HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final EIR (July 1, 2015)Final Environmental Impact ReportSCH #2013061012Project #LR 10-0014
Prepared forCity of Temecula July 2015
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
626 Wilshire BoulevardSuite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017213.599.4300www.esassoc.com
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Springs
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
211247
Final Environmental Impact ReportSCH #2013061012Project #LR 10-0014
Prepared forCity of Temecula July 2015
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Final EIR
Page
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process ........................................................ 1-2
1.3 Method of Organization ........................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Focus of Comments .............................................................................................. 1-3
1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................. 1-4
2. Errata ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
Biological Resources and Wetlands (Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR) ................................ 2-1
Cultural Resources (Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR) .......................................................... 2-3
Public Services (Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR) .............................................................. 2-4
3. Response to Comments .............................................................................................. 3-1
Letter 1: California Department of Transportation .......................................................... 3-3
Response to Letter 1 ............................................................................................... 3-5
Letter 2: State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ........................................................... 3-7
Response to Letter 2 ............................................................................................... 3-9
Letter 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................... 3-10
Response to Letter 3 ............................................................................................. 3-18
Letter 4: Eastern Municipal Water District .................................................................... 3-22
Response to Letter 4 ............................................................................................. 3-32
Letter 5: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................. 3-33
Response to Letter 5 ............................................................................................. 3-34
Letter 6: Temecula Valley Unified School District ........................................................ 3-35
Response to Letter 6 ............................................................................................. 3-37
Letter 7: Neil Cleveland, City Resident ........................................................................ 3-39
Response to Letter 7 ............................................................................................. 3-45
Letter 8: Pechanga Tribe – Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians ..................... 3-47
Response to Letter 8 ............................................................................................. 3-53
Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................... 1-5
Table 3-1: List of Comments Received ............................................................................... 3-1
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan i ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared pursuant to the State of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) (California Public
Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project addressed in this report is
the construction and operation of the Bella Linda Residential project. The City of Temecula is the
CEQA lead agency for this EIR.
The Project involves adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the purpose of which is to
guide future development within the 560-acre area. The overarching intent of the Project is to
spark revitalization by allowing for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use and
development options within the Project area. The proposed mix of land uses would include
residential, commercial, retail, office, employment, education, tourism, hotel, recreation, and arts-
related uses.
1.1 Background
On April 2, 2015, the City of Temecula (the lead agency) released for public review a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the project. Subsequent to the closing of the 45-day
review period, the City recirculated the Draft EIR on May 20, 2015 for purposes of including
additional agencies in the noticing. Following a 45-day review period, the public review and
comment period on the Draft EIR closed on July 6, 2015. Overall, eight comment letters were
received on the proposed project.
The Revisions to the Draft EIR and Response to Comments constitute the Final EIR for the
proposed project and are included as Chapter 2, Errata and Chapter 3, Response to Comments.
The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the lead agency that must be considered
by decision makers before approving or denying the proposed project.
Section 15132 of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (commonly referred to
as the CEQA Guidelines) specifies the following the Final EIR shall consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in
summary.
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-1 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the lead agency.
Section 15004 of the CEQA Guidelines states that before the approval of any project subject to
CEQA,1 the lead agency must consider the final environmental document, which in this case is
the Final EIR.
This Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. This Final EIR
incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public, and contains appropriate
responses by the lead agency to those comments.
1.2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process
The Final EIR allows the public an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR, the response
to comments, and other components of the EIR, including revisions and/or corrections to the
Draft EIR, prior to approval of the project. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document
to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part, if the project is approved.
After completing the Final EIR and before approving the project, the lead agency must make the
following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines:
• The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
• The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the
decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to
approving the project; and
• The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or
carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings
(Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
1 The word “approval” is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “the decision by a public
agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by
any person…” In addition, the CEQA Guidelines state that “[w]ith private projects, approval occurs upon the
earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan,
or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project.”
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-2 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
(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.
(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.
These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document.
1.3 Method of Organization
This Final EIR for the proposed project contains information in response to concerns raised by
written comments sent to the City of Temecula. The Final EIR is organized into the following
chapters:
• Chapter 1, Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed
project, information about the certification of the Final EIR, and a brief discussion of the
intended uses of the Final EIR. Chapter 1 also contains the final Summary Table of
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
• Chapter 2, Errata, discusses the revisions to the proposed project and Draft EIR,
including text changes and/or additions proposed by the City of Temecula, as lead
agency, and text changes and/or additions in response to comments received on the Draft
EIR. Chapter 2 does not contain any changes to the appendices.
• Chapter 3, Response to Comments, contains a matrix of agencies and organizations that
submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas
addressed by those comments. Chapter 3 also includes a copy of each written comment
letter, and a written response to each comment.
1.4 Focus of Comments
Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the purpose of public review of a draft
environmental document:
The purposes of review of EIRs and negative declarations include:
(a) Sharing expertise,
(b) Disclosing agency analyses,
(c) Checking for accuracy,
(d) Detecting omissions,
(e) Discovering public concerns, and
(f) Soliciting counter proposals.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-3 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Sections 15204(a) and 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines further state:
(a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of
the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and
ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or
mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant
environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of
an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as
the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and
the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct
every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded
by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to
significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by
reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
(c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or
references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion
supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall
not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
Section 15204(f) of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency
may submit proposed mitigation measures, limited to the resources subject to the statutory
authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance
objectives for the measures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference
materials.
1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts and
recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, of the Draft EIR. Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and
level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1-1.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-4 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact Aes-4: The project would
create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.
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-sire architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from
cars.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-
site architectural massing, and off-sire 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 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 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 installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance
with the design standards in Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
Less than Significant
Air Quality
Impact Air-1: The project’s
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
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1a: Future project-level development shall incorporate 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
Significant and
Unavoidable
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-5 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
at this program level. that 2010 model year or new 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 determination, 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 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 devices 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-1b: 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 clean up of off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty
construction equipment.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-6 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact AIR-3: 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 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.
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 SCQMD’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 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.
Less than significant
Impact Air-4: The project could
potentially expose sensitive resources
to TACs from mobile sources on I-15
to an extent that health risks could
result.
Mitigation 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-expose 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 Report Value (MERV) filters at the residential development.
Less than Signifcant
Biological Resources
Impact Bio-1: Development occurring
as a result of the Project could result in
direct and indirect impacts to special-
status plants and wildlife from future
development. Impacts could include
trampling, crushing, grubbing, trimming
or completely removing the plants or
their habitat during construction.
