlay Zone available for the
establishment of adult businesses.
The City seeks to remove the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone to
address the secondary effects of adult businesses. The City is not seeking to regulate free
speech, but is concerned about the secondary effects of adult businesses. Research shows
that adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct,
as well as, reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences.
Because there are no adult businesses located within the City, evidence of the adverse
secondary effects of adult oriented businesses can be found in various studies and reports
which have been considered by other municipalities and local governments including, but not
limited to:
• Eric S. McCord and Richard Tewksbury, Does the Presence of Sexually Oriented
Businesses Relate to Increased Levels of Crime? An Examination Using Spatial
Analyses, Crime & Delinquency (2012);
• Alan C. Weinstein and Richard McCleary, The Association of Adult Businesses with
Secondary Effects: Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 29 Cardozo
Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 565 (2012);
• Richard McCleary and Lori Sexton, Testimony on SB 3348 (March 2012);
• Jacqueline Reuben, Chris Serio -Chapman, Christopher Welsh, Richard Matens and
Susan G. Sherman, Correlates of Current Transactional Sex Among a Sample of
Female Exotic Dances in Baltimore, MD, 88 Journal of Urban Health 342 (April 2011);
• The Bureau of Business Research, IC Institute, and the Institute of Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault of the University of Texas at Austin, An Assessment of the Adult
Industry in Texas (March 2009);
• Richard McCleary and Alan C. Weinstein, Do "Off -Site" Adult Businesses Have
Secondary Effects? Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 31 Law &
Policy 217 (April 2009);
• Richard McCleary, Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses, 19 Criminal Justice
Policy Review 153 (2008);
• Valerie Jenness, Richard McClearly and James W. Meeker, Crime -Related Secondary
Effects of Sexually -Oriented Businesses, Report to the County Attorney Palm Beach
County, Florida (August 15, 2007);
• Richard McCleary, Crime Related Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses:
Report to the City Attorney (May 2007);
• Department of Planning and Development Director's Report, Adult Cabarets in Seattle
(March 2006);
• Duncan Associates, Survey of Appraisers Fort Worth & Dallas Effects of Land Uses on
Surrounding Property Values (2004);
• Report of Richard McCleary in People of the State of Illinois v. The Lion's Den, Inc., In
the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Illinois, Case Number 04 -CH -26;
• Eric Damian Kelly and Connie B. Cooper, Survey, Findings and Recommendations of
Sexually Oriented Businesses Toledo, Ohio (August 2002);
• David Sherman, Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View, Proponent Testimony
S.B. 251 Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Civil Justice (December 2002);
• An Insider's View of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Testimony of David Sherman (2000);
• Duncan Associates, Sexually -Oriented Business Study Rochester, New York (July
2000); and
• National Law Center for Children and Families, NLC Summaries of "SOB Land Use"
Studies (1996).
These studies and reports establish that adult business often have a harmful effect on nearby
businesses and residential areas, causing an increase in crime in both the surrounding
neighborhoods and in the adult business establishments themselves, and a decrease in
property values.
The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is intended to create a unique destination place within
the City of Temecula through the careful planning of land uses, public spaces, development
standards and public transportation. Uptown Jefferson will be Temecula's newest "destination."
Vibrant, sophisticated and unique, the area will be home to a diverse mix of residents of all
ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic, up-and-coming neighborhoods. These
neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no
other place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be upscale and culturally robust, each
with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and
other locally -serving uses. Complemented by an expanded mix of new locally -owned and
corporate businesses, collectively they will provide high quality jobs, as well as goods and
services to local residents.
Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020(H) provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is
"to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally
away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the
commercial districts." The Specific Plan will add a significant number of new residential units to
the Specific Plan Area that has been largely commercial and industrial. The Specific Plan area
will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The
Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to
activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to
encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -oriented retail,
office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards.
The urban neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson are located within walking distance to a hub of
quality and thriving businesses, technologically innovative employment centers, and higher -
education facilities. The vibe of Uptown Jefferson will foster creativity, stimulate innovation, and
provide a place for community members to work, learn and refashion the world around them.
And historically important, locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to
thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. Uptown Jefferson will also
contribute to the local tourism industry with expanded hotel offerings, restaurants and shops. In
addition to expanding its service to traditional weekend -oriented tourism, the stronger presence
of businesses and corporations will fill hotel rooms and support small conventions and events
that occur during the week.
The secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential
uses within the Specific Plan area. As noted above, the residential uses will be intermingled
with commercial uses. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be
compatible with the residential uses and would be disruptive to the residents of Uptown
Jefferson.
The City Council may revise the Overlay Zone to remove the parcels located in the Specific
Plan area from the Overlay Zone if it finds that: (1) the sites available to adult businesses are an
actual part of the real estate market, and (2) there are an adequate number of sites for adult
businesses.
1. The sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market.
To be part of the actual real estate market, the sites must be zoned for commercial use,
available for commercial use, or if zoned for manufacturing or industrial uses, it must be feasible
for the sites to be used for commercial uses (i.e., they must be connected to roadways and
appropriate infrastructure). The GIS map prepared by staff indicates that 426 commercially -
zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the
Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of these commercially -zoned parcels have
adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition,
many of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. These parcels could be
developed to support an adult use business. Therefore, the sites available to adult businesses
are an actual part of the real estate market.
2. There are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses.
There are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a
reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total
population of 108,920. 1.8% of land in the City is available to adult businesses. Even in light of
the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by the Municipal Code, the map
indicates that at least 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate within the Overlay Zone
after it is amended to exclude the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from its boundaries.
Given the size of the City, the City has never received an application for an adult business,and
the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders, the
available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. Thus, there is an adequate
number of sites available for adult businesses even if the parcels located within the Specific
Plan area are removed from the Overlay Zone.
NEW STREETS IN -LIEU FEE
As previously discussed, the Specific Plan calls for new internal streets to enhance internal
connectivity, mobility and to create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods. The
new streets will be funded by new development via an in -lieu fee. The fee is based on the
overall cost of the new streets and is based on a standard 66 foot street cross section.
During the visioning process for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), the
community identified the importance of improving the future viability of alternative transportation
modes, including walking, biking and transit, and getting people out of their cars. The
community also identified the need to improve circulation for all modes of transportation, and
ensure that the existing street network is expanded and additional internal street connections
are made to sustain the future intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning
recommendation, the Specific Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and
implement the future vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan
area, which improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit.
In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to accommodate pedestrians.
Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which created compact downtowns. This
enabled people to easily walk between stores and shops. The best local example of this is the
street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth accelerated during the 1960's, and new
development extended north and south of Old Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for
commercial uses, and excluded residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were
optimized for automobiles, and were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible.
This was achieved through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks
resulted in fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For
pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast moving
traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for pedestrians to
cross. The experience of walking on Jefferson Avenue is perceived by pedestrians as not very
safe, comfortable or interesting.
The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly, urban district within the
City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the
Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians,
bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide
safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces.
Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan
Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area.
The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design
Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi -modal mobility, increased circulation
and better connectivity within the specific plan area:
1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly
urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation
network.
2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
3. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Murrieta Creek.
4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned
park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area.
5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to
connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north.
6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller
block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding.
7. Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional
streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop.
8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new
streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network.
The methodology used by Keyser Marston Associates in conducting the nexus study and
reaching its conclusions considered the following:
1. Preliminary per linear foot cost estimates of new streets.
2. Build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office
space, retail space, and hotel rooms.
3. Comparable land and building sales values in the trade area.
4. Nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land
use type.
5. Economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development.
The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses
is estimated at $12,701 per unit, and for non-residential uses, it is estimated to range between
$8.50 and $19.87 per square feet. These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as
to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and
the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development.
There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by the New Streets In -Lieu
Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the types of development
projects within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan on which they are imposed. Developers are
paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets.
As proposed, on July 1 of each year, the adopted New Streets In -Lieu Fees shall be adjusted by
the Director of Finance based upon the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering News
Record Index.
On November 17, 2015, the City Council will hear the Staff Report on the Uptown Jefferson In -
Lieu Street Fees, the Ordinance establishing the fee, and the Resolution setting the fee. Then
on December 8, 2015, the City Council will hold a continued public hearing and consider the
adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution.
Economic Impact - The nexus study also analyzed the economic impact of a new fee on new
development. For the purposes of the economic impact analysis, a prototypical half -block
development site was used for a series of development prototypes that included a range of
office, hotel, and mulit-family developments, all of which were assumed to include ground floor
retail. The analysis considered the total cost of development for each prototype to determine
what percent the nexus supported fee represented of a projects total development cost. It was
determined that a fee that represents 3% or less of a projects total development cost was a
reasonable amount for which a project could incure and remain economically feasible. The
economic impact of the nexus supported fee was estimated to range from 2.8% and 5.6% of
development cost.
As a result of applying the threashold, the nexus study concluded that implementing the full fee
would be economically unfeasible and recommended that the following lower fees be adopted:
1. $6,351 for a Residential Unit;
2. $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses;
3. $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and
4. $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses.
The economic impact of the recommended fee is estimated to range from 1.4% and 2.8% of a
projects development cost.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On October 21, 2015 staff presented the draft Specific Plan and related General Plan
amendments, Zoning amendments, Municipal Code amendments, and Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the Planning Commission. The Commission opened the
public hearing to allow the community to provide input and for staff to address any PC and
community comments delivered at the initial PC hearing, then continued the item until
November 4, 2015. At the November 4, 2015 public hearing, the Planning Commission
considered all of the action items associated with the Specific Plan including the Specific Plan
document, General Plan amendment, Zoning Map amendment, Municipal Code amendment,
and Programmatic EIR. The Commission had questions for staff regarding the traffic impact
analysis. The Commission requested that staff take a look at adding stronger language that
identified certain specific thresholds that would trigger implementation of the previously
identified traffic mitigation measures for the intersection of Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road
and the intersection of Rancho California Road/Ynez Road. There were two public speakers
representing the property owner of a vacant lot on the North East corner of Sanborn and
Madison. Both speakers had questions and concerns regarding inconsistencies between the
site's CC&Rs in relation to the proposed Specific Plan's underlying zoning. Overall the
Commissioners were very supportive of the proposed plan. The Commission voted 3-0-1-1,
one absent and one vacant, recommeding that the City Council adopt the recommendations as
presented by staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Specific Plan, Zoning Code Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and an Amendment to
the Temecula Municipal Code revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from
the Specific Plan area ("proposed Project") was processed, in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code
Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the
lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers
and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a
Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and
circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the
proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft
EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. In response to the NOP,
the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment
letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR.
On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a
public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft
EIR.
A Draft EIR was prepared under staff's direction by ESA (State Clearinghouse Number
2013061012) and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations,
and individuals. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The
public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse
commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review
period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for
public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department,
Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600
Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mel!man Community Library located at 41000 County
Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City
also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -
Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The City received written comments and
responded to each comment in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). A copy of the
City's response has been provided to commenting agencies as required by State law. A copy of
the Final EIR document has been provided to the City Council.
The environmental analysis identified four areas where impacts were not considered to be
significant (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Land Use and Planning,
Population and Housing, and Public Services) and nine areas where potentially significant
impacts were identified which could be avoided or mitigated. These nine areas include
Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise (operational); Transportation and
Traffic; and Utilities and Water Supply Assessment. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures
for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Four
impact areas were identified as resulting in an unavoidable, significant impact and include Direct
Impacts to Air Quality from construction and operations and Direct Impacts to Noise from
construction. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality from construction and operations, and impacts
to historic Cultural Resources.
In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must adopt a
Statement of Overriding Consideration prior to approving the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan.
The Statement of Overriding Consideration states that any significant adverse project effects
are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts.
The benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program EIR. Among the
benefits that this proposed project provides the community are expanded economic
opportunities through a more active urban downtown, an increased variety in housing types to
complement the City's current housing stock, the potential for the addition of a full service hotel
to serve the Temecula area, and the potential for significant new employment.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Specific Plan identifies the need for restriping existing streets
to accommodate future on -street parking and bicycle facilities. These projects are not currently
specified in the Capital Improvement Program Budget, but will be added in future years.
Approval of these infrastructure improvements and appropriation of funds would occur through
separate actions and adoption of the Annual Operating Budget by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. List of Changes to the May 2015 Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Website
2. Draft Resolution No. 15- (EIR Certification)
Exhibit A - Findings of Fact
Exhibit B - Statement of Overiding Considerations
Exhibit C - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3. Draft Resolution No. 15- (General Plan Amendments)
Exhibit A - Land Use Element
Exhibit B - Land Use Policy Map
Exhibit C - Community Design Element
Exhibit D - Circulation Element
4. Draft Ordinance No. 15- (Zoning Amendments)
Exhibit A - Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1
5. Draft Ordinance No. 15- (New Streets In -Lieu Fee)
6. Draft Resolution No. 15- (New Streets In -Lieu Fee)
7. Planning Commission Staff Reports (October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015)
8. Notice of Public Hearing
9. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan which can be downloaded at
jhttp://www. cityoftemecula. org/Temecula/Government/Comm Dev/Jefferson+Avenue
+Study+Area. htm]
10. Uptown Jefferson Final Environmental Impact Report which can be downloaded at
jhttp://www. cityoftemecula. org/Temecula/Government/Comm Dev/Jefferson+Avenue
+Study+Area. htm]
Summary of proposed changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
1. Plan Applicability. Language was added to Section C in Chapter 2 to exempt any
development and land use proposals within the proposed project area from having to comply
with the Specific Plan if a planning application was submitted to and deemed complete by the
City's Community Development Department on or before April 28, 2015, but was not yet
approved, denied or conditionally approved by the City Council following a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. The language further states that the City Council may impose
reasonable conditions on a conditional use permit in order to mitigate the impact of the project
that would otherwise be incompatible with the allowable uses and development standards under
the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the duration of the
incompatible use and architectural design of the project.
2. Administrative Amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsection G.6 in Chapter 2 Plan
Administration was added to allow minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the
Director of Community Development provided the amendments do not change existing policies
and do not change the community's vision or the intended goals and objectives of the Specific
Plan.
3. Extension of Legal Non -Conforming Land Uses. Subsection E.3 has been added to
allow a property owner to apply for a one-year extension of time beyond the initial 365 day of
discontinuance. Additional language has been added to clarify that a fire or other calamity, act
of God, or public enemy does not constitute a discontinuance of use.
4. Interpretation. Table 2-1 of Chapter 2 Plan Administration was amended by removing the
Interpretation Planning Application to be consistent with the balance of administrative policies in
Chapter 2.
5. Land Use Matrix. Table 3-1 was amended by adding "Religious Institutions without a
School or Daycare" as a permitted use in all zoning districts, "Office" as a permitted use in the
Creekside Village District, and uses for health, fitness, dance, martial arts studios that are less
than 5,000 square feet as a permitted use.
6. Land Uses Not Listed. A sentence was added to Section B in Chapter 3 Land Use and
Development Standards, which requires the Director of Community Development determination
for land uses not listed in Table 3-1.
7. Parking Requirements. Table 3-9 was amended by increasing the parking requirement
for a "Residential" use from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit to be more consistent
with market demands. The parking requirement for Religious Institutions was added to Table
3-9.
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan
Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the
Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from
the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project").
C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively
referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific
Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal
responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that
may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the
topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City
by July 12, 2013.
E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the
issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR.
F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested
parties on the scope of the Draft EIR.
G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State
Clearinghouse Number 2013061012).
H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State
Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a
review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community
Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the
Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman
Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and
the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability
for the Draft EIR on on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written
comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR").
The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to
the Draft EIR in response to comments.
J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft
EIR.
K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed
Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearings, at which time the
City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at
the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-26 recommending that the City Council certify
the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The
Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15-27, thereby recommending that
the City Council take various actions, including adopting General Plan Amendment,
Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments related to the approval of the proposed
Project.
L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if
expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III and IV of
Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is
hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit
A to this Resolution.
P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition
of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this
Resolution.
Q. Alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this
Resolution.
R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be
fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution,
which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein.
T. On Novebmer 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula
considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan
Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the
elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time
all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any
comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
prior to and at the public hearing.
SECTION 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula,
California does hereby:
A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the
administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which
includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and
responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to
environmental issues.
B. Determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential
impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided
to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit
A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as
discussed therein.
C. Declare that prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the
administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony
presented to it during meetings and hearings. The City Council finds the Final EIR is an
accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of
making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The City
Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in
comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information
requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under
CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed
Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to
implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public
review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any
environmental impacts.
SECTION 3. Certification of the Final EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the
Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the
findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further determines that all of the
findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information
and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has
been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,
and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the
overriding benefits stated in Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the
proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR
or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the proposed
Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and directs City staff to
implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C.
SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is
the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the
record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the
City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
SECTION 7. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and
the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no
public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been
certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.1
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan,
the General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning
Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan
area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Program EIR. These findings are based
upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft
Program EIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission
and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants.
II. Project Objectives.
As set forth in the Program EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this
Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows:
A. Create a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail,
office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and
open space and recreational opportunities.
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091.
A-1
B. Strengthen opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan area by building upon
existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts
high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities.
C. Establish a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and
making it "Temecula's Great Street."
D. Identify and establish interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique
identities.
E. Develop a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway
monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and
built environment.
F. Create a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased
building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and
flexible urban parking standards.
G. Establish an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and
transit improvements, including the French Valley Interchange, Overland Drive Extension,
Rancho Way Extension, Jefferson Avenue Streetscape Beautification, and working with
Regional Transit Authority (RTA) on the siting of a new transit center.
H Enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the 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.
1. Ensure that new development in the Specific Plan area is adequately served by utilities.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in May 2013 to determine significant effects of the
Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to
the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics
producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the
reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agriculture and Forest
Resources; (B) Mineral Resources; and (C) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas
were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the Program EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Air
Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Climate Change; (G) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (H) Hydrology and Water
Quality; (I) Land Use and Planning; (J) Noise; (K) Population and Housing; (L) Public Services; (M)
Transportation and Traffic ; and (N) Utilities and Services
A-2
A. On June 6, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice
of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations,
and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners, tenants, and business
owners within the boundaries of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, and land owners and tenants
located within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested comments by July
12, 2013. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested
parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. Comments received on the NOP included: the scope of
traffic impact analysis and potential traffic impacts; scope of the air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions analyses; impacts to public services and utilities, including the adequacy of water
supply for the Project; impacts to Native American cultural resources and outreach with the
Native American tribes in the area; impacts to biological resources, including consideration of the
Project's proximity to Murrieta Creek and its location within the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area; and consistency with local and regional land
use plans, including the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy
goals. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in
the Initial Study.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the Program EIR
The Draft Program EIR completed in March 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less
than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures on a number of environmental
topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the
following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Program
EIR.
A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
1. The Project would not generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
B. Land Use and Planning
1. The Project would not physically divide an established community.
2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.
A-3
C. Population and Housing
1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or
indirectly.
2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere.
D. Public Services
1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or create a need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public services:
• Fire protection;
• Police protection;
• Schools;
• Parks; or
• Other public facilities.
2. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur
or be accelerated.
3. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than
Significant Level
The Draft Program EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils
and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; transportation
and traffic; and utilities and water supply assessment. With the exception of specific impacts to air
quality (construction and operations), noise (construction), and cumulative impacts to air quality and
A-4
cultural resources, discussed in Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate
all of the impacts to the topic areas identified above to a less than significant level.
The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final
Program EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of
those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible
mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Program EIR as conditions of approval of
the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C.
A. Aesthetics
1. New Source of Light and Glare
The Project has the potential to increase the intensity and density of development throughout
the Project area, which could result in increased light and glare sources. In addition, although
the Project would be consistent with the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and implement
measures to reduce light and glare, given the proposed density and intensity of the Project,
new development could substantially increase nighttime light sources. As described below,
these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light
and glare impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be
applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area:
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures,
and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control
zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All
control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time
clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of
landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block
light sources and reflection from cars.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development
within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an
outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City
of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as
A-5
adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be
limited to, the following information and standards:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are
projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the
shield.
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including
security, roadway, and task lighting;
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for
security lighting.
• The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in
compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be
prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such
as high performance tinted non -mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast
concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside County Ordinance No.
655 requiring lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent
properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. In addition, the Project would
discourage large surface parking areas, which can be a primary source of daytime glare,
and would increase landscaping throughout the area, which would provide additional
shielding from lighting and glare; likely reducing the overall amount of light and glare
that is currently produced in the Project area. With the implementation of MM -AES -1
(above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the Project will be less than
significant.
B. Air Quality
1. Localized Construction Emissions
Future project -level development construction activities associated with the implementation
of the Project would not have a significant localized impact when construction activities: 1)
would require no more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment
operating concurrently for eight hours per day; 2) involve no more than a maximum daily
A-6
amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; 3) require no
more than 10 miles of onsite travel by haul trucks per day; and 4) involve an onsite storage
(soil) pile of no more than 0.02 acres. It is possible that project -level development could
exceed these construction activity thresholds, resulting in a significant localized air quality
impact.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that construction emissions from
project -level development are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an individual development
project that would have the construction equipment and activity listed below, a project -
specific LST analysis that identifies the resulting construction emissions shall be
prepared using either SCAQMD's LST screening tables (for projects that are less than
five acres) or dispersion modeling (for projects that exceed five acres in size) . Where it
is determined that construction emissions would exceed the applicable LSTs or the most
stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, the project shall reduce
its daily construction intensity (e.g., reducing the amount of equipment used daily,
reducing the amount of soil graded/excavated daily, etc.) to a level where the project's
construction emissions would no longer exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant
emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.
• Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment
operating concurrently for eight hours per day;
• Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling
associated with grading activities;
• Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks per day; and,
• Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the Project could exceed air quality standards during construction if
grading activities exceeded certain levels of activity resulting in localized air quality
impacts. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -1a through MM-
AIR-ld, and MM -AIR -3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
2. Operational Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants
As the entire eastern boundary of the Project area is located adjacent to I-15, there could
potentially be new residential uses that would be located within 500 feet of this freeway.
A-7
Consequently, the Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) from mobile sources on I-15 to an extent that health risks could result.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that TACs on sensitive receptors
located within the Project site are less than significant.
Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future project -specific residential
developments within the Project area and located within 500 feet of I-15, a health risk
assessment (HRA) shall be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential
developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources traveling along the portion
of I-15 that is adjacent to the Project area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate
measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC -
exposure from I-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally -exposed individual.
These measures may include, but are not limited to, relocating the residential
development beyond 500 feet of the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to TACs that exceed air
quality standards. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -4 would
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
C. Biological Resources
1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species
The proposed Project has the potential to impact special status species within the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan area. Development occurring as a result of the Project could result in
direct and indirect impacts to special -status plants including disturbing or removing the plants
or their habitat during construction. Construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds
that could out -compete special status plants. All impacts to special status plants would be
considered significant.
Additionally, impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct loss of potential
foraging and nesting habitat. Potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would include loss of
foraging and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Burrowing owls present during grading and
other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through
burrow collapse and other impacts.
A-8
Lastly, future development could result in adverse effects to vernal pools and special -status
vernal pool species (fairy shrimp) that may occur in flat, open areas between the developed
portions of the Project site and Murrieta Creek.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
special status species remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: 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.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be
avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures:
• All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor
breeding season (February 1 -August 30).
• 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 biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in
science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor
surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or
ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified
within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and
MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and
fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot
construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to
avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as
determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may
commence.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs outside of land
designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 of the Draft EIR, which depicts
A-9
vegetation communities within the Project area, shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist
(i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl
survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of
burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified on the project site during these pre -
construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can
commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be notified. The
following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are
found:
• Since a burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate
conservation of the species and its habitat are achieved through participation in the
MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential
impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level.
• However, if the Project cannot avoid the active burrow(s), owls within active
burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to
suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed
project site, as regulated by the RCA.
• If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an
active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that
includes identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be acceptable.
• However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35 -plus acres of
suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in
accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite conservation of habitat will be
negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment
and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation objectives for fairy
shrimp shall be met through implementation of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Policy presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an
individual development project located outside of land designated as
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall be
conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats
(vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human -
modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping
assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process
and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be
avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in
the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under
A-10
Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool
Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain percentage of the occupied portions
of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be
conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the
occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions
allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservation/impact
ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis.
If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restrictions and protection will be
implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction:
Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status
vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot
toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for
these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to
June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or
formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or
USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer
inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15
exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or
other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of a biologist. The
fencing will act as a buffer between ground -disturbing activities and the vernal pools
and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will document
compliance with the fencing requirement through a memorandum submitted to the
RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be
avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The
contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the
exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring
Program Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed.
If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is
not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented:
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In
accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of
an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any
lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed
branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval
of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site
A-11
land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed
branchiopods; each is described below.
On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal
pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1,
subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate
off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil
conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA
based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved
in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate
mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-term monitoring
program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the
DBESP.
Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation
not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for
vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of
1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be
determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. Mitigation through off-site
acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry
Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities associated
with individual development projects, a biologist shall conduct a visual and acoustic
survey for roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the
RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or
active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit
a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individual or
groups of bats are found within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely
excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow
conditions, or by installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by
the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will
leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities for a minimum of one week
after implementing exclusion and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not
implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. The
biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special
status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1
A-12
through MM -BIO -5 which require pre -construction and construction biological surveys,
measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the
MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate
species would be minimized to a less than significant level.
2. Impacts to Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters
including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
The proposed Project has the potential to impact critical habitat and sensitive vegetation
communities within the Jefferson Specific Plan area.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities remain less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the Project could result in impacts to vernal pool resources in
undeveloped portions of the Project area or could affect areas of wetland habitat that exist
within the Project boundaries. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -
BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4 which require biological surveys and MSHCP vernal pool
protection implementation measures would minimize potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
D. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Paleontological)
1. Impacts to Archaeological Resources
The proposed Project has the potential to impact archaeological resources located within the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. The records search indicated that a total of nine
archaeological resources are located within one mile of the Project area. Three (CA -RW -644,
-717, and -1727H) are located within the Project area. Two of these resources (CA -RW -644
and -717) are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one (CA -RW -1727H) is a historic -period
archaeological site. None have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California
Register or local historic register. Therefore, the Project area has moderate to high potential
for significant impacts to archaeological resources.
a) Findings
A-13
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
archaeological resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or other ground
disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall be subject to a Phase I cultural
resources inventory on a project -specific basis prior to the City's approval of project
plans. The study shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional
archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio
Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records
search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans
identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate
by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on
California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant
cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the
resources are evaluated for their 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 treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with
the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of
mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and
historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human
remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may
include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be
avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which
may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City
and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians on a project -specific basis.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native
American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground -
disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as
determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City.
During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, will be
contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section
A-14
15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in
consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to
avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but
shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification
of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the
qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with
the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural
materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting
archaeologist and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, and any
other local Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific analysis,
professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional
standards.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground
disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic
built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their
potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey
shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially
significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial
alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic
resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan
to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the
resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
implementation.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Future development under the Project could significantly impact archaeological sites
and/or sites of traditional cultural value to tribes; and structures 50 years old or older.
Development occurring under the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts
to these resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 requires
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, a qualified archeologist to be
on-site during ground disturbance activities, and identifies protections measures to be
implemented in the event resources are discovered. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -
2 requires a historic build environment survey prior to City approval of any development
plans. These mitigation measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level.
A-15
2. Paleontological Resources
The proposed Project is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary
Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have high paleontological
sensitivity and therefore the potential to cause a significant impact on paleontological
resources.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
paleontological resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development involving ground
disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the necessity of
conducting a study of the project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project
site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a
paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources.
The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources
records search to be conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum and/or other
appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and
recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall provide
recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant
paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during
construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant
paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist.
In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will
notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as
needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits
are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The
paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance
is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a
paleontological mitigation program. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used
to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate
sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities
necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any
fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification,
A-16
catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the
repository.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The potential exists for significant paleontological resources to be located beneath the
ground surface in the Project area. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent
discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant
impact. However, Temecula's General Plan (implementation measure OS -26) requires
that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable
presence of paleontological resources is identified. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM -CUL -3 will ensure any potential impacts to paleontological resources are
minimized to be less than significant.
3. Impacts to unidentified Human Remains
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact to human remains in the event
human remains are discovered.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
unidentified human remains remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development involving ground
disturbance within the Project area shall address the potential discovery and proper
treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been
previously disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The City shall
require that if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the
vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to
evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are
Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public
Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a
Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in
consultation to determine the disposition of the remains.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The archaeological site record for site CA -RW -644 has indicated that human remains
near the site had been identified eroding out of the bank of a nearby creek, possibly Santa
Gertrudis, and were recovered by public employees in the early 1970s (Humbert and
A-17
Hammond, 1973) and ground -disturbing construction conducted throughout the Project
area that is associated with implementation of the Project could result in damage to
previously unidentified human remains. However, this impact would be minimized to
less than significant by implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4.
4. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources
The Project could cause cumulative impacts to cultural resources including archaeological
resources, fossils and human remains.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below to ensure that the Project's cumulative impacts
to cultural resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2, MM -CUL -3 and
MM -CUL -4.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The analysis in the Program EIR includes several mitigation measures to reduce potential
Project impacts to cultural resources during construction of the Project. Should other
projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative
scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, the Project, with
mitigation, would not contribute to the cumulative impact. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2 and MM -CUL -4, the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Excavation activities associated with the Project in conjunction with other projects in the
area could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, as -yet unrecorded fossil
sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. However, the
Project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with
incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3. With the implementation of this
measure, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources
would not be cumulatively considerable. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario
not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant
cumulative impact through progressive damage or loss of potentially significant fossils;
however, the Project, with mitigation, would not have a considerable contribution to the
cumulative impact.
Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4 would mitigate the
Project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
A-18
formal cemeteries, and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on human
remains would not be cumulatively considerable.
E. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
1. Impacts to soil erosion
The Project has the potential to cause an impact on water quality or waste discharge upon
construction and operation of developments within the project area. Construction could
include grading and other earth moving activities exposing soils to erosion, which could lead
to erosion and runoff. In addition, the incremental increase of development over the span of
20-30 years is likely to contribute to pollution such as motor oil or fertilizers being washed
away during rainfall or when a street, walkway, or parkway surface is being cleaned.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
associated with soil erosion are less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activities associated with future development could disturb soils that are
protected by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or concrete, resulting in soil
erosion and loss of topsoil. As detailed in MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2, individual
development projects occurring during Project implementation would be required to
implement the construction best management practices (BMPs), as detailed in the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Construction General
Permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program for sites
greater than one acre and each individual development project would be required to
prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required by the City. These
mitigation measures will reduce soil impacts to less than significant.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Construction activities occurring under the Project may occur on sites containing
contamination, which could result in releases of hazardous materials
As noted in the Program EIR, a number of sites within the Specific 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
A-19
groundwater. Exposure of residents to underground hazardous wastes is considered a
potentially significant impact.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development projects within the
Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to
conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard
E1527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I
report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be
completed prior to commencement of any construction activities.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials exposed during
construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or
suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification
of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils suspected of
contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated
from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for
potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the County. If
contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities
within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume
until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and
approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to
the City.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated during construction
dewatering shall be contained and profiled in accordance with Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility
requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary
sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall
be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to
meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the
RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Some of the listed sites in the Project area 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
agencies such as the County's Hazardous Materials Program, RWQCB, and the DTSC,
A-20
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. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-la
through MM-HAZ-lc will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to less
than significant levels.
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
Construction of the Project 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. In addition, 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.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
water quality associated with construction and operation is reduced to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Development construction that disturbs one acre or
more individually shall 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 would include filing of a
Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating
construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater
runoff. Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall
comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the
MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the
preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste
management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted
and approved by the City of Temecula.
A-21
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: As a condition of approval, each future development
project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in
the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project
implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and
Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include
non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs or a combination
thereof. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to
the issuance of a building or grading permit.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of a SWPPP and water quality -related BMPs described in Mitigation
Measure MM -HYD- 1 and MM -HYD -2 would ensure that construction -related impacts
on water quality, including potential harmful materials accidentally spilled or improperly
disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or
groundwater, would be less than significant. In addition, future developments will be
required to generate a project -specific WQMP, which will reduce impacts to surface
waters, either directly or during storm water runoff events, from the use of chemicals, to
less than significant levels.
2. Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
a) Findings
Both construction and operation of the Project could result in impacts related to
stormwater runoff. Construction of the proposed development within the Project area
would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which
could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which
could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. In addition, new
development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or
impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume and rate of overland flows
during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact
associated with stormwater runoff is less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1; and
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development
project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as
required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's
A-22
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements
specific hydromodification features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater
Ordinance requirements. Potential hydromodification features identified may include
detention or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and
evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Although construction and operation of the Project has the potential to have significant
impacts associated with stormwater runoff, Mitigation Measures MM -HYD- 1 and MM -
HYD -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As part of Mitigation Measure
MM -HYD- 1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction
disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time
of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary
increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. In addition, adherence to
requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in
MM -HYD -3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff occur during
operation of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
3. Drainage System Capacity Related to Construction and Operation.
a) Findings
Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require
activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily
alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in
significant impacts related to stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing
drainage system. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the
extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume and rate
of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in
stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
related to drainage system capacity are less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD- 1 and Mitigation Measure
MM -HYD -3.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction
General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the
MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an
A-23
acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of
BMPs. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed
the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity.
In addition, as part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3, each future development project
will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required
by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4
permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -
3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur such that the
existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
H. Noise and Vibration (operations)
1. Operational Noise
New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the
City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near
the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could
expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to
operation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive
receptors to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: For project -specific development, the applicant shall
provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development
would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards
would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels
would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These
measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of
landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a: Individual development projects shall minimize
noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units,
by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for
the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that
noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing
development by more than five decibels.
A-24
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development
project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that
all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be
constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior
noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Under the Project, new land uses that would occur in the Project area include residential,
commercial, office, and mixed-use developments. These new developments may
introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing
properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. However,
for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that
operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's
permissible exterior noise standards and implement measures to reduce noise levels, per
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3. In addition, to ensure that the nearby noise -sensitive
uses to the Project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise,
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from
HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other
occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. In order to ensure that the future residents in
the Project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with
mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b would
be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed
residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to
ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any
residential unit.
