Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
110415 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 4, 2015 — 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice -Chairman Guerriero Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo and Youmans Next in Order: Resolution: 15-26 A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of October 21, 2015 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 2 CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 21, 2015; Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of: 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 textural 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; Dale West RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC 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 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 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" 2.3 Recommend that staff prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. 3 Planning Application Nos. PA15-0763 (Development Plan) and PA15-0764 (Conditional Use Permit) for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre-school on 2.93 acres within the Very Low Residential (VL) zone. The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue, generally located on the east side of Vallejo Avenue, approximately 1,700 feet northwest of La Paz Road (APN 922-170-003), James Atkins RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0763, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT SANCTUARY AND PRE-SCHOOL ON 2.93 ACRES WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (VL) ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE. (APN 922-170-003) 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0764, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT 3 SANCTUARY AND PRE-SCHOOL ON 2.93 ACRES WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (VL) ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE. (APN 922-170-003) 4 Planning Application No. PA15-0997, a Major Modification to the Vail Ranch Historic Site for historical consistency to the site plan and exterior elevations of the buildings and an increase of square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn. All uses to remain commercial, retail, and restaurant. The project is located at 32115 Temecula Parkway, Eric Jones RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0997, A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR HISTORICAL CONSISTENCY TO THE SITE PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDINGS AND AN INCREASE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FOOTPRINT OF THE MACHINE BARN. ALL USES TO REMAIN COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, AND RESTAURANT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 32115 TEMECULA PARKWAY ( APN 960-010-044) REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, November 18, 2015, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the agenda, 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 may be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at the Temecula Civic Center, (951) 694-6400. 4 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 21, 2015 — 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 15-21 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Youmans Roll Call: ABSENT: Telesio, Turley-Trejo and Youmans GUERRIERO Staff: Watson, Lee, Garcia, Fisk, West, and Jacobo NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of September 16, 2015 APPROVED 3-0-1-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS; AYES VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, YOUMANS, AND TURLEY-TREJO; GUERRIERO ABSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal 1 of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 2 Planning Application No. PA15-0513, a Development Plan for an Audi dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet, and Planning Application No. PA15-1477, a Sign Program for the proposed Audi dealership to be located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive, generally located on the west side of Temecula Center Drive between Temecula Center Drive and Interstate 15, approximately 1,000 feet west of Ynez Road within the Harveston Specific Plan, Stuart Fisk APPROVED 3-0-1-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS; AYES VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, YOUMANS, AND TURLEY-TREJO; GUERRIERO ABSENT RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0513, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A AUDI AUTO -DEALERSHIP ENCOMPASSING A SHOWROOM AND OFFICES, AUTO PARTS AND SERVICE FACILITY, AND A BAY FOR CAR WASHING AND DETAILING TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 37,500 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) 2.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-23 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-1447, A SIGN PROGRAM FOR AN AUDI AUTO -DEALERSHIP ENCOMPASSING WALL SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGNS, AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) 3 Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of: 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, Dale West CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 4, 2015, APPROVED 3-0-1-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS; AYES VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, YOUMANS, AND TURLEY-TREJO; GUERRIERO ABSENT Gloria Wapnick, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission 4 Planning Application Number LR15-1411, an Ordinance that allows for the planning, designing, installing, maintaining, and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects within the City of Temecula, Dale West APPROVED 3-0-1-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO; AYES VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, YOUMANS, AND TURLEY-TREJO; GUERRIERO ABSENT RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "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 3 ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15308, CLASS 8 (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR15- 1411)" 5 Planning Application Number LR15-1285, an amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to revise the expiration date and time extensions for Development Plans, Dale West APPROVED 3-0-1-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YOUMANS; AYES VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, YOUMANS, AND TURLEY-TREJO; GUERRIERO ABSENT RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 15- AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. Matthew Fagan, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 8:18 p.m. the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Lanae Turley-Trejo Luke Watson Chairperson Director of Community Development 4 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 ATTACHMENT A Findings of Fact in Support of Findings 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. 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 la and MM HYD lb 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 bclow 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 remain bclow 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 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 -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 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 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 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 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 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. A-34 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, 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 A-35 Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. a) Findings 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 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 A-36 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. • 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 A-37 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 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.), A-38 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. 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 A-39 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 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 A-40 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 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. A-41 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 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 A-42 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 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 ATTACHMENT B Statement of Overriding Considerations 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. 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 ATTACHMENT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 SeeH-Y-D-1-a-�� �nd See MM- See HYD la See HYD la 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. noon urn Ib and HYD la and M"",..,., -HYD 'b and -KM -WO- nn, ;ten uvD 1-b MM -HYD -1 andnonuvnMM-HYD-1 1-b MM -HYD -1 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 2 MM -HYD -1 and MM - and MM -HYD 2 and MM -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 MM HYD 9a and SeeH-Y-D-1-a-�� �nd See MM- See HYD la See HYD la Mon urn Ib noon urn Ib and HYD la and M"",..,., -HYD 'b and -KM -WO- nn, ;ten uvD 1-b MM -HYD -1 andnonuvnMM-HYD-1 1-b MM -HYD -1 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 Hmm-H D 1v^ 13 MM -HYD -1 : Development Pre -Construction / Construction/ Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula 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. Mitigation Measure """",..,.,-HYD b MM -HYD -2: As a condition of Pre -Construction / Construction/ Post -Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula 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 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- Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Post -Construction Building Official review of plans, Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's or other field verification Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the Designee and sign -off by project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the 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 prosect -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study 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 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 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 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 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. • 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 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 noise levels 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. Post -Construction City of Building Official or other Designee and field 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) 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 • 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. 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 ATTACHMENT D October 21, 2015 staff report for Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 (Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan) 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. ATTACHMENT E Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: 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 Proposal will include certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the Adult Business Overlay boundaries. 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). Recommendation: The Planning Commission will consider making the following recommendations to the City Council. 1) Recommend adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan; 2) Recommend 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 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) Recommend a Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries; 4) Recommend a Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; and 5) Recommend certification of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. 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 Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: 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. Dale West, (951) 693-3918 City of Temecula, Council Chambers November 4, 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 — www.cityoftemecula.orq — 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. DATE OF MEETING: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUM MARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 2015 Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission Luke Watson, Director of Community Development James Atkins, Case Planner Planning Application Nos. PA15-0763 (Development Plan) and PA15-0764 (Conditional Use Permit) for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre-school on 2.93 acres within the Very Low Residential (VL) zone. The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue, generally located on the east side of Vallejo Avenue, approximately 1,700 feet northwest of La Paz Road. (APN 922-170-003). Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval Categorically Exempt Section 15332, Class 32 In -Fill Development Projects PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio: Jack Lanphere Very Low Density Residential (VL) Very Low Density Residential (VL) Vacant, previously graded pad Very Low Density Residential (VL) Very Low Density Residential (VL) Very Low Density Residential (VL) Interstate 15 Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required 2.93 acres N/A 0.12 proposed N/A C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A5046E53-A24E-44D5-8A7B-43C533D01262\11084.docx Landscape Area/Coverage: 43% proposed N/A Parking Required/Provided: 104 spaces proposed 98 spaces required BACKGROUND SUMMARY On May 18, 2015, Jack Lanphere submitted Planning Application Nos. PA15-0763 and PA15-0764, for a Conditional Use Permit with a Development Plan for Hope Lutheran Church. The original Hope Lutheran Church was located on the adjacent property immediately to the south. That site has since been sold to another church. The proposed development will allow for the construction of a 15,000 square foot single -story structure in the Very Low Density Residential (VL) zone. The proposed use will include a sanctuary and pre-school in the single structure. The site is 2.93 acres in size and is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue which is north of Temecula Parkway and south of Santiago Road, immediately east of Interstate 15. The site has never been developed and was filled and rough graded during the construction of Interstate 15. ANALYSIS Site Plan Hope Lutheran Church is proposing to locate at 29141 Vallejo Avenue. The development is a religious institution with a preschool, proposed within the VL zone. The building is oriented on an east/west axis and is located near the center of the parcel. Landscaping and the active play area are situated between the structure and the roadway, and parking fields are located on the west and south sides of the site. The trash enclosure for the development is located near the southern boundary of the parcel. Access to the enclosure is made via a striped ADA pathway. As proposed, the sanctuary and school is a single structure and is therefore expected to be a single phase construction project. Building setbacks meet and exceed the minimum requirements set forth in the VL zone, and lot coverage for the proposed site is 12%, which is well below the maximum 20%. Additionally, building height, open space, and parking requirements meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. Architecture The proposed Hope Lutheran Church development is a single -story, 15,000 square foot building whose design attempts to tastefully blend in with the existing, primarily residential, Los Ranchitos neighborhood. The architectural style proposed for the building may best be defined as an interpretation of the early Spanish Colonial structures that were built by the first missionaries along the Southern California coast. This particular interpretation includes a combination of rustic elements such as exposed timber and ledge stone, paired with refined details such as quatrefoils and finished eaves that include a cornice. Of note is that the massing of this building creates no blank walls or entirely flat elevations. There are significant changes in plane as well as an interior courtyard that breaks up the appearance. Other architectural features of note include an iconic tower element, a colonnade with a trellis roof system creating partially shaded walkways adjacent to the building, and a C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A5046E53-A24E-44D5-8A7B-43C533D01262\11084.docx central courtyard providing protected and accessible outdoor space. All of these massing and surface variations will create interest through their three dimensional qualities by creating shadows and visual relief to the structure. Additional architectural materials and forms which highlight this proposed development include: smooth stucco exterior walls in four (4) distinct complimentary colors that include: shell, tan, coral, and white finish; traditional Mission style clay "S" roof tiles in terracotta red; exposed timber roof for the trellis system, decorative ledger stone used on specific wall planes and as a wainscot around the building's perimeter, a combination of arched and square windows and entrances; and, a combination of gable, hipped, shed, and flat roofs. Roof mounted equipment will be screened from view through the use of stucco finished parapet walls painted to match the building. Landscaping The project proposes to landscape 54,835 square feet, or 43 percent of the parcel. The open space and landscape design includes tree and shrub placement that will serve to effectively screen and soften the visual appearance of the building and parking areas. The landscape design has two distinct areas: One — an active recreation turf area located on the north and east side of the proposed building. This area is walled from the remainder of the site and reserved strictly for the use of children enrolled in the school. Two — the remaining open space that includes a vast mixture of drought tolerant trees and plant materials in a variety of sizes. All of the landscaped area outside of the active recreation turf area will be covered in wood mulch and planted with trees, shrubs, vines, and groundcover. Trees will be mostly 24" box sized specimens and be comprised of the following species: Shoestring Acacia; Arbutus; Flowering Chitalpa; Red Crape Myrtle; and, Australian Willow. Shrubs and vines will be 5 -gallon sized specimens and be comprised of the following species: Dwarf Bottle Brush; Red Yucca; Photinia; Kangaroo Paws; Russian Sage; Texas Ranger; Red Ground Cover Rose; Autumn Sage; and, Red Trumpet Vine. Groundcover will be 1 -gallon sized specimens and be comprised of the following species: Coyote Bush and California Rush. Access/Circulation/Parking The project is designed to provide orderly development within the VL zoned area, which includes vehicular access to the site. This has been achieved by creating a primary ingress/egress drive to Vallejo Avenue on the north side of the property. Secondary (emergency) access is provided by a `knox-box' gated drive on the south side of the site. Cross access to the adjacent parcel on the south is provided by an existing drive that connects at the southwest corner of the property. The design of the site also maximizes parking and presents a simplified on-site circulation pattern. The overall project provides 104 parking spaces, which exceeds the 98 spaces required in the Development Code for religious institutions. Pedestrian access may be made directly from Vallejo Avenue via the proposed sidewalk. This sidewalk will serve as the required ADA pathway from the public right of way, to the entrance of the structure. Additional ADA access connects the parking area and trash enclosure to the structure. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A5046E53-A24E-44D5-8A7B-43C533D01262\11084.docx The Public Works Department has analyzed the projected traffic impacts of the project and has determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes associated with the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Fire Department also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U -T San Diego on October 24, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within a 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32 In -Fill Development Projects). The request for a Development Plan for a 15,000 square foot, single -story church in the Very Low Density Residential zone will be conducted in an In -Fill area. All access and public utilities are available to the site. The proposed site, with issuance of a Development Plan, is in conformance with all zoning requirements of the Development Code. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (Development Code Section 17.04.010.E) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan which specifies that religious institutions are allowed to operate within residential zones with acquisition of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The religious institution is proposed in the Very Low Density Residential area. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Department in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The application will allow for a religious institution to be operated at this location. The site will remain adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code as required by the Planning Department in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A5046E53-A24E-44D5-8A7B-43C533D01262\11084.docx The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. As conditioned, the project will meet all requirements of the Development Code and General Plan which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be 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. That the decision to conditionally approve or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole by the Planning Department. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be 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. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. As conditioned, the proposed Hope Lutheran Church is consistent with land use designation and policies reflected for Very Low Density Residential (VL) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed religious institutions as a conditionally permitted use in the residential locations. The site is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the use proposed. The project is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. As conditioned, the overall design of the site, building, landscaping, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and has been found to be 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 protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map Plan Reductions C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A5046E53-A24E-44D5-8A7B-43C533D01262\11084.docx Resolution (Development Plan) Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Resolution (Conditional Use Permit) Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Statement of Operations Notice of Public Hearing C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A5046E53-A24E-44D5-8A7B-43C533D01262\11084.docx AERIAL MAP City of Temecula Project Site 0 125 250 500 11 Feet This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System. The map is derived from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Riverside County. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification.. The Geographic Information System and other sources should be queried for the most current information, This mao is not for reprint or resale. PLAN REDUCTIONS HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH INDEX OF DRAWINGS PROJECT TEAM CODE INFORMATION ABBREVIATIONS T-1.0= TITLE SHEET 141.0 = SITE PLAN A-2.0 = FLOOR PLAN A3.0= EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 43.1 = EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.4= ROOF PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS CIVIL ENGINEERING GRADING PUNS AND DETAILS PHOTOMETRIC PLANS OWNER: MECWLMCAL'NNE 24 PROJECT CODE COMPLIANCES: THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL CRY OF TEMECULA ORDINANCES, ALL APPLICABLE STATE AMENDMENTS 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2013 CAUFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2008 STATE ENERGY STANDARDS CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE(CALGREEN) OCCUPANCY. "A-3" "E" W/ ACCESSORY "B" OFFICE SPACE SEC 508 2 BUILDING TYPE: "VB" 6,000 SQ. FT BASIC, 300% INCREASE PER SEC 506 3 STORIES 1 15y00 SQUARE FEET: 15,000 18,000 — 0 B3 <t 0 OK COMPLIANCE WITH LEED (SILVER) LMTHOUT COMMISSIONING so SQUARE WY WITH FT FOOT @ AT CLO CLOSET CONT CONTINUOUS SPEC SPECIFICATIONS WD WOOD DIA DIAMETER REQS REQUIREMENTS TYP TYPICAL GA GAUGE HR HANDRAIL OC ON CENTER DN OWYTI CONN CONNECTION UP UP NOM CONINAL N- CENTERLINE FF FINISH FLOOR MIN MINIMUM SNA SIMILAR MAX MAXIMUM COR CORRIDOR Ea EQUAL CONSTR CONSTRUCTION PL PLATE DD. DETAIL EX EXISTING INFO INFORMATION ELEC ELECTRICAL BOT BO1TOM RLC REQUIRED ENGG ENGINEERING HLC HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH HOPE LUTHERANCMI4CH ALFREDO ADAME 32819 TEMECULA PARKWAY STE B 1338 5 TOWNER STREET TEMECULA, CA 82592.9675 SANTA ANA CA. 92707 T 1951)676.6262 T (714)235-1161 ARCHITECT: PLLAABINGENGWEERNIYG L 85 ARCHITECTS, INC ALFREDO ADAME 38516 AMATEUR WAY 13385 TOWNER STREET BEAUMONT, CA 92223 SANTA ANA CA, 92707 T (909)229-0125 T (714)235-1181 81110C7URA. EAION(E0_ E um.% KNAPP B ASSOCIATES, INC E D.5 INC 408 SOUTH STODDARD AVENUE ELECTRICAL DESIGN SERVICES SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401 307 WEST STREET T (809) HB9-0115 OCEANSIDE. CA 920545031 T (714)350-7088 D DEFERRED REQUIREMENTS VICINITY MAP Cdumn OAtlBln 0 1 INSPECTIONS AND SIGN OFFS A STATEUCENSED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR I 616). MAILED PLANS WITH 2 PRE SFRIBUR SYSTELBROML BE WOWED NCPEPPOI ED8i110 SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FRE GIINERNENFFLISREVEINONDLWANArE Kam r ISSUANCE A RIRMAILI SYSTEM DESIGNED: INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED NED INACCORDANCE W THE NATKINAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATIONS STANDARD Y72 INF.PA 72)SHALL TE PROVIDED. DETAILED DRAWINGSWNTH SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS SHALL BEBURATTO) TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOP REVEW, APPROVAL AND PERMIT ISSUANCE, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ELDING W BE PERFORMED WO CONTINUOUS DEPUTY I. NPENETRATION PW FIELD W6T INSPECTION. I INSPECTION. AND RECOMPACTIONAND PAVING SHALL OCCUR WITHOUT 5 NO884)14GRADING, OVEN INSPECTION MINIMUM PERCpC INSPECTION BY THE SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD MEMORNOUM OF FIELD TESTING AND APPROVAL BY ENGINEER OF RECORD MALL BE ISSUED TO THE CffY OF TEMECULA DEPUTY MWRHWTCONTNUOUS DER 8. NO CONCRETE OVER 3000 PSI SHALL BEPLACEDONIE INSPECTION DEPUTY INSPECTOR OFFICE SWILL BE APPROVED BY CITY TEMECULA Omll HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, CA 92592 1 (951) 676 6262 :' • i' il N B i NO SCALE Roan RN9.v 11201 Door3 +�)2- PIIRWYNN.nnlb `>�' RN„yion I L IINw�SdIWNNn : \ 4131 WY SIdhn morr DIY PLAN NORTH ,AM.14Fan em* L&S ARCHITECTS, INC. MEMO MUCKY ARCHITECT G)xN 34.518 1)�;5 EIAL Ilam.= ai=I LEMMING COM • -�� .IM,8 NO PLANCHECK DATE • nn46x L. A D 14D. REVISION 95519.0 DATE A A HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, CA 92592 1 (951) 676 6262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-00D0 n c WR. MECIUTO NY PLOTCAM M. ARCM. Mall KAI. E PER PUN 1 win ur. TITLE SHEET �� T-1.0 PAR APNJ 922-170-002 PI\/lB 56)66 (RE61DSNFJAL) E 378 18' BUILDING 15,000 SQ.FT. PAD=1024 84 FF=1025 34 f / CONNECT TO EXITING *Iy-MAI SITE PLAN `: .`i:l 1 -:3 E 48I 33 PAR 10 APj\: 922-170-011 PMP 55/69 (EIXISTJN1r HOPS LU1H5RAN CHURCH) SCALE I.=]tlJY PAR 9 AP1\J 922-170-003 PA/J9 56/99 1 VICINITY MAP PAH 34 AP1\1 922-190-006 P1VJB 56/66 (RE$lDElu7JAL) PJ/R 8J APNv11 922-100-007 P1\jJP 56/65 (RE SIDEW[11-1L) 30 i p SCALE:1..3M. T&s_kRCHIT CTS CS. (L5 E-NN_;..M wr.o• KO %ANCN6CK DATE L2 n NO 504181ON ISSUES DATE 0- HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, CA 92592 05.1) 6766262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-0000 DRAM BY PEE NAME ALL PLOT CATE MIL PPCLECTIAGM SCALE PER RAN wsn-EEr RE - — SITE PLAN A-1.0 ARCH TEQ �- C a. Amnieuti �FI2m In !1H Iawl •x r NO PLANCHECK DATE y X w NO REVISION ISSUES DATE 0 HOPE LUTHERAN. CHURCH VALEJO AVENUE TEMECULik, CA 92592 1 (951) p6 6262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-0000 , FILE MAL .11E0.0 r.Or DATE PRCLECT 110.1 541.E. A. PEA PAN MEET TIRE FLOOR PLANS A-2.0 j � 1 •�i 1 „y OFFICE OFFIC1 COPT J I [ I PASTOR �� ■ `LAV { STORAGE - < --� 0 SEC Gi CLASSROOM _ri CLASSROOM CLASSROOM : 1. j I j 4 l�' O STORAGE LAVJ .-y RSM �I HALL f° IT STORAGE 'LLL...------___--���( `E" II 8 ELEG. uYAq RAL 1 Ir��(y��II'�' 1 r HALL 1 If .� w , + ' HALL.F 1 {II1 LHLrt[L RQUIET OOM CUk'D74- _� 10. W ♦ALTAR L 3116 C: NON F XEDAL � EN Ma_;h 1 •.-.�) � � �M t i'`H _ '____— � CtiH9NOG4 u� f •• •■ OPLL/ HALL iJillij -!/j�I liiyy! IL LAV rftHHE% • 'b 1` PANTRY R6CEP SCHOOL OFFICE STORAGE ROOM FLOOR PLAN I s ���jjj,,, I k� • k 7r LGLE ,IS".1'-0. CROSS AREA. MOM FT PLAN NORTH ARCH TEQ �- C a. Amnieuti �FI2m In !1H Iawl CONOKHIR eaWN NO PLANCHECK DATE IL NO REVISION ISSUES DATE 0 HOPE LUTHERAN. CHURCH VALEJO AVENUE TEMECULik, CA 92592 1 (951) p6 6262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-0000 , FILE MAL .11E0.0 r.Or DATE PRCLECT 110.1 541.E. A. PEA PAN MEET TIRE FLOOR PLANS A-2.0 LEGEND 1 EXTERIOR STUCCO COLOR: 402 'SHELL' FIN LSH. SAND FINISH LA HABRA OR EO. 2. EXTERIOR STUCCO COLOR 24 'TAN' FINISH. SAND FINISH. LA HABRA OR EQ 3 EXTERIOR STUCCO COLOR. 277 -CORAL', FINISH: SAND FINISH LA HABRA OR EO 4 EXTERIOR STUCCO COLOR 1 WHITE' FINISH: SAND FINISH, LA HABRA OR EO. 5. LEDGER STONE BY—SPARKS' OR E0 STYLE: COLONIAL ANTIQUE 8 MAXIUTE-P10, LIGHT WEIGHTCEMENTTT10US ROOF TILE CALOR. TERA GOTTA 7. MILGARD WINDOWS OR E0. TRIPLE LOW 'V GLASS SLIM FRAME DESIGN 0. STEEL METAL DOOR SYSTEMS MBTH HOLLOW METAL FRAMES PAINTED TO MATCH STUCCO. 9 ROUGH SAWN DOUGLASS FIR EXPOSED WOOD DARK STAIN EXTERIOR FINISH NOTE: MATERIALS ARE T1'A'CAL MA PLL ELEVATI0118 0 0 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 SCALE 1I19' s i Of 16006 -0 r-0 -0 N / 0 V -0 -0 -0 --0 -0 -0 -0 -0 --0 1 NORTH ELEVATION `-0 12'-4 SCALE 90. • 110' HO -0 -J 0 ® T ri_971-1=11� ELEVATION KEY PLAN uL&S _llC1:1ITEG7`+• INCA INC 22/01.sxworE . WO iBEAUMONT 6�rnn1 1.1013.11. COM WWII. NO. PLANCHECK 097E dA NO REVISION ISSUES DATE 0[1.0[1.0O00ao . ^L — / \ HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, CA 92592 1 (951) 676 6262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-0000 BY FILE NAME CI-EOTED .L$tl EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-3.0 LEGEND 1 EXTERIOR STUCCO COLOR: 402 'SHELL', FINISH: SAND FINISH, lA HABRA OR EO 2 EXTERIOR STUCCO COLOR: 24 'TAW, FINISH: SAND FINISH LA HABRA OR 00 3. EATEWOR 7TUCC0=cat 20 3023A' FAREH SAM PARR 1..A HAMA CA EC 4 4- 100215 B11x.00cOIAR IT 1101' FINISH: SAM FARM lA MNRAL*EG 5. L300ER 3TONE III 'SPARKS' CR EHL 0TYLF C0(O/AIL6 ANTIQUE S MA/MITE- P10, LIGHT WEIGHT CEMENTRpUS ROOF TILE COLOR: TERA COTTA T- MILGARD WNOOVVS OR EO TRIPLE LOWGLASS SLIM FRAME DESIGN 8 STEEL METAL DOOR SY9TEM9 VATH HOLLOW METAL FRAMES PAINTED TO MATCH STUCCO 3 ROUGH SAWN DOUGLASS FIR EXPOSES MOD DANK STAIN EXTERIOR FINISH. NOTE: WATERWy ARE TVFGAL FOR ALLELEYATIQMO 8 LGHTING WALL PACK V -0T00 :-0 V -O 0 3034 RIDGE I:IMxw¢ Alpo( 7.0 7.0 A 0 WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1M" • 1'+'. EAST ELEVATION SCALE tle'=1'-0' SCALE 1, TOT L - 1Tn N ELEVATION KEY PLAN L&S ARCHITEGTTS� INC. X11 1a Awo EaWL Yaitfiarnn 65,020 Pal ta0 PLANCHECK DATE fe\ . 7.mW f,4 NO REVISION ISSUES DATE aroma L. A HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, CA 92592 1 (951) 676 6262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-0000 mt. 2LE NAME mer5 LOT 0077 R n 5,03 . PER IL 05(8110: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-3.1 PRELIMINARY ROOF PLAN S:AiE 14r+T.o- 1 LTL -r r- i^r+ E -r =-1 LI,.UL&S ARCHITECT$ C• NUM 2.125 ENNE NTNhamcum LS,4.16.COOM RMI NO PLANCHECK DATE n, • uuaaao ND REVISION ISSUES DATE r7 HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, C 92592 1(951) 676 6262 PLAN CK NO: 0000-0000 ROOF PLAN A-3.4 PLANTING LEGEND ZI 0 w tram ] AAMRM114M 1 ee5 40 t KNEE 0 I A 'W: Anl[I1 0. E Earmi wag 511119111.1 401401 CC. RIR an41334. 0016504+11 • v. 'L•.' IC4184113.114 1Y8,4U2 'm1E ROW O Fos pre 1NRr •01280 4554050/8 A M1L'11.U41 651116 POSS•A 5R15pe MAN. Rs1Oi 81rt5W1 500754.. eW50fl \[LMT ImaRse 15 71 C4 24" 808 2•" e45 84' Dra s.' MSA } CAL 55111540TO RTC R�.b AIS- 1{314.T.1Ar A,..txo >• 'Tennant 5125 LID. F. 1Co_' 1.17X011,474.• DADD000IA4'D %MY 1DNE wept. © Ra5 `RCAF' 'ML]1I C•RFE11119` R® iapR4 C0845B Rosa • SAL YAR 504.114 O YARDS �L-- 415 MIC OFRICiVS ASLfORgR 000404 i SeCUORpRR r W5m 4.2404 LOIc}T 100 *4 ARe01 MARRA UR 4>K 5fti S 414. S 2+1. 1e 10 21 00556C SAME /58844' !-10' . !018810 7-5' WI DOUBLE STARE /MORE 5-10' . SPREAO S -C' 41N. '001,111 511152 /40040 5-70' , 3*041 0--1' 1140 LT EC/1,411.0 Snug / IWR s -7b' . s*00 3-7115E 41041110 5124E /ROW 1-14' . simnel a' -C vM .55 I.RAL a Msw8 a SOA: h5J. WSW i3"nc 84 75 451 124 41 u 4124. a RPM • S' 0� 3vµ a 1•••• • S e"R. w 'hRL a 541. 5'52 Ryt a Own. • E 00 } DAL 125 SILL a 184174 e 7 0£ mit a404F5• s4C 0 Olt P. 'PP.' N0BYR15 PLUMPS 'MOM Kw' 1 I +'IRI 7 070151807 11517 se1RrDl yrs 4tenm POO WOO 4127o1 RFwSFM+E mom VAR O.5 1slAIL — vuv.n. 14516 CIL 01 SDGI 40.7 Aa 852 211204 10 1/44044 O'KA- MUM M ALL WPM 4711018 IRAS M. 7 •rnowl moms • 3' -TC 1 id 111WBSU AR S*W10 ■ 7 MC. M MPS KA. 66655.65.1.5 Mr.. •e.1Rimier. ,• Ira eAS.....41..M., 1.3Ka,..1,.Annom. .`1.1 • SITE CALCULATIONS FRR SIR ARCA Fla 17161710/0 MSI LAWN AREA BMS AREA 2040 YlO8CN'C /FRA WWSC+K AREA DI RON 121,518 50. F7. 3,405 SO Fr. 7.704 00. FT. 43.725 50 FT 54.835 50 FT kix OF 11.1C ITS 1.304 50 FT. NOM I ALL PIANI0M 4 65AWL C5.FOR. 711E OW OF 76060140 5275 A1ER EFFIGOILY GP4WNCE 17.32. 2 AN ININDOKNY STSRLI AWL 5E NRIRm FUR [IIS PROJECT PER RE CNA' OF IENTLYM5 WATER CONsnlulRON ORORAWCE. O ALL MIME RAINING ANLL Nor 5VREF1FRE 8770 07177 UNES OR 'RAMC AIL Dane. 7740YNE. 2 UNE. • TE T/ 454£•14 M, 1 05R10 MY Re An MOWED Wanner • MREES f EYRFes WW1. 440 85, 01 5E A WARN OE ! NWAAvtaubv Rm5 RWMPAi oAX Pats t7EALL5!'MNN .OF 8' AWAY FROEI FRE NYdMMS a FAR' DEPARTURE SANDIER s1ANePME CaMJE17IlON5. Y GRAPHIC 1a 1 MCN - 20 FT. PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN 55 656 556 4182148 wa 8.245115615511•5115655 .08151277 TTTT.L2. 458 .• 4111114 f 2,541.x. wont ....woo to 440 2 Mena. .4. {11.w. Anx 07140 6011,6 576 0 We. 11.11= -+fie T ST 2140 > i drawn: V checked: V date: 4 -B - SHEET L-1 of 1 sheets JOB NO. 15-111 G $.COAs 15* 544 4. on0w114e S am u l"» Mat V, AS 11418/1155 a 603"50.1. 64V110444 01150017 1NGw510 P VI0*1O[w 4fl0t 1:401Er1 At 40.1 BM TIC PA00t1a4A vIF. TI[ 410I1CT, MEP= AAD 40.141 A914/wt NO 0105 BERADINN0 10041 54.01414X, s]c DEM. OR HUMP RM2%.., B2 0603 258 ACRES NET (11136E 5F) BAP mir-AGES 63-66. RECORDS GF +1058.5:4 002.110 OA.]o'NN .. * 0104: 21 0.0 031 '.+]. Al.1:611% OUAa_ 11 3. ESTIMATED 1p( QUANTITIES: 2�S IA�rT 14 EW -0 /C2 MY IIE'A 02105 _ W 4�{ PIAS 6'00.0410 nor OCT EM1EH PER 2.842 LF. 0174 31!1 04 153 • 0[45400.0561 4' 6250 RICE {0104({.155 CUES . LF 5446418 100 G ND u NCRAT,0 BT UGH) PIES UST BE B W5, — EA ETC. MAINTAIN0 MA3. 4KO59 SLOPE CONSIOUCT 12' CONCRETE SIEPOUT CONSTRUCT 3 6' AC PAVEMENT OVER Y CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE G )RASH ENCLOSURE PER DETAILS 1 AN 2 • 51 PAGf 3 (DI FOR F00UI000CTS0 SEI: DETAILS 00 PAGE ]G V FOR HAN r ACCESS. 00010E w -UNE RAMPS AT 7 010 7..5£, SUING PARALLEL ACCEPTABLE TO CURB �>E0110 SL6 T4SiOG5108.560URE RAMPS WITH SLOPES OF 5A TD 8.55 MUST 9E GROOVED ACROSS DIME SURFACE SEE 10 015ABAIIID SITE ON PAKEAC] CESS. E YOH , ETA SHAM BE 4 PROVIDED ADA,AG AND O X001000 STA11 512E SHALL BEA MINIMUM OF' _ EA FTE) WOE AND 18 FEET DEEP MTX AN A]ACFNT SUEETD:Ng REWE�IRSFD BTELOCLLTMCDDES E GER SPECIAL AD AA G PARKING CIDITONS WA" _ EA *50 0 EOIJVALENFEMENTS TO ME STANDARD 00000 I2 PROEVIGE �ESTO MOEWAIK ALALOTRN TVEL 001 TO RICH-OF-WAT OR TO PUBLIC TRANSPORATON WHERE SIDERAIR OR m tA0V S E31500151111000 20G OR PLANNED 00 NOT P5OWDE I5 NOT EEXISTNG OR OR PLANNED SIDEWALK J 4' NIDE Yd11E PAINT STRIPING 11 [6124 M' 64[ 6510 Da* PPE I4•µ4 ALM VlF MR1 BY 1SEWER MAIN PER EU5D-BA, 50 . Id1 1055) 510 NSW 81 00.60 68* W4-5054 EN ISL CONSTRUCT 61 A!EE 3 IAI�9[ TRUM INFILT610-5 ALE 100005005 owsmucr 610—swA� 601401. R•1.r ..—,,.. OILR 56110. Q i403A414i2007 Y oas Mt ISL KEY as SATE 13 001144C6rtL x1181,For 5011A 10 WITT 0 pYS1444 r 10114 0000.5 A 10*65 -TRUSS 00•..4 KB AMOK= WCIM O 53404yr.14 210NPAFMP:0111 54X8/5 Alrw s 41..03 m 0 _ EA — o _- IR — G ✓ h0� 01* (5-112001+55 61102. — —4 VREE r 602)5 4' MOE MITE SIRIPINC LSD LA 126 ALV NARROW MARNIC TYPE I PER 2006 CALIRANs ® INSTALL ro ALL DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 30' Mw PER _ 4 Q C AG MANUAL (TRUNCATED DOMES) CW AO ON SHEET P.C.0 OUREi STRUCTURE PER DETAIL _011 SHEET_ ACC .° DIAL TOLL FREE -t00-227-2605 AT )LST Iwo DAYS BEFORE YGU DIG PRECISE GRADING PLAN LOT 9, TR3552 MB 56/63-66 CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1. S2'Sa0 10 SCALE A5 *OWN II ]S'11'68•i 4039' P21int 1(1 0'2'r4 1'44 X111 F'(j!8 }900/1722 II -:XIS- NG Ilr)1'F 111-IHH1-41\r t 1-1!IF((:112 15.1 I 11 F Ai*Nr 0.2' 1.11 1.'11 IES'®EATED BIRTHRORK QUANIRITDL4 PAO.ECO 513 i.asx +fAo 3A WNW :i{.Lfo41 1001 YF 1LL1K, Om [LW Mina I rat 44paMIIHP 6.601 **85 h. Ti -039$ 45 455 TOTAL IIPERVIOUS AREA, /3.OYSE]EE0 Er 4 C.!. 5 F, Att564y Pr COT MINER R.CE No 5495] 1 r I E APPLICANT & OWNER 1\ l01 LI001450 012001.1/0 5049L nal TMLLXP 5504Y V 10800y1. 126102 j 1150E 495T 41.4444).90 FAX (951)691-3451 1 BENCHMARK: E VrcINrrr NAP: CIVIL ENGINEER: TEIECLU 00021110 RIIG CONSULTANTS. Inc 29377 0/05301 CALIFCIP114 MI , STE 202 TQE0..1A, CA 92591 011001IOk 10 5T `1004 D HEATC41 P E N0E: (951) 676-1018 FAX (951)676-2294 ,SOILS ENGINEER- GE0041 BEST. INC 41571 MINIM PUCE, MITE 101 50.000101/.CA 92563-7065 014. (9595 1) 304-2300 0/3:(951) 304-2392 ('A4) 021 F'N 0'4? -11741-!)!11 OA, 56/66 ;,1111:0 rlal_1 -1VIti )'P^Iti '210; 6/2 1,1 ) 40 20 0 40 80 120 SCALE 1'40" ETO 6:AE E LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS. 0./01 RON OF wAY TC TCP OF NRB BCR BEGIN CURB RETURN ECR ENO CLEM RETURN 021 POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECT BRC BEGIN WRIT.. CURVE ESC ENO VERTICAL CURVE v C VERBCAL CURVE (LENGTH) LB CATCH BASIN FN 7100 14*4I) F.P 001.144 WAwu1OW EP LOGE 01 6'8.0101 5.D ITMM DPW EFW MX 01 ANAL SAT PR) m4enwl0FWTYI AO PAG 0/1211020 11T NIOL10051 LP LP1 MOM: peOpPRL�AAAMN� PSM' FRS 5101OWA ILONNTE OWE TOP CE BALL 10 TOP CF CWTIa S T z-fic TUM EI. E01$TING GR0443 KFNTE0L INE [ PR4'FRTY LITE Y 2.1 Y SLOPE (AS NOTED) •0.44:1• E015TING CONTUR — 4541 -- PROPOSED EIS4ATI44 CUT CUT/FILL LITE 9,d 1EUAV5/4A✓: 40003 m SHEET INDPIC .E/ 1 TIRE WET MEET 2 MITES MEET 3 RAN VIP MEET 4 550)142 NO DETAILS SEE) 5 EROSION COMBO. FLAN TEC ,��. LAIN ENS []g1EA1a1F[I0Lf0N ib5I*L9TpA 9 P . 1-6 16,6 W¢R�`0E4I�C55- 15533384 CITY OF TEMECULA oEomRme.r OF RAM woRoos SHUT No. PRECISE GRADING PLAN HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH TITLE SHEET 1 OP 4 SLIT'S GENERAL NOTES: STANDARDS ALL WORT( SHALL C93ORM TO 11E REWIFQ]O14Ts of THE 0..RRENT EDITION OF TIE CITES I: 8020ENT STAPDARD DRAWINGS FOR PL5LIC VCRS CONSTRUCTION (MD SLO5E0LFNT AMENDMENTS), TIE CITY5 ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL CITY CODES AND REOUIRE4D4T5 2 ELERGENDY TELEPHONE 0.10015 (M451YERING WW1. Is NOT ACCEPTABLE) (RESPONSIBLE PERSON/DEVELOPER) (COMPANY) (04-I13 PHONE 247102R) ONOWNSIELL PIJSCANASTIRICC101I (COWAN() (24-61 PHONE WEER) 3 LICENSE/PERM11 REGU112440NIT PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, A BJSINEss LICENSE SMALL 1E ETAIIED FR044 TIE CITY b A GRADING PERM. SHALL BE OBTAINED, PRIM TO ANY WOR ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TEE PERINI AND AN APPROVED SET OF 1WROVEI N7 PLANS EST 60 PRESENT AT THE JOB5ITE DURING CONSTRUCTION 4 ERRORS M OMISSIONS APPROVAL OF TI15E PLANS BY TIE CITY DOES NOT RELIEVE TE APPLICANT AND ENGINE. OF RECORD FROM TIE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS M 041551045 DISCOVERED UREIC CONSTRUCTION 6 WORKE. 