Construction equipment could
introduce invasive weeds that could
out-compete special status plants.
Also, impacts could include
interference with the reproductive
success of wildlife or result in mortality
of individuals.
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 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-1a: Future project applications within the Specific Plan shall be required to
conduct a project-level assessment and impact analysis of biological resources, in compliance with the MSHCP
and CEQA Guidelines, as part of the initial environmental review of the development application by the City of
Temecula.
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-7 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact Bio-2: Impacts to raptors and
other migratory birds include direct
loss of potential foraging and nesting
habitat. Potential nesting habitat on
site includes mature trees and shrubs
as well as grassland (in the case of
ground-nesting birds such as northern
harrier and mourning dove). IT is
possible that raptors and other
migratory birds would best on-site due
to the proximity to open space and
riverine system of Murrieta Creek.
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 disturb 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 qualifying biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence.
Less than Significant
Impact Bio-3: Burrowing owls could
inhabit the site prior to project
construction as appropriate burrowing
owl foraging and nesting habitat is
present. Suitable habitat would include
the areas species would include loss
of foraging habitat and nesting (i.e.,
burrowing) habitat. Individuals present
during grading and other construction
related activities have the potential to
be killed or displaced through burrow
collapse and other impacts.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3: Future development that occurs outside the 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 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 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 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 Habitat
Assessment and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application.
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-8 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact Bio-4: Future development
could result in adverse effects to
vernal pools and special-status
species (fairy shrimp) that may occur
in flat, open areas between the
development portions of the Project
site and Murrieta Creek. Suitable
habitat would include areas outside of
land designated as
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1.
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 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 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 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
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-9 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
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.
Impact Bio-5: The project could result
in adverse effects to special status
bats through the disturbance or
removal of roosting habitat (trees and
buildings) within the Project site.
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 individuals 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.
Less than Significant
Cultural Resources
Impact Cul-1: The Project area has
moderate to high potential for
significant archaeological resources,
including prehistoric and historic period
archaeological deposits. Future
development under the Project could
significantly impact archaeological
sites and/or sites of traditional cultural
value to tribes. Development occurring
under the Project has the potential to
result in significant impacts to these
resources.
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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians on a project-
specific basis.
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-10 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors from the
Pechanga Band of Luiseño 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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño Indians,
subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current
professional standards.
Impact Cul-2: 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.
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 Luiseño Indians shall also
occur during 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.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Cul-3: 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.
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
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-11 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
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, 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.
Impact Cul-4: 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.
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.
Less than Significant
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Impact Geo-: 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
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1a and MM-HYD-1b Less than Significant
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant greenhouse gas emission impacts.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-12 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Haz-1: Construction activities
occurring under the Project may occur
on sites containing contamination,
which could result in releases of
hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ -1a: 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 -1b: 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 -1c: 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.
Less than Significant
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Hyd-1: Implementation 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
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.
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-13 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
impact to water quality.
Impact Hyd-2: 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.
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.
Less than Significant
Impact Hyd-3: 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.
Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1. Less than Significant
Impact Hyd-4: 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.
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.
Less than Significant
Impact Hyd-5: 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
such the capacity of existing drainage
system is exceeded.
Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1. Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-14 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact Hyd-6: 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 such the capacity of
existing drainage system is exceeded.
Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3. Less than Significant
Land Use
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts.
Population and Housing
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant population and housing impacts.
Public Services
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant public service impacts.
Noise
Impact Noise-1: Construction
activities occurring at each individual
development site in the Project area
would potentially expose their
respective adjacent or nearby
receptor(s) to substantial increases in
ambient noise levels.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-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
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-1b: 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
Significant and
Unavoidable
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-15 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
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.
Impact Noise-2: Construction
activities occurring at each individual
development site in the Project area
may expose their respective onsite
and/or offsite sensitive land uses to
vibration levels that exceed applicable
FTA vibration thresholds for building
damage and human annoyance.
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
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Noi-3: New developments
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.
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.
Less than Significant
Impact Noi-4: New development
within the Project area could expose
nearby sensitive receptors to noise
levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient
levels due to operation of HVAC
equipment.
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.
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.
Less than Significant
Impact Noi-5: 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 City.
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
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-16 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Utilities
Impact Utl-1: The 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.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1a: 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-1b: 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.
Less than Significant
Impact Utl-2: The 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.
Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2 and MM HYD-3. Less than Significant
Transportation and Traffic
Impact Tra-1: The Project would result
in significant impacts at the following
intersections under the Existing (2013)
Plus Project Conditions:
19. Ynez Road & Winchester Road
12. Nicholas Road & Winchester
Road
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.
After mitigation, 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).
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-17 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact Tra-2: The Project would result
in significant impacts at the following
intersections under Future Year (2035)
Plus Project conditions:
4. Jefferson Avenue at Cherry
Street/Proposed French Valley
Parkway – AM peak hour
13. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot
Springs Road – AM peak hour
25. Old Town Front Street and
Temecula Parkway – AM peak
hour
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)
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.
After implementation of the above mitigation measures, 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.
Less than Significant
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1-18 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
March 2013
CHAPTER 2
Errata
This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR. The following corrections and changes are made
to the Draft EIR, and are incorporated herein as part of the Final EIR. Revised language or new
language is underlined. Deleted language is indicated by strikethrough text.
The changes below were made to the Draft EIR in response to comments received and errata
discovered after the Draft EIR was circulated. These corrections and clarifications represent
additional information or revisions that do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the
Draft EIR’s significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion that significantly more severe
environmental impacts will result from the proposed project. Instead, the errata made to the Draft
EIR below merely “clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications” in the already
adequate Draft EIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
The revisions that follow were made to the text of the Draft EIR. Amended text is identified by
page number. Additions to the Draft EIR text are shown with underlining and text removed from
the Draft EIR is shown with strikethrough.
The following revisions to the text of the Draft EIR are made:
Biological Resources and Wetlands
(Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR)
Page 3.3-23, Impact BIO-1 is revised to read as follows:
Impact BIO-1: Development occurring as a result of the Project could result in direct and
indirect impacts to special-status plants and wildlife from future development. Impacts could
include trampling, crushing, grubbing, trimming or completely removing the plants or their
habitat during construction. Construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds that could
out-compete special status plants. Also, impacts could include interference with the reproductive
success of wildlife or result in mortality of individuals. All impacts to special status plants and
wildlife would be considered significant.