2. Noise/Land Use Compatibility
With changes in the community noise environment in the Project area over the course of
the Project's buildout period, the new development projects proposed in the Project area
may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by
the City.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that ensure land use compatibility impacts are
reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: Prior to City approval of a project -specific
development within the Project area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that
the City's noise/land use compatibility standards are met for the land use being
developed. Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land
A-25
use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use
of landscaping, use of window insulation (double -paned glazing), and/or, where
applicable, the design of adequate setback distances.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5 would require all future development
associated with the Project to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether
an individual development would violate the City's noise/land use compatibility
standards and, where necessary, implement measures to ensure compliance with the
City's standards. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact
would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
I. Transportation and Traffic
1. Impacts on Circulation System from Existing (2013) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under the
Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions:
• Ynez Road & Winchester Road
• Nicholas Road & Winchester Road
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Existing
(2013) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the performance of the
intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that signal timing optimization
occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Proj ect-related development that
would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds.
• Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for
this mitigation measure is 10 percent)
• Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution
for this mitigation measure is 5 percent)
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development
within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City,
toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein.
A-26
b) Facts in Support of Findings
After implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1, the intersection at Ynez Road
& Winchester Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D (delay = 37.1 seconds). The
intersection at Nicholas Road & Winchester Road would operate at LOS E with delay
improved to 55.8 seconds (i.e., better than under existing conditions). Impacts would be
less than significant.
2. Impacts on Circulation System under Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions.
The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under Future
Year (2035) Plus Project conditions:
• Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway — AM peak hour
• Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road — AM peak hour
• Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway — AM peak hour
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Future
Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the performance of the
intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that the following
improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related
development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds.
• At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street / Proposed French Valley
Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane,
two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one
through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -share contribution is 10 percent).
• At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right -
turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Project's fair -share
contribution is 5 percent).
• At Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to
the northbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent).
A-27
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development
within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City,
toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein.
In addition, after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2, operations during
the AM peak hour at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed
French Valley Parkway would improve to an acceptable LOS C (delay = 31.4 seconds).
The intersection at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour; however, delay would
improve to 92.6 seconds, which is better than pre -project conditions. Finally, AM peak
hour operations at Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway would improve to LOS
E (delay = 61.7 seconds), which while an unacceptable service level, would be better than
pre -project conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
J. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
1. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Expansion and Capacity
Buildout of the Project would result in the need for larger diameter or parallel sewer lines for
three lengths of sewer pipe within the Project area, and the need to increase the capacity of
the Temecula Valley RWRF to handle an additional 0.8 mgd of wastewater flow; the
construction of which could result in significant environmental effects.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts related to treatment
facility expansion and capacity to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a
project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay its
fair share of Eastern Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted
sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a
project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay
Eastern Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge
associated with obtaining sewer service.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The additional wastewater flow need for implementation of the Project would necessitate
a future capacity expansion which would result in the construction of new wastewater
A-28
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which would be significant
impacts. However, payment of mitigation fees and other fees to the Eastern Municipal
Water District as described in Mitigation Measures MM-UTL- la and MM-UTL-lb
would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
2. Impacts to Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Buildout of the Project would result in the need for the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could result in
significant environmental effects.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts to stormwater drainage
facilities to less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and MM HYD -3
b) Facts in Support of Findings
As a part of the WQMP implemented by Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, the Project
would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) best management
practices (BMPs) into Project design, which include measures to reduce increases in
runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. In addition, adherence to
requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, would ensure
no substantial increases in on-site or off-site storm water runoff would occur and cause
significant environmental effects. Lastly, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would
minimize potential permanent increases in stormwater runoff during operation of the
development. With the incorporation of Mitigation MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3,
impacts to stormwater drainage facilities will be less than significant.
VI.Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation
In the environmental areas of air quality, noise and cultural resources, there are instances where
potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Air Quality (Construction and Operations)
1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Construction
Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality
standards related to ROG and NOx emissions and would result in significant air quality
impacts at the Program EIR level.
A-29
a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential
significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. Although the
following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term air quality
impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of
significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate
the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with
construction activities for the Project:
• Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks
(e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible. Under
conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not
readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide
this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model
year NOx emissions requirements.'
• Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp)
shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction
equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each
unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD
operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit
of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes
available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in
NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall
be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project,
the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx
emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel
2 CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year
engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be
reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023. Whereas trucks that meet
2007 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 40 percent in
engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard,
trucks that meet 2010 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at
least 85 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine
emissions standard.
3 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these
engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such,
under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be
phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead.
A-30
emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB
regulations would be achieved.
• After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than
50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission standards, where available. Under conditions
where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not
readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide
this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In
addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by
CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy
of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each
applicable unit of equipment.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lb: Future project -level development shall incorporate
the following in the construction specifications of a development project:
• Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than
five minutes.
• Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding
the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion
engines to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lc: Future project -level development shall document
project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a
development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's
threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents
with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-ld: The City shall encourage all construction contractors
to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate clean-up of
off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Program EIR analysis of the Project determined that under an estimated worst-case
construction scenario, implementation of the Project would result in significant air quality
impacts associated with ROG and NOx emissions. Additionally, under potential
conditions where one or more of the construction phases shown in EIR Table 3.2-6
overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of
A-31
Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la through MM-AIR-ld would reduce the emissions of
ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the
Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's thresholds for
the two respective criteria pollutants. Therefore, for the analysis of the Project's worst-
case scenario, impacts from construction ROG and NOx emissions would be significant
and unavoidable.
2. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operations
Operational activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality
standards related to ROG emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at this
program level.
a) Findings
As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's
control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG
emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would remain
below be above the SCAQMD's recommended threshold; thus, this impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
When the operational ROG emissions of the Project are compared to that of the existing
land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG
emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from
architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer
products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the
majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the Project were
associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the Project area.4
The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses
associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance
threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the
City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG
emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be above
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Thus, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
3. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality
Consumer products are defined in CalEEMod to be chemically formulated products used by household
consumers that include, but is not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics;
personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and
automotive specialty products.
A-32
As the Basin is currently classified as a state non -attainment area for ozone, NO2, PM10, and
PM25, cumulative development consisting of the Project along with other reasonably
foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. This is considered to be a
significant cumulative impact. With respect to the Project's contribution to this cumulative
impact, according to the SCAQMD, individual construction projects that exceed the
SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would cause a
cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As the
Project's construction -related ROG and NOx emissions (both of which are ozone precursors)
and operational ROG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily
thresholds, the Project would contribute to a cumulative air quality impact with respect to
ozone and NO2.5
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the
Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measures listed below will be implemented to
lessen construction and long term operational air quality impacts; however, no mitigation
measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance,
and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la and MM -
AIR -lb from Section 3.2, Air Quality, would reduce construction emissions of ROG and
NOx associated with the worst-case construction scenario analyzed for the Project;
however, not to below a level of significance.
a) Facts in Support of Findings
The Program EIR shows that the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with
the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx
(ozone precursors). Therefore, the Project would exceed SCAQMD's respective
thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment
(i.e., ozone and NO2). The Project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other
past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative
impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
5 It should be noted that because the Basin in currently a non -attainment area for ozone and NO2, and both ROG
and NOx emissions are ozone precursors (i.e., ozone is created by sunlight acting on ROG and NOx in the air), the
exceedance of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for these pollutants by the Project would result in a
significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
A-33
With respect to Project operations, with the exception of ROG emissions, the total net
operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. With respect to the Project's
operational emissions ofNOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, these pollutant emissions
would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. However, as the net operational ROG emissions associated with the Project
would exceed the SCAQMD's operational threshold, the Project's ROG emissions, which
are ozone precursors, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic)
Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50
years or older.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the
Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure will be implemented to lessen impacts
to historic resources; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce
the impacts to the built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore
impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground
disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic
built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their
potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey
shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant
resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such
resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is
deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include,
but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The
plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any
treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be
A-34
insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -
significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of MM -CUL -2, at a program EIR level analysis.
2. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic)
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in this area could occur if any other existing or
proposed projects, in conjunction with the Project, had or would have impacts on cultural
resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the
Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to
lessen cumulative impacts to historic resources; however, no mitigation measures were
identified that could reduce the impacts to built historic features to below the level of
significance, and therefore cumulative impacts to these resources will remain potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM -CUL -2.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The potential construction impacts of the Project, in combination with other projects in
the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on built historical
resources. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2 has been developed in order to reduce
impacts to built historic resources. However, MM -CUL -2 may not reduce the impacts of
the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level and this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative effects to historic
built resources, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects,
would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
C. Noise and Vibration (Construction)
1. Construction Noise
Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area
would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial
increases in ambient noise levels.
A-35
a) Findings
Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant
increases in noise impacts upon adjacent or nearby receptor(s). The following mitigation
measures will be implemented to lessen noise impacts; however, no mitigation measures
were identified that could reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors to below the level
of significance.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits
for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the
development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see
Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities
would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to
the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction
activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's
construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set
forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction -
related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce
the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with
the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited
to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on
construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate
concurrently at the development site.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb: Project -specific development located within the
Project area shall:
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific
location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible
from the nearest noise and vibration -sensitive land uses.
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the
greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use
of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement
breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an
exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower
noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools
themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA.
Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used
whenever feasible.
A-36
• Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and
muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or
other measures to the extent feasible.
• Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of
Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the
extent feasible.
• Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding
residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any
concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone
number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations.
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general
contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation
and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood
notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
As described in the Program EIR, it is anticipated that the City, through the
environmental review process, will consider all future developments associated with the
Project on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would
generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels on its
surrounding off-site uses. However, for the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that there
would likely be future developments associated with the Project that would be located in
close enough proximity to existing land uses such that the construction noise levels
generated would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at
those existing land uses. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb which would require
the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction
activities for the new developments occurring under the Project would be implemented to
reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent
feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the
Project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, the noise impacts
related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above
levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Although
mitigation measures would reduce the Project's construction noise levels to the maximum
extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed
developments in the Project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the
Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on
the nearby existing land uses.
2. Construction Vibration
A-37
Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area
would potentially expose their respective onsite and /or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration
levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human
annoyance.
c) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Although mitigation
measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential to expose sensitive
receptors onsite and /or offsite to substantial vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA
vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance, none were identified that
could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2a: The operation of construction equipment that
generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson
drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of
institutional structures during construction of any project -specific development in the
Project area to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired construction equipment shall be
used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration
effects, where feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2b: Operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within
25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during
construction activities associated with any project -specific development in the Project
area, to the extent feasible.
d) Facts in Support of Findings
As individual development projects would be spread over the Project's buildout period
and construction events are short-term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an
infrequent amount of vibration events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting
from the construction of individual development projects. However, depending on how
close an actual receptor location is to a construction site, and the type of building the
receptor is (e.g., non -engineered timber and masonry building, historical building, etc.),
the vibration levels at a receptor location could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for
building damage and human annoyance (refer to the "Thresholds of Significance" section
of the EIR for the applicable FTA vibration thresholds). As such, vibration impacts
during construction associated with the Project could be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-2a and MM-NOI-2b would reduce
these impacts; however, not to below a level of significance.
A-38
VII. Project Alternatives
A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead
Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and,
therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are
remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be
considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(0(3)).
An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is
"remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond
the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(0(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether
any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting
the project at another location." The Project would involve adoption of a Specific Plan with the
intent of revitalizing this particular location in the City and taking advantage of its attributes,
including the opportunity to create a high-density urban environment and its proximity to major
transportation routes. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this
Project. The Program EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were
considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons
stated below.
B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR
1. Alternative One — No Project/Existing General Plan
a) Summary of Alternative
This alternative is analyzed within this program -level EIR as it is required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA
Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans
and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is
the revision of an existing land use policy, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(A) states
that "the No Project Alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan... into the
future." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents
development under the currently adopted General Plan as further described below. This
alternative, however, does not represent a "no build" scenario in which no future
development or redevelopment would occur.
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would
be developed according to the existing 2005 General Plan land use map, zoning, and
A-39
development patterns. With buildout of the existing General Plan, total development in
the Project area would amount to approximately 4.7 million square feet, representing an
increase of approximately 933,708 square feet over existing conditions, including
approximately 1,043,479 square feet of Community Commercial uses; 711,944 square
feet of Highway Tourist Commercial uses; 1,773,719 square feet of Service Commercial
uses; 1,192,150 square feet of Industrial Park uses; and 12,414 square feet of Public
Institutional uses.
b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to
greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and traffic impacts than the proposed project
due to the number of vehicle trips associated with the substantial development allowed
under the No Project/General Plan Alternative. In addition, this Alternative would not
emphasize the mixed use development promoted by the proposed Project, and therefore
would not reduce dependence on vehicles. Finally, this Alternative would not meet the
project's primary objective of updating the existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. For
all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
2. Alternative Two — Reduced Project Alternative
a) Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, the total development would be reduced by 25 percent, which
would result in a buildout of approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial uses
(as opposed to the 1.7 million square feet that would occur under the Project),
approximately 2,795 dwelling units, and 236 hotel rooms. This alternative would include
the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism
District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential
Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay),
and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. Under this alternative, these
districts would contain the same provisions related to density and building heights.
b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be
fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in several impacts such as noise, air
quality, and traffic impacts within the Specific Plan area. In addition, since the overall
development would be reduced, there would be reduced impacts to aesthetics, population
and housing, public services, as well as utilities and water supplies. Alternative 2 would
achieve the proposed project objectives by creating a vibrant locale by providing a mix of
land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions,
hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational
opportunities; strengthening opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan
A-40
area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private
investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and
higher education facilities; establishing a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by
beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street," identifying and
establishing interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique
identities; developing a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district
identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the
area's location, natural setting, and built environment; creating a form -based code to
guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design
standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking
standards and establishing an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network
through circulation and transit improvements. However, Alternative 2 would not provide
the most efficient use of the Specific Plan area and would therefore, not fully attain the
economic potential of the project site because the allowable development for the project
would be reduced by 25 percent, reducing the potential of the project's viability.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this
reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
3. Alternative Three — Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative
a) Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, allowable floor area ratios (FARs) would be adjusted in order to
decrease the total amount of residential space that would be constructed and to increase
the total amount of commercial square footage that could be developed. Commercial
square footage would be increased by 3 million square feet; resulting in a buildout
potential of approximately 4.7 million square feet of commercial uses (as compared to the
1.7 million square feet anticipated for the Project). Residential development would also
be reduced by approximately 40 percent, which would result in approximately 2,176
dwelling units (as compared to the potential 3,726 that would occur under the Project).
This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center
District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District
(with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the
Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space
District.
b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Due to the increased commercial development (as compared to the proposed Project) and
the increased vehicle trips associated therewith, Alternative 3 would result in increased
adverse air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. In addition, this alternative would not
emphasize a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby
shopping and employment opportunities nearly as much as the proposed Project, and
A-41
therefore this alternative would result in greater greenhouse gas emission and climate
change impacts than the proposed Project.
Although Alternative 3 would achieve most project objectives and would promote
economic activity within the City because commercial development would be
emphasized over residential development, Alternative 3 would reduce residential
development by 40 percent decreasing encouragement of developing an increased
number of high-quality residential neighborhoods compared to either the existing
Specific Plan or the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of
the project objectives as well as the proposed project, and would have greater adverse
impacts. Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally
superior alternative. While none of the alternatives would reduce the significant and unavoidable
impacts related to cultural resources and construction noise, the environmentally superior
alternative would be Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, as it would have potentially
fewer environmental impacts to air quality, GHG, land use and planning, operational noise, and
transportation and traffic as compared to the Project and the other alternatives. Alternative 2 also
would meet all of the Project objectives.
A summary of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the Project is
provided in EIR Table 5-5 below.
TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTSa
Potential Project Impacts
Alt. 1:
No Project
Alternative (No
Development)
Alt. 2:
Reduced Project
Alternative
AIt.3:
Reduced
Residential/Increased
Commercial Uses
Alternative
Aesthetics
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Air Quality
Reduced
Reduced
Increased
Biological Resources
Similar
Similar
Similar
Cultural Resources
Similar
Similar
Similar
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Similar
Similar
Similar
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change
Increased
Reduced
Increased
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality
Reduced
Similar
Similar
Land Use and Planning
Increased
Similar
Similar
A-42
Noise and Vibration
Increased
Reduced
Increased
Population and Housing
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Public Services
Similar
Reduced
Reduced
Transportation and Traffic
Increased
Reduced
Increased
Utilities and
Water Supply Assessment
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
a Definitions:
• Increased = impacts of alternative greater than Project's impacts
• Similar = impacts of alternative similar to Project's impacts
• Reduced = impacts of alternative less than Project's impacts
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2013.
D. The Project As Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The Project involves adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and is described in
detail in the Program EIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the
alternatives analyzed in the Final Program EIR and has compared them with those of the
proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various
environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City
Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve
the interest of the public and achieve the project goals.
More specifically, the Project as proposed strikes a proper balance between commercial
development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that
emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and
employment opportunities. This proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan recognizes the
need for economic activity and growth in the City but also promotes sound environmental
policies due to the reduced reliance on vehicle trips (stemming from mixed use development)
and proximity to public transportation. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the
Project as proposed.
A-43
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed
approval of the Amendment to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (the "Project").
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects
may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the
specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such
reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Program EIR or elsewhere in the administrative
record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that
may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the
significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and cultural resources. In making this finding,
the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has
indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the
following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the
Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project:
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen
Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that
alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts,
or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically
infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed Project strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on
economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use
environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities.
C. The proposed Project will reduce potential adverse environmental impacts compared with build-
out under the currently -existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan due to its emphasis on mixed-
use development and the benefits that such development provides, including reduced vehicle
trips as a result of proximity to shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities.
D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units beyond what currently exists in the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area or what currently could be developed in that area and thus
will add to the available housing stock in the City.
E. The proposed Project will augment the City's economic base by providing additional tax
revenues resulting from the commercial component of the proposed allowable development.
C-1
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City
Council further finds that each of the individual Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project benefits
discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final
Program EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that
each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to
override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
C-2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EXHIBIT C
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare
standards shall be applied to all future development within the
Specific Plan area:
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain
"sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and
internal and external shielding.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be
grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and
night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be
controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time
clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
City of
Temecula
project approval
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
•
The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site
shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural
massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light
sources and reflection from cars.
•
Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -
specific development within the Project area that includes
outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting
plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the
City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following information and standards:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays
emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal
plane passing through the lowest point of the shield;
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and
intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting;
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as
lumens per acre; and,
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be
used, especially for security lighting.
•
The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure
that the site is in compliance with the design standards in
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
1
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
•
Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior
wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be
constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non -
mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or
fabricated wall surfaces.
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verification and
• Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development
shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize
emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the
Project:
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verification and
• Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer
Designee
sign -off by City
diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export) to the extent feasible.1 Under conditions where
it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks
are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the
applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City
and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model
year NOx emissions requirements. 2
of Temecula
• Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than
50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier 111 off-road
emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall
be outfitted with BACT devices certified by GARB. A copy of
each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation,
and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at
the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology
becomes available in the future that would result in either
equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use
of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be
applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier 111 equipment are
chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show
evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
2
CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be
reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023.
As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such,
under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
2
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized
engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved.
• After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission
standards, where available. Under conditions where it is
determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards
are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the
applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City
and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition,
construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices
certified by GARB. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less
than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by
CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier
specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD
operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of
each applicable unit of equipment.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1 b: Future project -level development
shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a
development project:
• Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-
duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall
be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.
Require that construction operations rely on the electricity
infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than
electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to
the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1c: Future project -level development
shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval
of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate
construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's
threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use
coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required
under SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1d: The City shall encourage all
construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which
provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles
such as heavy-duty construction equipment.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
3
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an
individual development project that would have the construction
equipment and activity listed below, a project -specific LST analysis
shall be prepared and submitted that identifies the resulting
construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would
not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.
• Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty
diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per
day;
• Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic
yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities;
• Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks
per day; and,
• Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
City of
Temecula
project approval
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
City of
project -specific residential developments within the Project area and
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
located within 500 feet of 1-15, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall
Building Official
project approval
be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential
or other
and field
developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources
traveling along the portion of 1-15 that is adjacent to the Project
area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall
be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC -
exposure from 1-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally -
exposed individual. These measures may include, but are not
limited to, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of
the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum Efficiency
Designee
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Prior to any ground -disturbing
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Certified
activities for individual development projects, pre -construction
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Environmental
clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section
Qualified
Review
6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (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
Biologist
Document
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
4
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
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.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
grading permit
following measures:
Qualified
and field
• All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take
place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1-
August 30).
Biologist
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
• 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 biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in
science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience
performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a
maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -
disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings)
are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed
species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered
species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until
the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that
they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot construction
setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in
order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have
fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified
biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may
commence.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
City of
outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
of the Draft El R, which depicts vegetation communities within the
Qualified
project approval
project area, shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist
(i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP
approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to
construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no
burrowing owls are identified on the site during these pre -
construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and
construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site,
the City and RCA will be notified. The following species-specific
mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found:
Biologist
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
5
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
• Since burrow owl is a covered species under the MSHCP,
adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are
achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance
of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce
potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than
significant level.
• However, if the proposed project cannot avoid the active
burrow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted
with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to
suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100
meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the
RCA.
• If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and
implementing an active translocation plan, if appropriate
and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes
identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be
acceptable.
• However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are
observed on 35 -plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite
conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in
accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite
conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the
project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP)
and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy
(HANS) application.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Field
objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
verification and
the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in
Qualified
sign -off by City
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual
development project located outside of land designated as
Biologist
of Temecula
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the
construction footprint shall be conducted to determine whether
suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools,
stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other
human -modified depressions) currently exist within the construction
footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be
reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy
shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be
avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp
species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance
with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
6
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under
Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed
Vernal Pool Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain
percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for
long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be
conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests
ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be
conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for
development under the MSHCP; however, the required
conservation/impact ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a
project -by -project basis.
If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restriction and
protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the
resource during construction:
Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of
special -status vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent
species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work
within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g.,
vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June
1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through
informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program
Administrator and/or USAGE. Ground -disturbing activities may
begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any
work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing
and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or
other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of the
a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground -
disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal
wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USAGE. The biologist will
document compliance with the fencing requirement through a
memorandum submitted to the RCA Monitoring Program
Administrator.
Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts
can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting
exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the
project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing.
Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program
Administrator and/or USAGE will occur as needed.
If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an
avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures
shall be implemented:
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
7
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
(DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a
DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development
project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost
functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and
listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy,
subject to the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site
habitat creation and conservation, or off-site land acquisition in an
approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods;
each is described below.
On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be
feasible, vernal pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site
at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If
on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will
be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil
conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be
determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal
pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a
conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate
mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-
term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success
criteria) shall be included in the DBESP.
Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and
habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an
approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods
shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the
approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be
determined by the RCA on a project by project basis. Mitigation
through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool
mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland
Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
activities associated with individual development projects, a
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
grading permit
biologist or designee shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for
Qualified
and field
roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will
contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or CDFW if
any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the
construction footprint. The biologist will submit a memorandum
documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program
Biologist
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Administrator.
Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if
individual or groups of bats are found within the construction
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
8
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the
roosting area to change lighting and airflow conditions, or by
installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by
the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The
contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related
activities for a minimum of one week after implementing exclusion
and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not implement
exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts.
Pre -Construction
City of
City of
City of
The Biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance
to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or
Pre -Construction
City of
City of
City of
other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project-
qualified
Project
specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study
Archaeologist
Approval;
shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an
and Pechanga
verification by
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
tribal
City of
professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation
with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The cultural resources
inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records search to be
conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the
representatives
Temecula in
consultation
with Pechanga
Tribe
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested
Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian
archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the
archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological
resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523
forms. If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered
during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are
evaluated for their 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 treatment of these
resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and
the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place
shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to
significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans,
human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes.
Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to,
project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of
protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
9
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated
that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall
develop additional treatment measures, which may include data
recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City
and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The City shall conduct
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on a
project -specific basis.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological
monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians during ground -disturbing activities that have the
potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City.
During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic
subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the
vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, will be
contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be
significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with
the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation
in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant
cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not
be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is
demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified
archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in
consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other
appropriate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be,
as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist,
and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians,
subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
10
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
City of
involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and
qualified
Project
potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential
Historian or
Approval;
historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The
Architectural
verification by
survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural
historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially
significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition
or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be
avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed
infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan
to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public
interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City
for review and approval prior to implementation.
Historian
City of
Temecula in
consultation
with Pechanga
Tribe
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
Verification by
involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be
Construction
Temecula
Temecula in
City of
retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the
consultation
Temecula in
project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site
with Pechanga
consultation
for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the
paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory
designed to identify potentially significant resources. The
paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a
paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the
Tribe
with Pechanga
Tribe
San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities;
a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and
recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The
paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional
work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological
resources, if identified, shall be avoided.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological
monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that
have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as
determined by a qualified paleontologist.
In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the
project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The
paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the
potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or
fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction,
excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
11
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate
See MM -HYD -1
See MM-
See MM -HYD -1
See MM -HYD -1
Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the
appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of
the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified
paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program.
and MM -HYD 2
MM -HYD -1
and MM -
and MM -HYD 2
and MM -HYD 2
At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record
pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured,
appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for
analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and
professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils
encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of
identification, catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying
notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.
HYD 2
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development
Construction
City of
City of
Verification by
involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address
Temecula in
Temecula in
City of
the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains,
which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously
consultation
with
consultation
with Pechanga
Temecula in
consultation
disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The
Pechanga
Tribe
with Pechanga
City shall require that if human remains are uncovered during
project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and
the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the
remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section
Tribe
Tribe
15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will
contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance
with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and
Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The
NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the
deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to
determine the disposition of the remains.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2
See MM -HYD -1
See MM-
See MM -HYD -1
See MM -HYD -1
and MM -HYD 2
MM -HYD -1
and MM -
and MM -HYD 2
and MM -HYD 2
HYD 2
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
12
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development
projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified
environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard E1527-05 prior
to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the
Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the
overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of
any construction activities.
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials
Pre -Construction /
Riverside
City of
Field
exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of
Construction
County
Temecula
verification and
contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall
Department
sign -off by City
require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification
of
of Temecula
of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils
Environment
and Riverside
suspected of contamination through visual observation or from
observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on
and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential
contamination in accordance with direction received from the
al Health
County
Department of
Environmental
Health
County. If contamination is found to be present, any further
proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or
suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a
site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed
professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health,
has been completed and submitted to the City.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated
Construction
RWQCB
City of
Field
during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in
Temecula
verification and
accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or
Building Official
sign -off by City
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements
depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or
sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted
requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for
disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet
applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval
from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation
or other
Designee
of Temecula
Facility.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
13
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 : Development construction that
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
disturbs one acre or more individually shall 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
Construction/
Post -Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Building Permit,
review of plans,
field verification
requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit
would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the
preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for
control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff.
Designee
and sign -off by
City of
Temecula
Development construction that disturbs less than one acre
individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the
SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with
the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre
would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing
erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be
implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved
by the City of Temecula.
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: As a condition of approval, each
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
future development project will be required to generate a project-
specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by
the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the
Construction/
Post -Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Building Permit,
review of plans,
field verification
City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that
the project implements specific water quality features to meet the
Designee
and sign -off by
City of
City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.
Temecula
Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling,
minimization of vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling
and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling.
This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
future development project will be required to generate a project-
specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of
Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's
Construction/
Post -Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Building Permit,
review of plans,
field verification
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the
project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the
Designee
and sign -off by
City of
City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.
Temecula
Potential hydromodification features identified may include detention
or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and
evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
14
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
issuance of a building or grading permit.
Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1a: Prior to the issuance any grading
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading or
shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not
Building Official
Building
exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see
or other
Permits and
Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for
construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit
a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at
least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction
activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that
the project's construction noise levels would be granted an
exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of
the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction -related
exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be
taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent
feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise
standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the
erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-
art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the
amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the
development site.
Designee
field verification
and sign -off by
City of
Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 b: Project -specific development
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
located within the Project area shall:
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction
Building Official
and field
activities whose specific location on a construction site may be
or other
verification and
flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators,
cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far
as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive
land uses.
Designee
sign -off by City
of Temecula
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction
methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will
be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and
jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers,
pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they
shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible
to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air
exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from
the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
15
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could
achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use
of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever
feasible.
• Locate stationary construction noise sources away from
adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary
sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the
extent feasible.
• Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes
approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid
residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent
feasible.
• Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison
with surrounding residents and property owners who is
responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding
construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone
number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction
locations.
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors
and the general contractor or onsite project manager to
confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices
(including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood
notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented.
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited
Building Official
and field
within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional
or other
verification and
structures during construction of any project -specific development in
the Project area, to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired
construction equipment shall be used within this area during
demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects
where feasible.
Designee
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: Operation of jackhammers shall
be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20
feet of institutional structures during construction activities
associated with any project -specific development in the Project
area, to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: For project -specific development,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational
Pre -Construction /
Construction /
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Issuance of
Grading Permit
noise levels generated by the development would exceed the City's
Post -Construction
Building Official
and field
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
16
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would
be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that
operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with
the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include,
but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of
landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for
the new developments.
Pre -Construction/
City of
or other
Designee
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: Individual development projects
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
City of
shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as
Construction /
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away
Post -Construction
Building Official
project approval
from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the
or other
and field
equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building
design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise
level on the premises of existing development by more than five
decibels..
Designee
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a
residential development project within the Project area, the
applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior
windows associated with a proposed residential development will be
constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to
ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of
45 dB in any habitable room.
Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: Prior to City approval of a project-
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
City of
specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall
Construction /
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use
Post -Construction
Building Official
project approval
compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed.
or other
and field
Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's
noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited
to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design
of adequate setback distances.
Designee
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
Issuance of
performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these
Engineer or
and Issuance of
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development
that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two
seconds.
• Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -
share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent)
• Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's
other Designee
a Certificate of
Occupancy
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
17
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent)
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -
specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay
its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing
optimization for the intersections listed herein.
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
Issuance of
performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
and ensure that the following improvements occur at these
Engineer or
and Issuance of
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development
that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two
seconds.
• At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street /
other Designee
a Certificate of
Occupancy
Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach
lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane, two through
lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn
lanes, one through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -
share contribution is 10 percent).
• At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road, add a right -turn overlap traffic signal phase to
the southbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5
percent).
• At the 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, add
an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction
(Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent).
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -
specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay
its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements
for the intersections listed herein.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
18
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of
Pre -Construction
City of
City of
Issuance of
construction permits for a project -specific development within the
Temecula
Temecula
construction
Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern
Building Official
permits, and
Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted
or other
sign -off by City
sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio
Designee
of Temecula
Road.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1 b: Prior to issuance of construction
permits for a project -specific development within the Project area,
the project applicant shall pay Eastern Municipal Water District's
then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with
obtaining sewer service.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
19
ESA / 211247
July 2015
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT,
THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND
RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also requires a General Plan
amendment, a zoning code amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a zoning map
amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific
Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult
Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project").
C. The General Plan Amendment encompasses 1) an amendment to the
Land Use Element incorporating the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan,
adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -
4), removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure
LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and amending the Land Use Policy
Map (Figure LU -3), 2) an amendment to the Community Design Element incorporating
the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design
Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use
Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue,
Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections,
and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements, and 3) an
amendment to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from
a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided), collectively
referred to as the "General Plan Amendment."
D. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission
held public hearings to consider whether to recommend the adoption of the Specific
Plan, the General Plan Amendment, zoning code admendments, and zoning map
amendments, and certification of the Final EIR. On November 4, 2015, after due
consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, and after due
consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed amendments, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-27 recommending, in part, that the City Council
approve the General Plan Amendment including: amending the Land Use Element, the
Land Use Policy Map, the Community Design Element, and the Circulation Element to
create consistency between the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan.
E. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to review
the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq.
F. Upon the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 15- , certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), adopting
Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution
No. 15- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as
though set forth in full.
G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula
considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan
Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, the
elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time
all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any
comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
prior to and at the public hearing.
H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the General
Plan Amendment hereby further finds, determines and declares that:
(1) The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest;
The General Plan Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area,
is in the public interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the
oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan
area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the
businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and
provide vital services to the community, the area has since been
overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts
of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization
of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote
economic longevity which is in the public interest.
(2) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community;
The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and
review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various
potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and
concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The
Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the
City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and
standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In
addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines
and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding
community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the
Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
(3) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and
surrounding uses;
The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan
area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land
uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist
service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land
uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast
of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Plan
would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -
Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but
would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek.
(4) The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community
and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
General Plan;
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction,
goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan amendments
will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land
uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to
land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life
and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated
mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses
(Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development
(Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan
area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods
that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and
identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other
locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix will include
commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and
intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will
maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six
zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order
to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -
owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-
side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed
General Plan Amendment will result in compatible future development,
which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern,
maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and
other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
SECTION 3. Amendment to the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of
the General Plan is hereby amended by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Implementation to the text of the Land Use Element
and adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table
LU -4), and removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas
(Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6) as provided in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 4. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map. The Land Use Policy
Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to
include the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Areaas provided in Exhibit "B," attached
hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 5. Amendment to the Community Design Element. The Community
Design Element is hereby amended by adding the description of Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community
Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the
intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue,
and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue
for a major streetscape improvements as provided in Exhibit "C," attached hereto
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 6. Amendment to the Circluation Element. The Roadway Plan (Figure
C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is hereby amended by changing the
classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial
(6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided) as provided in Exhibit "D," attached
hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 7. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby
authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement these amendments.
SECTION 8. Consistency with General Plan. The Land Use, Circulation and
Community Design Elements of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are
consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan in conformity with Government
Code section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised
to effectuate General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this amendment.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective
date of Ordinance No. 15- , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE
TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES,
AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT
BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA".
SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
L
A
N
D
u
s
E
EXHIBIT A
important economic and environmental relationships
to both the City and area residents. However,
properties within this designation may not be subject
to City or County planning, zoning, and building
regulations. Cooperative efforts between the City,
County, and local Tribal Governments are important
to ensuring that areawide issues are appropriately
addressed to the benefit of all local residents.
r RC- RECREATION COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
Intensity Range: Varies
Target Intensity: N/A
The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may
be applied to properties designated for Open Space
use. This designation provides for operation and
development of resort or amusement oriented
commercial and recreational uses of regional interest
that draw visitors from throughout the City and
region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation,
conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels,
resorts (including fractional ownership units),
restaurants, parks, camp grounds, open spaces and
community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and resort
uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses.