1/10185 CITY ORDINANCE E 94-25 STATES THAT ND PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN M CONCOCT COSTRLCTION ACTIVITY. MEN TIE CONSTRUCTION 51TE 15 WITHIN ONE-QUARTER M A MILE OF AN 001002ND RESIDENCE, BETWEEN THE HEWS OF 8:30 PM 210 6.30 AM, MONDAY TIRWGH FR1DAY AND SHALL ONLY ENGAGE IN W CONDUCT CON51410110* ACTIVITY BETWEEN TEE HORS OF 7: E AW AND 6:30 PW ON SATIRDAY W CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ON 5WOAY AND NATIONALLY RECOONI22D HOLIDAYS D REGULATORY AGENCY CLEARANCES THE 155UAACE OP A PERMIT BY TIE CITY 005 NOT MAIL? GR PROVIDE ANY OEA4AEE5 FROM STATE . FEDERAL AGENCIES REGULATE. THE PR0VIS10N6 02 STATE GR FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS O WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS 122 APPROPRIATE O208222E5 FROM TEE AGENCIES SMALL BE OBTAINED PRIM TO ANY SITE DISTLABAEE UR GRADE20 1 CONSTRUCTION WANDE ANY COSTRECT104 CHASM EST BE FIRST SUBMITTED TO TIE CI11 AS A REDLINE REVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIM TO IWLEIEINTING RIE CHANGE IN TIE FIELD REFER TO THE CITES ENGINEERING AO GON3TRLCTI0N 4AM)AL B PIE-2014ST111LTIp4 METING A PRE{945100CTIw WEETING SHALL BE 6024100100 TWO WORK DAT5 PRIM TO TIE START 02 CONSTRUCTION O,01,102 L0STRL'CTI04, A OEPEM2EE AND RESPONSIVE CONTRACT.. REPRESENTATIVE SHALL EE AT RE JOB SITE AT El. TILLS V UTILITIES 62(500VAL M THESE PLANS BY TIE CITY 00E5 NOT CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION AS TO TIE ACCURACY O 20430007E11005 R TIE LOCATION, NOR TIE EXISTENCE OR NEIN-EXISTENCE OF ANY UDERGR0WD UTILITIES WITHIN TIE PROJECT LIMITS ANY 01ILITY DAMAGED DURING TIE PERFOPAM2CE OF RIE WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED M REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GOVERNING *0001 BY TIE CONTRACT., AT HIS EXPENSE 10 S0VET IT SHALL BE 120 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE C04TRACT2 TO NOTIFY TEE 0NG10EER OF RECORD MD TO INSTALL STREET MERLE. MON,MENT5, A5 REWIRED BY R1VER51DE CO.NTY .OINANCE W. 491 CENTERLINE TIES (HILL BE P ROVIDED TO T10 C1T1 ENGINEER. WON COAPLETl04 OF TIE PROECT AND BEFORE ACCEPTANCE 15 GRIMED ALL EXISTING MONIEMATION (DISTURBED GR CESTROXE0 DURING ONSTRUCTION) SHALL BE REPLACED TO CITY 5TA0DARD5 1N ACCORDANCE 31114 TE LARD BERNEY.* ACT AND TI0 STREETS AW HIGHWAY CODE. AND A5 APPROVED BY TIE CITY ENGINEER WO4 REO.EST, SERVE, CUTS SIfET5 SHALL BE PROVIDED TO TIE CITY ENGINEER 11 0U51 CONTROL OUST 5NULL BE OWTRCLLEB BY WATERING M OTT. IE1E05, A5 APPROVED BY 111E COT ENGINEER MD SHALL C0WLY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAG0ENT DISTRICTS (50000) RULE 403 11 00S1RUCTIw FENDING A 11X FOOT CHAIN LINT FENCE IS REWIRED ON ALL I140.5TFIAL AND 02WFRCIAL PR2ECTS UNTIL ROM SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED M AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY TIE CITY E20INEER F. PUBLIC SAFETY TI£ MAINTENANCE OF TIE FENCE IS RIE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 004TRACTM 13 INSPECTIONS ALL WOW( PERF2WEO 807102T PROP. 102500TION FR04 THE CITY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION 14 OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES REFER TG SEPARATE NOTES FOR TPR/AING,- FAUSION AND 0DI1ENT CONTROL." PAVING- AND 192221C• REWIRDENIS, IF APPLICABLE GRADING NOTES: 1 STANDARDS ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES (1 0,, 57001P11120 LAE CLEARING, EROSION W 59-01110 CONTROL. ETC ) WALL BE 2092202 D IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF TE CITY 02 TEAEC0.A 414101PAL 200E, TIE ENGINEERING MW CONSTRUCTION MANUAL. ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS, 110 LATEST EDITION OF TIE CALIFORNIA WILDING CODE (APPENDIX J) MW, IF APPLICABLE, TIE STATE WATER E50UR05 CONTROL 1904110 (SIRE) NATIONAL POLLUTION 015CIWRE EL141NATI04 SYSTEM (NOES) LFND0AL PERMIT FM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS A GRADING FER4T SMALL BE OBTAINED PRI. TO COME10EAENT OF ANY W001 ON TIE SITE 3 NOTIFICATIONS PUBLIC KIRKS SHALL E REIFIED VIA TIE PLE1C WORKS INSPECTION LIE AT (951) 308-6395 AT LEAST 24 MOWS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING ANT CON5/NUCT1ON/COMING OPERATIONS 4 SOILS ALL CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL SE DONE IN C0FM1NEE WITH ECOWEI0ATI0S M THE PRELIMINARY SOILS INVEST(GATI9 BY MN WMATOWP6MYWAPAYI E. PAM 2r102M 11 :CLW SAID REPT 94AL BE 20145(00ED A PMT R THIS GRADING PLM 5 cUT/FOAL e MAXI4E4 WT AW FILL SLOPES SHALL E G 1. UNLESS ORIRWIE APPROVED BY TIE CITY ENGINEER, Aro SHALL 9011LY WITH THE RECOMAEN00T1049 O TI0 SOILS REPORT FILL MMES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 902 RELATIVE COFACTION WT TO THE FINISH SURFACE 0 FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT E PLACED ON 00I5TING 020,10 wTIL INE WWW HIS MEN CLEARED R WEEDS, DEBRIS. TQPSDIL, 408E14TION M20 OTTER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL 1F THE SURE RATIO Ex0E00 5: 1 AND I5 GREATER THAN FIVE FET TIE TERRAIN MIST E KEYED MD BENCIOD INTO EIDER BEDROO1 R NATIVE SOIL AS 01RECTED BY TIE 020TE0RICA1 ENGINES e STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTM-6F-SAFETY O AT LEAST 0E MW FIVE TENTHS (1 5) SHALL E SUBMITTED 70 PUBLIC WORNS BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER M GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL 51.25 OVER 30 FEET IN 4001(201 EIGHT d D ALL WADING SHALL E DONE 02002 THE YPERVISI2 M A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SDIL5 ENGINEER M 420L0G15T. 410 SHALL SUBMIT TWO SETS OF WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FET 1N DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED G DRAINAGE o AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW 911005 TO CW0E2 100 -YEAR STUN FLOWS O PROVIDE GRADED ARRAS ALONG TIE TM R ALL GRADED ORES OVER 14FEE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT M THAT APE A0JA0NT TO GRADED AREAS, TO 01REOT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM TIE TOP 0' ORES ALL DRAINAGE EVICES SHALL BE 00STR4TPD PER 1E APPROVED PLANS. W EXISTING DRAINAGE COAtSES SHALL C04TIHE TO FUCTI. AT ALL TIIE5 NG E5TRICTI04 R FLOOD PLAINS O NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERAITTED ...ARV DRAINA12 SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERNA/ENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED PROTECTIVE MEA540E5 SHALL BE IWI210410D TO PROTECT ADJOINING MD DOWNSTREAM PR0ERTIES FRON SILT 00P0517100 PND 5010120 NAT. OURIW CONSTWCTIDN/6483120 OERATIONS e APPROVED PROTECTIVE 4EASUFE5 AND TORIARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS NEST BE USED TD PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES 0011E TIE GRADING PROJECT a DRAINAGE EAsDENT5 9CALL BE 11621 CLEAR 02 ALL 005TR074045. W mom. M WALL5 9161L BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS oF 02SE1ENTS THE MINIUM GRADE F. CONCRETE SURFACE DRAMA. FACILIT1Es SHALL BE A ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.52) 7 PROPERTY SWISS ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL E 0.EARLY DELINEATED IN TIE FIELD PRION TO coLNINEEENT R ANY C045TRETIw/WA01NG ACTIVITY, A5 DIRECTED By 710 CITY EEIEER B ROUGH GRADING INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BUILDING POND INSPECTIONS SHALL BE E00512D VIA DE RHEIC WOWS INSPECTION LIE AT (951) 308-5395 SUBMIT TIE F011021NG: O RID 5ET5 OF PA0 ELEVA1Iw 008712ICATI04 (1 E , ROUGH GRADE) TO 1NCLUOE A STATEMENT THAT TE PAO ELEVATION GOALIES WITH TE APPROVED GRADING RAN CERTIFICATION SHALL BE TO LINE. GRACE, ELEVATION ANO LOCATION R CUT/FILL SLOPES O TWo SETS OF PAD COIPACTIoN ORTIFICATION (I. E.. FINAL OE01E0RICAL/SOILS RFPMT) TO V.I. A 5TATEENT THAT TI0 GRADING COWLIES WITH RECOWEWATM. OF 11E PRELIMINARY SOILS REPURT 9 FINAL 115PECTIw PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY REFER TO TE CHITS ENG/SERI. AND CONSTRUCTION 4A2AL 111 POST OMENS ACTIVITIES POST WAD120 ACTIVITIES 9ULL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED T0. 1115TALL10 WERE 052112AIWF 090.0000928, TREES, .111105 R A C1BIWTI0 DERE. IN ACCMDM4E WITH TIE TENECU.A 4NICIPM CODE PRIOR TO FINAL IWPECT1w SLOPES OVER FOUR FET IN VERTICAL EIGHT 94ALL PAVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION 5Y51E40 WITH BAWFLOW PRE0057I014 EVICE5 PER TE U P C 11 OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES REFER TO SEPARATE COTES FOR PAVING "T£NERA1 220 EROSION MW 5ED114217 CONTROL' 420UIREMEN:5 PAVING NOTES: 1 STANDARDS ALL WORK AID MATERIALS (1 E , ASPHILT C0ICRETE (AC) PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CAHCRETE CEMENT (PCC).. BASE COURSE ETC ) SHALL 001000LI To TIE STANDARD SPECIFIGTIOS 204 P11BL10 WINS CONSTRUCTION (I E • OEENBOM) LATEST EDITION TE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION NMIJAL. CITY A20 EMINE0210 STAWAWS AID REWIREIENTS 0 PEWIT 120218EIFNIS A GRADING M ENCROACH... PERMIT(S) SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR To PAVING BEFORE OBTAINING AN ENCROAOIENT PERMIT, A CERTIFICATE OF IN5I.RMICE AND TIE REWIRED BOEING (FOR PI0LIC 142809ELENTS) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY 210INEER A CALTRAN5 ENCROACH/ENT PERMIT MAY BE REWIRED 3 SOIL STERILIZER AN APPROVED SOIL STERILIZER .HAL. E USED ON ALL BASE GRADE SURFACES PRIM TO PAVING 4 PRINE CGT PRIE COAT 15 REWIRED ON 5EGRADE M BASE MEN TIE BASE IS 5.81CTFD TO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (M WHEN LONG TILE PERIODS ELAPSE BEFORE AC IS PLACED), AS DETERMINED BY TIE SOILS ENGINEER MW APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINES 1 TYPE I SORRY PRIM TO PAC/ELT FINAL COIRLETI04 MW ACCEPTANCE R STREETS INTO THE CETT. MAINTAINED SYSTEM, TYPE 1 SLURRY SHALL BE PLASS OVER TIE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVED PROJECT SIRFET(s), A5 DIRECTED BY 110 CITY ENGINEER THE ENTIRE ROADWAY WIDTH SHALL BE SWEPT AT LEAST 3 TI1E5 M AS DIRECTED BY RIE CITY ENGINEER O FOD SEAL FOR PRIVATE DEVELMIENT, ASPHALTIC EMLLSTON (FE SEAL) SHALL BE APPLIED WT LE55 THAN 14 DAYS FOLLOWERS PLACE/ENT OF TIE ASPHALT SURFACE. AND SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE R 0 05 GALLONS PER 5D ID TIE ASPHALT E1ASI04 SHALL C0NFMM TD SECTIONS 37. 39 MD 94 OF 11E STATE STAWARD 0ECIFICAT104S 7 TACK COAT A TAO( COAT SNAIL BE APPLIED To EXISTING PAVFAONT AND VERTICAL JOINTS CONCRETE SUFADES AND ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COU15E, IF IT HAS BEEN ExPO5ED TO VEHICULAR LOADS THE TACK COAT SHALL BE SLOW SETTING ANIONIC FALSIFIED ASPHALT TYPE 55-1H'COFORIING To RE GREEISOOK 0 CERTIFICATION/TESTING ALL 920800E AND BASE WADE SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED LAND 5LRVEYM BASE AND AC MATERIALS SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIE CITY5 DUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (OAP) AVE AS DIRECTED BY TIE CITY ENGINEER 1 PAWWW IM1E111AL1 RC DREW 'ALI 1 AC MATERIA. SHALL =CORM TO SECTION 20]0 OF TIE GREENS001 AHD CITY 510900005 4 TYPE C2 PG70-10 FOR FINISH MO OVEREAT COURSES THIS CORSE SHALL BE A MINI1M OF 0 12 FOOT (I H IN04051 1H101 INFLLOING MIND MO OVERLAY INSTALLATIONS 11 TYPE 0 2070-10 FOR BASE COURSE THIS 00.E SHALL COCAIN TIE BALANCE OF TIE REWIRED ASPHALT C2OETE THICKNESS TE MINIMUM AC LIFT FOR BASE COI5E 15 0 21 FOOT (I0IN0E5) 2 TE YINIMCS AC THICKNESS IS 2 33 FOOT (4 INOE5) 3 THE 48x1608 AC LIFT 15 0 33 FONT (4 INLIE5) NOTE SHOVING -1S A TYPE OF AC 244040NT FAILURE THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY ASPHALT MIKES THAT ARE T00 RICH IN ASPHALT. 114AT HAVE COURSE/FINE AGGREGATE TNA. IS T00 RENDES, ETC TYPICALLY, SHOVING RE9LTS AT HILLS, LEWES M INT0SEDT105. CAUSED 6Y WAKING M *00012RAT1N0 10100.AR FBRCE5 TG PREVENT M MINIMIZE WOW. TIE C122 RESERVES 11E RIWT TO REWIRE A MODIFIED AC MIK DESIGN WITH PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDE HIGH STABILITY (I E ABILITY TG RESIST SHOVING AW RUTTING ANW-AR AG0EGATE PARTICLES WITH A ROUGH SURFACE TEXTURE, ET2 ) IN COWLIAN4E WITH THE WEENBO0021 010/010 CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS RASE MATERIALS 1 BASE MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO PROVISIONS OF TIE WEER.. AND CLEMENT CITY STMOM05 2 FOR STREET SECTIONS, BASE COURSE MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSTED AGGREGATE BASE (GB) M CRUSHD WISC0MEITS BASE B0110 ib SELSI0M0 WW2 2 MD 101.2 • CF 01mNI8DN BIMMIML uD LOU, atirA tMI DUOS FEWCW WANT C ? 0971M CIADER. MOM u PNC W6102 BMW, E 10 08•100104£ 10 GIC OLUD051 10 MIX DESIGNS TEN WOWING DAYS PRI. TO PAVING. TIE PRROYD BOX DE5104(5) FROM TIE %PPLYING ASPHALT . 00C11210 PLANT SHALL E 518911102 TO TIE CITY F09 REVIEW AND APPROVAL TIE NIX DESIGN(5) SHALL CLEARLY SCA THAT THE DE51ON LEETS ALL CITY ME GEE/BOCK EWIFEWNTS 11 STENT 5002125 STREET STRUCTURAL SECTIONS 510114 ON P.M5 ARE TENTATIVE (1 E , TETRE USED FM BOOING FJRP0E5) TIE FINAL STRUCTURAL 5ECT104 REOUIREIWNTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTS, MIER ROUGH GILDING TIE 5TRUCTUAAL RECTION .51.1 SHALL E REVIEWED MW AWR0002 BY THE cITT ENGINEER SAID DESIGN WALL ADIEE TO THE IEIM00L0GY SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 600 OF CALTRMS HIWWAY DESIGN 4AWAL AND SHALL UTILIZE TIE R" VALUE 1E11100 (1 E , R'VALLE TESTS 5114.1 K DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST N0 301 010 9411 E CERTIFIED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL 108162981 TIE RAMER AND LOCATIONS OF TIE5E TESTS SHALL E SUBJECT TO APPROV,LL BY TIE CITY ENGINEER 12 COPACT404 PRIM TO P011401T OF BASE MATERIAL AND AC, OLFACTION REPORTS BY A SOILS EN611E01. CERTIFYING 958 COFACTION R SLB -GRAS AND BASE MATERIAL, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER 001PACT194 TEST OBSERVATION OF SUB -MAIZE AND BASE GRADE MATERIALS WALL E WODINAhII TO 1101CWE THE SOILS ENGINEER MND RE PUNIC W0R15 INSPECTOR UB PAVING INWECT111 O EASE DUDE INSPECTION OE INSPECTION AT SLB -GRADE OWLET]. (PRI. To PLACEMENT M BASE) IS REWIRED BY TE DEPARTMENT R PUBLIC WORKS P PAVING 10650071 VS TWO PAVING INSPECTIONS ARE REWIRED BY THE OEPMTAEM M PUBLIC *065 (1) PRI. TO PAVING AT BASE GRADE COMPLETION AND (2) WRING PLACEMENT R AC c DRIVEWAYS ALL 0451TE PRIVATE RE5100NT./ DRIVEWAYS 9ALL COMPLY WITH TIE APPROVED PLANS AND CITY STANDARDS, AND SHALL E INSPECTED MD REARED BY TIE CITY ENGINEER .IM TO 200I6s 14 U111111E5 ALL IWCERGRO,40 FACILITIES AD LATERALS SHALL E IN PACE PRIM TO PAYING 15 0800011E FOR UT4LITIE5 ALL STREET TPENOES 5HALL c0FM4 TO CITY MO ENGINEERING STAWARDS REFER TO CITY STANDARD NO 407 'TRENCH/POT.. REPAIR -FOR 10004 MAINTENANCE AW/..PAIRS IF TRENOEs IN 0.DSE P800141TY AND PARALLEL TO GUTTER LINES 1091 IN LEAVING 59005 NT STRIPS IN DISTRESS . LESS THAN Two FEET CN WIDTH (BETWEEN THE TRENCH AW GUTTER LINE), 5A10 PAVEAENT STRIPS SHALL E REEVED AND .PAYED. AT TIE DISCRETION O TE CITY ENG(EER A TAW COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO JOIN EXISTING ASPHALT CONOETE MW VERTICAL SURFACES IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIE WEENY,. 16 PARKING LOT MADE TIE MINIMUM AC . CONCRETE PAVEMENT WADE SHALL E ONE PERCENT (I2) 17 GATT. LIP A 3/2 INH 122 SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO CONCRETE GUTTERS IN ACC.DA60 WITH CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS REFER TO STANDARD 20 200 18 PAVING ETAIL 49080 9ANIO.05, VALVE 004ER5. ETC ALL PANIC AROUND 4810,05, UTILITY VALVE COVETS ETC SHALL BE 19 ACCMDPNCE WITH TE 0REENMA < REW1REENTS, UTILITY 90E2111 REWIRELENTS, CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS REFER TO CITY STANDARD 20 503 PAVIW DETAIL AR01FD MANHOLE " 1B AC P10060111 1E LED. OP DEPOSITING DISTRIBUTION (1 E , MENG A SELF-PROPELLED SPNEADIW/5INI5HING 4AMIE) AND ELLlNG AC SHALL E IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIE GREEW0011 20 ACCEPTANCE R PRODUCT TE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DETECTIVE SURFACING DUE TO GRADE 5ET1LE1041 R FILLS TRENCH FILLS O BASE MATERIAL, A5 REWIRED BY TIE CITY ENGINEER 20 PAVEMENT BIRDS/ RS. EV IATIo26 GREATER WAN I/8 NEN IN 51x FEET SHALL BE ACCEPTED 21 PROIEC110 OF WORK 11E CONTRACTOR SHALL (9) 501ECT EKI5TING STRUCRAES, 0.09 AND WTIE85, S10EW4Jt5, LANDSCAPING CATCH BASIN DEPRESSIONS AND 01608 SURFACE FEATURES AG.AIIST DAMAGE .USED BY PAVING 0091)96 AND ASPHALT SPRAY, (B) PROTECT COWLET50 WOW. ALL VEH101M TRAFFIC (1 E , EYING OR STATIONARY LOADS) SHALL BE KEPT 001 NEWLY PAVED AREAS LENTIL PAVE:ENT ARFACE5 HAVE 200,00 DONE ADEWATELY, (C) CLEAN 11£ SITE (I E REMOVE LOOSE PATIENT AW AGGREGATE, CLEAN WT ALL MM10.0 PITS DISLRE FREE OPERATION OF VALVES AFTER PAVING, REEVE ALL DEBRI5, RES19H AW 0X0SS MATERIAL FROM 040 AREA, ETC ) 22 OTTER CONSTRUCTION NOTES REF. TO SEPARATE 10105 FOR 904ERA1 -GRADING. "NO EROSION AND SEEDIEST CONTROL- REW IRDENTS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES. 1 FN 120011 RUNOFF ILL RUNOFF SHALL BE 2111ERE0 PRIM 80 0150MRGIN5 FRCS A SITE M TO ANY TYPE OF PRIVATE OR 5.110 STORM WATER CONVEYANCE STSTEM (RATLINE. WATERCOURSES. STREETS GUTTERS. EERETELIN D) V-0IT0E5, STOW MAINS, FLOP -LINES, INLET5,0.111615 ETC) ALL 1DN-EINITTEO DISCHARGES ARE P1011BITED FRCS ENTERING ANY STORM WATER CONVETAEE SYSTEM YEM+0. 0 2 T'-. - -f Wg1 YEAR -HOED P0 04 EVPN LUT1PR1194 IEASIFES, ALSO KNOW W AS BEST WaNENT PRACTICES (GIPS) 1D5T BE N496101LE PRIM TO ANY FIELD ACTIVITIES BLP IWDBWKS CAN BE DOWNED8000 AT WWW CABPNWOBOMS CCS ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION AW 5E0)110.18 CONTR. (ESC) LEA8EE5 NST BE INSTALLED MO W IMAUED PRIM TO MO TMWDIwT EACH RAINY SEASON 11E DEVELOPER/W 41R601M IS RESPON5IEE FM ESC IEAS.ES TNRO.MJW1 TIE DUNAT1M oF TIE PROJECT FOR ALL 0.EARING, DISKING, WADING. 0401048120 AND STOCKPILING ACTIVITIES, AND ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES MND INACTIVE PADS RROJOOUl TIE ENTIRE 511E TIE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR MET 025000.625 FRCS SEWMRACTGRS a 3000051LING M MPS ADDITIONAL ESC MATERIALS SHALL BE STOCKPILED AT VARIOUS LUCAT106 THROUGHOUT TIE SITE FOR INEDIATE uSE 111111111 SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN ON EXEIRHNCY SITUATIONS, TIE DEVELOPER/C04IRACRM SHILL 148EDI8TELY WAKE EWIPE24T AW WORKERS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT TIE 511E 3 PRAWNN69R11WR1 rowels., All Esc ...RES .HAL BE INSPECTED. REVERED. REPAIRED OR EDIFIED YEAR -ROOD T 514250.1 TIE SITE TO PROTECT N1R11ETEA5 AWACE11T PROPERTIES. ERVIROHEN1ALLY SENSITIVE MEAS AND ALL P51081E/PU9LIC sTMM WATER 4014028020 5Ys1045 IF ANY 005104 2 SEDIF.N41 CWTRN5 FAIL DURING ANY RAIN EVENT ERE EFFECTIVE CIES WELL E REWIRED IN TEIR PACK a EROSION CONTROLS EROSION CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO APPLYING MO ESTE/191160: VEGETATIVE COVER, WOOD MUM. STAPLED W PINNED BLANKETS (STRAW, 001400T M OTHER). PLASTIC SHEETING (MINIUM 10-011), PILYP22YLEAE MATS. SPRAY -ON MARROW TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS M OTHER 1EA0WES APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER JUTE NETTING SHALL NOT BE MED ASA .TAW -ALOE EROSION CONTROL FOR YOPES GREATER THAN 1: I PROVIDE FIBER ROLLS MD EITHER A WOOED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TOA RATE OF 3500 DIFFERENT ORA ER STABILIZED FIBMATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TOA RATER NE I9 GAL/ACRE 11E CITY ENGINEER WY APPROVE0242 DIFFERENT APPL1CATIW RATES FM SLOPES LESS THAN 1:1 N 5EDIENT S, SILT SEDIMENT 290,. BAG BALL I4CLL<E, MIT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CESILTING BASINS ERRED BMW FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES, CRAWL BAG 0EV1211 (FILLED WITH WIN1 1 M 141051), OE01 DAIS, DRAINAGE INET PROTECTION. ETC FIBER SOLS SMALL BE INSTALLED IN ISiODT WORE ENR WASMFD ALOE TE FACE OF TE YORE SILT FEND= SHALL GE INSTALLED RANG INTERIM STREETS AND MIMED WITH GRAVEL -BAG M SILT FENCE CIEMwS INSIDE TIE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY M BACK M aces 4 PFRIFTFR PROIF5TI04 PERIMETER P901201004 4451 BE INSTALLED PRIM TO ANY 0.EAR1ON 601191TIE5 0.EM1NG 91A11 BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL E 1400141011 WADED M 015TIRE0 A c011NATlw R ESC IEASRE5 SHALL BE INLEIEN6ED IN AREAS 1696 COVE BEEN CLEAE0D ALL 045RRBED REAS OF AN INACTIVE SITE, A5 00SCRI® IN TEE FNGIIEERING AND 0045TRUCTIW 4MLAL, SHALL ALSO E PROTECTED 5 NNS 0051RUCTIM ACCESS POINTS SHALL E STABILIZED WITH A COBINATION OF FIG. AND SHAKER PLATES YEAR -FOLD TO PREVENT IRA0IU919 INT.220 ACDE5S 201NT5 (A1 52010500 401100005. MATERIAL STORAGE AND WAGING AREA ENTRANCES/EXITS, ETC ) SHALL ALSO E PRDIEC1ED WIT? ROOK TG PREVENT TRACK -OUT CMO INTERIM STREETS ROUTE. STREET SWEEPING BALL E P0001E0 ON ALL PAVED STREETS MEND TRAOKING I5 CESERIED VAGUE SWEEPERS SHALL E USED REN STREET STEEPING EC0E5 IIETFECTIVE *04140,10 STREET WADING SHALL 05Y E ALLOWED PRIM TO TIE APPLICATION R ASPHALT SEAL COATS, MD 03.1 MEN ALL IERTIIENT DRAINAGE (NETS A0 PROTECTED W WTFRIM STORAGE MATERIAL STORE AND STAGING AREAS 523011 E ESTA0.15NED FUEL TAWS, PORTAGE TOILETS. 