Page 3.3-24, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1a is added to the Draft EIR to clarify responsibility
of future projects to assess biological resources as follows:
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 2-1 211147
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
2. Errata
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1a: Future project applications within the Specific Plan shall be
required to conduct a project-level assessment and impact analysis of biological resources, in
compliance with the MSHCP and CEQA Guidelines, as part of the initial environmental review
of the development application by the City of Temecula.
Page 3.3-25, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 in the DEIR has been revised to more clearly align
with the MSHCP requirements and guidelines, as follows:
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., approved by
CDFW knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using CDFW MSHCP approved burrowing
owl survey protocols a maximum of 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, CDFW, the City, and RCA will be notified. The following
species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found:
• Sheltering in place of nesting owls until nest fledges or fails, as determined by a qualified
biologist (a Bachelor’s of Science degree or equivalent experience and a minimum of one
year of previous burrowing owl monitoring experience). Since 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 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, Ppreparing and implementing an active
translocation plan, if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes ,
and identifying a receptor site for the owl(s) (per WRC MSHCPRCA and CDFW) may
also be acceptable.
• However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35-plus acres of suitable
habitat, on-site conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in accordance with
Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. On-site 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.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 2-2 211147
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
2. Errata
Cultural Resources (Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR)
Page 3.4-26, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 is revised to read as follows:
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 Luiseño Indians and any other local Native American representatives
expressing interest. 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
appropriate Native American groups, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño 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 Luiseño
Indians.and any other local Native American representatives expressing interest. The City shall
conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and any other local Native
American representatives expressing interest, on a project-specific basis.
In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American
monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño 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, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and any other
local Native American representatives expressing interest in the project.
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 Luiseño Indians, will be contacted to assess the
significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 2-3 211147
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
2. Errata
to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City, and the
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and any other local Native American groups expressing
interest, 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 Luiseño 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 Luiseño
Indians, and any other local Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific
analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional
standards.
Page 3.4-28, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2 is revised to read as follows:
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 Luiseño 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.
Public Services (Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR)
Page 3.12-3, the following text and changes to Table 3.12-2 are revised to read as follows:
The nearest elementary school to the Project site, schools serving the Project site would be the
Vail Elementary School, is located 0.96 mile east of the Project area; Margarita Middle School
James L Day Middle School is located 1.7310 miles northeast of the Project area; and Chaparral
Temecula Valley High school is located two 1.33 miles northeast of the Project area. Table 3.12-2
provides enrollment data and capacity for the 20142011-2012 school year for the schools that
serve the Project area.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 2-4 211147
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
2. Errata
TABLE 3.12-2
EXISTING TVUSD SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT AREA
School/Type Location Grade Level
Enrollment
September
October
20142011-2012
School’s
Capacity
September
October
20142011-2012
Vail Elementary 29835915 Mira Loma Drive K through 5 579611 6251,377
Margarita Middle
School James L Day
Middle
30600 Margarita Road40775
Camino Campos Verde
6 through 8 862992 1,2691,485
Chaparral Temecula
Valley High
31555 Rancho Vista Road27215
Nicolas Road
9 through 12 2,7133,093 3,0783,402
Total 4,1444,696 4,9626,264
SOURCE: TVUSD Ryan, 201513.
Page 3.12-11, and Table 3.12-4, the following text and changes to Table 3.12-4 are revised as
follows:
As shown in Table 3.12-4, the Project is anticipated to generate 4,198 K-12 students; however,
this represents a conservative estimate because the generation rates are based on single-family
housing, and the multi-family housing projects that would be developed under the Project
typically do not have as large a household size as single-family housing.
TABLE 3.12-4
GENERATION RATES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Grade
Generation Rates
(per dwelling unit) Total Students for the proposed project
(3,726 New Residential Dwellings)
K-5 0.27740.754 7792,809
555640
834749
2,1684,198
6-8 0.14910.1718
9-12 0.22390.2011
Total
SOURCE: TVUSD, 201512.
Based on the existing capacity (see Table 3.12-2 above), TVUSD would need additional facilities
in order to accommodate the 2,1684,198 students that would be generated from the 3,726 new
residential dwellings units. Student enrollment within TVUSD is anticipated to increase in the
next 10 years. The expected build-out of the school district would result in a student population of
approximately 38,000 students (Ryan, 2012). The 2,1684,198 students generated by the Project
have been anticipated by the expected build-out of the school district.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 2-5 211147
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
CHAPTER 3
Response to Comments
As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final EIR must contain
information summarizing the comments received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in
summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments
received. Eight comment letters were received by the City in response to the Draft EIR. This
chapter provides copies of each letter received and the responses to these comments. A summary
of the comments is provided below in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1
LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
Letter
# Agency/Commenter Date of Letter Environmental Issues
State Agencies
1 California Department
of Transportation
May 11, 2015 Impacts on state transportation facilities
2 State Clearinghouse
and Planning Unit
May 19, 2015 Receipt of receiving Draft EIR
3 California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
July 3, 2015 Impacts to Biological Resources
Local Agencies and Interested Parties
4 Eastern Municipal
Water District
April 8, 2015 Receipt of receiving Draft EIR
5 Riverside County Flood
Control and Water
Conservation District
April 13, 2015 List of potential permits required for the proposed
project
6 Temecula Valley
Unified School District
May 18, 2015 Student generation rates for elementary, middle, and
high schools in the project area
7 Neil Cleveland, City
Resident
June 8, 2015 Concern over flood control channel repairs and
improvements
Public health and safety issues
Homelessness issue
8 Pechanga Tribe –
Temecula Band of
Luiseño Mission
Indians
July 6, 2015 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
Consultation with Pechanga
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-1 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
The responses to comments to the above letters are presented below. These responses do not
significantly alter the proposed project, change the Draft EIR’s significance conclusions, or result
in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result from the
proposed project. Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments “merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications” in the Draft EIR, as is permitted by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
Regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the lead
agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information
added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of
a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponent’s have
declined to implement (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new
information consists of: (1) disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial
increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative
or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would
clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it;
and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15088.5). Recirculation is not required where, as stated above, the new information added to the
EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15088.5).