SPI - SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Intensity Range: Varies
Target Intensity: Varies
The Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) designation
may be applied to areas within the City which have an
approved Specific Plan. This designation allows for a
variety of land uses which include both residential and
non-residential uses. Geographic areas designated
SPI typically allow for mixed use development as
specified by the approved specific plan.
TARGET DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES
For various reasons, many parcels in the community have not been
developed to their maximum density or intensity. Future
development is expected to occur at the target level of density or
intensity stated in Table LU -1 for each land use designation. For
CITY OF IEMECULA GENEKAL PLAN
LU -24
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, Bold
L
A
N
D
u
S
E
SPECIFIC PLANS
Many areas within the City and Planning Area are subject to the
plans, policies and implementation measures of currently adopted or
anticipated future Specific Plans. The purpose of Specific Plans is to
provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the
General Plan. A Specific Plan area designation is used to identify 25
such areas within the Temecula Planning Area, which because of size,
location, and/or special development opportunities require a
coordinated and comprehensive planning approach (see Figure LU -
4). In identified Specific Plan areas of 100 or more acres, approval of
a Specific Plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land
use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. In
some areas, Village Center Plans, which allow greater intensities, can
also be used. Planned development overlays can be used for smaller
areas.
Specific Plans must be prepared in accordance with the requirements
of Section 65451 of the California Government Code and the City's
Development Code, which contains some additional requirements
tailored to meet local needs and conditions. Designated areas will
require detailed plans indicating land uses, circulation, major
infrastructure and facilities, open space and parks, and appropriate
implementation measures. All Specific Plans will be evaluated for
consistency with the goals, policies, plans and programs of the
General Plan.
Approved Specific Plan Areas — As shown in Table LU -4, a total of
24 Specific Plans have been approved within the planning area as of
October 2015. Specific Plan documents for each of these areas are
available for reference at the City Planning Department. Approved
land uses for each Specific Plan are shown on the Land Use Policy
Map.
CITY OF IEMECULA GENEKAL PLAN
LU -28
TABLE LU -4
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
Label in
Fig. LU-
3
Adopted Specific Plan
Location
Description/Objectives
General Plan
Land Uses
Acres
SP -9
Redhawk
South of Vail Ranch
SP.
Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 1988 including residential and
commercial/industrial development.
LM, M, PI, OS
1,261
SP -10
Vail Ranch
South of Temecula
Creek, between
Margarita and
Butterfield Stage
Roads.
Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 1988 including residential and
commercial/industrial development.
LM, PI, OS, HT,
IP
628
SP -11
Roripaugh Ranch
Along Butterfield Stage
Road in the northeast
corner of the City.
To develop a master planned residential community providing a variety of
housing types suited to the terrain and sensitive to natural landforms. The
maximum density is not to exceed an average of three dwelling units per
acre. Future development should protect sensitive natural resources of the
area.
L, LM, M, NC,
OS, PI
792
SP -12
Wolf Creek
Southern portion of
the City, along
Pechanga Parkway.
To provide a balance of uses with commercial and public uses serving the
surrounding area. Intended to be a village center in the southeast portion of
the City.
LM, NC, CC, PI,
OS, M
551
SP -13
Harveston
Between Margarita
Road, and I-15, along
City limits.
To provide a mix of land uses with higher density residential close to
commercial and employment uses, and to provide open space links between
residential, public and commercial uses.
LM, M, H, SC,
PI, OS
557
SP -14
Uptown Jefferson Specific
North of Rancho
To promote revitalization and guide future development by encouraging
CC, SC, HT,
557
Plan
California Road, west
urban in -fill and a mix of uses including residential, commercial retail, hotel
IP,PI OS
of Interstate 15, north
and hospitality, office/employment, higher education, and cultural arts -related
of Cherry Street and
uses that co -exist within close proximity to one another, supported by a multi -
east of Diaz Road.
modal transportation network and connected to recreation and open spaces.
PDO -4
PDO -5
Temecula Creek Village
Rancho Pueblo
Along SR -79 South,
between Jedediah
Smith Road and
Margarita Road.
To achieve comprehensively planned mixed-use developments with
compatible/complementary mixtures of office, support commercial,
residential, and services.
PO
33
49
Sphere of Influence
#184
Rancho Bella Vista
North of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and the
City limit.
To provide a residential planned community that protects the natural
resources of Skunk Hollow and hillside areas, provides a range of residential
densities connected to a contiguous open space system, and links to adjacent
LM, PI, OS
797
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
LU -32
TABLE LU -6
]MIXED USE OVERLAY AREAS
Mixed Use Overlay Areas
Development Capacity
Name
Location
Residential Units'
Non -Residential
Square Feet2
Daily Trip
Cap
(ADT)
1.
Al Avenue,
'I 11 822
ng Jcffcrs n
f La3 Hacicnda3 Street
n rth
f
Jcffcrs n
Avcnue
7009
and 3 uth the 3h pping
1
arca catcd at Jeffers n
Avenue Winchester R
and ad.
21. Town
Center/Tower
Plaza
North of intersection of
Rancho California Road and
Ynez Road.
668-1,3373
1,090,000-1,460,000
30,000
2. South of
Old Town
Service Commercial areas on
Front Street south of Santiago
Road
94-189
160,000-210,000
6,000
1. Residential range based on 20%-40% residential use of site at 28 units per net acre.
2. Non-residential range based on 60%-80% non-residential use of site at 0.35:1 FAR.
3. Senior housing is strongly encouraged as a part of the residential component of the Town Center/Tower Plaza site.
PRESERVING
RURAL AREAS
Mixed use areas and village centers will also be linked via multi -use
trails, and regional and local transit service. The City will work with
regional planning agencies to ensure that mixed use areas are linked
to any future commuter or high speed rail service connecting
Temecula to other parts of the region.
Rural areas within the planning area are of special economic and
aesthetic importance to the City. Community members have
considered future land use options within three Rural Preservation
Areas, and have expressed a desire to keep these areas rural. Rural
Preservation Areas are identified in Figure LU -5, and listed in Table
LU -7.
CITY OF I E M E C U L A GENEKAL PLAN
LU -39
4,0
L
A
N
D
u_
s
E
L
N
D
u
S
E
UPTOWN
JEFFERSON
Uptown Jefferson includes much of the city's first commercial
development, and once was an important, locally -serving community
destination along historic route Highway 395, which was the primary
vehicular thoroughfare through the area prior to the construction of
Interstate 15. Following the incorporation of the City in 1989, the
area continued to develop under typical Post -World War II
development patterns: an eclectic mix of auto -oriented light
industrial, office, strip -commercial and retail uses serving the local
community. Although many of the businesses within the area are still
economically -vital, the area has been overshadowed by new
development activity taking place elsewhere in the city. As a result, it
was determined that enhancing the area's economic assets would be
critical to the area's and the City's long term future.
In order to promote revitalization, the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan has been developed to achieve the community's future vision
and spark renewed interest and investment into the area. Uptown
Jefferson will be Temecula's newest "destination." Vibrant,
sophisticated and unique, the area will become home to a diverse mix
of residents of all ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic.
up-and-coming neighborhoods. These neighborhoods in Uptown
Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no
other place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be up -scale
and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity.
offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -
serving uses.
Esthetically enhanced and interconnected street networks provide
expanded mobility options to residents, workers and visitors. In
addition, one-stop parking combined with efficient transit, tree lined
sidewalks and safe bikeways. These expanded networks of bicycle
paths, sidewalks, and multi -use trails connect neighborhoods,
businesses, and recreation areas. Trails along Murrieta Creek connect
active play fields and parks in the northern area, Old Town to the
south, the business park to the west, and Promenade Mall and other
neighborhoods to the east.
CITY OF IEMECULA GENEKAL PLAN
LU -44
Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, 14 pt
441,4*
gene
L
A
N
D
LI
S
E
11
Figure LU -4
Specific Plan Areas
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Approved Specific Plans
SP- 1 Roripaugh Hills
SP- 2 Rancho Highlands
SP- 3 Margarita Village
SP- 4 Paloma/Paseo Del Sol
SP- 5 Old Town
SP- 6 Campos Verdes
SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center
SP- 8 WestsideNillages at Old Town
SP- 9 Redhawk
SP -10 Vail Ranch
SP -11 Roripaugh Ranch
SP -12 Wolf Creek
SP -13 Harveston
SP -14 Uptown Jefferson
PDO -4 Temecula Creek Village
PDO -5 Rancho Pueblo
# 106 Dutch Village
# 184 Rancho Bella Vista
# 213 Winchester Properties/Sft erhawk
# 265 Borel Airpark
# 284 Quinta Do Lago
# 286 Winchester 1800
# 238 Crown Valley Village
# 313 Morgan Hill
Future Specific Plans
Y Specific Plan Area Y
Z Specific Plan Area Z
eller Rd
SRe ili Rd
County of
Riverside
Jean Nichol Rd
B ores Ra
Buck Rd
•
•
•
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area
Source: Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
N
0
5,000
H H I
10,J00
Feet . --...—ate
Miles
1
H H I
0
2
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
LU -28
L
A
N
D
LI
s
E
II]
Figure LU -5
Land Use Focus Areas
II
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
0
NDN
/AY/
Mixed Use Overlay Areas
Rural Preservation Areas
Future Growth Area
. — Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area
Source: Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
•
eller Rd
County of
Riverside
Hunter Rd
Buck Rd
0 5,000
HHI
FHFHI
0 1
Fee
Miles
2
1 I_
F i F 1I lr _..
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
LU -34
warmiiu IUii!HIE--evizergEN rArdEwni-
.p =mom
01111111 11011.1 r. rti III MEI
••—•. 4111111
t1111!
L 7.0y?
.4.44m‘,1147.tokriliTtai4,4,
vs -3 -fm
---hrolTramm
idpleAdi
PiggPgrivi
\••
#1 •
4. yv iti °
Pi Nir+
It A
Alt•wal *
arraw44, ii
./Nriewratot
rissejle-i-s, 00
wsWinVis
4OAROV- ^el. it
06 4wir, 4.--deiN - -
nore, 4 molar. itirtk
4411 AM
/ dial -iplapaiku, z _
I* 040\1101i 4411111v IIIIIW/x
11,11-114.4e_.:411P0 ....,
L4ti_04tliffiP!rfrill44ar•':111.474#
gai . illi 10- 1
RCV4ILO I Itierl.:*
Mir ' 04/011111 4...kg-PtillW '41 f/W. ;•-•\
41111004k 41,14111111"1W1110311.111. *4:7 '
ggit#400ftittir Alio Ar -
......„0„,„ ...,_,.. ./..I.m." 1,---
l'aXIp-ra
:111111411t174‘:ft411114° 1P47.3416.1 j: Ilir:11; '
PalW111114401111.11111PZIPP /
vvr oralikirsw-
Or 101011
r114
*44,0
1111j1111
.A61111/410141111111V10 $4;1174
9"3
isaffirtrivaturrigtylits:46
r -V4 -1•141611
100160V1I'llefaintlia61-104
70411 /**0114prina.
611111 tilitaktkiiti MO* ,
4,r11641107444.01403114
VA** ii•V, -"wet& 041
7.17:::474.,--:0167-11714**
• . Irra I 411M
ES imrd
raktypnism
740-4wittlft,
=M. FIEDPININI
nammr.ummEmw
•
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
I 49 I Soectfic Plan Imolementabon
RESIDENTIAL
- 1411.10 (0-0 1 02/05 Max)
I Fn I Rural (0 1-0 2 Ou/Ac M.)
I I Very Low (0 2-0 4 Ou/Ac Max)
Low (0 5-2 9 Ou/Ac Max)
I I Low Med.um (3 0-6 9 Ou/Ac M.)
Nledum (/ 0-12 9 Ou/Ac Max)
o-zo o Du. m.)
COMMERCIAL / OFFICE
Mit
Neighborhood Commercral
- Co mmun.R Commeroal
I lir I 4195way Tounst Commercr.
I ServIce Commercol
I PO Office
INDUSTRIAL
- 1112,,st1ra, Park
PUBLIC USES A OPEN SPACE
Put, Instrt.tonal Facades
I 19 I VIneyards/Agnoultural
- 511191 Space
I 444 I Tr.., Trust Lands
Recreatron C25550015/01 0100200
Adopted April 12, 2005
Revised March 29, 2012 (GCR00002002 12-04)
—.— Temecula Croy Boundary
5p0ere a/nfluence...,
Plamung Nea
OLD TOWN
TEMECULA
EXHIBIT C
AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS
Old Town Temecula represents a great opportunity for the City to
preserve its heritage while promoting local tourism. The Old Town
area is recognized as the heart of the City and a separate Specific Plan
has been prepared for the area. While the area no longer functions as
a "Town Center" or "Downtown," many of the attributes of Old
Town help to establish the area as a special place within the City of
Temecula. The placement of additional civic and cultural uses in Old
Town would help revitalize
and restore the area.
UPTOWN
JEFFERSON
Uptown Jefferson is located immediately north of Old Town
Temecula. This area encompasses much of Temecula's first
commercial core, and was once a bustling and important locally -
serving community destination. Since this time, the area has been
overshadowed by development activity, infrastructure improvements
and private investment taking place elsewhere in the city. However,
enhancing this area's economic assets is critical to the area's long term
future. The revitalization of the area will occur through the
implementation of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as well as
through the application of various economic development strategies,
land use incentives, and by allowing for greater development intensity
within the area. This area is anticipated to include a mix of land uses,
such as urban residential neighborhoods, commercial retail, hotel and
hospitality, office/employment, higher education, cultural arts, and
recreation -related uses that co -exist within close proximity to one
another. This synergy in land use will create a vibrant destination, up-
scale residential neighborhoods and establish viable employment
opportunities within the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA G E N E R A L PLAN
CD -17
C
0
M
M
u
N
I
T
Y
D
E
S
I
G
N
C
0
M
M
u
N
T
Y
D
E
s
G
N
Figure CD -1
Community Design Plan
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
Activity and Design Elements
Activity Node
0 Focal Intersection
-®
0
Mixed Use Overlay Areas
City Gateway
City Entrance Signs
Streetscapes and Viewsheds Nature/Wilderness Trails
MjorStreetscape t weguuvion, and mourmin
biking)
Minor Streetsape 0000 Community Trail
Viewshed
Local Trail
as :r
Chaparral
Public, Open Space, and Recreation Facilities
Public Institutional Facilities
Vineyards/Agricultural
Open Space, Parks, and Recreational Facilities
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area
City Hall Community
Center
der Rd
peen! Rd
County of
Riverside
Jean Nichol: Rd
N
uor
J
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
Feet
Miles
H H
H H
0.5
1.5
2
LITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL P L A N
CD -5
C
1
R
C
u
L
A
T
1
0
N
Figure C-2
Roadway Plan
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
Interchange Improvements
Urban Arterial (8 Lanes divided)
Principal Arterial (6 Lanes divided)
Major Arterial (4 Lanes divided)
Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes undivided)
Modified Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes separate
• • • • Limited Secondary Arterial (2 Lanes divided)
Collector (2 Lanes undivided)
Rural Highway (2 Lanes undivided)
EXHIBIT D
eller Rd
County of
Riverside
Jean Nicholas Rd
Hunter Rd
Bore! Rd
Spring
Rd
i r
v
0 5,000 10,00
1 Feet
1--r H I
H H I
0
2
Miles
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
C. 21
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON
SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING
CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC
PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES,
AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO
ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA
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. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. On October 18, 2011, December 6, 2011, February 2, 2012, April 5, 2012,
June 14, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the City conducted Community Visioning Workshops
to provide information about the Specific Plan and to craft a community driven vision
and set of policy directions that would provide the City with a clear focus for developing
policies and standards for the Specific Plan.
C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan
Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the
Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from
the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "proposed Project").
D. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.
(collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for
the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the
principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for
the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in
March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion
with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment
period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18,
2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to
adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6,
2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at
the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located
at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the
Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City
of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website.
F. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission
held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, including the
Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and
Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone. 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, the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the conclusion of the November 4, 2015
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. 15-27, entitled "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 OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO
ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC
PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS
OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND
USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN."
G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula
considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan
Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the
elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time
all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any
comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
prior to and at the public hearing.
H. On November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-_,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" which amended
the Land Use Element Map of the Temecula General Plan to change the land use
designations of parcels within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from Community
Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT),
Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), Public Institutional (PI), and Open Space
Conservation (OS -C) to Specific Plan Implementation. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15-
, the City Council also amended the Land Use Element text of the Temecula
General Plan by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and
removing the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Overlay Area.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" certifying and adopting
the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program accurately address the impacts associated with the adoption of the Ordinance.
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. The Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of California
Government Code section 65451 based on the following:
(1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail
the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area covered by the plan (pages 3-1 through
3-23 of Specific Plan).
(2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail
the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water,
drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities
proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and
needed to support the land uses described in the plan (pages 6-1
through 6-21 of Specific Plan).
(3)
The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail
the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and
standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of
natural resources, where applicable (pages3-19 through 3-23 of
Specific Plan).
(4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures
including regulations, programs, public works projects, and
financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) above (pages 7-1 through 7-19 of Specific Plan).
(5)
The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the
Specific Plan to the General Plan (pages 2-1 and 2-3 of Specific
Plan).
B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City
Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that:
(1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan and
development code.
The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land
uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect
to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life
and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated
mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses
(Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development
(Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by
establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each
with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops,
offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's
land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses,
public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design
of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The
Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current
and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area.
This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services
will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial
ventures.
The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as
amended by this Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is properly planned
and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses
contemplated in the area.
(2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential
impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the
City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the
Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses
within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital
services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by
new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a
result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which
is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which
is in the public health, safety and welfare.
The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance
with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies
and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building
design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface
with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and
circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
(3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land
use designations and the anticipated land use developments.
There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would
preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated
developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with
the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool
to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The
Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta
Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient
freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for
proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as
open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the
development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces
and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill
development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize
the area.
(4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable
character which will be compatible with existing and proposed
development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Specific Plan 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.
Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield
flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as
a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will
employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to
create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use
development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six
separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas
based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique
character for each district.
The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current
land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily
of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of
the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service
development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses
including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of
the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would
maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The
Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the
open space designation that surrounds the creek.
SECTION 3. Adoption of Specific Plan.
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full,
SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment.
A. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Specific
Plan Zoning District SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is
amended to add the following Specific Plan area:
"SP -14 Uptown Jefferson"
SECTION 5. Zoning Map Amendment.
The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to add
the zoning classification "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to the Zoning Map as shown
on Exhibit A to this Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full.
SECTION 6. Adult Business Overlay Zone Amendment.
A. Legislative Findings
(1) The City Council seeks to remove the parcels located in the
Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Adult Business
Overlay Zone which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1
("Overlay Zone").
(2) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech
activities protected by the First Amendment, but rather to address
the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. It is further the
intent and purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the secondary
effects of adult businesses upon the residential uses that will be
located within the Specific Plan area.
(3)
The City Council finds that adult businesses tend to attract
prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult
businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding
businesses and residences, and contribute to blight and the
downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding
areas.
(4) The City Council finds that the protection and preservation of the
public health, safety and welfare require that certain distances be
maintained between adult businesses and residential uses.
Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020 provides that the
intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult
businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally
away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily
located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan area will
include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other
locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the
residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the
area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan
seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of
compatible, pedestrian -orientated retail, office, public facilities,
open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design
standards. The City Council hereby finds that the secondary
effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the
residential uses that will be located in the Specific Plan area. The
(5)
secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be
compatible with the residential uses and would be disrupted to the
residents of Specific Plan area.
The City Council further finds that the removal of parcels located in
the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone will
allow adequate sites for adult businesses to locate in the City. City
staff has advised that 426 commercially -zoned parcels would
remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in
the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of those
commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate
infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, City
staff has indicated that a number of the available parcels are
actually vacant commercial spaces. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot
buffer between adult uses, which are required by Temecula
Municipal Code section 5.09.040, approximately 13 adult
businesses could simultaneously locate in the Overlay Zone after it
is amended to exclude the Specific Plan area from its boundaries.
Given the size of the City and the fact that the City does not have a
single adult business operating within its borders at this point, the
available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market.
(6) The City Council further finds that there are an adequate number of
sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable
opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City
has a total population of 108,920. 1.8 percentage of land in the
City is theoretically available to adult businesses. In addition, there
are 13 sites that are potentially available for adult uses. Currently,
there are no businesses that wish to offer adult entertainment in the
City. Since its inception, the City has never received an application
for an adult business.
B. Amendment
Section 17.08.020 (H) (Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.) of
Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add:
"Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B to
Ordinance No. 15- , and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full."
Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08
(Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal
Code is amended as follows:
Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses
Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
Description of Use
NC
CC
HTC
SC
PO
BP
LI
A
Adult Businesses -subject to Chapter 5.09
of the Temecula Municipal Code7
--
C
C
C
--
--
--
7. Only within Special Overlay Zone No. 1 as described and depicted in Ordinance No.
15 -
SECTION 7. Consistency with General Plan
The foregoing amendments outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 above are consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula.
SECTION 8. 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 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, 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. 15- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 17th day of November, 2015,
and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
P,.
B
LI.
rA '*.4f.t4'4f-
**
11010, i
1100-41' AO*
ffi
41/1110 isilltra4.._
Pat i ***-- 016-11( ... I.
p�5P,=5
. 1 -kw* se '''"IfialoriG
hirset*Vit.V.AWW4Arr-/
WOr4ips -.4..•14‘..-ItA-0„,-t ,et
ow' Mkt' illity#411■Ii *VON Orek
lir 4.1iallr"r0OP,
r *tool**.
wii....
,,„
....._.
OB-
Ako
-opowiligg* *Ai stow*
04-40 toogititirlikir
11111::::44171
e- 11111111111141111111111
4
NI PT
to 00 tw 0-4 0 .ormi SAM
0,000.1.011
100.0n* VMS
■
Willm1161"2 =4i "m.
1024 -Ant grerwia-mor Asiwilliapiorvag".:Jir
aVia
owl
aum
■1.111: �1:': Illil1111111115111
Effective Date: August 9, 2005
venae tre
eo��
Zoning Designations
Designation
ensry Residential,/
ryp Resident.
a
▪ Mediumoaoeemei
▪ 9 o▪ meea
cetal �ml
- es
Rha�,
1.1 Rhee Rcea, a-=m�m ., - w ws.,
- ▪ co m comme.aa cc
- � e�, omme,
▪ ne..,..commeOa c,
- P,ak�mron o
ase ��comme,a�,sc,
- oans .os
▪ Public,. aneace,ma Pw
�M eC ou
- -e� e
Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1
r" -"i
City
Parcels
Parcels
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS IN -LIEU
FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER CEQA
REVIEW IS REQUIRED
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby
find, determine and declare that:
A. Keyser Marston, Inc., prepared a New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study
for Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, dated August, 2015 (the "Fee Study"), that analyzes
the impact of development within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area on the need
for certain street improvements and calculated the in -lieu fee based on that analysis.
B. The period of greater than ten (10) days prior to adoption of this chapter,
data has been available to the public, and to developers and their representative,
indicating the cost of estimated cost of the streets to be funded, the revenue sources
anticipated and means of spending these costs.
C. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed open and
public meeting, at which it considered the proposed adoption of the in -lieu fee for streets
within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area ("In -Lieu Fee"). The Fee Study, which
contains data indicating the estimated cost, required to provide the streets for which the
In -Lieu Fee would be levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service,
was made available to the public at least ten days prior to the date of this City Council
meeting.
D. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing regarding the adoption of the In -Lieu Fee and this Ordinance. Following the
receipt of all staff reports, public testimony and other evidence, the public hearing was
closed.
E. On November 17, 2015 the Council adopted Resolution No. 15 -
certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and
adopting the Mitigation and Monitoring Program ("EIR"). The EIR analyzed the
environmental impacts of the streets proposed by the Specific Plan which streets were
proposed to be funded by the In -Lieu Fee. The City staff has evaluated the potential
environmental impacts of the adoption of this specific Ordinance, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). City staff has determined that these
actions do not constitute a "project" under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378(b)(4) because these actions involve the creation of a government
funding mechanism for public improvements that have been fully analyzed under the
EIR. In addition, City Staff has determined that these actions are categorically exempt
from CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15273(a)(4) because these actions and
documents are merely establishing an in -fee to obtain funds for public improvements
that have been fully analyzed by the EIR.
F. All prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance as specified by the
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and other
applicable laws have been satisfied.
Section 2. Chapter 15.20, Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu
Fee, is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.20, UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS
IN -LIEU FEE
15.20.010 Findings and intent
15.20.020 Definitions
15.20.030 In -Lieu Fees and In -Lieu Fee Credits
15.20.040 Establishment and Administration of Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund
15.20.050 Payment
15.20.060 Severability
15.20.010 Findings and intent. The City Council finds, determines and
declares that:
A. During the visioning process for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
("Specific Plan"), the community identified the importance of improving the future
viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and
getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve
circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is
expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future
intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific
Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future
vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which
improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit.
B. In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to
accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which
created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and
shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth
accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old
Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded
residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and
were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved
through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks resulted in
fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For
pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast
moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for
pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Temecula Avenue is perceived by
pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting.
C. The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly,
urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses,
including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a
better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The
creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is a key strategy to
achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and
walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller
blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan
Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area.
D. The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street,
Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi-
modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan
area.
1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable,
pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the
current circulation network.
2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
3. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across
Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek.
4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and
planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area.
5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists
and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to
the north.
6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns,
and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding.
7. Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of
additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop.
8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by
adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network.
E. It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land within
the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of that development by
constructing or paying the In -Lieu Fee for the new streets required by that development
as provided in the Specific Plan.
F. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., prepared the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee
Nexus Study" for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan dated as of August, 2015 ("Nexus
Study"). Keyser Marston utilized the following methodology in conducting the Nexus
Study and reaching its conclusions:
1. Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features
and preliminary cost estimates.
2. Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e.,
dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms.
3. Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area.
4. Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can
be attributed to each land use type.
5. Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on
new development.
G. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu
fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit. The Nexus Study concluded
that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for non-residential uses is estimated to
range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet (SF). These in -lieu fees represent
Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the
Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee
and benefit to the development.
H. There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by
the In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the
types of development projects within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan on which they
are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets.
15.20.020 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings set
forth below:
A. "Developer" shall mean the person who has applied for land use
entitlements for a project within the Specific Plan Area subject to the applicable
requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance in Title 17 of this Code.
B. "Hotel Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the
Specific Plan.
C. "In -Lieu Fee" shall mean the Uptown Jefferson New Streets In -Lieu Fee
established by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to this Chapter.
D. "Office Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the
Specific Plan.
E. "Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling
unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor.
F. "Residential Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of
the Specific Plan.
G. "Retail Uses" shall include those uses as specified in Chapter 3, of the
Specific Plan.
H. "Specific Plan Area" shall mean the entire area of the City subject to the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan.
"Streets" means those new streets and roads designated in the Specific
Plan.
J. "Study" means the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee Nexus Study" for the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan dated as of August, 2015 prepared by Keyser Marston
Associates, Inc.
15.20.030 In -Lieu Fees and In -Lieu Fee Credits
A. The City Council shall by resolution establish and impose the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee ("In -Lieu Fee").
B. The In -Lieu Fee shall include an annual escalator based upon an
appropriate construction cost index that shall be designated in the Resolution of the City
Council establishing the In -Lieu Fee
C. Every person who develops a Hotel Use, Office Use, Residential Use and
Retail Use, or a combination thereof, in the Specific Plan Area after the effective date of
the Ordinance adopting this chapter shall pay to the City the In -Lieu Fee pursuant to this
Chapter.
D. The Director of Community Development shall calculate the In -Lieu Fee
applicable to the proposed project and notify the developer. Developer may appeal the
calculation of the In -Lieu Fee as part of the decision on its application for land use
approvals and pursuant to the procedures for appeal of a decision on such application.
E. In the event that a developer develops a Hotel Use, Office Use,
Residential Use or Retail Use, or a combination thereof, and constructs the Streets
required for such uses by the land use approval, the developer shall be entitled to a
credit on In -Lieu Fees applicable to its development in the amount of the actual costs for
the design, design, right of way and construction of the streets within the time called for
in the project's land use entitlements. City shall enter into an improvement agreement
with developer that will guarantee completion of the design, right of way and
construction of such streets within a specified period of time, provide for the estimate of
such work and appropriate securities based thereon and such other matters as the City
Manager deems necessary to implement the street work required for the development.
City Manager shall be authorized to enter into such agreements on behalf of the City.
F. In the event that the design, right of way and construction costs for the
new street to be constructed by the developer will exceed the total In -Lieu Fee amount
for the proposed project, the developer may apply for full or partial reimbursement of
such costs from the Uptown Jefferson New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund, to the extent that
sufficient money is available in such fund to cover such costs. City Manager shall be
authorized to enter into such reimbursement agreements with the developer on behalf
of the City.
G. The developer may apply to the Director of Community Development for a
determination that In the event that its proposed development project will have no
impact on the streets for which the In -Lieu Fee would be charged and that such project
should be exempted from the In -Lieu Fee. The Director of Community Development
may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the owner's application. Developer may
appeal the calculation of the In -Lieu Fee as part of the decision on its land use
application and pursuant to the procedures for appeal of a land use decision.
15.20.040 Establishment and Administration of Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund
A. The Finance Director shall establish a special interest-bearing fund
entitled "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund." All fees
collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended
on the design, right of way, and construction, or a combination thereof, of the new
streets designated in Specific Plan for the Specific Plan Area.
B. The Finance Director shall report to the City Council the amounts in the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Fund and the expenditures
made from the Fund, in the form and frequency required by law.
15.20.050 Payment
A. The required In -Lieu Fee shall be due and paid on a lump -sum basis on
the date of issuance of a building permit, final building inspection, or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first; unless otherwise pre-empted by State
law.
B. For the purposes of this section, "final building inspection" shall mean the
physical inspection of the building by the Building & Safety Division of the Community
Development Department of the City of Temecula for compliance with all applicable
building codes and the issuance by all applicable City, county, regional, state and
federal agencies of their respective clearances for occupancy.
C. For the purposes of this section, "certificate of occupancy" shall mean a
document issued by the proper authority allowing the occupancy or use of a building
and certifying that the structure, building or development conforms with all applicable
provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code, ordinances and conditions of approval.
15.20.060 Severability
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the other provisions of this
chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or its application, and to
this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of , 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, 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. 15- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 17th day of November, 2015,
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 , , the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AND IMPOSING THE
"UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN NEW STREETS
IN -LIEU FEE"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Short Title. This Resolution may be referred to as the "Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee Resolution" of the City of Temecula.
Section 2. Findings and intent. The City Council finds, determines and
declares that:
(a) During the visioning process for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
("Specific Plan"), the community identified the importance of improving the future
viability of alternative transportation modes, including walking, biking and transit, and
getting people out of their cars. The community also identified the need to improve
circulation for all modes of transportation, and ensure that the existing street network is
expanded and additional internal street connections are made to sustain the future
intensification of the area. As a result of this visioning recommendation, the Specific
Plan requires smaller blocks and new streets to achieve and implement the future
vision: a multi -modal interconnected street network within the Specific Plan area, which
improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and transit.
(b) In towns prior to World War II, streets were commonly designed to
accommodate pedestrians. Street layouts were planned to create smaller blocks, which
created compact downtowns. This enabled people to easily walk between stores and
shops. The best local example of this is the street grid in Old Town. Temecula's growth
accelerated during the 1960's, and new development extended north and south of Old
Town. The Specific Plan Area was zoned for commercial uses, and excluded
residential uses. In the 1960's and 1970's, streets were optimized for automobiles, and
were designed to move as many cars as quickly as possible. This was achieved
through the use of wide streets, gentle curves and large blocks. Large blocks resulted in
fewer intersections and wide straight streets enabled faster traffic speeds. For
pedestrians, this resulted in long walking distances on sidewalks that were next to fast
moving traffic. Also, wide streets have longer crosswalks, and require more time for
pedestrians to cross. The experience of walking on Jefferson Avenue is perceived by
pedestrians as not very safe, comfortable or interesting.
(c) The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly,
urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses,
including residential. Accordingly, the Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a
better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The
creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is a key strategy to
achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and
walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller
blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan
Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area.
(d) The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street,
Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi-
modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan
area.
1) Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable,
pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the
current circulation network.
2) Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
3) Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across
Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek.
4) Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and
planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area.
5) Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists
and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to
the north.
6) Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns,
and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding.
7) Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of
additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop.
8) Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by
adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network.
(e) It is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land within
the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of that development by
constructing or paying the In -Lieu Fee for the new streets required by that development
as provided in the Specific Plan.
(f) Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., prepared the "New Streets In -Lieu Fee
Nexus Study" for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan dated August 2015 ("Nexus
Study"). Keyser Marston Associates utilized the following methodology in conducting
the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions:
1) Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features
and preliminary cost estimates.
2) Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e.,
dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms.
3) Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area.
4) Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can
be attributed to each land use type.
5) Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on
new development.
(g) The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu
fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit. The Nexus Study concluded
that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for non-residential uses is estimated to
range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet (SF). These in -lieu fees represent
Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the
Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee
and benefit to the development.
(h) There is a reasonable relationship between the streets to be paid for by
the In -Lieu Fees, the amount of such fees, and the need for streets generated by the
types of development projects within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan on which they
are imposed. Developers are paying their fair share of the costs of the new streets.
(i) Words used in this Resolution shall have the definitions assigned to them
by Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
Street In -Lieu Fee
Section 3. Amount of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu
Fee. Pursuant to the provisions Chapter 15.06, including without limitation, Section
15.06.030, of the Temecula Municipal Code, the City Council hereby establishes and
imposes the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Street In -Lieu Fee within the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan Area in the amounts of:
(a) $6,351 for a Residential Unit;
(b) $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses;
(c) $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and
(d) $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses.
Section 4. Automatic Annual Adjustment of In -Lieu Fee. On July 1 of
each year, the In -Lieu Fees described in Section 3 of this Resolution shall be adjusted
by the Director of Finance based upon the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering
News Record Index ("ENRI"). The Director of Finance shall compute the percentage
difference between the ENRI on March 1 of each year and the ENRI for the previous
March 1. Should the ENRI be revised or discontinued, the Director of Finance shall use
either the revised ENRI or a comparable system as approved by the City Council for
determining fluctuations in the construction cost index. The new schedule of fees, as
adjusted, shall constitute the transportation impact fees authorized by Chapter 15.06 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and shall be incorporated into this Resolution.
