Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051595 PC AgendaAGENDA TENIECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 15, 1995, 6:00 PM Rancho California Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92390 CALl, TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CAt,t,: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so me~nbers of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink nRequest to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and ,address, For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be ~ed with the planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No,: Applicant: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Devdopment Code City of Temecula Review of the Development Code John Meyer Continue to June 5, 1995 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 9S-0021 (Plot Plan) John Svenningsen - Arescan, Inc. 28381 Vincent Moraga Drive An approximate 104,558 square foot addition to an existing building Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 9S-0031 - Environmental Impact Report City of Temecula The southern and western portion of the City of Temecula, in and around Old Town Temecula An Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Old Town Redevelopment Project (OTRP). The OTRP is a joint public/private venture consisting of 10 entertslnment and support facilities in the Old Town Core area, and hotel (with supporting commercial uses) and a wild west arena west of Old Town Temecnia. The project includes necessary wads, parking areas, and other infrastructure needed to support the redevelopment of Old Town. The project also includes the protection of significant open space areas. David Hogan, Associate Planner Recommend Certification C3se No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: EnvironmentalAction: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit TZBG: Zev Buffman A section of Old Town Temecnia generally bounded by Second Street to the South, Muftieta Creek to the west, Moreno Road to the north and Interstate 15 to the east. Master Conditional Use Permit for the following uses; cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), opera house, TV/radio studio, virtual reality complex (2), quickdraw competition area, central ticket office/visiWr center, public square, administration and back of house facilities. Environmental Impact Report (Phnning Application No. 95-0031) Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Recommend Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 950003 - Westside Specific Plan, Planning Application No. 95-0004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011, Development Agreement No. DV95.0001 Gene Hancock West of Pujol Street and east of the western City Limit Planning Application No. 9S-0003 (Westside Specific Plan) - a Specific Plan for approximately 154.1 gross acres, consisting of six plsnning areas (two commercial, two residential, one mixed use and one open space). Planning Application No. 9S-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) - a nine parcel subdivision of 154.1 gross acres. Development Agreement No. DV 95-0001 - An agreement between Hancock Development Company and the City. Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 95-0031) Manhew Fagan, Assistant Planner Recommend Approval Next meeting: June 5, 1995, 6:00 p.m. (unless the Buffman Project, Item #4, needs to be continued to May 22, 1995), Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecnia, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission ~ Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannin April 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Draft Development Code Prepared by: John Meyer RECOMMENDATION: Continue Public Hearing to June 5, 1995 BACKGROUND The following changes have been made to the program schedule: ITEMS FORDISCUSSION Chapter 9.06 Residential Districts Chapter 9.08 Commercial/Industrial Districts Chapter 9.12 Public/Institutional Districts Chapter 9.14 Open Space/Recreation Districts Cha 3ter 9.16 Specific Plan Overlay District Cha 3ter 9.18 Village Center Overlay District Cha 3ter 9.20 Floodplain Overlay District Cha 3ter 9.22 Planned Development Overlay District Cha ~ter 9.24 Off-street Parking and Loading Cha ~ter 9.26 Covenants for Easements Cha ~ter 9.34 Definition of Terms Consistency Zoning (Zoning Map) General Plan Amendment Revisions Addendum MEETING DATES Meeting II April 3, 1995 Meeting III Moy 16, 1006 June 5, 1995 Meeting IV June 19, 1995 ITEM #3 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 15, 1995 Planning Application No. 95-0021 - Amscan, Inc. Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Commission: 1. m APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planning ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 95-0021; and APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA95- 0021; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving Planning Application No. 95-0021, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. 95-0021 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. North: South: East: West: John Svenningsen - Amscan, Inc. Russell Rumansoff- Herron + Rumansoff An approximate 114,019 square foot addition to an existing building 28381 Vincent Moraga Drive M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) Not requested BP (Business Park) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Office buildings Vacant Existing Amscan, Inc. building Industrial buildings PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 5.97 acres Total Site Area Building Area: 114,019 square feet Office: 4,730 + 9,461 (proposed future) Warehouse: 99,828 Landscape Area: 89,064 square feet Paved Area: 66,300 square feet Parking Required: 107 Parking Provided: 112 Standard: 106 Handicap: 6 Building Height: 50 feet BACKGROUND Planning Application No. 95-0021 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on March 28, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 13, 1995. Planning Application No. 95-0021 was deemed complete on April 20, 1995. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a proposal to construct a 114,019 square foot building. The office area will comprise approximately 4,730 square feet initially, with 9,461 proposed for future development. Warehousing and distribution will compromise 99,828 square feet. As proposed, the project will traverse several lot lines. To remedy this situation a parcel merger is required as a condition of approval. ANALYSIS Site Desion The project site has previously been graded. The building pad site is flat and the parking area is higher in elevation. Some finish grading of the site will be necessary on the northern portion of the slope area adjacent to the parking area in order to create the truck loading area. The applicant proposes to provide one hundred twelve (112) parking spaces on site. One hundred seven (107) parking spaces are required per Ordinance No. 348. In addition, handicapped parking is consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act provisions. R:~S'fAI~RFI~IPA95.1'C 5/9/95 klb 2 The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the conceptual landscape plan for consistency with Ordinance No. 348 (Land Use and Development) and Ordinance No. 457 (Grading). The project has been determined to be consistent with both Ordinances. Architecture The building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete and will be painted. The base color of the building will be painted concrete (grey). Four (4) horizontal stripes will traverse the building, with light grey being used for the horizontal score lines. The west facing elevation presents a front to the street which includes "solar grey" window glazing with dark red frames. The south facing elevation includes dark red painted, metal roll up doors. Area Comoatibilitv Existing buildings within the vicinity are similar in type of construction. The building as proposes will be fifty feet in height. Most of the buildings in immediate area are approximately two stories feet in height. However, the Calavo building which is located to the southwest is taller than the other buildings in the area. Circulation/Traffic The applicant has submitted a Focused Traffic Study for the project (prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated April 18, 1995). The Focused Traffic Analysis states that impacts from this project to the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive will be greater than five percent (approximately seven percent). However, the report concludes that there will be no reduction in the Level of Service at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive during either peak period due to the project. Mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the project, as approved by the Public Works Department, that will mitigate any potential impacts from the project to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts are expected from development of the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Existing zoning for the site is M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial). Warehouse and distribution with office facilities are permitted within the M-SC zone with the approval of a plot plan pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Business Park (BP). According to the Draft Development Code, warehouse/distribution with office facilities would be permitted in the zone by right. Until the new Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration for the project. R:~TAFFRPT~IPA95.PC 519/95 klb ~ SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is consistent with all City ordinance requirements. It is likely that future buildings in the immediate proximity to this project will be compatible in terms of floor area ratio and bulk. Traffic generated by the project will be insignificant. A mitigation monitoring program (MMP) was prepared for this project. Areas that require mitigation monitoring include: earth, air, water, animal life, noise, light and glare, natural resources, transportation/circulation and public services. The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan. The Initial Study for the project determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. FINDINGS The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Business Park (BP). In addition, the project is permitted under the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project. The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in an area ' of existing and proposed light industrial/commercial development. Approval of this Plot Plan will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. 10. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Vincent Moraga Drive). The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Initial Study - Blue Page 23 Exhibits - Blue Page 40 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Site Plan D. Elevations Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 41 R:~TAFFP, PT~IPA95.PC 5/9/95 ldb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:~TA~FRPT~21PA95.1~C 5~/95 k~ 6 ATFACI-IMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 954}021 (PLOT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT A 114,019 SQUARE FOOT BUILr}ING ON T!tREE PARCEL~ CONTAINING $.97 ACIH~-~ LOCATED ON VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 921-281-008, 921-281-009, AND 921-281- 010 WI:ff~REAS, Amscan, Inc. fried Planning Application No. 95-0021 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 95-0021 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 95-0021 on May 15, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon heating and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 95-0021; NOW, TI~-REFORE, THY~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 95-0021 makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Business Park (BP). In addition, the project is permitted under the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348. 4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project. The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval. 5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. 6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in an area of existing and proposed light industrial/commercial development. 7. Approval of this Plot Plan will have a di minintis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. 8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Vincent Moraga Drive). 9. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. 10. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 95-0021, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. B. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Plot Plan will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is because that this project will be located in an area that has previously been disturbed and has not historically contained any sensitive habitat. The project includes the construction of a 104,558 square foot building to be used for a warehouse and distribution center and that all of the same are located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds R:~TAFFRFF~IPA95.PC 5/9/95 k~ 8 that an ir~fn! study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission's detern~n_n~on, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the City hni, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect coptnined in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Seetlon 3. Environmental Cort~pliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. 95-0021 to construct a 104,558 square foot building located on Vincent Motaga Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 921-281-008, 921-281-009 and 921-281-010 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof. R:~STAITFRP~IPAg~.IxC ~/~ ldb 9 Section S. PASSE1), APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1995. STEVEN L FORD CHAIRMAN I I~'~ERy CERTII~ that the foregoing Re~olution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of May, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: AI~ENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THOP, NmlJ, 8BCRETARY R:~TAPI~.PI~-IPAgff. PC S/9/95 ~ 10 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P,:L~TAFFRPT~lpA95.PC S/9/95 Idb 11 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 95-0021 - Plot Plan Project Description: A 114,019 square foot building that will contain 14,191 square feet of office space (4,730 current and 9,461 future) and 99,828 square feet of warehouse space Asaessor's Parcel No.: 921-281-008,921-281-009and 921-281-010 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be voided by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. R:~TAI~FRF~21PA95.1~C 5/9/95 kJb 12 m This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, as approved with Planning Application No. 95-0021, or as amended by these conditions. A. One hundred twelve (112) parking spaces shall be provided. B. Six (6) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Five (5) Class I bicycle lockers or Class II bicycle spaces in an enclosed lockable area shall be provided. Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, as approved with Planning Application No. 95-0021, or as amended by these conditions. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F (Elevations), and Exhibit G (Color Elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (color and material board). Materials Colors Concrete Glazing (windows) Metal (window frames) Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 8. Frazee 5380M and 5381M Solar Grey Frazee 327 Dark Red The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 10. The applicant shall record a Certificate of Parcel Merger for the project, merging parcels 921-281-008,921-281-009and 921-281-010. 11. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. R:~qTAFFRPT~71PA95,PC 5/9/95 klb 13 12. Three (3| copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 14. A Setback Adjustment application shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Director of Planning for any front yard setback encroachment(s). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15. An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 16. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 17. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 18. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone 20. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. R:~TAFFRPT~IPA95.PC 519/95 klb 14 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 22. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 23. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 24. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 26. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 27. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 28. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 29. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 30. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 31. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 32. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. P,:%STAFF2PT~71PA95.PC 519195 ki 15 General Requirements 33. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite fiat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 34. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 35° A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 36. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 37. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 38. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State Water Resources Control Board San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 40. A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 41. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. ]t:L~TAi~RI~21PA95.~C 5/9/95 kJb 16 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. Graded but undeveloped lend shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. Letter of approval or a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise grading plan. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain. 2:~'rA.n~u,r~21p^95.l,c 5~5 ki 17 53. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 54. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 55. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be recorded by separate instrument as directed by the Department of Public Works. 56. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development of this project. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits 57. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 58. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. 59, The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos. 207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk). Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. R:LqTAFFRFf~21PA95.1~C 5/9/95 kJb 15 All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 60. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) d. Sewer and domestic water systems e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines g. Erosion control and slope protection Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District General Telephone Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 62. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R:~qT.d~IPA95.PC 5/9/95 klb 19 63. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 64. All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 65. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 66. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 67. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. 68. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western By- Pass Corridor/Vincent Moraga Improvements in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Planning Department Department of Public Works R:~STAFFRPT~IPA95.PC 5/9/95 klb 20 70. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping, traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the Department of Public Works. 71. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 72. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 73. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 74. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 75. Adjacent to the site, Vincent Moraga Drive is classified as a Principal Collector Highway with an 78 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Plan of the General Plan. There is an existing 33 foot of half width right-of-way and an additional 6 foot of dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 6 foot of right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City of Temecula on Vincent Moraga Drive/Ridge Park Drive along the project frontage. 76. An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication shall be prepared by the Developer for roadway and public utility purposes on Vincent Moraga Drive/Ridge Park Drive. Irrevocable Offer of Dedication limits shall be verified through the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated April 3, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 78. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal dated April 13, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 79. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated May 1, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated April 1 O, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated April 24, 1995, a copy of which is attached. lt:~STAFFRPT~21pA95.PC 5/9/95 klb 21 82. 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency's transmittal dated April 17, 1995, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley Unified School District's transmittal dated May 8, 1995, a copy of which is attached. TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT A : Matthew Fagan HARRISON, Environmental Health Specialist III PLOT PLAN NO. PA95-0021 DATE: April 3, 1995 D!X D 1. Department of Environmemal Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA95-0021 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, the following are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. CH:dr (909) 275-8980 cc: Becky Johnson, Environmental Health Specialist III RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACENTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 * (909) 657-3183 J.M. HARRIS FIRE CHIEF April 13, 1995 TO: ATr~q': lIE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATII-II~',q FAGAN PA95-0021 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire DeparUnent recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a ralnlmum ftm flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fn'e flow of 3000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall famish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for f~re protection impacts. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BB MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. In~all a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fn'e department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buffdine(s). A statement that the building wffi be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the ti~e page of the building plans. The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire alarm system with audio/visual devices for occupant notification and monitored to a U.L. approved remote receiving station. High rack storage shall meet the requirements of Article 81 of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fife hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middie of the sUeet directly in line with fire hydrant. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Depaament. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire D~axtment Planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist Water John F. Hennigar May 1, 1995 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SL~BJECT: Water Availability 28381 Vincent Moraga Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ,~.. Laurie Williams Engineering Services Manager LW:eb201-3/F012A CC: Steve Brannon, Development Engineering Manager Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ~,x~vat ~ April 10, 1995 · J ns'd ............ ' SUBJECT: PA 95-0021 - Arescan Inc., 28381 Vincent Moraga Drive Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposal to construct an approxin~ate 104,558 sq. ft. warehouse addition to an additional building, located at 28381 Vincent Moraga Drive. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area, however, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the Distfict's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Domestic Water The subject project appears to be located within the Rancho California Water District. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Mr. Matthew Fagan PA 95-0021 April 10, 1995 Page 2 The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer aligned along the subject project's frontage in Vincent Moraga Drive. Other Issues Based upon the exhibit submitted, it appears that restrooms, only, will be the soume of sewer generated from the project. If other sources of sewer are anticipated, please submit the additional information along with a plan-of-service deposit in the amount of $400 for further review. If no other soume of sewer is generated from the project, the applicant should make financial arrangements and coordinate for sewer service through the District's Customer Service Depattment. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468. Sincerely, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Senior Customer Service Engineer KLC/cz AB 95-381 (wp-ntwk-PA950021 .clz) APR 24 '95 87:54AM S14 S ~IFF STATION P.2 City of Temecula Temecula Police Department April 24, 1995 Amecan Inc. Expansion Conditions of Approval The applicant must install security lighting on the exterior of the buildings, sufficient enough as to eliminate any dark alleyways and/or blind spots in between and around the buildings. The applicant must landscape the surrounding area with low shrubbery type plants, if any, and especially around ~e buildlng's windows. Additionally, it is recommended that ~e applloant |natall a security alarm or closed circuit T.V. monitoring system of acres type, that is constantly monitored. If there are any questions regarding ~ese conditions. please feel free to contact me at the police station. Sincerel . Temecula Police Department (909) 696-30OO April 17, 1995 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED Arts'do .-.... ....... II Riverside ~ransit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 · Fax: (909) 684-1007 Plot Plan #95-0021:104,558 s.f. addition to existing warehouse Location: 28381 Vincent Moraga Drive Applicant: John Svenningsen - Amscan, Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. We have no comments related to the current proposal. The site is approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest RTA service at the intersection of Front Street and Rancho California Road (Route 23a). A new route from Lake Elsinore to Business Park Drive will be introduced as a demonstration of peak-hour commuter bus service in the fall of 1995. The applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on existing and planned transit service in the area. SinCerely, Cis LeRoy Planning Manager TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District May 8, 1995 SUPERINTENDENT Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 BOARD OF EDUCATION Barbara Tooker RECEIVED MAY: 0 1995 Ans'd ................. SUBJECT: Amscan, Inc., PA 95-0021 Dear Mr. Fagan: The Temecula Valley Unified School Distict would like to have a condition of payment of the statuatory commercialfees applied to this application. Sincerely, ~net Dixon~ ~ilities Planning Analyst cc: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Development Facilities Comments: SA 301 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL STUDY R:~TAFFP, PT~21PA95.1~ 5/9/~5 klb 2~ City of Temecula Planning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON 1. Name of Project: 2. Case Number: 3. Location of Project: 4. Description of Project: 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: Name of Proponent: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Alnscan, Inc. planning Application No. 95-0021 (Plot Plan) Vincent Moraga Drive A 114,019 square foot building (An expansion to an existing business - Am~can, Inc. April 20, 1995 Jim Bell, Vice-President (Anuscan) 28401 Rancho California Road Temecula, CA 92590 ENVIRONIV~NTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section I~ Yes Ma~'be N9 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? X __ __ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? _X__ __ __ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X __ _ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? __ __ X__ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? X __ g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? __ __ __X R:',STAFFRPT~21PAgLPC 5/9/9S klb 24 h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, temperatore, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in ~urrents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperatore, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFPRF~21PAg$.!aC 5/9/95 Y~ Maybe b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? __ __ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? __ __ d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ __ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all !and animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? _ __ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? __ __ c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __ e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _~_ __ c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? X __ 7. Light and Chre. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X _ 8. Lqnd Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? _ __ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X X X X X X X m R:~STAFFRFr~lPA95.PC 5/9/95 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals, oil or radiation)? b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? I 1. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? Yes Maybe No X X X P~STAFFRFF~IpA95.PC 5/9/9S klb 27 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: 1S. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water systems? d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage systems? f. Solid waste disposal systems? g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? 17. Human Henlth. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive recepwrs (such as hospitals and schools) to Wxic pollutant emissions? 18. Aestheties. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? Yes Maybe X R:~qTAFFRF~21PA95.PC $/9/95 k]b 28 20. Cultural Resources. WHI the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Y~ Ma_vbe X X R:~TAFFRFI~21PA95.PC 5/9/95 klb 2~} HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth 1.a. Yes. The proposal will result in unstable earth conditions. The site has been previously Faded and building pads have been created. Potential unstable earth conditions will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. The landscaping will serve as erosion control. The project will not result changes in geologic substructures. Construction and grading for this development will not be at depths which would affect any geologic substructures. No significant impacts are foreseen as a result of this project. 1.b. Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First, the site has previously been graded. Second, the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project will be minimal. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I.C. Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site wpography and ground surface relief features. Although the site has already been modified inw its current configuration, additional grading will be necessary for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief featores will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.d. No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.e,f. Yes. Development of the site will result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site during the consU'uction phase of the project. The project proposal will also result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-m, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.g. No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.h. Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. In addition, there is potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soil reports will be required as conditions of approval and will contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are located on R:'~TAIq~Lwr~IpA95.PC S/9/gS klb 30 the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.i. No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air 2.a,b. Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air emissions and objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows no significant impact to air quality at buildout of the City. The analysis was conducted with the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. Water 3.a. No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either marine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.b. Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage paRems and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Existing drainage conveyances safely and adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.c. Maybe. The project may result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Potential impacts can be mitigated through utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) R:~TAFFRFT~IPAg5.PC 519i95 k~ permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f,g. No. The proposal wH! not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. In addition, the proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aqulfer by cuts or excavations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.h. No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists in the vicinity of the project site. Additional water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. Yes. The proposal will expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Plant Life 4.a-d. No. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. In addition, this property is not corren~y used as farm land and is not identified in the General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Animal Life No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is curren~y graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this project. Noise 6.a. Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. The project site is located within a Commercial/Industrial corridor. There are no sensitive receptors located in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long run. R:kqTAFFRFf~1PA95.1'C 5/9/95 klb 32 6.b,e. Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the development/construction phase (abort run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and will also not be considered significant. Ij~ht and Glare Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Land Use Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant. When the project is realized on the site the use of the land will be altered. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site which identifies the site as Business Park (BP). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as described in the City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources 9.a,b. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. Risk of Unset 10.a,b. No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10.e. No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:X,qTAFFRPT~lPA95.PC 59/95 Ir~ 33 Ponulation 11. Maybe. The project may result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of the area because it will be creating jobs within the City of Temecula. The creation of new jobs has the potential to cause people to relocate to an area close to their employment. Due to the limited scale of the project, it will not result in the relocation of large numbers of people. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Housiw, 12. Maybe. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause large numbers of people to relocate. Additional housing needs will not be created as a result of this particular project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation 13.a. No. The applicant has submitted a Focused Traffic Study for the project (prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates dated April 18, 199~. The Focused Traffic Analysis states that impacts from this project to the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive will be greater than five percent (approximately seven percent). The report concludes that there will be no reduction in the Level of Service at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive during either peak period due to the project. Mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the project, as approved by the Public Works Department, that will mitigate any potential impacts from the project to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected from development of the site. 13.b. Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. One hundred seven (107) parking spaces are required under Ordinance No. 348. The project as proposed includes one hundred twelve (112) parking spaces on-site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation. The site is located adjacent to a fully improved sweet (Vincent Moraga Drive). Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 travels to the intersection of From Street and Rancho California Road, which is in proximity to the project site. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will not be required for this project because of the number of employees (under 100 at one shift). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The site is cuffen~y vacant. People travelling to a site that was previously vacant will logically alter the present circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No. 13.c., the project is located adjacent to a fully improved street. The area is also developed with commercial/industrial uses. Because of these two factors, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.e. No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists curren~y in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~TAFFRFr~IPA95.PC $/9/95 k,~ 34 13.f. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the site. These impacts are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards. Public Services 14.a,b. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.c. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project may be required to pay school mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits (this determination will be made by the Temecula Valley Unified School District). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effea upon or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11, 12, and 14.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 14.L No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. EnerL~ 15.a. No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 15.b. No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projecL R:~TAFFRPT~.IpAg$.PC 5/9/95 klb ~ Utilities 16.a No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are curren~y be'rag delivered adjacent to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.b. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.e. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to provide on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling programg which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.g. No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Human Health 17.a.b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and its recommendations shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health Services Agency transmittal dated April 3, 1995, a copy of which is on fde with the PIning Department). In addition, the proposal will not expose people to potential health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~TAFFRPT~IPA95.l*C 59/95 klb ~36 Aesthetics 18.a,b. No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be compatible in architectural style and scale with adjacent development. Landscaping and building articulation will provide buffers to existing view corridors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.c. No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference response 18.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 19. No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 20.a. No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report, this project is not located in an area of sensitivity for both archaeological and paleontological resources. Further, the site has been previously Faded and the project will not go beyond the limits of this Fading. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.b. No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. Reference response 20.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.c. No. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No unique ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.d. No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religions or sacred uses within the potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~TAPPRFr~lPA95.PC 5/9/95 klb ~7 IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF ~IGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or anim~| species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehisWry? Yes Maybe No X Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well inW the future.) X Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the wtal of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological conununities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). Yes R:~TAIq~,FI~21PA95.PC 5/9/95 k~ 3~ ENVIRONMENTAL D~-I~RMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT is required. /~/~e and Title /~,~tut' Date R:~TAFFRFI~IpA95.PC 5/9~5 klb 39 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~qTAFFRFf~IPA95.PC 5/9~5 klb 40 CITY OF TEMECULA ~LIFORNIA · - t CASE NO. - PA95-4)021 PLOT PLAN ~.XHIBIT- A ,ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 15, 1995 VICINITY MAP R:XSTAFFRPTX21PA95.1;C 4125195 IrJb CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL) )S BP I'1"!1 SI RH EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP - BUSINESS PARK CASE NO. ~ PA95-0021 PLOT PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 15, 1995 R:\STAFFRFr~21PA95.PC 4/25195 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA95-0021 PLOT PLAN -~,XHIBIT- D ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 15, 1995 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRlq~21PA95,PC 4125195 klb CITY OF TEMECULA __/ CASE NO. - PA95-0021 PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 15, 1995 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\STAFFRFI~21PA95.PC 4125195 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA95-0021 PLOT PLAN .EXHIBIT - F ,ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 15, 1995 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPTX21PA95.PC 4~25~95 Idb ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 5/9/95 klb 4'] m z Z ~ m ITEM #4 MEIVIORANDUIVl TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission May 15, 1995 Staff Report for Ph}nnlng Application No. 95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan, planninl, Application No. 95-0004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011, Planning Application No. 94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. 95-0031 - Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement No. DV95-0001 Because of the complexity of the above referenced agenda items, staff has prepared summary sheets of the staff recommendation, applicant information, project description and statistics. The staff report contains both a background and analysis of all the projects. It is my feeling that this format will facilitate the Commissions' review of the projects. Items attached to this memorandum, in order, are as follows: ATTACHMENTS 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Staff Recommendations and Applicant Information - Blue Page 2 Project Description and Statistics - Blue Page 4 Staff Report: Project Background, Project Analysis, Summary of Environmental Issues, General Plan Consistency, Specific Plan Consistency, Conclusions - Blue Page 6 Resolution No. 95- Final Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 95- 0031), Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 18 Resolution No. 95- Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003) and Change of Zone and Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 23 Draft Ordinance No. 95- Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Amending the Official Zoning Map - Blue Page 41 Resolution No. 95- Master Conditional Use Permit (Planning Application No. 94-0061) and Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 44 Resolution No. 95- Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 (Planning Application No. 95-0004) and Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 60 Resolution No. 95- Development Agreement No. DV95-0001 - Blue Page 83 EIR Response to Comments - Blue Page 88 Exhibits - Blue Page 89 R:~TAFFRPTXOTRP.PC 5111/95 vlw 1 AiTACHMENT NO. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS R:~3TAFFRFI~OTRP.I~C ~/11/95 vzw 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS The planning Depathuent Staff recommends the pIsnniug Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (PA95-0031), Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Old Town Redevelopmeut Project; and PROVIDE direction to Staff regarding 11.8 net acres of High Density Residential development in Planning Area D of PA95-0003, Westside Specific Plan; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of Westside Specific Plan (PA95-0003) and the Change of Zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural, 20 acre minimum parcel size) to SP (Specific Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of DV95-0001, Development Agreement for the Westside Specific Plan based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95~ recommending approval of Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADO~ Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of Master Conditional Use Permit (PA94-0061) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of Ordinance No. 95- Ordinance No. 348 of the City of Temecula. , amending APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANTS: Planning Application No. 95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan, Planning Application No. 940004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 and DV95- 0001 - Development Agreement: Gene Hancock, Hancock Development Company Planning Application No. 94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit: TZBG: Zev Buffman Planning Application No. 95-0031 - Environmental Impact Report: The City of Temecula REPRESENTATIVES: Planning Application No. 95-0003 & Planning Application No. 0004: Stephen G. McCutchan, AICP Planning Application No. 940061: WAT&G: Michael Paneft Development Agreement No. DV95-0001: Sam Alhadeff R:XSTAFFRFr~OTRP.PC ~111/95 vlw 3 ATI'ACItMENT NO. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STATISTICS R:XSTAFFRI~OTRP.PC 5111195 vgw de ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROJECT DESCRIFrION AND STATISTICS Planning Application No. 940061 (Master Conditional Use Permit). Planning Application No. 940061 is for a Master Conditional Use Permit in Old Town Temecula. The project boundary is the same as that of the Tourist Retail Core Boundary Identified in the Old Town Specific Plan. Cabaret Theater 1:26,096 square feet Cabaret Theater 2:44,471 square feet Saloons (2): 18,564 square feet total Opera House: 84,462 square feet TV/Radio Studio: 2,105 square feet Virtual Reality Complex: 15,015 square feet Quickdraw Competition Area: 7,360 square feet Central Ticket Office/Visitor Center: 5,038 square feet Administration: 5,447 square feet Back of House: 10,350 square feet Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Wastside Specific Plan) - a Specific Plan for approximately 154.1 gross acres. The Specific Plan contains design guidelines and development standards that apply area wide and to the individual Planning Areas. The project contains six planning areas. ranging in size from 2.8 gross acres to 67.4 gross acres. Within the Specific Plan there are five (5) land use designations that correspond to the planning areas. They are: Planning Area and Gross Acreage Land Use Designation Planning Area A (47.7) planning Area B (5.4) planning Area C (18.1) Planning Area D (12.7) Planning Area E (2.8) Planning Area F (67.4) Special Event Commercial Neighborhood Commercial High Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Use Open Space Planning Application No. 95-0004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 - a nine parcel subdivision of 154.1 gross acres. Planning Application No. 95-0031 -Environmental Impact Report for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. PJanning Application No. 95-0031 is a focused Environmental Impact Report for the Old Town Redevelopment Project which includes the Westside Specific Plan, Master Conditional Use Permit, and related infrastructure and development agreements. Development Agreement No. DVg5-0001. Hancock Development Company, acting as the Agent for the property owner, John Firestone, has requested a development agreement to guarantee Mr. Firastone's right to build the project after its approval. R:~STAFFRFr~OTRP.I~C $111/95 vlw 5 A~rACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT INCLUDING PROJECT BACKGROUND, PROJECT ANALYSIS, SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, GENERAL PLAN CONSIS~fENCY, SPECIFIC PLAN CONSI~-fENCY AND CONCLUSIONS R:~TAFFRFI~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 15, 1995 Planning Application No. 95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan Planning Application No. 95-0004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 Planning Application No. 94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit Planning Application No. 95-0031 - Environmental Impact Report Development Agreement No. DV95-0001 Prepared By: David Hogan, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner BACKGROUND Planning Aoolications No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit). 95-0003 (Westside Soecific Plan) and 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Mao No. 28011 ) Planning Application No. 94-0061 was submitted to the Planning Department on June 21, 1994. A Development Review Committee Meeting was held for this project on July 28, 1994. Planning Staff held several pre-application meetings with the applicant for Planning Applications No. 95-0003 and 95-0004 prior to the formal submittal of the project. The applications for Planning Application No. 95-0003and Planning Application No. 95-0004were formally submitted on January 12, 1995. The Specific Plan text for Planning Application No. 95-0003 was submitted to the Planning Department on April 17, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on April 27, 1995 for Planning Applications No. 95-0003 and 95-0004. A joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop was held on April 19, 1995 for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. 95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan, Planning Application No. 95-0004- Tentative Tract Map No. 28011, Planning Application No. 94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit, and Planning Application No. 95-0031 - Environmental Impact Report). Planning Applications No. 94-0061,95-0003 and 95-0004 were deemed complete on May 1, 1995. Rannina AoDlication NO. 95-0031 (Environmental Imoact Reoort for the Old Town RedeveloDment Project) Preparation of the Final Initial Environmental Study for the Old Town Redevelopment Project started in May 1994. The Initial Environmental Study for the Redevelopmerit Project included the following major components: o · o · o o o Master Conditional Use Permit; Westside Specific Plan; The Western By-Pass Road; The First Street bridge and extension; The ramp and interchange along Interstate 15; Additional parking facilities; and Associated financing and development agreements. The Study was finalized and the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (NOP) was issued June 23, 1994. The Initial Study and NOP identified six potential issue areas of concern. The Notice of Preparation Study and the NOP are included in the Environmental Impact Report. The list of potentially significant environmental impact areas identified in the NOP are: Air Quality, Animal and Plant Life, Cultural and Historic Resources, Land Use, Noise and Transportation. Public agency and general community scoping meetings were held on June 14 and June 23, 1994 respectively. At the scoping meeting, some community residents expressed concerns about the visual impacts of the proposed project. As a result, Aesthetics and Visual Impacts Sections were added to the EIR. The review and comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) began on December 7, 1994 and ended on January 23, 1995. During this time, copies of the DEIR were available for public review at City Hall and the Temecula Library. Four copies of the DEIR were available to be checked out for at-home review. According to the Reference Librarian, 13 individuals borrowed a copy of the DEIR during the comment period. Six agency comment letters were received during this period and one was received after the comment period ended. No general public comments were received. The public agencies that submitted comments were: Governor's Office of Planning Research, Caltrans, Army Corps of Engineers, Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, City of Murrieta, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Development Aclreement No. DV95-0001 Hancock Development Company, acting as the Agent for the property owner, John Firestone, has requested a development agreement to guarantee Mr. Firestone's right to build the project after its approval. ANALYSIS PlanninQ Aoolication No. 94-0061 (Master Conditional Use Permit) The City Council Adopted Ordinance No. 94-19 (Master Conditional Use Permit Ordinance) in mid-1994. The Ordinance provides for the approval of project facilities or uses in general locations. It calls for subsequent approvals for site specific development proposals. These approvals can be made by the Planning Director at a publicly noticed hearing. However, the approval authority for the City of Temecula allows the Planning Director to refer matters to the Planning Commission at his discretion. The specific locations have not been identified for the uses proposed in the Master Conditional Use Permit at this time, hence the submittal of the Master CUP application. Upon approval of the Master CUP, and submittal of subsequent development plans at specific sites, the plans will be reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency with the Old Town Specific Plan and scheduled for public hearing. The project boundary is the same as that of the Tourist Retail Core Boundary identified in the Old Town Specific Plan (reference Exhibit C). Proposed uses include: cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), an opera house, a TV/radio studio, a virtual reality complex, a quickdraw competition area, a central ticket office/visitor center, R:~TAFFRIr~OTRP.PC 5111/95 vp 8 an administration area, and a back of house area. Plannine Aoolication No. 95-0003 (Westside Soecific Plan) The Westside Specific Plan fulfills the requirement contained in the City's General Plan which calls for areas identified as Specific Plan Overlay, with an aggregate area of 100 or more acres to be approved as a specific plan prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. Further, the General Plan key objective for this Specific Plan Area is to: "provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area and to increase the range of housing opportunities west of I-15." The Specific Plan includes uses in each Planning Area which help attain this objective. Planning Area A is designated Special Event Commercial and proposes uses such as a Wild West Arena, commercial development and a hotel. Planning Area A uses will tie into the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan uses as well as the uses proposed in the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Planning Area B is designated Neighborhood Commercial and proposes uses that are similar to the draft Development Code's Neighborhood Commercial designation. This commercial development will serve existing and future high density residential development. Planning Areas C and D are proposed to be high density residential (13-20 dwelling units per acre). Planning Area E is proposed as mixed use, relating either to the business park designation to the north or the Special Event Commercial to the south. Area F is proposed to remain in its natural state and have an Open Space land use designation. The Specific Plan contains area wide design guidelines for architecture. Again, the architecture shares the same theme as the Old Town area. The Westside Specific Plan architectural styles are early California themes including: Western, Spanish Colonial and Monterey themes. These themes are contained within the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also contains area wide grading, landscaping, paving, and signage criteria. These criteria also can be found in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. Additional detail has been included in the Westside Specific Plan for each individual Planning Area. Each Planning Area discusses circulation (vehicular, pedestrian and transit), additional design guidelines specific to the Planning Area, and development regulations. Staff has reviewed the uses contained in the Development Regulations for each Planning Area for consistency with the projects' overall goals. Staff has determined that the project does attain these goals. Plannine Aoolication No, 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Mao No. 28011 ) The tentative map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Ordinance No. 460 (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. Access to the project is from an existing dedicated right-of-way (First Street). The applicant is requesting that Calle Cerillo and portions of First Street and Via Santa Rosa be vacated as part of the map process. These streets will be required to be vacated prior to the recordation of the final map(s). Rannino Aoolication No. 95-0031 (Environmental Impact Reoort for the Old Town Redevelooment Project) The Initial Environmental Study (IES) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed 15 environmental impact issue areas. The following eight impact areas were evaluated in the and found to either be insignificant or mitigatable: geology and erosion, light and glare, natural resources, hazardous materials, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation, and water quality. The remaining 7 impact areas were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. The environmental issue areas included in the EIR are: aesthetics and visual impacts, air quality, animal and plant life, cultural and historic resources, land use, noise, and transportation. A discussion of each EIR issue is presented below. AESTHETICS. The potential aesthetic and visual impacts from the proposed project were initially raised by a member of the community during the public scoping meeting that was held in June, 1994. The primary concern were the impacts which would result from locating a roadway and wild west arena on the escarpment. To evaluate this visual impact on the community, a detailed visual impact analysis was done for the arena, hotel, and Western By-Pass Road. The analysis was done using standard visual impact analysis methodology. Based upon an analysis of the eight identified viewpoints, and an analysis of the before and after images, it was determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the visual environment. AIR QUALITY. The potential for the project to affect regional air quality was identified in the Initial Environmental Study. The Air Quality Study determined that the amounts of some air pollutants would exceed Air Quality Management District pound per day limitations. Even after the identified mitigation measures are implemented, the daily standards for Nitrogen Oxides are expected to be exceeded during the construction phase. In terms of the long-term impacts, the project will exceed Air Quality Management District pound per day limitations for Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Reactive Organic Gases. Even with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the impacts on regional air quality cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In comparison, other local developments generate significantly more daily air pollutants. At build out, the Red Hawk Specific Plan is expected to generate 3 times as much air pollution; while the approved Regional Center Specific Plan is expected to generate over 10 times as much air pollution. Local air quality is not expected to be significantly affected by this project because regional air movement patterns remove locally generated air pollution from the valley. This impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE. The potential impacts on biologic resources were also evaluated in the EIR. Comprehensive field studies were undertaken between May and August of 1994. The primary concerns were the potential impacts on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, California Gnatcatcher, and other threatened and endangered species found in the riparian areas. The study found the following: No Stephens Kangaroo Rats were identified; Portions of the escarpment are occupied by the California Gnatcatcher; and The riparian area supported a population of Southwestern Pond Turtles. According to the EIR, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program is expected to reduce any impacts to these species to a level of insignificance. R:~TAFFRFBOTRP.I~C 5/11/95 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES. Because of the historic character of Old Town Temecula, the potential impacts on cultural and historic resources were also considered in the EIR. Any impacts to historic facilities will be addressed and mitigated by complying with the provisions of the Old Town Specific Plan. Overall, no significant impacts were identified. LAND USE. The land usa issues of project compatibility and plan consistency were identified in the IES. The analysis in the EIR indicated that, while the exact percentages of the various land uses will shift, the overall character of the Westside Specific Plan will not significantly change. Also, the land uses proposed by the Master Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan. As a result, no significant impacts were identified. NOISE. The potential for the project to affect ambient noise levels was identified in the Initial Environmental Study. Like air quality, the noise analysis was prepared for both construction and operation. Based upon the Study, it was determined some construction related noise impacts would remain significant even with the identified mitigation measures. Because of the ambient freeway noise in the area, no significant long-term community noise impacts were identified. This impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. TRANSPORTATION. The impact of the project on the City's circulation and transportation system was identified early in the planning process. Much of the project development process focused on addressing circulation issues. As a result, the needed road linkages and transportation mitigation measures have been integrated into the design of the project. The EIR determined that any impacts to the circulation and parking systems could be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the included project components and other mitigation measures included in the EIR. The IES and EIR both identified mitigation measures that will reduce or eliminate the impacts on the environment associated with this project. Because some of the air quality and noise impacts can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, approval of these projects will require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Issues Raised at the Joint Plannino Commission/City Council Workshoo Several issues were raised at the Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop on April 19, 1995. The issues that were raised by the members of the Council and Commission were as follows: Planning Area D of the Westside Specific Plan Planning Area D of the Westside Specific Plan consists of approximately 12.7 gross acres west of the Western By-Pass Corridor. The purpose of Area D is to provide for High Density Residential development (13 to 20 units per acre). Members of the Commission and Council were concerned about additional development west of the By-Pass Corridor. The concerns expressed included the following: the aesthetic impact of development in this Planning Area on the community, the potential impacts on biologic resources and local open space resources, and providing additional "high density" residential in the Old Town area. R:~fAFFRF~OTRP.PC S111/95 vgw 11 Throughout the process, staff has also been concerned with visibility, biology and open space issues in this Planning Area. However, the applicant has decided to leave Planning Area D in the proposed Plan. There are several options available to the Commission on this issue. These include: reducing the size of Planning Area D, reducing the density of Planning Area D, providing for alternative uses, or adding the area into open space area (Planning Area F). Revenues Being Drawn from Old Town to the Westside Specific Plan Concerns were raised that revenues from the estimated 50,000 square feet of commercial development located between the proposed hotel and arena in Planning Area A could compete with struggling business in the core of Old Town. While this issue is not expected to be a problem in the long-term, Staff is concerned about the potential impacts in the short-term. If the Commission is concerned with the competition issue, and believes that the additional commercial development in this area is appropriate, then it is recommended that this development be moved into future Phase III of the project, or that the commercial square footage be reduced in size so as not to compete with existing businesses. Timing of Infrastructure Improvements Concern was expressed regarding the timing of the required future infrastructure improvements needed to support the project. These improvements include the Western By- Pass Corridor, improvements to the Interchanges at Highway 79 South, Rancho California Road and Interstate 15, the First Street Bridge and extension, the extension of Vincent Moraga, and the parking facilities. The timely completion of these infrastructure components is included in the proposed Conditions of Approval as described in the Environmental Impact Report. Formation of an Assessment District for the Western By-Pass Corridor The future formation of an assessment district for the Western By-Pass Corridor was raised at the Joint Meeting. Specifically raised was whether or not the property owners in the area would support the proposed district. Staff stated that formation of the district had not yet started but that many of the property owners along the southern half of the route were either already conditioned not to oppose formation of the future district or would be specifically conditioned as part of this approval. Staff has included this requirement as a Condition of Approval on the Westside Specific Plan. Reduction in the Number of Parking Spaces Available at the 6th Street Location At the joint meeting, concerns were expressed about the potential effect of relocating Temecula Shuttle's transit facility to the Sixth Street lot. In response, Staff evaluated the potential impact from the relocation on the amount of off-street parking that could be provided. Based upon staff's review, it is estimated that relocating the Temecula Shuttle facility to the city-owned lot would reduce the amount of public parking available by between 20 and 25 spaces. It is Staff's opinion that in terms of the potential advantages of having a transit facility in Old Town and the small reduction in the overall number of parking spaces, the relocation will not have a significant impact to the overall parking situation in Old Town. R:~TAI~RFI~OTRP.I~C 5/11/95 vgw GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Staff has reviewed the adopted City General Plan to determine the consistency of the project with the adopted Plan. Based upon this evaluation, the Director of Planning has determined that the projects are consistent with the adopted General Plan. Specifically, the projects are consistent with following goals and policies contained in the General Plan: Land Use 1.2: Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. 2.1: Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density residential development. 4.1: Enforce hillside grading standards to ... require the preservation of unique natural features and to encourage a broad range of hillside architectural and site planning solutions. 6.4: Develop a plan to provide for additional parking in and around the Old Town area. 6.5: Encourage the revitalization of Old Town through the Old Town Specific Plan. Circulation 1.2: Require an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, project development. 5.3: Provide additional public parking in the Old Town area, where feasible, through common parking areas or the establishment of a parking district. Houdng 2.1: Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate the needs of all income levels of the population, and provides opportunities to meet the City's fair share of low- and moderate-income housing. Open Space 1.6: Encourage the enhancement and preservation of significant natural features. 3.1: Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. 3.6: Limit the recreational use of designated open space areas where sensitive biological resources are present. 5.1: Pursue the conservation of the western and southern ridgelines .... through the development review process and as a condition of approval. 6.2: Require sites proposed for future development to be evaluated for archaeological resources in accordance with the procedure established in a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside. R:~TAFFRF'~OTRP.PC 5111/95 vgw 13 6.3: Require sites proposed for future development that are identified in this Element as being of high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity to be evaluated by a quality vertebrate paleontologist. 6.8: Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Public Facilities 5.5: Encourage the provision of cultural facilities within the community, including: art museums, theaters, a performing arts center, special exhibitions, an outdoor amphitheater, and Indian Cultural Interpretive Center. Air Quality 2.6: Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for residents of Temecula to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. 2.2: Maintain an orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation systems management techniques. Community Design 1.5: Maintain and incorporate natural amenities ... to protect the environment and provide natural landscaping, protect views, and to provide recreational opportunities in order to maintain the quality of life. 7.1: Encourage the development of public spaces and plazas within commercial developments that can accommodate cultural and social events and function as community gathering areas. 7.6: Promote the provision of cultural facilities within the community, including: art museums, theaters, a performing arts center, special exhibitions, an outdoor amphitheater, and special cultural exhibitions. Economic Development 6.3: Revitalize and enhance Old Town to expand its role in local tourism and to improve its attractiveness, accessibility, and economic role. 6.4: Enhance the City's image through development of cultural facilities, including performing arts and museums. No General Plan goals or policies were identified as being inconsistent with the proposed project. SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY The Master Conditional Use Permit is located within the area of the Old Town Specific Plan. The Old Town Specific Plan was approved by the City Council in February 1994. Staff has reviewed the Specific Plan to determine the consistency of the project with the adopted Plan. Based upon this evaluation, the Director of Planning has determined that the projects are consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Specifically, the projects are consistent with following goals and objectives contained in the adopted Plan: R:L~'TA~OTRP.I~C 5/11/95 vgw ],4 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 95- FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:~T~uFRFF~OTP, P.PC 5/1 1/9~ vgw This policy was originally included in the Plan to discourage the location of large retail establishments such as discount stores or super markets from opening in Old Town and destroying the historic appearance and pedestrian character of the area. In addition, another policy states that the city should "Establish height limit zones in Old Town which relate to the scale of the streetscape, historic building construction techniques, and land use." The purpose of this policy was ensure that all future buildings would fit in with the turn-of-the-century western town mode rather than to require that all buildings be the same size or similer in 8ppeerence. CONCLUSIONS Two of the major components of the Old Town Redevelopment Project, the Westside Specific Plan and Master Conditional Use Permit have been discussed in this Staff Report. Staff has reviewed these components and the overall project for consistency with the City's General Plan, the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan and existing City Ordinances. As discussed in the Staff Report, both project components meet many of the goals and policies contained in the City's adopted General Plan. Further, the Master Conditional Use Permit meets the goals, objectives, and policies included in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. The Redevelopment Project is expected to have a significant positive economic effect on the Old Town area and the City of Temecula. Based upon information contained in the Feasibility Study prepared by Price Waterhouse, it is estimated that revenues generated by this project will equal $86 million in 1997. Additional project benefits include approximately 2,500 new jobs and providing the needed catalyst for the economic revitalization of Old Town. R:%,STAFFRlrfiOTRP.YC 5111/95 Overall Goal To create a dynamic "Old Town" commercial and residential core that is attractive and of high quality, respectful of its historic buildings and unifying design theme and providing an economically viable setting for a mixture of local and tourist commercial uses, administrative/professional and residential uses with safe, efficient circulation and access. Community Design Goal: To create a high quality and distinct "Western" image and a functional, vibrant and aesthetically pleasing Old Town for Temecula. Obiective: Enhance and promote the creation of enjoyable public spaces throughout Old Town through the use of street furniture, landscaping, public art, building design, and pedestrian orientation. Policies: Develop consistent streetscape and architectural palettes for the Old Town that help create a high quality historic image. Require compliance with the Design Guidelines for the Old Town Specific Plan in new development or the expansion or redevelopment of existing development. Discourage significant lot consolidations end very large single-user [retail establishments] greater than 50,000 square feet in Old Town and encourage smaller storefront, pedestrian oriented design. Land Use/Economic Goal: Develop "Old Town" to provide a variety of local and tourist oriented retail services, office, cultural/civic, and residential opportunities. Objectives: Maximize the economic base of Old Town through the definition of land use districts to insure expansion of a variety of land uses desirable to the districts including, specialty retail, tourist and local serving retail uses, specialty retail/service, office uses, and residential uses. Designate key sites within Old Town for a mixed-use "theme oriented" development and require master planning to assure coordinated access, parking, building orientation/location, and exclusive pedestrian access. R:~8'rAFFRP~OTRP.I~ 5111/95 vgw 1~ Ensure the gradual upgrade of under utilized parcels functioning at less than their market potential. Policies: Discourage new land uses in Old Town such as automotive uses, fast food drive-thru's, a traditional shopping center, mini marts, and large grocery establishments. Establish public restrooms in the area. Promote the development of Old Town in a manner consistent with the Plan and Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Zev Buffman. Circulation and Parking Goal: Facilitate efficient and safe movement of people and vehicles within and through Old Town and to provide safe, adequate, and accessible parking in Old Town. Objectives: Provide additional vehicular creek crossings in Old Town, particularly at Santiago and First Streets. Create a pedestrian oriented environment in the Old Town core. Provide easily identified, adequate and accessible parking with organized and consis- tent circulation systems throughout the Old Town area. Redirect local through traffic vehicular trips away from Front Street. Policies: Consider alternative routing of thru traffic to reduce congestion and enhance the pedestrian atmosphere of Old Town. Provide parking areas at the north and south end of the district with horse drawn wagon/trolley serving Old Town during high traffic use periods. Locate parking and other public uses in areas behind, or off of, Front and Main Street or along Murrieta Creek. No Specific Plan goals or policies were identified as being inconsistent with the proposed project. The majority of the policies and objectives in the Plan refer to the City's need to provide incentives and encouragement for redevelopment of the area and provide guidance on the nature and character of that development. In previous meetings, members of the public have expressed concerns that the Land Use/Economic policy that states "Discourage major lot consolidation and development which encourages large single-user tenants on lots greater than 50,000 square feet in Old Town" rendered the project inconsistent with the Specific Plan. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 95- WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND CHANGE OF ZONE R:\STAFFKPT\OTRP.PC 5111195 vgw 23 General Impact Potential significant historical structure impacts may occur due to implementing the project. Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.3 In order to distinguish recognized historic buildings from new construction which uses historic architectural elements, it is recommended that historic buildings in commercial areas be marked with small plaques containing their historic names and dates of construction, and that promotional/interpretive literature for the project clearly distinguish between historic buildings and recent construction. Specific Process The City and applicant shall work with the Temecula Museum to identify structures that require plaques and develop the interpretive literature for distribution to the public. Mitigation Milestone The plaques and documentation shall be submitted to the City prior to initiating operation of any project facility. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Prior to occupancy The documentation must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 94 General Impact Potential significant archaeological impacts may occur due to subsurface disturbance of the project. Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.1 No further archaeological investigation is recommended for this project. However, should any known or suspected archaeological materials be encountered during project development, a qualified historical archaeologist should be contacted. Work should be suspended in any area where archaeological remains are found until they can be properly evaluated and salvaged if found significant. Specific Process The applicant shah submit the name of a qualified archaeologist who will be on call for this project and who wffi oversee management of any archaeological remains discovered during construction. A response program shall be submitted for review and approval by the City for implementation ff any such resources are discovered. Mitigation Milestone The program and name of the qualified archaeologist shah be submitted for review and approval prior to initialing construction at any location for this project. Responsible Monitorin~ Party City of Temecula Building and Safety and/or Public Works Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For The plans prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 92 General Impact Potential significant historical structure impacts may occur due to implementing the project. Mitigation Measure 4.8.3.2 Potential project impacts to historic buildings, including those that are not formally recognized, will be mitigated below a level of significance through implementation of the provisions already contained within the OTSP Old Town Historic Preservation District Ordinance. Those provisions allow for conditions of approval for Certificates of Historic Appropriateness. It is recommended that conditions of approval for demolition or alteration of any historic building include appropriate historical and architectural documentation prior to modification of the building. Specific Process If historic structures will be impacted by the pwject, appropriate historical and architectural documentation shall be prepared in accordance with standard documentation requirements established by the State Office of Historic Preservation. The fmaliTed documentation for any such historic structure shall be submitted City for review and approval. Mitigation Milestone The documentation shall be initiated prior to any disturbance of a historic structure and completed within six months of the initial distuxbance of the structure. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For A decision to impact a historic strumre. The documentation must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 93 General Impact Potential significant visual impacts have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the community. Mitigation Measure 4.7.5.4 Utilities shah be located underground. Specific Process Copies of the plans showing undergounding of utilities within the Westside Specific Plan area shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The City shall verify that such undergrounding has been completed in accordance with the plans by verifying it with field inspections during construction and when completed. Mitigation Milestone The plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating installation of utilities. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Tcmecula Public Works and Building and Safety Depa~iments Prerequisite Action(s) For The plans prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 90 General Impact Potential significant visual impacts have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the community. Mitigation Measure 4.7.5.5 Berming and landscaping shah be employed to conceal and soften visual impacts of parking areas. Specific Process Copies of landscape plans showing measures taken to conceal and soften visual impacts of parking areas shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The City shall verify that such betruing and landscaping has been completed in accordance with the plans by verifying it with field inspections during construction and when completed. Mitigation Milestone The landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating construction on the parking areas. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project ~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Depatiment Prerequisite Action(s) For The plans prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Drawings most be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 91 General Impact Potential significant visual impacts have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the community. Mitigation Measure 4.7.5.2 Grading on the slope edge facing Pujol Street shah be revegetated or landscaped immediately upon completion of grading activities, concurrent with project development. Landscaping shah be natural in appearance and linear arrangements of landscaping are to be avoided. Specific Process Copies of the landscaping plan incorporating the above schedule and landscaping techniques shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The City shall verify that the landscaping has been completed in accordance with the landscaping plan by verifying it with field inspections during construction and when completed. Mitigation Milestone The landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating construction on this slope. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project f~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Depamnent Prerequisite Action(s) For Landscaping plan pr~ and submitted to the City for review and approval. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 88 General Impact Potential significant visual impacts have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the community. Mitigation Measure 4.7.5.3 Visible retaining walls over eight feet in height shah be avoided unless visually integrated into building design. Specific Process Copies of the landscaping plan incorporating the any visible retaining walls over eight feet in height shall be provided to the City for review and approval. The City shall verify that such retaining wall(s) has/have been completed in accordance with the landscaping plan by verifying it with field inspections during construction and when completed. Mitigation Milestone The landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating construction on such retaining walls. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project ~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Patty City of Temecula Planning and/or Bu~ding and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Landscaping plan prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 89 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.7 The City shah require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the at SR 79 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. At the SR 79 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps, adequate mitigation requires construction of a new southbound loop off-ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Implementing this measure would require relocating the southbound on-ramp across from the terminus of From Street where it intersects the Western Bypass Road. Specific Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shah identify when funds will have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built drawings ing the file after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project fac'tlities and the funding shah be in in place when required by the City. The as built drawings shah be placed in the project file after completing their inStallatiOn. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Depa~iment Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 86 General Impact Potential significant visual impacts have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the community. Mitigation Measure 4.7.5.1 Slope grading techniques on the slope facing Pujol Street shah aim to blend with the existing nature of the topography. Grading techniques shah emphasize slope contouring including contour undulation and variable slopes. In addition, tops and toes of slopes shah be rounded. Hard edges and angles are to be avoided. Slopes shah be designed to smoothly blend with remaining existing topography. Specific Process Copies of the grading plan incorporating the above grading techniques shah be provided to the City for review and approval. The City shall verify that the grading is completed in accordance with the grading plan by verifying it with field inspections during construction and when completed. Mitigation Milestone The grading plan shah be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating construction on this slope. The as bu~t drawings shall be placed in the project f~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Depadment Prerequisite Action(s) For Grading plan prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 87 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.6 The City shah require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvements at the at SR 79 South and the 1-15 Northbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. The proposed Assessment District 159 improvements shah be modified to include provisions for a double left turn configuration at the off- ramp approach to SR 79 South. It was also recommended that the ultimate interchange improvement plans include a provision for three eastbound through lanes at the intersection. Specific Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shall identify when funds will have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built drawings ing the file after they are constructed. Mitigation MilesWne The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project facilities and the funding shall be in in phce when required by the City. The as bu~t drawings shall be placed in the project f~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temeeuh Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.7 The City shall require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the at SR 79 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. At the SR 79 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps, adequate mitigation requires constraction of a new southbound loop off-ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Implementing this measure would require relocating the southbound on-ramp across from the terminus of Front Street where it intersects the Western Bypass Road. Specific Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shah identify when funds will have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shah verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built drawings ing the f~e after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The funding shah be identified prior to initiating operation of any project facilities and the funding shall be in in place when required by the City. The as bufit drawings shah be phced in the project fde after completing their instnlhtion. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 85 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.4 The City shall require installation of transit facilities at centralized locations within Old Town and the hotel/arena complex. The City shall work with Riverside County Transit Agency to provide service to these locations in the future when such transit service becomes available. Specific Process Engineering drawings incorporating the transit facilities in Old Town and at the hotel/arena complex shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed as drawn after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation. The as built drawings shall be phced in the project f~e after completing their in~allation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works and/or planning Dcpamnents Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 82 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow at project build out. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.5 The City shah require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the Rancho California Road/I-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. There are three alternatives available to the City to mitigation significant traffic flow impacts at these ramps. They are: widen the Rancho California Road bridge on the south side to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane; construct a southbound loop on-ramp in the northwest quadrant of the interchange; construct a new southbound off- ramp at Santiago Road. Specific Process Fair-share funding requirements shall be identified and the City shall identify when funds will h~,ve to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon this fair share-funding. The City shall verify that these improvements are in~alled when required and place as-built drawings ing the f'~e after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project facilities and the funding shall be in in phce when required by the City. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project ~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Depaxtment Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 83 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in 1996. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.2 To mitigate 1996 with-project circulation system impacts at the Front StreetFllrestern Bypass Road intersection, the following steps must be taken: On the southbound intersection approach, Front Street shall contain one left- turn lane and one optional left-turn/right-turn lane. (Note: Because Front Street will extend north of the Western Bypass Road to Santiago Road as a five- lane facility (two through lanes per direction plus a two-way-left-turn lane according to the City ), this southbound approach (intersecting the Western Bypass Road) could cuntain three lanes; two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane. If this three-lane alternative is implemented, the intersection's LOS would be even better than that cited in Table 4.6-6. Specific Process Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements are inCalied as drawn after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation. The as built drawings Shall be placed in the project f~e after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 80 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in 1996. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.3 Barton Asehman's traffic study identifies several additional road design measures that are recommended to reduc~ overall traffic impacts. These are reproduced in Appendix 4. These recommendations shall be implemented as part of the proposed project at a time determined by the City to prevent deterioration of traffic flow below LOS D. The status of the circulation system components addressed in the recommendations shah be assessed as part of the City's annual traffic survey and evaluation. Spec'ffic Process Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shall verify that these improvements are installed as drawn after they are constructed. Mitigation Milestone The drawings and funding shall be in place when the City determines they are needed based on their annual traffic surveys or other studies as appropriate. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project f'de after completing their installation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification 81 General Impact Loss of an identified park/recreation area due to implementing the Westside Specific Plan as proposed. Mitigation Measure 4.5.3.1 The City shah require a modification in the text of the Westside Specific Plan, or a condition of approval, requiring the inclusion of a neighborhood park/recreational facility in the high density residential designated land. The WSP text modification shah require the design of the park/facility to be reviewed and approved by the City. Specific Process A copy of the appmved plan with the above modification shall be retained in the project f~e. Mitigation Milestone The modification must be included in the Westside Specific Plan approved by the City. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecuia Planning and/or Community Services Deplhh~ents Prerequisite Action(s) For Revisions to the Westside Spec'~ic Plan for submittal to the City. City Verifieation 78 General Impact The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in 1996. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4.1 To mitigate 1996 with-project circulation system impacts at the Rancho California Road/I-15 North Ramps, the following steps must be taken: On the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or restripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left- turn lane at the 1-15 South on-ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right-turning traffic onto the 1-15 North on-ramp, said on-ramp will require widening just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the malnllne of I- 15 North. (Note: The need for these dual right-turn lanes and the widened 1-15 North on-ramp will be eliminated, however, when the scheduled "loop" on-ramp accommodating eastbound Rancho California Road-to-northbound 1-15 traffic ultimately is provided. ) Specific Process Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for implementation and funding made available for their implementation. The City shah verify that these improvements are inCalied as drawn after they are contacted. Mitigation M~estone The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation. The as built drawings shall be placed in the project f'~e after completing their inStallatiOn. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecuh Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City. City Verification General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.10 The City shall require any future residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass Road that place residences within the 65 dB CNELa, noise contour to install sound attenuation barriers or walls sufficient to reduce noise to a level below this significance threshold. Specific Process The City will include a condition implementing the above requirements if and when it approves residential development adjacent to the Western By-pass Road. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be placed in the project file for retention. Mitigation Milestone Development of the condition prior to a hearing to approve residential development adjacent to the Western By-pass Road. Copy of the conditions of approval placed in project file when a land use entitlement is granted for such residential development. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of an application to develop residential uses adjacent to the Western By-pass Road. Approval of a development adjacent to the Western By-pass Road. City Verification 76 General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.11 When noise levels along the Western Bypass Road near existing residences exceeds the City threshold of significance for residential areas (65 dB CNEL/Ld0~ the City shall install a sound attenuation wall to reduce noise levels from exceeding this value at the residences. Specific Process A contingency for installing a sound attenuation wall in the area of concern shall be included in the road engineering plans and funding. A copy of the drawing/funding documents shall be placed in the project file for retention. Using annual noise measurements or an acceptable noise model and annual traffic counts, the City shall determine when the sound attenuation wall must be constructed and then install the wall. Mitigation Milestone The drawings and funding commitment shall be made prior to constructing the Western By-pass Road and the documents placed in the project file prior to initiating construction. The City shall conduct annual noise measurements adjacent to the Western By-pass Road during June of each year, on a day when the arena is conducting a performance. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of drawing/funding documents for the Western By-pass Road to the City for retention. Select date for annual monitoring in June each year when an arena performance is scheduled. City Verification 77 General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.9 When the final design of the Arena/hotel/parking complex is completed, the applicant shall submit a noise study demonstrating that noise levels from the complex can be reduced to a CNEL of 62.7 dB at the nearest residence. The noise study may incorporate some or all of the following measures which have been identified to reduce Arena noise to the 62.7 dB level at residences along Pujol Street. The Arena should be oriented so that any stage faces away from the nearest residential areas. The rear of the stage house should be no closer than 500 ft. to these sensitive land uses. This along should reduce concert noise levels at the rear of the Arena to 60 dB according to WJHW. The Arena should contain a full stage house (portable or permanent) with enclosed wings for flying and stacking of touring sound systems. The house sound system should be designed to minimize environmental noise. A distributed loudspeaker approach for spectator seating areas should be utilized if required. The Arena "tent" should be constructed of material which has a weight of .75-1.0 lbs/~2. The rear side of and "bleacher style" seating should be enclosed to provide a barrier around the facility to help control noise. Mixing console noise levels during concerts must be restricted to 100-105 dB maximum. Specific Process The noise study demonstrating noise levels will meet the threshold shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant or acoustician and submitted to the City for review and approval. Once construction is completed City inspectors verify that the attenuation features have been installed and attenuation achieved meets the forecast. 74 Mitigation Milestone Documentation submitted to the City prior to initiating hotel and arena operations. The inspection data, including noise measurements, shall be placed in the project file within one week of verifying the design's effectiveness. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Documentation submitted to the City for review and approval. City verities attenuation meets threshold. City Verification 75 General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.7 Exterior sound levels during perfomances at Old Town entertainment facilities shall not exceed 65 dB L,q at 50 feet from the building. At no time shall noise levels exceed 55 dB L,q at the nearest sensitive noise receptor. Specific Process Noise levels outside of entertainment facilities shall be monitored during at least two performances by a qualified noise consultant or acoustician to determine exterior noise levels. If noise levels exceed the threshold, additional noise attenuation shall be installed in accordance with a noise attenuation plan until the threshold is no longer exceeded. Mitigation Milestone Noise levels during performances shall be monitored within one month of opening an entertainment facility and submined to the City for review and approval. The noise attenuation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City within two weeks following notification that noise thresholds are being exceeded. City will monitor the installation of noise attenuation features required by the plan and verify the attenuation is sufficient to meet the threshold. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Entertainment facility begins performances. Noise data indicates that an entertainment facility exceeds this threshold. Plan completed for City review and approval. City verities attenuation meets threshold. City Verification 72 General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.8 The City shall require that an earth benn or sound attenuation wall and landscaping be installed on the ridge above the homes on Pujol Street to minimize noise levels at the nearest residences. Specific Process The sound attenuation feature shall be shown on the grading/construction plans for the hotel/arena area and documentation of the level of attenuation shall be provided by a qualified noise consultant or acoustician to the City for review and approval. Once construction is completed City inspectors verify that the attenuation features have been installed and attenuation achieved meets the forecast. Mitigation Milestone Plans and documentation submitted to the City prior to initiating construction of the hotel and arena area. The inspection data, including noise measurements, shall be placed in the project tile within one week of verifying the feature's effectiveness. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Plan/documentation submitted to the City for review and approval. City verities attenuation meets threshold. City Verification 73 General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.5 The City shall establish a noise complaint program when construction of entertainment facilities in Old Town begins. This program shall include a point of contact, a log of all complaints, and a log of how each complaint is resolved. Specific Process Noise complaint program will be prepared by the applicant for the City and placed in operation. Mitigation Milestone The noise complaint program shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to initiating construction. Noise complaints shall be retained by the City and made available to the public upon request. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Noise complaint program is submitted to the City for review and approval. Noise complaints retained over the life of the project. City Verification 7O General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.6 The City shall require special noise attenuation measures, such as temporary or peruanent sound walls or modifications in operations, to control exterior crowd noise to 65 dB at 50 feet in front of entertainment facilities permitted by this project. Specific Process Noise attenuation plan is submitted to the City for review and approval when noise levels exceed 65 ~IB at distance of 50 feet on an ongoing basis. Mitigation Milestone The noise attenuation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City within two weeks following notification that noise thresholds are being exceeded. City will monitor the installation of noise attenuation features required by the plan and verify the attenuation is sufficient to meet the threshold. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Noise data indicates that an entertainment facility exceeds this threshold. Plan completed for City review and approval. City verities attenuation meets threshold. City Verification 71 City Verification 68 General Impact Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.4 Proprietors of individual entertainment facilities shall control crowd noise at their facility so that it does not exceed 65 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Routine or periodic noise monitoring shall be conducted by the owner at least one time per month and the City may request additional noise monitoring at any time. Specific Process Noise monitoring data is submitted to the City following the noise monitoring event for review and action. Mitigation Milestone City receives noise monitoring data within one week of noise measurements. Noise attenuation plan is submitted to the City for review and approval when noise levels exceed 65 dB at distance of 50 feet on an ongoing basis. Responsible Monitorint Party City of Temecula Police and/or Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Noise monitoring is conducted by the property owner. Noise attenuation plan submitted for City review and approval. City Verification 69 General Impact Significant construction noise levels may affect sensitive residential areas east of the Westside Specific Plan Area. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.2 Except during an emergency as determined by the City, construction activities shall be liralted to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, unless the City is presented with evidence that the noise [lenerated by construction will be less than existing background or arnbient noise levels. Specific Process The applicant shall sul~mit a copy of all construction contracts with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified. Monitoring during construction to verify that construction equipment is operated only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., unless otherwise shown not to be required. Mitigation Milestone A copy of the contract shall be provided to the City prior to initiating any construction. During construction inspections the City shall monitor work periods to verify compliance with this requirement. Responsible Monitorin~ Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Approval of construction plans for specific projects. Initiating construction activities. City Verification 66 General Impact Significant construction noise levels may affect sensitive residential areas east of the Westside Specific Plan Area. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.3 If noise complaints are received during construction and noise levels exceed acceptable City thresholds, the City shah consider installation of temporary noise attenuation walls or sound buffering materials between the noise source and knpacted site. Specific Process The City shall respond to noise complaints by requiring measurement of noise levels from the complainant location. If noise levels exceed City thresholds, the application shall submit a noise attenuation plan prepared by a qualified noise consultant to the City. This plan shall require implementation of the noise attenuation features, including temporary sound walls, unless attenuation below thresholds is not feasible. Monitoring during construction to verify that any noise attenuation requirements are installed and achieve the requisite noise reduction. Mitigation Milestone City receives complaint and verities that it is legitimate. Noise attenuation plan is submitted to the City for review and approval, before construction activities are allowed to proceed with noise levels exceeding the threshold. During construction inspections the City shall monitor noise levels after attenuation to verify compliance with this requirement. Responsible Monitoring Partv City of Tcmecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Notification of the public of a noise complaint phone number. Noise attenuation plan submitted for City review and approval. Initiating construction activities. 67 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.12 The appficant shall pay any additional SKR fees, if required, for developing the property within the fee area. Specific Process The City will include written verification from the County that fees have been paid, if necessary. Mitigation Milestone The fees shall be paid prior to disturbing any ground within the SKR fee area. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Determination that a fee is required and payment of the fee. City Verification General Impact Significant construction noise levels may affect sensitive residential areas east of the Westside Specific Plan Area. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4.1 The City shall require all construction equipment that generates more than 50 dB to have sound attenuation devices (mufflers, etc.) that meet current standards and that are fully functional at all thnes the equipment is being operated at the construction site. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of all construction contracts with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified. Monitoring during construction to verify that construction equipment noise attenuation devices are in place and functioning properly. Mitigation Milestone A copy of the contract shall be provided to the City prior to initiating any construction. During construction inspections equipment noise operating data shall be provided to the City at least one time per month to verify compliance with this requirement. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works and/or Building and Safety Departmen.Is Prerequisite Action(s) For Approval of construction plans for specific projects. Initiating construction activities. City Verification General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.10 The applicant shall install fences or other measures to control human access from the Western Bypass to the west, except in Area D of the Westside Specific Plan. The City will require access controls around the boundary of Area D and the adjacent wildlife habitat when this area develops. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a plan for controlling access west of the Western By-pass Road andf west of Area D of the Specific Plan to the City for review and approval. The City shall verify the access controls have been installed by conducting a field inspection after installation. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the plan prior to disturbing the Western By-pass Road alignment for review and approval. Monitoring shall occur prior to authorizing access along the Western By-pass road to the public. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the access control plan to the City for review and approval. Completing construction of the road. City Verification 62 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.11 The City will impose a condition of approval restricting ownership of domestic dogs and eats when approvals are granted for future residential development within Areas C and D of the Westside Spec'tfic Plan. The restriction shah apply to aH domestic dogs and eats and shah allow ownership of such animals only when they can be fully managed within the individual residence. Specific Process The City will include a condition that requires all future rent and lease agreements in Areas C and D to restrict the ownership of domestic cats and dogs. A copy of the conditions of approval shall be placed in the project fde for retention. Mitigation Milestone Development of the condition prior to a hearing to approve development in Axeas C and D. Copy of the conditions of appmval placed in project fde when a land use entitlement is granted for Areas C and D by the City. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Actionf s) For Submittal of an application to develop Areas C and D. Approval of a development in Areas C and D. City Verification 63 General impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.8 To offset the loss of up to one acre of Riparian/Wetland habitat in Murrieta Creek, the applicant shah develop two acres of Riparian/Wetland habitat or habitat improvements in the immediate area of the Western Bypass bridge crossing, or at an alternative location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildfire Service and Department of Fish and Game. The requirements of this measure can be superseded by any alternative mitigation or compensation developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and Game 1601/1603 Agreement. The plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland enhancement shah be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation. Specific Process The requirements of this measure can be superseded by any alternative mitigation or compensation developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and Game 1601/1603 Agreement. The plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland enhancement shall be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation. The applicant shall submit verification from the Department of Fish and Game or the Corps of Engineers that it has implemented mitigation acceptable to these agencies for the loss of the one acres of wetland habitat in Murrieta Creek prior to disturbing the wetland habitat. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the verification prior to disturbing the - 1 acre of habitat. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works and/or Planning Departments Prerequisite Action(s} For Completion of negotiations with the stream channel alteration regulatory agencies prior to submitting verification to the City. City Verification General impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.9 A silt fence or alternative acceptable to the City and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be installed downstream of construction activities in Murrieta Creek to control siltation downstream of the construction site. The performance standard used for this measure shall be sufficient control to prevent downstream siltation that can cause degradation of the aquatic/riparian/wetland habitat. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a plan for controlling siltation downstream of construction activiites in Murrieta Creek to the City and Regional Board for review and approval. The City shall monitor construction activity to verify that the plan has been implemented by the contractor. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the plan prior to disturbing the Murrieta Creek channel for review and approval. Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the siltation plan to the City and Regional Board for review and approval. Initiating construction activities. City Verification 61 Genera] Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.7 To offset the loss of 64.6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the Chamise Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities within the project area the applicant shall implement one of the following measures: a) Acquire 97 acres of high quality Gnatcatcher habitat (1.5:1 ratio based on discussions with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Staff) and transfer ownership of the land or open space easements (which prevent any future use other than open space) and management responsibility for the property to the Riverside County Parks Department or other agent acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. This habitat shall be purchased within the Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Margarita River Potential Reserve area as identified within the Riverside County "Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan", or at a location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. An endowment of $50,000 shah be provided for use by the designated management agency to enhance wildlife carrying capacity of the 97 acres set aside as mitigation for this project; or b) pay fees as determined through negotiations with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Department of Fish and Game to an agent authorized by these two agencies for purchase of land-banked compensation habitat. Specific Process The applicant shall submit verification from the Department of Fish and Game or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it has implemented mitigation acceptable to these agencies for the loss of the 64.6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat prior to breaking ground for the Westside Specific Plan development. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the verification prior to disturbing the 64.6 acres of habitat. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department 58 Prerequisite Action(s) For Completion of negotiations with the wildlife regulatory agencies prior to submitting verification to the City. City Verification 59 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.5 All construction debris, such as food litter, will be collected and placed in wildlife-proof containers each day. All refuse receptacles shah have tight-rifling lids to prevent wildlife access. Specific Process This measure refers to trash generated by construction employees. The contractor shall identify the type of refuse receptacles and where they will be located at the construction site in a submittal to the City. The City shall approve they type of refuse receptacle. The City shall monitor construction activity to verify that refuse is collected and stored in appropriate refuse receptacles. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the information for review and approval prior to initiating construction. Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works and/or Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the information to the City for review and approval. Initiating construction activity. City Verification 56 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.6 To prevent the loss of any Southwestern Pond hales during construction, the applicant shah retain a qualified biologist to collect any turtles within the Western Bypass bridge crossing construction area. The biologist shah also oversee installation of barriers to prevent turtles from occupying the construction area during active construction in the channel. The applicant shah fund maintenance of the turtles, if required, until they can be returned to Murrieta Creek following construction. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a turtle collection, barrier creation and maintenance plan, including the qualified biologist that will implement the plan. The City shall monitor construction activity to verify that the plan has been implemented by the contractor. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the plan for review and approval prior to initiating construction of the Western By- pass bridge. Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and Public Works Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the plan to the City for review and approval. Initiating construction activity. City Verification 57 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.3 Construction staging areas and access routes shall avoid sensitive wildlife areas Specific Process All grading and construction drawings shall identify construction staging areas and access routes that avoid sensitive wildlife areas. Such axeas/routes may be located in areas where construction will eliminate sensitive wildlife areas for which mitigation/compensation has been provided. The City shall monitor construction activity to verify that construction staging areas and access routes are installed as shown on the drawings. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the drawings for review and approval prior to initiating construction. Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongo'mg construction activity. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and Public Works Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the drawings to the City for review and approval. Initiating construction activity. City Verification 54 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.4 Construction personnel will be educated by a qualified biologist regarding proper behavior when working near wildlife areas. Information, in the form of reading material and/or onsite training, will address such issues as wildfife harasstnent, trespass, and protocols to deal with wildlife encountered during construction. Specific Process A construction personnel education program will be submitted to the City for review and approval. This shall include the name of the qualified biologist and any written materials made available to construction personnel. After receiving any instruction and reviewing information provided, each construction employee shall sign a statement indicating he/she has participated in the program. A copy of signed statements shall be provided to the City along with a list of construction personnel. Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the education program for review and approval prior to initiating construction. Submittal of the list of employees and signed statements as they are generated by the contractor. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and/or Public Works Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the education program to the City for review and approval. Initiating construction activity. City Verification 55 Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the grading plan to the City for review and approval. Submittal of the as built plan to the City for review and approval. City Verification 52 General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.2 Construction activities at the Western Bypass crossing over Murrieta Creek shah be limited to daylight hours until the bridge is completed, except in an emergency as defmed by the City. Specific Process This requirement shall be included in the contract with the bridge builder which shall include a work schedule demonstrating the bridge can be constructed using daylight hours only. The builder shall be required to report any deviations from the schedule to the City. The City shall monitor construction activity at the Western By-pass bridge and verify compliance with this requirement Mitigation Milestone Submittal of the bridge contract for review and retention prior to initiating construction. Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections during construction of the bridge. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the bridge. City Verification 53 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.16 Provide preferential parking for car and van pools for employees. Specific Process The applicant shall identify the location of preferred parking areas for employee car and van pools in a submittal to the City. Monitoring during operation to verify that preferred parking area is retained for use by employee car and van pools. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the preferred parking information shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any operating activities in support of the project. Monitoring shall be conducted one time per year. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s~ For Submittal of the preferred parking information to the City for review and retention. Initiating facility operations. City Verification 5O General Impact Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.1 During all construction periods within and/or adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitat (Chamlse Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, or Riparian/Wetland), the applicant shall provide temporary fencing at the boundary between areas to be disturbed/graded and areas to remain undisturbed. In areas where fencing is not possible, the applicant shall survey and mark construction area boundaries and shah retain a qualified biologist with authority to stop construction activity when it construction extends beyond these boundaries. Any disturbances outside of designated areas of disturbance shah be restored to comparable habitat quality of the adjacent undisturbed habitat. Specific Process The applicant shall identify the location of temporary fencing on grading plans submitted to the City for review and approval. Qualified biological monitor shall be identified to the City for onsite monitoring in areas where fencing cannot be installed to minimize habitat disturbance. As built grading plan submitted to City to verify that habitat is not unnecessarily destroyed and to identify areas that will require restoration, if any. Mitigation Milestone The grading plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to disturbing any native habitat. City notified of qualified biological monitor that will be used for the project, if necessary, prior to disturbing any native habitat. As build grading plan submitted to the City which shall include identification of any areas requiring restoration and the method of restoration, prior to initiating operations and release of bonds. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works and/or Building and Safety Departments 51 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.14 Botel and entertainment facility employees shall be provided with transit information and the applicant shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for permanent employees. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of the transit information and ride share program to the City for review and approval. The Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) target shall be identified in this information package submitted to the City. Monitoring during operation to verify that AVR is being fulfilled shall be submitted by the facility operators ancl independently verified by the City. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the information and program package shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any operating activities in support of the project. During operations the facility operators shall submit AVR verification at least one time per quarter and City inspections shall independently verify the AVR at least one time per year. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the information and program package to the City for review and approval. Initiating facility operations. City Verification 48 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.15 The applicant or City shall purchase clean fuel tramg for transporting people from parking areas to the entertainment facilities. Specific Process The applicant shall identify the trams that will be used for transporting people and verify that these vehicles qualify as low emission or no emission (electric) vehicles. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the tram information shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any operating activities in support of the project. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the tram information to the City for review and retention. Initiating facility operations. City Verification 49 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Mensure 4.2.3.12 Provide incentives for tour buses, and once tour buses have dropped off patrons, these buses shall not be allowed to idle more than five minutes before they are shut down. Specific Process The applicant shall a list of incentives that will be used to attract bus tours. When buses enter mandatory parking areas they shall be notified of the requirement to shutdown within 5 minutes or face revocation of the privilege of serving the facilities. Monitoring during operations to verify that the bus shutdown requirement has been implemented as identified in the plan. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the list shall be filed with the City prior to initiating operation of any facilities. Random inspections by the City at least one time per week shall verify the 5 minute shutdown requirement is being met by tour buses. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the list and notification to the City for review and approval. Initiating project operations for tour buses. Ciw Verification 46 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.13 The applicants shall provide at least one day-care facility for employees working for the hotel and entertainment complex facilities. This facility can be provided on site or arrangements can be made with an offsite professional day-care provider(s) to meet the clay-care needs of up to 2,400 employees. Specific Process The applicant shall a identify in writing the location and verify the availability of the day-care facility to the City. The availability of day-care facilities shall be verified at least one time per year by the owners of the facilities. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the written identification shall be filed with the City prior to initiating operation of any facilities. Random inspections by the City at least one time per year shall verify the availability of this facility to facility employees. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the identification and notification to the City for review and retention. Initiating facility operations. City Verification 47 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.10 Project design will incorporate energy-saving features throughout the project, including low-emission water heaters, central water heating systems, and built-in energy efficient appliances. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a short report identifying all energy-saving features used in the facilities and compiling a summary of total energy savings for each facility. Monitoring during construction to verify that these features have been installed as identified in the report. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the report shall be filed with the City prior to initiating construction of any facilities containing energy using equipment. During construction inspections shall verify the use of these features in structures. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 44 GeneraI Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.11 The project will install bus transit shelters and benches in Old Town and within the Westside Specific Plan area in coordination with the local transit agency and the City to provide on site transit service. Specific Process The applicant shall submit transit implementation plan identifying all transit facilities that will be installed in support of the project for City review and approval Monitoring during construction to verify that the transit features have been installed as identified in the plan. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the plan shall be filed with the City prior to initiating construction of any facilities. During construction inspections shall verify the installation of these features in accordance with the plan. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the plan to the City for review and approval. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 45 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.8 Pre~coated and pre-colored materials will be used in construction to the extent feasible. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a short report identifying those facilities for which pre-coated and pre- colored materials can and will be used. Monitoring during construction to verify that these materials are being used where identified in the report. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the report shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections shall verify the use of these materials by conducting random inspections during delivery and use of such materials. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 42 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.9 Prior to iSSuing a building permit, the City will require documentation from the applicant that proper precautions have been taken so that workers are not exposed to unsafe levels of hazardous air pollution. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a short report identifying those hazardous materials that will be used in construction and those facilities where such materials will be used. Monitoring during construction to verify that these materials are being used in the manner required where identified in the report. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the report shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections shall verify the use of these materials in conformante with requirements by conducting random inspections during use of such materials. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 43 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.6 To the maximum extent feasible, construction activities that affect traffic flow will be restricted to off-peak hours (i.e., between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.). Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified. Monitoring during construction to verify that construction equipment and materials are not delivered during morning (6 a.m. and 10 a.m.) and afternoon (3 p.m. and 7 p.m.) commute periods. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections shall verify equipment is not delivered during commuting hours. Responsible Monitoring Partv City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 40 General lmpact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.7 Construction employees shah be provided with transit information and the contractor shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for construction employees. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified. A copy of the transit information and ride share program information shall be supplied to the City. The Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) target shall be identified in this information package submitted to the City. Monitoring during construction to verify that AVR is being fulfilled shall be conducted by the City. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections shall verify the AVR at least one time per month during construction. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 41 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.4 Electric equipment will be used to the maximum ex'tent feasible. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a list of all electric equipment that is capable of being used at the site: electrical equipment that will be utilized at the construction site; and if some available electrical equipment will not be used, why it will not be used. Monitoring during construction to verify that the electrical equipment identified for use is actually used at the construction sites. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the list shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections shall verify the presence of electrical equipment listed. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the list to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 38 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.5 Trucks and construction equipment will limit idling. Trucks and equipment that may be left to idle for more than 15 minutes shall be shut down. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified. Monitoring during construction to verify that idling equipment does not idle for more than 15 minutes. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections shall verify equipment does not idle more than 15 minutes. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 39 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.2 All construction equipment will be maintained in peak operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified, such as engine tune-ups within three months prior to initiating construction or during the construction effort. Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections equipment operating data shall be available to verify compliance with this requirement. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 36 General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.3 Equipment shall use low-suifur diesel fuel. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified, such as fuel purchase contracts or invoices. Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed. Mitigation Milestone The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections fuel purchase data shall be available to verify compliance with this requirement. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention. Initiating construction of the project. City Verification 37 General Impact The project may create a significant demand for limited law enforcement resources. Mitigation Measure I!I.14.b.27 The facility owner/operator shall negotiate an agreement with law enforcement officials to provide adequate law enforcement personnel for all entertainment facility operations, including related traffic control. Specific Process A copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City. Mitigation Milestone The agreement shall be filed with the City prior to initiating operations of any facility. Responsible Monitorin~ Party City of Temecula City Manager's Office and Police Department Prereauisite Action(s) For Submittal of the agreement for retention in the project file prior to operating any of the facilities. City Verification 34 C. Mitigation Measures Identified in the Environmental Impact Reoort General Impact The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3.1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponents shall demonstrate to the City Engineer the actions that will be taken to comply with SCAQMI) Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts offsite sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQNID Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction. Specific measures will include moistening soil prior to grading, daily watering of exposed surfaces or treating with soil conditioner to stabilize the soB; washing truck tires and covering loads of dirt transported offsite; cessation of grading during periods of high winds over 25 miles per hour, and paving, coating or seeding graded areas at the earliest possible time after soil disturbance. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan to the City for review and approval. Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in support of the project. During construction inspections disturbed areas shall verify that the fugitive dust measures contained in the plan are being implemented. Responsible Monitorin~ Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the plan to the City for review and approval. initiating construction of the project. City Verification 35 General Impact Adequacy of water supply to meet fire protection requirements for Westside Specific Plan Area facilities. Mitigation Measure I11.14.a.25 The developer shall confer with the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) during the engineering of the Western By-pass to ensure that the water distribution/transmission line, if deemed necessary for fire protection purposes, is installed when the road is constructed. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a letter verifying that the RCWD and fire protection agency have been consulted and the size of water line that will be installed in the Western By-pass Road, ff any. This letter shall contain signatures of representatives from the two agencies. Engineering drawings of the Western By-pass Road shall down the size and location of all utility infrastructure, including the water line. Monitoring during construction to verify that the water line is installed as proposed in the drawings. Mitigation Milestone The letter and plans shall be approved prior to construction of the Western By-pass Road. During construction inspections the inStallatiOn Of the line in conformsnee with the engineering drawings shall be verified. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecuh Public Works and Riverside County\City of Temecuh Fire Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the letter and drawings for review and approval. Initiating construction. City Verification 32 General Impact Wildland fire hazards may affect facilities proposed by the Westside Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure III.14.a.26 Along the west and east sides of the Western By-pass Road a fire and vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City and RCFD for review and approval. This plan shah provide a sufficient buffer of fwe retardant plantings to ensure that structures on the east side of the road are not exposed to wildland f'we hazards from a f'we in the chaparral on the west side of the road. Specific Process The applicant shall submit a fire and vegetation management plan to the City, RCFD and CFD for review and approval. Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed. Mitigation Milestone The fire and vegetation management plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities west of Murrieta Creek. During construction inspections the installation of the fkre protection and vegetation components in conformance with the plan shall be verified. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department and Riverside County/City of Temecula Fire Depamnent Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the plan for review and approval. Initiating construction. City Verification 33 General Impact Increased traffic hazards during construction. Mitigation Measure 1II.13.f.22 No open trenches or traffic safety hazards shall be left in road rights-of-way during periods when traffic controls and construction personnel are not present. Such hazards shall be eliminated or an alternative route provided without hazards before employees leave a working area at or adjacent to a road. Specific Process A traffic safety plan for constructing facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Monitoring during construction to verify that traffic control resources are provided, as identified in the traffic safety plan, including controls after construction ends for the day or weekend. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities. During building inspections traffic safety equipment shall be reviewed and conformance with the safety plan verified. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s} For Submittal of the traffic safety plan for review and approval. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 3O General Impact Increased traffic hazards during construction. Mitigation Measure I11.13.f.23 All roads shall be adequately repaired after construction is completed in an area to ensure that traffic can move in the same manner as before construction without damage or discomfort to vehicles and passengers. Specific Process A circulation system repair plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Monitoring during construction to verify that repairs are provided as identified in the repair plan. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities. Prior to accepting road repairs as complete, the City shall verify that repairs have been completed as identified in the circulation system repair plan. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the circulation system repair plan for review and approval. Completing construction of facilities and repair of circulation system facilities. City Verification 31 General Impact Increased traffic hazards during construction. Mitigation Measure ffI. 13.f.20During construction that affects the local roads, the project owner shah provide adequate traffic control resources (signing, protective devices, crossing devices, detours, flagpersons, etc.) to maintain safe traffic flow. If construction within a road right-of-way is not completed by the end of the day's work, the contractor or agency shah ensure that an adequate traffic access route exists to all areas where access exists at the time of construction. Specific Process A traffic safety plan for constructing facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Monitoring during construction to verify that traffic control resources are provided as identified in the traffic safety plan. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities. During building inspections traffic safety equipment shall be reviewed and conformante with the safety plan verified. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the traffic safety plan for review and approval. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 28 General Impact Increased traffic hazards during construction. Mitigation Measure HI.13 .f.21 Traffic hazards that may affect vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, or hones (such as speed bumps, trenches, or uneven paths) shall be identified and access controlled by the project owner. Specific Process A traffic safety plan for constructing facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Monitoring during construction to verify that traffic control resources are provided, as identified in the traffic safety plan, including controlled access to construction areas. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities. During building inspections traffic safety equipment and access shall be reviewed and conformante with the safety plan verified. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the traffic safety plan for review and approval. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 29 General Impact Bridges could become barriers to migration or movement of animals. Mitigation Measure 111.5.d.18 Bridge designs selected for bridges constructed in support of this project shah not create any permanent barriers to the movement of animals along the Murrieta Creek riparian corridor. Specific Process Bridge designs shall be included in submittals to the Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game to verify that no barriers to animal movement is created. Mitigation Milestone The Corps 404 and DFG 1601 permit/agreement shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any bridges. Responsible Monitoring Party Corps of Engineers/U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game Prerequisite Action(s) For Preparation of bridge designs that do not pose a barrier to animal movement. Submittal of applications to the Corps and DFG. City Verification 26 General Impact Lighting for facilities could conflict with Palomar Observatory operations. Mitigation Measure III.7.19 A lighting plan shah be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval for facilities developed by this project. This plan shah include prior consultation with the California Institute of Technology for aH proposed outdoor lighting designs and shah demonstrate compliance with quantitative lighting requirements contained in County of Riverside Ordinance/1655. Specific Process The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified in the lighting plan. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be appwved prior to constxuc~on of any facilities with exterior lighting. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the exterior lighting at facilities. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecuh Building and Safety Department Prerequisite Aefion(s) For Submittal of the lighting plan for review and approval. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 27 General Impact Exposure of structures or people to flood hazards in Old Town. Mitigation Measure ffi.3.i.17 Bridges and entertainment structures and infrastructure shah be installed in a manner that protects them from significant damage from a 100-year flood along Murrieta Creek. The structure and bridge designs shah integrate the proposed facilities into the ultimate design solution for Murrieta Creek being prepared by the Corps of Engineers and County Flood Control without causing significant constraints in managing design flood flows. The project owners shah participate in the dam inundation evacuation plans for any facilities not protected from the potential collapse of the Vail Lake dam. Specific Process The applicant shall demonstrate to the City how the bridges and structures will be protected from significant damage due to the 100-year flood by submitting a flood hazard report for review and approval. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified in the flood haTard protection report. Evacuation plans that will be implemented if upstream dams fail shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Mitigation Milestone Approval of the flood haT~rd report and evacuation plan shall be obtained prior to constructing any of the facilities within hazard areas within Old Town. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the flood hazard report and evacuation plan for City review and approval. Initiating construction of facilities. 24 City Verification 25 General Impact The runoff from the animal stable area of the Wild West Arena west of Murrieta Creek could cause adverse water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure 111.3.e.15 The project owner shall implement sanitary house-keeping procedures that minimize the potential for surface water pollutants to be incorporated into surface water discharges from the project site. These procedures shall be incorporated into a written procedure that must be approved by the City Planning Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Specific Process The City and Regional Board shall review and approve the stable area house keeping plan. Monitoring during operations to verify plan is implemented. Mitigation Milestone Approval of the housekeeping plan shall be obtained prior to initiating operations at the arena. Random inspections of housekeeping operations at least one time per month after operations begin. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the housekeeping plan for City and Regional Board review. Initiating use of or operation of the arena. City Verification 22 General Impact The runoff from the animal stable area of the Wild West Arena west of Murrieta Creek could cause adverse water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure HI.3.e.16 Any surface runoff generated from the stable area shah either be retained, treated and reused on the project site, or treated to standards required to protect the receiving water quality standards for Murrieta Creek before being released from the project site. The procedure selected shah be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Specific Process The City and Regional Board shall review and approve the stable area surface water runoff management plan. Monitoring during operations to verify plan is implemented. Mitigation Milestone Approval of the surface water runoff management plan shall be obtained prior to initiating operations at the arena. Random inspections of management methodology implemented at the stable area at least one time per month after operations begin. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the surface water management plan for City and Regional Board review and approval. Initiating arena operations. City Verification 23 General Impact The development of the facilities west of Murrieha Creek could cause adverse water quality impacts due to urban pollutants. Mitigation Measure 111.3.e.13 The landscaped areas shah be irrigated in a manner that does not result in overland flows of surface water and the discharge of fertilizer and pesticide contaminated surface runoff to Murrieta Creek. The landscape designs and irrigation systems shall be reviewed by the City to verify runoff controls are adequate to prevent inadvertent surface runoff. Specific Process The City shall review and approve the landscape designs and irrigation system with specific evaluation of minimizing inadvertent surface runoff. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on the irrigation system, including verification that inadvertent flows are not created during irrigation. Mitigation Milestone Approval of landscape designs and irrigation plans shall be obtained prior to initiating construction of any facilities west of Murrieta Creek. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department. Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the landscape design and irrigation system plans for facilities west of Murrieta Creek. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 2O General Impact The development of the facilities west of Murrieta Creek could cause adverse water quali~y impacts due to urban pollumnts. Mitigation Measure HI.3.e.14 The project owners shah prepare and implement a sweeping plan approved by the City to sweep paved areas and graded parking areas one time per week at a minimum, and at least six times during the month of October prior to the onset of the winter storm season. Specific Process The City shall review and approve the sweeping plan. Monitoring during operations to verify sweeping is implemented in accordance with the plan. Mitigation Milestone Approval of the sweeping plan shall be obtained prior to initiating operations at any paved or parking areas. Random inspections of the sweeping at least two times per year once operations begin. Responsible Monitorin~ Party City of Temecula Community Services and/or Public Works Departments Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the sweeping plan for City review. Initiating use of or operation of paved and/or parking areas. City Verification 21 General lmpact The volume of runoff from increased impervious areas could increase downstream flood hazards. Mitigation Measure Ill.3.b.ll When the development pads are engineered and constructed within the Westside Specific Plan Area, the surface runoff above the volume presently generated shall be detained on the project site and released approximately 24- hours after peak flows within Murrieta Creek have passed through the project area. Specific Process The City shall review and approve the surface drainage system design from these pads, including the detention facilities and the information upon which they are designed. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on drainage system plans. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for the surface drainage system from the pads shall be obtained prior to initiating construction of any development pads west of Murrieta Creek. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department. Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the drainage system design, and grading and building plans for facilities west of Murrieta Creek. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 18 General Impact The volume of runoff from increased impervious areas could increase downstream flood hazards. Mitigation Measure HI.3.b.12 The project shall install all drainage improvements within the Murrieta Creek channel that are required to handle storm runoff from those areas improved as part of the proposed project. The project shall also contribute its fair share to any channel improvements that must be completed to ensure that cumulative runoff increases do not cause downstream flood hazards or significant damage from surface runoff in Murrieta Creel{ and the Santa Margarita River. Specific Process The City shall review and approve the surface drainage improvements for new surface flows entering Murrieta Creek. The applicant shall submit data to the City identifying any fair share costs for the main channel and the City shall review and approve this dam and ensure fair share funds are provided to the agency constructing these improvements. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on drainage improvement plans. Mitigation Milestone Data submittals and approvals for the surface drainage improvements entering Murrieta Creek shall be obtained prior to initiating construction of any development pads west of Murrieta Creek. Conformanee with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control. Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the drainage system improvements for facilities west of Murrieta Creek. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 19 General Impact Collected surface runoff delivered to Murrieta Creek from the Western By-pass road, hotel and arena could cause damage to the channel through erosion and/or sedimentation. Mitigation Measure Ill.3.a.10 The surface runoff drainage system incorporated into the Western By-pass road and the hotel and Arena engineered development pad(s) shah be designed to meet the following requirements: The drainage system shah be designed to transport the expected 100- year runoff from upstream areas or the pad(s) to Murrieta Creek without damage to adjacent property or to the Creek channel; and The points where surface runoff is intercepted along the road shah be designed to ensure that headward (upstream) erosion is not initiated and that erosion and sediment generation do not exceed natural rates of erosion and sedimentation for the project area. The drainage system from the pad(s) to Murrieta Creek shah also be designed to prevent increased erosion along the drainage system improvements and at the point where the surface runoff from the pad(s) enters the Creek cb~nnel. Specific Process The City shall review and approve the surface drainage system design from these facilities to Murrieta Creek and determine that redirected flows will not cause erosion or sedimentation damage based on standard flood design requirements. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on drainage system plans. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for the surface drainage system from the Westside Specific Plan area shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any facilities west of Murrieta Creek. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department. 16 Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the drainage system design and building plans for facilities west of Murrieta Creek. Initiating construction of facilities. City Verification 17 General Impact Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. Mitigation Measure llI.l.h.8 The developer shall have a site specific geotechnical evaluation prepared by a qualified and licensed Engineering Geologist and/or Registered Professional Engineer. This report shall address, but is not limited to, ground shaking hazards, slope stability, liquefaction potential, and subsidence (as appropriate for each site) and provide design recommendations that will ensure the structural integrity of new structures to protect bnmans occupying the structures in the future. The City shall require the developer to implement these design requirements. Specific Process The City shall review and approval of the site specific geotechnical evaluation(s) and determine that structural design implements the design requirements of the evaluation(s). Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on building plans. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for the geotechnical evaluation(s) shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any specific structure or site. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department. Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the geotechnical evaluations and building plans. Initiating construction of buildings. City Verification 14 General Impact Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. Mitigation Measure HI.l.h.9 If existing structures are utilized, the structural integrity shall be remediated to meet the design requirements of the Engineering Geologist and/or Registered Professional Engineer. Specific Process The City shall review and approval of the specific design requirements for reuse of existing structures and determine that structural design implements the design requirements of the engineering geologist/professional engineer. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on building plans. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for the structural design requirements for reused structures shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any specific structure being reused. Conformante with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures. Responsible Monitori~ Party City of Temecula Public Works Department. Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the design requirements and building plans. Initiating construction of buildings. City Verification 15 City Verification 12 General Impact Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. Mitigation Measure llI.l.h.7 All new structures installed in conjunction with this project shah be designed to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. If the Engineering Geologist/Registered Engineer identifies more stringent site specific design standards, the developer shah implement such standards for buildings constructed under approvals for this project. Snecific Process Review and approval of the structural seismic design requirements. Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on building plans. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for seismic design for structures shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any specific structure. Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Building and Safety Department. Prerequisite Action(s) For Submittal of the building plans. Initiating construction of buildings. City Verification 13 Construction of the bridges. City Verification 10 General lmpact Disturbance of Murrieta Creek Channel. Mitigation Measure llI.l.g.6 The bridges shah be constructed during the dry, or low flow season to the extent feasible. During construction of the bridges specific erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented to minimize movement of sediment from active construction areas. Measures to accomplish this include diverting any surface water around the project site, installation of silt fences, sediment traps/basins, rock ~ters, and other comparable measures to reduce the transport of sediment from the construction area during construction. Post construction sediment control shah also be implemented and the construction area shah be re{tuned to a functional status following construction consistent with the ultimate design of the Murrieta Creek channel. Specific Process Review and approval of the bridge construction schedules and the channel erosion control plan. Monitoring the plan during construction and following installation of the bridges. Require erosion/sedimentation remediation where erosion control measures fail and erosion occurs within the channel during or after bridge construction. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for bridge construction schedules and channel erosion control plan shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any of the bridge segments. Plan measures and effectiveness shall be monitoring during construction of the bridges and following bridge completion until one winter has passed. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department. Prerequisite Action(s) For Review and approval of the schedule and plan prior to initiating bridge construction. Review of erosion following a winter with normal flows in Murrieta Creek. 11 Initiating construction and operation. City Verification 8 General Impact Disturbance of Murrieta Creek Channel. Mitigation Measure BI.l.g.5 The bridges shall be instaBed in a manner that will not adversely impact the ability of Murrieta Creek to carry the design flows established by the Corps of Engineers and the Riverside County Hood Control and Water Conservation District. Permits or waivers from such permits for installation of the bridges shall be obtained from the Corps of Engineers, the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the State Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The developer shall implement the conditions of these permits. Specific Process Permits or waivers from such permits for installation of the bridges shall be obtained from the Corps of Engineers, the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the State Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The developer shall implement the conditions of these permits.Bridge designs and engineering drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the agencies listed above to be consistent with channel requirements established by the regulatory agencies. Conditions contained in permits or waivers from permits shall be monitored during construction for compliance. Mitigation Milestone Approvals for bridge design and engineering shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on any of the bridge segments. Permit conditions shall be monitoring during construction of the bridges. Responsible Monitoring~ Party City of Temecula Public Works Department. Regulatory agencies issuing permits. Prerequisite Action(s) For Review and approval of bridge designs by regulatory agencies. 9 City Verification General lmpact Ground disturbance on the hillside can cause short-term visual impacts due to exposed graded slopes. Mitigation Measure 1II.l.c.4 A landscape plan shall be completed for review and approval by the City. This plan shah provide for full revegetation of the road cut slopes utilizing native/ornamental plants which will serve as a f'we buffer area. On the constructed building pads the landscape plan shah include the planting of large trees (minlmunl 4" diameter)immediately after construction of the pads is completed. The effect of the revegetation plan will be to blend the slopes into the natural coastal sage scrub and cbami~al chaparral communities west of the Western By-Pass Road. The revegetation goal for the pads will be to visually screen and soften the effect of the fiat, graded and paved pads. A bond or equivalent commitment, as provided by City ordinance, shall be provided by the developer to ensure that the site can be revegetated after grading. Specific Process The City shall review and approve the landscape plan to determine that the landscaping goals identified in this measure are fully addressed. The City shall monitor the plan implementation during construction and operation of the facilities to ensure it meets the goals identified in this measure. Mitigation Milestone The plan shall be approved prior to initiating any construction on the Westside Specific Plan facilities. This shall include the bond or equivalent commitment to ensure adequate funds are available to revegetate disturbed areas. Monitoring shall occur by inspections during construction and facility operation. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Planning Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Review and approval of the landscaping plan prior to initiating ground disturbance on Westside Specific Plan facilities. General Impact Grading and ground disturbance creates a potential for erosion and sedimentation, on- and off-site. Mitigation Measure llI.l.b.3 The applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed erosion control plan that identifies specific erosion control measures to control onsite and offsite erosion from the time the site is disturbed until the disturbed areas are fully developed and landscaped. This erosion control plan shah include the following measures at a minimum: Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to winter rain period experienced in southern California. The natural vegetation shah be retained to the extent feasible on aH areas that will not be disturbed for grading (the exception is areas that must cleared and revegetated as part of a fuel modification program to protect residences from wildland fires). All slopes that will be greater than ten feet high shah be evaluated to def'me the optimum length and steepness to minimiTe flow velocity and erosion potential. Lateral drainage collection systems shah be incorporated at the base of slopes to transport flows in a controlled, non-erodible channel. The plan shah indicate where flows on the site can be diverted from denuded areas and carded in the natural channels on the site. Measures in man-made channels to minimize runoff velocities shah be identified and implemented. Disturbed areas shall be protected through 1) physical stabilization (such as geotextiles, mats, or other materials (where needed); 2) vegetative stabilization; and 3) mulchlug. Establish sediment traps, silt fences, and related support features (such as rock ~ters) on the property to control the release of sediment from disturbed areas. The design and location of such traps shah be identified in the plan. 4 The channel designed to transport flows to the nearest regional flood control facility shah be described and the adequacy of the channel shah be demonstrated with a detailed drainage analysis. An inspection and maintenance program shah be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on- or offsite will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. AH disturbed areas shah ultimately either be covered with impervious material or revegetated with native and/or i'we and drought resistant vegetation. The developer shall identify a bond amount for implementing the erosion control program and provide the City with a bond for this amount. Install permanent erosion control and runoff facilities that are sufficient to ensure that surface rimoff will not cause long-term erosion on- or offsite. Specific Process Review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the City. Monitor the plan implementation during construction and operation of the facilities. Require erosionJsedimentation remediation where erosion control measures fail and erosion occurs until on- and off-site erosion is eliminated. Mitigation Milestone Prior to issuance of grading permit(s). During construction and when operations are initiated. Responsible Monitoring Party City of Temecula Public Works Department PrereQuisite Action(s) For Review and approval of the erosion control plan prior to initiating the grading plan by the City. Initiating field review during construction. 5 B. Mitigation Measures Identified in the Initial Study General Impact 1. Grading for roads and building pads may create unstable slopes with potential for slope failures. Mitigation Measure 11I. l.a.1 The final grading plan for the site shah be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist with the specific goal of preventing the creation of unstable slopes. This review and approval shah be completed prior to any grading at the project site. Grading of the site shah be evaluated by the engineering geologist by conducting in-grading inspections and if potential for slope failure is noted this problem shah be corrected to control the potential for slope failure. Specific Process Review and approval of the building construction plans by the City after the engineering geologist has reviewed the plans and determined that grading will not ereate a potential for slope failure or that measures have been incorporated to minimize slope failure. On-site construction inspection of the cut slopes by the engineering geologist. Mitigation Milestone Prior to issuance of grading permit(s). During construction for the on-site inspection. Responsible Monitoring Party Licensed Engineering Geologist, and City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Review of the grading plan by the engineering geologist prior to submittal to the City. Submittal of grading plan to the City for review and approval. Initiating construction. City Verification 2 General Impact 1. Grading for roads and building pads may create unstable slopes with potential for slope failures. Mitigation Measure III. 1 .a.2 The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shah be 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Exceptions may be granted where a slope evaluation by a professional engineer or registered engineering geologist demonstrates that the geologic formations may be able to sustain steeper slopes, but the stability of any such proposed slopes shah be verified during geologic in-grading inspections. Specific Process Review and approval of the building construction plans by the City after the professional engineer and/or engineering geologist has reviewed the plato and determined that grading will not create a potential for slope failure or that measures have been incorporated to minimize slope failure. Engineer or geologist shall provide written field verification of the slope stability to the City, or provide alternative design requirements during construction. Mitigation Milestone Prior to issuance of grading permit(s). Prior to completion of construction for written field verification. Responsible Monitoring Party Licensed Engineering Geologist and City of Temecula Public Works Department Prerequisite Action(s) For Review of the grading plan by the engineering geologist prior to submittal to the City. Submittal of grading plan to the City for review and approval. Initiating field review during construction. City Verification 3 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CITY OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR TIlE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPIVlENT PROJECT A. Introduction This mitigation monitoring program has been prepared for use by the City of Temecula as it implements mitigation measures for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. This program has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City CEQA Guidelines. Assembly Bill 3180, effective January 1, 1989, required adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment. The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The monitoring program contains the following elements: 1) All mitigation measures are recorded. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is divided into two sections. The first section of the MMP lists the mitigation measures contained within the Initial Study for issues that were not carried forward into the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for evaluation. The second section lists the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The MMP establishes the actions and procedures necessary to ensure compliance for all mitigation measures as outlined below. 2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each mitigation measure. In the attached MMP sheets, the tirst coinran identifies the 'General Impact.' The second coltnnn lists the 'Mitigation Measure." Next, the "Specific Process' for monitoring is listed. It is followed in the MMP table by identification of the "Mitigation Milestone' for the mitigation measure and the "Responsible Monitoring Party.' Any "Prerequisite Action For" the measures is identified and a signature Mock is provided for 'Verification' that the measure has been implemented. 3) The program contains a separate mitigation monitoring record for each mitigation measure in the format outlined above. Copies of the MMP and supporting data records will be retained by the City of Temecula as part of its project files. 4) The MMP has been designed to be flexible. As moniwring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for Implementing the Program. If changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the Program. The total Program, including any modifications, will be retained by the Agency as part of the project files. The individual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are numbered in the same sequence as presented in the Initial Study and the EIR. H. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS This section of the document addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and to determine whether the project related significant impacts can be acceptably overridden by the project benefits when the two are compared and balanced. As outlined in Section E above, the Old Town Redevelopment Project would produce unavoidable significant impacts in two environmental categories: air quality and noise. The Temecula City Council finds that the previously stated benefits of the Old Town Redevelopment Project, contained in the proposed action and as conditioned by the City, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects to air quality and noise that have been outlined above. In a State where unemployment hovers near 8%; where the ability to attract new business and jobs has been harmed by a prolonged recession and limited industrial growth; and where urban blight has diminished the City's ability to attract new uses to the Old Town core area; the City Council finds that the proposed project's contributions to jobs, to the local economy, and to the City's ability to attract additional job growth outweigh the effects of air emissions which will not directly impact the local population; and outweigh the limited, short-term noise exposure to areas that already experience moderate to high background noise because of the proximity of residential uses to Interstate 15 and other major thoroughfares. The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant unavoidable impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed five alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the two significant impacts of the proposed action. The EIR presents evidence that implementing the Old Town Redevelopment Project will cause significant adverse impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to insignificant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above and the City Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City or other Responsible Agencies. The City Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial as outlined in Section G of this document and summarized above and that these benefits justify overriding the unavoidable significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. This finding is supported by the fact that many of the benefits listed above result in the project initiating a major tourist/recreational activity in the Temecula area which is forecast to contribute to a significantly greater vitality for and potential for success of Old Town and the vision established in the Old Town Specific Plan. Other major infrastructure improvements will benefit the community surrounding Old Town, including enhanced flood control facilities and road improvements affecting an area of the community already experiencing access constraints. The City Council further finds that these benefits, when balanced against the two unavoidable significant adverse 6O impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values which accrue to the City of Temecula as outlined in Section G of this document. As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the Temecula City Council has reviewed the project definition in the EIR and Section A of this document, and fully understands the project proposed by the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Further, the City Council finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts have been identified in the EIR, public comment, and public testimony. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Sections D. 1, D.2 and E and the Council concurs with the facts and findings contained in those sections. The City Council also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document (Section F) and that one feasible alternative which can substantially lessen project impacts is available for adoption. The City Council concurs with the seven identified economic and social benefits which will result from implementing the proposed project. The Council has balanced these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City from developing and operating the Old Town Redevelopment Project, the City Council finds that the benefits identified herein outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and hereby override these unavoidable environmental effects to obtain the economic and social benefits listed in Section G. 61 The project benefits outlined below were considered by the City Council in performing the balancing test with those unavoidable significant adverse impacts presented earlier in this document. 1. Benefits The project represents the significant achievement of community economic development, open space and conservation, and revitalization goals. The key ideas of the City's Vision Statement, which provided a basis for the General Plan, are as follows: A balance of residential, commercial and industrial oppommities; The concentration of retail and business development within Village Centers; A convenient and effective transportation system that includes vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel; An outstanding open space and parks system; A community dedicated to preserving family values, neighborhood conservation and public safety; Additional activities and opportunities for a wide array of interests, ages, and lifestyles; The preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources; Assurances that adequate public services are provided concurren~y with development; and Capitalizing on the community's greatest asset, its people, by encouraging comrauffity involvement and community responsibility. The project accomplishes many of these goals and is a major opportunity for the City to sustain a healthy economy by providing additional jobs, by permanently protecting open space and natural areas at the urban edge, providing needed public infrastn~cture, and by providing a catalyst for enhancing and revitalizing an important hismdc area within the COmmUBity. b. Fulfills the primary goal and purpose of the Old Town Specific Plan According to the Overall (primary) Goal of the Old Town Specific Plan, the pu_t~se of the Plan is to "create a dyrmmic Old Town commercial and residential core that is attractive and of high quality, respectfol of its historic buildings and unifying design theme and providing an economically viable setting for a mixture of local and tourist serving commercial uses, adrainistrative/pwfi;ssional and residential uses with safe, efficient circulation and access." The additional entertainment, retail, and restaurant businesses proposed for the core of Old Town will help create an attractive and dynamic Old Town core; the project will require all new buildings to comply with the design gnfidelines in the Old Town Specific Plan and complement the existing historic buildings; and finally, the proposed project will create an economically viable local and tourist oriented commercial area that will address the blight in Old Town and reverse the trend toward8 deterioration of the Old Town area. This project is die type of revitslizadon catalyst envisioned for Old Town when the Specific Plan was developed. c. Create additional employment opportunities within the Temecula Valley The vations project components are forecast to create approximately 2,500 addidoual full-time equivalent jobs. These additional jobs will consist of a range of professional, skilled, and marginally-skilled positions. The average salary is projected to be $19,600 pot year. According to the adopted General Plan, the City and Valley need additional jobs to enhance the existing low jobs/housing ratio. The project is expected to 58 create a jobs/housing ratio of 3.4: 1 because it will attract a majority of employees from the existing labor pool within the Temecula Valley. The positive contribution to jobs/housing balance provides essential support for regional air quality management and growth management plans. Generate additional economic activity by accessing the regional tourism market The entertainment venues and related project components are forecast to generate an additional 1.0 to 1.5 million visitors to the Temecula Valley per year. Most of these visitors will be from other areas in the region and other regions of the country. These visitors will infuse additional funds into the local and area economies, which will make a dramatic contribution and improvement in local economic conditions. In addition, the project will result in additional entertainment dollars to be spent locally rother than in other parts of southern California. Current economic and market feasibility studies estimate that the project will generate approximately $86,000,000 in 1997. The multiplier effect of this additional local spending will create increased local sales and bed taxes, increase personal incomes, and additional business revenues. Generate significant positive economic impact because of capital investment in labor and materials needed for construction of the project The construction of entertainment facilities, infrastructure and other features of the project is forecast to have a significant positive economic impact on the community. According to the Price Waterhouse Report some of these positive short-term economic benefits are as follows: sales volume = $99,600,000 and resident income ~ $31,100,000. (Construelion employment = 1,000 x avenge earnings/employee = $31,100. Provide a meam to finance many of the needed public improvements that support the Old Town Specific Plan The General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, and Capital Improvement Program initially CODmined many needed public improvements in the southwestern quadrant of the City. The proposed project will enable many of these improvements to be started and/or contpleted sooner than initially anticipated. Examples of these early infrastructure improvements include: The extension of Fhst Street and the realignment of the intersection with First and Front Streets and Santiago Road; Completion of the first phase of the Western Bypass Road and bridge; Improvements to the freeway ramps at Rancho California Road and Interstate 15; Improvements to the freeway ramps at State Route 79 (south) and Interstate 15; Replacement and expansion of Eastan Municipal Water District's lift station at First Street; The conswaction of a town square or plaza in the core of Old Town; Providing needed parking facilities around the Old Town area. Generate new sources of public revenue to support necessary community services The project pwvides direct and indirect positive economic benefits to the community by increasing property values and by generating additional sales and transient occupancy taxes. Local redevelopment revenues, used to provide public improvements and address blight within the Re. development Project Area, will also increase as a result of this proposed project. The direct anmla] benefits expected to result from the project, according to the Price Waterhouse Report, in 1997 are as follows: Transient Occupancy Tax = $200,000; Sales Tax = $550,000; and Property Tax = $500,000. 