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-2 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 1:
California Department of Transportation
1-1 The commenter states that as the owner and operator of the State Highway System
(SHS), CEQA requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to make
recommendations to off-set associated impacts with the proposed project. Although the
project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, due to the project’s potential
impact to State facilities it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the
SHS.
Thank you for your comments. The participation of Caltrans in the public review of this
document is appreciated. This comment has been noted for the record.
1-2 The commenter recommends the project include a ramp merge/diverge analysis at the
Interstate-15 northbound and southbound directions at the following interchanges to
determine impacts of development at these locations: I-15/Winchester Road, I-15/Rancho
California Road, and I-15/Temecula.
An analysis of regional freeway congestion would be more appropriate at either a
regional (Countywide) level such at the Regional Transportation Plan or project-level
analysis where specific impacts can be attributed to specific projects. Further, specific
projects implemented under this programmatic EIR would be required to contribute to the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), which is intended to address regional
traffic impacts. This comment has been noted for the record.
1-3 The commenter requests the project proponent submit Synchro Analysis file Traffic
Impact documents and an electronic.
Technical documentation (including Synchro reports) for the Transportation Impact
Analysis report is available to the commenter as part of Appendix D of the Draft EIR,
and that documentation provides sufficient support for the traffic impact determinations
in the Draft EIR. This comment has been noted for the record.
1-4 The commenter requests confirmation of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes in
Tables 4-4, 5-8, 6-2, and 7-4 of the Transportation Impact Analysis, with specific
reference to the ADTs on Winchester Road, Existing (2013) conditions compared to
Future (2035) conditions.
The differences in ADTs between Existing (2013) and Future (2035) conditions are a
function of changes to the roadway network serving the City of Temecula planned to be
implemented by 2035. For example, the 2035 analysis year includes the implementation
of the French Valley Parkway Interchange project, which would connect French Valley
Parkway between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road, and construct a new French Valley
Parkway / I-15 interchange. The addition of these improvements (not present in the 2013
analysis year) would redistribute traffic across various roadways, and is intended to
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-5 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
reduce congestion and improve safety by relieving the I-15 / Winchester Road
interchange. It is noted that overall growth is projected on parallel roads, as indicated by
comparing traffic volumes between 2013 and 2035. Summarizing 2013 volumes for the
major east-west roadways west of I-15 yields a total daily volume of 58,400 vehicles; the
2035 volumes would be 84,500 vehicles. This comment has been noted for the record and
has been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration.
1-5 The commenter states that when comparing the ADT data in the Noise Prediction Model
data to the Tables referenced above (Comment 2-4), the Noise Prediction Model ADT for
2013 and 2035 is lower.
The difference in the ADTs used for the Noise and Traffic sections of the Draft EIR is
acknowledged. However, the differences do not affect the less-than-significant noise
impact determination on pages 3.10-34 and 3.10-35 of the Draft EIR because, as stated
on page 3.10-34 and shown in Table 3.10-10, the project would increase local noise
levels by a maximum of 0.8 dBA (Ldn), which is substantially lower than the 3.0 dBA
and 5.0 dBA thresholds of significance. This comment has been noted for the record and
has been provided to the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration.
1-6 The commenter states prior to the submission for an Encroachment Permit, a follow up
Traffic Study Report review and letter will likely be required by the Department of
Planning.
The project proponent will submit a follow up Traffic Study Report review and letter to
the Department of Planning, if required. This comment has been noted for the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-6 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
May 19, 2015
Dale West
ST AT E OF C A L I F 0 R N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearingho _use and Planning Unit
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
SCH#: 2013061012
Dear Dale West:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The
review period closed on May 18, 2015, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date . This letter
acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
:Sinr-~
Scott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www .opr.ca.gov
Comment Letter 2
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
2013061012
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan
Temecula, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description 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 buildout of the Specific Plan assumes up to 3,726
residential units, approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial uses, and 316 hotel rooms .
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Agency
Phone
email
Dale West
City of Temecula
951 693 3918 Fax
Address 41000 Main Street
City Temecula State CA Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City Temecula
Region
Lat! Long
Cross Streets Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road
Parcel No. Varies
Township
Proximity to:
Highways Hwy 79
Airports
Railways
Range Section
Waterways Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta Creek, Santa Margarita River
Schools
Land Use Various
Base
Project Issues Air Quality ; Biological Resources; Other Issues; Geologic/Seismic; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;
Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Water Quality; Landuse; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public
Services; Traffic/Circulation; AestheticNisual; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Flood
Plain/Flooding; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Solid Waste;
Toxic/Hazardous; Vegetation; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing; Cumulative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Office of Historic Preservation;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources ; Office of Emergency Services,
California; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Department of Housing and Community
Development; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American
Heritage Commission
Date Received 04/01 /2015 Start of Review 04/02/2015 End of Review 05/18/2015
Comment Letter 2
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 2
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
2-1 The commenter states they submitted the Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review
and the review period closed on May 18, 2015. The letter acknowledges that the project
proponent has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA.
The participation of the State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit in the public review of
this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted for the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-9 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 3:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
3-1 The commenter states that California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as a
Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency, is submitting this new set of comments
pertaining to the recirculated Draft EIR, and provides a brief summary of the project.
It is acknowledged that CDFW is submitting comments as a Trustee Agency and
Responsible Agency. This comment has been noted for the record.
3-2 The commenter states that CDFW has jurisdiction over biological resources in the State
and submits comments in order to assist the City of Temecula in identifying and
mitigating for impacts to biological resources. The commenter also states comments are
also offered to adequately review consistency with the Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Department’s primary concern with the project
pertains to areas identified on Figure 2-4, Specific Plan Planning District, as Future
Sports Park and Murrieta Creek Open Space and Recreation District.
The Department’s comment is noted regarding their primary concern to the areas
included on Figure 2-4 and identified as Future Sports Park and Murrieta Creek Open
Space and Recreation District.
3-3 The commenter states that the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District may
include the development of trails, parks, recreation and transit-related facilities as part of
the project, but no analysis of the potential impacts resulting from construction and
operation of these facilities occurred as part of the analysis in the Draft EIR. The
commenter further states the Department acknowledges that the Draft EIR was prepared
as a program-level document, but states the lack of biological survey data and use of
existing databases and Agency information is concerning. Further, the commenter states
that the Department is unclear of the threshold that will be relied upon for requiring
additional environmental review for each phase of the project. Further, if the threshold
for triggering additional environmental review is low or additional environmental review
is not anticipated, then the Department requests that the Draft EIR be recirculated to
include results of current surveys for biological resources. The commenter also states that
the Draft EIR should not defer impact analysis and mitigation measures to future
regulatory discretionary actions.