Section 5. Effective Date. The In -Lieu Fee established by this Resolution
shall be effective sixty (60) days following the effective date of Ordinance No. 15 -
establishing Chapter 15.06, Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan New Streets In -Lieu Fee.
Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application
thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall affect the
other provisions of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid
provisions or its application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are
severable.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT — PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: October 21, 2015
TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner
PROJECT Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of:
SUMMARY: 1) The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan;
2) A General Plan Amendment to: (a) amend the Land Use
Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of
"Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all
land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the
provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) amend the Circulation
Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson
Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principle Arterial
to a Major Arterial; and (c) make textual amendments by
incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan in various chapters of the General Plan;
3) A Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan boundaries;
4) A Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult
Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan area; and
5) Certification of the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Report.
CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
RECOMMENDATION: That at the October 21, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission
consider the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the draft
Enviornmental Impact Report; the General Plan Amendment,
Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the Temecula
Municipal Code to remove the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area
from the Adult Business Overlay zone, take public testimony and
continue the public hearing to November 4, 2015. That at the
November 4, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN"
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
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
ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN,
AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE SPECIFIC
PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO
REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO
ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA"
AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND
USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN"
3. Recommend that staff prepare a Streetscape Beautification and
Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area.
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: City of Temecula
General Plan Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT),
Designation: Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP), and Open Space
(OS)
Zoning Designation:
Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT),
Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), Light Industrial (LI),
and Open Space — Conservation (OS -C)
Existing Conditions/
Land Use:
Rita: Retail restaurant office, hotel
• , MI M11�, hotel,
other uses, and vacant
2
rine
QtOtinr+
VIGtIVI 1,
VmmrVlalveVI. VVG
North: City of Murrieta — retail, service commercial, industrial, office, public
institutional, open space and vacant
South: Old Town Temecula — retail, service commercial, restaurant, hotel,
motel, gas station, residential, other uses, and vacant
East: Interstate 15 and retail
West: Murrieta Creek, industrial, and service commercial
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The Jefferson Avenue Study Area ("Study Area") is located north of Rancho California Road,
west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz Road/Murrieta Creek and south of Cherry Street. The Study
Area is approximately 560 acres and consists primarily of a mix of developed commercial
property, and property designated as conservation/open space (Murrieta Creek).
In January 2011, the Temecula City Council determined that enhancing the Study Area's
economic assets would be critical to sustaining the area's long term future viability and
established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of two City Council
members: Jeff Comerchero, Michael McCracken, and Ron Roberts (former committee member).
The Ad Hoc Subcommittee directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning workshops to
obtain community input for the future Specific Plan area.
From October 2011 through July 2012, the Community Development Department orchestrated
six community visioning workshops and engaged the community in an effort to develop a
Specific Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Area. The Envision Jefferson public visioning process
resulted in the following Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals to guide the
development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (sometimes referred to as "Specific Plan").
Guiding Principle #1 Ensure the Specific Plan is based upon economic & market realities.
Guiding Principle #2 Ensure the Specific Plan is flexible in order to allow for innovation and
reaction to market realities.
Recommendation 1 - Strengthen Economic Development
Goal: Spark the revitalization of the area through comprehensive economic development
strategies that support a sustainable fiscal foundation for the future.
Recommendation 2 - Expand the Mix of Uses
Goal: Allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use options within the Specific Plan
area.
Recommendation 3 - Define Districts and Neighborhoods
Goal: Encourage the definition and development of districts within the area based upon current
and historical uses in order to cultivate unique character.
Recommendation 4 - Improve Transportation, Mobility, Connectivity and Circulation
Goal: Encourage the development of a multi -modal, interconnected circulation network that
improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit.
Recommendation 5 - Integrate Recreation, Open Spaces and Trails
Goal: Encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and
biking trails, public open spaces and active and passive recreation spaces.
3
Recommendation 6 - Create Updated and Flexible Development Standards
Goal: Create urban development standards that will guide future development while being
flexible and adaptable to changing market demands and economic conditions.
Recommendation 7 - Build and Maintain a Comprehensive Utility Infrastructure System
Goal: Ensure adequate infrastructure capacity to support future urban development.
Recommendation 8 - Establish Distinct Identity
Goal: Establish a recognizable identity, experience, and brand.
To date 33 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through either the
Envision Jefferson public visioning process, Jefferson Sub -committee meetings, Steering
Committee meetings, City Commission meetings, and a Developer Forum. The City has also
engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson website, and the City of Temecula website.
Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to determine the best land uses and
development standards necessary to create a new and vibrant Uptown Jefferson. Staff has
completed the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan based on the guiding principles and
recommendations to develop a plan based on the community's vision. Staff is now presenting
the draft Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment before seeking
adoption of the Specific Plan by City Council.
Pending the Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council, staff intends to seek City
Council adoption of the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a
Zone Change, a Zoning Map Amendment and a Municipal Code Amendment, along with
certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of findings pursuant to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on November
17, 2015.
ANALYSIS
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan is a form based development code which provides for a range of
uses including mixed use residential development, access to open space and recreational
areas, and improved pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular mobility and connectivity. Staff chose using
a form based code because it focuses on building form, building placement, and the creation of
a pedestrian scale environment. All aspects of the Specific Plan considered the guiding
principles, recommendations and the community's vision for the area.
Market Assessment - In order to ensure the Specific Plan is based on economically feasible
development and an appropriate mix of uses, staff consulted with Keyser Marston Associates
Inc. (KMA) to perform a market assessment of the types of land uses that the Study Area could
support based on prevailing market factors, trade area growth projections, and anticipated
macroeconomic changes within each major land use category. The focus of the KMA market
assessment was to evaluate the potential for development of new mixed-use development in
the Study Area. The assessment relied upon readily available third -party demographic and
market data sources. KMA reviewed both existing and historical market trends to better
understand future development potential. KMA also prepared 10 -year market demand
projections for various land uses within the Study Area.
4
An extrapolation of the KMA study over a 20 -year period indicates that the Study Area could
support approximately 5.5 million square feet of development.
Anticipated 20 Year Specific Plan Development Scenario
Buildable Acres
2
Commercial s.f.
128
acres
1.9
million s.f.
3
Residential d.u.
3,726
d.u.
Total Development Potential
5.5
million s.f.
"Nets -out" Murrieta Creek Open Space. Assumes 30% of the total gross acres to be dedicated to
future streets and alleys. Assumes 50% of the remaining acreage will be dedicated to surface parking
or a parking garage and is not counted in the total development potential.
2
Assumes a FAR of 1.0 for Retail and Restaurant uses and an FAR of 2.0 for Office and Hotel uses
for all districts, except Uptown Center where a FAR of 2.5 was assumed for Office and Hotel uses.
3
Assumes a Residential density of 45 du/acre in all districts.
The Market Assessment also considered the demographic trends and market conditions for the
Study Area and surrounding trade area. KMA assessed the market support for each land use in
the near-, mid-, and long term. These rankings are summarized as follows:
Office
Land Use
Market Strength by Land Use
Near-term
0-5 Years
Hotel
Weak
Weak
Mid-term
5-10 Years
Long-term
10+ Years
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Multi -Family
Residential
Moderate
Retail/Restaurant
Weak
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Districts and Land uses - The Specific Plan establishes the following six zoning districts and two
overlay zones:
Zoning Districts
1. Uptown Center District (UC)
2. Uptown Hotel/Tourism District (UHT)
3. Uptown Sports/Transit District (US)
4. Uptown Arts District (UA)
5. Creekside Village District (CV)
6. Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR -OS)
Overlay Zones
1. Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zone (CV -CO)
2. Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO)
5
Each zoning district and overlay zone has specific land uses and development standards which
vary slightly by district in order to achieve differences between the districts. The boundaries of
each district and overlay zone were established based on the existing land uses, geographic
and surrounding physical features, and the desired vision of the community. Vertical or
horizontal mixed-use development is encouraged to promote a more urban style environment
which was desired by the community.
The allowable land uses within the Specific Plan varies from what is currently allowed under the
existing zoning. Industrial and heavy automotive repair uses would no longer be allowed under
the Specific Plan. Residential uses, which are currently not allowed under the existing zoning,
would be allowed under the Specific Plan. The industrial and heavy automotive repair uses that
currently exist in the proposed Specific Plan area would be considered incompatible uses when
located adjacent to residential uses. However, it is also the policy of the Specific Plan that legal
non -conforming uses that were legally established prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan are
allowed to continue as they were, without any restriction to their operations. Should the legal
non -conforming land use be discontinued for a continuous period of 365 days or more, the legal
non -conforming use shall not be reestablished. It should also be noted the Specific Plan also
allows a property owner to apply to extend the legal non -conforming status beyond the initial
365 day period due to hardship, and there is no limit to the number of extensions of one-year
extensions of time that may be granted.
Mobility and Infrastructure - The infrastructure needed for enhancing mobility within the Specific
Plan area was analyzed with the goal of improving mobility for vehicular travel, bicyclists,
pedestrians and transit users to achieve the community's vision for a bicycle and pedestrian
friendly urban experience. To accomplish this goal, the existing right-of-way (ROW) and curb -
to -curb street cross sections were evaluated to determine if on -street parking, bicycle facilities,
and 20 -foot sidewalks were feasible throughout the Specific Plan area. The result was a series
of new street cross sections that include 20 -foot sidewalks, on -street parking, bicycle facilities,
curb bulb -outs at intersections, bus turn -outs, and painted or raised medians. The new cross
sections fit within the existing ROW and curb -to -curb sections, enabling the existing street cross
sections to be retrofitted with the new street cross sections without acquiring additional ROW or
the need to widen any of the existing streets.
New streets have been added to the Specific Plan in order to create a grid pattern street
network with smaller blocks. Smaller blocks and a grid pattern street network create more
pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods, by reducing the size of existing blocks and
creating additional connections resulting in improved mobility throughout the Specific Plan area.
The location of new streets is proposed as a hypothetical street network to allow for flexibility in
their location as development occurs. The hypothetical street network will be constructed as
new development occurs where new block size standards are exceeded. The construction of
new streets will be equitably funded by all new development via an in -lieu fee, which is
described in further detail below.
New Streets In -lieu fee - As discussed above, the Specific Plan calls for new internal streets to
enhance internal connectivity, mobility and to create more pedestrian friendly and walkable
neighborhoods. The new streets will be funded by new development via an in -lieu fee. The fee
is based on the overall cost of the new streets and is based on a standard 66 foot street cross
section.
The Ie future vision 1 for SpecificPIQi 1 Area is a 'vibrant, pedestrian -friendly, lldly, urba111 district within the
City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the
6
Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians,
bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Temecula Specific
Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide
safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces.
Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan
Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area.
The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design
Guidelines of the Specific Pian will achieve improved multi -modal mobility, increased circulation
and better connectivity within the specific plan area.
1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable,
pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and
alleys to the current circulation network.
2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across
Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek.
Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail
and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the
project area.
Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian,
cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the
south, and Murrieta to the north.
6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns,
and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced
way -finding.
7. Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of
additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop.
8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels
by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation
network.
The following methodology was used in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its
conclusions:
1. Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary
cost estimates.
2. Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units,
office space, retail space, and hotel rooms.
3. Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area.
4. Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed
to each land use type.
5. Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new
development.
The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses
is estimated at $12,701 per unit, and for non-residential uses, it is estimated to range between
$8.50 and $19.87 per square feet. These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as
to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and
the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development.
The Nexus Study also concluded, however, that these fees would be economically unfeasible
and recommended that the following lower fees be adopted: $6,351 for a Residential Unit;
$4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; $9.94 per square foot of gross
building area for Retail Uses; and $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses.
Utility Infrastructure - The infrastructure needed to support the anticipated development of the
Specific Plan area was analyzed for water supply, sewer capacity, storm water conveyance,
electricity, natural gas, solid waste disposal and telecommunications. Staff coordinated with
service providers to determine if there is adequate infrastructure for future development in
conformity with the Specific Plan. All utility service providers indicated that adequate capacity
exists, with exception to wastewater system capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)
is the service provider for wastewater collection and treatment in the Specific Plan area. EMWD
indicated the existing sewer pipelines in the Specific Plan area do not have ample capacity to
accommodate the additional wastewater flow that would be generated under the Specific Plan
at build -out. However, developers will pay their fair share of the EMWD mitigation fees to
upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, Via Montezuma and Del Rio Road.
Plan Administration — The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan proposes a streamlined approval
process for planning applications. All planning applications (with the exception of an application
for a variance) will have the ability for administrative approval, when a Notice of Intent to
Approve is posted on site and the notice is mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the
proposed project, 20 days prior to the date of the Director of Community Development's
decision to approve.
The Notice of Intent to Approve must include the: 1) the date and time that the Planning Director
will administratively approve the proposed project, 2) an explanation of the matter to be
considered, 3) a detailed description of the proposed project and a summary of the project
scope, 4) the findings being made for approval of the proposed project, 5) the general
description (in the form of text or a diagram) of the property's location, 6) the location where the
plans and/project file can be reviewed by the public, and 7) the procedures for requesting a
public hearing.
A public hearing will not be held unless a hearing is requested in writing by any member of the
City Council, Planning Commission, the applicant, or by an affected party owning real property
within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed project. If a hearing is requested, the
hearing will be conducted by the Director of Community Development, unless the Director of
Community Development defers such a decision to the Planning Commission.
Specific Plan Changes Since the May 2015 Draft — Since the May 2015 draft of the Uptown
leffercnn Rnarifir Pian iniac relaacart fnr ni ihlir rnmment cavaral rhangac have heSn marie to
address public concerns and/or clarify the intent of the Specific Plan. These changes have
8
been incorporated into the Final Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (October 2015). A
summary of these proposed changes may be found in Attachment A to this staff report.
General Plan Amendments
Land Use Element - The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use
designations for parcels within the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian area to a single
General Plan designation of "Specific Plan Implementation" from their current designations of
Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC),
Industrial Park (IP) and Open Space (OS).
The purpose of the Specific Plan Implementation land use designation is to ensure consistency
between the land uses and development characteristics of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
area and the General Plan by referring directly to the Specific Plan for the intended uses and
development characteristics for this area. If approved, the General Plan Amendment would
change the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU -3) for the area within the proposed Specific
Plan boundaries, add Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas
(Table LU -4), remove Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas
(Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and add the description of the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text within the Land Use Element.
Circulation Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Roadway Plan
(Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, by changing the classification of
Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from Principle Arterial (6 -lane divided) to Major
Arterial (4 -lane divided). The proposed change is consistent with the community's vision, the
transition of Jefferson Avenue at the City's corporate boundary with the City of Murrieta, and
with the proposed Jefferson Avenue street cross section that is south of Winchester Road.
Community Design Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the
description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element.
It would also amend the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay
Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland
Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying
Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvement.
Zoning Map and Zoning Code Amendments
The proposed Specific Plan requires a Zoning Map amendment changing the zoning
designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service
Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), and Light Industrial (LI) to the designation of Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also requires an amendment to Section 17.16.070 of
the Temecula Municipal Code by adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the list of
approved specific plans.
Adult Business Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Amendment
The Specific Plan requires an amendment to Chapter 5.09 Adult Business Regulations of the
Temecula Municipal Code by removing the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary from the
Special Use Overlay No.1.
In 1998, the City adopted the Adult Business Overlay Zone as Special Use Overlay No. 1, which
9
designated commercially -zoned parcels as possible locations for the establishment of adult
businesses ("Overlay Zone"). All of the parcels in the Overlay Zone have adequate lighting,
sidewalks, access roads, power and other utilities to support a commercial enterprise.
Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040 requires a 1,000 -foot buffer between adult
businesses in the Overlay Zone. In addition, no person shall operate an adult business without
first obtaining an adult business license and a modified version of a conditional use permit. At
this point, the City does not have any adult businesses operating within its borders.
The Specific Plan area overlaps with 58 parcels in the Overlay Zone. Due to concerns about
the secondary effects of having adult businesses operate in the proposed Specific Plan area
and the incompatibility of land uses, the proposed Specific Plan and the proposed amendment
to the Adult Business Ordinance would limit adult businesses to only those portions of the
Overlay Zone that are located outside of the proposed Specific Plan area. If the City adopts
zoning code and zoning map amendments to remove the parcels located in the proposed
Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone, there would still be 426 parcels remaining in the
Overlay Zone available for the establishment of adult businesses.
The City seeks to remove the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone to
address the secondary effects of adult businesses. The City is not seeking to regulate free
speech, but is concerned about the secondary effects of adult businesses. Adult businesses
tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses
also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences.
Because there are no adult businesses located within the City, evidence of the adverse
secondary effects of adult oriented businesses can be found in various studies and reports
which have been considered by other municipalities and local governments including, but not
limited to:
• Eric S. McCord and Richard Tewksbury, Does the Presence of Sexually Oriented
Businesses Relate to Increased Levels of Crime? An Examination Using Spatial
Analyses, Crime & Delinquency (2012);
• Alan C. Weinstein and Richard McCleary, The Association of Adult Businesses with
Secondary Effects: Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 29 Cardozo
Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 565 (2012);
• Richard McCleary and Lori Sexton, Testimony on SB 3348 (March 2012);
• Jacqueline Reuben, Chris Serio -Chapman, Christopher Welsh, Richard Matens and
Susan G. Sherman, Correlates of Current Transactional Sex Among a Sample of
Female Exotic Dances in Baltimore, MD, 88 Journal of Urban Health 342 (April 2011);
• The Bureau of Business Research, IC Institute, and the Institute of Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault of the University of Texas at Austin, An Assessment of the Adult
Industry in Texas (March 2009);
• Richard McCleary and Alan C. Weinstein, Do "Off -Site" Adult Businesses Have
Secondary Effects? Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 31 Law &
Policy 217 (April 2009);
• Richard McCleary, Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses, 19 Criminal Justice
10
Policy Review 153 (2008);
• Valerie Jenness, Richard McClearly and James W. Meeker, Crime -Related Secondary
Effects of Sexually -Oriented Businesses, Report to the County Attorney Palm Beach
County, Florida (August 15, 2007);
• Richard McCleary, Crime Related Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses:
Report to the City Attorney (May 2007);
• Department of Planning and Development Director's Report, Adult Cabarets in Seattle
(March 2006);
• Duncan Associates, Survey of Appraisers Fort Worth & Dallas Effects of Land Uses on
Surrounding Property Values (2004);
• Report of Richard McCleary in People of the State of Illinois v. The Lion's Den, Inc., In
the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Illinois, Case Number 04 -CH -26;
• Eric Damian Kelly and Connie B. Cooper, Survey, Findings and Recommendations of
Sexually Oriented Businesses Toledo, Ohio (August 2002);
• David Sherman, Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View, Proponent Testimony
S.B. 251 Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Civil Justice (December 2002);
• An Insider's View of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Testimony of David Sherman (2000);
Duncan Associates, Sexually -Oriented Business Study Rochester, New York (July
2000); and
• National Law Center for Children and Families, NLC Summaries of "SOB Land Use"
Studies (1996).
These studies and reports establish that adult business often have a harmful effect on nearby
businesses and residential areas, causing an increase in crime in both the surrounding
neighborhoods and in the adult business establishments themselves, and a decrease in
property values.
The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is intended to create a unique destination place within
the City of Temecula through the careful planning of land uses, public spaces, development
standards and public transportation. Uptown Jefferson will be Temecula's newest "destination."
Vibrant, sophisticated and unique, the area will be home to a diverse mix of residents of all
ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic, up-and-coming neighborhoods. These
neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no
other place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be upscale and culturally robust, each
with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and
other locally -serving uses. Complemented by an expanded mix of new locally -owned and
corporate businesses, collectively they will provide high quality jobs, as well as goods and
services to local residents.
Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020(H) provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is
"to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally
11
away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the
commercial districts." The Specific Plan will add a significant number of new residential units to
the Specific Plan Area that has been largely commercial and industrial. The Specific Plan area
will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The
Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to
activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to
encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -oriented retail,
office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards.
The urban neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson are located within walking distance to a hub of
quality and thriving businesses, technologically innovative employment centers, and higher -
education facilities. The vibe of Uptown Jefferson will foster creativity, stimulate innovation, and
provide a place for community members to work, learn and refashion the world around them.
And historically important, locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to
thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. Uptown Jefferson will also
contribute to the local tourism industry with expanded hotel offerings, restaurants and shops. In
addition to expanding its service to traditional weekend -oriented tourism, the stronger presence
of businesses and corporations will fill hotel rooms and support small conventions and events
that occur during the week.
The secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential
uses within the Specific Plan area. As noted above, the residential uses will be intermingled
with commercial uses. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be
compatible with the residential uses and would be disruptive to the residents of Uptown
Jefferson.
The City Council may revise the Overlay Zone to remove the parcels located in the Specific
Plan area from the Overlay Zone if it finds that: (1) the sites available to adult businesses are an
actual part of the real estate market, and (2) there are an adequate number of sites for adult
businesses.
1. The sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market.
To be part of the actual real estate market, the sites must be zoned for commercial use,
available for commercial use, or if zoned for manufacturing or industrial uses, it must be feasible
for the sites to be used for commercial uses (i.e., they must be connected to roadways and
appropriate infrastructure). The GIS map prepared by staff indicates that 426 commercially -
zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the
Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of these commercially -zoned parcels have
adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition,
many of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. These parcels could be
developed to support an adult use business. Therefore, the sites available to adult businesses
are an actual part of the real estate market.
2. There are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses.
There are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a
reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total
population of 106,780. 1.8% of land in the City is available to adult businesses. Even in light of
the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by the Municipal Code, the map
indicates that at least 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate within the Overlay Zone
12
after it is amended to exclude the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from its boundaries.
Given the size of the City, the City has never received an application for an adult business,.and
the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders, the
available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. Thus, there is an adequate
number of sites available for adult businesses even if the parcels located within the Specific
Plan area are removed from the Overlay Zone.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 11, 2015
and will be published on October 24, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within the required
600 -foot radius.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Specific Plan, Zoning Code Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and an Amendment to
the Temecula Municipal Code revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from
the Specific Plan area ("proposed Project") was processed, in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code
Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the
lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers
and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a
Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and
circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the
proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft
EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. In response to the NOP,
the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment
letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR.
On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a
public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft
EIR.
A Draft EIR was prepared under staffs direction by ESA (State Clearinghouse Number
2013061012) and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations,
and individuals. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The
public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse
commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review
period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for
public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department,
Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600
Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mel!man Community Library located at 41000 County
Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City
also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -
Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The City received written comments
and responded to each comment in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). A copy of
13
the City's response has been provided to commenting agencies as required by State law. A
copy of theFinal EIR document has been provided to the Commission.
The environmental analysis identified four areas where impacts were not considered to be
significant (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Land Use and Planning,
Population and Housing, and Public Services) and nine areas where potentially significant
impacts were identified which could be avoided or mitigated. These nine areas include
Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise (operational); Transportation and
Traffic; and Utilities and Water Supply Assessment. The Final EIR contains mitigation
measures for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant
impact. Four impact areas were identified as resulting in an unavoidable, significant impact and
include the following:
Direct Impacts
• Air Quality (construction and operations) - Construction and operation activities
associated with implementation of the proposed project would violate air quality
standards related to Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitorgen Dioxide (NOx)
emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at the Program EIR level.
Under conditions where one or more of the construction phases overlap, these pollutant
emissions could be even higher. While implementation of Mitigation Measures would
reduce the emissions of ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction
scenario evaluated in the Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below
South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds for the two
respective criteria pollutants. When the operational ROG emissions of the proposed
project are compared to that of the existing land uses, the primary emissions source
contributing to the net increase in ROG emissions is associated with area sources,
which include emissions generated from architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings
on structures over time), consumer products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and
landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the majority (75 percent) of the estimated
ROG emissions generated by the proposed project were associated with the use of
consumer products by the new residents in the proposed project area. The estimated
net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses associated with the
proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. As the
regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no
feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions
generated under the proposed project to the extent that these emissions would be below
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Although Mitigation Measures will be
implemented to lessen the short term construction and ongoing operational air quality
impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of
significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant.
• Noise (construction) - Construction activities occurring at each individual development
site in the proposed project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or
nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measures
such as noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the
new developments occurring in the proposed project area would be implemented to
reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent
feasible. Where future construction sites within the project area are located
immediately adjacent to existing land uses, however, a substantial temporary or periodic
14
increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project
would remain significant. Therefore, the proposed project's construction noise would be
a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses.
Cumulative Impacts
• Air Quality (construction and operations) - The Program EIR shows the worst-case daily
construction emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed the
SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx (ozone precursors). Therefore,
the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD's respective thresholds during
construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment (i.e., ozone and NO2).
Although Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the long term air quality
impacts, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below
the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant. The
proposed project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other past, current, and
probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
• Cultural Resources (historic) - Construction activities associated with implementation of
the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the
Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50 years or older. If avoidance of
identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation
of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public
interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to implementation. Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not
been done and the details of any treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible
that the treatment plan may be insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic
resource to a Tess -than -significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant
and unavoidable after implementation Mitigation Measures, at a program EIR level
analysis.
In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must adopt a
Statement of Overriding Consideration prior to approving the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan.
The Statement of Overriding Consideration states that any significant adverse project effects
are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No.
15 -
The benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program EIR. Among the
benefits that this proposed project provides the community are expanded economic
opportunities through a more active urban downtown, an increased variety in housing types to
complement the City's current housing stock, the potential for the addition of a full service hotel
to serve the Temecula area, and the potential for significant new employment.
FINDINGS
General Plan Amendment
1. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest.
15
The General Plan Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area, is in the public
interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the oldest commercial development in the
City. At one time, the Specific Plan area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many
of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital
services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and
private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the
revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic
longevity which is in the public interest.
2. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare
of the community.
The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the
community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of
the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the
Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The Specific Plan was
reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended, and
the Growth Management Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect
the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes
specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the
surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan
is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
The General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses
north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial
uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately
tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including
commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Specific Plan area
is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -
Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the
open space designation that surrounds the creek.
4. The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General
Plan. The General Plan Amendment will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement
the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses,
and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use
in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and
policies in the Land Use dement of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix
of residential, ^commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of
diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist
with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the
Specific Plan area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that
aro ,,ncrlo and culturally rnhuct each with a rlictinrf rrhararter anrd irdentity, r,ffcrinn a mix of
homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use
16
mix will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and
intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will maximize the
connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based
upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will
ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-
side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed General Plan Amendment
will result in compatible future development, which will meet the recommended land use and
circulation pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and
other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Specific Plan
1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code.
The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as
amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan,
provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and
requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality
of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial,
industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development
character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by
establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character
and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses.
The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public
open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will
maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which
are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each
area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to
thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan, as noted on page LU -26, anticipates that the City
will provide comprehensive planning of large areas and identifies a portion of the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan area for mixed-use development. Minor General Plan revisions will
provide that the provisions of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan are integrated into the City's
General Plan and are required so that the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan can continue to
support the City's General Plan objectives for the area, which will include promoting
revitalization and guide future development by encouraging urban in -fill and a mix of uses
including residential, commercial retail, hotel and hospitality, office/employment, higher
education, and cultural arts that co -exist within close proximity to one another, supported by a
multi -modal transportation network and connected to recreation and open spaces.
The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's Development Code, after the proposed
amendments are incorporated. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is
physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area. The Specific Plan
also complies with all applicable Development Code Standards required for specific plans
including Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning Districts) and Section 17.01.040 (relationship to
General Plan) and is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan goals, policies and
objectives.
17
2. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific
Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan
and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the
Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the
area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts
of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is
critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health,
safety and welfare.
The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General
Plan, as amended, and the Growth Management Action Plan. These documents set policies
and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the
Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure
compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and
circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
3. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and
the anticipated land use developments.
The subject area of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan consists of approximately 560 acres. As
outlined in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (page LU -32), the purpose of
Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive planning document for large areas so that a
coordinated planning approach is provided for all anticipated land use developments. As such,
the entire Specific Plan area has been reviewed based on existing structures and future build
out potential and is physically suitable for the land use designations provided by the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan.
There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the
requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land
uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serve as the
tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan
area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush
hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically
suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space,
and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and
biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also
promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area.
4. The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure the development of desirable character which
will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding
neighborhood.
As identified within the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU -5 and Table LU -6, a
large portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is identified as a Land Use Focus Area
designated for mixed-use development. As such, the adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan will provide development standards and guidelines that enhance the area economically
18
and ensure the development of a desirable character as envisioned by the community and
which is compatible with existing and proposed development in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan.
The 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. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner
that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of
the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both
building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and
encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six
separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and
historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district.
The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east
and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The
current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service
development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and
residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The
Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The
Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space
designation that surrounds the creek.
Zone Change
1. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and Development
Code.
The proposed Zone Change conforms to the City's General Plan. The General Plan Land Use
Element anticipates plans that parcels adjacent to Jefferson Avenue will include mixed use
development. The Zone Change is also consistent with Development Code Section 17.02.020
"Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Districts" matrix which provides guidelines
for zoning consistency. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments comply with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations of the General Plan and Development
Code.
2. The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
The proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments will not be detrimental to the public
interest and welfare of the City. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments will allow for
the development of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan includes provisions regulating site
design, building height, setbacks, parking, circulation, and other associated site improvements
and these provisions are intended to protect the health and safety of those working and/or
residing in and around the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan is consistent with all applicable
policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be
constructed, and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
3. The subject property of the Zone Change is physically suitable for the requested land
use designations and the anticipated land use developments.
19
The proposed Zone Change is physically suitable for development in the Specific Plan Area.
There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the
requested land use designations or anticipated developments. The Specific Plan area benefits
from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views,
and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed
land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage
public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public
open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill
development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. Furthermore,
the standards within each proposed zone provides guidelines that are suitable for anticipated
land use developments.
4. The proposed Zone Change shall ensure the development of desirable character
which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding
neighborhood.
As identified in the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU -5 and Table LU -6, a large
portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is identified as a Land Use Focus Area designated
for mixed-use development. As such, the Zone Change will allow for development that will
enhance the Specific Plan area economically and ensure the development of a desirable
character as envisioned by the community and which is compatible with existing and proposed
development in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. List of Changes to the May 2015 Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Website Link
to Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Draft EIR
B. PC Resolution No. (Environmental Impact Report)
Exhibit A Draft CC Resolution (EIR Certification)
Exhibit A - Findings of Fact
Exhibit B - Statement of Overiding Considerations
Exhibit C - Mitigation Measures
C. PC Resolution No. (Overall recommendation of City Council actions)
Exhibit A Draft CC Ordinance (Specific Plan and Adult Use Overlay)
Exhibit A - Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1
Exhibit B Draft CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment)
Exhibit A - Land Use Element
Exhibit B - Land Use Policy Map
Exhibit C - Community Design Element
Exhibit D - Circulation Element
D. Notice of Public Hearing
E. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan which can be downloaded at
[http://www.cityoftornecula.org[Temecula/GavernmeniJCommDeo/Jefferson+Avenue+bto
dv+Area . htm]
F. Uptown Jefferson Final Environmental Impact Report which can be downloaded at
[http:/iwww.cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Jefferson+Avenue+Stu
dy+Area.htm]
20
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FINAL UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
22
ATTACHMENT A
Summary of proposed changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
1. Plan Applicability. Language was added to Section C in Chapter 2 to exempt any
development and land use proposals within the proposed project area from having to comply
with the Specific Plan if a planning application was submitted to and deemed complete by the
City's Community Development Department on or before April 28, 2015, but was not yet
approved, denied or conditionally approved by the City Council following a recommendation
from the Planning Commission. The language further states that the City Council may impose
reasonable conditions on a 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 proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the duration of the
incompatible use and architectural design of the project.
2. Administrative Amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsection G.6 in Chapter 2 Plan
Administration was added to allow minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the
Director of Community Development provided the amendments do not change existing policies
and do not change the community's vision or the intended goals and objectives of the Specific
Plan.
3. Extension of Legal Non -Conforming Land Uses. Subsection E.3 has been added to
allow a property owner to apply for a one-year extension of time beyond the initial 365 day of
discontinuance. Additional language has been added to clarify that a fire or other calamity, act
of God, or public enemy does not constitute a discontinuance of use.
4. Interpretation. Table 2-1 of Chapter 2 Plan Administration was amended by removing the
Interpretation Planning Application to be consistent with the balance of administrative policies in
Chapter 2.
5. Land Use Matrix. Table 3-1 was amended by adding "Religious Institutions without a
School or Daycare" as a permitted use in all zoning districts, "Office" as a permitted use in the
Creekside Village District, and uses for health, fitness, dance, martial arts studios that are less
than 5,000 square feet as a permitted use.
6. Land Uses Not Listed. A sentence was added to Section B in Chapter 3 Land Use and
Development Standards, which requires the Director of Community Development determination
for land uses not listed in Table 3-1.
7. Parking Requirements. Table 3-17 was amended by increasing the parking requirement
for a "Residential" use from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit to be more consistent
with market demands. The parking requirement for Religious Institutions was added to Table
3-17.
ATTACHMENT B
PC RESOLUTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
24
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows:
A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan
Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the
Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from
the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project").
C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.
(collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for
the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the
principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
-1-
11086-0006\1892255v2.doc
D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that
may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the
topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City
by July 12, 2013.
E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the
issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR.
F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested
parties on the scope of the Draft EIR.
G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State
Clearinghouse Number 2013061012).
H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State
Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a
review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community
Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the
Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman
Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and
the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability
for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, , a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
I. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written
comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR").
The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to
the Draft EIR in response to comments.
J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft
EIR.
K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission
held duly noticed public hearings on the proposed Project and the Draft EIR at which
-2-
11086-0006\1892255v2.doc
time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on
the proposed Project and the Draft EIR.
L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a project.for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if
expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the Planning
Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section N of the proposed City Council Resolution, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this referecne as though set forth in full.
O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant,
but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a Tess than significant
level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the
Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 0 of the proposed City Council
resolution.
P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in
Section P of the proposed City Council resolution.
-3-
11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc
Q. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section Q of the proposed City Council
resolution.
R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be
fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section R of the proposed
City Council resolution.
S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any proposed Project for which
mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Review and Independent Judgment of the Planning Commission.
Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record
including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during
meetings and hearings. The Planning Commission finds the Final EIR is an accurate
and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the
merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The Planning Commission further
finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the
Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in
written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of
the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under CEQA. None of the
information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment
upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation
measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. The minor modifications
to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public review because there has not been a
substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts.
SECTION 3. Recommendation to the City Council. Pursuant to its obligations
under 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the proposed Project and the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Project,
and written comments thereon, and has considered the significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Planning Commission finds that
there are proposed Project benefits that would outweigh any of the adverse impacts
identified in the Draft EIR, and on this basis, hereby recommends that the City Council
of the City of Temecula certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt findings
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in connection
with the adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as set forth in the City Council
Resolution that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein as
though set forth in full.