59 A total of 460 residential units would be permitted compared to the 429 units under the proposed project. The impacts of both alternatives are comparable for tiffs portion of the current General Plan designation. The development of the Business Park uses could increase employees from 1,456 for the hotel/arena complex to as many as 6,534 employees. This would result in an increase in maximum number of trips per day by about 10,000. Significant increases in air pollution would occur relative to the proposed project. Traffic noise would be significantly increased and would potentially be significant and unmitigable. Construction noise and air quality would remain approximately the same. Habitat losses would also remain comparable under both alternatives. Based on these facts, the City Council rejects as infeasible the development of the property under the current General Plan land use designation as an alternative to the proposed project. This alternative does not meet all of project's identified objectives and it would be more environmentally damaging than the proposed project in all issue areas with potential significant impact. Therefore, the City Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that the current General Plan developntent alternative was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because this alternative cannot feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project and causes greater adverse impact than the proposed project. 3. Modified Westside Specific Plan This alternative was specifically formulated to eliminate some of the biological resource impacts, to reduce traffic flow impacts in the year 2010 and to reduce short- and long-term air quality emissions. By eliminating 12.7 acres of high density residential land from the proposed alternative, a total of 226 residential units could be constructed. Air emissions would be reduced as would the impact to biological resources. Other impacts would remain relatively the same. This alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project, and it would meet overall project objectives because would allow the entertainment objectives of the project to be fulftlled. Based on these facts, the City Council concurs that this is a feasible alternative that is environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative does meet the project objectives and it reduces, but does not eliminate significant impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that the modified Westside Specific Plan be retained as a feasible alternative to the proposed project. 4. Redevelopment Project Without Hotel/Arena This alteruadve would delete the hotel and Wild West Arena which the applicant has identified as being integral to the success of the project because of the overall role these two facilities play in the entertainment complex. The Arena is the key factor because it provides the ability to hold large western events, such as wild west shows and rodeos. It also provides essential parking resources for the facilities in the Old Town core area and provides hotel capacity to serve the visitors to the entertainment facilities. This alternative will eliminate the loss of the important wildlife habitat located at the hotel/Arena site. Future development would occur in accordance with the existing General Plan which has been shown to have a potential to be environmentally inferior to the proposed project. This alternative would eliminate the need for the Western Bypass Road and the First S~t improvements. All traffic and parking would be restricted to Old Town facilities which would increase pollution and Waffle impacts to a possible significant level. The consauction air quality impacts would remain significant; the operational air quality impacts would be reduced, but is forecast to re_main significant. Short-term noise impacts in Old Town would remain significant under this alternative. On balance this alternative eliminates some impacts determined to be nonsignificant that require extensive mitigation (biological resources), but it will not eliminate the significant impacts for air quality and for consauction noise impacts in Old Town. It is only marginally superior to the proposed project for environmental purposes, and it may cause significant traffic impacts and significant local CO problems. 56 This alternative also does not meet the project objectives as identified by the applicant as it would eliminate two facilities identified as essential to the project. Based on these facts, the City Council concludes that tiffs alternative project is considered, at best, marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project. It is not considered a feasible alternative because it does not meet the project objectives. Therefore, the City Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that this alternative is properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because this alternative cannot feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project. 5. Hotel/Arena Relocated to the Adjacent Vacant Industrial Pads This alternative would consist of relocadng the above facilities to the vacant industrial pads immediately to the north of the Westside Specific Plan area. This alternative could reduce grading and significant construction emissions of NOx. It would also eliminate the loss of the biological resources on the existing site. It would not meet the important project objective of provide a pedestrian and visual link along Main Street between Old Town and Westside Specific Plan area. Short-term noise impacts and operational air quality impacts would also not be eliminated by this alternative. Cimulation impacts would be increased along the Rancho Caiifomia corridor, and mitigation to a nonsignificant level of impact might no longer be feasible along this corridor. On balance this aitemative also eliminates some impacts determined to be nonsignificant that require extensive mitigation (biological resources), but it will not eliminate the significant impacts for air quality and for construction noise impacts. It is only marginally superior to the proposed project for environmental purposes, and it may cause significant traffic impacts and significant local CO problems. This aircreative is considered only marginally feasible because it would not meet the objective of creating a link between Old Town and the hotel/Axena. On balance, the wade-off of reducing some short-ten impacts compared to the long-ten potential traffic impacts along the Rancho California Road corridor does not produce an environmentally superior pwject relative to the pwposed project. Based on these facts, the City Council concludes that this alternative project is considered less environmentally sound than the proposed project. It is considered a marginally feasible alternative because it does meet most of the basic project objectives, but not all of the project objectives. Therefore, the City Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that this alternative is properly eliminated from forther detailed consideration because this alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. This concludes the discussion of project alternatives to the Old Town Redevelopment Project. G. PROJECT BENEFITS The benefits from approving the Old Town Redevelopment Project are related to the immediate implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan; the economic benefits that the project can provide to the merchants in Old Town, the City, and the region over the long-term; the jobs provided that will meet the needs of local residents; enhancement of the area jobs/housing balance in relation to regional air quality plan implementation; and the infrastructure improvements that will be provided at an earlier date than originally envisioned in the General Plan. The benefits of a project are those positive values and new facilities that would not be made available to the community without the projeet's development. As a technical basis for the economic benefits of the project, the City commissioned an economic study by Price Waterhouse and a copy is already a part of the project record and incorporated herein by reference. 57 Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will cause noise levels during construction that will increase the CNEL by more than 1.5 riB, the significance threshold, in the Old Town core area. This is a sufficient change in the background noise environment to be a significant impact. The noise levels in the Westside Specific Plan area are forecast to be increased from a background of approximately 57 0.B CNEL by 20 aB. Pages 4-50 through 4-52 in the Final EIR list the forecast noise level change that results in the forecast significant noise impact. Based on these dam, the City concurs that the potential construction noise impacts should be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact at the nearest residences. No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this time. The City finds that all of the changes to the project that are proposed to reduce construction noise impacts are considered feasible. Therefore, the City finds that the available mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce noise impacts from project construction activities below a significant level. All feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program. Based on these facts, the City concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant short4erm adverse effect on the local noise environment; that project noise levels have been lessened to the degree feasible by controlling construction activity; and that the project specific noise impacts remaiding are unavoidable and acceptable due to overriding considerations as outlined at the end of this document. This concludes the discussion of all potential adverse impacts attributable to the implementation and operation of the Old Town Redevelopment Project. F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of reasonable project alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR § 15126(d)). CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project that: (1) offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors involved. The basic objectives of the proposed project include the following: development of western oriented entertainment facilities to implement the Old Town Specific Plan concept; creation of an entertainment complex that will provide jobs, fulfill a regional need for high quality western- oriented entertainment; and enhance the vitality of Temecula's Old Town core area by bringing large number of tourists, including the generation of increased tax revenue. The central purpose of the proposed project is to initiate implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan around an entertainment complex that will attract large numbers of people to the area on a continuous basis while providing high quality recreation and entertainment value to local and regional residents. The EIR considered a total of five alternatives to the proposed action. These alternatives were defined based on mandatory requirements and alternatives designed to reduce the identified significant impacts of the project: air quality and noise. Four of these alternatives were considered to be technically feasible and were carried forward as possible reasonable alternatives 54 to the proposed project in the EIR. One of the alternatives was rejected from further consideration because it does not meet project objectives, the no project alternative. The five alternatives that were subject to evaluation in the EIR with the proposed action are: No Project/No Development Current General Plan Alternative Modified Westside Specific Plan Redevelopmerit Project without Hotel/Arena Relocation of Hotel/Arena to Adjacent Undeveloped Industrial Site The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)(3)). The following discussion provides the City's evaluation of each of the alternatives to the proposed project in determining whether they are feasible alternatives to the proposed action (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)) and whether an alternative can eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts described in this document for the proposed action. 1. No Project The no-action alternative would eliminate any implementation of the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project and the applicant would not consU'uct and operate the entertainanent facilities, hotel, commercial uses and residential uses. The adverse impacts of the proposed action identified in the EIP, would be eliminated and the existing environmental conditions would persist. Air quallnj impacts would be eliminated and the significant construction noise impacts would also be elimirtap. d. This alternative would not eliminate the existing significant traffic impact at the intersections identified in the EIR. This impact would occur whether the proposed project is implemented or not. The EIR concluded that the no-action alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and would eliminate the potentially significant air quality and noise impacts. It is not superior relative to traffic which would remain significant for an tinknown amount of time without the proposed project. The no project alternative is not capable of ~.asibly attaining the basic objectives of the project which were outlined above. The goal of enhancing activity in Old Town and implementing the Old Town Specific Plan would remain unfulffiled. Therefore, the City Council concurs with the conclusion in the EIR that the no project alternative for the proposed project was prope~y eliminated from timher detailed consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the identified project objectives. 2. Current General Plan Alternative An evaluation of the development of the site under the era'rent General plan land use designations was performed to determine whether environmental impacts could be reduced by implementing other alternative uses when compared with the proposed project. Using the General Plan and Development Code as guides it was determined that impacts in the Old Town core area would remain appro:firnately the same under an alternative development scheme consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan. Under the current General Plan the ~70 acre open space area could be developed with a maximum of seven homes. This would result in greater visual intrasion and loss of important habitst on the steeper portions of the ridge leading to the Santa Rosa plateau. 55 project that the emissions cannot be reduced below the tttreshold of significance. The seven mitigation measures designed to minimize operational emissions to the degree feasible are: 4.2.3.10 Project design will incorporate energy-saving features throughout the project, including low-emission water heaters, central water heating systetns, and built-in energy efficient appliances. 4.2.3.11 The project will install bus transit shelters and benches in Old Town and within the Westside Specific Plan area in coordination with the local transit agency. and the City to provide on site tranzit service. 4.2.3.12 Provide incentives for tour buses and once tour buses have dropped off patrons, these buses shall not be allowed to idle more than five minutes before they are shut down. 4.2.3.13 The applicants shall provide at least one day-care facility for employees worMng for the hotel and entertainment complex facilities. This facility can be provided on site or arrangements can be made with an offsite professional day-care provider(s) to meet the day-care needs of up to 2, 400 employees. 4.2.3.14 Hotel and entertainment facility employees shall be provided with transit information and the applicant shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for permanent employees. 4.2.3.15 The applicant or City shall purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people from parla'ng areas to the entertainment facilities. 4.2.3.16 Provide preferential parla'ng for car and van pools for employees. Facts in Support of the Fining The discussion in the text of the EIR indicates that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) experiences violations of the federal and state Ozone standards and in the CO standard in the Los Angeles area. The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit more CO, R0C and NO. than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the SCAB. Table 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 in the Final EIR lists the forecast emissions and the CO, ROC and NOx emissions substantially exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The EIR concludes that the project operational air emissions are forecast to be significant. Given the existing air quality standard violations for ozone and CO and the non-attainment status of the SCAB for these pollutants, the City concurs that the operational emissions should be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact. The mitigation measures for the proposed project inconporate those feasible measures identified by the EIR and contained within the SCAQMD Air Quality Attainment Plan and the Dist~ct's 'CEQA Handbook". No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this time and all of the changes tO the project that are proposed to reduce air emissions axe considered feasible. Therefore, the City finds that the available mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce CO, ROC and NO~ air emission impacts from project operational activities below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these mea.mr~ will be implemented by the City and SCAQMD as part of its conditions of approval end mitigation monitoring program. The City concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the SCAB's air quality; that project air emissions have been substantially lessened to the degree feasible; and that the project specific air quality impacts remaining after 52 implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to ovemding considerations as outlined at the end of this document. 6. Noise.' Construction Activity Potential Significant Impact: Construction activities from grading, installing infrastructure and constructing buildings could cause noise levels to exceed City significance thresholds at adjacent residences. Finding: The construction noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of die EIR. The noise evaluation indicated that project construction activities in the Old Town core area and in the Westside Specific Plan area could exceed the City's noise thxesholds for noise sensitive uses, such as the adjacent residences at both locations. The potential construction noise impacts are considered significant in the Old Town core area because it will exceed the 1.5 dB noise increase threshold for an area with noise levels already exceeding 65 dB CNEL. The potential construction noise impacts axe considered significant in the Westside Specific Plan area because it will raise the background sound level above the 65 dB CNEL values. Although these noise levels will occur only during the day, the EIR concludes that a significant construction noise impact will affect the area over the short-term. It is not possible to reduce the forecast noise levels below the significant levels identified because equipment is outside and no Iraown mitigation is available to reduce noise levels below the City's significance thresholds. The EIR identifies mitigation measures that can reduce project noise levels, but the volume of noise is substantial enough for this project that the impacts cannot be reduced below the threshold of significance. The five mitigation measures designed to minimiT~: construction noise impacts to the degree feasible are: 4.4.4.1 The City shah require all construction equipment that generates more than 50 dB to have sound attenuation devices (mufflers, etc.) that meet current standards and that are fully functional at all ames the equipment is being operated at the construction site. 4.4.4.2 Except during an emergency as determined by the City, construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, unless the City is presented with evidence that the noise generated by construction will be less than existing background or ambient noise levels. 4.4.4.3 ~f noise complaints are received during construedon and noise levels exceed acceptable City thresholds, the City shall consider installation of temporary noise attenuation walls or sound buffering materials between the noise source and impacted site. 4.4.4.4 Proprietors of individual entertat'nment facilities shah control crowd noise at their facility so that it does not exceed 65 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Routine or periodic noise monitoring shall be conducted by the owner at least one time per month and the City may request additional noise monitoring at any time. 4.4.4.5 The City shall establish a noise complaint program when construction of entertainment facilities in Old Town begins. This program shall include a point of contact, a log of all complaints, and a log of how each compla~'nt is resolved. 53 issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will implemented by the City as part of their review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. This completes the discussion of those impacts that are either non-significant without mitigation or that can be reduced to a nonsignificant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures in the EIR. E. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Old Town Redevelopment Project (proposed project), two environmental categories were found to have unavoidable, significant adverse environmental effects. The following environmental issues addressed in the EIR were forecast to experience significant impacts: Air Quality and Noise. The potential impacts for the above issues were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed project changes and mitigation measures (i.e., the impacts are unavoidable). Thus, the potential for significant effects to occur for these issues would continue to exist (at least for the short-term) regardless of whether or not the City or other agencies implement the project changes and mitigation measures outlined in the EIR. These two environmental issue categories, the impacts they will incur, and the mitigation measures (project changes) designed to minimize them to the degree feasible are summarized in the following discussion. I. Air Quality: Construction Emissions Significant Unavoidable lmpact: Short-term NOx construction emissions from are forecast to exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant air quality degradation. Fining: The construction air quality issues axe discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and supporting documents. The air resources evaluation indicated that project consauction emissions for nitrogen oxides (NO,) were found m be above the threshold of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regardless of mitigation. Therefore, direct emissions of NO~ from consauction activities cannot be reduced below a significant level. The data indicate that a local violation of the NO2 ambient air quality standard is not at issue; NOz is a precursor for ozone and the consauction activities will contribute to continued significant violations of the ozone standard over the short-term. The EIR identifies mitigation measures that can reduce NO~ emissions, but the volume of diner emissions (from consauction equipment) and indirect emissions (from employee trips) are substantial enough for this project that the emissions cannot be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The six mitigation measures designed to minimiTe consauction NOx emissions to the degree feasible are: 4.2.3.2 All construction equipment will be maintained in peak operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. 4.2.3.3 Equipment shah use low-sulfur diesel fuel. 4.2.3.4 Electric equipment will be used to the maxim wctent feasible. 5O 4.2.3.5 Trucks and construction equipment Will lintit idling. Trucks and equipment that may be left to idle for more than I5 minutes shall be shut dov~l. 4.2.3.6 To the maximum extent feasible, construction activities that affect traffic flow will be restricted to off-peak hours (i.e., between 7:00 p.m, and 6:00 a.m. and between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00p. m.). 4.2.3.7 Construction employees shall be provided with transit information and the contractor shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for construction employees. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR indicates that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) experiences violations of the federal and state Ozone standards. The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit more NOx than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin. Table's 4.2-3 through 4.2-6 in the Final EIR list the forecast emissions and in each case the NOx emissions substantially exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The EIR concludes that die project and cumulative air emissions during coustmction are forecast to be significant. Given the existing air quality standard violations for ozone and particulate matter and the non-attainment stares of the SCAB for these pollutants, the City concurs that the construction emissions should be considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact. The mitigation measures for the proposed project incorporate those feasible measures identified by die EIR and contained within the SCAQMD Air Quality Attainment Plan and the District's "CEQA Handbook". No additional mitigation measures were identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this time and all of the changes to the project that are proposed to reduce air emissions are considered feasible. Therefore, the City finds that the available mitigation measures axe insufficient to reduce NO~ air emission impacts from project construction activities below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the City and SCAQMD as part of its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program. The City concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the SCAB's air quality; that project air emissions have been substantially lessened m the degree feasible; and that the project specific air quality impacts remaining after implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to overriding cousidemtions as outlined at the end of this document. 2. Air Quality: Operation Emissions Significant Unavoidable Impact: Long-ten NOx operation emissions from the proposed project could exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant ai~ quality degradation. Findil~: The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the E1R and supporting documents. The air resources evaluation indicated that project operational emissions in 1996 and in 2010 (build out) for carbon monoxide (CO), reactlye organic compounds CROC), and nitrogen oxides (NOD were found w be above the thxeshold of significance established by the SCAQMD regardless of mitigation. Therefore, direct emissions of the pollutants from operational activities cannot be reduced below a significant level. The data indicate that a violation of the CO and NO2 ambient air quality standaxds is not at issue. ROC and NOx are precursors for ozone and the operational activities will contribute to continued significant violations of the ozone standard until AQMP programs reduce ambient ozone coucentratious below air quality standards, scheduled to occur before the year 2010. The EIR identifies mitigation measures that can reduce project emissions, but the volume of emissions (primarily from traffic) are substantial enough for this 51 4.7.5.4 Utilities shall be located underground. 4.7.5.5 Berrning and landscaping shall be employed to conceal and soften visual impacts of parking areas. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will change the visual setting within the Westside Specific Plan area~ but the visual alterations will be consistent with the urban landscape which currently exists below this area. Using two evaluative methodohigies, the EIR concluded that the scale of the structures and the linkage with the existing urban landscape did not cream a significant visual niscontinnity or visual hapact after development. The EIR concludes that the project can result in significant visual impact over the short- term due to grading without implementing the mitigation measures. With mitigation the potential aesthetic/visual resource impact can be reduced to a nonsignificant level. Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential aesthetic/visual resource impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 16. Cultural Resources: Archaeological Resources Potential Significant Impact: Construction and development activities have a potential to expose and damage or destroy buried archaeological resources which could cause the loss of significant historic or prehistoric resources beneath the Old Town core area. Finding: The archaeological resource issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the E1R and support documents. The data indicates that substantial development, including fill, has occurred or been placed over the project site, respectively, but construction and development activities were identified as having the potential for exposing buffed resources of potentially significant value. The cnimral resources evaluation indicated that these activities could cause significant damage or loss to such resources. The potential buffed resource impacts are not considered significant after implementing the following mitigation measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the project so that discovery of potential buffed resources is prevented from becoming a significant impact. This measure is: 4.8.3.1 Nofurtherarchaeologicalinvestigaaonisrecommendedforthisproject. However, shouM any la~own or suspected archaeological materials be encountered during project development, a qualified historical archaeologist shouM be contacted. Work should be suspended in any area where archaeological remains are found until they can be property evoluated alld salvaged if found significant. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that project construction and development activities have a potential to cause damage or loss of significant buffed cultural resources that may exist beneath the axeas scheduled for development by the proposed project. The potential buffed resource impacts are forecast to be primarily historic in character and a mitigation measure is provided to conre31 the damage or loss of such resources that conid be affected by construction activities. The EIR coneludes that the project and cumniative impact to buffed resources axe forecast to be low, but a potential for significant impact exists without implementing the mitigation measure. With mitigation the construction activity impacts to buffed cnitm'al resources can be reduced so litde or 48 no loss of such resources occurs which is considered a nonsignificant impact. Based on these data. die City concludes that the potential buried archaeological resource impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measttre proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of their review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 1Z Cultural Resources: Historical Resources Potential Significant Impact: Construction and development activities have a potential to expose and damage or destroy historic buildings which could cause the loss of significant historic resources witlain the Old Town core area. Finding: The historical building issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and support documents. The data indicates that many (26) historical buildings are located in the Old Town core area where many of the entertainment facilities will be developed. Potential conflicts between possible entertainment structure locations and historic buildings were identified for the proposed project and the historic building impacts were identified as having the potential for impacting resources of potentially significant value. The cnimral resources evaluation indicated that these activities could cause significant damage or loss to such resources. The potential historic building resource impacts are not considered significant after implementing the following mitigation measures. Two mitigation measures have been identified in die EIR fixat change the project so that potential historic building resource impacts axe prevented from becoming a significant impact. These measures are: 4.8.3.2 Potential project impacts to historic buildings, including those that are not formally recognized, will be mitigated below a level of significance through implementation of the provisions already contained within the OTSP Old Town Historic Preservation Dism'ct Ordinance. Thoseprovisionsallowforconditions ofapprovalforCertificates of Historic Appropriateness. It is recommended that conditions of approval for demolition or alteration of any historic building include appropriate historical and architectural documentation prior to modification of the building. 4.8.3.3 In order to distinguish recognized historic buildings from new construction which uses historic architectural elements, it is recommended that historic buildings in commercial areas be marked with small plaques containing their historic names and dates of construction, and thatpromotional/interpretive literatureforthe project clearly distinguish between historic buildings and recent construction. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indica~s that project construction and development activities at six of the possible entertainment facility locations in the Old Town core area have a potential to cause damage or loss Of significant historic building resources. The potential historic building resource impacts axe forecast to be mitigable by implementing the City's 'Old Town Historic Pgservation District Ordinance' and mitigation measures are provided to control the damaCe Or lOss Of sllch resoul'ces that couid be affected by project activities. It may be possible to totally avoid historic buildings since the specific locations of entertainment facilities is still being determined. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact to historic building resources are forecast to be significant without implementing the mitigation nteasures. With mitigation the project impacts to historic building resources can be reduced so litfie or no loss of such resources occurs which is considered a nonsignificant impact. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential historic building resource impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this 49 Finding: The project traffic impact issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the Traffic Study contained in Volume 2, Technical Appendices, of the EIR. The discussion of the increased traffic from the operation of entertainment facilities indicated that the project could cause significant deterioration of traffic flow at several intersections within the City. The potential traffic flow impact at these intersections can be mitigated by implementing specific cimulation system improvements before Phase I of the project is completed. Four mitigation measures have been i~tentified in the EIR that change the project so that potential traffic flow impacts are reduced to a nonsignificant level. These measures axe: 4.6.4.1 4.6.4.2 4.6.4.3 4.6.4.4 To mitigate 1996 withproject circulation system impacts at the Rancho California Road/l-15 North Ramps, the following steps must be token: On the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or restripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left-turn lane at the 1-15 South on-ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right-turn lane, and one right4urn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right- turning traffic onto the 1-15 North on-ramp, said on-ramp will require widening just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of 1-15 North, (Note: The need for these dual right-turn lanes and the widened 1-15 North on-ramp will be eliminated, however, when the scheduled "laop" on-ramp accommodating eastbound Rancho California Road-to-northbound 1-15 traffic ultimately is provided.) To mitigate 1996 with-project circulation system impacts at the Front Street/Western Bypass Road intersection, the following steps must be taken: On the southbound intersection approach, Front Street shall contain one left-turn lane and one optional left-turn/right-turn lane. (Note: Because Front Street will extend north of the Western Bypass Road to Santiago Road as a ~ve-lane facility (two through lanes per direction plus a two-way-left-turn lane according to the City), this southbound approach (intersecting the Western Bypass Road) could contain three lanes; two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane. If this three-lane alternative is implemented, the intersection's LOS would be even better than that cited in Table 4.6-6. Barton Aschman ' s traffic study identifies several additional road design measures that are recommended to reduce overall traffic impacts. These are reproduced in Appendix 4. These recommendations shall be implemented as part of the proposed project at a time determined by the City to prevent deterioration of traffic flow below LOS D. The status of the circulation system components addressed in the recommenda~ons shall be assessed as part of the City's annual traffic survey and evaluation. The City shall require installation of transit facilities at centralized locations within Old Town and the hotel/arena complex. The City shall work with regional transit agencies to provide service to these locations in the future when such transit service becomes available. 45 South and 1-15 Southbound ramps. 77~is funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. At the SR 79 Sou:h and 1-15 Southbound ramps, adequate mitigation requires construction of a new southbound loop off-ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Implementing this measure would require relocating the southbound on-ramp across from the terminus of Front Street where it intersects the Western Bypass Road. has in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project and build out traffic have a potential to cause significant deterioration of fotur intersections from combined project traffic and the build out traffic forecast. Volume 2 of the EIR and Table 4.6.8 indicate that all but four intersections evaluated for 2010 will operate at an acceptable LOS with the project and build out traffic growth. These four intersections will operate at LOS E and F with standard lane configurations according to the dam provided in the Traffic Study and Chapter 4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that the combined project and build out traffic growth will cause significant traffic impacts without implementing the measures listed above. With mitigation the project traffic impacts can be reduced so no waffle flow is forecast to experience significant deterioration (see Table 4.6-8). Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential project traffic impacts for builti out conditions can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation mouitoring. 15. Aesthetic/Visual Resources: Changes to the Visual Setting Potential Significant Impact: The project could cause a significant adverse change in the visual setting. Finding: The aesthetic/visual resource issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Volume 2, Appendix I1 of the EIR. The evaluation of the aesthetic/visual resource changes caused by the proposed project indicated that project has a potential to cause significant changes in the visual setting within the Westside Specific Plan area. This potential aesthetic impact is not considered significant after implementing mitigation m~ that control short-term grading impacts and other intrusive futures. Five mitigation measures have been identified in the IilR that change project so that potential visual changes in the Site are controlled to a less than significant level. 4.7.5.1 Slope grading techniques on the slope facing Pujol Street shah aim to blend with the existing nature of the topography. Grading techniques shall emphasize slope contouring including contour unduloaon and variable slopes. In addition, tops and toes of slopes shall be rounded. Hard edges and angles are to be avoided. Slopes shall be designed to smoothly blend with remaining existing topography. 4. Z5.2 Grading on the slope edge facing Pujol Street shah be revegetated or landscaped immediately upon completion of grading activities, concurrent with project development. Landscaping shall be natural in appearance and linear arrangements of landscaping are to be avoided. 4. Z 5.3 Irtsible retaining walls over eight feet in height shah be avoided unless visually integrated into building design. 47 attenuation and additional noise attenuation in structures is required to reduce noise levels to 55 dB L,q at the nearest sensitive noise receptor. Noise levels in the Arena are forecast to exceed 90 dB L~ at nearby residences, ~d mitigation will be required to reduce this level to 65 aB L~ and 62.7 dB CNEL at the residences to be below the EIR significance thresholds. The EIR concludes that the potential facility operation noise impacts can be maintained below the compatibility threshold at the nearest residences or reduced to such levels with identified mitigation. Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential project impacts due to facility operation noise can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 12. Land Use: Continued Compatibility after General Plan Amendment Potential Significant Impact: The project could create a substantial conflict with existing and proposed adjacent land uses. Finding: The land use issues are discnssed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The evaluation of the land use changes caused by the proposed project indicated that project would not cause any significant land use conflicts with proposed mitigation for other environmental issues, but could cause significant impact by eliminating a future recreation facility near the intersection of Pujol Street and the Western Bypass Road. This potential land use impact is not considered significant after implementing the following mitigation measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes project so that potential loss of the recreational site is prevented from occurring and becoming a significant impact. This measure is: 4.5.3.1 The City shah require a modification in the text of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) that requires the inclusion of a neighborhood park/recreational fadlily in the high density residential designated land at the future intersection of Pujol Sweet and the Western Bypass Road. The WSP text modification shah require the design of the park/facility to be reviewed and approvecl by the City. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will Change land uses within the Westside Specific Plan area, but is wholly consistent with the uses in the Old Town core area. The proposed land uses designations (SEC, CCTS, HDR, MU and OS) are comparable with the existing land use designations (RI--I, BP, OS, MDR, and tIDR) and may have less impact on adjacent uses than the proposed project. The proposed Specific Plan would eliminate an existinM; recreation site, but mitigation requires that this site be reinstated as part of the Westside Specific Plan or as part of the HDR uses under the Plan. The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant land use impact without implementing the mitigation measure. With mitigation the potential land use impact can be reduced to a nonsignificant level. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential land use impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 13. Traffic: Phase I Operations Potential Significant Impact: Additional traffic generated by the entertainment facility operations could cause significant deterioration of traffic flow on the affected circulation system. 44 Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in die text of die EIR and support documents indicates that the project has a potential to cause significant deterioration of seven intersections from combined existing traffic and die proposed project. Volume 3 of the EIR and Table 4.6-6 indicate that all intersections except these seven, as shown in Table 4.6-6, will operate at an acceptable LOS with the project. These intersections will operate at LOS E and F during die weekday peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour according to the dam provided in the Traffic Study and Chapter 4 of the EIR. The EIR concludes that the project will cause significant traffic impacts without implementing measure die four mitigation measures listed above. With mitigation the project traffic impacts can be reduced so no traffic flow is forecast to experience significant deterioration (see Table 4.6-7). Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential project traffic impacts for 1996 can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the respomibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 14. Traffic: Build Out With-Project Potential Significant Impact: Additional waffle generated by the enterraiment facility operations and build out waffle growth could cause significant deterioration of traffic flow on the affected circulation system. The project and build out traffic impact issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the Traffic Study contained in Volume 2, Technical Appendices, of the EIR. The discussion of the increased traffic from the entertainment facility operations and build out traffic growth indicated that the combined traffic could cause significant deterioration of traffic flow at four intersections. The potential waffic flow impact at these intersections can be mitigated by implementing specific circulation system improvements before the build out of the project is completed. Three mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the project so that potential uaffic flow impacts are reduced to a nonsignificant level. These measures are: 4.6.4.5 The City shah require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the Rancha Cahfornia Road/l-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. There are three alternatives available to the City to mitigation significant traffic flow impacts at these ramps. They are: widen the Rancho Cahfornia Road bridge on the south side to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane; construct a southbound loop on-ramp in the northwest quadrant of the interchange; constract a new southbound off-ramp at 5antiago Road. 4.6.4.6 The City shall require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Management Plan Tra2~c Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at the at SR 79 South and the 1-15 Northbound ramps. This funding can be provided when antn~l traffic surveys indicate a need for the road improvements. The proposed Assessment District 159 improvements shall be modified to include provisions for a double left tam configuraaon at the off-ramp approach to SR 79 South. It was also recommended that the ultimate interchange improvement plans include a provision for three eastbound through lanes at the intersection. 