The DEIR provides a program-level analysis of potential impacts to biological resources
from implementation of the Specific Plan. Project-specific, on-site biological survey data
is required to be collected as part of the environmental review process for future project
applications proposed under the Specific Plan. As stated in the discussion of the project’s
consistency with existing Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation
Plans, or Other Approved Local, Regional, State or Federal Regulations Policies,
Ordinances or Plans, under Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIR, “Future projects occurring
under the Specific Plan would be required to meet MSHCP Implementing Agreement
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-18 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
requirements and be consistent with the City’s General Plan.” In addition, Mitigation
Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5 require project-specific surveys for sensitive-
species per the MSHCP. However, to further clarify that the threshold for triggering
additional environmental review is a project’s application for approval with the City of
Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1a has been added to the Final EIR. This
mitigation measures reads as follows: “Future project applications within the Specific
Plan shall be required to conduct a project-level assessment and impact analysis of
biological resources, in compliance with the MSHCP and CEQA Guidelines, as part of
the initial environmental review of the development application by the City of
Temecula.” This comment has been noted for the record.
3-4 The commenter states that for Department staff to adequately review and comment on the
project, the DEIR should include a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and
adjacent to the project footprint with particular emphasis on identifying sensitive
biological resources.
Please see Response to Comment 3-3. The DEIR is a program-level document and
existing conditions on the site, including potentially sensitive biological resources, were
determined from a review of existing databases and Agency information. A complete,
project-level biological assessment of the flora and fauna present within the project
footprint of any future site-specific projects proposed under the Specific Plan, and
potential impacts associated with such projects will be required. This approach is
appropriate under CEQA as it would be too speculative to evaluate potential impacts
without the knowledge of the specifics of such projects proposed under the Specific Plan.
This comment has been noted for the record.
3-5 The commenter provides a list of standard surveys and assessments that would be
included in a project-level analysis of potential impacts to biological resources.
Please see Response to Comment 3-3. The requested biological surveys and assessments
will be included in a project-level analysis of biological resources, and will be conducted
during future projects as they are proposed within the boundaries of the Specific Plan.
This level of analysis is not required under CEQA for a program-level document, but is
required of project-level analysis of individual projects. This comment has been noted for
the record.
3-6 The commenter requests that the City clearly state in the DEIR that all forthcoming
environmental reviews and associated effects analysis be based on the results of onsite
field surveys and will not be limited to review of databases. Alternatively, if the City
anticipates that forthcoming environmental documents will not be prepared as part of
project-level analyses within the Specific Plan then the DEIR should be recirculated to
include the specific biological surveys and assessments included in the comments above.
Please see Response to Comment 3-3. This comment has been noted for the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-19 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
3-7 The commenter states that the DEIR should provide a thorough discussion of the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources as a
result of the project, including potential effects from any project-related human activity
on sensitive biological resources, open space, natural areas, and effects to waterbodies or
streams.
Please see Responses to Comments 3-3. Additionally, Section 3.3, Biological Resources,
describes and evaluates potential impacts to biological resources that could result from
implementation of the project; and the cumulative impact analysis of biological resources
for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is included in Chapter 4, pages 4-3 through 4-4.
This comment has been noted for the record.
3-8 The commenter states because onsite biological surveys were not conducted for
preparation of this DEIR, then the analysis is insufficient to address potential impacts,
and a thorough environmental analysis based on biological surveys is recommended as
well as recirculation of the DEIR. Additionally, the commenter states the DEIR did not
include an analysis of the potential impacts from installing a trail system and access to
open space areas within the Specific Plan boundaries and an analysis of potential direct
and indirect impacts to biological resources should be conducted.
Please see Responses to Comments 3-3 and 3-7. This comment has been noted for the
record.
3-9 The commenter states the Department is unable to comment on the mitigation measures
prescribed in the DEIR because the Department would like clarification if subsequent
environmental analysis using onsite biological survey data will be required for future
projects. The commenter states that unless subsequent environmental analysis is required,
the Department is concerned the City’s analysis is insufficient and additional analysis and
mitigation is being deferred to future regulatory discretionary actions.
Please see Responses to Comments 3-3 through 3-9. This comment has been noted for
the record.
3-10 The commenter states since the Specific Plan falls within the boundaries of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP that a consistency determination with the goals and objectives
of the MSHCP is required in the DEIR, including an impact analysis of MSHCP Criteria
Cells, Criteria Species, and Narrow Endemic Plants.
Please see Response to Comment 3-4. The DEIR includes a program-level analysis of
potential biological resources within the boundaries of the Specific Plan, which occurs in
the boundaries of the MSHCP. Mitigation Measures are prescribed to address consistency
with the MSHCP at a project level during future project applications within the
boundaries of the Specific Plan as required by the City of Temecula and the MSHCP (see
Mitigation Measures MM-BIO -1 through MM-BIO-5). This comment has been noted for
the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-20 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
3-11 The commenter states any activity that will impact any drainage feature under the
jurisdiction of the CDFW will require a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
(LSA) and early consultation with the Ontario field office should be required.
Additionally, the commenter identifies several potential jurisdictional features that may
also be under the jurisdiction of the MSHCP, but despite MSHCP requirements, a LSA
would still be required.
The DEIR acknowledges that impacts to features determined to contain waters of the
State would require consultation with CDFW and potentially a LSA for project-level
impacts to waters of the State. The DEIR is a program-level document that prescribes
mitigation to evaluate project-level impacts to waters of the State during future project
applications within the Specific Plan, which includes consultation with CDFW and an
LSA. This comment has been noted for the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-21 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
Comment Letter 4
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 4:
Eastern Municipal Water District
4-1 The commenter states the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) provided the City
of Temecula with a technical memorandum summarizing the required improvements to
serve the proposed specific plan. The Draft EIR addresses the EMWD’s
recommendations for improvements and therefore the EMWD takes no exception to this
report.
Thank you for your comments. The participation of the Eastern Municipal Water District
in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted for
the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-32 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 5:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District
5-1 The commenter states that the project involves District Master Plan facilities and that the
District would accept ownership of such facilities on written request from the City. The
Facilities must be constructed to District standards and the District plan checked and
inspection would be required for District acceptance.