-4-
11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula this 4th day of November, 2015.
Lanae Turley-Trejo
Chairman
ATTEST:
Luke Watson
Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly introduced at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula on the 4th day of November, 2015, and said
Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the
21st day of October, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS :
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
-5-
11086-0006\ 1892255v2. doc
Luke Watson
Secretary
Exhibit A
City Council Resolution
-6-
11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan
Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the
Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from
the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project").
C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively
referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific
Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal
responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that
may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the
-1-
11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc
topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City
by July 12, 2013.
E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the
issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR.
F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested
parties on the scope of the Draft EIR.
G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State
Clearinghouse Number 2013061012).
H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State
Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a
review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community
Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the
Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman
Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and
the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability
for the Draft EIR on on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
I. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written
comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR").
The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to
the Draft EIR in response to comments.
J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft
EIR.
K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed
Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearings, at which time the
City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding
-2-
11086-0006\1892250v2.doc
Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at
the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-_ recommending that the City Council certify
the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The
Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15-, thereby recommending that
the City Council take various actions, including adopting General Plan Amendment,
Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments related to the approval of the proposed
Project.
L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if
expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III and IV of
Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is
hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less
than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit
A to this Resolution.
P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition
-3-
11086-0006\1892250v2. doc
of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this
Resolution.
Q. Alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this
Resolution.
R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be
fully mitigated to a Tess than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution,
which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein.
T. On Novebmer 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula
considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan
Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the
elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time
all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any
comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
prior to and at the public hearing.
SECTION 2. Substantive Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula,
California does hereby:
A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the
administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which
includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and
responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to
environmental issues.
B. Determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential
impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided
to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit
A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as
discussed therein.
C. Declare that prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the
-4-
11086-0006\1892250v2.doc
administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony
presented to it during meetings and hearings. The City Council finds the Final EIR is an
accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA
Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of
making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The City
Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in
comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information
requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under
CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful
'opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed
Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to
implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public
review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any
environmental impacts.
SECTION 3. Certification of the Final EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the
Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the
findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further determines that all of the
findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information
and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has
been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council,
and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the
overriding benefits stated in Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the
proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR
or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the proposed
Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and directs City staff to
implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C.
SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is
the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the
record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the
City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
-5-
11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc
SECTION 7. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Council of the City of Temecula
this 17th day of November 2015.
ATTEST:
Randi Johl-Olson
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
-6-
11086-0006\1892250v2.doc
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
-7-
11086-0006\1892250v2.doc
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and
the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no
public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been
certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and
should be adopted by such other agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.1
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following environmental fmdings in connection with the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan,
the General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning
Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan
area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Program EIR. These findings are based
upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft
Program EIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission
and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants.
II. Project Objectives.
As set forth in the Program EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this
Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows:
A. Create a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail,
office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and
open space and recreational opportunities.
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091,
A-1
B. Strengthen opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan area by building upon
existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts
high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities.
C. Establish a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and
making it "Temecula's Great Street."
D. Identify and establish interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique
identities.
E. Develop a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway
monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and
built environment.
F. Create a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased
building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and
flexible urban parking standards.
G. Establish an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and
transit improvements, including the French Valley Interchange, Overland Drive Extension,
Rancho Way Extension, Jefferson Avenue Streetscape Beautification, and working with
Regional Transit Authority (RTA) on the siting of a new transit center.
H. Enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the 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.
I. Ensure that new development in the Specific Plan area is adequately served by utilities.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in May 2013 to determine significant effects of the
Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to
the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics
producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the
reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agriculture and Forest
Resources; (B) Mineral Resources; and (C) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas
were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the Program EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Air
Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Climate Change; (G) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (H) Hydrology and Water
Quality; (I) Land Use and Planning; (J) Noise; (K) Population and Housing; (L) Public Services; (M)
Transportation and Traffic ; and (N) Utilities and Services
A-2
A. On June 6, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice
of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations,
and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners and business owners
within the boundaries of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, and land owners located within 600
feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested comments by July 12, 2013. On June
27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City
sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of
the Draft EIR. Comments received on the NOP included: the scope of traffic impact analysis and
potential traffic impacts; scope of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses; impacts
to public services and utilities, including the adequacy of water supply for the Project; impacts to
Native American cultural resources and outreach with the Native American tribes in the area;
impacts to biological resources, including consideration of the Project's proximity to Murrieta
Creek and its location within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan area; and consistency with local and regional land use plans, including the
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy goals. No comments were
received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant without Mitigation in the Program EIR
The Draft Program EIR completed in March 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less
than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures on a number of environmental
topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the
following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Program
EIR.
A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
1. The Project would not generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
B. Land Use and Planning
1. The Project would not physically divide an established community.
2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.
A-3
C. Population and Housing
1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or
indirectly.
2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere.
D. Public Services
1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or create a need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public services:
• Fire protection;
• Police protection;
• Schools;
• Parks; or
• Other public facilities.
2. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur
or be accelerated.
3. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than
Significant Level
The Draft Program EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils
and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; transportation
and traffic; and utilities and water supply assessment. With the exception of specific impacts to air
quality (construction and operations), noise (construction), and cumulative impacts to air quality and
A-4
cultural resources, discussed in Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate
all of the impacts to the topic areas identified above to a less than significant level.
The City Council fmds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final
Program EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of
those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible
mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Program EIR as conditions of approval of
the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C.
A. Aesthetics
1. New Source of Light and Glare
The Project has the potential to increase the intensity and density of development throughout
the Project area, which could result in increased light and glare sources. In addition, although
the Project would be consistent with the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and implement
measures to reduce light and glare, given the proposed density and intensity of the Project,
new development could substantially increase nighttime light sources. As described below,
these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light
and glare impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be
applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area:
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures,
and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and extemal shielding.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control
zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All
control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time
clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of
landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block
light sources and reflection from cars.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development
within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an
outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City
of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as
A-5
adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be
limited to, the following information and standards:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are
projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the
shield.
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including
security, roadway, and task lighting;
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for
security lighting.
• The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in
compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be
prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such
as high performance tinted non -mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast
concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside County Ordinance No.
655 requiring lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent
properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. In addition, the Project would
discourage large surface parking areas, which can be a primary source of daytime glare,
and would increase landscaping throughout the area, which would provide additional
shielding from lighting and glare; likely reducing the overall amount of light and glare
that is currently produced in the Project area. With the implementation of MM -AES -1
(above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the Project will be less than
significant.
B. Biological Resources
1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species
The proposed Project has the potential to impact special status species within the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan area. Development occurring as a result of the Project could result in
direct and indirect impacts to special -status plants including disturbing or removing the plants
or their habitat during construction. Construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds
A-6
that could out -compete special status plants. All impacts to special status plants would be
considered significant.
Additionally, impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct loss of potential
foraging and nesting habitat. Potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would include loss of
foraging and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Burrowing owls present during grading and
other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through
burrow collapse and other impacts.
Lastly, future development could result in adverse effects to vernal pools and special -status
vernal pool species (fairy shrimp) that may occur in flat, open areas between the developed
portions of the Project site and Murrieta Creek.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
special status species remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: 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.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be
avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures:
• All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor
breeding season (February 1 -August 30).
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 biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in
science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor
surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or
ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified
within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and
A-7
MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and
fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot
construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to
avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as
determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may
commence.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs outside of land
designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 shall be surveyed by a qualified
biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved
burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine
presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified on the project
site during these pre -construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and
construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA
will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if
burrowing owls are found:
• Since a burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate
conservation of the species and its habitat are achieved through participation in the
MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential
impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level.
• However, if the Project cannot avoid the active burrow(s), owls within active
burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to
suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed
project site, as regulated by the RCA.
If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an
active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that
includes identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be acceptable.
However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35 -plus acres of
suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in
accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite conservation of habitat will be
negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment
and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation objectives for fairy
shrimp shall be met through implementation of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Policy presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an
individual development project located outside of land designated as
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3-1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall he
A-8
conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats
(vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human -
modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping
assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process
and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be
avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in
the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under
Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool
Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain percentage of the occupied portions
of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be
conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the
occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions
allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservation/impact
ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis.
If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restrictions and protection will be
implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction:
Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status
vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot
toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for
these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to
June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or
formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or
USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer
inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15
exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or
other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of a biologist. The
fencing will act as a buffer between ground -disturbing activities and the vernal pools
and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will document
compliance with the fencing requirement through a memorandum submitted to the
RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be
avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The
contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the
exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring
Program Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed.
If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is
not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented:
A-9
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In
accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of
an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any
lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed
branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval
of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site
land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed
branchiopods; each is described below.
On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal
pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1,
subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate
off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil
conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA
based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved
in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate
mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-term monitoring
program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the
DBESP.
Of -site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation
not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for
vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of
1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be
determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. Mitigation through off-site
acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry
Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities associated
with individual development projects, a biologist shall conduct a visual and acoustic
survey for roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the
RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or
active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit
a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individual or
groups of bats are found within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely
excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow
conditions, or by installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by
the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will
leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities for a minimum of one week
after implementing exclusion and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not
implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. The
A-1 0
biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special
status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1
through MM -BIO -5 which require pre -construction and construction biological surveys,
measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the
MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate
species would be minimized to a less than significant level.
2. Impacts to Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters
including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
The proposed Project has the potential to impact critical habitat and sensitive vegetation
communities within the Jefferson Specific Plan area.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities remain less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the Project could result in impacts to vernal pool resources in
undeveloped portions of the Project area or could affect areas of wetland habitat that exist
within the Project boundaries. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -
BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4 which require biological surveys and MSHCP vernal pool
protection implementation measures would minimize potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
C. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Paleontological)
1. Impacts to Archaeological Resources
The proposed Project has the potential to impact archaeological resources located within the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. The records search indicated that a total of nine
archaeological resources are located within one mile of the Project area. Three (CA -RN -644,
-717, and -1727H) are located within the Project area. Two of these resources (CA-RIV-644
and -717) are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one (CA-RIV-1727H) is a historic -period
archaeological site. None have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California
A-11
Register or local historic register. Therefore, the Project area has moderate to high potential
for significant impacts to archaeological resources.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
archaeological resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or other ground
disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall be subject to a Phase I cultural
resources inventory on a project -specific basis prior to the City's approval of project
plans. The study shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional
archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records
search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans
identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate
by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on
California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant
cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the
resources are evaluated for their 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 treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with
the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of
mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and
historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human
remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may
include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be
avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which
may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City
and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on a project -specific basis.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native
American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground -
disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as
determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City.
A-12
During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the fmd shall stop and a qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, will be
contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in
consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to
avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but
shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification
of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the
qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with
the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. All significant cultural
materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting
archaeologist and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, and any
other local Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific analysis,
professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional
standards.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground
disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic
built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their
potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey
shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially
significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial
alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic
resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan
to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the
resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
implementation.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Future development under the Project could significantly impact archaeological sites
and/or sites of traditional cultural value to tribes; and structures 50 years old or older.
Development occurring under the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts
to these resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 requires
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, a qualified archeologist to be
on-site during ground disturbance activities, and identifies protections measures to be
A-13
implemented in the evtnt resources are discovered. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -
2 requires a historic build environment survey prior to City approval of any development
plans. These mitigation measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level.
2. Paleontological Resources
The proposed Project is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary
Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have high paleontological
sensitivity and therefore the potential to cause a significant impact on paleontological
resources.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
paleontological resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development involving ground
disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the necessity of
conducting a study of the project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project
site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a
paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources.
The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources
records search to be conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum and/or other
appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and
recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall provide
recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant
paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during
construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant
paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist.
In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will
notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as
needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits
are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards: The
paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance
is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a
paleontological mitigation program. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall he used
A-14
to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate
sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities
necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any
fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification,
catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the
repository.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The potential exists for significant paleontological resources to be located beneath the
ground surface in the Project area. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent
discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant
impact. However, Temecula's General Plan (implementation measure OS -26) requires
that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable
presence of paleontological resources is identified. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM -CUL -3 will ensure any potential impacts to paleontological resources are
minimized to be less than significant.
3. Impacts to unidentified Human Remains
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact to human remains in the event
human remains are discovered.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
unidentified human remains remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development involving ground
disturbance within the Project area shall address the potential discovery and proper
treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been
previously disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The City shall
require that if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the
vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to
evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are
Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public
Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a
Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in
consultation to determine the disposition of the remains.
A-15
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The archaeological site record for site CA-RIV-644 has indicated that human remains
near the site had been identified eroding out of the bank of a nearby creek, possibly Santa
Gertrudis, and were recovered by public employees in the early 1970s (Humbert and
Hammond, 1973) and ground -disturbing construction conducted throughout the Project
area that is associated with implementation of the Project could result in damage to
previously unidentified human remains. However, this impact would be minimized to
less than significant by implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4.
4. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources
The Project could cause cumulative impacts to cultural resources including archaeological
resources, fossils and human remains.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below to ensure that the Project's cumulative impacts
to cultural resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2, MM -CUL -3 and
MM -CUL -4.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The analysis in the Program EIR includes several mitigation measures to reduce potential
Project impacts to cultural resources during construction of the Project. Should other
projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative
scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, the Project, with
mitigation, would not contribute to the cumulative impact. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2 and MM -CUL -4, the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Excavation activities associated with the Project in conjunction with other projects in the
area could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, as -yet unrecorded fossil
sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. However, the
Project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with
incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3. With the implementation of this
measure, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources
would not be cumulatively considerable. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario
not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant
cumulative impact through progressive damage or loss of potentially significant fossils;
A-16
however, the Project, with mitigation, would not have a considerable contribution to the
cumulative impact.
Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4 would mitigate the
Project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries, and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on human
remains would not be cumulatively considerable.
D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
1. Impacts to soil erosion
The Project has the potential to cause an impact on water quality or waste discharge upon
construction and operation of developments within the project area. Construction could
include grading and other earth moving activities exposing soils to erosion, which could lead
to erosion and runoff. In addition, the incremental increase of development over the span of
20-30 years is likely to contribute to pollution such as motor oil or fertilizers being washed
away during rainfall or when a street, walkway, or parkway surface is being cleaned.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
associated with soil erosion are less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 a and MM -HYD -lb.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activities associated with future development could disturb soils that are
protected by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or concrete, resulting in soil
erosion and loss of topsoil. As detailed in MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2, individual
development projects occurring during Project implementation would be required to
implement the construction best management practices (BMPs), as detailed in the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Construction General
Permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program for sites
greater than one acre and each individual development project would be required to
prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required by the City. These
mitigation measures will reduce soil impacts to less than significant.
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Construction activities occurring under the Project may occur on sites containing
contamination, which could result in releases of hazardous materials
A-1 7
As noted in the Program EIR, a number of sites within the Specific 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.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development projects within the
Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to
conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard
El 527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I
report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be
completed prior to commencement of any construction activities.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials exposed during
construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or
suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification
of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils suspected of
contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated
from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for
potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the County. If
contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities
within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume
until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and
approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to
the City.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated during construction
dewatering shall be contained and profiled in accordance with Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility
requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary
sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall
be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to
meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the
RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility.
A-18
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Some of the listed sites in the Project area 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
agencies such as the County's Hazardous Materials Program, RWQCB, and the 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. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-1 a
through MM-HAZ-1 c will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to less
than significant levels.
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
Construction of the Project 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. In addition, 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.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to
water quality associated with construction and operation is reduced to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Development construction that disturbs one acre or
more individually shall 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 would include filing of a
Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating
construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater
runoff. Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall
comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to
A-1 9
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the
MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the
preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste
management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted
and approved by the City of Temecula.
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: As a condition of approval, each future development
project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in
the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project
implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and
Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include
non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs or a combination
thereof. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to
the issuance of a building or grading permit.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of a SWPPP and water quality -related BMPs described in Mitigation
Measure MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2 would ensure that construction -related impacts
on water quality, including potential harmful materials accidentally spilled or improperly
disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or
groundwater, would be less than significant. In addition, future developments will be
required to generate a project -specific WQMP, which will reduce impacts to surface
waters, either directly or during storm water runoff events, from the use of chemicals, to
less than significant levels.
2. Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
a) Findings
Both construction and operation of the Project could result in impacts related to
stormwater runoff. Construction of the proposed development within the Project area
would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which
could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which
could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. In addition, new
development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or
impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume and rate of overland flows
during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact
associated with stormwater runoff is less than sienificant.
A-20
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1; and
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development
project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as
required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements
specific hydromodification features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater
Ordinance requirements. Potential hydromodification features identified may include
detention or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and
evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Although construction and operation of the Project has the potential to have significant
impacts associated with stormwater runoff, Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -1 and MM -
HYD -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As part of Mitigation Measure
MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction
disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time
of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary
increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. In addition, adherence to
requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in
MM -HYD -3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff occur during
operation of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
3. Drainage System Capacity Related to Construction and Operation.
a) Findings
Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require
activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily
alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in
significant impacts related to stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing
drainage system. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the
extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume and rate
of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in
stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
related to drainage system capacity are less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and Mitigation Measure
MM -HYD -3.
A-21
b) Facts in Support of Findings
As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction
General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the
MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an
acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of
BMPs. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed
the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity.
In addition, as part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3, each future development project
will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required
by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4
peiutit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -
3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur such that the
existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would
be less than significant with mitigation.
G. Noise and Vibration (operations)
1. Operational Noise
New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the
City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near
the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could
expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to
operation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive
receptors to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: For project -specific development, the applicant shall
provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development
would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards
would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels
would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These
measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of
landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a: Individual development projects shall minimize
noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units,
A-22
by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for
the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that
noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing
development by more than five decibels.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development
project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that
all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be
constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior
noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Under the Project, new land uses that would occur in the Project area include residential,
commercial, office, and mixed-use developments. These new developments may
introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing
properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. However,
for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that
operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's
permissible exterior noise standards and implement measures to reduce noise levels, per
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3. In addition, to ensure that the nearby noise -sensitive
uses to the Project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise,
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from
HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other
occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. In order to ensure that the future residents in
the Project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with
mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b would
be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed
residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to
ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ld„ or CNEL of 45 dBA in any
residential unit.
H. Noise/Land Use Compatibility
With changes in the community noise environment in the Project area over the course of the
Project's buildout period, the new development projects proposed in the Project area may not
meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that ensure land use compatibility impacts are
reduced to less than significant.
A-23
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: Prior to City approval of a project -specific
development within the Project area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that
the City's noise/land use compatibility standards are met for the land use being
developed. Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land
use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use
of landscaping, use of window insulation (double -paned glazing), and/or, where
applicable, the design of adequate setback distances.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5 would require all future development
associated with the Project to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether
an individual development would violate the City's noise/land use compatibility
standards and, where necessary, implement measures to ensure compliance with the
City's standards. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact
would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
I. Transportation and Traffic
1. Impacts on Circulation System from Existing (2013) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under the
Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions:
• Ynez Road & Winchester Road
Nicholas Road & Winchester Road
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Existing
(2013) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the performance of the
intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that signal timing optimization
occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that
would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds.
• Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for
this mitigation measure is 10 percent)
• Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution
for this mitigation measure is 5 percent)
A-24
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development
within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City,
toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
After implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1, the intersection at Ynez Road
& Winchester Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D (delay = 37.1 seconds). The
intersection at Nicholas Road & Winchester Road would operate at LOS E with delay
improved to 55.8 seconds (i.e., better than under existing conditions). Impacts would be
less than significant.
2. Impacts on Circulation System under Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions.
The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under Future
Year (2035) Plus Project conditions:
• Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway — AM peak hour
• Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road — AM peak hour
• Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway — AM peak hour
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Future
Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the performance of the
intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that the following
improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related
development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds.
• At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street / Proposed French Valley
Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane,
two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one
through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -share contribution is 10 percent).
• At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right -
turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Project's fair -share
contribution is 5 percent).
• At Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to
the northbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent).
A-25
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development
within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City,
toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein.
In addition, after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2, operations during
the AM peak hour at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed
French Valley Parkway would improve to an acceptable LOS C (delay = 31.4 seconds).
The intersection at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour; however, delay would
improve to 92.6 seconds, which is better than pre -project conditions. Finally, AM peak
hour operations at Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway would improve to LOS
E (delay = 61.7 seconds), which while an unacceptable service level, would be better than
pre -project conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
J. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
1. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Expansion and Capacity
Buildout of the Project would result in the need for larger diameter or parallel sewer lines for
three lengths of sewer pipe within the Project area, and the need to increase the capacity of
the Temecula Valley RWRF to handle an additional 0.8 mgd of wastewater flow; the
construction of which could result in significant environmental effects.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts related to treatment
facility expansion and capacity to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a
project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay its
fair share of Eastern Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted
sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a
project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay
Eastern Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge
associated with obtaining sewer service.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The additional wastewater flow need for implementation of the Project would necessitate
a future capacity expansion which would result in the construction of new wastewater
A26
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which would be significant
impacts. However, payment of mitigation fees and other fees to the Eastern Municipal
Water District as described in Mitigation Measures MM-UTL-la and MM-UTL-lb
would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
2. Impacts to Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Buildout of the Project would result in the need for the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could result in
significant environmental effects.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been
required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts to stormwater drainage
facilities to less than significant.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and MM HYD -3
b) Facts in Support of Findings
As a part of the WQMP implemented by Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, the Project
would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) best management
practices (BMPs) into Project design, which include measures to reduce increases in
runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. In addition, adherence to
requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, would ensure
no substantial increases in on-site or off-site storm water runoff would occur and cause
significant environmental effects. Lastly, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would
minimize potential permanent increases in stormwater runoff during operation of the
development. With the incorporation of Mitigation MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3,
impacts to stormwater drainage facilities will be less than significant.
VI.Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation
In the environmental areas of air quality, noise and cultural resources, there are instances where
potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Air Quality (Construction and Operations)
1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Construction
Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality
standards related to ROG and NOx emissions and would result in significant air quality
impacts at the Program EIR level.
A-27
a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential
significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. Although the
following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term air quality
impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of
significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate
the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with
construction activities for the Project:
• Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks
(e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible.2 Under
conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not
readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide
this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model
year NOx emissions requirements.3
• Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp)
shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction
equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each
unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD
operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit
of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes
available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in
NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall
be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project,
the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx
emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel
2 CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year
engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be
reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023. Whereas trucks that meet
2007 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 40 percent in
engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard,
trucks that meet 2010 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at
least 85 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine
emissions standard.
3 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these
engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such,
under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be
phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead.
A-28
emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB
regulations would be achieved.
• After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than
50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission standards, where available. Under conditions
where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not
readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide
this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In
addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by
CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy
of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each
applicable unit of equipment.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lb: Future project -level development shall incorporate
the following in the construction specifications of a development project:
• Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor
vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than
five minutes.
• Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding
the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion
engines to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lc: Future project -level development shall document
project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a
development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's
threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents
with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-ld: The City shall encourage all construction contractors
to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate clean-up of
off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Program EIR analysis of the Project determined that under an estimated worst-case
construction scenario, implementation of the Project would result in significant air quality
impacts associated with ROG and NOx emissions. Additionally, under potential
conditions where one or more of the construction phases shown in EIR Table 3.2-6
overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of
A-29
Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la through MM -AIR -1 d would reduce the emissions of
ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the
Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's thresholds for
the two respective criteria pollutants. Therefore, for the analysis of the Project's worst-
case scenario, impacts from construction ROG and NOx emissions would be significant
and unavoidable.
2. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operations
Operational activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality
standards related to ROG emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at this
program level.
a) Findings
As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's
control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG
emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be below
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold; thus, this impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
When the operational ROG emissions of the Project are compared to that of the existing
land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG
emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from
architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer
products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the
majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the Project were
associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the Project area.4
The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses
associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance
threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the
City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG
emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be below
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Thus, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
3. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality
Consumer products are defined in Ca1EEMod to be chemically formulated products used by household
consumers that include, but is not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics;
personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and
automotive specialty products.
A-30
As the Basin is currently classified as a state non -attainment area for ozone, NO2, PM10, and
PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the Project along with other reasonably
foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. This is considered to be a
significant cumulative impact. With respect to the Project's contribution to this cumulative
impact, according to the SCAQMD individual construction projects that exceed the
SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would cause a
cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As the
Project's construction -related ROG and NOx emissions (both of which are ozone precursors)
and operational ROG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily
thresholds, the Project would contribute to a cumulative air quality impact with respect to
ozone and NO2.5
a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen
the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The
following Mitigation Measures listed below will be implemented to lessen construction
and long term operational air quality impacts; however, no mitigation measures were
identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore
impacts will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -1 a and MM -
AIR -lb from Section 3.2, Air Quality, would reduce construction emissions of ROG and
NOx associated with the worst-case construction scenario analyzed for the Project;
however, not to below a level of significance.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Program EIR shows that the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with
the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx
(ozone precursors). Therefore, the Project would exceed SCAQMD's respective
thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment
(i.e., ozone and NO2). The Project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other
5 It should be noted that because the Basin in currently a non -attainment area for ozone and NO2, and both ROG
and NOx emissions are ozone precursors (i.e., ozone is created by sunlight acting on ROG and NOx in the air), the
exceedance of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for these pollutants by the Project would result in a
significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
A-31
past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative
impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
With respect to Project operations, with the exception of ROG emissions, the total net
operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's
thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. With respect to the Project's
operational emissions of NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, these pollutant emissions
would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than
significant. However, as the net operational ROG emissions associated with the Project
would exceed the SCAQMD's operational threshold, the Project's ROG emissions, which
are ozone precursors, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would
be significant and unavoidable.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic)
Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50
years or older.
a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen
the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The
following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen impacts to
historic resources; however, none were identified that could reduce the impacts,to the
built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore impacts to these
resources will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground
disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic
built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their
potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey
shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant
resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such
resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is
deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include,
but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The
plan will he submitted to the City for rPviPw nnrl nnnrrIvn1 prior to imnlpmPntntinn
A-32
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any
treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be
insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -
significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of MM -CUL -2, at a program EIR level analysis.
2. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic)
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in this area could occur if any other existing or
proposed projects, in conjunction with the Project, had or would have impacts on cultural
resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant.
a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen
the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The
following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen cumulative
impacts to historic resources; however, none were identified that could reduce the
impacts to built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore cumulative
impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM -CUL -2.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The potential construction impacts of the Project, in combination with other projects in
the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on built historical
resources. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2 has been developed in order to reduce
impacts to built historic resources. However, MM -CUL -2 may not reduce the impacts of
the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level and this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative effects to historic
built resources, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects,
would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
C. Noise and Vibration (Construction)
Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area would
potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in
ambient noise levels.
A-33
a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Although mitigation
measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse
impacts upon cumulative air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the
impacts to below the level of significance.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits
for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the
development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see
Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities
would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to
the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction
activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's
construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set
forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction -
related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce
the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with
the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited
to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on
construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate
concurrently at the development site.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb: Project -specific development located within the
Project area shall:
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific
location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible
from the nearest noise and vibration -sensitive land uses.
▪ Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the
greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized Examples include the use
of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement
breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an
exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower
noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools
themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA.
Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used
whenever feasible.
A-34
• Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and
muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or
other measures to the extent feasible.
• Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of
Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the
extent feasible.
• Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding
residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any
concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone
number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations.
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general
contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation
and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood
notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
•
As described in the Program EIR, it is anticipated that the City, through the
environmental review process, will consider all future developments associated with the
Project on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would
generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels on its
surrounding off-site uses. However, for the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that there
would likely be future developments associated with the Project that would be located in
close enough proximity to existing land uses such that the construction noise levels
generated would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at
those existing land uses. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb which would require
the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction
activities for the new developments occurring under the Project would be implemented to
reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent
feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the
Project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, the noise impacts
related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above
levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Although
mitigation measures would reduce the Project's construction noise levels to the maximum
extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed
developments in the Project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the
Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on
the nearby existing land uses.
A-35
VII. Project Alternatives
A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead
Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and,
therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are
remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be
considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(0(3)).
An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is
"remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond
the control of a project. applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(0(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether
any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting
the project at another location." The Project would involve adoption of a Specific Plan with the
intent of revitalizing this particular location in the City and taking advantage of its attributes,
including the opportunity to create a high-density urban environment and its proximity to major
transportation routes. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this
Project. The Program EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were
considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons
stated below.
B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR
1. Alternative One — No Project/Existing General Plan
a) Summary of Alternative
This alternative is analyzed within this program -level EIR as it is required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA
Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans
and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is
the revision of an existing land use policy, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(3)(A) states
that "the No Project Alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan...into the
future." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents
development under the currently adopted General Plan as further described below. This
alternative, however, does not represent a "no build" scenario in which no future
development or redevelopment would occur.
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would
be developed according to the existing 2005 General Plan land use map, zoning, and
A-36
development patterns. With buildout of the existing General Plan, total development in
the Project area would amount to approximately 4.7 million square feet, representing an
increase of approximately 933,708 square feet over existing conditions, including
approximately 1,043,479 square feet of Community Commercial uses; 711,944 square
feet of Highway Tourist Commercial uses; 1,773,719 square feet of Service Commercial
uses; 1,192,150 square feet of Industrial Park uses; and 12,414 square feet of Public
Institutional uses.
b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to
greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and traffic impacts than the proposed project
due to the number of vehicle trips associated with the substantial development allowed
under the No Project/General Plan Alternative. In addition, this Alternative would not
emphasize the mixed use development promoted by the proposed Project, and therefore
would not reduce dependence on vehicles. Finally, this Alternative would not meet the
project's primary objective of updating the existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. For
all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
2. Alternative Two — Reduced Project Alternative
a) Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, the total development would be reduced by 25 percent, which
would result in a buildout of approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial uses
(as opposed to the 1.7 million square feet that would occur under the Project),
approximately 2,795 dwelling units, and 236 hotel rooms. This alternative would include
the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism
District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential
Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay),
and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. Under this alternative, these
districts would contain the same provisions related to density and building heights.
b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be
fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in several impacts such as noise, air
quality, and traffic impacts within the Specific Plan area. In addition, since the overall
development would be reduced, there would be reduced impacts to aesthetics, population
and housing, public services, as well as utilities and water supplies. Alternative 2 would
achieve the proposed project objectives by creating a vibrant locale by providing a mix of
land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions,
hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational
opportunities; strengthening opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan
A-37
area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private
investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and
higher education facilities; establishing a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by
beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street," identifying and
establishing interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique
identities; developing a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district
identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the
area's location, natural setting, and built environment; creating a form -based code to
guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design
standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking
standards and establishing an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network
through circulation and transit improvements. However, Alternative 2 would not provide
the most efficient use of the Specific Plan area and would therefore, not fully attain the
economic potential of the project site because the allowable development for the project
would be reduced by 25 percent, reducing the potential of the project's viability.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this
reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
3. Alternative Three — Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative
a) Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, allowable floor area ratios (FARs) would be adjusted in order to
decrease the total amount of residential space that would be constructed and to increase
the total amount of commercial square footage that could be developed. Commercial
square footage would be increased by 3 million square feet; resulting in a buildout
potential of approximately 4.7 million square feet of commercial uses (as compared to the
1.7 million square feet anticipated for the Project). Residential development would also
be reduced by approximately 40 percent, which would result in approximately 2,176
dwelling units (as compared to the potential 3,726 that would occur under the Project).
This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center
District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District
(with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the
Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space
District.
b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Due to the increased commercial development (as compared to the proposed Project) and
the increased vehicle trips associated therewith, Alternative 3 would result in increased
adverse air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. In addition, this alternative would not
emphasize a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby
shopping and employment opportunities nearly as much as the proposed Project, and
A-38
therefore this alternative would result in greater greenhouse gas emission and climate
change impacts than the proposed Project.
Although Alternative 3 would achieve most project objectives and would promote
economic activity within the City because commercial development would be
emphasized over residential development, Alternative 3 would reduce residential
development by 40 percent decreasing encouragement of developing an increased
number of high-quality residential neighborhoods compared to either the existing
Specific Plan or the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of
the project objectives as well as the proposed project, and would have greater adverse
impacts. Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally
superior alternative. While none of the alternatives would reduce the significant and unavoidable
impacts related to cultural resources and construction noise, the environmentally superior
alternative would be Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, as it would have potentially
fewer environmental impacts to air quality, GHG, land use and planning, operational noise, and
transportation and traffic as compared to the Project and the other alternatives. Alternative 2 also
would meet all of the Project objectives.
A summary of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the Project is
provided in,EIR Table 5-5 below.
TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTSa
Potential Project Impacts
Alt. 1:
No Project
Alternative (No
Development)
Alt. 2:
Reduced Project
Alternative
AIt.3:
Reduced
Residential/increased
Commercial Uses
Alternative
Aesthetics
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Air Quality
Reduced
Increased
Biological Resources
Similar
Similar
Similar
Cultural Resources
Similar
Similar
Similar
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Similar
Similar
Similar
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change
Increased
Reduced
Increased
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality
Reduced
Similar
Similar
Land Use and Planning
Increased
Similar
Similar
A-39
Noise and Vibration
Increased
Reduced
Increased
Population and Housing
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Public Services
Similar
Reduced
Reduced
Transportation and Traffic
Increased
Reduced
Increased
Utilities and
Water Supply Assessment
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
a Definitions:
• Increased = impacts of alternative greater than Project's impacts
• Similar = impacts of alternative similar to Project's impacts
• Reduced = impacts of alternative less than Project's impacts
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2013.
D. The Project As Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The Project involves adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and is described in
detail in the Program EIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the
alternatives analyzed in the Final Program EIR and has compared them with those of the
proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various
environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City
Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve
the interest of the public and achieve the project goals.
More specifically, the Project as proposed strikes a proper balance between commercial
development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that
emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and
employment opportunities. This proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan recognizes the
need for economic activity and growth in the City but also promotes sound environmental
policies due to the reduced reliance on vehicle trips (stemming from mixed use development)
and proximity to public transportation. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the
Project as proposed.
A-40
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Please see attached
-8-
11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed
approval of the Amendment to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (the "Project").