4.6.4.7 The C~'ty shall require fair-share funding as described in the Congestion Managertuft Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the selected improvement at SR 79 46 Finding: The traffic noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The noise evaluation indicated that traffic activities are not forecast to cause the threshold for increased noise to be exceeded during 1996 and no mitigation is required. Cumulative traffic activities can cause the noise threshold to be exceeded in the year 2010 for any sensitive uses adjacent to the Western Bypass Road. Mitigation is provided to reduce this potential noise impact to a nonsignificant level for sensitive receptors. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the project to ensure that the above impacts will not become significant. This measure is: 4.4.4.8 The City shah require that an earth berm or sound attenuation wall and landscaping be installed on the ridge above the houses on Pujol Street to minimize noise levels at the nearest residences. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will result in traffic noise levels at adjacent residences to remain below the 65 dB CNEL noise threshold (see Table 4.44). One street segment will incur a change in noise level of +3.7 dB which could be considered significant, but it is developed in commercial uses and no significant impact from traffic noise is forecast to occur in 1996. The cumulative traffic noise impact for buildout conditions, year 2010 (Table 4.4-5) indicates that cumulative traffic, not the project, will equal the significant threshold for change in noise level (1.5 riB). This is considered sufficient a change in die noise environment to be a significant impact. The installation of a noise wall, or comparable buffer, will reduce the increase in noise by 1-5 dB which is sufficient to reduce this impact below a significant level along the Western Bypass Road. The EIR concludes that the potential traffic noise impacts can be maintained below the compatibility threshold at the nearest residences or reduced to such levels with identified mitigation. Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential project impacts due to traffic noise can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. Noise: Facility Operation Noise Potential Significant Impact: Facility operation noise from entertainment activities could cause noise levels to exce~l City significance thresholds at adjacent residences. Finding: The facility operation noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The noise evaluation indicated that facility operation activities are forecast to cause the threshold for increased noise m be exceeded and mitigation is required. The facility operations noise evaluation addressed outdoor patron noise, entertainment noise in the Old Town core area, and noise from the Wild West Arena in the Westside Specific Plan area. Mitigation is provideel to reduce these potential noise impacts m a nonsignificant level for sensitive receptors. Six mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the project u3 ensure that the above impacts will not become significant. These measugs are: 4.4.4.5 The City shall establish a noise complaint program when construction of entertainment facilities in Old Town begins. This program shall include a point of contact, a log of all complaints, and a log of how each complaint is resolved. 42 4.4.4.6 The CiO' shall require special noise anenuation measures, such as temporary or permanent sound walls or modifications in operations. to control aaerior crowd noise to 65 dB at 50feet in pont of entertainment facilities pertained by this project. 4.4.4.7 Exterior sound levels during performances at Old Town entertainment fadlin'es shall not exceed 65 dB L,~ at 50feet from the building. At no time shall noise levels exceed 55 dB L~ at the nearest sensitive noise receptor. 4.4.4.9 When the final design of the Arena/hotel/parking complex is completed, the applicant shall submit a noise study demonstrating that noise levels from the complex can be reduced to a CNEL of 62.7 dB at the nearest residence. The noise study may incorporate some or all of the following measures which have been identified to reduce Arena noise to the 62.7 dB level at residences along Pujol Street. The Arena should be oriented so that any stage faces away pore the nearest residential areas. The rear of the stage house shouM be no closer than 500ft. to these sensitive land uses. This along should reduce concert noise levels at the rear of the Arena to 60 dB according to WJHW. The Arena should contain a full stage house (portable or permanenO with enclosed wings for flying and stacking of touring sound systems. The house sound system should be designed to minimize environmental noise. A distributed loudspeaker approach for spectator seating areas should be utilized if required. d. The Arena "tent' shouM be constructed of material which has a weight of. 75- 1.0 Ibsffta. The rear side of and "bleacher style' seating should be enclosed to provide a barrier around the facility to help control noise, Mixing console noise levels during concerts ratat be restricted to 100-105 dB 4.4.4.10 The City shall require any future residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass Road that place residences witltin the 65 Db CNEL noise contour to install sound attenuation barriers or walls sufficient to reduce noise to a level below this significance threshoM. 4.4.4.11 When noise levels along the Western Bypass Road near existing residences exceeds the City threshoM of significance for residential areas (65 dB CNEL), the City shall install a sound attenuation wall to noise levels from exceeding this value at the residences. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will result in facility operation noise levels at adjacent residences a3 exceed noise significance thresholds. Noise of patrons outside of facilities may exceed 65 d.B L,~ and mitigation is required to control sound levels to this level at 50 feet from the facility. Entertainment noise levels are forecast to exceed the threshold outside of structures with normal strucutral 43 project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 9. Biological Resources: Long-term Loss of Habitat Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project may cause a significant loss of habitat that supports listed animal species, either indirectly due to urban activities. or directly from conversion of natural habitat to urban uses. Finding: The biological resources issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of die EIR and in Volme II, Appendix I of the EIR. The biological resources evaluation indicated that project will eliminate habitat that is known m support the California gnatcatcher, a listed bird species. Approximately one acre of ~parian/we~and area will be eliminated by the proposed project in constructing the proposed bridges across Munieta Creek. In addition, urban activities will be placed direc~y adjacent to habitat that supports this same species. Two mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change project to ensure that the above impacts will not become significant. These 4.3.3.4 Construction personnel will be educated by a qualified biologist regarding proper behavior when working near wildlife areas. Information, in the form of rending material and/or onsite training, will nddress such issues as wildlife harassment, trespass, and protocols to deal with wildlife encountered during construction. 4.3.3.5 All coastrucaon debris, such as food litter, will be removed from the site each day. All refuse receptacles shall have tight-fitang lids to prevent wildlife access. 4.3.3.6 To prevent the loss of any Southwestern Pond Turtles during construction, the apph'cant shall retain a quahfied biologist to collect any turtles within the Western Bypass bridge crossing construcaon area. The biologist shall also oversee installaaon of barriers to prevent turtles from occupying the construction area during active construction in the channel. The applicant shall fund maintenance of the turtles, if required, until they can be returned to Murrieta Creek following construction. 4.3.3. 7 To offset the loss of 64. 6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the Chanu'se Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities within the project area the applicant shall implement one of the following measures: a) Acquire 97 acres of high quality Gnatcatcher habitat (1.5:1 ruao based on discussions with U. 8. Fish and Wildlife Staff) and transfer ownership of the land or open space easements (which preyeat any future use other than open space) and management responsibility for the property to the Riverside County Pur~s Department or other agent acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. This habitat shall be purchased within the Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Margarita River Potential Reserve area as identified within the Riverside County 'Muln~ole Species Habitat Conservation Plan ', or at a locaaon acceptable to the U. S. r't'sh and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. An endowment of $50,000 shall be provided for use by the designated management agency to enhance wildlife carrying capacity of the 97 acres set aside as mitigation for this project; or b) pay fees as determined through negoaations with the U. S. Fish and Wildhfe Service and State Department of Fish and Game to an agent authorized by these two agencies for purchase of land-banked compensation habitat. 40 4.3.3.8 To offset the loss of up to one acre of Riparian/Wetland habitat in Murrieta Creek. the apph'cant shall develop two acres of Riparian/Wetiand habitat or habitat improvemen,'s in the immediate area of the Western Bypass bridge crossing, or at an alternative location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. The requirements of this measure can be superseded by any alternaave mitigation or compensation developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and Game 1601/1603 Agreement. The plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland enhancement shall be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation. 4.3.3.9 A silt fence or alternative acceptable to the City and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be installed downstream of construction activities in Murrieta Creek to control slltation downstream of the construction site. The performance standard used for this measure shall be sufficient control to prevent downstream sitration that can cause degradation of the aquatic/riparian/welland habitat. 4.3.3.10 The applicant shall install fences or other measures to control haman access from the Western Bypass to the west, except in Area D of the Westside Specific Plan. The City will require access controls around the boundary of Area D and the adjacent wildlife habitat when this area develops. 4.3.3.11 The City will impose a condition of approval restricting ownership of domestic dogs and cats when approvals are granted for future residenaal development within Areas C and D of the Westside Specific Plan. The restriction shall apply to all domestic dogs and cats and shall allow ownership of such animals only when they can be fully managed within the individual residence. 4.3.3.12 The applicant shall pay any additional SKR fees, if required, for developing the property within the fee area. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in die text of the EIR and support documents (Volume H, Technical Appendices I.A through I.C, of the EIR) indicates that the project has the potential to eliinitiate significant habitat resources and pose long-term incompafibility between urban uses and adjacant habitat. Appro~imately49.3acresofcoastalsagescmb, 15.3acres of Chamlse chaparral, and 1 acre of riparian habitat will be eliminated if the project is implemented as proposed. The sage scrub and chaparral habitats support a known population of California gnatcatchers. Extensive mitigation is proposed to compensate ~r the loss of this habitat. Urban incompatibility is primarily due to introduction of pets that frighten or kill native wildllfe, and mitigation is required to eliminate the potential for this type of incompatibility. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative biological resource impacts due to project implementation are forecast to be nonsignificant after implementing proposed mitigation. Based on these data, the City concludes that die potential project impacts on biological resource~ can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the re~onsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 10. Noise: Traffic Noise Potential Significant Impact: Traffic noise from vehicles accessing entertninment facilities could cause noise levels to exceed City significance finesholds at adjacent residences. 41 Finding: The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. Th~ air resources evaluation indicated that potential project odor generation has a potential to significantly impact nearby residential uses. The potential odor emission impacts are not considered significant after implementing die following mitigation measure because the source of potential odors will be controlled at the source. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes project to ensure that the potential odor emissions fail below significance thresholds. This measure is: 4.2.3.17 Animal stable areas adjacent to the WiM West Arena shah be cleaned doily and no accumulation of odor generating waste shah be permitted to remain within the stable area for longer than one day. An odor complaint number shall be established at the City to address any complaints regarding animal waste odors from local ciazens. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project has the potential to emit odors that may significantly affect nearby residences. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact on odors are forecast to be nonsignificant because mitigation is provided to control odor emissions at the source, Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential odor emission impacts stabling animals in support of the Wild West Arena shows can be maintained at a nonsignificant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures pwposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 7. Air Resources: Cumulative Operation Emissions Potential Significant Impact: Cumulative long-term emissions from openring entertainment facilities and trips to these facilities could exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant air quality degradation. Finding: The long-ten operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the ErR. The air resources evaluation indicated that project openring emissions combined with other emissions within the South Coast Air Basin will not contribute to significant air quality degradation because the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) will control emissions by the year 2010 to be in compliance with ambient air quality standards. The potential long-ten openring emission impacts axe not considered camula~vely sigaificant because of the implementation of the AQMP by the District. No additional mitigation measures are required of the project to achieve this level of nonsignificant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will, and other projects will also, be subject to the gradual reduction in air emissions subject to AQMP contwls and that the AQMP measures have been identified as adequate to achieve air quality that does not exceed ambient air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin. The discussion on page 4-28 in the Final EIR describes this situation and concludes that the project and cumulative impact on the Basin air resources over the long-term are forecast to be nonsignificant. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential operational emission impacts from the project can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implamenting the AQMP. The ehanEes in regional emissions are the responsibility of the Disuict, Air Resource Board, and City and these measures will be implemented by the these agencies as part of their review and approval authority over emissions sources and activities. 38 8. Biological Resources: Construction Activities Potential Significant Impact: The construction activities associated with the Westside Specific Plan may cause significam loss of habitat, either indirectly by fugitive dust covering plants or directly from uncontrolled construction activities. or may adversely affect mountain lion migration during bridge construction. Finding: The biological resources issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The biological resources evaluation indicated that project would generate fugitive dust during construction that could adversely impact plant habitat. Since the time period of this impact is short-term and is naturally rectified when the next rainfall occurs, no significant plant habitat impacts were forecast to occur. Construction equipment encroachment to areas not required for development may cause significant loss of tipman habitat or weftands. This impact can be fully mitigated to a nonsignificant level by installing barriers to ensure accidental loss of habitat does not occur during construction. The potential for mountain lion migration impacts are very low, but mitigation is provided to ensure that migration activities can occur without conflicts from construction activities for the Western Bypass Road bridge over Murrieta Creek. Three mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change project to ensure that the above impacts will not become significant. These me are: 4.3.3.1 During all construction periods within and/or adjacent to semiave wildlife habitat (Clmmise Chaparral, Coastal ~age Scrub, or Rt~oarianNletland), the applicant shall provide temporary fencing at the boundary between areas to be disturbed/graded and areas to remain undisturbed. In areas where fencing is not possible, the applicant shall survey and mark construction area boundaries and shall retain a quahiffed biologist with authority to stop construction activity when it construction extends beyond these boundaries. Any disturbances outside of designated areas of disturbance shall be restored to comparable habitat quality of the adjacent undisturbed habitat. 42.3.2 Construction activities at the Western Bypass crossing over Murrieta Creek Shall be lindted to daylight hours until the bridge is completed, ftcept in an emergency as defined by the City. 4.3.3.3 Construction staging areas and access routes shall avoid sensitive wildlife areas. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents (Volume H, Technical Appendices I.A through I.C, of the EIR) indicates that the project will emit less PM~o than the tlilesholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Bash. Some loss of plant productivity from fugitive dust deposition result from such deposition, but this impact will be short-term and is naturally eliminated after the first rainfall following completion of cousttuc~on. No significant loss of plant habitat is forecast to occur from implementation of the project as proposed. Grading activities in the Westera Specific Plan area could cause additional loss of significant habitat (wetlands), but this can be controlled by installhag temporary fencing in active construction areas as required by measure 4.3.3.1. The potential to affect mountain lion migration along Temecula Creek could be significant, but is fully mitigated by limiting coustmc~on on the Western Bypass bridge to claylight hours as required by measure4.3.3.2. TheEIR~~nc~udesthatthepr~jectand~umulativeimpactduet~sh~rt~term~~usttucti~nac~vities is forecast to be nonsignificant. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential construction impacts on biological resources can be maintained at a non-sigulficant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the 39 Finding: The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. 'Pne air resources evaluation indicated that project operating emissions for particniate matter (PM~0) at the end of Phase II were found to be below the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD without specific mitigation. The potential operating emission impacts are not considered significant for PMIo after implementing the following mitigation measures. Seven mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the project to ensure that the above pollutam emissions fall below significance thresholds. These measures are: 4.2.3.10 Project design will incorporate energy-saving features throughout the project, including low-emission water heaters, central water heating systems, and built-in energy efficient appliances. 4.2,3.11 The project will install bus transit shelters and benches in Old Town and within the Westside Specific Plan area in coordination with the local transit agency and the City to provide on site transit service. 4.2.3.12 Provide incentives for tour buses and once tour buses have dropped off patrons, these buses shall not be allowed to idle more than five minutes before they are shut down. 4.2.3.13 The applicants shah provide at least one day-care facility for employees working for the hotel and entertainment complex facilities. This facility can be provided on site or arrangements can be made with an offsite professional day-care provider(s) to meet the day-care needs of up to 2,400 employees. 4.2.3.14 Hotel and entertainment facility employees shah be provided with transit information and the applicant shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for permanent employees. 4.2.3.15 The applicant or City shall purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people from parking areas to the entertainment facilities. 4.2.3.16 Provide preferential parIcing for car and van pools for employees. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit less PMio than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin after Phase II is implemented. Tables 4.2-5 and 4.2-9 in the Final EIR list the forecast emissions and the particniate matter emissions do not approach the SCAQMD significance threshold. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact on par~culate matter pollution axe forecast to be nonsignificant, but mitigation is provided to contwl total emissions. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential operational emission impacts from PMi0 can be maintained at a non-significant level or can be reduced below a significant level after completion of Phase II in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 4. Air Resources: Carbon Monoxide "Hot Spots" 36 Potential Significant Impact: Operation emissions from traffic related to travel to the entertainment facilities could exceed the CO ambient air quality standard and contribute to locally significant air quality degradation. Finding: The carbon monoxide "hot spot" issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix 8.2 of the EIR. Comparison with modeled concentrations of CO at another location indicates that a "hot spot" will not be created by the proposed project or cumulative growth in the affected area. The potential "hot spot" emission impacts are not considered significant and no mitigation measures are required to be implemented. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will cause or contribute to CO concenwatious that were determined to be well below the ambient air quality standard used to protect health. Appendix 8.2 in the Final EIR provides the comparative CO forecast emissions and none of the modeled ambient concentrations approach the significance thresholds. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact on CO "hot spots" are forecast to be nonsignificant and no mitigation is required. Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential operational emission impacts to CO ambient air quality can be m~iutained at a non- significant level without implementing imtigadon measures. 5. Air Resources: Toxics Potential Significant Impact: Emissions of toxic materials from project operations could exceed risk thresholds and contribute to significant local air quality degradation (toxic hotspots). Finding: The toxic air pollutant issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix 1 of Volume 2, Technical Appendices. The evaluation of potential toxic emissions focused on emissions from entertainment, hotel, commercial and residential uses that the proposed project would allow to be implemented if approved. The project does not comain any uses identified as potential sources of significant amounts of toxic emissions and existing toxic emission regulations ensure that toxic emissions will not cause a locally significant adverse air quality impact. Thus, toxic emissions are not considered significant for the proposed project. No mitigation or changes to the project are required. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project does not propose any uses that are large potenthl sources of toxic emissions that could cause significant local degradation of air quality or public health risk. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact of these air emissions has no potential to be significant, and no mitigation or changes in the project are mclulr~d to achieve this nonsignificant impact. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential toxic emissions impacts from future project uses and activities can be maintained at a non-significant level without any mitigation or Changes in the proposed project. 6. Air Resources: Odors Potential Significant Impart: Operation emissions from entermiument facility operations at the Wild West ,Arena could generate odors from animal compounds that could adversely impact nearby residences. 37 offsite: cessation of grading during periods of high winds over 25 miles per hour. and paving, coating or seeding graded areas at the earliest possible time after soil disturbance. 4.2.3.2 All construction equipment will be maintained in peak operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. 4.2.3.3 Equipment shall use low-sulfur diesel fuel. 4.2.3.4 Electric equipment will be used to the maximum extent feasible. 4.2.3.5 Trucks and construction equipment will limit idling. Truc~s and equipment that may be left to idle for more than 15 minutes shall be shut down. 4.2.3.6 To the maximum extent feasible, construction activities that ajTect traffic flow will be restricted to off-peak hours (i.e., between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.). 4.2.3.7 Construction employees shall be provided with transitinformation and the contractor shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for construction employees. 4.2.3.8 Pre-coated and pre-colored materials will be used in construction to the extent feasible. 4.2.3.9 Prior to issuing a building permit, the City will require documentation from the applicant that proper precautions have been taken so that workers are not exposed to unsafe levels of hazardous air pollution. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit less CO, ROC, SO, and PMi0 than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin. Table's 4.2-3 and 4.2-6 in the Final EIR list the forecast emissions and none of the above emissions approaches the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact of these air emissions are forecast to be nousigdificant, but mitigation is provided to control total emissions and potential for nuisance from fugitive dust. Based on these dam, the City concludes that the potential construction emission impacts from CO, ROC, SO., and PMi0 can be maintained at a non-significant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with miplemendng the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 2. Air Resources: Operation Emissions (Phase I) Potential Significant Impact: Operation emissions from ente,ainment facility operations and transportation emissions ofpatrous accessing the entertainment facilities could exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant air quality degradation. Finding: The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The air resources evaluation indicated that pwject operating emissions for par~cuiate matter (PMI0) at the end of Phase I were found to be below the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD without specific mitigation. The potential operating emission impacts are not considered 34 significant for PMi0 after implementing the following mitigation measures. Seven mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change project to ensure that the above pollutam emissions fall below significance thresholds. These measures are: 4.2.3.10 Project design will incorporate energy-saving features throughout the project, including low-emission water heaters, central water heating ~'stems, and built-in energy efficient appliances. 4.2.3.11 The project will install bus transit shelters and benches in Old Town and within the Westside Specific Plan area in coordination with the local transit agency and the City to provide on site transit service. 4.2.3.12 Provide incentives for tour buses and once tour buses have dropped off patrons, these buses shall not be allowed to idle more than five minutes before they are shut down. 4.2.3.13 The applicants shall provide at least one day-care facility for employees working for the hotel and entertainment complex facilities. This facility can be provided on site or arrangements can be made with an offsite professional day-care provider(s) to meet the day-care needs of up to 2,400 employees. 4.2.3.14 Hotel and entertainment facility employees shah be provided with transit information and the applicant shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for permanent employees. 4.2.3.15 The applicant or C~'ty shall purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people from parking areas to the entertainment facilities. 4.2.3.16 Provide preferential parking for car and van pools for employees. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit less PM:o than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin after Phase I is implemented. Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-8 in the Final EIR list the forecast emissions and the paniculate matter emissions do not appmach the SCAQMD sigdi~cance threshold. The ElR concludes that the project and cumulative impact on particulate matter pollution are forecast to be nonsignificant after completion of Phase I, but mitigation is provided m control total emissions. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential operational emission impacts from PM~0 can be maintained at a non-significant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation meastu~s proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review ~ approval authority and during mitigation monitoring. 3. Air Resources: Operation Emissions (Phase Potential Significant Impact: Operation emissions from entertainment facility operations and wansportation emissions of patrons accessing the entertainment facilities could exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant air quality degradation. 35 36. Health Risk.' Creation or Exposure to Health Hazards Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project may include uses and activities that could create health baTarts or cause human exposure to health hazards. Finding: The potential to create or expose humans to haTards are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis Of the health hazard issues presented in the initial Study concluded that no potential for significant health hazards or health impacts will be associated with the uses on the project site if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the health hazard impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 44, items 17.a-b). The analySiS indicates that the proposed project uses have no potential to create any health haTstrds Or tO expose people to health haTards through activities, including accidental release of hazardous or toxic materials. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant health risk impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential health risk impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 37. Recreation: Elimination of Recreation Resources Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project may eliminate existing recreational resources that are considered important to the community. Finding: The potential to eliminate existing recreational resources is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8. Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of the existing recreational resource issues presented in the initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impact to existing recreational resources can occur because no such resources are located within the project area if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the recreational resource issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 46, items 19). The analysis indicates that the proposed project impact areas do not contain any existing recreational resources and the project does not have any potential to affect existing recreational resources. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant recreational resource impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential recreational resource impacts from implememing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. D.2. Non-Sitmifieant Impacts Identified in the EIR After Mitigation The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having potential m cause significant impact and were carded fortyard into the EIR for detailed evaluation. These issues then were found to be nousignificant based on detailed technical data supporting a conclusion that no significant impact could occur or that mitigation measures identified in the Ell will be implemented which would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. In the following presentation each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential significant adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of the findings in the entire adminismttive record, which is predominantly the Eli, technical appendices or responses to COmments, iS provided and any mitigation measures that will be implemented u} achieve a non-significant impact are identified; and finally, a discussion of the facts supporting the finding are 8a,mmarly..ed. The mitigation measures are presented below with 32 the same numbers as identified in the EIR. All findings, mitigation measures ~d facts are abstracted from the EIR, including the responses to comments provided as a separately bound volume. The City Council of the City of Temecula (City Council) hereby finds that all mitigation measures that will be implemented to mitigate the impacts of this project have been incorporated into, or required of, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report; Such changes or alterations axe within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the enviromnental impact report. The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081, that the following issues are non- significant based on implementation of the mitigation measures ou~ined below and that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are required to reduce these impacts below a significant level. These issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows: I. Air Resources: Construction Emissions Potential Significant Impact: Construction emissions from grading, paving and construction activities could exceed regional thresholds and contxibute to continued significant air quality degradation. Finding: The constxuction air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The air resources evaluation indicated that project construction emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), macfive organic compounds (ROC), suihr oxides (SO,) and panic,late matter (PM,0) were found to be below the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) without specific mitigation. Nitrogen oxide emissions have been analyzed separately under Section E below. The only impact with potential sigui~eance is nuisance f~gitive dust that may be generated when consInaction activities occur on high wind days. The pomntial construction emission impacts are not considered significant for the above poliutants after implementing die following mitigation measures. Nine mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the pwject so that emissions fall below significance thresholds. These measures are: 4.2.3.1 P~iorwissuanceofagradingpermit, theprojectproponentsshalldemonstratetotheCity Engineer the actions that will be taken to comply with SCA Q MD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts offsite sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construcaon. Specific measures will include moistening soil prior to grading, daily watering of exposed surfaces or treating with soil conditioner to stabilize the soil; washing truck tires and covering loads of dirt transported 33 to ensure that structures on tile east side of tile road are not eJ:posed to wiMland ~rc hazards from a fire in the chaparral on the west side of the road, 2Z The fadlity owner/operator shall negotiate an agreement with law enforcement officials to provide adequate law enforcement personnel for all entertainment facili ,ty operations, including related traffic control. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the fire and police service system impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 37-39, items 14.a-b). The analysis indicates that the proposed project will create a wildland fire ha:,ard that could increase demand for fire service and a demand for as many as 80 private security personnel and 12 officers during entertainment activities. The analysis indicates that the project will. Mitigation measures #25-26 for wildland fire hazards created by the project will control fire safety hazards to the point of reducing or eliminating these potential ha='~rds. The agreement to provide funding for police manpower during enterraiment events will eliminate any adverse impact to police service. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant fire and police service impacts because of the measures that will be implemented. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce fire and police service impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The Changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 33. Public Services: Schools, Maintenance, Medical and Library Services Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause an increase in demand for public services which could exceed the capacity of the various systems in place. Finding: The potential to adversely impact the four public service systems is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of the project in relation to the existing sexvice systems end hutre project demand issues concluded that no potential for a significant increase in public service demand will be generated if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of these public service system issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 39 end 40, items c-f). The analysis indicates that the proposed project will not place any direct demand on the schools, infrastructure maintenance, medical and library services. Mitigation fees for indirect effects on schools, infrastxucture maintenance, and libraries ensure that the project cannot cause an indirect significant effect on these service systems. Medical services are provided through private funds and will be provided on a pay-as- you-go basis. Because this service is provided through private systems, it can expand to meet any increased demand. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute additional significant potential for adverse public service impacts to the cumulative potential for such demand. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential public service impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 30 34. Energy: Demand and Consumption Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause an increase in demand for energy resources which could exceed the capacity of the energy systems in place. Finding: The potential to adversely impact energy resource systems is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of the project in relation to die existing availability of energy resources, energy service systems, and future project demand issues concluded that no potential for a significant increase in energy consumption is forecast to occur relative to forecast future growth in consumption and no large energy consuming activities will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of diese public service system issues is provided in die environmental evaluation section of die Initial Study (Pages 40 and 41, items 15.a-b). The analysis indicates that die proposed project will not consume large quantifies of energy and is not forecast m have a significant adverse effect on die existing energy infrastructure system. Data available in California Energy Commission publications indicates that adequate commercial energy resources are available to meet future forecast growth in soudiem California and die proposed project is not forecast to cause this growth rate to be exceeded. Because energy resources are provided through private, commercial systems, as long as adequate resources are available as forecast, die sys~ms can expand to meet any increased demand. ThuS, die project is not forecast to contribute significant potential for adverse energy resource impacts or to die cumulative potential for such demand. Based on diese facts, die City concludes that potential energy resource impacts from implementing die proposed project will be nonsignificant widiout any mitigation or odier changes to die project. 35. Utilities: Adequacy of Capacity and Service Pattern Potential Significant Impact: The project may cause an increase in demand for utility services which could exceed die capacity of die utility system in place. Finding: The potential for adversely impacting utility systems and die existing service pattern is discussed in die Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of die EIR. The analySiS Of die project in relation to die existing utility systems and future pwject deman4 issues concluded that no potential for a significant increase in utility demand will be generated if die pwject is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of die utility system impacts is provided in die environmental evaluation section of die Initial Study (Pages 42 and 43, items 16.a-g). The analysis indicates that die proposed project demands for each utility system (power and nattLral gas; comm,lllicatiOnS; water; e. ani~al'y sewer; stollll water drainage; solid waste disposal) falls within die projected capacity of diese systems for die City of Temecula. Demand for utility capacity is forecast to increase within die overall project area, but not beyond existing system capacities. No unusual increase in utility demand or disjointed utility patterns will be created because die existing utilities are generally in place and adequate to serve die site. The anticipated demands on services were determined to be within die existing or planned service capabilities of die utility service providers. Thus, die project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative demand for significant utility system resources. Based on diese facts, die City concludes that potential utility system and utility disu'ibution pattern effects from implementing die proposed project will be nonsignificant widiout any mitigation or odier Changes tO die project, 31 approxin~ately the same umber of housing units to be created as would the current l~ld use designations (42o compared to 460. respectively). Because many of the jobs can be filled from the local population, adding a total of 983 new residents to the project area (demand for housing) over several years can readily be met based on existing pattern of constructing approximately 574 new housing units per year. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute additional significant potential for adverse housing impacts to the cumulative potential for such demand. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential housing impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 30. Transportation/Circulation: Waterborne, Rail and Air Transportation System Effects Potential Significant Impact: The project could alter present waterborne, rail and air traffic systems m the detriment of existing systems. Finding: The potential for altering waterborne, rail and air transportation systems is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of the project in relation to these existing transportation systems is evaluated in the Initial Study and it concluded that no potential for significant alteration of the existing system will occur if the project is developed as proposed. None of these systems will be directly affected by the proposed project. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the transportation resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 35, item 13.e). The stmlysis indicates that no waterborne, rail or air trampon systems occur in the project area and no pottmtial to affect such systems has been identified for the proposed project. Thus, the project cannot contribute m cumulative adverse alterations in these transpomtion systems. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential waterborne, rail and air transportation system effects fi'om implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 31. Transportation/Circulation: Increased Safety Hazards Potential Significant Impact: The project may cause a significant impact by increasing safety ~h~,ardS tO pedestrians and bicycle traffic Finding: The potential for the project to increase traffic safety ha,~rd3 is discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project has a potential to create significant traffic ha,ardS during construction activities along adjacent toads and at locations where traffic improvements are being installed in accordance with findings in the Traffic Subchapter of the EIR (Section 4.6). The analysis of these traffic safety issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that a potential for significant impacts can occur if the project is developed as proposed and four mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent lxaffic safety impacts from becoming significant. The following ma are required to be implemented: 20. During construction that affects the local roads, the project owner shall provide adequate traffic control resources (signing, protective devices, crossing devices, detours, flagpersons, etc.) to maintain safe traffic flow. tf construction within a road right-of-way is not completed by the end of the day's work, the contractor or agency shall ensure that an adequate traJflc access route exists to all areas where access exists at the time of construedon. 28 21. Traffic hazards that may.' affect vehicles. biG'des, pedestrians, or horses (such as speed bumps, trenches, or uneven paths) shall be identified and access controlled by the project owner. 22. No open trenches or traffic safety hazards shall be left in road rights-of-way during periods when traffic controls and construction personnel are not present. Such hazards shall be eliminated or an alternative route provided without hazards before employees leave a working area at or adjacent to a road. 23. All roads shall be adequately repaired after construction is completed in an area to ensure that traffic can move in the same manner as before construction without damage or discomfort to vehicles and passengers. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the transportation safety impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 35 and 36, item 13 .f). The analysis indicates that the project will create potential traffic safety baTards during construction that may be significant unless mitigated. Mitigation measures ~r21-23 for traffic safety will control safety haTards to the point of reducing or eliminating these potential ha;'ardS. ThuS, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant traffic hazards becauSe of the measures that will be implemented. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce traffic safety impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonSignificant level. The changes in the project are the responSibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 32. Public Services: Hre and Police Potential Significant Impact: The project may cause an increase in demand for fire and police services winch could exceed the capacity of the systems in place. Finding: The potential for adversely impacting fire and police service systems is discuSsed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project has a potential to create significant incremental, cumulative, demand on these two services. The analysis of the fire and police service issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that a potential for significant impacts can occur if the project is developed as proposed and three mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent these service impacts from becoming significant. The following measures are required to be implemented: 25. The City and developers shah confer with the RCWD during the engineering of the Western By-pass to ensure that the water distribution/transmission line, if deemed necessary for fire protection purposes, is installed when the road is constructed. Implementation of this measuse, when combined with the already existing adequate storage. ensures that water will be available to provide fire protection t~ this portion of the project site. To rednee wildland fire haT~rdS below a significant level along the Western By-pass Road the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 26. Along the west and east sides of the Western By-pass Road a fire and vegetation management plan shah be prepared and submitted to the City, RCFD, and CDF for review and approval. This plan shah provide a sufficient buffer of fire retardant plantings 29 direct or cumulative light and glare impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures arc available to reduce potential light and glare impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 26. Natural Resources: Limiting Access/Consumption/Damage to Natural Resource Values Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant adverse natural resource effects by limiting access, consuming or damaging natural resource values. Finding: The natural resources issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The proposed project is not forecast to limit access to natural resources, consume significant natural resources, or damage natural resource values. The analysis of the natural resources issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant resource impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the natural resources issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 29 and 30, item 9.a-b). The ~nalysis indicates that the project is not forecast m damage any agricultural resource values; that no mineral resource values of significance are located within the project ares to which access could be limited; and adequate mineral resources are commercially available m meet project demand. The proposed project is not forecast to cause a significant impact to the natural resources of concern for this project. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional significant natural resources impacts to the cumulative value or demand for such resources because they do not occur within the project area or adequate resources are available. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential natural resources impacts from implementing the pwposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the pwject. 27. Risk of Upset: Potential Release of Hazardous Materials/Interference with Emergency Response Plans Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant adverse effects to the enviroment or to bnman~ by creating the risk of an explosion, accidental release of haTardOns materials, or intedering with existing emergency response plans. Finding: The risk of upset issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The proposed project is not forecast to cause a significant poumtial for explosions, for accidental releases of haTardOuS materials, or for interference with any identified emergency response plan. By contributing to the early installation of the Western Bypass Road, the proposed project will be creafing an important emergency response mute. Theanalysisoftheriskofupsetissuespresented in the Initial Study concluded that existing programs are in place in the City of Temecuia for managing impacts related to risks of upset and the project has no potential for significant increased risk impacts to ocatr if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the risk of upset issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 30 and 31, item 10.a-c). The analysis indicates that the project is not forecast to create a significant increase in potential risk for release of haT~rdOus materials and explosions, or to interfere with any emergency response plan. 26 No activities with potential for explosion will be conducted by the project during construction or operation. The type of hazardous materials used by the project are typical household wastes that are already managed by existing City programs and policies. The proposed project will not affect any existing emergency response plan and by fostering the early installation of the Western Bypass Road, emergency access through the City will be enhanced, a project benefit. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute additional significant potential for risk of upset impacts to the cumulative potential for such risks because it does not have any identified major risks associated with its implementation. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential risk of upset impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 28. Population.' Alteration of Future Population Characteristics of the Area Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant adveme effects by modifying future population growth characteristics for the area. Finding: The population issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The proposed project is not forecast to cause a significant alteration in future population distribution, density, or growth rate. By contributing to a positive jobs/housing balance, the proposed project will be supporting major regional air quality planning goals. The analysis Of the population issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the project will create more jobs than houses within the development area and the project has no potential for significant alterations in population of the region if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the population issues is provided in the envimumental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 31 and 32, item 11). The analySiS indicates that the proposed project will create a potential 3,100 potential jobs while adding a total of 983 new residents to the project area fur a 3.2:1 jobs/housing ratio. The total population increase to the region is approximately equivalent to one year of growth, but since it will occur over a several year period, the rate of growth is not forecast to be significant. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute additional significant potential for adverse population impacts to the cumulative potential for population growth. The jobs/housing ratio of the proposed project is forecast to be beneficial and consistent with regional air quality planning goals. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential population impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 29. Housing: Affect Existing Housing or Demand for Housing Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant adverse effects by modifying future availability of housing or demand for housing. Finding: The housing issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The proposed project is not forecast to cause a significant alteration in existing or future housing demand. The analysis of the housing issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the project will create provide approYimately the same number of housing units as the existing land use designations, and total demand for future housing in the area may be reduced by the project. Therefore, no potential for significant alterations in housing demand for the region is forecast to occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the housing issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 32 and 33, item 12 and in the EIR 1 ~nd Use discussion). The analysis indicates that the proposed project will allow 27 22. Animal Life: Introduction of New Species Potential Significant Impact: The introduction of new species could cause significant adverse effects to area biological resources. Finding: The introduction of new species issues are discussed in die Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1. of the EIR. The project will not introduce any new species into the local habitat within the project area. The analysis of these biological resource issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant resource impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the nonnative animal species introduction is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 24, item 5.c). The analysis indicates that the project does not propose to introduce nonnative animal species into areas of native habitat. The Old Town core area is already totally thsturbed and die Westside Specific Plan area lies at die edge of the native plant community that is a partially disturbed area. No nonnative animals will be utilized by die project that cotrid be released into this native habitat. Thus, die project cannot contribute additional damage tO cumulative biological resources within the City. Based on these facts, die City concludes that potential species introduction from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes tO die project. 23. Animal Life: Barrier to Normal Species Replenishment Potential Significant Impact: The creation of a barrier to normal species replenishment could cause significant adverse effects to area biological resources. Finding: The barriers to replenishment issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project will not create any barriers to replenishment of native animal species within the project area, except from installation of bridges along Munieta Creek. The analysis of these biological resource issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant resource impacts will occur if the pwject is developed as proposed and the one mitigation measure will be implemented to prevent bridges from becoming animal migration barriers. The following measure is required to be implemented: l& Bridge designs selected for bridges constructed in support of this project shah not create any permanent barriers to the movement of animals along the Murrieta Creek riparian corridor. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of barriers to normal replenishment of anlmal populations is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 24, item 5.d). The analysis indicates that the project does not propose to create any barriers to species replenishment, except for potential bridge barriers in Murrieta Creek. Mitigation measure //18 for disruption of the migration corridor in Muraleta Creek will control potential barrier impacts to this corridor. No potential for cumulative contributions to barrier effects were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. This is because no other known development is proposed within the Mttrrieta Creek Channel. The pwposed mitigation measure will control any potential creation of significant barriers by requiring bridge designs to protect migration corridor values in the Channel. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant barriers w animal Species replenishment. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce potential animal migration 24 barriers from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 24. Noise: Exposure to Severe Vibrations Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant adverse vibration effects that could affect structures and humans. Finding: The vibration issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project will not introduce any new activities that will generate vibrations. The analysis of the vibration issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant resource impacts will occur if die project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the vibration issues is provided in die environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 26, item 6.c). The analysis indicates that the project does not propose to introduce any activities with vibrations into the local area. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional vibradous to the cumulative vibration enviromem. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential vibration from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 25. Light and Glare: Creation of Light Pollution Potential Significant Impact: The use of night lighting associated with the proposed project could cause light pollution that would adversely impact Palomar Observatory. Finding: The light and glare issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project has a potential to create light and glare effects that could contribution to significant cumulative degradation at palomar Observatory. The analysis of these light and glare issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that a potential for cumulative significant impacts to Palomar ObservatoW can occur if the project is developed as proposed and the one mitigation measure will be implemented to prevent light and glare from becoming an adverse impact to the Observatory. The following measure is required to be implemented: 19. A liglm'ng plan shah be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval for facilities developed by this project. This plan shah include prior consultation with the California Institute of Technology for all proposed outdoor lighting designs and shall demonstrate compliance with quantitative lighting requirements contained in County of San Diego Ordinance #7155 and County of Riverside Ordinance #655. Facts in Support of the Fmding The discussion of light and glare issues is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 26 and 27, item 7). The analysis indicates that the project will gencram an unquanti~able mount of light and glare from the entertainment facilities. Mitigation measure #19 for light generation will control potential light pollution effects on Palomar Observatory. The potential for significant cumulative contributions m light pollution were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. This is because existing light pollution and fitlure development can cause significant adverse impacts to Palomar Observatory operations. The proposed mitigation measure will control any potential contribution by complying with existing lighting controls, County of Riverside Ordinance #655. Thus, the project is not forecast m contribute to 25 18. Water Resources: Reduction in Water Resources Available for Water Supply Potential Significant Impact: Water resources could be significantly affected by the proposecl project and available groundwater supplies could be reduced. Finding: The water supply resource issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the ErR. The analysis of alterations in water resource availability presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impact to water supply resources will occur if the project is developed as proposed because the project does not contain activities that will increase cumulative demand for water resources. No mitigation is required. Facts in Supporl of the Finding The discussion of potential water supply resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 21, item 3.h). The analysis indicates that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on water resources because adequate water supply resources have been identified for full buildout of the City at a greater water demand rate that full buildout with the project. Thus, the project will not cause significant adverse water supply resource impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential water supply resource effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 19. Water Resources: Flood Hazards Potential Significant Impact: The project could be exposed to flood haTar(:l$ that colrid damage St~mCtuseS and/or cause loss of human life. ~n~ng: The flood haT~rd issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of floOd hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that a potential for significant floOd ha:,ardS will ocCur if the project is developed as proposed. The potential flood h~7~rd impacts from project related structures are very limited in scope and can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by implementing the mitigation measure to control the location of structures and the extent of exposu~ of structm'es to flood haTard$. This potential for significant impacts from flood hazards can be redu6ed or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation the mitigation measure as outlined below. The following measure is required to be implemented: 17. Bridges and entertainment structures and infrastructure shall be installed in a manner that protects them from significant damage from a lO0-year flood along Murrieta Creek. The structure and bridge designs shall integrate the proposed faciliaes into the ultimate design solution for Murrieta Creek being prepared by the Corps of Engineers and County Flood Control without causing significant constraints in managing design flood flows. The project owners shah participate in the dam inundation evacuation plans for any facilities not protected from the potential collapse of the Vail Lake dam. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion of potential flood h,~,'~rd impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 21, item 3.i). The analysis indicates that some project facilities may be located within the 100-year floOd plain, including structures that may provide entertainment. Mitigation measure//17 for floOd b,,-~rdS will control potential flood h~-~,-,ls to f~tm'e facilities to a nonsignificant level. No potential for cumulative contributions to floOd ba-ards were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. This is because no other known development is proposed within the flood plain. The proposed 22 ntitigation mcasur: will control arty potential exposur: to flood hazards b.~ ax oidance or arequart flood protectloll design requirements. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant incrcase in flood hazard impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce potential flood hazard impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. 'Pne changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 20. Plant Life: Introduction of New Species or Barrier to Normal Species Replenishment Potential Significant Impact: The introduction of new species or creation of a barrier to normal species replenishment could cause significant adverse effects to area biological resources. Finding: The introduction of new species and barriers to replenishment issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project will not introduce any new species into an area of native vegetation and no barriers will be created to replenishment of native species within the project area. The analysis of these biological resource issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant resource impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the normalive species introduction and barriers to normal replenishment is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 23, item 4.c). The analysis indicates that the project does not propose to introcluce nonnative species into areas of native vegetation and no barriers to species replenishment will be created by the proposed project. The Old Town core area is already totally disturbed and the Westside Specific Plan area lies at the edge of the native plant community that is a partially disturbed area. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional damage to cumulative biological resources within the City. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential species introduction and barrier effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 21. Plant Life: Reduction in Agricultural Acreage Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause or contribute to significant loss of agficnittu'al acreage. Finding: The agricultural acreage issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of agriculturul acreage issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant agficuitural acreage impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of the agricultural acreage impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 23, itetu 4.d). The analysis indicates that the project site does not contain any agriculture acreage because the site has either been rotally altered as a result of past activities (Old Town core area) or remain~ in native vegetation (Westside Specific Plan area). Thus, the project cannot contribute additional loss of cumulative agricultural acreage within the City or region. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential agricultural acreage effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 23 surface water volume in Murrieta Creek from the proposed project cannot cause significant flood or erosion [tazards. NO additional mitigation or other changes to the project beyond measures I0. 11, and 12 outlined above are required. 15. Water Resources: Surface Water Quality Degradation Potential Significant Impact: Surface ranoff from the proposed project may cause water quality to experience significant degradation. Finding: The surface water quality degradation issues arc discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of potential water quality degradation issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential water quality impacts from project discharges are very limited in scope and can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by implementing the mitigation measures to control the type of pollutants and the quality of discharges to surface runoff from the project sites. This potential for significant impacts from dischaxges of surface nmoff can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation the mitigation measures as outlined below and contained in measure #3 above. The following measures are required to be implemented: 13. The landscaped areas shah be irrigated in a manner that does not result in overland flows of surface water and the discharge of fertilizer ana pesacide contaminated surface runoff to Murrieta Creek. The landscape designs and irrigation systems shall be reviewed by the City to verify runoff controls are adequate to prevent inadvertent surface runoff. 14. The project owners shall prepare and implement a sweeping plan approved by the City to sweep paved areas and graded parking areas one time per week as a minimum, and at least six times during the month of October prior to the onset of the winter storm season. 15. The project owner shall implement sanitary house-keeping procedures that minimize the potential for surface water pollutants to be incorporated into surface water discharges from the project site. These procedures shall be incorporated into a written procedure that must be approved by the City Planning Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16. Any surface water generated from the stable area shall either be retained, treated and reused on the project site, or treated to standards required to protect the receiving water quality standards for Murrieta Creek before being released from the project site. The procedure selected shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding The surface water degradation discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pages 19 and 20, item 3.e) indicates that the discharges in the Old Town core area will remain the same or incur only limited increase in polintaats during construction from erosion volume because this area is already 100% developed. Mitigation measure #3 for erosion will control potential surface water degradation from this area to a nonsignificant level. The construction of the Western Bypass Road and development and operation of the Westside Specific Plan will alter the type of pollumnts generated from this site. The potential increase in surface water pollution can be controlled during construction and operation can be reduced to a nonsignificant level based on implementing the mitigation measures identified above. No potential for cumniadve contributions to surface runoff degradation were identified 20 wit/fin the project area to wlfich the proposed project could contribute additional ad;'erse impacts. This is because development is not proposed upstream of the Westside Specific Plan area. The proposed nfitigation measures will control any potential future generation of pollution at the source or by treatment and meeting the ultimate discharge requirements established by the Regional Board for this area. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant increases in surface water quality degradation impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce potential water degradation impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and the Regional Board to monitor and it will be implemented by the City and the Regional Board as pan of their review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 16. Water Resources: Altering the Direction and Rate of Groundwater Flow Potential Significant hnpact: Changes in the direction and ram of groundwater flow could cause significant effects on local aquifers and local water wells. Finding: The potential alteration in direction and rate of groundwater flow issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of alteratious to Foundwater flow issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant alterations in groundwater flow direction and rate will occur if the project is developed as proposed because the project will not intercept the groundwater table and will not extract any local groundwater during construction or operations. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion of potential alterations in direction and rate of groundwater flow impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 20, item 3.f). The analysis indicates that the proposed project does not pose any activities with a potential to cause any alteration in the rate of groundwater flow or direction. Thus, the project cannot contribute any adverse groundwater impact to groundwater flow or direction. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential alterations to groundwater flow and direction cannot occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. No mitigation or other changes to the project are required. 17. Water Resources: Groundwater Effects Potential Significant hnpact: Groundwater resources could be significantly overdrafted by the proposed project. Finding: The groundwater quantity issues are discussed in the Inidal Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of alteradona in groundwater quantity presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impact to groundwater resources will occur if the project is developed as proposed because the project does not contain activities that will utilize or consume groundwater resources. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of the Finding The discussion of potential groundwater resource impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages 20 and 21, item 3.g). The analySiS indicates that the project will not intercept the tradeflying groundwater aquifer or alter the quantity of groundwater available for use. Thus, the project will not cause adverse groundwater impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential groundwater effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 21 Facts in Support of the Finding The change in water flow direction issue discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pages 17 and 18. item 3.a) indicates that none of the entertainment facilities in the Old Town core area will modify die direction of existing water flow because this area is developed and flows are controlled by the existing road and drainage system. The construction of the Western Bypass Road and development of the Westside Specific Plan will alter the current direction of surface runoff to conform to surface dxainage requirements of the City to the point that it enters Muraleta Creek. The surface flow modifications and their effect on the Murrieta Creek channel can be reduced to a nonsignificant level based on implementing the mitigation measure identified above. No potential for cumulative contributions to surface flow modifications were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. This is because development is not proposed upstream of the Westside Specific Plan area. The proposed mitigation measure will control any potential future surface flow modifications by capturing these flows and delivering them to the channel and meeting the ultimate design requirements for the channel. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumniative significant surface flow modification impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce surface flow redirection impacts fi'om implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 12. Water Resources: Increase in Impervious Surface Potential Significant hnpact: An increase in impervious surface can reduce future percolation and increase runoff and downstream erosion potential to a significant level. Finding: The impetwious surface issues axe discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of increased rimoff issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the impacts from Changes in flow are very limited in scope and can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by implementing one of two mitigation measures to control the volume of surface runoff in their revised course to Munieta Creek. This potential for significant impacts from increasing the volume of surface flow can be reduced or coatroBed if the project is developed as proposed and withimplementationoneofmidgadonmeasuresasou~inedbelow. Oneofthefollowingmeasums is required to be implemented: 11. When the development pads are engineered and constructed within the Westside Spedtic Plan Area, the surface runoff above the volume presently generated shall be detained on the project site and released approximately 24-hours after peak flows within Murrieta Creek have passed through the project area. 12. The project shah install all drainage improvements within the Murrieta Creek channel that are required to handle storm runoff from those areas improved as part of the proposed project. The project shall also contribute its fair share to any channel improvements that must be completed to ensure that cumulative runoff increases do not cause downstream flood hazards or significant damage pore surface runoff in Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarito River. Facts in Support of Finding The increase nmoff issue discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pages 18 and 19, item 3.b) indicates that the volume in the Old Town core axed will re'main the salve or incur only limited increase in volume because this area is already 100% developed and the runoff coefficient is already .95 to 1. The construction of the Western Bypass Road and development of the Westside Specific Plan will alter the current runoff coefficient from 18 .5-.7 to .95 to 1. 'rne increased volume of flow and its effect on the Murfieta Creek channel can bc reduced to a non.significam level based on implementing one of the mitigation measures identified above. No potential for cumulative contributions to surface flow modifications were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. This is because development is not proposed upstream of the Westside Specific Plan area. The proposed mitigation measure will control any potential future increase in surface ranoff by detaining or capturing these flows and delivering them to the channel and meeting the ultimate design requirements for the channel. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant increases in surface runoff impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce increased runoff impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 13. Water Resources: Altering Flood Flows Potential Significant Impact: Alteration of the flow of flood waters could cause significant damage downstream from the project site. Finding: The flood flow alteration issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the Ell>,. The analysis of alterations to flood flow issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant alteration or increase in surface runoff (items 11 and 12 above) will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No additional mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion of potential alteration in flood runoff and potential flood hn-,,-ds is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 19, item 3.c). The analysis indicates with controls on the increase of volume of flows and direction that no significant alteration in flood flows will occur due to impleraentation of the proposed project. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional adverse flood ha,nrd or erosion impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential alterations of flood flows and flood hazards from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any additional mitigation or other changes to the project, beyond measures 10, 11, and 12 outlined above. 14. Water Resources: Change in the Volume of Surface Water Potential Significant Impact: Changes in the volume of surface water downstream from the site that could cause additional flooding or damage to the water body. Finding: The surface water volume issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The an~,lySis of alteradous to surface water volume issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant change (increase or decrease) in surface water volume (items 11 and 12 above) will occur if the project is developed as proposed. Although the volume contributed to Murrieta Creek will increase, it will not be added during a period where increases in volume could cause significant adverse impact. No additional mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Finding The discussion of potential changes in surface water in a water body and potential flood haT~qrdS or erosion impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 19, it~m 3.d). The ar~lysis indicates with controls on the increase of volume of flows and direction that no significant alteration in flood ha,ardS or erosion will occur due to implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional adverse flood haTard or erosion impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential alterations of 19 The developer shall have a site specific geotechnical evaluation prepared by a qualified and licensed Engineering Geologist and/or Registered Pro. t~ssional Engineer. This report shall address. but is not limited to, ground shaMng hazards, slope stability, liquefaction potential, and subsidence (as appropriate jbr each site) and provide design recommendations that will ensure the structural integrity of new structures to protect humans occupying the structures in the future. The Ci.ty shall require the developer to implement these design requirements. , If existing structures are utilized, the structural integri .ty shall be reinedlate to meet the design requirements of the Engineering Geologist aM/or Registered Professional Engineer. Facts in Support of the Finding The geologic ha,~rd issue discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pages 13 and 14, item 1 .h and Leighton & Associates Study) indicates that no geologic hazards are known to affect the Old Town core area or the Westside Specific Plan area other than regional ground shaking and stability issues. The project site stability issues have been addressed under item #1 above and no further evaluation or findings are required. The regional ground shaking at the project site is potentially significant as outlined in the Initial Study, but project Changes Can be reduce this impact to a nonsignificant level based on implementing the mitigation measures identified above. Structural designs are required to comply with design requirements of the most current Unified Building Code or Professional Geologist/Engineer recommendations. No potential for cumulative contributions to seismic haT~rdS were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. The proposed mitigation measures will control any potential future adverse seismic impacts by incorporating fiesign components to protect the facilities from significant seismic damage. Thns, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant seismic impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce seismic impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes hi the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 9. Geologic Hazards: Seismic Hazards/Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Potential Significant hapact: On site ground rupture haTnrds could endanger property or h.ma. lives at the project site. Finding: The Alquist-Pdolo Zone haTa,d iSSues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of seismic hatart issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impacts from ground rupture will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required because the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone. Facts in Support of Finding The seismic ha-an:t/AlquiSt-PfiOlo Special Studies Zone discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 14, item 1.i) indicates that project site is not within any Alqnist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential Found rupture had, art impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 16 10. Air Quality: Alteration of Local or Regional Climate Variables Potential Significant Impact: Alteration of local or regional climate could adversely impact the huma~ population located within these areas. Finding: The climate alteration issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of potential for altering local or regional climatic variables presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant climate impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Finding The potential climatic variable alteration discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 15, item 2.c) indicates that the size of the proposed project site too small to affect climatic variables such as winds, temperature and precipitation. No cumulative climate alteration impacts are forecast to occur in the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential for changes in climatic variables from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 11. Changes in Currents or the Course or Direction of Water Movements Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant erosion or flood ha,art damage due to altering the direction of water movement. Finding: The changes in direction of water movement issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of changes in direction of water movement issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the impacts from changes in flow are very limited in scope and can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by the mitigation measure implemented to control the flows in their revised course to Murrieta Creek. This potential for significant impacts from changing the direction of water flow can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigation measure as outlined below. The following measure is required to be implemented: 10, The surface runoff drainage system incorporated into the Western By-pass road and the hotel and Arena engineered development pad(s) shall be designed to meet the following requirements: The drainage system shah be designed to transport the expected lO0-year runoff from upstream areas or the pad(s) to Muftieta Creek without damage to adjacent property or to the Creek channel; and The points where surface runoff is intercepted along the road shah be designed to ensure that headward (upstream) erosion is not initiated and that erosion and sediment generation do not exceed natural rates of erosion and sedimentation for the project area. The drainage system from the pad(s) to Murrieta Creek shall also be designed to prevent increased erosion along the drainage system improvements and at the point where the surface runoff from the pad(s) enters the Creek channel. 17 Facts in Support of the Finding The potential water erosion discussion in the environmental evaluation section of die Initial Study (Pa.ee 12, item 1.e) indicates that the potential for water erosion will be substantially increased when the Westside Specific Pl3a~ area is developed. Water erosion potential has been addressed under issue #2 above and based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce erosion impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. No additional mitigation is required beyond implementing mitigation measure #3 to control water erosion ou die project site. 6. Geologic Hazards.' Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion Potential Significant Impact: Site disturbance can increase siltation, deposition and erosion with potentially significant damage tO the site or downstream properties. Finding: The siltation, deposition and erosion potential issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of these issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential for significant siltation, deposition or erosion impacts can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigation measure as outlined under issue 82 above. The mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study will change the project by controlling potential erosion and sedimentation that may be caused by grading the Westside Specific Plan area. No additional mitigation is required beyond measure #3 identified above. Facts in Support of the Finding The potential siltation, deposition and erosion discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 12, item 1.f) indicates that the potential for these impacts to occur will be substantially increased when the Weftside Specific Plan area is developed. Water erosion potential, with related siltation and deposition, has been addressed under issue f2 above and based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce slltation, deposition and erosion impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. No additional mitigation is requited beyond implementing mitigation measure #3 to control these impacts on the project site. 7. Modification of a Channel, Creek or River Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause significant alteration to the Murrieta Creek channel. Finding: The Murrieta Creek Channel modification issues are discussed in the Iulfiai Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis Of Channel modification issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the impacts from channel modifications a.~soeiatP. d with bridge installation are reduced to a nonsignificant level by mitigation measures implemented to control intrusion into the Channel. This potential for significant channel modification impact can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigation measures as outlined below. The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study will change the project by controlling intrusion into the channel and ensuring consistency with the final flood control design for the facility. The following measures are required to be implemented: The bridges shah be installed in a manner that will not adversely impact the ability of Mumeta Creek to carry the design flows estabashed by the Corps of Engineers and the 14 Riverside Count)' Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Permits or w, iver.