Thank you for your comments. The participation of the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District in the public review of this document is appreciated. The
project proponent will comply with the aforementioned request. This comment has been
noted for the record.
5-2 The commenter states that the project is located within the limits of the District’s
Murrieta Creek/Santa Murrieta/Santa Gertrudis/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for
which drainage fees have been adopted, applicable fees should be paid by cashier’s check
or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading
permits.
As this document is a program-level document, no specific projects are proposed at this
time that would require the proponent to obtain construction permits. However, as
specific projects are proposed under the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, individual
project applicants will comply with all adopted, applicable drainage fees to the Flood
Control District or City prior to issuance of any grading permit. This comment has been
noted for the record.
5-3 The commenter states that an encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction
related activities occurring within Flood Control District right-of-way or facilities.
As this document is a program-level document, no specific projects are proposed at this
time that would require the proponent to obtain construction permits. However, as
specific projects are proposed under the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, individual
project applicants will be required to obtain all necessary permits for construction,
including any encroachment permits. This comment has been noted for the record.
5-4 The commenter states the project may require a National Pollutant Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. If the project involves a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information
required to meet FEMA requirements. Further, if a natural watercourse or mapped flood
plain is impacted by the project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section
1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Please see Responses to Comments 5-1 through 5-4. This comment has been noted for
the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-34 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 6:
Temecula Valley Unified School District
6-1 The commenter states that the schools serving the area of the proposed specific plan are
Vail Elementary School, located at 29835 Mira Loma Drive. The school serves grades
TK-5 and October 2014 enrollment was 579 students with a capacity of 625 students.
The participation of the Temecula Valley Unified School District in the public review of
this document is appreciated. The changes requested by the commenter have been
included in Chapter 2, Errata, of this document. This comment has been noted for the
record.
6-2 The commenter states the middle school serving the area is Margarita Middle School,
located at 30600 Margarita Road. The school serves grades 6 through 8 and enrollment in
October 2014 was 862 students with a total capacity of 1,269 students.
The changes requested by the commenter have been included in Chapter 2, Errata, of this
document. This comment has been noted for the record.
6-3 The commenter states the high school serving the site is Temecula Valley High School,
located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road. As of October 2014, the site enrollment was 2,713
students with a total site capacity of 3,078 students.
The changes requested by the commenter have been included in Chapter 2, Errata, of this
document. This comment has been noted for the record.
6-4 The commenter states the project would result in 779 elementary students, 555 middle
school students, and 834 high school students for the 3,726 units proposed. This would be
a total of 2,168 students anticipated to enroll in the Temecula Valley Unified School
District as a result of the project.
The changes requested by the commenter have been included in Chapter 2, Errata, of this
document. This comment has been noted for the record.
6-5 The commenter states that there was no discussion of how over 2,000 students were
going to be transported to the schools that currently service the area and the impact on
traffic. The school district does not have sufficient bus fleet or operation funds to
transport an additional 2,000 students.
Thank you for your comments. TVUSD plans to build additional schools in the area to
accommodate future population growth in the next 10 to 15 years. The environmental
impacts associated with the expansion, construction, and operation of future school
facilities would be evaluated by TVUSD in its effort to plan for the construction of the
new schools. Additionally, the proposed project is a program-level EIR, and construction
of new school facilities would be subject to project-specific environmental
documentation pursuant to CEQA. A project-specific environmental analysis would be
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-37 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
prepared to analyze the physical changes which may occur from future construction of
school facilities, including traffic impacts. Analysis of the physical changes which may
occur from future unidentified development is too speculative at this time. Moreover, as
projects are proposed under the Specific Plan the applicant will be required to provide
payment of fees under Senate Bill 50 (SB50), which is, “…The payment of school
mitigation impact fees … deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of impacts”
from the development of real property on school facilities” (Government Code, Section
65995). As such, the payment of each school district’s approved SB50 fees is “full and
complete mitigation of impacts” under State law for all development projects. This
comment has been noted for the record.
6-6 The commenter states that while the EIR acknowledges that there is insufficient space to
house students from the proposed development in existing facilities, it erroneously
concludes that the statutory developer fees are sufficient to mitigate the additional school
facilities needed.
Thank you for your comments. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 6-5
above. This comment is noted for the record.
6-7 The commenter states that currently statutory fees for residential units are $3.36 per
square foot and $0.54 per square foot for commercial/industrial development. The total
school facilities impact per dwelling unit would be $15,956.99 per unit as of January 7,
2013. The last statewide school facilities bond was passed in 2006 and state assistance is
currently unavailable to assist local districts in construction of new facilities, therefore,
absent of an additional voluntary school facilities mitigation agreement, the statutory
developer fees are the only funding available.
Thank you for your comments. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 6-5
above; additionally, as no specific comments on the inadequacy of the Draft EIR were
provided, no further response is necessary. This comment is noted for the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-38 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
From: Neil Cleveland [mailto:rlainc@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:31 PM
To: Dale West
Cc: Luke Watson
Subject: RE: City re Jefferson Envision
RE: Jefferson Envision / Draft EIR / Specific Plan
Hi Dale:
I have revised the original email regarding the EIR where I previously also addressed the Jefferson
Corridor Specific Plan. In this revision I have removed any reference to the Jefferson Corridor Specific
Plan as it is my understanding that at this time the EIR is only being addressed and that the Jefferson SP
will have its own comment period by way of a separate process. Please also note that I have also added
additional comments as well.
With that being said please see the revised comments below.
Draft EIR: Here are few comments.
1. I am in the process of reviewing the Draft EIR for the Envision Jefferson area. I am particularly
interested in seeing how the flood control channel will be addressed that bisects and goes under
I-15 and Jefferson Avenue, and continuing as an open channel that borders the northerly
boundary of one of our properties (28007 – 28011 Jefferson Ave.). Sometime ago our property
was impacted by the failure of the Riverside County flood control open ditch and it took nearly
an act of congress to get Riverside Flood Control to repair the ditch (it was my understanding
that Riverside Flood Control wanted to make the repairs, especially acknowledging the failure of
the embankment, however Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers would not readily
grant a permit to Riverside). After the open ditch was deemed a threat to the health and safety
of the public, they finally did make the needed repairs, however since then we have not seen
any significant rainfall to see if the ditch works properly. Often the bridge on Del Rio Road is
flooded as a result of the water leaving the ditch and overflowing onto Del Rio Road (in other
words, too much water flow). Perhaps this will improve once Temecula Creek channelization
project is completed, but that is only a guess on my part. Clearly this area needs to be
addressed.