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects
may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the
specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such
reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Program EIR or elsewhere in the administrative
record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that
may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council fmds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the
significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and cultural resources. In making this finding,
the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has
indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council fmds that each one of the
following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the
Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project:
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen
Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that
alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts,
or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically
infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed Project strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on
economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use
environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities.
C. The proposed Project will reduce potential adverse environmental impacts compared with build-
out under the currently -existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan due to its emphasis on mixed-
use development and the benefits that such development provides, including reduced vehicle
trips as a result of proximity to shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities.
D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units beyond what currently exists in the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area or what currently could be developed in that area and thus
will add to the available housing stock in the City.
E. The proposed Project will augment the City's economic base by providing additional tax
revenues resulting from the commercial component of the proposed allowable development.
B-1
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City
Council further finds that each of the individual Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project benefits
discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final
Program EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that
each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to
override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
B-2
EXHIBIT C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Please see attached
-9-
11086-0006\1892250v2. doc
Mitigation Monitoring and R 1g Program
EXHIBIT C
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare
standards shall be applied to all future development within the
Specific Plan area:
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain
"sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and
internal and external shielding.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be
grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and
night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be
controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time
clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
City of
Temecula
project approval
and field
verification and
sign off by City
of Temecula
•
The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site
shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural
massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light
sources and reflection from cars.
•
Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -
specific development within the Project area that includes
outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting
plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the
City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following information and standards:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays
emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal
plane passing through the lowest point of the shield;
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and
intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting;
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as
lumens per acre; and,
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be
used, especially for security lighting.
•
The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure
that the site is in compliance with the design standards in
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
1
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigatiion Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
•
Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior
wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be
constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non -
mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or
fabricated wall surfaces.
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verifica-ion and
sign off by City
diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export) to the extent feasible.) Under conditions where
it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks
are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the
applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City
and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model
year NOx emissions requirements. 2
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development
shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize
emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the
Project:
• Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verifica-ion and
sign off by City
diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export) to the extent feasible.) Under conditions where
it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks
are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the
applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City
and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model
year NOx emissions requirements. 2
of Temecula
• Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than
50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier 111 off-road
emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall
be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of
each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation,
and GARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at
the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology
becomes available in the future that would result in either
equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use
of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be
applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are
chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show
evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be
reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023.
2 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such,
under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead.
Uptown Je
MMRP
Specific Plan
SA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigati, iltoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Level 3 diesel emissions controt strategy for a similarly sized
engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved.
• After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission
standards, where available. Under conditions where it is
determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards
are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the
applicant shall be, required to provide this evidence to the City
and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition,
construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices
certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less
than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions
control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by
CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier
specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD
operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of
each applicable unit of equipment.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lb: Future project -level development
shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a
development project:
• Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-
duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall
be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.
Require that construction operations rely on the electricity
infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than
electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to
the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lc: Future project -level development
shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval
of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate
construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's
threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use
coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required
under SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -1d: The City shall encourage all
construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which
provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles
such as heavy-duty construction equipment.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
3
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an
individual development project that would have the construction
equipment and activity listed below, a project -specific LST analysis
shall be prepared and submitted that identifies the resulting
construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would
not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.
• Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty
diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per
day;
• Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic
yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities;
• Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks
per day; and,
• Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
I City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
City of
Temecula
project approval
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
City of
project -specific residential developments within the Project area and
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
located within 500 feet of 1-15, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall
Building Official
project approval
be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential
or other
and field
developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources
traveling along the portion of 1-15 that is adjacent to the Project
area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall
be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC -
exposure from 1-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally -
exposed individual. These measures may include, but are not
limited 1:o, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of
the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum Efficiency
Designee
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Prior to any ground -disturbing
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Certified
activities for individual development projects, pre -construction
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Envirormental
clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section
Qualified
Review
6.0 of the 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
Biologist
Document
Uptown Je Specific Plan
MMRP
SA/211247
July 2015
Mitigatir litoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through
memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
grading permit
following measures:
Qualified and field
• All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take
place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1-
August 30).
Biologist verification and
sign off by City
of Temecula
• 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 biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in
science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience
per -forming raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a
maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -
disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings)
are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed
species, species of special concern, and MSHCP'covered
species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until
the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that
they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot construction
setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in
order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have
fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified
biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may
commence.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs
Pre -Construction /
City of City of
City of
outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in
Qualified
project approval
burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl
survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine
presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are
identified on the site during these pre -construction surveys, no
additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence.
Biologist
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be
notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be
required if burrowing owls are found:
• Since burrow owl is a covered species under the MSHCP,
adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
5
ESA/211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance
of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce
potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than
significant level.
• However, if the proposed project cannot avoid the active
burrow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted
with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to
suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100
meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the
RCA.
• If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and
implementing an active translocation plan, if appropriate
and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes
identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be
acceptable.
• However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are
observed on 35 -plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite
conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in
accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite
conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the
project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP)
and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy
(HANS) application.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Field
objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of
Construction
Temecula
Temecula verification and
the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in
Qualified sign -off by City
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual
development project located outside of land designated as
Biologist
of Temecula
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the
construction footprint shall be conducted to determine whether
suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools,
stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other
human -modified depressions) currently exist within the construction
footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be
reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy
shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be
avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp
species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance
with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim
Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under
Sections 10(a)(1)(A'I of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed
Uptown
MMRP -
Specific Plan
=SA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigatii Itoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date
Verification of Compliance
Remarks
Vernal Pool Branchiopods. 1t survey results are positive, a certain
percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for
Tong -term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be
conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests
ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be
conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for
development under the MSHCP; however, the required
conservation/impact-ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a
project -by -project basis.
If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restriction and
protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the
resource during construction:
Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of
special -status vemal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent
species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work
within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g.,
vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June
1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through
informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program
Administrator and/or USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may
begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any
work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing
and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or
other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of the
a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground -
disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal
wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will
document compliance through a memorandum during the
establishment of the fencing activities submitted to the RCA
Monitoring Program Administrator.
Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts
can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting
exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the
project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing.
Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program
Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed.
If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an
avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures
shall be implemented:
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
(DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. a
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
7
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development
project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost
functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and
listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy,
subject to the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site
habitat creation and conservation, or off-site land acquisition in an
approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods;
each is described below.
On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be
feasible, vernal pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site
at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If
on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will
be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil
conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be
determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal
pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a
conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate
mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-
term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success
criteria) shall be included in the DBESP.
Off-site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and
habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an
approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods
shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the
approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be
determined by the RCA on a project by project basis. Mitigation
through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool
mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland
Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
activities associated with individual development projects, a Construction
Temecula
Temecula
grading permit
biologist or designee shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for
Qualified
and field
roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will
contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or CDFW if
any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the
construction footprint. The biologist will submit a memorandum
documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program
Biologist
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Administrator.
Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if
individuals or groups of bats are found within the construction
footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the
roosting area to chang ? Eightincg and airflow conditions, or by 1
1
Lc:ev:n Je 3pecific Plan
MMR
iA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigaty litoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by
the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The
contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related
activities for a minimum of one week after implementing exclusion
and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not implement
exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts.
Pre -Construction
City of
City of
City of
The Biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance
to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or
Pre -Construction
City of
City of
City of
other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project-
qualified
Project
specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study
Archaeologist
Approval;
shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an
and Pechanga
verification by
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
tribal
City of
professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation
with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The cultural resources
inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records search to be
conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the
representatives
Temecula in
consultation
with Pechanga
Tribe
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested
Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian
archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the
archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological
resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523
forms. If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered
during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are
evaluated for their 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 treatment of these
resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and
the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place
shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to
significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans,
human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes.
Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to,
project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of
protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated
that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
9
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
develop additional treatment measures, which may include data
recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City
and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The City shall conduct
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on a
project -specific basis.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological
monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians during ground -disturbing activities that have the
potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City.
During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic
subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the
vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, will be
contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be
significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with
the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation
in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant
cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not
be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or
identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is
demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified
archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in
consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other
appropriate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be,
as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist,
and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians,
subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
Uptown J€
MMRP
Specific Plan
3A 1211247
July 2015
Mitiga ` nitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of City of
involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old
Construction
Temecula
Temecula Temecula
or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and
qualified Project
potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential
Historian or
Approval;
historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The
Architectural '
verification by
survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural
historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially
significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition
or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be
avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed
infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan
to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public
interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City
for review and approval prior to implementation.
Historian
City of
Temecula in
consultation
with Pechanga
Tribe
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
Verification by
involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be
Construction
Temecula
Temecula in
City of
retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the
consultation
Temecula in
project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site
with Pechanga
consultation
for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the
paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory
designed to identify potentially significant resources. The
paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a
paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the
Tribe
with Pechanga
Tribe
San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities;
a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and
recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The
paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional
work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological
resources, if identified, shall be avoided.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological
monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that
have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as
determined by a qualified paleontologist. ,
In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the
project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The
paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the
potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or
fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction,
excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
11
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
diverted until the discovery is examined by a oualified
paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate
See MM HYD1a
See MM See MM
See MN
Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the
appropriiate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followedl before construction is allowed to resume at the location of
the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified
paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program.
and MM -HYD -1b
HYD1a and HYD1a and
HYDlaand
At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record
pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured,
appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for
analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and
professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils
encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of
identification, catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying
notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.
MM -HYD -1b MM -HYD -1b
MM -HYD -1b
Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development
Construction
City of City of
Verification by
involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address
Temecula in 1 Temecula in
City of
the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains,
which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously
consultation I consultation
with I with Pechanga
Temecula in
consultation
disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The
Pechanga Tribe with Pechanga
City shall require that, if human remains are uncovered during
project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and
the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the
remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section
Tribe Tribe
15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will
contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance
with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and
Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The
NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the
deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to
determine the disposition of the remains.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -la and MM -HYD -lb
See MM HYD1a
See MM See MM
See MN
and MM -HYD -1b
HYD1a and HYD1a and
HYDlaand
MM -HYD -1b MM -HYD -1b
MM -HYD -1b
Uptown Je
MMRP
ipecific Plan
3A/ 211247
July 2015
Mitiya[' litoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development
projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified
environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard E1527-05 prior
to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the
Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the
overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of
any construction activities.
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials
Pre -Construction / Riverside
City of
Field
exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of
Construction County
Temecula
verification and
contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall
Department
sign -off by City
require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification
of
of Temecula
of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils
Environment
and Riverside
suspected of contamination through visual observation or from
observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on
and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential
contamination in accordance with direction received from the
al Health
County
Department of
Environmental
Health
County. If contamination is found to be present, any further
proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or
suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a
site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed
professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health,
has been completed and submitted to the City.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated
Construction
RWQCB
City of
Field
during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in
Temecula
verification and
accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or
Building Official
sign -off by City
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements
depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or
sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted
requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for
disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet
applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval
from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation
or other
Designee
of Temecula
Facility.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
13
ESA / 211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Monitoring
Phase
Enforcement
Agency
Responsible
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -la: Development construction that
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
disturbs one acre or more individually shall 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
Construction/
Post -Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Building Permit,
review cf plans,
field ver fication
requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit
would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the
preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for
control of erosion andsedimentation contained in stormwater runoff.
Designee
and sign -off by
City of
Temecula
Development construction that disturbs less than one acre
individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the
SDRWOCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with
the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre
would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing
erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be
implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved
by the City of Temecula.
Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -lb: As a condition of approval, each
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
Issuance of
future development project will be required to generate a project-
specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by
the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the
Construction/
Post -Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Building Permit,
review cf plans,
field venfication
City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that
the project implements specific water quality features to meet the
Designee
and sign -off by
City of
City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.
Temecula
Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling,
minimization of vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling
and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling.
This WOMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1a: Prior to the issuance any grading
or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not
exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see
Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for
construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit
a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at
least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction
activities,, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that
the project's construction noise levels would be granted an
Uptown Je 3pecific Plan
MMRP
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading or
Building
Permits and
field verification
and sign -off by
City of
Temecula
-A/211247
July 2015
Mitigatic bring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of
the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction -related
exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be
taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent
feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise
standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the
erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-
art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the
amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the
development site.
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -1b: Project -specific development
Pre -Construction / City of
City of
Issuance of
located within the Project area shall:
Construction Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction
Building Official
and field
activities whose specific location on a construction site may be
or other
verification and
flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators,
cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far
as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration -sensitive
land uses.
Designee
sign -off by City
of Temecula
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction
methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will
be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and
jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers,
pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they
shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible
to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air
exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from
the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the
tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could
achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use
of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever
feasible.
• Locate stationary construction noise sources away from
adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary
sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the
extent feasible.
• Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes
approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid
residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent
feasible.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
15
ESA/211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
• Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison
with surrounding residents and property owners who is
responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding
construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone
number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction
locations.
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors
and the general contractor or onsite project manager to
confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices
(including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood
notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented.
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2a: The operation of construction
equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large
bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited
within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional
structures during construction of any project -specific development in
the Project area, to the extent feasible. Small, rubber -tired
construction equipment shall be used within this area during
demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects
where feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -2b: Operation of jackhammers shall
be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20
feet of institutional structures during construction activities
associated with any project -specific development in the Project
area, to the extent feasible.
Pre -Construction /
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -N01-3: For project -specific development,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational
noise bevels generated by the development would exceed the City's
permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would
be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that
operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with
the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include,
but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of
landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for
the new developments.
Pre -Construction /
Construction /
Post -Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4a: Individual development projects
shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as
ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away
from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the
equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building
design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise
Pre -Construction /
Construction /
Post -Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Building Official
or other
Designee
City of
Temecula
project approval
and field
verification and
sign -off by City
Uptown J
MMRP
Specific Plan
• ',SA/ 211247
July 2015
Mitigatiq toring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
revel on the premises of existing development by more than five
decibels..
Pre -Construction/
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Engineer or
other Designee
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a
residential development project within the Project area, the
applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior
windows associated with a proposed residential development will be
constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to
ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
Issuance of
45 dB in any habitable room.
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
and ensure that the following improvements occur at these
Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: Prior to City approval of a project-
Pre -Construction /
City of
City of
City of
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development
that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two
seconds.
• At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street /
specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall
Construction /
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use
Post -Construction
Building Official
project approval
compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed.
or other
and field
Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's
noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited
to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design
of adequate setback distances.
Designee
verification and
sign -off by City
of Temecula
Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the
performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis
and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development
that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two
seconds.
• Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -
share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent)
• Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's
fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent)
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -
specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay
its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing
optimization for the intersections listed herein.
Pre -Construction/
Construction
City of
Temecula
City of
Temecula
Engineer or
other Designee
Issuance of
Grading Permit
and Issuance of
a Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the
Pre -Construction/
City of
City of
Issuance of
performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis
Construction
Temecula
Temecula
Grading Permit
and ensure that the following improvements occur at these
Engineer or
and Issuance of
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development
that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two
seconds.
• At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street /
other Designee
a Certificate of
Occupancy
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
MMRP
17
ESA/211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials
Verification of Compliance
Date
Remarks
Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach
lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane, two through
lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn
lanes, one through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -
share contribution is 10 percent).
City of
City of
Issuance of
construction permits for a project -specific development within the
• At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot
Temecula
construction
Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern
Springs Road, add a right -turn overlap traffic signal phase to
the southbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5
percent).
Building Official
permits, and
Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted
• At the 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, add
an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction
or other
sign -off by City
sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio
(Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent).
Designee
of Temecula
Road.
Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -
specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay
its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements
for the intersections listed herein.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1 b: Prior to issuance of construction
permits For a project -specific development within the Project area,
the project applicant shall pay Eastern Municipal Water District's
then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with
obtaining sewer service.
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of Pre -Construction
City of
City of
Issuance of
construction permits for a project -specific development within the
Temecula
Temecula
construction
Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern
Building Official
permits, and
Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted
or other
sign -off by City
sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio
Designee
of Temecula
Road.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1 b: Prior to issuance of construction
permits For a project -specific development within the Project area,
the project applicant shall pay Eastern Municipal Water District's
then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with
obtaining sewer service.
Uptown Je, ipecific Plan
MMRP
iA / 211247
July 2015
ATTACHMENT C
PC RESOLUTION - RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
25
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
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 OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING
THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA
ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT
BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA " AND A
RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP,
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY
DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON
SPECIFIC PLAN"
SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Pian area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission,
at regular meetings, considered the Specific Plan, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity and did testify either in support or opposition to
the matter.
C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan
Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific
-1-
11086-0006\1892276v2.doc
Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult
Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project").
D. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively
referred to as "CEQA").
E. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that
may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the
topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City
by July 12, 2013.
F. In response to the NOP, the City received 12 written comments from
various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in
narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR.
G. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested
parties on the scope of the Draft EIR.
H. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State
Clearinghouse Number 2013061012).
I. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State
Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a
review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community
Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the
Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman
Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and
the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability
for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
J. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written
comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the
Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR").
The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the
-2-
11086-0006\1892276v2.doc
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to
the Draft EIR in response to comments.
K. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft
EIR.
L. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed
Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearing, at which time the
City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did
testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at
the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, on November 4,
2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending that the
City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
proposed Project.
M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
SECTION 2. Recommendation Regarding Ordinance. Following consideration
of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, including the staff
reports and public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 15- , entitled "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE
REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA
ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO
ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA", in the form
attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by
this reference.
SECTION 3. Recommendation Regarding Resolution. Following consideration
of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, including the staff
reports and public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further
recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. , entitled "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN", in the form attached to this resolution
as Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
-3-
11086-0006 \1892276v2.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula this 4th day of November, 2015.
Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairman
ATTEST:
Luke Watson
Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2015- was duly introduced at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula on the 4th day of November, 2015, and said
Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the
21st clay of October, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
-4-
11086-0006\1892276v2.doc
Luke Watson
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
ORDINANCE NO.
-5-
11086-0006\1892276v2.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 15 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN,
AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE
TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE
ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
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. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. On October 18, 2011, December 6, 2011, February 2, 2012, April 5, 2012,
June 14, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the City conducted Community Visioning Workshops
to provide information about the Specific Plan and to craft a community driven vision
and set of policy directions that would provide the City with a clear focus for developing
policies and standards for the Specific Plan.
C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan
Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map
Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the
Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from
the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "proposed Project").
D. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the
-1-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.
(collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for
the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the
principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan.
E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for
the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in
March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion
with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment
period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18,
2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to
adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6,
2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at
the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located
at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the
Temecula Grace Mel!man Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City
of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website.
F. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission
held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, including the
Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and
Zoning Map Amendment,- and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone. 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, the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the conclusion of the November 4, 2015
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. entitled "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 OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO
ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC
PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS
OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND
USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN."
G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula
considered the proposed Project including the Specific Pian, the General Pian
-2-
11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc
Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the
elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay
Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time
all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any
comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
prior to and at the public hearing.
H. On November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-,
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" which amended
the Land Use Element Map of the Temecula General Plan to change the land use
designations of parcels within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from Community
Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT),
Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), Public Institutional (PI), and Open Space
Conservation (OS -C) to Specific Plan Implementation. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15-
, the City Council also amended the Land Use Element text of the Temecula
General Pian by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and
removing the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Overlay Area.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" certifying and adopting
the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program accurately address the impacts associated with the adoption of the Ordinance.
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. The Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of California
Government Code section 65451 based on the following:
(1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail
the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
-3-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
open space, within the area covered by the plan (pages 3-1 through
3-23 of Specific Plan).
(2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail
the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water,
drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities
proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and
needed to support the land uses described in the plan (pages 6-1
through 6-21 of Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail
the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and
standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of
natural resources, where applicable (pages3-19 through 3-23 of
Specific Plan).
(3)
(4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures
including regulations, programs, public works projects, and
financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) above (pages 7-1 through 7-19 of Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the
Specific Plan to the General Plan (pages 2-1 and 2-3 of Specific
Plan).
(5)
B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City
Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that:
(1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan and
development code.
The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
General Plan, as amended. The Specific Pian implements the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land
uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect
to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life
and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated
mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses
(Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development
(Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by
establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each
with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops,
offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's
land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses,
-4-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design
of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The
Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current
and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area.
This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services
will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial
ventures.
The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as
amended by this Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is properly planned
and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses
contemplated in the area.
(2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City.
The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential
impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the
City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the
Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses
within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital
services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by
new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a
result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which
is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which
is in the public health, safety and welfare.
The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance
with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies
and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building
design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface
with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and
circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
(3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land
use designations and the anticipated land use developments.
There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would
preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated
developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with
the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool
to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The
Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta
Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient
-5-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for
proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as
open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the
development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces
and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill
development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize
the area.
(4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable
character which will be compatible with existing and proposed
development in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Specific Plan 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.
Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield
flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as
a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will
employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to
create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use
development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six
separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas
based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique
character for each district.
The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current
land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily
of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of
the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service
development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses
including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of
the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would
maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The
Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the
open space designation that surrounds the creek.
SECTION 3. Adoption of Specific Plan.
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full,
SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment.
A. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Specific
Plan Zoning District SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is
amended to add the following Specific Plan area:
-6-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
"SP -14 Uptown Jefferson"
SECTION 5. Zoning Map Amendment.
The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to add
the zoning classification "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to the Zoning Map as shown
on Exhibit A to this Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full.
SECTION 6. Adult Business Overlay Zone Amendment.
A. Legislative Findings
(1) The City Council seeks to remove the parcels located in the
Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Adult Business
Overlay Zone which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1
("Overlay Zone").
(2) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech
activities protected by the First Amendment, but rather to address
the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. It is further the
intent and purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the secondary
effects of adult businesses upon the residential uses that will be
located within the Specific Plan area.
(3)
The City Council finds that adult businesses tend to attract
prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult
businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding
businesses and residences, and contribute to blight and the
downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding
areas.
(4) The City Council finds that the protection and preservation of the
public health, safety and welfare require that certain distances be
maintained between adult businesses and residential uses.
Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020 provides that the
intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult
businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally
away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily
located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan area will
include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other
locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the
residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the
area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan
seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of
compatible, pedestrian -orientated retail, office, public facilities,
open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design
standards. The City Council hereby finds that the secondary
-7-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
(5)
effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the
residential uses that will be located in the Specific Plan area. The
secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be
compatible with the residential uses and would be disrupted to the
residents of Specific Plan area.
The City Council further finds that the removal of parcels located in
the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone will
allow adequate sites for adult businesses to locate in the City. City
staff has advised that 426 commercially -zoned parcels would
remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in
the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of those
commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate
infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, City
staff has indicated that a number of the available parcels are
actually vacant commercial spaces. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot
buffer between adult uses, which are required by Temecula
Municipal Code section 5.09.040, approximately 13 adult
businesses could simultaneously locate in the Overlay Zone after it
is amended to exclude the Specific Plan area from its boundaries.
Given the size of the City and the fact that the City does not have a
single adult business operating within its borders at this point, the
available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market.
(6) The City Council further finds that there are an adequate number of
sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable
opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City
has a total population of 106,780. 1.8 percentage of land in the
City is theoretically available to adult businesses. In addition, there
are 13 sites that are potentially available for adult uses. Currently,
there are no businesses that wish to offer adult entertainment in the
City. Since its inception, the City has never received an application
for an adult business.
B. Amendment
Section 17.08.020 (H) (Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.) of
Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add:
"Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B to
Ordinance No. 15- -, and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full."
-8-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial
Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses
Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts
Description of Use
A
NC
CC
HTC
SC
PO
BP
LI
Adult Businesses -subject to Chapter 5.09
of the Temecula Municipal Code'
7. Only within Special Overlay Zone No. 1 as described and depicted in Ordinance No.
15 -
SECTION 7. Consistency with General Plan
The foregoing amendments outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 above are consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula.
SECTION 8. 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 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
SECTION 10. 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.
-9-
11086-0006\ 1892270v2. doc
EXHIBIT "A"
Zoning Map
-10-
11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc
Zoning Map
City of Temecula
EIlec9ve Daae August 9, 2005
•,
-..,y.�...K..
r..`oa.-w.+a
- aEwetm�iaa
Nak
• Pvas,....msy ins
▪ POW Psin *Ravenna, iv.
Open Dpace Cannavino, 104.
-..;. Pp.n Sy[e Pmwraen s.. u..sa.�PSPsw
Fluted P..ay:.n Pala
EXHIBIT B
Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1
-11-
11086-0006\1892270v2.doc
•
0.
a <1
44 ya
L1, `•V
T+
tiw
TY DR
Z
0
4
.3�
SPECIAL USE OVERLAY
June 2015
Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1
City
Parcels
0 500 1,000 2,000
I 'oI
e
lc 0 Q
?
y 3
I
i
/fU4yDQ0 CIR
s�
'� G� ax -Erie. VNO Dp D
8h
k R
z r - pyNEHO�OR ,tea
o. S§W p . .
Y.
T1401. 6.14 - o- .. fl
7#0
:,=•
,
1,00////fro � �Ft vL �w- •
0IL1 R".
.ntin
f cAuc pAHTq
1
�]r IHIIh-VGI C Lf 6' RARTfi
yr-`
r
cY
CALL'
Ci 4S fpF
AVENIOA CAAA DEL SOL'
;
'r
inn PUESTAOEL
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
-6-
11086-0006\ 1892276v2.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT,
THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND
RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated
and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is
approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific
Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of
Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning
districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit
District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek
Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones:
Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is
projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be
constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately
1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726
new residential dwelling units.
B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also requires a General Plan
amendment, a zoning code amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a zoning map
amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific
Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult
Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project").
C. The General Plan Amendment encompasses 1) an amendment to the
Land Use Element incorporating the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan,
adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -
4), removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure
LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and amending the Land Use Policy
Map (Figure LU -3), 2) an amendment to the Community Design Element incorporating
the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design
Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use
Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue,
Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections,
and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements, and 3) an
amendment to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General
-1-
1108 6-0006\ 1891916v2. doc
Plan by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from
a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided), collectively
referred to as the "General Pian Amendment."
D. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission
held public hearings to consider whether to recommend the adoption of the Specific
Plan, the General Plan Amendment, zoning code admendments, and zoning map
amendments, and certification of the Final EIR. On November 4, 2015, after due
consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, and after due
consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed amendments, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending, in part, that the City
Council approve the General Pian Amendment including: amending the Land Use
Element, the Land Use Policy Map, the Community Design Element, and the Circulation
Element to create consistency between the Specific Pian and the City's General Plan.
E. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to review
the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §
21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq.
F. Upon the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 15- , certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), adopting
Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution
No. 15- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as
though set forth in full.
G. On October 13, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered
the proposed Project including the Specific Pian, the General Plan Amendments, the
Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, the elimination of the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The
City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the
proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing.
H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the General
Plan Amendment hereby further finds, determines and declares that:
(1) The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest;
The General Pian Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area,
is in the public interest. The Specific Pian area includes much of the
oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan
area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the
-2-
11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc
businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and
provide vital services to the community, the area has since been
overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts
of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization
of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote
economic longevity which is in the public interest.
(2) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety
and welfare of the community;
The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and
review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various
potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and
concluded that the Specific Pian is in the best interests of and is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The
Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the
City's General Pian, as amended. These documents set policies and
standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In
addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines
and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding
community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the
Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
(3) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and
surrounding uses;
The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan
area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land
uses to the south of the Specific Pian area consist of predominately tourist
service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land
uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast
of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Pian
would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -
Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but
would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek.
(4) The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community
and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
General Plan;
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction,
goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan amendments
will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land
-3-
11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc
uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to
land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life
and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated
mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses
(Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development
(Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan
area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods
that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and
identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other
locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix will include
commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and
Intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will
maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six
zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order
to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -
owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-
side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed
General Plan Amendment will result in compatible future development,
which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern,
maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and
other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
SECTION 3. Amendment to the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of
the General Plan is hereby amended by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Implementation to the text of the Land Use Element
and adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table
LU -4), and removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas
(Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6) as provided in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 4. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map. The Land Use Policy
Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to
include the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Areaas provided in Exhibit "B," attached
hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 5. Amendment to the Community Design Element. The Community
Design Element is hereby amended by adding the description of Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community
Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the
intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue,
and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue
for a major streetscape improvements as provided in Exhibit "C," attached hereto
incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
-4-
11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc
SECTION 6. Amendment to the Circluation Element. The Roadway Plan (Figure
C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is hereby amended by changing the
classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial
(6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided) as provided in Exhibit "D," attached
hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 7. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby
authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement these amendments.
SECTION 8. Consistency with General Plan. The Land Use, Circulation and
Community Design Elements of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are
consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan in conformity with Government
Code section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised
to effectuate General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this amendment.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective
date of Ordinance No. 15- , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE
TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES,
AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT
BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA".
SECTION 10. 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.
-5-
11086-0006\ 18 91916v2. doc
EXHIBIT A
The Land Use Element Text Changes
-6-
11086-0006\1891916v2.doc
I
l
important economic and environmental relationships
to both the City and area residents. However,
properties within this designation may not be subject
to City or County planning, zoning, and building
regulations. Cooperative efforts between the City,
County, and local Tribal Governments are important
to ensuring that areawide issues are appropriately
addressed to the benefit of all local residents.
RC - RECREATION COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
Intensity Range: Varies
Target Intensity: N/A
The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may
be applied to properties designated for Open Space
use. This designation provides for operation and
development of resort or amusement oriented
commercial and recreational uses of regional interest
that draw visitors from throughout the City and
region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation,
conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels,
resorts (including fractional ownership units),
restaurants, parks, camp grounds, open spaces and
community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and resort
uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses.
SPI - SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION -(Formatted: Left
Imensira R.ur""e: Varies +�' � Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, Bold
IFtresistta•- Varies
The Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) designation
may be applied to areas within the City which have an
approved Specific Plan. This designation allows for a
variety of land uses which include both residential and
non-residential uses. Geographic areas designated
SPI typically allow for mixed use development as
specified by the approved specific plan.
TARGET DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES
For various reasons, many parcels in the community have not been
developed to their maximum density or intensity. Future
development is expected to occur at the target level of density or
intensity stated in Table LU -1 for each land use designation. For
LI I 1
I L L:t
I NLK \ t L \
SPECIFIC PLANS
Many areas within the City and Planning Area are subject to the
plans, policies and implementation measures of currently adopted or
anticipated future Specific Plans. The purpose of Specific Plans is to
provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the
General Plan. A Specific Plan area designation is used to identify 25
such areas within the Temecula Planning Area, which because of size,
location, and/or special development opportunities require a
coordinated and comprehensive planning approach (see Figure LU -
1). In identified Specific Plan areas of 100 or more acres, approval of
a Specific Plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land
use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. In
some areas, Village Center Plans, which allow greater intensities, can
also be used. Planned development overlays can be used for smaller
areas.
Specific Plans must be prepared in accordance with the requirements
of Section 65451 of the California Government Code and the City's
Development Code, which contains some additional requirements
tailored to meet local needs and conditions. Designated areas will
require detailed plans indicating land uses, circulation, major
infrastructure and facilities, open space and parks, and appropriate
implementation measures. All Specific Plans will be evaluated for
consistency with the goals, policies, plans and programs of the
General Plan.
Approved Specific Plan Areas — As shown in Table LU -4, a total of
24 Specific Plans have been approved within the planning area as of
October 2015. Specific Plan documents for each of these areas are
available for reference at the City Planning Department. Approved
land uses for each Specific Plan are shown on the Land Use Policy
Map.
(1 I I Y I- 1 L \1 L ll L \ G L\ E R \ L
I LI 18
TABLE LU4
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AR As
Label in
Fig. LU-
3
Adopted Specific Plan
Location
Description/Objectives
General Plan
Land Uses
Acres
SP -9
Redhawk
South of Vail Rands
SP
Pre-mcorpomtion Specific Plan approved in 1988 including residential and
commercial/industrial development.
I.M, M, Pl, OS
1,261
SP -10
Vail Ranch
South of Temecula
Creek, between
Margarita and
Butterfield Stage
Roads,
Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 1988 including residential and
commercial/industrial development.
L\1, Pl, OS, HT,
IP
628
SP -11
Roripaugh Ranch
Along Butterfield Stage
Road in the northeast
corner of the City.
To develop a master planned residential community providing a variety of
housing types suited to the terrain and sensitive to natural la [idioms. The
maximum density is not to exceed an average of three dwelling units per
acre. Future development should protect sensitive natural resources of the
area.
1, L\•I, \I, NC,
OS, PI
792
SP -12
Wolf Creek
Southern portion of
the City, along
Pechanga Parkway.
To provide a balance of uses with commercial and public uses serving the
surrounding area, Intended to be a village center in the southeast portion of
the City.
1-M, NC, CC, PI,
OS, \I
551
SP -13
Hanveston
Between Margarita
Road, and 1-15, along
City limits.
To provide a mix of land uses with higher density residential close to
commercial and employment uses, and to provide open space links between
residentiat,pubhc and commercial uses.
1\I, M, H, SC,
PI, OS
557
.aI'-I1
t !mown lr lh:.a'O'-uchi,t
llnmrho
1..jin1111.11• n -It tiiutr.1.51-.u6V limo. IL,. kiln -emit 6. ausarrouy:
.1 tic LCL
II' PI tri
ii=
11,111
i ,cid •. lb a.auLar-.1
1.t l3,l na' I��ilL
11t. LiII1al:terI 11111
Iplu.i Hi fill nula atm ..t.i..vinfirm fituilr,rk uriil ,, 1.411,t11W. nuLlaudl
.rtLa0llra.L alfil ntlr(aalan- ai.l21i'5I
go - 4 ha r ft. LAI,. widaa+E.>:l l n.yvmrti tn-01, -IMO., wl,P"nxl In a. aluht.
1...3.d IJra.4,1l...t
tit lal inirbit.401.1rl rtrrn. rl. anil-. MAI ftµl_k xr naaa n atn1.1). lir n. --
.PDO -4
PDO -5
Temecula Creek Village
Rancho Pueblo
:\long SR -79 South,
between)edediah
Smith Road and
Margarita Road.
To achieve comprehensively planned mixed-use developments with
compatible/complementary matures of office, support commercial,
residential, and ssen•ices.