1100105. 015 POWDERS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS MD 5T0.WPILE5 R SOIL SHALL E STORM AWAY FROM ALL PRIVATE/P181C 5T0RN WATER CO4VEYM4; 515TEM5, 51EWALKS RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND FLOW -CSIs AND SHALL HOVE SECONDARY CONIAINENT. INACTIVE STOCKPILES R 501L SHALL E COVERED AT ALL TINES ACTIVE STOXPILES 51411E COVETED PRIM TDA FORECAST RAIN 7 7ONS1RUT104 WARTF.., C4STRUCTI04 WASTE MO 4115MLLANE05 DEBRIS 9081L E RA.* IN WATER -11E11 BIM WIRE ISSN IECPTA0.25 9411 NOT E ALLOWED WA525021 STATIONS SHALL E 214001DE1) FOR 001001E. PAIH15. STUCCO AND OBER LIWID WASTE, AW SHALL E LINED WITH PLASTIC AW LOCATED AWAY FROM PACK RIGHT-OF-WAYS, ROE LINES. ETC PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN. BINS AND WASH -COTS SHALL E 80400D WITH LIDS M ...TIC TARPS 8 PORTABLE MIXERS' ALL PORTABLE MIXERS SHALL HAVE PLASTIC LINERS IPOD0EATH TREY WITH GRAVEL -BA. PLACID ON TIE 00X1 -HILL SIDE R DE LINERS TO 00119.11 DISCHARGES 9 ALL 0S1TE AND OFFSITE FLOW LINES (1 E V- AND BREW-OITOE5, TERRA. GRATIS, RIEEWWN COTTERS C00 DIETERS ETC ), STAR WATER CONVEY AXE 52S1015. OE. OMEN, CEVRO5, SILT FENCES AND 025ILTING BASINS 91ALL E FREE M SEDIMENT, CONSTRICTION MATERIALS, WASTE MIKELLAE05 LEWIS MO DETERIORATED ESL MEASURES YEAR-ROUND 10 D0R7104710.• NG 065TRET10N6, 011ER TORN EARS, 9W1 E ALLOWED WITHIN ANY STOW WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, LNESS ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES HAVE MEN APPROVED BY 1E CITY ENGINEER 11 ODER 0051RLCTIw ETES REFER TO SEPARATE WTE5 FOR 6EFERAL,"SRADIIG'MO PAVIW'EOIIlEW14T5 nut M DIAL TOLL FREE I-Sem-rrr-:usa AT LEAST Iwo 0025 BEFORE YOU CIG 1900*0W vs14 Rpt F MOWN Ont SCALE AS SHO. N/A 12 0)922 By Checked By ,& .r STANLEY 0 HEATON RCE No A..2 RECOMMENDED Br DATE Ate„ BARE CRY wow. cE Na 51.52 A XLGCUIrA. CONSIULTB.Nt , ILIG, Imp 80,168146, 'Ly1911. �pL4,(pp1, 140. C -MN 00YUL1ri1 tViF HAS. 411 -CTE- 6[ q S12 �j S9t .^.TTY OF TEMECULA 0EPAm*ExT of 90,02 MORNS SHSer NO. PRECISE GRADING PLAN 2 HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH NOTES OF 4 SHTS cONSTRUC1'ION NUTS; Ssipucr 0' 740.0 P c C cad P. LITE 5 i.APD NO. 2150 94 CONSTRUCT S. IOp1ry<70 0000 AND GUTTER PER QONS SIO. 0 V. STANDARDrNO 1� PCC SIDEWALK PER cltts G Oa MOUE 0400x4 Iw9I 0 N' 0020 ARW 1.11.10.111.9.9RV 1.0409 8005 000 108005 ECA' "CLI] 9.+4( NO 0440 /(I 00.91041 II' MIMIC IRMO (@j GONSIRURT a.R' 0.0, PAVEMENT OVER T' //, CRMSNE9 AGGREGATE BASE I.E.I. 99ARM; 13007* ENCLOSURE PER DETAILS 1 AND cv 0(01700. HANDIDA1 S.A. PER 0.0,0€00 RE94N7EMENTS SEE OETAIL5 ON (® iydlptI /Wpme.In ACpSB, q,Ielc AEurS WKS yEK�pT 1 '. 30 1 i 1INWINO� IR [v9 SAWN 08111 0010 Q 15 44 wSY i 0.01€500 085055 80084 019804 - 15TH CPI P.A41 IO 440 *oan PO 0.1, ETC. 50001, BE P2. 044 B1 COMM AA.A'A.G. AND T 44LIKIAR 03804 VS .1. Y A+A+RM 0P• EQr ___ A_W I• FER M. WAIN IBI J ASLRT E,.T 9E 0.BEWS 41.91 MP W1 aIND 01 LEL. AL W O PAAWNO Glilt.192.1 WW1 NAi 0011/4841 14 R[ 0E099/199 0454544 80020001410) �J A.90[ASL42 IR.5TMIPqNleRIOT 10 �T1-YWT Q _MAX W►pAgRl. APCIP :MOS F,. 340 1000 I/P0 ix 0156 a 404054390 W640n SOAP/. 0s f ... 1040 ANNI 41904 N15TALL 40 SINE PVC 07010 PIPE 315 040001, CLEAN OUT B EXIST 11 PVC SEWER MON PER EMW0 00-01 SKI 3 OF 9 a EXIST I2' 00,' 09 fM PPA DO 50-1150 1. FqN i "WIDE 404547E V -D10W PER 1 CaNSTROl LiP€r 3 C NGIVOCT 1NELIRANW TRENCH 440017007 89-94A15 INSTALL NAN09R H-30 0007-I1.1-0001€ (MATCH C.O. 01000108) ^"0000€ 0' CURB FOGS PER 0€7040 _ W q.) [WONsHEErSIRIIc r P c c GUTTER PER DETAIL _ ON CCNSI7UCT 9' LUPE 09E4E100 2 00!1510 0 ACCESS RDW PLR REFERENCED DETAIL 0201 J APCNIj00T5 LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE 9 .3T.A. MIL 910P 0711/1041 PER 0E199 — aACWT .T.-109( 51 30E 61111. Q. PAINT ARROW MARKING TYPE I PEP 2000 CALIRANS 17. N9. 0040 ® 0(5700 MAN910840 0011100 SURFACE 30. 08 PEM A, OF 411 000100 UCNES) T €ONAIRIJCT P.C.C. 091007 STRUCTURE PEM 00100. I ID JAUDIEL.k. ABBJREViATIONS: 0/09 RIGHT OF WAY TC TOP OF CURB BCR BEGIN CURB RETURN ECR END CURB RETURN PN PMINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECT SVC 0E910 VERTICAL CURVE EJC 200 VER0044 02. CURVE vC 047044 0 CURVE (LENGTH) C.B. CATCH MLN F.H. FIRE HYDRANT F.P FINISHED PAVEMENT EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT s o STORM .RAIN 041 E)0;E OF TRAVEL WAY P FINISH. FLOW D.EVATION p. EP040TION HUPi P01Ni WA! FINISHED FS FINISHED GRADE 10009 141 TOP OF FOOTING 5 SEPTIC TANG% Es EXISTING GROUND ^E CENTERLINE R PROPERTY 411E SLOPE (15 NOTED) EXISTING 0501000 PROPOSED ELEVATION T/FILL LITE GRAV0 NIB CHECK BERM —n--. DILIF.WZ -04504-- DIAL TOLL FREE 000 227 2600 'eggT 102 01445 RE Y L) LI r) I IFI~II -1—SEE 63840 F8 DETAIL C. Ob &kV4 HOPE LUTHERAN : ,CMUR aft 99+020 90 C 15155' REVISIONS 0040,00 TO EXISTING AS SHOWN N/2 .0000 ( 1 ' o)1011 1.LI If 'UN -MN I Ll4I'E{1-1-1}AN (7,A6/1'1 10,') SCALE: 1-•20' ECOMNENDEO BY' 011E ACC,. BY CRY ENCAMP NCE No 54453 CAFE r�1'+r^a n.n gg' CST ,IINc LAND 45)07.. CI TNG. 08 519uC11 10 ESRSLl9VN5 813x1 784019 N . STE 503. T y004A 51 90011 14099897E 951- - 1010! 90.L 4 4- 00-0290 ' (CITY OF TEMECULA urPwnorr OF nwx .obs 1'74 SAF No. PRECISE GRADING PLAN HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH PLAN VIEW 3 OF 4 SITS 11 RESOLUTION (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0763, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT SANCTUARY AND PRE-SCHOOL ON 2.93 ACRES WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (VL) ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE. (APN 922-170-003) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On May 18, 2015, Jack Lanphere filed Planning Application No. PA15- 0763 a Development Plan, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on November 4, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA15-0172, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Plan, Development Code Section 17.05.010.F A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; Religious institutions, as conditioned, are an allowable use within the Very Low Residential (VL) zones with a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore the use will be consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as the requirements for State law and other Ordinances of the City. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure conformance with the Development, Building, and Fire codes. These codes contain provisions designed to ensure the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects); The project meets all General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations and is located within City limits on a site of no more than five acres. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site is also surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. The project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA15-0763, a Development Plan for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction and operation of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre-school on 2.93 acres within the Very Low Residential (VL) zone, and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue. (APN 922-170-003), subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of November, 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Planning Application No.: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Quimby Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA 15-0763 Hope Lutheran Church CUP: a Development Plan for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction and operation of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre-school on 2.93 acres within the Very Low Residential (VL) zone. The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue. 922-170-003 Commercial Exempt (Non -Profit 501c3 - Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.06.030B) Service (Only the sanctuary square footage is exempt: House of Worship - Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.08.040.F.9) N/A (Non -Residential) November 4, 2015 November 4, 2015 1. Filing Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three (3) one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 6. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 7. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 8. Burrowing Owl Study Submittal. A Burrowing Owl Study shall be submitted prior to plan check approval for the grading permit. 9. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 10. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by City staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. All materials and colors are included as an exhibit and on file with the Planning Department. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 11. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 12. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 13. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 14. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 15. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 16. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated March 30, 2015, on file with the Planning Division, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 17. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 18. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 19. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check valves prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 20. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 21. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 22. Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 23. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 24. Archaeological Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." 25. Tribal Monitoring of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer." 26. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 27. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 28. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." 29. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 30. Parking Area Landscaping. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall provide a minimum five-foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. 31. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance and will be calculated based upon the approximate 6,500 square feet of the pre-school. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 33. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized. 34. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 35. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 36. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 37. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 38. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for (private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas). Choose those that apply 39. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 40. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 41. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 42. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 43. Screening of Loading Areas. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 44. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 45. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 46. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 47. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 48. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (VVQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 49. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. 50. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public offsite improvements and b. from the California Department of Transportation if encroaching within their right-of-way. 51. PW -006: Private Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. 52. Street Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit public/private street improvement plans for review and approval by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with Caltrans and City codes/standards; and shall include, but not limited to, plans and profiles showing existing topography, existing/proposed utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades 53. Signing & Striping Plan. A signing & striping plan, designed by a registered civil engineer per the latest edition of Caltrans MUTCD standards, shall be included with the street improvement plans for approval 54. Storm Drain Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit storm drain improvement plans if the street storm flows exceeds top of curb for the 10 -year storm event and/or is not contained within the street right-of-way for the 100 -year storm event. A manhole shall be constructed at right-of-way where a private and public storm drain systems connect. The plans shall be approved by Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 55. Required Clearances. As deemed necessary by Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearances/permits from applicable agencies such as Eastern Municipal Water District and other affected agencies. 56. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/engineeringconstmanual.htm 57. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 58. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml 59. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff, the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQMPandNPDES/WQMP. htm 60. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 61. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 62. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 63. Geological Report. The developer shall complete any outstanding County geologist's requirements, recommendations and/or proposed Conditions of Approval as identified during entitlement. 64. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission and/or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 65. Sight Distance. The developer shall limit landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all street intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 66. Habitat Conservation Fee. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in the ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 67. Construction of Street Improvements. All street improvement plans shall be approved by Public Works. The developer shall start construction of all public and/or private street improvements, as outlined below, in accordance to the City's General Plan/Circulation Element and corresponding City standards. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Vallejo Avenue (Collector Standard No. 103A— 66' R/W) to include installation of half -width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 68. Undergrounding Wires. All existing and proposed electrical and telecommunication lines, except electrical lines rated 34KV or greater, shall be installed underground per Title 15, Chapter 15.04 of the Temecula Municipal Code and utility provider's standards. The developer is responsible for any associated costs, for making arrangements with each utility agency and for obtaining the necessary easements. 69. Street Lights. The developer shall submit a completed SCE street light application, an approved SCE Streetlight Plan and pay the advanced energy fees. If not obtaining a building permit, this shall be done prior to installation of additional street lighting. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing street lights shall be paid by the developer. 70. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of -record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer -of -record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 71. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 72. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 73. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 74. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 75. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 76. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2013 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2013 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2013 California Energy Codes, 2013 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and City of Temecula Municipal Code. 77. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as club house, trash enclosure, tot lots and picnic areas. 78. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 79. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 80. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley Unified School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 81. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 82. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 83. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 84. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 85. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 86. House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal 87. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 88. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 89. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 90. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 92. Pre -Construction Meeting. A pre -construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 93. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all Commercial projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The fire line may be required to be a looped system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). 94. Fire Hydrant Clearance. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official (CFC Chapter 5). 95. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 96. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 -PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 -hour duration for commercial projects. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 97. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 98. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 99. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 100. Turning Radius. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 101. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). 102. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 103. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 104. Gates and Access. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5). 105. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (City Ordinance 15.16.020). 106. Knox Box. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). 107. Addressing. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12 -inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6 -inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 108. Site Plan. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs (CFC Chapter 5). RESOLUTION (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0764, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT SANCTUARY AND PRE-SCHOOL ON 2.93 ACRES WITHIN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (VL) ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE. (APN 922-170-003) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On May 18, 2015, Jack Lanphere filed Planning Application No. PA15- 0764 a Conditional Use Permit, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on November 4, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application Nos. PA15-0764, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Conditional Use Permit (Development Code Section 17.04.010.E) A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; Religious institutions, as conditioned, are an allowable use within the Very Low Density Residential (VL) zone. Therefore the use will be consistent with the General Plan for Temecula as well as the requirements for State law and other Ordinances of the City. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The application will allow for a religious institution to be constructed at this location. The site will remain adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code as required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; As conditioned, the project will meet all requirements of the Development Code and General Plan which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be 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. E. That the decision to conditionally approve or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be 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. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects); The project meets all General Plan and Zoning policies and regulations and is located within City limits on a site of no more than five acres. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site is also surrounded by development and is able to be serviced by all required utilities and public services. The project is not anticipated to result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA15-0764, a Conditional Use Permit for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction and operation of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre-school on 2.93 acres within the Very Low Residential (VL) zone, and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue. (APN 922-170-003), subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of November, 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA15-0764 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Quimby Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements PL -1. Hope Lutheran Church: a Conditional Use Permit for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction and operation of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre-school on 2.93 acres within the Very Low Residential (VL) zone. The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue. 922-170-003 Commercial N/A (Non -Profit 501c3 - Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.06.030B) Service (Only the sanctuary square footage is exempt: House of Worship - Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.08.040.F.9) N/A (Non -Residential) November 4, 2015 November 4, 2017 Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. PL -2. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL -3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. PL -4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. PL -5. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated March 30, 2015, on file with the Planning Division, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. PL -6. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. PL -7. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in -lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. PL -8. Church Services. Service hours for the Hope Lutheran Church are limited to Sunday mornings between 7:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. PL -9. Church Office Hours. Office hours for Hope Lutheran Church are limited to Monday thru Thursday between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. PL -10. Preschool Calendar. The Hope Lutheran Church preschool shall be limited to a regular school year calendar (closed during summer and all holidays). PL -11. Preschool Hours of Operation. Hours of operation for the Hope Lutheran Church preschool shall be limited to Monday thru Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. PL -12. Preschool Pick -Up and Drop -Off Hours. Vehicular traffic for the picking -up and dropping -off of children for the Hope Lutheran Church preschool shall be limited to 30 -minutes prior to, and after, regular school hours. PL -13. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS pncl�edin�h nk. ko build and (,row raikh March 30, 2015 HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH Anchored in Christ ... to Build and Grow Faith 32819 Temecula Parkway, Suite B, Temecula, CA 92592-9676 Office: 951-676-6262 Preschool: 951-694-3607 www.hopetemecula.org staff@hopetemecula.org Dept. of Community Development City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Statement of Operations LOT 9, TR 3552, Recorded in MB 56/Pages 63-66, Records of Riverside County Lutheran Church is a non-profit organization that includes church offices, worship services and a church preschool. Worship services are offered Sunday mornings at 8 and 10:15 am and occasional evenings. Church office hours are Monday to Thursday 8:30 am to 4 pm. The church preschool, Hope Children's Center, is open Monday to Friday 9 am to 2 pm late August to early June. Sincerely, Sandra L. Bentz Pastor 1511% The Rev. Sandra L. Bentz, Pastor Shirley J. Lee, Minister of Family Life, AIM Constance Mithelman, Youth Ministry Leader NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: PA 15-0763/0764 Jack Lanphere A Conditional Use Permit with a Development Plan for Hope Lutheran Church to allow for the construction and operation of a 15,000 square foot sanctuary and pre- school on 2.93 acres. The site is located at 29141 Vallejo Avenue on APN 922- 170-003 In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15332, Class 32 In -Fill Development Projects) James Atkins, (951) 240-4206 City of Temecula, Council Chambers November 4, 2015 6:00 p.m. 1\ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ WESTERN B YPASS \ \ 375 750 1,500 \ \ Feet The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.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 — www.cityoftemecula.orq — 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 Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. DATE OF MEETING: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 2015 Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Eric Jones, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA15-0997, a Major Modification to the Vail Ranch Historic Site for historical consistency to the site plan and exterior elevations of the buildings and an increase of square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn. All uses to remain commercial, retail, and restaurant. The project is located at 32115 Temecula Parkway. Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval Categorically Exempt Section15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio: Gerald Tessier, on Behalf of Vail Headquarters LLC Highway Tourist (HT) Historic Commercial (A) Vail Ranch Historic Site / Highway Tourist Existing Commercial / Highway Tourist Temecula Creek / Open Space Existing Commercial / Highway Tourist Red Hawk Parkway, Existing Commercial / Community Commercial Existinq/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required 3.9 Acres 20,000 Square Feet N/A N/A X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx Landscape Area/Coverage: N/A N/A Parking Required/Provided: N/A N/A BACKGROUND SUMMARY On May 7, 2008, the Planning Commission approved Planning Applications PA07-0239, PA07- 0240, and PA08-0021, a Development Plan, Certificate of Historic Appropriateness and Sign Program for the restoration of the historic Vail Ranch Headquarters Complex. These applications allowed for the re -use of six historic structures totaling 13,390 square feet and 13,738 square feet of historically appropriate new construction for retail/office, restaurant and museum display uses on four acres within the Vail Ranch Specific Plan. On September 21, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application PA11-0033, a Major Modification Application to allow the Vail Ranch Headquarters to create a phasing plan and make additional project revisions consisting of landscape and building modifications. On July 6, 2015, Jerry Tessier, on behalf of Vail Headquarters, submitted Planning Application PA15-0997, a Major Modification. This application will allow exterior elevation changes for seven structures as well as site plan revisions. An increase to the square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn is also proposed. On September 14, 2015, staff presented the project to the Old Town Local Review Board for review. The Board expressed satisfaction with the project as a whole and unanimously recommended that the Planning Commission approve PA15-0997. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS The project proposes a variety of revisions to the exterior elevations of nearly all structures on- site. These revisions are the result of construction crews discovering original materials, colors and structural designs as they work on the site. Each revision has been approved by the Vail Ranch Restoration Association (VaRRA) and will ensure the historical accuracy of the site. Minor revisions to the site plan have also been proposed. Revisions for each structure and the site plan are provided below: Architecture Wolfe Store: 1. Install a new door to match the existing historic door on the west elevation (approved in previous minor modification). 2. Installation of new wood service/delivery ramp on the west facade leading to a new rear delivery door location. The ramp and railing will match the ramp and railing on north elevation (tenant requirement). X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx 3. A change from 4 rail to 3 rail wood fencing around the exterior patio. The railing will be 36 inches high. 4. A minor reconfiguration of the fence line on the east and west ends of the fencing. The new configuration is designed to line up better with the path of travel from the site entrances. 5. A grade modification will no longer require the additional steps off the existing porch. These steps will be removed from the plan. 6. The stoops off the south facade historic "hotel" doors are eliminated and a single "non- functional" step is in its location. The applicant believes that a stoop would not have existed historically due to the low hanging roof. Cookhouse (Historic): 7. Remove one window on the north facade of the main cookhouse and replace it with one wood door designed to match the front entry replacement doors. The applicant has indicated that this is a tenant requirement for direct access between the dining room and patio. 8. A minor grade modification will no longer necessitate an accessible ramp and railing at the front entrance. The front entry porch will now be at grade and fully accessible from the adjacent walkway. 9. Reconfiguration of the fence line of the outdoor patio to now wrap around the north-east corner of the main cookhouse and extend to the entry. 10. A new cedar deck in the center of the outdoor patio will be added to cover and protect the exposed root ball of the mature tree. 11. A new picket fence and fence line will be added to create a small retail patio on the south-east corner of the main cookhouse just south of the main entry. This configuration approximates location of the original picket fence. 12. Roofing material of the historic "schoolhouse" section will now be wood shingles instead of corrugated metal. The applicant has indicated that photo evidence demonstrated shingles were the original roofing material. 13. Siding material of the historic "schoolhouse" will now be vertical instead of horizontal. This will replicate the vertical wood 12" board and batten siding. The applicant has indicated that upon stucco removal, the original siding was discovered to be vertical. Cookhouse (New Addition): 14. Relocate the rear service door and change it to a double door five-foot. The applicant has stated that a tenant requested this revision to accommodate deliveries. 15. Modify the rear ramp on the west elevation to utilize a 1:20 ratio slope to eliminate the need for hand railings. A 1" x 12" board and batten facing on the ramp will extend a minimum of four inches above the ramp surface for foot rail. 16. Relocate windows on west and south facades for improved symmetry. X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx 17. Eliminate the doors and windows into common utility rooms on the north facade. Two small utility lean-to closets with 28 inch wood doors (with siding to match the north facade) to accommodate hot water and fire riser will also be installed. 18. Install painted, vertical wood 12" board and batten siding instead of stucco on all facades of addition. Siding will be painted to match main cookhouse. Bunkhouse (Historic): 19. Change the entry ramp to utilize a 1:20 ratio slope so that a hand railing is no longer necessary. The ramp will be widened to approximately 14 feet and the entry stairs will be eliminated. The porch to the west will be extended. 20. A minor reconfiguration of the fence line for the patio picket fence. 21. Add a new accessible 1:20 ratio slope wood ramp to the western entry door to Bunkhouse. Extend the porch 5 feet west and south almost to south-west corner of building in order to serve as a viewing platform for the relocated historic display area. The applicant has stated that the bunkhouse will become two separate retail units because a second accessible entrance is required. A better viewing angle, especially for children, is desired for the historic displays. The relocated display allows VARRA (Vail Ranch Restoration Association) to stage the display with two separate furniture arrangements from different time periods. 22. Install 6 inch horizontal painted redwood siding instead of stucco on all exterior elevations to match the original siding. This original siding was discovered upon stucco removal. 23. Install white canvas cover on the front entry porch trellis. This will serve as a shade and rain cover for the entry way. The applicant has stated that canvas is an appropriate material that differentiates from the historic corrugated metal roofing. Bunkhouse (New Addition): 24. Install painted vertical wood 12" board and batten siding instead of stucco on all facades of addition. Paint will match the main cookhouse. 25. Relocated the rear the service door and change it to a double five-foot door. The applicant has stated that this change is necessary for tenants to accept deliveries. 26. Relocate the windows on west and south facades (improved symmetry). 27. Relocate the restroom entry doors on the east facade. This will accommodate a revised interior layout for restrooms that are accessible from exterior to serve as common restrooms during special events. 28. Expand the exterior wood deck. This will accommodate the entrances into the reconfigured restrooms. 29. Eliminate the exit stair from the exterior wood deck. A new accessible pathway at grade will now egress the deck. X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx 30. Change the single utility room door on the south facade to a 6 foot double -door and single 28 inch door. This revision is designed to accommodate the fire riser, electrical, fire alarm, and hot water tank. 31. Add an additional 6 foot opening passageway between the historic and new addition and relocate the current passageway. The applicant has indicated that this revision enables the subdivision of the bunkhouse into separate leasable units. Machine Barn: 32. Modify operable storefront door type on the east, north, and west facades. The refurbished sliding doors will still be operable over the storefronts. 33. Relocate the barn entry doors on the south elevation into the Display Room to the west facade. This enables stagecoach and other implements to be rolled in and out of display area). Elimination of the two proposed windows in that location is also proposed. 34. Eliminate the sliding metal door on the east facade of the Display Room and replace it with board and batten siding painted to match the structure. 35. Change window set on east facade to storefront window style to match other storefronts. 36. Eliminate the exit door on the west elevation. 37. Maintain the screens in the sliding doors instead of the proposed glazing. Sliding doors will be operable. 38. Eliminate the integral window openings on the north facade sliding door in favor of a solid sliding board and batten barn door similar to other barn doors of Machine Barn. 39. Remove the existing small window on the west facade of the Machine Barn office and install two new double pane windows to match the other windows of Machine Barn office. A historical photo showed these two windows were original to the building. New Commercial Structure: 40. Increase the ground floor square footage of the addition by 325 square feet by expanding the footprint approximately five feet to the north and five feet to the east. The second floor will expand by the same square footage. 41. Eliminate landing from 2nd floor exterior staircase. 42. Add new doors on north facade and add one additional window to match on second floor. Eliminate two windows on the first floor north facade. 43. Remove all second floor windows from the south elevation in order to accommodate the installation of an exterior canvas awning along the length of the addition in order to cover the wood deck. 44. Add an additional pedestrian door on the east facade ground floor to service the bar and food preparation area. X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx Caretaker Building: 45. Eliminate the current concrete landing and steps and install a wraparound porch with 2" cedar with random width decking and wood stairs with wood hand rails. 46. Remove and cut to door length the second window opening into an expanded display room and install a refurbished salvaged wood door. Install 2" cedar random width decking and wood stairs with wood hand rails. 47. Remove sprinkler riser room doors from the south elevation. 48. Remove the stucco and install salvaged 6 -inch painted redwood siding to match original color in the porch section of the east facade. The applicant has learned that the front section of the Caretaker building was originally redwood siding. 49. Remove the sleeping porch window frames and slab entry door in order to expose the original porch, original entry door, and east elevation windows. 50. Change paint color for trim wood to a green color in keeping with the original discovered paint color. Water Building: No changes are proposed. New Retail Building: 51. Relocate 2nd floor rear entry stair to south-east corner to wrap around the building corner. 52. Install one additional storefront bay on the south facade. 53. Remove the electrical and utility rooms from the east facade. 54. Add an elevator tower and lobby for the elevator. 55. Add an exterior deck on the south-east corner of the second floor. 56. Relocate the 2nd exit for the second floor to the east facade in place of one of the east facing windows. 57. Change the paint color from the originally approved semi -transparent Stain Cordovan Brown/Cabot Stain to Ficus Green from Sherwin Williams. The applicant has also proposed several changes to the originally approved colors and materials for the project. The applicant has indicated that these changes are necessary in order to keep the historic character of the project site. A table is attached that illustrates each color and material for the structures. Site Plan Several revisions are proposed to the site plan as part of Planning Application PA15-0997. These revisions include: 58. Minor modification to pathways throughout the site. X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx 59. Minor modifications to planting areas to accommodate pathway modifications and to accommodate the proposed farmer's and craft market booth layout. 