2. There exists a public health and safety issue, especially along Jefferson Avenue; it is the lack of
safe and accessible sidewalks for pedestrian travel.
3. Another issue that is of concern that has really grown since the Jefferson Envision public process
initiated is the homeless issue and an increase in camping on many of streets within the
Jefferson Envision area. Beside homeless encampments in and along Del Rio Road, there is also
a significant amount of long term overnight parking (camping) taking place by the public. The
overnight long term campers consists of people living in their cars, trucks, travel trailers and
motor homes. Often times sewage can be seen coming from these overnight vehicles as well as
group gatherings/encampments. This is a serious problem on many levels. Many of these
people use the outdoor areas in and around Del Rio Road for their sewage disposal, cooking,
commerce pursuits and living quarters. Our office is located on Del Rio Road and we see
Comment Letter 7
overnight camping taking place every day. It is my understanding that the City of Long Beach
incorporated a component in one of their specific plans that addresses the homeless issue.
4. Did the EIR address any soils testing, more particularly “liquefaction” as relates to soil stability
with respect to multiple story buildings?
Thank you,
Neil M. Cleveland
951-232-3077 cell
951-676-4148 office
From: Dale West [mailto:Dale.West@cityoftemecula.org]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 7:56 AM
To: 'rlainc@verizon.net'
Cc: Luke Watson
Subject: RE: City re Jefferson Envision
Hi Neil,
The comment regarding the SP can be either included or taken out. If it’s included, a response
will be prepared, but it will likely resemble a response that states the comment relates to the SP
and not the EIR and therefore is not subject or applicable pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. The
other option is to resubmit your comments without the one regarding the SP; however, I will
need you to resubmit them, as I cannot legally amend public comments in any form.
Thanks,
Dale West
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3918
dale.west@cityoftemecula.org
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the
California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Neil Cleveland [mailto:rlainc@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:59 AM
To: Dale West
Subject: RE: City re Jefferson Envision
Hi Dale:
Yes, please make my comments a part of the public record for the Final EIR document. There is a small
paragraph where I set forth some points regarding the Specific Plan; I am thinking that because this
email is related to the EIR that perhaps we don’t need the paragraph referring to the SP. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Comment Letter 7
Neil
From: Dale West [mailto:Dale.West@cityoftemecula.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:46 AM
To: 'rlainc@verizon.net'
Subject: RE: City re Jefferson Envision
Hi Neil,
I want to verify from you whether you intended the comments below to be part of the public
record of Final EIR document. As part of the process, the entire email chain would become part
of the Final EIR, in which a response would be provided to each question/statement. If you do
not want the entire email to become part of the final document, could you please resend your
questions in a separate email. The comment period for the Draft EIR ends July 6, 2015.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you,
Dale West
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3918
dale.west@cityoftemecula.org
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the
California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Neil Cleveland [mailto:rlainc@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 3:52 PM
To: Dale West
Cc: 'J. Steve Tiritilli'
Subject: City re Jefferson Envision
RE: Jefferson Envision / Draft EIR / Specific Plan
Hi Dale:
Draft EIR: Here are few comments.
1. I am in the process of reviewing the Draft EIR for the Envision Jefferson area. I am particularly
interested in seeing how the flood control channel will be addressed that bisects and goes under
I-15 and Jefferson Avenue, and continuing as an open channel that borders the northerly
boundary of one of our properties (28007 – 28011 Jefferson Ave.). Sometime ago our property
was impacted by the failure of the Riverside County flood control open ditch and it took nearly
an act of congress to get Riverside Flood Control to repair the ditch (it was my understanding
that Riverside Flood Control wanted to make the repairs, especially acknowledging the failure of
the embankment, however Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers would not readily
grant a permit to Riverside). After the open ditch was deemed a threat to the health and safety
of the public, they finally did make the needed repairs, however since then we have not seen
any significant rainfall to see if the ditch works properly. Often the bridge on Del Rio Road is
flooded as a result of the water leaving the ditch and overflowing onto Del Rio Road (in other
words, too much water flow). Perhaps this will improve once Temecula Creek channelization
Comment Letter 7
project is completed, but that is only a guess on my part. Clearly this area needs to be
addressed.
2. There exists a public health and safety issue, especially along Jefferson Avenue; it is the lack of
safe and accessible sidewalks for pedestrian travel.
3. Another issue that is of concern that has really grown since the Jefferson Envision public process
initiated is the homeless issue and an increase in camping on many of streets within the
Jefferson Envision area. Beside homeless encampments in and along Del Rio Road, there is also
a significant amount of long term overnight parking (camping) taking place by the public. The
overnight long term campers consists of people living in their cars, trucks, travel trailers and
motor homes. Often times sewage can be seen coming from these overnight vehicles as well as
group gatherings/encampments. This is a serious problem on many levels. Many of these
people use the outdoor areas in and around Del Rio Road for their sewage disposal, cooking,
commerce pursuits and living quarters. Our office is located on Del Rio Road and we see
overnight camping taking place every day.
Once I have had the opportunity to review the EIR, I will make additional comments should it be
necessary.
Regarding the proposed draft SP:
1. During the “envision” process, either I or my business partner attended every meeting. I also
had some correspondence with Katie Innes as well. I suspect you have seen that
correspondence? At this time I have a couple areas concern are as follows: (1) Initially the City
proposed a “6 month dark period” should a non-conforming usage go dark requiring the usage
to be replaced with a occupying tenant prior to the end of the 6 month period. During the
envision process, we proposed a “1 year dark period” and it was acceptable by the Staff. Can
you please confirm this? (2) There was quite a bit of discussion from the public regarding the
proposed usage matrix. I have attached a copy of the a letter sent to Katie, dated December 2,
2013. I hope the SP draft addresses the usage matrix in a user friendly manner. Do you have
any indications and/or matrix examples pertaining to the usage matrix at this time?
Thank you,
Neil M. Cleveland
951-232-3077 cell
951-676-4148 office
From: Dale West [mailto:Dale.West@cityoftemecula.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 8:29 AM
To: 'rlainc@verizon.net'
Cc: Luke Watson
Subject: RE: Comment from Envision Jefferson
Neil,
Comment Letter 7
Thank you for your continued support and interest in the project. The draft EIR will be released
for the 45 day public comment period on April 2, 2015. The draft SP will be released shortly
afterward, but I do not have a definitive date at this time. The draft SP is anticipated to be
considered by the Planning Commission in June and then by the City Council in July, 2015;
however, this schedule is subject to change depending on the breadth of comments received
from the public.
Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Dale West
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
(951) 693-3918
dale.west@cityoftemecula.org
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Temecula, along with attachments, may be subject to the
California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <info@envisionjefferson.org>
Date: Mar 25, 2015 5:23 AM
Subject: Comment from Envision Jefferson
To: <info@envisionjefferson.org>
Cc:
Comment Submitted by:
Name: Neil Cleveland
Organization: myself
Email: rlainc@verizon.net
Possibly Regarding Page:
/app_pages/view/7
Subject:
Envision Jefferson
Comment:
name:
Neil Cleveland
email:
rlainc@verizon.net
Comment Letter 7
I participated in all the workshops and then it seemed as if the project
stalled in 2014. I now understand that the EIR will be completed soon,
is this correct? Also, if the new SP is back on course what is the
timing of the process and when would a draft of the SP be available for
review? Who is now leading up this project? Thank you very much.
Comment Letter 7
3. Response to Comments
Response to Letter 7:
Neil Cleveland
7-1 The commenter states that he is interested in how the flood control channel would be
addressed that bisects and goes under I-15 and Jefferson Avenue and continues as an
open channel that borders the northerly boundary of one of his properties (28007-28011
Jefferson Avenue).
Thank you for your comments. The participation of Neil Cleveland in the public review
of this document is appreciated. As described in Section 3.8, Hydrology, the open space
bordering the open channel would remain undeveloped. Future development would not
directly alter the course of Murrieta Creek or Santa Gertrudis Creek. However,
construction of the future development within the project area would require activities
such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter
ground surface and drainage patterns resulting in additional stormwater runoff.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1 provided in the Draft EIR would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels through compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit
and compliance with the MS4 permit to minimize temporary increases in stormwater
runoff. This comment has been noted for the record.
7-2 The commenter states there is a public health and safety issue, especially along Jefferson
Avenue, regarding the lack of safe and accessible sidewalks for pedestrian travel.
The Draft EIR acknowledges the need for additional sidewalks along Jefferson Avenue.
Implementation of the proposed project would provide opportunities throughout the
project area for sidewalks, as future development and new roadways are constructed.
Moreover, a project-level environmental analysis would be prepared for each proposed
project under the implementation of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. This comment
has been noted for the record.
7-3 The commenter states that there is a homeless issue and an increase in camping on many
of the streets within the Jefferson Envision area. There is also a significant amount of
long-term overnight parking (camping) taking place by the public and often times sewage
can be seen coming from these overnight vehicles as well as group
gatherings/encampments.
CEQA does not require the analysis of social justice or socioeconomic issues as
described above. This comment does not specifically address any inadequacies regarding
the analysis in the Draft EIR. However, this comment has been noted for the record.
7-4 The commenter asks if the EIR addressed any soil testing, more specifically for
liquefaction as it relates to soil stability for multiple-story buildings.
As this document is a program-level document, no specific projects are proposed at this
time that would require the proponent to analyze liquefaction potential for multiple-story
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-45 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
3. Response to Comments
buildings. However, as specific projects are proposed under the Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan, individual project applicants will be required to prepare site-specific
geotechnical investigations that would include a liquefaction analysis. This comment has
been noted for the record.
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-46 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
8
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
8
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
8
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
8
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
8
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
L
e
t
t
e
r
8
3. Response to Comments
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-53 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
Response to Letter 8:
Pechanga Tribe – Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians
8-1 The commenter states that the Tribe should be added to distribution list(s) for public
notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents,
archaeological reports, and all documents pertaining to the project. The Tribe requests to
be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning the project.
The Tribe requests inclusion of Tribal comments into the record of approval for the
project. The commenter thanks the City of Temecula for providing mitigation aimed at
preservation and protection of sensitive Luiseño cultural resources and traditional
landscapes.
Thank you for your comments. The Tribe will be included in all distribution lists for
public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental documents
pertaining to the project. The Tribe will be directly notified of all public hearings and
scheduled approvals for the project. This comment has been noted for the record.
8-2 The commenter states that the Pechanga Tribe has a specific legal and cultural interest in
the proposed project because the Tribe is culturally affiliated with the geographic area.
Additionally, the commenter states the Tribe has been exclusively named the Most Likely
Descendent on projects within the City of Temecula and has specific knowledge of
cultural resources and sacred places near the proposed project site. The Tribe wishes to
continue to consult with the City of Temecula to further discuss and provide
documentation concerning the specific cultural affiliation to lands within the City.
Thank you for your comment. This comment has been noted for the record.
8-3 The commenter is concerned with the potential for intact subsurface features and tribal
resources that may be present beneath buildings and parking areas that could be impacted
by future development. The Tribe requests edits to Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 and
MM-CUL-2
The requested edits to the Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 have been
made to the Final EIR in response to this comment. The commenter is referred to Chapter
2, Errata for the changes to the Final EIR text edits. This comment has been noted for the
record.
8-4 The commenter requests edits to Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1.
The requested edits to the Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 have been added to the Final
EIR in response to this comment. The commenter is referred to Chapter 2, Errata for the
changes to the EIR text edits. This comment has been noted for the record.
8-5 The commenter requests edits to Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2.
3. Response to Comments
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 3-54 ESA / 211247
Final Environmental Impact Report July 2015
The requested edits to the Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-2 have been made to the Final
EIR in response to this comment. The commenter is referred to Chapter 2, Errata for the
changes to the EIR text edits.
8-6 The commenter requests that the determination of significance after implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4 be revised to significant and unavoidable because of the
possibility that the mitigation measure may be insufficient to reduce the impact to below
a level of significance.
The City recognizes that unanticipated discovery of human remains during the course of
ground disturbance must be treated with the utmost respect and consideration, and
according to law. Prescriptive measures to be implemented in the event of an
unanticipated discovery of human remains, wherever they may be found, are provided in
the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e)(1) specifically to address such circumstances.
For the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, these measures are included by reference in
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4. The comment identifies no greater impact on human
remains than the one analyzed in the Draft EIR, and no evidence that MM-CUL-4 would
be less successful than indicated in the analysis. As such, the determination of
significance after mitigation in the Draft EIR remains appropriate. This comment has
been noted for the record.