PO
33
49
Sphere oflneerne*
#184
Rancho Bella Vista
North of \turdeta Hot
Springs Road and the
City limit
To provide a rrndraii l piatnud almrummy that ptaircis lhr lanrltral
. s.autees of Skunk I-lulktn- and lallwde arrear, psi v.dc a roil .cif r tosie+mal
tlrnaitln sunnexlyd la a aattipiaxn open gaacr .0-lein, and fink% IC, sllmmit
LAI, PI, OS
797
TABLE LU -6
MD ED USE OVERIr'IY AREAS
Mixed Use Overlay Areas
Development Capacity
Name
Location
Residential Units'
Non -Residential
Square Feet2
Daily Trip
Cap
(ADT)
111 822
670,000 900,000
15,000
,\longJcffcr3on .Avcnuc,
Lits IIactcndaa Street
north of
1. J,ffcrar,.i
lvcnuc
and South of th, 3hoppmg
lncatr,l
irra atieffrr4rm
Avenue and Winchester Road.
21. Town
Center/Tower
Plaza
North of intersection of
Rancho California Road and
Ynez Road.
668-1,3373
1,090,000-1,460,000
30,000
32. South of
Old Town
Service Commercial areas on
Front Street south of Santiago
Road
94-189
160,000-210,000
6,000
1. Residential range based on 20'.,i.40° ° residential use of site at Zit units per net acre.
2. Tenn -residential range lased on &0°'e.3O , non-residential use of site at 0.35:1 FAR.
3. Senior housing is strongly encouraged as a part of the residential component of the Town Center/Tower Plaza site.
PRESERVING
RURAL AREAS
Mixed use areas and village centers will also be linked via multi -use
trails, and regional and local transit service. The City will work with
regional planning agencies to ensure that mixed use areas are linked
to any future commuter or high speed rail service connecting
Temecula to other parts of the region.
Rural areas within the planning area are of special economic and
aesthetic importance to the City. Community members have
considered future land use options within three Rural Preservation
Areas, and have expressed a desire to keep these areas rural. Rural
Preservation Areas are identified in Figure LU -5, and listed in Table
LU -7.
LII' I CA\ N
Jlif HRSON
Clotrwri letter:it in ItILIkLU 11 inch Ili( tI! tJLi1:1,1 Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, 14 pt
1.,11ritncill. and JIICI. L1 in1uitrain.-11:g
iIiPup litNionc T(tor,: 1 Il0.(a) 395, \t, 111E4 11 %L• 111:
VAICSILI r1ti 1110 It [121LaLL.ii:EIL_IIMLL J.U1[J. 1 41031,1
inierstiice 15. 1 Alatip the the (±i it ..)Er), the,
atreA )1 11 Li i.1.1 (11 de; 0111 andel: y1)jL-111 /113,1 A in ILI \\ 31 11
00,1.'10111th i it 'Mil, AlhIIL1t ttlt uLIf -.iltiitI kdit
tad LL.1 t141 Jic. mr-or muncfciral lind retail lies =iett nit lin
conanunari. Mao.. +.11 do; I within ihe Art nilli
CI P111.1 mlicaliy- di v Nit -a 11:{N 1W{"tiawed IP:Ve
ii1ll hilldowny raking place i.l.wwlitte in the As it it AUlt. i 1
Lk:pall WI Sed Itii 411111:101.0911V MIK t. v..c.5010 ht.
L. FIT 11:21 thLLiRtie:i and the City:: long rk•afl twurc.
ii.r(ler1 rinn, 1V,Intl4rAii MAL rill: I.: 1/t1 iwi J ifx,t111 :VCCICK
1 [IAN 1 it,:011 pt d to achieve the community's turiirc \JiI( 111
NITark 41 I id in I nVtg. inn, the area 1-prrtiAn
jeffeist111 W111 lir 1eam-4..16's itcwest L'ilestiniiiti in ' Vibirrint
sophisticated and unique. the area will rck divcoc mix
of residents of all ii„izes. expericaccs and int rests living in eclectic,
,p-and-ctinutig ue,1ibt dal ?lg.. whin ids in Cixiiml
lefferst in will provide a unique eXperlellCe. rivalvtil hynti
othcr pine in rhc etre 11 reit .1.111: lje1g.111)13thi LLI PL.'S ivill bit.111-SCalt•
itid I% ilite. s.^AILI) distinct character and identity
offer -111g ipri til ii(mit.s. she iris.1licv, ft:StALIF31111:s and other it
italjt-
strvlilg uses.
Edit htikalay L'111141114:Cil and 1111.t..CCuitilt.:Cted L provti.le
expanded moilnlity options t- wodst is and vbitors.
adttirton. 11 tl Sr( )1) 47jirkIng ti 1 it id --1.111L CifICRAlf raT
;..1di.W;1111-::, Mid Tt4.-rvo)f10
.;tilew.111.0„ and niulri-ti;m: onuaccg
itlIIliistCanil arcoszfr111,-. along !iduinera Creek connect
Wive fickls itiJ parks in the: Ili qrhcoi ;aim. ( )10 Town 1[lie
the pArk, ti, rlic LL.Vs::LLT. Pir, $11l1142 •N, 11 hill ilttr
jitintlily gill it ide ti rItie ;1St
1
Figure LU -4
Specific Plan Areas
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Approved Specific Plans
SP- 1 Roripaugh Hills
SP- 2 Rancho Highlands
SP- 3 Margarita Village
SP- 4 Paloma/Paseo Del Sol
SP- 5 Old Town
SP- 6 Campos Verdes
SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center
SP- 8 WestsideNillages at Old Town
SP- 9 Redhawk
SP -10 Vail Ranch
SP -11 Roripaugh Ranch
SP -12 Wolf Creek
SP -13 Harveston
SP -14 Uptown Jefferson
PDO -4 Temecula Creek Village
PDO -5 Rancho Pueblo
# 106 Dutch Village
# 184 Rancho Bella Vista
# 213 Winchester Properties/Silverhawk
# 265 Bore! Airpark
#284 Quinla Do Lego
# 286 Winchester 1800
# 238 Crown Valley Village
# 313 Morgan Hill
Future Specific Plans
Y Specrfic Plan Area Y
Z Specific Plan Area Z
or
•i Br
Mat. Rd
s
i4?0
he
urriur #106
Influe .-u
County of
Riverside
.eA1 pE
w++xnd.A Ad
.r Re
.e-0 ad
Buck Rd
6^.
yy y ¢p
PDO -5 -
'f •
1
•■•
arm.. ^ Temecula City Boundary
•� ___ —. Sphere of Influence Boundary
,4+[{ sr._ar.-.tity Planning Area
Source: Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
N
0
5,000
hung
renAlnm.n
10)00
Fee
Miles
IH
1-1
H H I
0
2
1
Figure LU -5
Land Use Focus Areas
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
OEM
Mixed Use Overlay Areas
Rural Preservation Areas
Future Growth Area
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area
Source: Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
County of
Riverside
Sp.cn.N
Jean Nickolas Rd
Buck Rd
k\L.
1
1
0 5,000 10;000
Feet
Miles
0 1 2
I--1 H 1
H H 1
EXHIBIT B
The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3
-7-
11086-000611891916v2.doc
x713.1 Rn
Pat Rd
2 t N
City of Murrieta
Sphere of Influence
2
County of
Riverside
Shen3JMvi Nd
(t.rdrnt O in
■ F010 Rd
Sperm Rd
Jean Nicholas Rd
Bor& Rd
mryy 0- l Si.n114t*•.
Buck Rd
5.+ - �n 4; M.dM Da Ft+4+Q1
Da Pedota Rd
a0CI,enua
Enlorfarnmeni
CmNor
y y l•
..2.3.
--r+ r�
YMi
NORTH
1250 0 2500 5000 500 Feel
-,�
.wwrverrermvamarm'
��ubdasesw
a�a
as
Adopted April 12, 2005
I Re0sed March 29, 2012 (CC Resolution 12-04)
«
..«.5:.,
R
• a;y.-.s+.� -.�-�vs s.�-.r+.v—•
Figure LU -3
Land Use Policy Map
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
I-1 Sperm Flan ImplMmMatian
RESIDENTIAL
Eaffi 090330e (001 Ou/Ac Max)
- Rural (01-02 DWAc Max)
1-1 Very Low (02-000.0Ac Ma.)
r 1 Low (05-29 DuMc Mex)
f-1 Lav Med.rn (3.08 9 Du/Ac Max)
®' Medum (70-12 9 OWAc Max)
MI high (13.0-20 0 Do/Ac Max)
COMMERCIAL I OFFICE
is I#40319 x3900 06^rrer
on Commonly Commercial
Q
Highway Toulisl Commercial
® Samoa Commercial
IMO Professional OR
INDUSTRIAL
MI Industrial Park
PIAL* Vita FORM DM!
7-1 P2900 Insridlord Fealties
' I1 VawyardWAlycWlural
M Open Span
{ O Tam! Trus/ Lands
® Recreation COnm0rcial Overlay
Sem.. a IN cience Bounder,
r-
EXHIBIT C
The Community Design Element
-8-
11086-0006\1891916v2.doc
OLD TOWN
TEMECULA
UPTOWN
JEFFERSON
AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS
Old Town Temecula represents a great opportunity for the City to
preserve its heritage while promoting local tourism. The Old Town
area is recognized as the heart of the City and a separate Specific Plan
has been prepared for the area. While the area no longer functions as
a "Town Center" or "Downtown," many of the attributes of Old
Town help to establish the area as a special place within the City of
Temecula. The placement of additional civic and cultural uses in Old
Town would help revitalize
and restore the area.
Uptown Jefferson is located immediately north of Old Town
Temecula. This area encompasses much of Temecula's first
commercial core, and was once a bustling and important locally -
serving community destination. Since this time, the area has been
overshadowed by development activity, infrastructure improvements
and private investment taking place elsewhere in the city. However,
enhancing this area's economic assets is critical to the area's long term
future. The revitalization of the area will occur through the
implementation of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as well as
through the application of various economic development strategies,
land use incentives, and by allowing for greater development intensity
within the area. This area is anticipated to include a mix of land uses,
such as urban residential neighborhoods, commercial retail, hotel and
hospitality, office/employment, higher education, cultural arts, and
recreation -related uses that co -exist within close proximity to one
another. This synergy in land use will create a vibrant destination, up-
scale residential neighborhoods and establish viable employment
opportunities within the City.
\? ; i Li i_
1) 17
i \ P. \ L .) l \
Figure CD -1
Community Design Plan
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
Activity and Design Elements
) ActIvIty Node €.1.) Giv, "4
0 Focal Intersecuon Cetintwastw%
Mixed Use Overlay Areas
Streetscapes and Viewsheds
Maier Sireetscape
Natu re/W Ild erness Trails
IHot non d mounrom
Wong)
Minor Streetscape Cq,,flUMeTtS
VIewshed ir.ak Trim
Chaparral
Public Open Space, and Recreation Facdi ties
Public Institutional FacIlities
VA Vineyards/AgrIcultoral
MIOpen Space. Parks. and Recreational Facilities
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Boundary
City o
Sphere ofloflj
Cour ty of
Riverside
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10.000
Feet
Miles
I—''—''-----4
H
1-1
0
0.5
1.5
2
EXHIBIT D
The Circulation Element
-9-
11086-0006\1891916v2.doc
Figure C-2
Roadway Plan
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
Interchange Improvements
Urban Arterial (8 Lanes divided)
- Principal Arterial (6 Lanes divided)
- Major Arterial (4 Lanes divided)
y--�• Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes undivided)
-» Modified Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes seperek®c
• • • Limited Secondary Arterial (2 Lanes divided)
- Collector (2 Lanes undivided)
+••••_ Rural Highway (2 Lanes undivided)
Hellas Rd
City of Murrieta
Sphere of influence
1p•c01Rd
Jean Nicholas Rd
County of
Riverside
6 enlep IM
Auld Rc
HW . Rd
• RP
BONO Rd
11..E4 Ru
City of
Murrieta
4y•
1.0"_
•w,r a.. .w!prad
P
I
.r'
0
5,000
10,000
F et -- — — —,_.,
Miles
H H I
0
2
ATTACHMENT D
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
26
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: LR10-0014 Uptown Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan
Applicant: City of Temecula
Proposal:
Recommend adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to allow for greater
flexibility and a wider array of land use and development options within the 560 -
acre Project area. In addition, the Project would focus on increasing mobility
opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation options, including walking,
biking, and transit, through the implementation of new "complete streets" roadway
configurations, traffic calming strategies, pedestrian -oriented facilities, and bike
lanes. The Project would include a form -based code to better define development
regulations and design standards in order to encourage higher density urban
development. Anticipated build -out of the Specific Plan assumes up to 3,726
residential units, approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial uses, and
315 hotel rooms. The project is located north of Rancho California Road, west of
Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road (See attached map).
Environmental: Based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and
pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City completed a Draft EIR, to address
any potential issues for the project described above. A Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) was distributed to responsible agencies,
interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The public review and comment
period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on
April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and
Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a
review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents
have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula
Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main
Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula
Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of
Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website.
Case Planner:
Place of Hearing:
Date of Hearing:
Time of Hearing:
Dale West, (951) 693-3918
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
October 21, 2015
6:00 p.m.
The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the
Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning
Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website —
www .cityoftemecula orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding
any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main
Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In
addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — WNW cityoftemecula.ori:, — and will be
available for public review at the respective meeting.
If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the
Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.
STAFF REPORT — PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: November 4, 2015
TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner
PROJECT Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of:
SUMMARY: 1) The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan;
2) A General Plan Amendment to: (a) amend the Land Use
Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of
"Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all
land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the
provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) amend the Circulation
Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson
Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principle Arterial
to a Major Arterial; and (c) make textual amendments by
incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan in various chapters of the General Plan;
3) A Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan boundaries;
4) A Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult
Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan area; and
5) Certification of the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Report.
CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
RECOMMENDATION: That at the November 4, 2015 meeting, after taking public
testimony, the Planning Commission consider the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan, the draft Enviornmental Impact Report, the General
Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the
Temecula Municipal Code to remove the Uptown Jefferson Specific
Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay zone. That at the
November 4, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN
1
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
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
ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN,
AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE SPECIFIC
PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO
REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO
ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA"
AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND
USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN"
3. Recommend that staff prepare a Streetscape Beautification and
Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area.
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: City of Temecula
General Plan Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT),
Designation: Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP), and Open Space
(OS)
Zoning Designation:
Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT),
Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), Light Industrial (LI),
and Open Space — Conservation (OS -C)
Existing Conditions/
Land Use:
Site: Retail, restaurant, office, hotel, gas station, service commercial
other uses, and vacant
North: City of Murrieta — retail, service commercial, industrial, office, public
institutional, open space and vacant
South: Old Town Temecula — retail, service commercial, restaurant, hotel,
2
motel, gas station, residential, other uses, and vacant
East: Interstate 15 and retail
West: Murrieta Creek, industrial, and service commercial
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The Jefferson Avenue Study Area ("Study Area") is located north of Rancho California Road,
west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz Road/Murrieta Creek and south of Cherry Street. The Study
Area is approximately 560 acres and consists primarily of a mix of developed commercial
property, and property designated as conservation/open space (Murrieta Creek).
In January 2011, the Temecula City Council determined that enhancing the Study Area's
economic assets would be critical to sustaining the area's long term future viability and
established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of two City Council
members. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning
workshops to obtain community input for the future Specific Plan area.
From October 2011 through July 2012, the Community Development Department orchestrated
six community visioning workshops and engaged the community in an effort to develop a
Specific Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Area. The Envision Jefferson public visioning process
resulted in the development of eight Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals to
guide the development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (sometimes referred to as
"Specific Plan").
In February 2013, the Jefferson Specific Plan Steering Committee, consisting of two members
of the Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and Public/Traffic Safety
Commission, was created to guide the technical development of the Plan.
To date, 36 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through the Envision
Jefferson public visioning process, Steering Committee meetings, City Commission meetings,
and a Developer Forum. The City has also engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson
and the City of Temecula websites. Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to
determine the best land uses and development standards necessary to create a new and
vibrant Uptown Jefferson. The draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is based on the
community's vision, guiding principles and recommendations.
On October 21, 2015, staff presented the draft Specific Plan and related General Plan
amendments, Zoning amendments, Municipal Code amendments, and Final Programatic
Envrionmental Impact Report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission opened
the public hearing to take public testimony either in support or oposition to the Specific Plan and
related recommendations. There was one public speaker, representing the North Jefferson
Business Park, who had questions regarding conflicts between existing CC&Rs and the
proposed land uses of the Specific Plan. Having no further public comments, the Planning
Commission continued the public hearing to November 4, 2015 to allow ample opportunity for
the public to speak on the issue, and to allow the Planning Commissioners the oportunity to
digest the large amount of information presented to them and the recommended actions they
are being asked to make.
The project analysis, envrionmental determination, findings for the General Plan amendments,
Zoning amendment, and Specific Plan are contained in the October 21, 2015 staff report as an
attachment to this staff report.
3
Since the publication of the October 21, 2015 staff report, minor changes have been made to
the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings), Statement of Overiding
Considerations (SOC), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Changes include minor clarifications and corrections to incosistencies between these
documents. The revised Findings, SOC and MMRP are attached to this staff report and will be
incorporated into the staff report that will be presented to the City Council.
Pending the Planning Commission recommendations on November 4, 2015, staff intends to
seek City Council adoption of the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, a General Plan
Amendment, a Zone Change, a Zoning Map Amendment and a Municipal Code Amendment,
along with certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of findings
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on November
17, 2015.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 11, 2015
for the October 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and a second notice of public hearing
was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 24, 2015 and mailed to the property
owners within the required 600 -foot radius for the November 4, 2015 Planning Commission
public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
B. Statement of Overiding Considerations
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
D. October 21, 2015 staff report for Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 (Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan)
E. Notice of Public Hearing
4
Notice of Public Hearing
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s)
described below.
Case No: LR10-0014 Uptown Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan
Applicant: City of Temecula
Location: Located in the northwestern area of Temecula, bounded by Cherry Street on
the north, 1-15 on the east, Rancho California Road on the south, and Diaz
Road on the west
Proposal: Recommend adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to allow for
greater flexibility and a wider array of land use and development options
within the 560 -acre Project area. In addition, the Project would focus on
increasing mobility opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation
options, including walking, biking, and transit, through the implementation of
new "complete streets" roadway configurations, traffic calming strategies,
pedestrian -oriented facilities, and bike lanes. The Project would include a
form -based code to better define development regulations and design
standards in order to encourage higher density urban development.
Anticipated build -out of the Specific Plan assumes up to 3,726 residential
units, approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial uses, and 315
hotel rooms. The Proposal will include certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and
amendment to the Adult Business Overlay boundaries, and adoption of a
New Street In -Lieu Fee. The project is located north of Rancho California
Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road
(See attached map).
Recommendations: The City Council will consider the following recommendations:
1) Adopt the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan;
2) Adopt General Plan Amendment to:
(a) Amend the Land Use Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of "Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all land uses within the Specific
Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan;
(b) Amend the Circulation Element by changing the roadway classification for
Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial to a
Major Arterial; and
(c) Make textual amendments by incorporating reference to the Uptown
Jefferson Specific Plan in various chapters of the General Plan;
3) Adopt a Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
boundaries;
4) Adopt a Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay
boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; and
5) Certification of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.
6) Adopt a New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee, which will fund new internals
streets within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary Ordinance.
7) Direct staff to prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area.
8) Direct staff to change the name of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan.
Environmental Action: Based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental
Study and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City completed a Draft EIR, to
address any potential issues for the project described above. A Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) was distributed to responsible agencies, interested
groups, organizations, and individuals. The public review and comment period for the Draft
EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on
May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to
adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015.
Copies of the documents were made available for public review and inspection at the City of
Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main
Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace
Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website;
and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website.
Beginning on November 6, 2015, the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost,
required to provide the service for which the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee will be
imposed and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund
revenues and the nexus report will be available for public review at City Hall at the location and time
described in the last paragraph. The Council will hear a presentation from Staff on the New Streets
In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee and hear comments from the public on November 17, 2015 but will
not act on the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee at this time. The public hearing on the
New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and Fee will be continued to December 8, 2015 at which time
the City Council will consider and may take action on the New Streets In -Lieu Fee Ordinance and
Fee
On November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommended to the City
Council that it approve these recommendations by a unanimous vote.
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and
be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required
by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
65009 of the California Government Code, and Section 21167 of the California Public Resources
Code. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set
aside, or void any decision of the City Council, petitioner shall be limited to those issues raised at the
hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing
described in this notice.
The proposed project application and the public data concerning the New Streets In -Lieu Fee
Ordinance and Fee may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center,
Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Dale West, City of
Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 693-3918.
PLACE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
TIME OF HEARING
City Council Chambers
41000 Main Street
Temecula, California
November 17, 2015
7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Item No. 11
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
'
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Luke Watson, Community Development Director
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report
PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
The following are the highlights for the Community Development Department for October 2015.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
New Cases: In October2015, Planning received 30 new applications, including 4 pre -applications,
and conducted seven Public Hearings. A detailed account of current planning activities is attached
to this report.
Audi Dealership: On February 18, 2015, staff received a pre- application for a 37,000 square foot
Audi dealership to be located on Temecula Center Drive, adjacent to 1-15 and south of the existing
Mercedes-Benz of Temecula dealership. A Development Plan application was filed for the project
on April 6, 2015. A community meeting was held with the Harveston community on March 25, 2015
to discuss the plans for the dealership. Approximately 20 Harveston residents attended the meeting
and were positive about the addition of the Audi dealership to the community. A Supplemental EIR
is being prepared for the project and went out for public review from July 20, through September 8,
2015. A second community meeting was held with the Harveston community on August 13, 2015, to
discuss the findings of the Supplemental EIR and to provide updates on the project. The Planning
Commission approved Audi on October 21, 2015. (FISK)
Altair Specific Plan: On November 12, 2013, City Council approved an Entitlement Processing
Agreement with Ambient Communities (Developer) to process extensive land use entitlements for
the 270 acre property located west of Old Town including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ambient
Communities is proposing a mixed-use development comprised of residential single-family and
multi -family units, as well as retail/commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Staff is currently
reviewing a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Report and has
prepared an Initial Study. The City entered into an agreement with Environmental Science
Associates in July 2014 to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An EIR Scoping Meeting
was held on December 3,'2014. Keyser Marston Associates has prepared a fiscal impact analysis
- 1-
for the project. Staff is working through environmental issues associated with the MSHCP and
wildlife corridors. Once resolved, staff anticipates negotiating the Development Agreement, and
circulating a Draft EIR shortly thereafter. (PETERS)
Temecula Valley Hospital: City Council approved the Temecula Valley Hospital project on January
22, 2008. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital bed tower was received from the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) on July 19, 2013. United Health
Services obtained State licensing to open the hospital for patients on October 14, 2013.
On May 31, 2013, staff received a Major Modification application to modify the site plan and heliport
Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from an area near the northeast corner of the hospital
building. UHS indicated that the heliport needs to be relocated based on concerns from the FAA
and the aeronautical division of Caltrans. UHS proposed two phases of movement for the heliport:
Phase I would place the heliport to the west of the hospital building, in one of the parking lot areas.
Phase 11 would place the heliport on the roof of the second hospital tower. In both cases, the
proposed locations result in a change to the flight path that move it away from the Madera Vista
residential project and changes the path to either head directly into or away from the prevailing wind
direction (rather than perpendicular to the prevailing winds), as directed by the FAA and Caltrans.
A Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). In July
2014, the applicant indicated intentions to add a 5,000 square foot facilities maintenance building to
the hospital site. Staff has provided information regarding this new building to ESA for analysis in
the SEIR, and the 45 -day public review was from November 12, 2014 through December29, 2014.
The project was reviewed at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and received a 4-0
vote (Guerriero absent) recommending approval. Staff has worked with the applicant's consultant
and ESA to respond to comments received from the community at the Planning Commission hearing
and has worked with the applicant's consultant to prepare additional graphics for use at the City
Council hearing. The project was scheduled for the July 28, 2015, City Council hearing but was
continued off calendar so that staff and the Supplemental EIR consultant could make revisions to
the Supplemental EIR to address comments received from Ray Johnson on July 22, 2015. (FISK)
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: In 2013, the Planning Commission approved KB Homes,
Standard Pacific, and Van Daele Developments' applications for Home Product Reviews in the
Roripaugh Specific Plan Area. KB Home plans to construct 98 single-family homes. Standard
Pacific plans to build 200 single-family homes under the names Montego and Cambridge. Van
Daele Development will construct 113 single-family homes, 56 marketed as Verona, and 57 as
Sorrento. The three builders will construct 411 homes in four of five available planning areas in the
area commonly referred to the "panhandle." Three hundred fifty nine (359) residential permits have
been issued to date. (PETERS)
Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement Amendment: In March 2014, Roripaugh Valley
Restoration (RVR) applied for an amendment to the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement to
modify the timing of infrastructure improvements and building permit thresholds for "pan" area the
Specific Plan. Staff has been working with RVR to refine the deal points of the Development
Agreement Amendment (DAA). RVR has been working with the second owner in the "pan" area of
the Specific Plan, Wingsweep, to come to agreement on improvement cost sharing, and those
negotiations are ongoing. RVR and Wingsweep previously agreed to meeting with an arbitrator to
assist in resolving their differences; however Wingsweep later elected to continue discussions with
RVR. RVR and Wingsweep conclude their discussions in July 2015. Staff continues to work with
RVR on the DAA deal points and will bring the deal points. A Community Outreach meeting has
been scheduled for November 19, 2015 for the applicant to present their proposed DAA changes to
the Nicholas Valley and Roripaugh Ranch communities. The DAA will then be brought before the
Planning Commission before being presented at a City Council hearing. (FISK)
-2
Temecula Gateway: On November 3, 2014, staff received applications related to the proposed
Temecula Gateway project. The proposed project will consist of a Planned Development
Overlay/Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to
Community Commercial and the zoning designation to Planned Development Overlay 14, a
Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the creation of seven lots from four, a Development Plan to allow
for the construction of four commercial buildings totaling approximately 23,666 square feet, a
Conditional Use Permit to allow for an automobile service station with a corresponding carwash and
convenience store that will serve alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drive-thru for a
restaurant. The City has entered into an agreement with Michael Baker International/PMC to create
an Environmental Impact Report for the project. (JONES)
LONG RANGE PLANNING
Hike Bike Temecula (Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update): On May 14, 2013,
City Council awarded a contract to KTU+A to update the City's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan. A community workshop was held on October 26, 2013, and attendees provided
feedback on bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, hiking paths, and equestrian connections. Community
input was also collected through a survey via the project website www.hikebiketemecula.orq. A
Steering Committee meeting was held on February 25, 2014, with over 30 participants in
attendance. The focus of the meeting was to summarize the survey results and to get feedback on
proposed improvements in Old Town. The Old Town improvements include sharrows (shared bike
lane markings) on Old Town Front Street, Bicycle Friendly Community signs, and strategically
placed bike racks. On March 25, 2014, City Council approved an amendment to the contract that
included Phase II of the Master Plan Update and additional sidewalk analysis. Phase I concluded
with a community walk -ride event on May 10, 2014, highlighting priority locations for future trails and
bike lanes based on the community's feedback. Phase II is under way. Staff is reviewing draft
chapters, and anticipates presenting the draft plan to the Trails Subcommittee in Fall 2015. A final
Public Workshop will be held, and then presentations to the Community Service Commission, Traffic
Public Safety Commission, and then Planning Commission for input before going to City Council.
(PETERS)
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan: The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area encompasses
approximately 560 acres and is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15,
south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. Staff has held eight Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meetings
to develop policies, and obtain direction on the content of the Specific Plan.
Between October 2011 and July 2013, staff held six visioning workshops. These workshops solicited
feedback from the public and key stakeholders about the future vision of the Specific Plan area.
Eight recommendations emerged from the public visioning process: 1) strengthen economic
development; 2) expand the mix of uses; 3) define districts and neighborhoods; 4) improve
transportation, mobility, connectivity and circulation; 5) integrate recreation, open space and trails; 6)
create updated and flexible development standards; 7) build and maintain a comprehensive utility
infrastructure network; and, 8) establish a district identity. On June 13, 2013, staff held a Developer
Focus Group to determine the future economic feasibility of the Specific Plan based upon
anticipated market conditions, economic demands, demographic trends, and available financing.
From July 2013 through December 2013, staff held six public Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
Steering Committee Meetings with members of the public. Two commissioners from each of the
City's commissions (Planning, Community Services, and Public/Traffic Safety Commissions) serve
on the Committee. Staff presented form -based code principles and drafts of the district map, land
use matrix, street cross sections, streetscape beatification plan, circulation network, future block
standards, urban parking standards, design guidelines, plan administration, sign standards, adaptive
reuse standards, plan financing, and the anticipated 20 -year build out scenario. The project website,
www.envisioniefferson.orq, continues to provide project information and updates to the public.
-3
The draft Specific Plan is based upon the eight visioning recommendations, plan framework, and the
concepts presented at the six public Steering Committee meetings. The draft Specific Plan is now
available for the public to review and may be downloaded from the Envision Jefferson website at
envisionjefferson.orq or at cityoftemecula.orq, The Specific Plan adoption and certification of the EI R
is anticipated on November 17, 2015. (WEST, WATSON)
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR): An EIR Scoping
meeting was held in June 2013, providing interested parties an opportunity to submit comments
related to the scope of the EIR. As a courtesy, all property owners and businesses within the
Specific Plan area were mailed notices for this meeting. The draft EIR is now complete and has
been circulated for public comment. The public comment period is from May 19, 2015 to July 6,
2015. The Draft EIR is available for public review on the Envision Jefferson website at
envisionjefferson.orq and cityoftemecula.orq. Certification of the Final EIR is anticipated on
November 17, 2015 along with the adoption of the Specific Plan. (WEST, WATSON)
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Town Square Marketplace: On January 13, 2015, City Council entered into an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Truax Development (Truax) in order to negotiate the disposition
and development of the two, currently Successor Agency owned, vacant lots in front of the Civic
Center, flanking the Town Square Park on the north and south sides of Main Street. On June 23,
2015, City Council extended the term of the ENA for an additional six months. While both Truax
Development and the City have been negotiating in good faith, the complexities of the project
require that the ENA be extended to allow for additional work to be completed. Upon agreeing to
terms, the City and Truax envision drafting a disposition and development agreement that will be
brought back before the Council for approval. (WATSON)
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: As part of the ongoing wind -down of the former
Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency (SARDA) is required to complete a
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) outlining the financial and debt obligations of the
former Redevelopment Agency. Based on the outstanding obligations that are due in the six month
period being reviewed, SARDA makes requests from the Property Tax Trust Fund to make the
appropriate payments. On February 24, 2015 the SARDA board approved the ROPS for the period
of July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (ROPS 15-16A). On February 25, 2015 the Oversight
Board of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency approved the ROPS 15-
16A. On March 2, 2015, the Oversight Board resolution approving ROPS 15-16A was delivered to
the California State Department of Finance, the California State Controller, and the Riverside County
Auditor Controller per the requirements of the redevelopment dissolution legislation. The ROPS 15-
16B was approved by the SARDA Oversight Board in September. (WATSON)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) & HOUSING
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The City will receive $540,214 in CDBG grant
funding for Fiscal Year 2015-16. The funding will be allocated as follows: 20 percent for program
administration ($108,042), 15 percent for public services ($81,032) to be divided evenly between
nine non-profit service providers ($7,892 each) and $10,000 to the Fair Housing Council. The
remaining 65 percent was allocated for infrastructure improvements. The Old Town Sidewalk
Improvement project will receive $351,140. In April, the City processed a Substantial Amendment to
redirect $160,561 of unspent funds from previous fiscal years. A total of $26,223 was allocated to
Habitat for Humanity for the Critical Home Maintenance and Repair Program, $12,000 to GRID
Alternatives for the Solar Affordable Housing Program, and $122,338 to the Sam Hicks Monument
Park Playground Replacement project. The Annual Action Plan was approved by HUD and the
Grant Agreement was initiated. Staff is preparing the 2014-15 Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The CAPER was approved by City Council on September 22,
2015, and submitted to HUD.
-4
Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinance: The City Council adopted the 2014-
2021 General Plan Housing Element Update on January 28, 2014, and the City received certification
from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on March 10, 2014. A
project processing schedule has been prepared for the Affordable Housing Overlay and Density
Bonus Ordinances as required by Programs 1 and 4 of the Housing Element. The Code
Amendment will also encompass land use updates as required by Program 3. The project is in the
initial planning phase. Staff is currently conducting research and anticipates completing the
ordinances for adoption in early 2016.
ENERGY & CONSERVATION
Temecula Energy Efficiency Management (TEEM) Fund: The TEEM Fund is a self-sustaining
fund that utilizes rebate incentives while also re -directing annual utility cost savings from energy
efficiency projects into the fund. City Council established the fund in June 2013, with an initial
deposit of $119,728.90 in SCE and SCG rebates. Staff is working with Public Financial
Management, funded through the Western Riverside Energy Partnership, to develop an policy
manual for the TEEM Fund, focusing on policies and methodologies for determining the amount of
utility savings to be deposited into the fund after projects are completed. (WEST)
Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership: This Partnership, consisting of eleven
Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) member cities, Southern California Edison
(SCE), and Southern California Gas (SCG), provides incentives for participants to develop energy
efficiency programs. Temecula was the first City in the Partnership to achieve Gold Level status by
completing 13 energy efficiency projects in FY 2012-13, resulting in nearly $100,000 of annual utility
cost savings. In FY 2013-14, the City has upgraded the Community Recreation Center parking lot
lights with new LED lighting fixtures. This resulted in 9,155 kWh saved and an additional $2,280 in
annual savings. Staff recently completed a comprehensive energy audit of the Temecula Library
with assistance from the Partnership. The audit identified 9 energy efficiency measures which could
save an estimated 107,429 kWh annually, which also equates to an estimated annual cost savings
to the City of $17,278. If all efficiency measures are implemented, the City would receive
approximately $20,952 in rebate incentives from SCE and SCG. Implementing these measures
would allow the City to achieve Platinum Level in the Partnership kWh savings requirements, giving
the City higher rebate incentives for future energy efficiency measures. (WEST)
Energy Action Plans (EAP): The final draft Municipal and Community Energy Action Plans have
been prepared for the City of Temecula. The Plans were funded through the Western Riverside
Energy Partnership. Both EAPs establish energy reduction goals, policies, and implementation
measures to achieve energy reduction goals. (WEST)
Solid Waste and Recycling: Staff manages the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Agreement with
CR&R and acts as a liaison between the City, CR&R, and their customers. City staff and CR&R
coordinate two Citywide Clean-up events each year for residents to dispose of household waste and
large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the standard residential trash receptacle. The Fall
Citywide Clean -Up was held October 24, 2015 at Chaparral High School. Staff also assists with
outreach for the Riverside County Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection events and the
Backyard Composting Workshops. This event is an effort to promote the recycling of used and other
household hazardous waste.