60. Installation of two wood benches with granite bases on east and west side of water tower. 61. Change the location of all of the proposed farm implements. The attached photos are actual photos of the proposed farm implements. 62. Relocate the granite monument further south adjacent to the bunkhouse entry trellis. 63. Installation of a blacksmith pavilion shed at the north east corner of the stagecoach and fire lane intersection. 64. Installation of a 24 foot radius circular horse corral surrounded by a 4 -rail wood fence, approximately 48 inches tall, on the southwest corner of the project site. 65. Installation of 2 parking spaces to the west of the Bunkhouse addition to facilitate convenience for customer loading. The surface will be made up of decomposed granite with wood wheel stops and perimeter curbing. 66. Installation of raised planted beds to the north of the trash enclosure for the planting of edible gardens to support the on-site restaurants. In 2011, a major modification application was approved (Planning Application Number PA11-033) which established a phasing plan with certain improvements to be deferred until Phase 2. The following site items are proposed for elimination from the Phase 2 site plan as part of PA15-0997. 67. Wood 3 -rail split fencing around the entire perimeter, including the split rail gating. 68. Trash enclosure on east end. 69. Two wood trellises with bus stop benches. 70. Installation of 2 emblems in front sidewalk. 71. The second entrance gateway at the south end of the stage coach path. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U -T San Diego on October 24, 2004 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects). The project for the restoration of the historic Vail Ranch Headquarters Complex is consistent with the Highway Tourist land use designation. The General Plan Highway Tourist designation includes retail, office and restaurant uses. The project is consistent with all applicable General X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx Plan policies and with all applicable zoning designation regulations and standards contained within the Vail Ranch Specific Plan and the Development Code including the development standards within the Highway Tourist zoning district and all applicable requirements for lot coverage, building setbacks, floor area ratio, landscape requirements and parking requirements for projects in the Highway Tourist zone. FINDINGS Modification (Section 17.05.030.E) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The application will allow for the modification of the site plan and structures for a previously approved project. The allowable uses for the project site will remain unchanged as part of this application. Therefore, the uses will remain in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed in order to provide compliance with the Development, Building, and Fire Codes. These codes contain provisions that will ensure for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. No negative impacts to the public health, safety, or general welfare are anticipated. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Letter of Support from Vail Ranch Restoration Association Notice of Public Hearing X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\STAFF REPOR1.docx VICINITY MAP PLAN REDUCTIONS VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEMECULA, CA 92592 NOTES: 1. ALL DESIGN COMPONENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH APPNCABIE PROVOIONS OF THE 2013 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING. PLUMBING. AND MECHANICAL CODES AND ELECTRICAL CODE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TIRE 24 ENERGY AND D0ABLED ACCESS REGULATIONS AND THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 2 SEPARATELY METERED PANEL WILL BE REQUIRED FOR FIRE ALARM EQUIPMENT AND/ OR LANDSCAPING AND SUE LIGHTING. 3. OCCUPANCY: M, A-2, B, S-2 TYPE V.N CONSTRUCTION Client: VAIL HEADQUARTERS LLC 281 S. Thomas Street, Ste. 504 Pomona, CA 91766 Contact: Gerald Tessier 909-629-5359 Fax: 909-623-2082 Architect: JAG ARCHITECTS 3745 Long Beach Blvd. Suite 230 Los Angeles, CA 90807 Contact: Dick Gee 213-620-0800 Extension 101 Fox: 213-620-0755 1 Civil Engineer: RBF Consulting 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 100 Temecula. CA 92591-6022 Contact: William 0. Keller 951-676-8042 Fox: 951-676-7240 Landscape JPBLA, Inc. Architect: 4403 Manchester Ave, Suite 201 Encinitas, CA 92024 Contact: James P. Benedetti 760-479-0644 Fax: 760-479-0645 BBOdOECDBe2 AO0 COViR SHEET AOI PARKING LOT PLAN 00.1 .1 SITE PLAN p.00 41 1 - ROI STORP A1-2.1 FLOOR PLAN WOLF STONE BUILDING 91 A1-2.2 ROOF PLAN WOLF STORE BUILDING 91 Al -3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING /1 Al -32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING /1 Al -33 SECTIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING 11 d 141 8 2 - nag rlNrs A2-2.1 FLOOR PLAN COOK HOUSE BUILDING /2 A2-22 ROOF PLAN COOK HOUSE BUILDING /2 A2-31 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS COOK HOUSE BUILDING /2 A2-32 EXTER1OR ELEVATIONS COOK HOUSE BUILDING 92 A2-33 SECTIONS COOK MOUSE BUILDING /2 b DRI A3- b.INW11OY. A3-21 FLOOR PLAN BUNK HOUSE BUILDING /3 A3-22 RmF 6400 Bu4L POSE 54/0800 93 74-11 DRUM d£FATC.0 euwl NOUY 01.0514 93 A3-3.2 EXTERIOR 4<0003ION5 BUNK HOUSE BOLDING /L3 43-3.3 SECTIONS BUNK HOUSE BUILDING 93 04-2.1 ANSI FLOOR PLAN 2901.10 BMA IWr40w0 /0 NE -LE DECa8D F1D05 PURI 4000!4 BARK KUOv/O IM 64-23 1100E 10-41 11408181 80101 82116080 /1 04-33 ExEIRKIR ELEVADOS 050084 11841 61w2 /4 04-3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MACHINE BARN BUILD /4 Al -33 540141. kuKSKM BA7a. BUA.D. M woe. Y s - D 00 FNM! sam86 A5-21 FLOOR PLAN CARETAKER BUILDING /5 0-2-2 8000 Rap 58LTAR{R !1:10097 95 A5-3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CARETAKER BUILDING 95 A5-3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CARETAKER BUILDING /5 03-3-3 9ECLIC1 CAREE841Ee OADVO3 F7 P11[: 4AIfo - rA C 08 14 A6-21 FLOOR PLAN 0 ROOF WATER 6040190 /0 06-3.1 EXTERIOR OD/AEONS & SECTIONS WATER BUILDING /6 Y 60` Y 7 - .105x A7-21 FIRST FLOOR PLAN RETAIL BUILDING /7 07-2 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN RETAIL BUILDING /7 A7-2.3 ROOF PLAN RETAIL BIDDING 97 A7-3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RETAIL BUILDING /7 81-5.2 4518280 (Lrv25051 AE1AO, 041110*5 /7 A7-3.3 SECTOR RETAIL BUILDING /7 4QLOR10 FI FVAllnN1 AB -3I COLOR E1EVA10N5 - BUILDING 9 1 & 2 Ae-3.2 COLOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING / 3 S 4 08-33 COLOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING / 5 & B 013-10 COLOR ELEVATIONS -- BUILDING / 7 OETGLLS A9-1.1 TYPICAL DETAILS h PHOTOGRAPHS A9-21 PLAN a EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - TRASH ENCLOSURE 14N0SCAPE LC -1-12 LANDSCAPE PLAN GOAL C-1 141E PLAN C-3 ADA PATH OF TRAVEL VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES PROJECT DIRECTORY DRAWING INDEX JAG RCHI TECIS INC 110L81B.NYLC 10 RLI LKpl.arl CP1818I Anne 91011804180 181181141204585 mJrrhran m.apaaxa pan elt VAIL HEADQUARTERS HMC O,. 011 9,11621108 COMIYSLCN RDYEW walla, 4534 tee Iv 1011114. 51/06,17 !x< Ryifna 41L2i/82 KAP Ap+Arr1.L 14/%/11 wilt I0.1YAIX4 F:BWTAL PROJECT iNfORiALTIoN Jos MEM AILwAR. xx ONE, OTOAN. C.CFED EV 01.716411 CP SPELT NAPE • COVER SHEET A0.0 WOLF STORE ROAD LOADAG 10. AREA SUMMARY TABLE BUILDING EXISTING S.F. NEW ADDITION SF. APPROXI TOTAL S.F. 1. WOLF STORE 1.572SIF - 1,572 S.F. 2 COOK HOUSE 3,30351E 1,9335.F 5,236SF 3 BUNKHOUSE 2.827 SiF 1.928 SF. 4,7555E 4 MACHINE BARN 3,622 SIF 1.1075F 4.7295F 5. CARETAKER 1,607 51F • 1,607 SF. 7. NEW RETAIL BLDG. - 11132 S.F, 8,132S F. TOTALS: 12,931, .F 13,100 SF 26,0315E SITE PLAN ML JAG RCHI TECIS INC vel.rce.nmxmo Lang M A.CpFW mow (913111041.110 Fw 1115.204755 .wpF.ei.ww 4w411.1* ..mm OAVILLOIACA .0A CAI ILILL VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEMECUACA _ WAD -44u- KA ....WA OMASPM PEMFIA .Mef07 AIM IVA OW SWAMI - 1111001 OJV vvpe�.IPN,x grat k Re IVI BINSl✓r c.IxrION � ADM 001.1 1w run[: Val Pon. NADLI.Db. REM. CcR IU AWN.Y: xEcuP.r. AAL2 WAND. amrxcr or f P..l NAY. • MAYA" SITE PLAN AO -1.1 • �NsFN...o%iW coon Mw�uwaca ,.s.aw .�.aeefw..eraw BUDDING O WOIF MORE maavefna.so..m irk FGTOR COP AY 1 eit • n.ppN,Y..rn.ewGiha tr.. Mink BUILDING NO. 1 - WOLF STORE FLOOR PLAN sLie N .1'A C8) l JAG RCN IT ECT5 INC 51110..6..a.81aa` !CO eat OA i2,0/ M R1wR&ano wiewciiimn MWlw�f.m-^ ArreCO parr=ser VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEKNU.CA • a:rmg. vuivr Ar.leiw� .RM(, Meiji alrtIMP ma ri.1,eJk 11/OVO> G/ aEJ.rtn1A. 61.3. cLr RCF�rrlw aa/aa/lr M. Wig.. 1R11ralw T.,aa�rF 1.�. •4F.4 mitmi Ina.w,l,. .1]..... ofrpn iiii ... •= rf• FLOOR PLAN WOLF STORE BUILDING 11 A1-2.1 e -- M.21.1•1•8•1 N NOW 1M1lN4 �wvwi. oor.Wx 1 IRO A N BUILDING NO. 1 - WOLF STORE ROOF PLAN 1� B !/r•ry JAG CHI IEC1$ INC We long Br tlhid%.NN lnp...CAION/ IM.: P1111121.116 fa(21401 O/Y oNTFOOx1NNa.m INPNORI•Oilark. 44444 OALF paw VAIL HEADQUARTERS MAMMA. p114/10, MK I WPIC WAPPPON 0p/K5a Meg tall YN' f1lFN/Y. vr/a/pfi nr xI•04g111v� OfMi I} x4pL r+oo . Or NC r ixunA rION JIM NM KY p.._ VN ltwrn w.4- rr 'ArmAMEOLINAdxa OI OAMOWS DRAWN II: NNP 8K311 $1 Or/OO ROOF PLAN WOLF STORE BUILDING #1 A 1-2.2 wIut me i iailniiuiii e IIUa i r r ui uIIIiiin .tl111I11illjllll11t1r1i11111u11111111I>I11111I11111111 �ulrinu�uxEriuglriouli iamisnarisnlrluus WEST ELEVATION (REAR) - WOLF STORE r cI4-Qa .nw.. 011 .vw cue.emecm 1 11111INIEUMUOitifillaillUll.M. 111111; 111 1111111111 IM 1111001 rlIEilfkE 1r iEE1rIR!1rIOEtr1l•IF. a lllii+f11fll11IJJYa• RaLMIMAMMU![li LIOramIng • 2011 MC !CAL EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) - WOLF STORE SCALE WI, 4..14) JAG RCNITECTS i�• NC1..B..0l1411• cB lery. 3}6X100 fiw.. p119}11216111100.slawmo Fs RulrmBlSf AtTeCO pnlEan • VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEAK -MA CA ev.eno MU LP ..P CS{ + KW. 5I12.107 a'E.S MN Ru ae 1rTw 224aC r.n 1rs.r.roc CLAY/01 Or Kt rcr W010,1. suis YVJfY.A . pBW1K 4101.11 W.NB� .1...a PATU MAWN MCAPPS 011.0.4 0YOU EXTERIOR ' ELEVATIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING #1 Al -3.1 II 11 11 1111 1 i 1i 1 11 1 !1I! 1 1 1 l I; 1 111111111111E•11[`'1111 11111111!1Iid1111111I111111111111111111111111111!111#I11111111111111E111111111111 1111111 1111111III!U P11111il 111111111111111i111�111111111111111E11 11111 111111'1111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 1111!11111111 .•1•m• 1111111111 111111111 111111111ili11111111 11111 11 1111111111111[III 11!lllun111111111111111111 1/1111111 wlmu111 111111111 1111111 1 lI 1111111111111 11111111111111111111111 11±1111111 111111.11111i111111111111111141 111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1 111411•1111/11111111i111111111111 IM111111i1 11111 11111111111I 11111111111111111111 1/111111 1 11 1111111 111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111MIi11111111111111 1111 11111 11111 11111111111111111!1111111111111 11111111 I11I1!II1111111111 111111111111 11111 1 11/11111 ,111INII 1111111111111111111 1,111 1111 11 11111111 11111111U1111111111111111111 1111 11 11111111111 i1I1111I111111111 l 11iIii 11i111111111111gil11111!111111111111111{11111111111111111111111111111!!1111I111111111111111111111111111111'1111111111111111111 111 » lam 1E1�. l,ul1./4•1 lllv.—l-•a•i+••al l� R _ A----111all li 'J m -1 "gyWeb.. 11.9:11M1101.1.3, �.... ... Rse.a.f+men NORTH ELEVATION - WOLF STORE .1.1.1•11.0.13.10+.1•34.4. 1111J1111111Ui Illllllf 111NI1111i111111i11111111±11111iiiiii iIIIIIIlllillll lillt111 11111111111111lll1111111[11111• mem 11111111111111111I11111111111I111 ail 11i11111111111111 ill i 111 111111111111 Ism I l I II II pima 1 11 11111111111111 11i ll11111111I 111111 III 1/111111/ 111111111111111111111111111 111II1i ill/111111 1II 111111111 Iaim I111111111111111 111111r11II11I1111111I11111 1/111111 11111 1111111111111 11 I11I11111I1I1111111 1111!1111111 ■11111111wui IlIIIIIL !'pial"'!!?1 1111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111 111.11111110111111111 MIAS 11111111/1 Nil 101111111101,11111111 11 Hill 1/011111i1111111 11111111111 111111111, 11111 111111 1111 111 111E1111A MIS 11111111 111 1r1 11111 11111111111 11111111111111111111111111/1[11 111 1 11 1111111! 1111 IIIMimi 11 imam llel 11111111111 III•I•I111iII 1111111 min 1!CH ii111411111 lil11111111 Jllll 11111i1111i1111 it 11111111111111111111111111 11101 11 11111 1I31 1111II111111I11.1lion 1111111111111 11111111/ 1111 till ISMS !II II I II I MEI 1Amla•111111111111111i1I111111111111I1111111111111111111N11111111111111 I�1��linimi�l mial� �f/1��$ar•111111111111i 1 REM. 1.04ffif dQ 1111 C017.. '.• 1010w.. e'.wwow• a® SOUTH ELEVATION - WOLF STORE 5.12d yr, 1.•T JAG RCNITECr5 I -'•C 1re-.cA GOWN Flow QUII)➢ONO F•.pnlcams VAIL HEADQUARTERS rE1.cuu, rn 11nlJV N • anon. rw ..Ro.c•+ro• mop.- PriAtt..MC..a,. IM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING 01 Al -3.2 JAG RCHITECIS INC 11.1,03a101....11911 I.MSa4F0001 Pim 1+73}4maN6 For R1319G0156 m100•d ti m ami MEP VAIL HEADQUARTERS cWu541. 1141601 grmror mrt For cw SAWN. .173+,0+ o. ayuw�Fcr 47ti10/04 Cyr --- o6tlN+P NW.euil,. 1011 NAME 1w�wWu.+ OEM. IV M19. SECTIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING #1 Al -3.3 REIM1 OEM f.+4eu.Gat4 II 1 44.o011,32,..seW0n. � ¢ w r2}. SECTION - WOLF STORE I,S•+•u• t , au.. 9 1 1 [ 1 1 [ r. [ 1 1 tl 1 f EERi i I A 1 1 k R k @ II SECTION - WOLF STORE 11.4L0 JAG RCHITECIS INC 11.1,03a101....11911 I.MSa4F0001 Pim 1+73}4maN6 For R1319G0156 m100•d ti m ami MEP VAIL HEADQUARTERS cWu541. 1141601 grmror mrt For cw SAWN. .173+,0+ o. ayuw�Fcr 47ti10/04 Cyr --- o6tlN+P NW.euil,. 1011 NAME 1w�wWu.+ OEM. IV M19. SECTIONS WOLF STORE BUILDING #1 Al -3.3 BPPIY r .a: pay. dem:MEMO. wru p13R00E00011.nR`. VIM BUILDING O caa HOusE WIPRNPEm PENA •Innin ad. nww�rn nine nvinnin mann 0 MINS nmom nRrwasrR POIP Pw WIPP.woR Anglin E ,WWROR.Ru11010J 3 E IGWE BUILDING NO. 2 - COOK HOUSE FLOOR PLAN JAG - VPI . ate. uiM.-r• NAY a Up 61.1.10 DIVPLOPPS PPOJEcir VAIL HEADQUARTERS MECUM. McWM stun POR kes*� COMMON inv. 21p:63, n0ur FM MP su®RrtR. tl_ 0.+ t'A010.4 aorrtm ar pR1]alt• rXea mcaFWCi Lj9Ww& JO. VOIROD. 1101. nal non.: PRAWN n. cNKND nOTIOG 0 0 II SP"r NA" NUNRrR FLOOR PLAN COOK HOUSE BUILDING #2 A2-2.1 G 4. 4 BUILDING NO. 2 - COOK HOUSE ROOF PLAN 1 SLAIL Ki25 3 I4'=1'Y JAG RCHIIECIS INC 1741laaf..lacIN i9U l.pGa ..10.1117 P.m 1213)1664414IcSONO hr.12u516aW54 m•JP4itYraa Pew VAIL HEADQUARTERS [!3lG+V. sa 50001, a461..t Nal .4rwc cva..xor 4.'w. •*nlM s nrr.Yw. mn.r4. a. apu.4tFw Wav5...NR .crrs 1,r. rao.oLcr roo. JoNAME :IT _6Nf auwwc..v 4bbW3 CMCR44Y O4 G ROOF PLAN COOK HOUSE BUILDING #2 A2-2.2 JAG RCh9 rEC15 INC NR Una 4r11Ml..Itl0 PF1113)401100 FL. 1111140415S e1„1yanl�m.m„ PROJCCI 111.1.1, VAIL HEADQUARTERS nlreau an oinvo.e fgagglY C... Realm e9 rxerns. LLow .4"1. I. I ..0E a .aaaya EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS COOK HOUSE BUILDING #2 A2-3.1 f --- iw,w>uuww.=. COMKAIBIAIK POO. IM 1 II 1 Illilllltl111h� I Milli M111•11119•111311 Mali 1111111 tuIutiiiu MI 111 1/111101111111.11111411111M"," 'V1U111111111111ii11U11 IIIINillllllll!11'" 4511i111i11I!IllltIL Irr!11`1•111*11"-'11111111111111 i€111NI11!1Y '+111111!11g 11 -^41E11111 ill i 1 ■IiUi ft dill �P11� 10 �1 LI irrnf rr-rt�r _ Own - LW 1tiw�..iwae..0u� XI.W.I -MK 1-.-:..n • ...W. .i.icvux..rc WEST ELEVATION - COOK HOUSE''''' [�, moll iw0,,wa� uUI1U1I Eadth1i ]1riga IA1uMWl11 IW1IRUI1I•flu1 111111 1m11111111U111111§ 1I111111#11It•1i111111I111 111/11111 'Minim 1Bill 11111. 11III1I 111•111111,1111811.1111i1111111 1111111 1111 Illi 1011111111U 11111111IIN 1111 1 Iri 111111111111•11!11/11111 111111111 Illtill I�I> ," ....[1.IIs1iii.....1P........ iw�....11.1.1i1:....11 INIO�iRil1 LL a -I; a pe ea.e � sig Vire pi! w 1' C �..ri T a 111 is i �lili i�i if kq..e f- ... � : .'.. it. � ��.,G��.I�...... II id, Ii ilii 1h ill' L. , c- FL wn .. .4'4....K P. .M acw.WL i.VN OMNI... EAST ELEVATION - COOK HOUSE'-'dLW.. , �4l JAG RCh9 rEC15 INC NR Una 4r11Ml..Itl0 PF1113)401100 FL. 1111140415S e1„1yanl�m.m„ PROJCCI 111.1.1, VAIL HEADQUARTERS nlreau an oinvo.e fgagglY C... Realm e9 rxerns. LLow .4"1. I. I ..0E a .aaaya EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS COOK HOUSE BUILDING #2 A2-3.1 p,OpW'w%MM. ==2,22"Gxxww M — �1 ON rom:1"I' 1a acrmwowilw 7f111A:11IS111101011 �1il llf�lllEIl1I1111111v� "411111I 1 q 111111rI1 kR111111111r1111111 nlrl�nllrullrrlrr `111imilli111Pr11111IU �11111nuunullrulluullnlnu ulnlrsnsru11111n€= IIIIII1 11 X11 1111• II1II 1111- 1nr= 4r111111f111Nt11111.111111111111 !:;:.1111111.11111t11001410111111111111111111 MN L.^ J 1111 1I f iII N . . d ! 1 s _ i1ii Itl I i i1III '.' ■l 11 tI�j[]e lli 11 I ■ . " , G.O KG o.9wRlRld ` LTA. �,�. �. Maa w. Iwl,;rIw— v.. 1,..t NORTH ELEVATION - COOK HOUSE vr. I4 1,2 ~ • •ItIUIu11ll111rk11111N set Ws 1 ik IIr11111t11"f P'Ircc'I '- wp,Lu ac>• r"1111111111111.1111112111111111111`• vI1rP1111 1•111111.V !f 1. II • SOUTH ELEVATION - COOK HOUSEe- o 11,� 4, JAG RCHI IECTS+�. VE W.Rw111.4ICO lery&.d,G1010 Rw.:Q1100)4100 Gal213T000715 VAIL HEADQUARTERS MECUM CA R 21.010, 'F— .109.107 ma,a ca #0 "rnenG ca 1a..w1. N/711,* 4W HIIYF•In 9.0acw •w .wo•�a A..Icu 1.4 .01.4411 401114/ .4.14.44 011444 POW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS COOK HOUSE BUILDING #2 A2-3.2 d••nyirw slRarar6 SECTION - COOK HOUSE JAG RCHIIECIS INC NC Lana BashE l TM4 Wog laffich...10MN Mw•:I2n03001oo n..RnlmarS6 •1Y1t ort• OCI R ••ri VAIL HEADQUARTERS 1E>raw CN VISIOM q/WCf1 .51% ✓OI NC.C.0 mr.T�n. rrer WW2,' 041 rp• un GIE AT,• a► MAMMA. /IAN/+6 NUM AW,Calti6N WOW. X11• Waal IY..••MI nDiaat _1.i r Shy .X.2.0111 w n tll SECTION COOK HOUSE BUILDING #2 A2-3.3 JAG RCHITECIS INC ]Ia LnG B..a mSM.113B .13..1.10107 Phan 1101 gWINNO1l56 r.BPyO✓,gt.m p..i.ptliMlh mnARMCO pgeil�rl VAIL HEADOUARTERS 1DIECLNACA ev•9NM WM TT..n13re PPNPIV:P. 11Y1P1 1I1tl(r PBT Maio ersnu BS 6LB` �.r.fL4 61!73115 ...Or .eftrCu%w YSIK PROJECT exrcIFthi•liOri 11,11.11 A1.2.14,42lawa 1101 DAIL WNIY i! [1.14111 11 W1aC 1NLIT •AML N NUMBER FLOOR PLAN BUNKHOUSE BUILDING #3 A3-2.1 WO 1.,16'!1 a 1.,.....a -1 1i D wq.w.BNR o TT ENTRY c PORCH BUILDING O3 illi MUSE a \\,_ ;LI Xkran 1 • ■ HISTORIC II DISPLAY ^P 4� n WO.. +on Ihr R- ENTRY ^ PORCH M,.....E 9 Y .-- PORCH PORCH H II I —w1.uaMI c ... 1>/is AM 1.8� BUILDING NO. 3- BUNK HOUSE FLOOR PLAN JAG RCHITECIS INC ]Ia LnG B..a mSM.113B .13..1.10107 Phan 1101 gWINNO1l56 r.BPyO✓,gt.m p..i.ptliMlh mnARMCO pgeil�rl VAIL HEADOUARTERS 1DIECLNACA ev•9NM WM TT..n13re PPNPIV:P. 11Y1P1 1I1tl(r PBT Maio ersnu BS 6LB` �.r.fL4 61!73115 ...Or .eftrCu%w YSIK PROJECT exrcIFthi•liOri 11,11.11 A1.2.14,42lawa 1101 DAIL WNIY i! [1.14111 11 W1aC 1NLIT •AML N NUMBER FLOOR PLAN BUNKHOUSE BUILDING #3 A3-2.1 �l RBu Ta aB.wvcn B.At<xnEu tbir BUILDING NO. 3 - BUNK HOUSE ROOF PLAN B` JAG RCHITECTS INC OTOS L.... Elm BAB Lm�BW WNW PMB:p1412BB00 Flo oui BAUTW !n♦rNB..timo doll pBrwnmm VAIL HEADQUARTERS T®16LHAG • eBf•DiRi ERA BON Krawc z.. w KMc+ 7AFSO.N7. OWL., E. worn. TR/WOE OW ROW1RrEA MAIM Q3 MOWER, TALWILOSPX ..OrSOCY yw�lrfAL PROJECT i off lO. NAM! VNmA� PLOME .),,:W AB.BE..M9 M1OI OAIE, UPbUB ORAVOOR GUAM SHEET MARE! HUMBER ROOF PLAN BUNK HOUSE BUILDING N3 A3-2.2 20▪ 01. O 000 Cp'JGIINLYI4[NOtI' W c -•-ID< ..2.,1022 222122 222104,221011 0222 WEST ELEVATION - BUNK HOUSE L�.o.Wv. I L w 11 _IYI 9YI�Y 1rY w 010 C r2, � fonix MK... WAD wwu,wwwm w+..�al eo.�nf, Niew:e in 0 2 10 2021 EAST ELEVATION- BUNK HOUSE ..u. V.. r� 9� JAG RChl TECIS INC The L...11 .vo W�p9n.l.CA Nal none 1111IW.OU. Fc 111 puwafifi 02.2.02212,12...10 ,2001 VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEMECUTA. 97YI�,Ga`,M.XL DCA NAMMC ignOr fargJy. !saw fpl n,.# ROxpe o YjnA. Sr 4yyllyU�ly ¢21f.lf9 401 t;R.F.iYEFE ouaane wu w A,a .*1,a 2210 [Cr 21210•22.2111011 200 IC U I 200 HAW 20111202.0 11•222222222 120 22012E2 0,20 120.2.022.2 n220202 lr wilr� La.. Al 01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUNK HOUSE BUILDING #3 A3-3.1 f�1 c4aLa'vrMEW Lara 14 • aLxL�w�nr...arao- NOTH ELEVATION - BUNK HOUSE El or KEY .6wRem6RLN • P slinOvE coWw.Mw Mr SOP 7 IL =ENO aaw:n NE L.oaaWw co ..cas& L. l P a:.aacac aa..c.aa,r. 00 5 G N i Jl�a a t- Inc. I.arc...a. SOUTH ELEVATION - BUNK HOUSE Ml omrcLWnoo n- 01.00E.K. clornl Ecu I 2i { Lvar.ri j WNI RmLgLwpi L--.rvawGr JAG RCHIIEC75 Inc 37451.ongerrilr 9a.R66 LannMLcAIWeT Pan WI3)c20.010 Fa 0131e211e166 a.aAl.TYa. w. OEvELEIvER AILPPMF) VAIL HEADQUARTERS TWECNLA G VISION CoLkO.9L SSW rw n.v+c ORIRSICn nefiew 8•/A0109 .GA W. writ, ix/rLl4r c+P .LAM+r ,1f/te% An RiNMRw 4[2-Wn. a.m. Lawrvrgry pvnw PROJECt $NIO /ION JOS a: IOeNMr: VAS.. ,Lo leF nomnie. nUWner: cxLcauer: Wra 03-1.13 01 m [NISEI NAME NOY.," EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUNK HOUSE BUILDING *3 A3-3.2 DINNG sin PitriEN 01161:10M 1 1 [ 1 SAS..1 i S l I S k l l 2011 cf.n: SECTION - BUNK HOUSE J SCALE (-4) JAG CHIIECIS INC 9IALupB.aA B1LL SIE W]B L. U. G WWI Nun pI1I120LW0 fa 12191955 �IL�tlrrl9um Oio4oaomPH♦7LOa ARMCO paelPLrea • VAIL HEADQUARTERS TBIECLYAG yulnfeIL syn mn bone Ias�o. OgEeng ORA sot SUBWRk .arias •N EITONETEr BPIflfM OLP r.,wn, PA/ X) IS ....M I[IBiBWI %AIM& PROJECT or, oRuETiox KA▪ ! HA. s.iw ne a.* uvwNn mn w 9:9mA BI SHE" HAVE • .uueeH SECTION BUNK HOUSE BUILDING #3 A3-3.3 ..00,110.0 SLOVIL T� =RCMP MORS L_w0aaa 0001 .00614304/E000 ILHna00.,<1. 2M.1..e0.a DM MIAOW .01116 OG PAHO O 0 o 0 J O 0000 0000 BUILDING 0 MACHNE BARN HIS1ORIOOISPIAY RAMP 013111.04.0 AWN. AWN 00,00 OG PATIO STAGE (PI) WOODOECY. kr } IlrhOr BUILDING NO. 4 - MACHINE BARN GROUND FLOOR PLAN =Au fBS 34-.1•C' JAG RCH II EC IS 1 N �ut.rvu.fl01I. 00 L0O Ba SCAWUl FP'.0 Izm 12125056 mowEIE e.a.m 01.0.0,1010000 .011 EIEVELOPER VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEMECWACA p011�f6F mad tog "WOW G7WWW.. W/W/W1 raw 510 wwwww 00/531M 511 reuullFlw 01,1a WA . t . uladE..x 624. noglIAlt. M.A M.A. LEE CEE0EY 111 SHIM MAI" NUMBER BUILDING NO.4 MACHINE BARN FLOOR PLAN A4-2.1 JAG RCHITECTS INC Lary anch..10101 PNn N13)10000 10 Ii1011mws •w1:id+khrem MASCO ¢neen.II VAIL HEADQUARTERS 191LLLLA. LT1,1a,04 MT ® ..1.;t 1>4Mry1 num IM OI. 11A'a/Fa N ▪ !WAWA. 5+8.0.3,0. ma NawKleas PRO.," INFORMATION O MOO NI .w w. wmlwam Paine: +zaL mum onime NAM 11. vw CHKN1011 01 RN", MAY[ • NNN1aN BUILDING NO.4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A4-2.2 - � - A C a Y i i / / \ i I rptk'1E1 1 IEEE EEE * BUILDING NO. 4 - MACHINE BARN SECOND FLOOR PLAN X y 1 JAG RCHITECTS INC Lary anch..10101 PNn N13)10000 10 Ii1011mws •w1:id+khrem MASCO ¢neen.II VAIL HEADQUARTERS 191LLLLA. LT1,1a,04 MT ® ..1.;t 1>4Mry1 num IM OI. 11A'a/Fa N ▪ !WAWA. 5+8.0.3,0. ma NawKleas PRO.," INFORMATION O MOO NI .w w. wmlwam Paine: +zaL mum onime NAM 11. vw CHKN1011 01 RN", MAY[ • NNN1aN BUILDING NO.4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A4-2.2 SLLIPk BUILDING NO. 4- MACHINE BARN ROOF PLAN E3i LIP. rt lel JAG RCNIIECTS INC NbImp WW1 l.i.B.m2GA11121 Phone NIA SWAN Fc 313)I204155 .Y..�p.ItWresom DEVELOPER ....a.. 5.1.1 VAIL HEADQUARTERS 1e3fl*CA M./20107 22 Ice WOE.. EAD. raa EVROM, NINA 20N or rii.11M 04. mrnia. w .144.n.4 76/i4 I% .w w401.Y5Jt3 f.L11.LL _*t .114.1 DiLli u:.,.w. . AL.•.1. ROOF PLAN MACHINE BARN BUILDING #4 A4-2.3 JAG FCI1I TECIS INC RAMANM Sk. mwe.Nrtu Nw1 R. 1115)61040/ Fu 11111 MASS .m.yplmtrkum .1..11..mue cam VAIL HEADQUARTERS EMECOq CA REVISION Mt Cl, COMMISSION PEM 000112p1, 6.00q. SuWAInw mn..ne [1I NFMI..141ta yu�p�re rase.mrsa®IE ,zeu I. AAR 1-11424 m: SHEET RARE It MUM." EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MACHINE BARN BUILDING #4 A4-3.1 url4 t c Iw xGEUAANUIu ua Iwl.c MAILAAN.AIA Amva+Am MIA MALI. n - - -.- -, 'r�....i r f 1 - � `� a`a —•—, ,—..—, 0 _ ,,, , ' 1..w- • ....Am m.. a.. a II r� MAMYwM9 AAA „wvP:el4 IemII LANAISMAILM.IAM FeceMxuN..I ...m. .x,.Nuuwolxcumu 1MIINA.I IC cvW IGULIvnr Mos'MPI mt. cm. AAMLIMMANA IN I.CI OI vn Al II SCALE WEST ELEVATION - MACHINE BARN U_ ,2 � k. In�� I forMS.. . � �1.F,..I I'w ww.lw M�g 'r -.-.1` � I...• OM. � � wP..w,m EMI. ` I CJI - - ��N In IISCIAI 1II EAST ELEVATION - MACHINE BARN JAG FCI1I TECIS INC RAMANM Sk. mwe.Nrtu Nw1 R. 1115)61040/ Fu 11111 MASS .m.yplmtrkum .1..11..mue cam VAIL HEADQUARTERS EMECOq CA REVISION Mt Cl, COMMISSION PEM 000112p1, 6.00q. SuWAInw mn..ne [1I NFMI..141ta yu�p�re rase.mrsa®IE ,zeu I. AAR 1-11424 m: SHEET RARE It MUM." EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MACHINE BARN BUILDING #4 A4-3.1 -I LJ 11 Li �..—.. eAuw.L. a.� O let En YLI ml SOUTH ELEVATION - MACHINE BARN • • • S • 1=1 NORTH ELEVATION - MACHINE BARN KONFOKRI 1.51316000149 JAG RCHIIECIS INC usswe.r�aa. nw F? 1213)6260100 F. (213j610.0155GO755 q_i.O.pzw.a�mm OLVELOPEN VISION nr•pnvfars 10. •••••••g 0%..-1.1.4 WNW PIMA, IN.e .p Cs.+ sr1rue y..300ls woe ax..O.re. ROWERS PROJECT INFORMAriON VINININNOI NENNINuENSOI WAIL 1/11AWIE BY SIINCESEI DV 02.2.11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MACHINE BARN BUILDING #4 A4-3.2 IN Anc101l0EYe. N9G AfaI W1aKNu CO OYMOONt./ OY a. 04. a 0. W. 4.11,0011 IRO .Nr1m..uamw: wry SECTION - MACHINE BARN er.ro JAG RCHITECIS INC .131..1.110.1.4 SY 09U Iry9HtG00Nl Rau WM204EEE Eslxnlmamm wNeYE.m1Y.e� OLVIILOr VAIL HEADQUARTERS TENICIA ACA 33333 0 fp[To/pII aN4 +GN .611:14,4 COMMON REVIEW SVNXNIT 41.1 fi4 N >1VIAlNEYA f1n_ cu. �%m m tlfulVLY+ OO10R(1s .sa ONMCa0N.Y A1R10W lo. NM.e wmor, Malt.Yloi lOOYUl+0 6 CIRCEEOYOY 111w On[[Y NAME t Nub." SECTION MACHINE BARN BUILDING 04 A4-3.3 66.-3- 22" 6.-3- 22"- &'-lir 1.1 �`t IMr CEDAR STA WS W/ WOOD HISTORIC DISPLAY Ic CEDAR I ARAM STAIRS N/WOOD HANDRAILS 5'-0" 20'-5' • IW r CEDAR DECKING STAIRS WE WOOD NAND HAILS BUKAING 0 CARSIMLR NUMB£ D 0 rhat- 23.-3" 66.-3" Per cumauCan kRASY WDCP 1M10W1 DEL • REMOVEIEIPAST FACING PORCH NDOWS BUILDING NO. 5- CARETAKER GROUND FLOOR PLAN =Ate B. JAG NCH! IECI s INC STESIAne.DLEMFM.3.100 N 121=1!2.0100 Su RI31001)4N Rumprrthkeiwana a.6waamoA P¢r1a�rR VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEMECULA CA 011,41.P. MR RSR FOAMS .wN g�xvm >r,.e Po-! ,a.. .1etR(1 iGr.6RERTw 9IIVAR MI A•MTIu pvwrla NVIN ~VP. rasYNN FPO ISD+vw RwRw is.,N w VSINW Rwan Maw 1"11 BBUILDING NO.5 • GITGUND FLOOR PLAN A5-2.1 I+ BUILDING NO. 5- CARETAKER HOUSE ROOF PLAN JAG RCNI TECTS INC xew.R..maas 100 I.y02•0.a10007 1,21020:T113I1200I01 EaNISIGNtms 2004212121212222.022 21s011.o•2121•02.003 turzte U F• P.T VAIL HEADQUARTERS l 2V MAI,' AIM_ .14414. oo.WAW RMPA N/x/c1 rso laa eur Sall•QW II/:RPo1 as MIL222021.. p!/71.2410 a¢RFliot, 01/0!1. 0.12311 0O0IK01¢. 11aa10G22. • ,C I • .10.0 24020i 101 WWI V01202. IlmtlVuam. MULL A42122Ne.0 ROI RAn uwlcr Gac4uv 01 rt • ROOF PLAN CARETAKER BUILDING S5 A5-2.2 EAST ELEVATION - CARETAKERS HOUSE WEST ELEVATION - CARETAKER'S HOUSE JIG RCHI TCCTS INC Mew. Wad BA UP. Fx 0I11000155 .w,IpMYnu W.lr.R�F.va'+s issislrt• PPOJECT VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEIIECIAACA • _IO1rS Alt • `we ROMA ISSaror w Kamm, Fawn 59, Cwt. WAVI! IIWr inongaa. w.c+ au.0 :u44.0 • n ....1 &TERtOA ELEVATIONS CARETAKERS HOUSE BUILDING C5 A5-3.1 11131111 111i1111•11111 Immusic•111111111111111111111111IIII11111111Ii1fl11a111 PIiillIIIIl11111i11111 1IERII1111 Ilfl111lllgll111II11111[l1 lit • 11CI 1111 II I.1I I! 1•!:!111111111111111. I1111111If!l1111l11l11l1Y 1111111u11ii1111 i t11111111111111111111111111111111111111 11E11 11111 11111111411/1 El 1/11E1111111111111111111111111111111E11 !ill1l1111•1IIIIEllllll 111111 11e11111111111111111IrIi!!1 11 111111 114111 1111111111111111111 11111111u 111III11111s i lieu am11111111111111111111111111111 11111 •111111111•1 u 111l111111111Il 11111111 11 1111111 111111111111111.1111i11111111111111111•11111111111 11N11k111.1111111111111111111/111111 1111. 1 11111141 111E11111 111111111E01 IC: 1.1 1 IIIi1111Y111I1•IIIII 11 E1111111111111111111 1111111 11111111111 lli11i11IU111111.1111111I1fI1i11111E11IIleullllll111i1I11lillq 11111111111 __ 11 111111111111l11111lil 11u1111]111•I111U111.i•iiIl1lll•II1111111•IlllRlllllllllulI!•111_[11141111I11111i#1111111111E1uu11.1 • III 17M rimmmi1 .1m.�R.P.M ry SOUTH ELEVATION - CARETAKER'S HOUSE 1111111/111111111110111111111111111 ailiclaionowill 11.111111 111111{111111111111111111Uhl u'111Rilli11A11111111E1 10111 1111 1 1114111111111111i111111.1111f111111111ifi 111 1111.u1uYI11•I1 IIl•I11fI11I11111111111.111IIalu1 1111111111.1111111111 1111 111111111111111111,111imil i f 111111111 1111iiii iiiiiefllluflllillllll•fll 1.11111111iimiii11if11 • "-111111.1111Ifli11111111111 111 I111 IRlI1I 11111 1lrn111I;I111 Emu11 { Ilium TIllfil11Ii11111iiiiiimi• ! 11 iiiiiiI i 111KIIk11111111 1 111 1111111 11111111111 311•I�lk 11f1! 11E1 Irk 1111111... 11111111111111111111111/11111111 i 111111111111111 1m •1.111 111111111111111111111111111111111141111 1114 gII III ¢• III.11111 111 IuIuIli11n11I111111111/1111111€11n#1�III r1111f I11i111.11ntI'IIllIl11i111M61nI1 lllli a 11.111IIIulI1:1 ■ i�■ :i� 1.T!' viii 1� ■ PP I ,..I� Xz� NORTH ELEVATION - CARETAKER'S HOUSE u.w JAG RCHI ICCIS .nC 1761m. U.669A2. C& L.R.APM. gnomon GER• fu R1y6NUI59 AMMO porrflrl VAIL HEADQUARTERS • alra'sa• .w t .wnwc wr.sm I. vend F wu.N+ msu Pu OP S.b••4 +volae• c..nsa.•m;- W.erno N iI5l6.fP4 WOW,. mole _c_ 9r.a rti EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CARETAKER'S HOUSE BUILDING IS A5-3.2 06PLAY ROOM io MPM ,r.,. SECTION - CARETAKER'S HOUSE JAG RCHI TECIS 9144 Nal•IIIR..mSaan 100 Lary0•dLCA11101 A'ua. 12101112sa1m i2131aW150 al••aptli0ls um VAIL HEADQUARTERS ... aaWgi1 awn CAMS, M.12 Ix* kg /WV 2.• Uskimact& ¢1fa0/a0 ea. 0Cc11Mna4 CO w•-• "COCA IIaL aaa. 1n 1Ias �aV.n1 .1 04! V01R0rc0 11000.0.0 ASL w•Ana rant_ 020.11 N WH1Y: +VW O 00.10 It 01 {n[0 0010[ 100011 SECTION CARETAKER'S HOUSE BUILDING #5 A5-3.3 W 1 201 1 gek VIP BUILDING NO.6- WATER BUILDING FLOOR PLAN sU' ur.,m 12 BUILDING NO.6 - WATER BUILDING ROOF PLAN SC. I 114=i-0 JAG R CNIIECIS INC 3Ta I.00 mNaAN. 1270 012Ia1010r Tn. pM ao * Fn I21111AN% mpMN4[e.mn 0.114p.NkNsom VAIL HEADQUARTERS TERE1:4AcA �l.groyl asst 1]eARYINIC NIT. 0[10/01 4104 N. pM s1Bu1T.L I1/.NLRT 4N' BfSSWTOA swop, SQRgdow.n.wCI.I.N .0 AAJEW .uww Ir..RnaN. ROI%11 m:v C.0 RNA" •/.N1 • NuuBtR FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN W ATER BUILDING #6 A6-2.1 i --1 ^-i a ll 1 i LL STOREROOM y v /DISPLAY O % BUILDING © ----+ WATER BUILDING tee. F a O <DERR y 1 a 1 201 1 gek VIP BUILDING NO.6- WATER BUILDING FLOOR PLAN sU' ur.,m 12 BUILDING NO.6 - WATER BUILDING ROOF PLAN SC. I 114=i-0 JAG R CNIIECIS INC 3Ta I.00 mNaAN. 1270 012Ia1010r Tn. pM ao * Fn I21111AN% mpMN4[e.mn 0.114p.NkNsom VAIL HEADQUARTERS TERE1:4AcA �l.groyl asst 1]eARYINIC NIT. 0[10/01 4104 N. pM s1Bu1T.L I1/.NLRT 4N' BfSSWTOA swop, SQRgdow.n.wCI.I.N .0 AAJEW .uww Ir..RnaN. ROI%11 m:v C.0 RNA" •/.N1 • NuuBtR FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLAN W ATER BUILDING #6 A6-2.1 I STOREROOM /DISPLAY IAWJ SECTION I wLr..LE Li va. SECTION Ami EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION • NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION IDj JAG RCFI TECIS LCL 374 M.gk.EAl a. Wo ieae ,a.aEor eTy.ixRRM VAIL HEADQUARTERS TEYECoIA am1LW'+R 64. —.max gip. mi PL n9n�. w VTNCT Rv •c* R0 FudnHR ar .9.6.fl& SA PM* iw*H.�.:,. 1•101tIV. .111•04•1.41 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS WATER BUILDING *6 A6-3.1 96'S S•[ ISA' 1/000164113 BUILDING { 7 RETAIL D 4 G 0 MECH. HOOD STAIRS SLIDING BARN DOOR SLIDING BARN DOOR n .q PATIO b n 2� BUILDING NO. 7 - RETAIL BUILDING GROUND FLOOR PLAN SCALE B, vc•I'a JAG RCHITECTS INC 4r141.eae.0e4431•.43O It.. D+3Iw1I00 Fale131 M.i14 perJ SIe' VAIL HEADQUARTERS TBYELMAG aliDlif DIN[ Mk .nlglc MAMMA RENEW eyloo, .fl( Fp[ 0. pm/W. M. ryrrrs BW ItikEEI s _ wswaga'M UTAI 1..1011 VGA Ranch I.neauy. MAW rt nw w6x.wO maea n wlcr ciccuu1r "If Cr .n.e • Fe.eee BUILDING NO.7 GROUND FLOOR PLAN A7-2.1 ROOF LOBBY ELEV. ROOM BUILDING 0 RETAIL ROOF DECK ROOF 1 ■ WOOD STAIRS 12 20 II ZED BUILDING NO. 7 - RETAIL BUILDING SECOND FLOOR PLAN JAG RCHI TEC IS INC nnLaN2R0•NR`asm mN Lmq NKILCA9421 Male 121312004 rr 1211144+5 01.2304042000 01.40412312200m ►7G1€CO VAIL HEADQUARTERS trha Ws NHY4 TOWN 4011E IN 4D Y.M4ilh 11/+,03 co, 4EB.22i2.1, 91/401"4 W 2( 42 wax.L 94,441.914.102 wax.. n393 >-t4U4 if eq. 21.01210. AR t, 14424.0.0 0.01002 magAi01, DI 11 2E2 x442 4 NON+c4 BUILDING NO.7 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A7-2.2 (fr c., I CSAR! LL BUILDING NO, 7 - RETAIL BUILDING SECOND FLOOR PLAN JAG R CM1IrECrs INC TAN tom beach S.G s>, P230 Tore BucA .40107 F.. MIN MOM •m•Leapmummt cum p VAIL HEADQUARTERS 92LMEEW 6w1 n3.. co_sq. a+xr aRra of m+.. m. w. Sem., I.nva. ay •3-w n OWNII N 41,11wrY PAMPA NAM. IMMTMINTAMMM EILIMMEAM PROJECT loirom RR riot. litnadquulaui R.wx.r AMC CY OF [.. MARE ....... ROOF PLAN RETAIL BUILDING #7 A7-2.3 H r 7777-- irA !v n & N4 .arer,.l.w• x. WEST ELEVATION - NEW RETAIL BUILDING L) EAST ELEVATION - NEW RETAIL BUILDING 111..:„. JAG XCNIIECIS INC A61aMB.dNCA f107 sry YM,GCW 7.. urns F..'j2AIRDOi55 r.r VAIL HEADQUARTERS 4500.r0 alqf .I111 raPTIC VIYWf9• Me, fuma. am tra tut LANATYle .11121:03 avia KOImmt wank gIN INA; 110.1.141 Mlap.. rl m mast mm . • EXTERIOR OR ELEVATIONS RETAIL BUILDING 87 A7-3.1 JAG RC/II IECIS INC nalgR..iel ti gal lgYd GI�W EI.mawane 144109199 14ILI VAIL HEADQUARTERS IHECINACA • AMR, Oe4R /i +WOW --medla eyfe/W w s Cur Aaa .Tref*, u ec.r. t mrn.e. . nr.mo rw pn ,II r¢I ✓APCOC. 5O1m4. FLONIal 90.1.144194641, eodoN. 49140.44940. r" w EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RETAIL BUILDING 17 A7-3.2 LEI E 1 .14492 OW rsn 0 0 04 9 — 9/00on.9u NORTH ELEVATION - NEW RETAIL BUILDING " r` d. Ii I,..., Io1 C..4%.4..4.•. — 1444: Z e. . * 11 ir rAta11 ..� r�,r w..we�J �a..,, u.. k.u.,.. ww.a>....wv'"A �e 0+x.4 SOUTH ELEVATION - NEW RETAIL BUILDING 1 tiv Rr I``i JAG RC/II IECIS INC nalgR..iel ti gal lgYd GI�W EI.mawane 144109199 14ILI VAIL HEADQUARTERS IHECINACA • AMR, Oe4R /i +WOW --medla eyfe/W w s Cur Aaa .Tref*, u ec.r. t mrn.e. . nr.mo rw pn ,II r¢I ✓APCOC. 5O1m4. FLONIal 90.1.144194641, eodoN. 49140.44940. r" w EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RETAIL BUILDING 17 A7-3.2 SECTION - RETAIL BUILDING #7 r4 JAG RCHITECTS INC 31151.06.1. 51. 9130 La1o92 G90501 19wn1', MORO Faz 191916X4155355 r3391annmecmm m1.01p3tliYlhFan EEEEE CPL.. VAIL HEADQUARTERS mm1IECLLAG WARM eggIt R. WOK [uu®pN NOVO KM&6b0 3• FV' 51l1VW M..121Vartiy PreliW 95$C/Ik_S4. KW. tw up31" 9oawu3• .151:52230* 216111.... Snit cl5cllatt 00! 33551. •3.15 SECTION RETAIL BUILDING 07 A7-3.3 OIESEI TANK - HORSE HITCH mut rilCILLAI 0.1 wAGON fS la} MONUMENT BASE 6 CLEARANCtFORLAW WATER TOWER MAIN ENTRY SIGNAGE & GATE iF 1 FENCE # C- GRAPE STAKE FENCE FBNCF Ili- A!CFET FENCE JAG 4C.IIECIS 1/m1..BEASIAu311 Lang Su., CA KI10/ Anon• (2130.06. trtaio.N.1.44.4 Din T VAIL HEADQUARTERS IEY DILA CA .Sura 911,i9NA — s.wna a.-+xNW. pyran. .nu Wx+ni r..c..m.Auwa SO .4 nor:. rnW"W`. rwn If le TYPICAL DETAILS & PHOTOGRAPHS A9-1.1 11,,FAW e CORAL GATE- ELEVATION TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN WELL DIGGER NORTH ELEV"rION 1 . II I 'I I lil .. : ! 1 11 IP 11I. I:1 VIII 1 ,i1 IA IIH1IIIl1IIihIuImNI1IIffll EW LI- ur•ra EAST ELEVAl SON Argil _ rr. KIOSK —tlWlN rvpggq 12-VERTICAL ENTER,. WOOD SIDING GGAIW01i10 fC.s. Acts! man bah iiiiiitiiiioii1iiiriiiiiiii:I 2' VERTICAL ROOD SIDING CORRUGATED METAL ROOF iiiiIIl iiiiiIIIIIiili 111 2 SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SCALE JAG p VAIL HEADQUARTERS p1�2T *0 ...OA. !IPS �v.7viae ar+bu.+n+ aa,,,TaTn wa_ aw.a 1.14 MAWR 0.111 S.," NAPE RuPeEll PLAN & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS TRASH ENCLOSURE A9-2.1 NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION BUILDING k 1 -WOLF STORE BUILDING # 2 - COOK HOUSE JAG mew TITlwaeoo N (2IN N VAIL HEADQUARTERS µv.vm u.4 . .fl �e•41L^� S.fi *L741•L'_2E4,:2 v e.+rr e*tie . AIM PEW .,E.r C+••• OLOR aRVATIONS DUILDING i 16 2 A8-3.1 NOREH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATE WEST ELEVATION UILDING # 4 - MACHINE BARN NORTH ELEVATION EAST SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION BUILDING # 3 - BUNK HOUSE JAG RCN' IECIS �•- 3l41ag9•.N..S .40 Lw) E13)01.0 Fu 101910060751 swmachwelacmil ♦.�a+wmn PRO CT Till{ VAIL HEADQUARTERS aa.nwo i +cveu airy me la NnRis • ViHW N KMrtmr.. g[1 Its' pN'JW.LWW aeWIW01 1.41.1 002.1.01 M N•r '/ kurvn e wlCP 01.8.L11 BY 01 INEET110.111C 0 COLOR /1.110E11 ELEVATIONS BUILDING #3 & 4 A8-3.2 JAG XirlTICII IKL )ftl4ry G.L Gaa. D]A G UUI Phan (213j 61.01i , Iznlamarss VAIL HEADQUARTERS iEIECUu WNL m -s• - qe • IA24WI .V If- .F.mh,a Y�fnfal w w+1., NlWIf NVRI Igp!'W5a Weuilra PRO.," IIII011“/10.14 11.11.14,1.1 COLOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING #5 8 6 A8-3.3 f . ye al At is i Atli # R � i .r 1. ii iMI NORTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION It EAST ELEVATION EAR ELEVATION •I. �•- .tel _ SOUTH ELEVATIO V SOUTH ELEVATION El 18 WEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION BUILDING # 6- WATER BUILDING BUILDING # 5 CARETAKER ,,e`,0, - HOUSE 1..-02 JAG XirlTICII IKL )ftl4ry G.L Gaa. D]A G UUI Phan (213j 61.01i , Iznlamarss VAIL HEADQUARTERS iEIECUu WNL m -s• - qe • IA24WI .V If- .F.mh,a Y�fnfal w w+1., NlWIf NVRI Igp!'W5a Weuilra PRO.," IIII011“/10.14 11.11.14,1.1 COLOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING #5 8 6 A8-3.3 WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST EELEVMION BUILDING Ik 7 - NEW RETAIL BUILDING JAG 1,Loa, •2211 Luny ( PhoneW O F 121]10260]5! 4 1TIO par Dela VAIL HEADQUARTERS mn.n,r pot fv- "Ogre C0.15510 y REV. w0, ISSUt FON CUP SCUM. ITAL LRESUBLICTA �Rv/00 c P REscun V15 IL,. muwrsawR SCHWA. COLOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING #7 A8-3,4 DESCRIPTION MATERIAL COLOR Machine Barn — Roof Caretaker Building — Wall Finish Caretaker Building — Trim Caretaker Building — Roof Water Building — Wall Finish Water Building — Trim Water Building — Roof Bunkhouse — Wall Finish Bunkhouse — Trim Bunkhouse — Roof Bunkhouse - Trellis New Retail Building — Wall Finish New Retail Building — Trim New Retail Building — Roof All railings and exterior staircases Corrugated Metal Repair/Replace Stucco Wood Clean/Repair existing wood shingle roof; match any new roof shingles with existing roof shingles, Fire treat wood shingles. Repair/replace stucco Wood Corrugated Metal New addition is 12" vertical board and batten siding 6" wood horizontal wood/redwood siding for existing structure/repair existing walls Wood Corrugated Metal Wood Cedar Wood Cedar Wood Corrugated Metal Color/Stain/Material shall match approved main structure color or trim color or shall be brown stained or natural stained wood. Metal White (Benjamin Moore Winter Snow #OC -63) Benjamin Moore: Sherwin Williams Roycraft Bottle Green 2847 Brown (Red Cedar fire treated wood shingles) White (Benjamin Moore Winter Snow #OC -63) Bottle Green Metal Copper Red Copper Red White Metal White Semi -Transparent Stain Cordovan Sherwin Williams Ficus Green SW3520 Ficus Green Trim. Roof Trim: Copper Red. Entry Doors: Bottle Green Metal Color/stain/material shall match approved main structure color DESCRIPTION MATERIAL Accessible Ramp Flooring and Sides Perimeter Fencing Machine Barn — Front and Rear Patio Fencing Wolf Store — Patio Fencing Cookhouse and Bunkhouse— Patio Fencing All Exterior Patio Flooring Exterior Benches Exterior Trash Cans Exterior Trash Enclosure If wooden, then color/stain shall match approved main structure color or trim or shall be brown stained wood. If concrete, then color shall be beige. Grape Stake Fencing along rear eastern perimeter of property facing adjacent rear loading areas Wooden 2 or 3 split rail Wooden 3 rail rough sewn fencing Wooden picket wood plank decking or Denigrated Granite as selected by the Applicant or Tenant. Wood Wooden COLOR or trim color or shall be brown stained or natural unstained wood. Concrete shall be beige, brown or tan colored. If wooden, then color/stain shall be natural or shall match approved main structure color or trim or shall be brown stained or natural unstained wood. If concrete, then color shall be beige brown or tan. Natural wood or Wood stain Brown or natural wooden stain or white Brown or natural wooden stain or White White Brown or natural wooden stain Brown or natural wood stain or color to match the Sherwin Williams Exterior Preservation Palette. DG to be Gail Materials Temescal Gold or Comparable DG Color Clear sealer or brown wood stained. Clear sealer or brown wood stained Vertical 12" board and batten wooden siding with Brown or natural corrugated metal roofing. wood stain DESCRIPTION Cookhouse — Wall Finish (for the add-on addition once known as the cowboy dining room) Cookhouse — Wall Finish MATERIAL COLOR The west, east and north sides of the "add-on" building attached to the northern elevation of the cookhouse (once the cowboy dining room) shall be given a different external color and treatment from the rest of the cookhouse per Vail Ranch Restoration Association. 