The annual rate adjustment was adopted by the City Council at a public hearing on the June 23rd
The 2015-2016 rates included an organic waste recycling component to the residential rate. The
residential organic recycling program will go into effect January 1, 2016. Staff is working with CR&R
on an outreach and education campaign regarding the types of organic waste allowed. (WEST)
-5
BUILDING & SAFETY
Inspections: In the month of October, Building and Safety conducted 1,757 inspections. On
average, there were 79.86 inspections per day, or 15.97 inspections per day, per inspector.
Permits: During the month of October, Building and Safety issued 304 building permits. Of these
permits, 73 were photovoltaic permits. Some of these permits from this month included:
Non -Construction Certificate of Occupancy
Fire Fish Sushi and More — 27507 Ynez Road
School of Rock — 30630 Rancho California Road
Family Planning Associates Medical Group Inc. — 41715 Winchester Road
Vietnamese Gourmet — 26487 Ynez Road
Center for Autism and Related Disorders — 27720 Jefferson Avenue
Tenant Improvements
Jimmy John's — 32389 Temecula Parkway
R&B Automation — 42180 Zevo Drive
CODE ENFORCEMENT
During the month of October, Code Enforcement responded to 114 web complaints. In addition, the
division opened 95 code cases and forwarded 25 referrals to Public Works, Police, Animal Control,
and Fire. Code Enforcement also pulled 600 non -conforming signs in the community and assisted
25 people at the Community Development Counter. Detailed Code Enforcement case activity can
be found in the following chart:
TYPE OF CODE CASE
TYPE TOTAL
Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle
4
Vacant Home / Property Maintenance / Rodent infested
18
Business or Home Occupation w/o license/CUP
5
Trash and Debris / Parking lot maintenance
1
Overgrown Vegetation / Weeds / Fire Hazard
4
Green Pool / Vector Control
8
Graffiti
6
Noise
4
Trailer / RV Stored/Boat
15
Construction w/o Permit/Building Code
6
Encroach Public ROW / Trash Cans
6
Other / Homeless Encampment
7
Signs Pulled - Violations 11
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES
95
-6
Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to
monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. The following charts demonstrate
the past six months of activities in Temecula.
Residential Foreclosure Tracking
Commercial Foreclosure Tracking
May
June
July
August
September
October
DEFAULT
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
DEFAULT
78
73
71
67
75
76
FORECLOSED
63
60
55
49
49
57
REO
94
95
90
88
87
79
TOTALS
235
228
216
204
211
212
Commercial Foreclosure Tracking
-7
May
2015
June
2015
July
2015
August
2015
September
2015
October
2015
DEFAULT
0
1
2
2
2
2
FORECLOSED
0
0
0
0
0
0
REO
14
12
11
12
11
12
TOTALS
14
13
13
14
13
14
-7
PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval
Date
Applicant
Business
Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1484
910-310-006 James Atkins 10/01/2015 Aron Carcamo (323) 665-0844 Edward Oson Plan Review
Case Title / Description: Chevron Jefferson MOD: a Minor Modification to allow for the Jefferson Chevron to
modify the previously approved PA14-0166/0186, a CUP w/ DP. This modification to will establish a phased
development where the approved car wash is constructed, upgrading the existing canopy, and installation of
propane fueling tanks. The site will also be reconfigured with this phase. Two (2) vehicle access points off
Jefferson will be eliminated and one (1) new access created fora total of two (2), landscaping will be updated,
the site will be updated to comply with ADA standards, upgraded lighting will be added, and a new trash
enclosure will be constructed. The site is located at 27560 Jefferson Avenue.
PA15-1490 910-110-093 Jaime Cardenas 10/01/2015 10/30/2015 Laurie Hanks
Case Title / Description: Fall Family Festival TUP: A Temporary Use Permit for Crossroads Church to hold
an annual Fall Family Festival on October 31, 2015 from 5:OOpm until 9:OOpm. The project is located at 26090
Ynez Road.
(951) 805-8248 JLNI Approved
PA15-1495 944-290-006
Scott Cooper 10/01/2015
Case Title / Description: Veterans Recognition Day TUP: A Major Temporary Use Permit for Iglesia Ni Cristo
to host an event for veterans and provide entertainment and programs on October 17, 2015 from 9:OOam until
2:OOpm. The project is located at 29385 Rancho California Road.
Ricardo
Estrellado
(951) 588-7962 IGLESIA NI Void
CRISTO
PA15-1496
945-140-005 Brandon Rabidou 10/02/2015 Fred Connary Plan Review
Case Title / Description: Connary Lot EOT: an Extension of Time to allow for the owner to finalize the
required site surveys prior the recordation of the map. The site is located at 30876 Lolita Road.
PA15-1497 955-050-020 Jaime Cardenas 10/02/2015
Case Title / Description: Under the Lights (Home Occupation)
Pam Barrie Denied
PA15-1498 Jaime Cardenas 10/02/2015 10/12/2015 James Wright
Case Title / Description: Jiminy Farms (Home Occupation)
(951) 821-0561 Approved
PA15-1499
922-220-003 Matt Peters 10/05/2015 10/19/2015 Craig Smith
Case Title / Description: TCI Clubhouse Mod: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for the
addition of 521 SF of restrooms on the lower level and the addition of a 1,335 SF deck at the upper level at
Temecula Creek Inn located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road.
(949) 764-0010 REGENCY Approved
PROP
TEMECULA
PA15-1503 10/06/2015 Intesar Sinnawi Plan Review
Case Title / Description: Petra
Page 1 of 7
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval Business
Date Applicant Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1504
920-100-017 Scott Cooper 10/06/2015 Mark Christensen (951) 676-5012 Greg Spiro Out
Case Title / Description: Temecula Assisted Living Parcel Merger: A parcel merger for APN's 920-100-017
and 920-100-018 for Temecula Assisted Living (PA15-0172).
PA15-1509
959-252-005 Jaime Cardenas 10/06/2015 10/06/2015 Jenny Prauettone Approved
Case Title / Description: Green Go Mow (Home Occupation)
PA15-1510
962-020-011 Jaime Cardenas 10/06/2015 Patricia Bell
Case Title / Description: GOALS Bingo License Renewal: A Bingo License renewal to continue the
operation of bingo games for the Great Oak Academic Leadership Society at 32555 Deer Hollow Way
Temecula, California (Great Oak High School).
(951) 553-5119 Plan Review
PA15-1512 961-052-007
Jaime Cardenas 10/06/2015
Case Title / Description: Iron Fever Welding (Home Occupation)
MARK
BRANDON
Void
PA15-1513
961-052-007 Jaime Cardenas 10/06/2015 10/06/2015 MARK Approved
BRANDON
Case Title / Description: Iron Fever Welding (Home Occupation)
PA15-1516 922-140-011 Brandon Rabidou 10/07/2015
Case Title / Description: Galindo Secondary Dwelling Unit: A Secondary Dwelling Unit application to
convert an existing horse stable to a 930 SF secondary dwelling unit consisting of two bedrooms, one
bathroom, a full kitchen and a living room/dining room at 28755 E. Vallejo Ave
Andres Reynoso Elind Galindo Plan Review
PA15-1519 921-700-011 Brandon Rabidou 10/07/2015 10/21/2015 Bruce Briest
Case Title / Description: Last Stop Shoppe MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) for Last Stop
Shoppe to install 45 linear feet of steel piping to create an exterior patio area on the southeast portion of the
building located at 30520 Rancho California A-103
PKI
PALOMAR
VILLAGE
Approved
PA15-1524
959-331-022 Jaime Cardenas 10/08/2015 10/08/2015 Michael -George Approved
Grills
Case Title / Description: M & M Aquatics (Home Occupation)
PA15-1528
921-370-006 Jaime Cardenas 10/09/2015 10/14/2015 Tammy Pote (800) 344-2944 Portofino Dev Completed
ext 4417
Case Title / Description: 30000 Rancho California ZL- A Zoning Letter for Portofino Apartments located at
30000 Rancho California (APN 921-370-006-2 and 921-370-008-4).
Page 2 of 7
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval Business
Date Applicant Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1530
959-371-021 Jaime Cardenas 10/09/2015 10/09/2015 HYESOON KIM Approved
OLVERA
Case Title / Description: Camp & Uhak - (Home Occupation)
PA15-1531 910-110-088 James Atkins
10/09/2015 Victoria Towers General Dynamics (201) 245-5342 Joseph Holasik Plan Review
Case Title / Description: Temecula Promenade MOD: a Minor Modification to allow for AT&T Wireless to
install a back-up generator on a concrete pad at 40940 County Center Drive.
PA15-1539 961-450-005 Jaime Cardenas 10/13/2015 10/14/2015 Michelle Dahlke
Case Title / Description: Temecula Creek Villas Apartments ZL. A Zoning Letter request for the property
located at 31220 Samantha Lane (APN 961-450-005).
(480) 228-2150 Temecula Completed
Creek Villas
PA15-1543 957-340-067 Jaime Cardenas 10/13/2015 10/13/2015 Angela deArmas
Case Title / Description: Give Sunshine (Home Occupation)
(949) 378-3906 Approved
PA15-1544 921-320-058 Jaime Cardenas 10/14/2015 11/03/2015 Michael
Mossman
Case Title / Description: Temecula Town Center Zoning Letter: A Zoning Letter for the following properties
with Assessor's Parcel Number 921-320 -012, -018, -021, -038, -041, -045, -048, -052, -056 and -058.
(949) 705-0421 ACM 2006 5 Completed
RANCHO
CALIF LTD
PARTNERSHI
P
PA15-1546 953-372-001 Brandon Rabidou 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 Michael Teschler
Case Title / Description: Desert Rose Property Management (Home Occupation)
(951) 545-8961 Approved
PA15-1547 961-113-018 Brandon Rabidou 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 Cheri Coffin
Case Title / Description: Da Coconut Cafe
(808) 222-5612 Approved
PA15-1560 919-200-009 Jaime Cardenas 10/16/2015 11/03/2015 Steven Clemens
Case Title / Description: Clemens Custom Woodworking (Home Occupation)
(909) 518-5599 Approved
PA 15-1561
921-730-022 Brandon Rabidou 10/16/2015 Gary Walker MEG INV Plan Review
Case Title / Description: Gosch Ford UC Bldg Remodel: a Major Modification to allow for Gosch Ford to
remodel and expand their existing used car building. The remodel will include paint changes and enclosing
additional area with a glass facade. The site is located at 28701 Ynez Road.
Page 3 of 7
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval Business
Date Applicant Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1565 961-290-002
James Atkins 10/16/2015
Case Title / Description: Parker Medical COC: a Certificate of Compliance for Parker Medical Center. The
site is located at 44605 Avenida De Missions
Michael Bastin
(951) 234-2819 PARKER
MEDICAL
CENTER
Plan Review
PA15-1568
922-022-007 Brandon Rabidou 10/19/2015 Walt Allen Walt Allen Architect (951) 693-0301 Robert Perdue Plan Review
Architect ext 30301
Case Title / Description: Perdue Minor Exception: A Minor Exception to allow for a reduction in the parking
requirement (from 5 parking spaces to 4 parking spaces) at 41881 5th Street.
PA15-1570
965-321-005 Jaime Cardenas 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 ROBERT Approved
YOWELL
Case Title / Description: Pro Structural Inc (Home Occupation)
PA15-1571
944-192-001 Jaime Cardenas 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 YvetteAceves Approved
Case Title / Description: Ace Notary Services (Home Occupation)
PA15-1572 960-020-046
James Atkins 10/20/2015
Case Title / Description: Vail Ranch DP: a Development Plan to allow for the construction of three (3)
separate structures within the Vail Ranch Town Center. The structures are comprised of two (2) fast-food
drive-thru restaurants, and one (1) express car wash. The site is includes two (2) parcels and totals 2.4 gross
acres and is located at the southwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Mahlon Vail Road.
Richard Finkel
(714) 850-7575 Grady Plan Review
Hanshaw
PA15-1573 960-020-046
James Atkins 10/20/2015
Case Title / Description: Vail Ranch DP: a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of three (3)
separate structures within the Vail Ranch Town Center. The structures are comprised of two (2) fast-food
drive-thru restaurants, and one (1) express car wash. The site is includes two (2) parcels and totals 2.4 gross
acres and is located at the southwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Mahlon Vail Road.
Richard Finkel
(714) 850-7575 Grady Plan Review
Hanshaw
PA15-1577 921-290-004
Jaime Cardenas 10/20/2015
Case Title / Description: Acacia Park Apartment Non -Smoking MOD: A Minor Modification to convert
existing smoking units into 190 non-smoking units at 29605 Solana Way.
Jillian Marion (714) 974-1010 29605 Solana Plan Review
ext 265 Way LLC
PA15-1578
921-292-049 Jaime Cardenas 10/20/2015 10/20/2015 Maria Apodaca Approved
Case Title / Description: Marketing (Home Occupation)
Page 4 of 7
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval Business
Date Applicant Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1579
910-420-030 Jaime Cardenas 10/21/2015 Alexis Kaiser TEMECULA Cancelled
TOWNE
CENTER
ASSOC
Case Title / Description: Davis Enterprise Carnival Major TUP: A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow a
carnival to be held in the Promenade Mall west Macy's parking lot. The carnival will operate October 30 -
November 1, 2015 and November 5 - November 9, 2015. Weekday hours are 5 pm - 11 pm and weekend
hours are 2 pm - 11 pm. (APN: 910-420-010)
PA15-1580
Jaime Cardenas 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 Afzal Masumi Approved
Case Title / Description: Mr. Smartphone Parts & Service LLC (Home Occupation)
PA15-1583
921-810-015 Jaime Cardenas 10/21/2015 Vincent Alipranti (951) 719-2003 COSTCO Plan Review
Case Title / Description: Costco Christmas Tree Trailer TUP: A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow Costco
to conduct Christmas Tree sales at their existing store located at 26610 Ynez Road
PA15-1585 921-830-013
Scott Cooper 10/22/2015
Case Title / Description: Bel Villaggio Holiday TUP: A Temporary Use Permit to allow Bel Villaggio Center to
conduct a holiday event to include live DJ music, trackless trolley rides, Santa Clause visits, snowplay area,
and a children's craft area, on Saturday, December 12th between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The
site is located at 41413 Margarita Road.
Reegen (858) 558-5659 PFP Temecula Plan Review
Rosenblum Real Estate
Holdings
PA15-1586
959-112-014 James Atkins 10/22/2015 10/22/2015 Jeannette Miller Approved
Case Title / Description: Jeannette Miller, RD (Home Occupation)
PA15-1591 921-310-023 James Atkins
10/22/2015 10/29/2015 Bruce Nimmo (951) 695-5081 Moraga Plaza Approved
Case Title / Description: Moraga Plaza MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for the
removal of existing front elevation windows to be replaced by matching double entrance doors. The site is
located at 29760 Rancho California Road.
PA15-1594 910-110-087 James Atkins
10/22/2015 Aaron Anderson Verizon Wireless (562) 485-8012 Axeon Water Plan Review
Technologies
Case Title / Description: VZW Winchester MOD: a Minor Modification to allow for Verizon Wireless to
remove and replace six (6) panel antenna, the installation of of three (3) new RRU's, and two (2) Raycaps.
The site is located at 40980 County Center Drive.
PA15-1603
921-411-006 James Atkins 10/26/2015 10/26/2015 Debbie Stueve Approved
Case Title / Description: Quality 1 Courier (Home Occupation)
Page 5 of 7
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval Business
Date Applicant Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1610 962-560-014
Jaime Cardenas 10/26/2015
Case Title / Description: Lendo Consulting - Home Occupation
Evelyn
Mangiameli
Void
PA15-1611
962-560-014 Jaime Cardenas 10/26/2015 11/03/2015 Evelyn Approved
Mangiameli
Case Title / Description: Lendo Consulting (Home Occupation)
PA15-1617 962-310-049 System
Case Title / Description: BNK Company (Home Occupation)
10/27/2015 11/03/2015 Alice Yuen Approved
PA15-1623
Jaime Cardenas 10/28/2015 10/28/2015 Steven Paul Approved
Case Title / Description: Steven F. Paul, D.D.S., Inc. (Home Occupation)
PA15-1625
921-480-056 Scott Cooper 10/28/2015 Brian Vitale 1st Light Energy (209) 456-5284 Red Hat Prop Plan Review
Inc
Case Title / Description: Extra Space Minor Mod: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to add 150
roof mounted photovoltaic modules to an existing self storage facility. The project is located at 41704
Overland Dr.
PA15-1627
922-046-028 Brandon Rabidou 10/28/2015
Case Title / Description: Baily's Old Town Night Market TUP: A booth style market in the courtyard of Baily's
located 28699 Old Town Front Street
Christopher Baily
(909) 699-3315 Baily's Plan Review
PA15-1628 953-172-019 Jaime Cardenas 10/28/2015
Case Title / Description: Entertainment Cover Band (Home Occupation)
Jose Limon Jr. Plan Review
PA15-1630 922-053-040
Jaime Cardenas 10/29/2015
Case Title / Description: Zoning Letter: A Zoning Letter for Villa Apartment Del Sol Apartment Homes located
at 28550-28566 Pujol Street (APN 922-053-040 & 042).
Randy Schwartz Pacific Southwest (858) 522-1407 JAMES L Plan Review
Realty Services DITTMER
PA15-1632
Jaime Cardenas 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 Mariela Murillo Approved
Case Title / Description: Mariela Murillo (Home Occupation)
PA15-1635
921-060-018 James Atkins 10/29/2015
Case Title / Description: Islander Design TUP: A Minor Temporary Use Permit for Islander Design to host a
BBQ sales tent event from November 14, 2015 thru November 22, 2015 at 28011 Jefferson Ave.
Rick Johnson Islander Designs (951) 308-4568 False Front Plan Review
PA15-1636
Jaime Cardenas 10/29/2015 10/29/2015 ARY KASIM Approved
Case Title / Description: Prestige Landscape Construction (Home Occupation)
Page 6 of 7
Assigned Planner
PA Number Project Name APN
Apply Date
Approval Business
Date Applicant Company Name Phone
Owner Status
PA15-1637
917-310-004 Scott Cooper 10/29/2015
Case Title / Description: Construction Landscape Review for Tract 31597 "Redhawk" for entrance and HOA
areas for a County of Riverside Project.
Alex Seizew
(805) 899-5603 Plan Review
PA15-1638
922-260-028 Jaime Cardenas 10/30/2015 10/30/2015 Foothills at Old Completed
Town
Case Title / Description: The Vineyards at Old Town ZL: A Zoning Letter Request for the property located at
28845 Pujol Street (APN 922-260-028).
PA15-1640 910-272-003
James Atkins 10/30/2015
Case Title / Description: Madison Ave MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for the
removal of existing windows on the front elevation, and replacement and installation of new double doors for
the new front entrance. The site is located at 27230 Madison Avenue.
Bruce Nimmo
(951) 695-5081 MADISON
AVENUE
ASSOC
Plan Review
PA 15-1641
944-211-003 Jaime Cardenas 10/30/2015 11/02/2015 Frederick Approved
Estoque
Case Title / Description: FHE Consulting Engineers (Home Occupation)
PREAPP15-148 959-080-005 James Atkins 10/01/2015
6
Case Title / Description: Temecula MOB 2 Pre -Application: a pre -application to allow for the development of
a 25,121 square foot medical office building on 2.23 acres. The site is located at 31625 De Portola.
John Bohannon Donald Rhodes Plan Review
P REAPP 15-149 940-310-060
3
Scott Cooper 10/01/2015
Case Title / Description: University of Redlands Pre -App: University of Redlands Pre -Application tenant
improvement to remodel an existing space. The project is located at 43548 Ridge Park Drive. *Applicant is
concerned about the available parking associated with the existing and proposed uses.
Kimberly Boone
(619) 889-5101 Void
PREAPP15-163
1
922-046-012 Scott Cooper 10/29/2015
Case Title / Description: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Saloon & Salon Pre -App: A Pre -Application for a saloon
and restaurant located in an existing building at 42081 3rd Street
Mark Stockstill
(951) 575-6024 Plan Review
P REAPP 15-163 957-090-019
9
James Atkins 10/30/2015
Case Title / Description: Singh Home Pre -App: a Pre -Application to consider a new custom home to be
developed on a 4.03 acres. The lot is located within the Nicolas Valley Dirt Road Policy area. The lot located
at 31250 Nicolas Road.
Chuck Truitt (951) 201-1052 Sohan Singh Plan Review
Page 7 of 7
Item No. 12
Approvals
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jeffrey Kubel, Chief of Police
DATE: November 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report
PREPARED BY: Joseph Greco, Sergeant
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of
October 2015.
PATROL SERVICES
Overall calls for police service 3,286
"Priority One" calls for service 56
Average response time for "Priority One" calls 8.02 Minutes
VOLUNTEERS
Volunteer administration hours 238
Special Events hours 148
Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 788
Reserve officer hours (patrol) 80
Training hours 56
Total Volunteer hours 1200
CRIME PREVENTION
Crime prevention workshops/Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 1/0
Safety presentations/Training 7/0
Special events 0
Residential/Business security surveys conducted 0/0
Businesses visited 0
Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 0/0
Station Tour 0
Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits 9/1
Square Footage of Graffiti Removed 2,523
OLD TOWN STOREFRONT
Total customers served 213
Sets of fingerprints taken 44
Police reports filed 17
Citations signed off 33
Total receipts $2,676.00
SPECIAL TEAMS (POP / SET)
On sight felony arrests 10
On sight misdemeanor arrests 22
Felony arrest warrants served 3
Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 6
Follow-up investigations......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ....... . 16
Parole/Probation Searches 0/10
PedestrianChecks... ...... ............... ...... ...... ............... ...... ...... ............... ........ .21
Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks 75
Crime Free Housing Checks 79
TRAFFIC
Citations issued for hazardous violations 797
Grant funded D.U.I. / Traffic safety checkpoints 1
Grant funded traffic click it or ticket 0
D.U.I. Arrests 22
Non -hazardous citations 340
Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 29
Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 88
Parking citations 140
School Zone 64
Seatbelts 4
Cell Phone Cites 47
Injury collisions 27
INVESTIGATIONS
Beginning Caseload 173
Total Cases Assigned 61
Total Cases Closed 46
Search Warrants Served 17
Arrests 3
Out of Custody Filings........................................................................... 7
PROMENADE MALL TEAM
Calls for service 506
Felony arrest/filings 1
Misdemeanor arrest/filings 16
Traffic Citations 3
Fingerprints/Livescans 202
Total receipts $6,917.00
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS
Felony arrests 1
Misdemeanor arrests 17
Reports 25
Youth counseled 183
Meetings 93
REQUESTS TO SPEAK
I wish to speak on:
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: r) 1 I 1 hg
Public Comme CITY COUNCI / CSD / SARDA /THA / TPFA (Circle One)
Subject: i?wn
14-A 1 -1 -4,A -Cr - TV
Gd A i h e'v,4r
Agenda Item No. For
Against
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the
City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council
Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City
Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the
podium and state your name for the record.
Name:
Address:
DP.41 (0i2-441
Phone Number: `' [.
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
idea Yl*:a
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becorr}e§ p�tlt'�lle'recorc7.
All information provided is optional.
REQUEST TO SPEAK
CITY OF TEMECULA
Date: 111. 17. l s
I wish to speak on:
Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
Subject: a w .` �e..te-v 3
Agenda Item No. G0 • For Against Air-- u 7 r-:+_
Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak
form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call
your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record.
Name: L et- rr / / orah.--
Address:
If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name:
H° r,-)1is.. Ft. nA `
Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes
public record.
All information provided is optional.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
FOR THE RECORD
M 7V1('
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
November 17, 2015
Mayor Jeff Comerchero
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
City Council Agenda Item #10
November 17, 2015
Dear Mayor Comerchero,
We represent the Hoffman family that owns several vacant parcels in the North Jefferson
Business Park, which is governed by CC&R's and a property owners association.
The family has reviewed the Specific Plan and has grave concerns about the proposed
residential uses within the UpTown Sports/Transit District. These residential uses are
prohibited uses within the confines of the association and as a result the family, on behalf of
the association, would request these uses be deleted from the list of permitted uses.
We also have concerns about the visibility of pedestrian orientation, especially crossing
Jefferson Avenue to the proposed future park and transit center. We feel that this is not
realistic, given the current traffic volumes and the future traffic volumes, once the interchange
is complete and will create an extreme safety issue.
The proposed additional streets are a major economic concern due to the loss of net saleable
land.
The following uses are not consistent with the CC&R's and will create conflict within the
association and we request they be deleted:
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(951) 296-3466
Fax: (951) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
Mayor Jeff Comerchero
November 17, 2015
Page 2
1. Automotive service/light repair
2. Home occupations
3. Multipurpose trail
4. Parking Tots/parking structures (no currently allowed in CC&R's)
5. Residential live/work (these are not currently allowed in CC&R's)
6. Transit Center
The Hoffman family is supportive of the hotel uses and would request confirmation that retail
sales, including showroom type sales, are permitted (due to available freeway visibility).
Lastly, please be aware the CC&R's still prevail with regards to existing allowable land uses,
unless amended by an appropriate CC&R amendment, for association purposes.
Respectfully,
i
1
Lar R. Markham
P esident
CHAPTER 31 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
3. Uptown Sports/Transit District (US)
The Uptown SportslTransit District is the third most
densely concentrated mixed-use district within the
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. This district is
characterized by mid to high rise urban buildings with a
maximum building height of up to 6 stories. The Uptown
Sports/Transit District is nestled between Jefferson
Avenue and Interstate 15. Additionally, this district is
located to the east of the future regional park and
recreation facility, which is located immediately to the
west of Jefferson Avenue. Jefferson Avenue runs along
the westernmost boundary of this district, providing
strong visibility from the roadway. To further enhance
the connectivity and circulation within this district, and to
support the desired urban development patterns, new
street connections are anticipated to be added to the
existing circulation network, as new development
occurs.
The Uptown Sports/Transit District is characterized by a
strong visual window from Interstate 15. This district can
be easily accessed from Interstate 15 via the
southbound French Valley Parkway off -ramp. The
intersection of Jefferson Avenue and French Valley
Parkway/Cherry Street will be the primary northernmost
gateway into the specific plan area. This gateway will be
designed in a manner that provides a strong sense of
arrival into the Uptown Jefferson area. Additionally,
this intersection is a prominent gateway into the City
of Temecula from the City of Murrieta, which is
located immediately to the north of the specific plan
area. Prominent entry features that mark the arrival
into both the City, and the Uptown Jefferson area, are
envisioned at this intersection.
The Uptown Sports/Transit District's location is is
buffered by a large, regional park to the west. It is also
buffered by the Santa Gertrudis Creek and adjacent
Murrieta Creek trail to the south. Considering the
district's location and surroundings, the Uptown
SportslTransit District will develop in a manner that supports and complements the adjacent regional park facility.
The Uptown Sports District is anticipated to have a mix of land uses that will support the regional park facility
including hotel and guest -serving facilities, support commercial, and retail uses. This district will be further
diversified with a mix of high-density urban residential dwellings. The urban residential dwellings in this area will
activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends, and the nearby park facility will provide a neighborhood
amenity for area residents. Four building types will be permitted within this district to support the anticipated land
Uotown Soorts/Transit District Illustrative Photos
DRAFT UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
3.7
this district also has the potential to accommodate a future transit
CHAPTER 31 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
use mix: residential stacked flat buildings, live/work buildings, courtyard building and commercial block buildings.
These building types will contribute to the envisioned identity and feel of this district and help foster a distinctive
character for this area.
This district will need to provide a strong pedestrian connection to the adjacent park facility. Enhanced pedestrian
crossings and pedestrian refuge islands are envisioned at key intersections along Jefferson Avenue to facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safe access across Jefferson Avenue to the park site to the west.
Furthermore, as new development occurs, additional pedestrian/bicycle connections and access points will be
provided from future development projects within the Uptown Sports/Transit District to the Santa Gertrudis Creek
and future trail.
In addition to the Uptown Sports/Transit District's proximity to the regional park site, the district's anticipated land
use mix, and the area's future trail connections,
station. The future transit station is anticipated to provide for both high frequency public transit service and bus
rapid transit service. Although the exact location of the transit center has not been determined, the Uptown
French Valley
Interchange
Improvements
•••••••
•••••••c
Exhibit 3-4: Uptown Sports/Transit District
Primary Specific Plan
Gateway
Primary District
Access Point
Streetscape Beautification
and Pedestrian / Bike
Lane Improvements
Future Pedestrian
Connection to the
Creekside Village
Murrieta Creek
Trail Improvements
Hypothetical Location
of New Streets
San Gertrudis Creek
Interconnect
Interstate 15 View
Window
DRAFT UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 3-8
CHAPTER 31 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Sports/Transit District's ultimate vision acknowledges and contemplates the potential for the location of a transit
center within, or within close proximity of this district. To this end, coordination efforts with the Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) will continue in order to analyze and support the feasibility of a transit center within, or in close
proximity to, this district.
To support these efforts, the Uptown Sports/Transit District will encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
and the development of a transit village in this area. To support the concept of TOD, it is anticipated that this area
will be characterized by clusters of compact, walkable, urban development. A mix of high density residential uses
and complementary commercial and employment-related uses, served by frequent public transit service, are
anticipated in the future. By encouraging TOD and the development of a transit village in this location, this district
will provide an enhanced ability for people to easily walk or bike within the district. This in turn will promote the
feasibility of transit use as viable alternative mode of transportation. Future planning efforts in this area will focus
on the coordination of land use and alternative transportation feasibility in order to encourage development
projects that will support a high -frequency transit service.
DRAFT UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 3-9
CHAPTER 31 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
B. Land Use Regulations
The land uses in the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area are regulated by district to achieve the dynamic mixed-
use character envisioned for the area. Each zone establishes the land uses that are perrnitted, conditionally
permitted or not permitted in the zone. The Land Use Matrix (Table 3-1) outlines the allowable land uses by
district. The land use regulations combined with the Urban Development Standards are intended to implement the
goals and policies of this specific plan and accomplish the community -identified vision for the Uptown Jefferson
area.
The land uses listed in Table 3-1 shall be permitted in one or more of the specific plan districts as indicated in the
corresponding column. Where indicated with the letter "P" the use shall be permitted by right within the district.
Where indicated with the letter "C" the use shall be permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Where indicated with the symbol "-" the use shall be prohibited within the district. Uses not listed in Table 3-1 shall
require a use determination by the Director of Community Development.
Table 3-1: L nd Use Matrix
List of Uses
UC .i
UHT
UA
WH-RO
..
- L
Adult entertainment business
-
- -
-
-
Alcoholic beverages sales
See Municipal Code Section 17.10.020 -Supplemental Development Standards
Alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facility-
(six or fewer)2
-
-
-
P
-
-
-
Alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facility
(seven to twelve)2
-
-
-
-
C
-
-
-
Art studio (with or without a
gallery)
P
C
P
P
-
P
P
Auditorium, community
assembly space, conference
facility
C
C
C
C
--
-
-
Automobile sales (indoor only)
C
-
C
C
--
C
-
Automotive service
station/gas station (with or
without a convenience store)'
C
C
C
-
--
-
-
Automotive maintenance/light
repair
C
.....C..
C
-
-
-
-
Automotive repair (heavy
repair)
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
Bar, cocktail lounge. night
club, live entertainment
(indoor only)
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
-
Car wash'
C
C
C
C
--
-
-
Community care facility2
-
-
C
C
-
--
-
DRAFT UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
3-20
IHAPTER 31 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
List of Uses
UC
UHT
UA
WH-RO
C
P
-
Day care/preschool
(commercial)
p
P
P
P
C
Drive-thru'
C
C
C
C
-
-
-
-
Educational institutions
C
C
C
C
-
-
-
-
Facilities for mentally
disordered, disabled, or
dependent or neglected
children (seven to twelve) 2
-
C
-
-
-
Farmer's market (outdoor)
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
-
Grocery store
P
P
P
P
-
P
P
-
Health, fitness, dance, martial
arts studio (less than 5,000
sq. ft.)
P
P
P
P
-
P
P
-
Health, fitness, dance, martial
arts studio (greater than 5,000
sq. ft.)
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
-
Home occupations
P
P
—P--...
P
P
P
P
-
Hospital
C
-
C
-
-
-
-
-
Hotel
P
P3
P
P
-
-
P
-
Kennel/cattery/pet day care
facility
C
C
C
C
-
-
C
-
Light manufacturing (indoor
only)
C
C
C
-
-
-
-
Multi-purpose trail
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
--FL--
Nature center/exhibits
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
Office (administrative/
professional/medical/
government)
P
P
P
P
-
-
P4
-
Parking lots/ parking
structures (standalone)'
C
C
--f–,
C
-
C
-
-
Performing arts venue,
theatre, cinema, museum
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
-
Private smoking
lounge/hookah lounge
C
C
C
C
-
C
-
Residential
P
P5
P
P
P
P
P5
-
Residential care facilities (six
or fewer)2
_
_
_
_
P
_
_
_
List of Uses
UC
i?-;,. t
UA
WH-RO
DRAFT UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
3-21
CHAPTER 31 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
List of Uses
UC
UA
WH-RO
-
-
-
-
-
Residential care facilities
(seven to twelve) 2
-
C
-
Residential care facilities for_
the elderly (six or fewer)2
-
-
_
P
_
_
-
Residential care facilities for_
the elderly (seven to twelve) 2
_
-
-
C
-
-
Residential-live/work
-
-
P
-
P-
-
.
Restaurant (with or without the
sale of beer and wine)
P
P
P
P
-
P
P
-
Restaurant (with the sale of
distilled spirits)
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
-
Religious institutions with
daycare or school
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Religious institutions without a
daycare or school
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
Retail
P
P
P
P
-
P
P
-
Transit Center
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
.-0--
Transitional housing
-
-
-
-
P
-
-
-
Service – general
P
-
P
P
-
-
P
-
Service – personal
P
P
P
P
-
P
P
-
Sports and recreation facility
(indoor only)
C
-
C
C
-
-
C
P
Sports and recreation facility-
(outdoor)
-
C
-
-
-
-
P
Swap meet (indoor only)
-
-
-
C
-
-
-
-
Wine tasting facility (Type 02
ABC license only)
P
P
P
P
-
-
P
-
Wine/ micro -brewery tasting
facility
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
-
FOOTNOTES:
'Subject to the Standards for Specific Uses outlined in Section 3.1.
2 Subject to the State of California Department of Social Services licensing requirements.
3 Full service hotels (see definition in appendix) of up to 8 stories in height are permitted by right in the Uptown
Hotel/Tourism District.
4 Office uses are permitted above the first.floor only. However, office uses may be permitted on the first floor when
the office use does not directly front onto any street included any future street.
5 Residential uses are permitted above the first floor only.
DRAFT UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
3-22