12" vertical wood siding. 12" vertical board and batten siding for new kitchen addition 6" wood horizontal wood/redwood siding for existing structure/repair existing walls Cookhouse Roof Corrugated Metal and Roof Singles to Match Wolfe Store on the "Cowboy Dining Room" addition Cookhouse Trim Wood Wolf Store — Wall Finish Wolf Store — Trim Wolf Store — Roof Machine Barn — Wall Finish Repair/Repaint existing wood/redwood siding or adobe Wood Clean/Repair existing wood shingle roof; match any new roof shingles with existing roof shingles. Fire treat wood shingles. Repair and repaint existing wood siding New Addition shall be horizontal wood siding Machine Barn — Wood Trim White (Benjamin Moore Winter Snow #OC -63) White (Benjamin Moore Winter Snow #OC -63) Sherwin Williams Roycroft Copper Red #2839 Metal and Brown (Red Cedar fire treated wood shingles) White where Copper Red walls and Red where White walls White (Benjamin Moore Winter Snow #OC -63) Sherwin Williams Roycroft Copper Red #2839 or White Brown (Red Cedar fire treated wood shingles) Historic: Sherwin Williams Roycroft Copper Red #2839 Semi -Transparent Wood Stain: Sherwin Williams Chestnut SW 3524 Same as wall finish. White on Office Section window trim. Copper Red on Addition Doors & Door Trim. DESCRIPTION MATERIAL COLOR Pathways, Stage Decomposed Granite Gail Materials Coach Trail and Temescal Gold or open DG area Comparable DG Color (with contrasting color between pathway and open areas) WOLF STORE ROAD CHANGES MADE ARE A5 FOLLOWS: I. GALE, ADJACENT TREWS & FENCING REMOVED FROM THE NORTH WEST ENTRANCE TO THE SITE 2 THE MAIN ENTRY WORTH SIDE) GATE 6 FENCING REMOVED 3. GATE 6 FENCING REMOVED A GATE 6 FENCING REMOVED, SMALL PATH TO PLATFORM ELW4INA1E0 5. IRELUS REMOVED, STAIRS ADDED FON ADDED ACCESS 6 STAIRS 6 HANDRAILS ADDED TO THE CENTER OF THE PLATFORM IRATHER THAN PLACED AT THE IWO ENDS). UNOSCAPE AREA EMENDED PUSHING THE WALKING PATH SOUTH CREATING A FUNNEL SHAPE WALKWAY 7, PATHWAY SPLITTING INTO TWO IN AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE THE EX/STING CREPE MYRTLE TREE 8 LANDSCAPING AROUND WOLF STORE 6 COOKHOUSE MIN6UZEO IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER AN OPEN SPACE UPON ENTERING THE SIZE 9, FENCE UNE MODIFIED. )DIAGONALLY CUTIN THE CORNER) 7O ALLOW EASIER ACCESS 70 WOLF STORE FROM NORTHWEST ENTRANCE 10. NEW SERVICE RAMP ADDED 6 CONNECTED 10 THE PATH PATHWAY MOVED WES7 BY 1071E170 EUW NATE THE EXTREME CURVE FOR EASIER ACCESS II LANDSCAPE AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF COOK HOUSE HAS BEEN SHRUNK DOWN TO WIDEN THE PATH SHARED BY WOLF STORE 6 COOK HOUSE 12. COOK HOUSE PATIO LAYOUT HAS MORPHED FROM A RECTANGULAR SHAPE INTO A CURVED SPACE THAT WRAPS AROUND PART OF THE USI ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND STOPS AT THE PORCH, A 5 PATHWAY ADDED ON THE EAST OF THE PATIO. NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS ADDED ON THE INSIDE AND THE OUTSIDE PRFANER OF 1HE COOKHOUSE PATIO 13 PATHWAY MEANDERING RATHER THAN FOLLOWING ASTRAIGHT UNE I4. 16' K 10 PERFORMANCE STAGE ADDED 15 PATHWAY WIDENED BY 5 FEET FOR BETTER ACCESS 16 SMALL PATHS TO RETAIL 6 MACHINE BARN ELIMINATED. PATIO ADDED 10 NORTH END OF MACHINE BARN RESULTIN0 19 CHANGE IN THE PATH RUNNING IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, 17 MONUMENT REMOVED FROM TATS LOCATION I& SMALL PATHS LEADING 1050UIH ENTRANCE OF THE COOK HOUSE 51D NORTH ENTRANCE OF CARETAKER 6 A SMALL PATI) ON 1 HE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE COOK HOUSE HAVE BEEN ADDED 19, PATHWAY LEADING TO ADA RAMP ON THE WEST SIDE OF COOK HOUSE & ADJACENT LANDSCAPING SLIGHTLY CURVED 20.NEW 5 TO 6 FOOT PATHS ADDED LEADING TO THE HISTORIC DISPLAY OF CARETAKER BUILDING AND AN OUTDOOR SINK ON THE WEST WALL OF THE WATER BULLING NEW RAISED GARDENS ADDED 1O THE SOUTH OF THE PATH 21 BUNK HOUSE PATIO RECONFIGURED TO ALLOW A MORE FLUID AREA 6ETWEEN THE 3 BULDINGS 22 PATHWAY SLIGHTLY MODIFIED TO CREATE A MORE ORGANIC INTERSECTION 23 NEW LOCATION FOR MONUMENT 24 LANDSCAPE, PATIO WI WE 6 PATH SLIGHTLY MODIFIED FOR AMORE NATURAL FLOW 25 PATH EXTENDED TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE MACHINE EARN PAHO AND THE FRE LANE 26. MACHINE BARN PATIO EXTENDED TO THE SOUTH AND CHANGED FROM ALL WOOD DECK TO DG 6 WOOD DECK 27 PATHWAY & LANDSCAPING MODIFIED TO MATCH RELOCATED DOORS 6 EXTENDED PATIO 26 NEW 4.-6- PATH ADDED TO ACCESS BUNK HOUSE FROM THE MAW PATHWAY 29, GATE 6 FENCING REMOVED, BOLLARDS ADDED 10 CONTROL TRAFFIC 30. TRASH ENCLOSURE REOESKNED, PATHWAY 6 LANDSCAPING CHANGED TO WORK WRH NEW ENCLOSURE, NEW RAISED GARDENS ADDED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE 31 NEW ADA RAMP ADDED 32, NEW HORSE CORRAL ADDED 33. 5HOR1-1FRM PARKING/LOADING ZONES ADDED NOTE: NO GRADING CHANGES REMITTED 00E TO CHANGES MENTIONED ABOVE. NO CHANGES MADE 1O ADA PATH OF TRAVEL ACCEPT THE NEW PATH ADDED TO ACCESS THE WEST ENTRANCE OF BUNKHOUSE WHERE NEW ADA RAMP WAS ADDED 10 MEET EX31ING GRADE VAIL RANCH SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50' PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0997, A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR HISTORICAL CONSISTENCY TO THE SITE PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDINGS AND AN INCREASE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FOOTPRINT OF THE MACHINE BARN. ALL USES TO REMAIN COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, AND RESTAURANT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 32115 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN 960-010-044) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On May 7, 2008 the Planning Commission approved Planning Applications No. PA 07-0239, PA07-0240, and PA08-0021. a Development Plan, Certificate of Historic Appropriateness and Sign Program for the restoration of the historic Vail Ranch Headquarters Complex. These applications allowed for the re -use of six historic structures totaling 13,390 square feet and 13,738 square feet of historically appropriate new construction for retail/office, restaurant and museum display uses on four acres within the Vail Ranch Specific Plan. B. On July 6, 2015, Gerald Tessier, on behalf of Vail Headquarters filed Planning Application No. PA15-0997, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on November 4, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA15-0997 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Modifications, Development Code Section 17.05.030.E X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\Pc resolution no.docx A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The application will allow for the modification of the site plan and structures for a previously approved project. The allowable uses for the project site will remain unchanged as part of this application. Therefore, the uses will remain in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project has been reviewed in order to provide compliance with the Development, Building, and Fire Codes. These codes contain provisions that will ensure for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. No negative impacts to the public health, safety, or general welfare are anticipated. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Projects) The project for the restoration of the historic Vail Ranch Headquarters Complex is consistent with the Highway Tourist land use designation. The General Plan Highway Tourist designation includes retail, office and restaurant uses. The project is consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and with all applicable zoning designation regulations and standards contained within the Vail Ranch Specific Plan and the Development Code including the development standards within the Highway Tourist zoning district and all applicable requirements for lot coverage, building setbacks, floor area ratio, landscape requirements and parking requirements for projects in the Highway Tourist zone. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA15-0997, a Major Modification for historical consistency to the site plan and exterior elevations of the buildings and an increase of square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn. All uses to remain commercial, retail, and restaurant. The project is located at 32115 Temecula Parkway, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\Pc resolution no.docx Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of November, 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Wason Secretary X:\Planning\2015\PA15-0997 Vail Ranch Headquarters Major Mod\Planning\Planning Commission\Pc resolution no.docx EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA15-0997 Project Description: Vail Ranch Major Modification: a Major Modification for historical consistency to the site plan and exterior elevations of the buildings and an increase of square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn. All uses to remain commercial, retail, and restaurant. The project is located at 32115 Temecula Parkway. Assessor's Parcel No.: 960-010-044 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Retail Commercial TUMF Category: Retail Commercial Quimby Category: N/A (Non -Residential Project) Approval Date: November 4, 2015 Expiration Date: November 4, 2017 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filing Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three (3) one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 6. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 7 Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 8. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 9. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 10. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 11. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 12. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 13. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 14. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 15. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 16. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 17. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. 18. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 19. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 20. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 21. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 22. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 23. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 24. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for (private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas). Choose those that apply 25. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping for equestrian trails and pedestrian trails within private common areas. 26. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 27. Building Construction Plans for Outdoor Areas. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape (choose or add to as appropriate) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 28. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 29. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 30. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 31. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 32. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2013 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2013 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2013 California Energy Codes, 2013 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and City of Temecula Municipal Code. 33. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a.All ground floor units to be adaptable. b.Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. c.Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e.Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as club house, trash enclose tot lots and picnic areas. 34. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. At Plan Review Submittal 35. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. c. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 36. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 37. Pre -Construction Meeting. A pre -construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 38. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 39. Fire Requirement. All existing conditions of approval that are in place will still remain in effect for this modification. Fire sprinkler riser rooms will remain in the same locations as previously approved. POLICE General Requirements 40. Defensible Plants. Applicant shall ensure any landscaping surrounding buildings is kept at a height of no more than three feet, or below the ground floor window sills. Plants, hedges, and shrubbery shall be defensible plants to prevent would-be intruders from breaking into the buildings utilizing lower level windows. 41. Trees. Applicant shall ensure any trees surrounding building rooftops be kept at a distance to prevent roof accessibility by would-be burglars. Since trees also act as a natural ladder, the branches must be pruned to have a six-foot clearance from the buildings. 42. Berms. Any berms shall not exceed three feet in height. 43. Exterior Door Illumination. All exterior doors shall have a vandal resistant light fixture installed above the door. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one -foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. 44. Exterior Building Lighting. All lighting affixed to the exterior of buildings less than 8 feet high shall be vandal resistant. 45. Hardware. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 46. Graffiti. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings or other structures must be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being discovered. Report all such crimes to the Temecula Police 24-hour dispatch Center at (951) 696 -HELP. 47. Alarm System. Upon completion of construction, each building or business shall have an alarm system that is monitored by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi -tenant offices/suites/businesses located within a specific building shall each have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is open 24/7. 48. Roof Hatches. Any roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 49. Rooftop Addressing. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine -inch grid pattern with 45 -inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine -inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 50. Public Telephones. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings shall be placed in a well -lit, highly visible area, and installed with a "call -out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings. 51. Disable Parking. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 52. Sales of Alcohol. Any business that serves or sells any type of alcoholic beverage shall comply with all guidelines within the Business and Profession Codes and all rules, regulations and guidelines of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 53. Alcohol Related Training and Inspections. Contact the Temecula Police Department for alcohol related inspections and training for both employees and owners. This includes special events held at business locations where alcohol will be served for a fee and the event is open to the general public. 54. Alcohol in Public Prohibited. Applicant shall comply with Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.14.010, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Public Prohibited. 55. Sales of Alcohol — Identification. Identification will be verified utilizing one of the following: (a) valid California driver's license; (b) valid California identification card; (c) valid military identification card (active/reserve/retired/dependent); (d) valid driver's license from any of the 50 States or Territories of the United States; (e) valid U.S. Passport; (f) valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, County or City agency. 56. Sales of Alcohol — Identification Requirements. As noted above, only a valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, County, or City agency is acceptable, providing it complies with 25660 of the Business and Profession Code (B&P), which includes the following requirements: (a) name of person; (b) date of birth; (c) physical description; (d) photograph; (e) currently valid (not expired). It is the responsibility of the business owner and any person who serves or sells alcohol to be aware of current laws and regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverages. 57. Crime Prevention Through Design. Crime prevention through environmental design, as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI), supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." The nine primary strategies that support this concept are included below: a. Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery, or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. b. Provide clearly marked transitional zones. Persons need to be able to identify when they are moving from public to semi-public to private space. c. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control. d. Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location less attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention. e. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. g. Redesign the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. h. Redesign space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be award of the risk of detection and possible intervention. Windows and clear lines -of -sight serve to provide such a perception of surveillance. i. Overcome distance and isolation. This strategy may be accomplished through improved communications (portable two-way radios, for example) and design efficiencies, such as the location of restrooms in a public building. 58. Contact. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 506-5132. LETTER OF SUPPORT August 30, 2015 Re: Planning Application No. PA15 — 0997 To Whom it May Concern: The Vail Ranch Restoration Association (VaRRA) has reviewed the analysis of the above mentioned planning application. We agree with all exterior elevation changes as well as site plan revisions. We also agree with the square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn. We have noticed that as the project has advanced changes from the original plan are necessary to be more historically accurate, be more accommodating to prospective tenants and to create a better circulation plan. Gerald Tessier and his Vail Headquarters team have worked closely with VaRRA and have kept us involved in this project. They have been very sensitive to our concerns about historical accuracy and have addressed all issues that we have raised. We firmly believe this will be a better project because of these modifications. We recommend that Planning Application PA15 — 0997, a major modification be approved. Sincerely, Darell J. Farnbach, President, Vail Ranch Restoration Association NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: PA15-0997 Jerry Tessier A Major Modification for historical consistency to the site plan and exterior elevations of the buildings and an increase of square footage and footprint of the Machine Barn. All uses to remain commercial, retail, and restaurant. The project is located at 32115 Temecula Parkway. Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section: 15332, Class: 32, Type: In -Fill Development Projects) Case Planner: Eric Jones, (951) 506-5115 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: November 4, 2015 Time of Hearing: 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.citvoftemecula.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 — www.citvoftemecula.orq — 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.