% from such permits for installation of the bridges shall be obtained from tile Corps of Engineers, the Coun.ty Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the State Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Quali .ty Control Board. The developer shall implement the conditions of these permits. The bridges shall be con.vtructed during the dry, or low flow season to the extent feasible. During construction of the bridges specific erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented to minimize movement of sediment from active construction areas. Measures to accomplish this include diverting any surface water around the project site, installation of silt fences, sediment traps/basins, rock filters, and other comparable measures to reduce the transport of sediment from the construction area during construction. Post construction sediment control shall also be implemented and the construction area shall be returned to a functional status following construction consistent with the ultimate design of the Murrieta Creek channel. Facts in Support of the Finding The channel modification issue discussion in die substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pages 12 and 13, item 14) indicates that none of the entertainment facilities will affect any creek channelS. The construction of bridges across Murrieta Creek in support of the proposed project will result in some modifications to the creek channel. The modifications and their effect on the Munieta Creek Channel can be reduced to a nonsignificant level based on implementing the mitigation measures identified above. Bridge designs are required to maintain flood flows with no adverse impact and to meet the ultimate design requirements of the channel. No potential for cumulative contributions to channel modifications were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. The proposed mitigation measures will control any potential future adverse channel modifications by maintaihing flood control functions of die Channel and meeting the ultimate design requirements for the Channel. Thus, die project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative significant channel modification impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce ChannP, l modificltion impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by die City as pan of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 8. Geologic Hazards: Exposure to Geologic Hazards Potential Significant hnpact: The proposed project may expose structures or persons to impacts associated with geologic haT~rde. Finding: The geologic haTart iss~les are thscnssed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of geologic ha,~rd issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential impacts from geologic hazards at I}oth tbe Old Town core area and Westside Specific Plan area are reduced to a nonsignificant level by mitigation measures outlined below. The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study will change the project by ensuring that onsite and regional geologic haT~rdS are controlled or addressed by structural design requirement. The following measures are required to be implemented: All new structures installed in conjunction with this project shah be designed to comply with the mast recent Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. If the Engineering Geologist/Registered Engineer identifies mare stringent site specific design standards, the developer shall implement such standards for buildings constructed under approvals for this project. 15 Facts in Support of the Finding The soil disturbance issue discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pages 10 and 11, item 1.bt indicates that underlying soils within the Old Town core area are highly disturbed and relatively flat and therefore have little or no potential for adverse impact when developed. The soils and moderate slopes within the Westside Specific Plan area have a potential for severe erosion after grading and changes to the project will be required to control on- and off-site erosion and sedimentation. A potential for cumulative contributions to erosion was identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. The proposed mitigation measures will control any potential future project specific and cumulative erosion impacts and prevent damaged to the property and downstream areas. It will do this by controlling the amount of runoff. the length of areas exposed to surface ranoff, and the collection of any sediment generated on the property by implementing the mitigation measure. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative erosion impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce erosion impacts from implememing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level, These changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and they will be implemented by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (General Construction Stormwater Permit) as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 3. Earth Resources: Grading and Slope Modification Potential Significant hnpact: Grading activity on steep slopes (15% or greater) in the Westside Specific Plan area could cause significant potential for slope failure, erosion, and change in the visual setling during or following completion of grading. Ending: The grading and slope modification issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 Of file EIR. The ~nalysis of grading and slope modification issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the slope stability and erosion issues an reduced to a nonsignificant level by measures implemented for issues 1 and 2 above. The only area with potential significant impact due grading would be file modified topography eausecl by installing the Western Bypass Road with the forecast cuts slopes. This potential for significant change erosion impacts can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigation measure as outlined below. The mitigation measure identified in file Initial Study will change file project by rapidly blending the cut slopes into the surrounding landscape. The following measure is required to be implemented: A landscape plan shah be completed for review and approval by the City. This plan shah provide for full revegetation of the road cut slopes utilizing native/ornamental plants which will serve as a fire buffer area. On the constructed buiMing pads the landscape plan shah include the planting of large wees (minimum 4 · diameter)immediately after construction of the pads is completed. The effect of the revegetation plan will be to blend the slopes into the natural coastal sage scrub and chamisal chaparral communities west of the Western By-Pass Road. The revegetation goal for the pads will be to visually screen and soften the effect of the flat, graded and paved pads. A bond or equivalent commitment, as provided by City ordinance, shall be provided by the developer to ensure that the site can be revegetated after grading. Facts in Support of the F'mding The grading and slopemodification issue discussion in the substantiation section of file Initial Study (Pages 11 and 12, item 1 .c) indicates that slope modifications in all areas except along the Western Bypass Road figment will 12 be minimal and pose no potential erosion or slope stability impacts based on implementing the mitigation measures identified for issues I and 2, above. The moderate slopes within the Westside Specific Plan area along the Western Bypass Road will require cut slopes of about 30 feet when it is installed. The visual contrast created by these cut slopes has a potential to create significant visual modifications. No potential for cumulative contributions to visual modifications were identified within the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. The proposed mitigation measure will control any potential future project Specific slope modification impacts. It will do this by controlling the visual contrast of cut slopes by implementing the mitigation measure. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative slope modification impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that an adequate measure is available to reduce slope modification impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. This change in the project is the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 4. Modification of any Unique Geologic or Physical Features Potential Significant Impact: Modification or loss of unique geologic or physical features would reduce the diversity of these features in the region. Finding: The unique geologic and physical features issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of unique geologic and physical features issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impacts to such resources will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required because no such resources exist on this totally disturbed site. Facts in Support of the Finding The unique geologic and physical features discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 12, item 1.d and Leighton & Associates' geologic study) indicates that the Old Town core area has been utilized as an urban developed location since the late-1800s and no unique geologic or natural physical features exist at the site based on field observation. The area contained within the Westside Specifc Plan was evaluated in the Leighton & Associates' geologic study and no unique geologic or physical features were identified by this site specific investigation. No cumulative impacts to such f~auttes were identified to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential impacts to unique geologic or physical features from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project. 5. Geologic Hazards: High Wind/Water Erosion Potential Potential Significant Impact: If the site experiences high wind and/or water erosion potential, significant damage to the site or dowusu'eam properties could occur. Finding: The wind and water erosion potential issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of wind and water erosion issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential for significant wind erosion impacts (fugitive dust generation) will exist for the project and this issue is addressed as pan of the EIR. Potentially significant water erosion impacts can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigation measure as outlined under issue #2 above. The mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study will change the project by controlling potential erosion and sedimentation that may be caused by grading the Westside Specific Plan area. No additional mitigation is required beyond measure #3 to control water erosion. 13 identified in the Initial Study will change the project by controlling the potential instability fixat may be caused by grading for the Western Bypass Road. The following measures are required to be implemented: The final grading plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist with the specific goal of preventing the creadon of unstable slopes. This review and approval shall be completed prior to any grading at the project site. Grading of the site shall be evaluated by the engineering geologist by conducting in-grading inspections and if potential for slope failure is noted this problem shall be corrected to control the potential for slope failure. The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shall be 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Exceptions may be granted where a slope evaluaaon by a professional engineer or registered engineering geologist demonstrates that the geologic formations may be able to sustain steeper slopes, but the stability of any such proposed slopes shall be verified during geologic in-grading inspections. Facts in Support of the Finding The unstable esrda issue discussion in die substantiation section of the Initial Study (Page 9, items 1 .a and a geologic study by Leighton and Associates, 1988) indicates that underlying geologic materials at both the Westside Specific Plan site and the Old Town core area are stable and do not pose any potential for significant adverse impact to funire facilities due to unstable conditions. No cumulative unstable earth impacts were identified witkin the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. The proposed mitigation measures will control any potential future slope instability and prevent damage to the Western Bypass Road and associated facilities. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cumulative unstable earth conditions or be exposed to significant unstable eaxth conditions. Based on these facts, the City concludes that adequate measures are available to reduce unstable eaxth impacts from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. These changes in the project are the responsibility of the City m monitor and they will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed. 2. Earth Resources: Disturb Existing Soil Resources Potential Significant Impact: Disturbance of soils during grading may expose them to significant eroSioll hazardS. Finding: The soil disturbance issues (disruption, displacement, compaction or over covering) are discussed hi the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of soil disturbance issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential for significant erosion impacts can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigation measure as outlined below. The mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study will change the project by controlling potential erosion and sedlmentation that may be caused by grading the Westside Specific Plan area. The following measure is required to be implemented: The applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed erosion control plan that identifies specific erosion control measures to control onsite and offsite erosion from the time the site is disturbed antit the disturbed areas are fully developed and landscaped. This erosion control plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: 10 Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimir. e soil c~posure to winter rain period experienced in southern Calijbmia. The natural vegetation shall be retained to the e~tent feasible on all areas that will not be disturbed for grading (the exception is areas that trust cleared and revegetated as part of a fuel modification program to protect residences from wildland fires). All slopes that will be greater than ten feet high shall be evaluated to define the optimum length and steepness to minimize flow velocity and erosion potential. Lateral drainage collection systems shall be incorporated at the base of slopes to transport flows in a controlled, non-erodible channel. The plan shall indicate where flows on the site can be diverted from dennded areas and carried in the natural channels on the site. Measures in man-made channels to minimize runoff velocities shall be identified and implemented. Disturbed areas shah be protected through 1) physical stabilization (such as geotextiles, mats, or other materials (where needed); 2) vegetative stabilization; and 3) mulching. Establish sediment traps, silt fences, and related support features (such as rock filters) on the property to control the release of sediment from disturbed areas. The design and location of such traps shall be identified in the plan. The channel designed to transport flows to the nearest regional flood control facility shall be described and the adequacy of the channel shah be demonstrated with a detailed drainage analysis. An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on- or offsite will be corrected through a remedialion or restoration program within a specified time frame. All disturbed areas shall ultimately either be covered with impervious material or revegetated with native and/or fire and drought resistant vegetation. The developer shall identify a bond amount for implementing the erosion control program and provide the City with a bond for this amount. Install permanent erosion control and runoff facilities that are su~cient to ensure that surface runoff will not cause long-term erosion on- or offsite. The erosion control plan that incorporates the above measures shall be implemented by the developer in accordance with the ' California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks (Stotrawater Quality Task Force, 1993). 11 Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and other actions. required to implement the proposed project. The EIR prepared for the project evaluated seven (7) major environmental issue categories for potential significant adverse impacts. These major environmental issue categories are: air quality, biological resources (plant and animal life), noise, land use, transportation/circulation, aesthetics and visual resources, and cultural resources. When cumulative impacts were included, the EIR reached a total of 14 findings on environmental issues. Short- and long-term impacts and project specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated for each phase of the proposed project. Some of the issue categories contained several subissues which are summarized below. Of these 5 major environmental categories, the City Council concurs with the findings in the EIR that the issues and subissues discussed below can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold, or for those issues which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, that overriding considerations exist which make those impacts acceptable. In addition to the 7 major environmental issue categories addressed in the EIR, twelve (12) other major environmental issue categories (earth resources, water resources, light and glare, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, public services, energy, utilities, human health, and recreation) were found to be nonsignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The City Council concurs with the findings on these environmental issue categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix 8.1 of the EIR). Those environmental issue categories identified in the Initial Study as having no potential for significant adverse impact, with or without mitigation, are described below in Section D. 1. The descriptions in Section D. 1 include substantiation from the Initial Study. Each of the potentially significant, but mitigable, effects of the proposed project identified in the EIR are described below (Section D.2.), including substantiation from the EIR, associated documents and/or the hearing record. Unavoidable (unmitigable) significant adverse impacts of the project are described in Section E of this document. An analysis and comparison of the alternatives to the project are described in Section F of this document. Project benefits are described in Section G. The balancing of benefits and impacts and the statement of overriding considerations are described and evaluated in Section H of this document. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR and Initial Study are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program which is included as part of the decision-making record for this project. Implementation of the monitoring program will ensure that the measures identified in the EIR will be implemented in accordance with discussion in the EIR and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. These measures are within the jurisdiction of the City to implement, but some measures may require other agencies to participate in the monitoring program. 8 D.1. Non-Si,onificant lmDacts Identified in the Initial Study The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having no potential to cause significant impact and were not carried forward into the EIR for detailed evaluation. In the following presentation each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential significant adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of the finding in the administrative record, which is predominantly the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and responses, technical appendices, and referenced documents; any mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve a non-significant impact are identified; and finally. a discussion of the facts supporting the finding are summarized. The City of Temecula City Council hereby finds that all mitigation measures idemi~ed in the Initial Study that will be implemented to mitigate the impacts of this project have been incorporated into, or required of, the proposed project to avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings: Changes or alterations have been required is, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the comple~l environmental impact report; Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. The Temecula City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081, that the following issues are non-significant because they have no potential to cause a significant impact or because mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined below. The City Council further finds that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are required to reduce the potential impacts discussed below to a level of nonsignificance and that no additional project changes have been made during the public review of the proposed project. These issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows: I. Earth Resources: Unstable Earth Conditions Potential Significant Impact: Unstable earth conditions could cause significant potential exposure to future structures and humans within the project area. The unstable earth issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of earth instability issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential for significant impacts can be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of specific mitigation measures as outlined below. The mitigation measures 9 10. Festival Events: During major festival events the project would include a variety of street entertainment activities. Some form of people mover system will be installed along Main Street from Front Street to the Arena. This could include a theme related shuttle system, funicular transit system, horse drag cans, or a pedestrian people mover. Such events are forecast to be scheduled during Phase 1 of the project. The circulation system improvements that are essential to adequately access the proposed facilities are anticipated to be constructed and placed in operation during Phase 1 (1996), if the project is approved by the City. It is anticipated that the Phase 2 circulation system improvements can be completed in support of the OTSP as they are appropriate. The streetscape in the Old Town area will be constructed to meet the design guidelines contained in the OTSP. This can include rolled curbs, wooden boardwalk, street amenities (such as benches), and covered arcades. 3.2.4 Parking, Facilities After careful evaluation the City has preliminarily concluded that centralized parking on the periphery of the Old Town will best setwe the land use concept contained in the OTSP and proposed in the Westside Specific Plan. The following facilities are proposed. Front Street Parking Area: Between 450 and 1,000 parking spaces will be provided along the west side of Front Street. At 325 fe per space, approximately 3.5 acres will be devoted to parking. Sixth Street Parkinl; Area: A parking lot is proposed north of Sixth Street. It is anticipated that approximately 440 parking spaces will be provided on grade at this location, but a parking structure could be constructed if deemed economically feasible, An area of approfiraately one to two acres will be devoted to this parking area. It will be constructed during Phase 1. Arena/Hotel Parkin~ Area: Parking spaces and/or a parking structure will be provided adjacent to the Arena and the hotel. It is anticipated that 1,700 parking spaces will be provided for the Arena on approximatelyl2.7acresofland. Anestimated510parkingstallswillbeprovidedinsupportofOldTown entertainment facilities on approximately 4.5 acre site. This parking facility will be constructed during Phase 1. Overflow Parking: If required, overflow parking areas may be constructed either adjacent to Pujol Street near its proposed intersection with the Western By-Pass or to the north along Vincent Moraga Road. Sufficient acreage, initial estimate is 7.65 acre, is available for - 1,025 parking spaces. These areas could be implemented during Phase 1 if required. It is expected that a total of 3,200 permanent parking stalls will be provided to support the project and development within the OTSP. The overflow parking areas are envisioned to provide an additional 1,025 parking spaces for a total of 4,225 spaces. The actual number of parking stalls required will be determined prior to approval of the project and each phase will be conditioned upon actual City parking requirements. 6 C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The entire administrative record, (including the Draft EIR, Technical Appendices and attachments, public comments and City Staff reports, and these facts, findings and statement of overriding considerations) serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The detailed environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Old Town Redevelopment Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the EIR and in the responses to comments which are part of the EIR. Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Chapter 5 of the EIR. Evaluation of growth inducement and irreversible commitment of resources is provided in Chapter 6 of the EIR. The following findings contain a summary of the facts used in making determinations for each environmental issue addressed in the EIR and Initial Study. The City of Temecula and The Zev Buffman Group initiated the proposed project in early 1994. To assist with processing the CEQA environmental documentation, the City retained Tom Dodson & Associates to support the independent review of the project. The City retained qualified experts to prepare technical evaluations of major environmental issues for use in performing its independent review of the project. The following list summarizes the project CEQA review milestones. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. The Initial Study was completed by the City on June 23, 1994. The Notice of Preparation for the project was issued on July 8, 1994 for 30 day public review. A public scoping meeting was held for the project by the City on June 23, 1994. The Draft EIR was released for public review on December 7, 1994. The public comment period began on December 7, 1994 and extended to January 25, 1995. The Final EIR was released to Responsible and Trustee Agencies that commented on the Draft EIR on April 5, 1995. The City Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed project, including certification of the Final EIR and adoption of Statements of Overriding Consideration, on May 15, 1995. The City Council reviewed and approved the project, including certification of the Final EIR and adoption of Statements of Overriding Consideration, on ?????, 1995. D. FINDINGS Presented below are the environmental findings made by the Temecula City Council after its review of the documents referenced above and consideration of written and oral comments on the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project (proposed project) submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council at a public hearing, including all other information provided during the decision-making process. These findings provide a summary of the information contained in the EIR, related technical documents, and the public hearing record that have been referenced by the City Council in making its decision to approve the Master Conditional Use Permit, Westside 7 B.2.2 Westside Specific Plan Development Area In order for the hotel and Wild West Arena to be constructed as part of Phase 1, the City must adopt the Westside Specific Plan and amend the General Plan. The proposed Westside Specific Plan development area encompasses approximate 153. I acres located south and west of Pujol Street. The following is a summary of land uses that are envisioned to be included in the Westside Specific Plan if it is approved by the City. Area A: This area encompasses 47.7 acres and the Plan designates it for Special Evem Commercial (SEC). The SEC designation is designed m be an extension of the OTSP and it will allow for tourist and hotel commemial uses. AHowable uses include wild west type facilities, shows, and support uses, including a variety of public assembly activities. Hotel and supporting retail activities, such as restaurants, service commercial operations, and retail shops would be allowed under this designation. Area B: Area B comprises 5.4 acres of land that is designated Conunity Commercial/Tourist Support (CCTS). The CCTS designation is designed to meet the need for commercial facilities to support SEC uses within the Westside Specific Plan. Area C: Area C cootdins 18.1 acres of land that is designated High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR designations provide multiple family housing to meet the needs of future employees of the proposed project. According to the City, the I--IDR designation would allow a range of 13 to 20 units per acre in the Westside Specific Plan. Assuming 15.1 net acres (excluding wad rights-of-way), the number of residential units that can be constructed as.turning 16 units per acre is 241. Area D: Area D contains 12.7 acres of land that is designated High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR designations provide multiple family housing to meet the needs of future employees of the proposed project. A range of 13 to 20 units per acre is allowed. Assuming 11.8 net acres (excluding road rights-of-way), 16 residential units per acre a total of 188 units can be constructed. Area E: Area E consists of 2.8 acres that is designated Mixed Use (lVlU). This use provides office, commercial, light industrial and overflow parking that will serve the local residents and the commemial uses associated with the A.rene and hotel. Area F: Area F encompasses approximately 67.4 acres of land that is designated Open Space (OS). This area includes the steeper hillsides to the west of die Western By-Pass which will not be developed. The intent is to preserve this axea as potential habitat mitigation and visual open space. About 57.7 acres are forecast to remain undisturbed with the remainder being affected by the footprint of the Western By-Pass. With the exception of the Wild West Arena, hotel and supporting uses in the Special Event Commemial portion of the Specific Plan, the remainder of the land within the Plan is not forecast to undergo development until Phase 2. B.2.3 Circulation System Improvements In order to accommodate the traffic generated by the entertainmere, food and beverage, commercial office, and hotel facilities outlined above, the City has identified a range of 4 circulation and parking system improvements to enhance traffic flow within the OTSP area and the Westside Specific Plan area to the southwest, where the arena and hotel will be located. These improvements are outlined below. First Street: In accordance with the Roadway Improvement and Build-out Recommendations of the General Plan and Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP), Santiago Road (First Street) will be reconstructed from at least Front Street west and south to the Western By-Pass Road in an 88-feet right-of-way. This will include construction of a bridge over Murrieta Creek. This road improvement will be needed during Phase 1 of the project in order to facilitate traffic flow in the OTSP and Westside Specific Plan areas. Sixth Street: Sixth Street may be improved in accordance with the OTSP recommendations. It would be extended south to the Pujol Street/Felix Valdez Street intersection. A new bridge would be required to cross Murrieta Creek. This improvement will be constructed in Phase 2 when traffic demand is sufficient to justify its construction. Felix Valdez Street: Felix Valdez Street will be extended from Rancho California Road to Pujol Street, including straightening the alignment to allow better north-south traffic flow in accordance with the OTSP recommendations. The intersection of Diaz Road/Rancho California Road and Felix Valdez Street would be revised to make Diaz Road/Felix Valdez Street a through route. This improvement will be constructed in Phase 2 when traffic demand is sufficient to justify its construction. Western ByPass: The Western Bypass Road is identified in the General Plan and will be constructed from its intersection with State Highway 79/Interstate 15 interchange within a fight. of-way designed for a four- lane divided roadmy. The By-Pass would be constructed north along the General Plan alignment until it intersects with an extension of Vincent Moraga Drive. Vincent Moraga Drive would be extended to the southwest from its present terminus in the constructed industrial pads through to the Western By-Pass which is located just west of these pads. This route would require coustmction of another bridge across Murrieta Creek. Because this road is essential to access the Wild West Arena and hotel, it will be coustrneted during Phase 1. Puiol Street: Pujol Street will be extended south to intersect with the Western By-Pass. This improvement will be constructed dtLring Phase 1. Main Street: Main Street will be modified to better support pedestrian and local transit circulation from the Old Town core area to the Arena site. The bridge will also be eventually replaced in accordance with the OTSP. It has not yet been determined whether this facility will be improvad during Phase 1 or Phase 2. Sidewalk/Curb lmvrovements: Minor improvements, such as sidewalks and curbs will be installed along Front Street, south of First Street. These improvements will be constructed during Phase 1. Rancho California Road/I-15 Interehamte Improvements: The north bound on-ramp on the 1-15 at Rancho California Road will be recoustmcted to improve traffic flow through this interchange. This improvement is scheduled for implementation, but may not be completed during Phase 1 because it is also dependent upon Calltans and Federal Highway Administration approvals. Traffic Management Ovtions: Within the cenmil potion of Old Town, one or two of the east-west streets (Fourth Street, Main Street, or Third Street) may be closed w vehicular Waffle and become pan of the town square which will be devoted to pedestrian access only during such special events and festival periods. The location of the town sqnaxe may vary depending upon the City's conclusion regarding the best alternative location for the square. 5 Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). As previously noted, two of the structures (the Wild West Arena and the hotel) are located west and south Old Town within the Westside Specific Plan area (WSP). B.2.1 Old Town Core Development Projects The Phase 1 Old Town facilities and improvements are proposed to be developed within the next two years. Phase 2 facilities and improvements will be developed as needed or when economically justifiable. No specific locations have yet been ~nalized for any of the following facilities located within the OTSP area. Several alternative plans have been identified that show facilities on different parcels within the OTSP. The proposed project consists of a conceptual description of the facilities and their proposed activity patterns. The EIR, Chapter 3, contains the detailed descriptions of the proposed facilities and activities. Cabaret Theaters: Two cabaret theaters are proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. Both cabaret theaters would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. One cabaret is proposed to contain about 27,000 square feet (re) and 40 feet high and the second theater is proposed to contain about 45,000 fl'2. These cabarets are designed to entertain a maximtun of about 600 and 900 people per event, respectively. Each show is expected to last for approximately two hours and it is initially anticipated that the theater will hold 13 shows per week. Western Saloons: Two saloons are proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. Both saloons would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project and each saloon is proposed to contain approximately 10,000 fe in a one-two story structure. Each saloon will be designed to entertain approximately 350 persons, 250 at tables and about 100 at or adjacent to the bar. A small stage will be provided for typical bar entenalnment, such as dancing gifts. Staged bar fights, shootouts and other entertainment will be provided. The saloons will operate every day of the week. Overa House: An opera house is proposed to be located in the OTSP. It would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. The opera house is proposed to be a two story structure with the proscehittm approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to encorapass 85,000 ft2 of space with a building footprint of appro:dmately 75,000 re. Estimated seating capacity will be 1,400 persons on the first floor and 800 seats in the balcony. A television and radio studio will occupy appro:dmately 2,500 f't2 within or adjacent to the opera house. It is anticipated that the opera house will have 13 performances per week. ShowbOat: A western showboat facility with a showroom is proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. This facility would be implemented during Phase 2 of the project when adequate demand for additional entenalment space justifies its construction. The showboat will be a two-story structure, with the smokestacks appro,lmately 30 feet high. It is proposed to be approximately 21,000 fta and it would have the capacity to entertain an estimated 600 persons per event, seven days per week. Wild West Arena: A 4,800 seat tent designed wild west arena that will be similar to Buffalo Bill's touring western tern show is proposed to be located just west of OTSP core area within the Westside Specific Plan area. It would be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. This is an outdoor/indoor facility that will operate all year but have a 16 week s~mmer 'high' season. The arena will encompass approylmately 175,000 square feet and the tent poles will raise the height of the facility to approximately 85-90 feet above the ground surface. During the 36 week regular season two shows per week are expected to be performed, primarily on the weekends. During the arena high season it is estimated that several shows will be performed per day, primarily on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 2 Virtual Reality Pavilion(s): Three virma] reality pavilions with two theaters ix~ each are proposed for development within the OTSP. One pavilion with two theaters will be constructed as part of Phase 1 the proposed project. The other two pavilions will be implemented as pan of Phase 2 when sufficient demand justifies their construction. The theaters will be constructed in the Plan core area. Each theater will seat about 50 persons. Maximum occupancy of these two-story structures (height about 25-30 feet) is estimated to be about 200 persons. Each pavilion will encompass about 19,000 ft: for a total of 57,000 ft2 if all thxee pavilions are implemented. Each show requires about five to six minutes with the theater portion nmning about three to four minutes. Performances would be continuous after the facility opens each day, 'Onick Draw" Competition Area: In the Old Town core area a plaza or town square will be constructed which is proposed to contain a quack draw competition area. This facility will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and is proposed to encompass approximately 8,000 f~ outdoors in or adjacent to the plaza. TIffs will be a westemized "police academy" type of facility where an individual will walk through an outdoor maze of targets. Ten people can participate in each five minute trip and scores will be posted on a large electronic board. Hotel: One major hotel is pwposed for const~nction in the vicinity of the wild west arena within the Westside Specific Plan. The initial configuration of the hotel is pwposed to be four stories in height and provide a total of 350 rooms. It is proposed to be constructed during Phase 1 of the project. A 5.7 acre pad will be provided for this facility and it is pwposed to contain appro:~imately 300,000 ft2 of building space. The hotel may be expanded with 150 additional rooms during Phase 2 if sufficient demand justifies such an expansion. The hotel is proposed to include approximately 50,000 ~ of relat~l retail space when constructed in Phase 1 and the range of retail uses includes restaunnts, service commercial uses, and retail commercial uses. An additional 50,000 fe of retail space may be cousWncted during Phase 2 if demand for the commercial capacity is sufficient. Retail Commercial: The City anticipates 50,000 to 100,000 f-t2 of the retail commercial area identified in the OTSP will ultimately be developed in Old Town to support the entertainment facilities/activities. It is estimated that 30,000 fe will be developed during Phase 1 as a component of this project. No specific locations have been selected for these retail activities. 10. Visitors Center/Ticket Office: One or more visitors centers/ticket office facilities will be located in the downtown area for ticket purchases and to provide information. This facility/facilities may encompass up to 5,500 f~ of area. It will be open during normal business hours and during evenings when events are scheduled at the enter~ninment complex. 11. Administrative S~ace: An additional 20,000 square feet of space for administrative offices and back-of- house areas may be conatmcted to support the project. Some of this space may be located within the open house facility and others on the second floor of other structures or within independent structures. The Phase 1 entertainment and support facilities are anticipated to be constructed and opened concurrently in 1996 if approved by the City. It is also anticipated that the first phase of the hotel will be opened in 1996. Phase 2 facilities will be implemented when sufficient demand exists for them to be funded and placed in operations. The entertainment facilities are being designed to operate at a 50% annual utilization rate relative to the capacities identified above, with occasional individual performances being fully booked. 3 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CANDIDATE FACTS, F12NDLNGS AND STATENlENT OF OVERRID!2NG CONSIDERATIONS REGARDENG THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING THE OLD TO~VN REDEVELOPI~IENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA A. INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula, in approving Master Conditional User Permit (Planning Application No. 94-0061), the Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003), Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 (Planning Application No 95-0004) and Development Agreement No. DV95-0001) (the "proposed project"), which will allow the City of Temecula and The Zev Buffman Group to develop entertainment facilities, a hotel, commercial and residential uses, makes the findings of fact described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented at the end of this document. Hereafter, the following documents (Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments and Appendices) will be referred to collectively as "the EIR" for the proposed project. B. PROJECT SUMMARY B.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project encompasses two development areas, Old Town Temecula and the Westside Specific Plan area. The Old Town Specific Plan area in Old Town Temeeula consists of the area between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road/First Street on the north and south, respectively, and the 1-15 Freeway on the east, and essentially, Pujol Street on the West. The Westside Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 153.1 acres south and west of Pujol Street in the City of Temecula. The mapped location of the proposed project areas can be found on the Murrieta and Temecula 7.5' topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, at Latitude 33° 28' North and Longitude 1170 09' West. B.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project envisions the phased construction of twelve entertainment structures, activity areas, parking areas and circulation system modifications, and a hotel. Phase 1 is proposed to be completed within two years of permit issuance by the City. Phase 2 will be implemented some time after two years when demand for facilities is sufficient to justify consauction. The proposed project also includes new land use designations over the 153.1 acre Westside Specific Plan area. Within the Westside Specific Plan area, only the Wild West Arena and hotel are forecast to be constructed during Phase 1. The remainder of the land within the Westside Specific Plan area will be developed at some undefined point in the future. An estimated total of twelve new occupiable structures are proposed for construction as part of the proposed project, and a single parking structure may be constructed in the Old Town area. The entertainment structures are designed to implement the central entertainment concept of the ATTACHNIENT NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECO/VI/MY_,NDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRA/VI ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WHEREAS, Tom Dodson and Associates completed Planning Application No. 95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) under City's direction and in accordance with the City and State CEQA Guidelines; WIIEREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Final Environmental Impact Report (FFjR) which includes the Draft EIR, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations on May 15, 1995, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended Certification of the said FEIR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program; NOW, TtlFREFORE, THE CITY OF TE,MECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES Ri~-~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending Certification of the proposed FEIR, makes the following Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as set forth in fuH, to wit: Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of Planning Application No. 95-0031 (Flq!~), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) for the Old Town Entertainment Project which includes the Master Conditional Use Permit, the Westside Specific Plan, and subsequent development proposals within these areas including but not limited to Development Agreement No. DV95-0001. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May. 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ltEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of May, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ATTACHMENT NO. 6 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 95- ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP R:~STAFFRIr~OTRP.PC 5/11195 v~w 41 SUPERINTENDENT Patdcia B, Novotney, Ed.D, RECEIVED APR 2 5 1995 BOARD Of EDUCATION Barbara Tooker Ros~e Vanderhaak Robert Brown Linda Campbell Richard Shafer April 19, 1995 ns'd ........... Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Westside Specific Plan Dear Mr. Fagan: The Westside Specific Ran does not address the issue of mitigation for the students generated by the proposed housing units within the project. The plan calls for between 348 and 538 high density residential units, which will generate between 223 and 344 new s~udents. The District requests you add as a condition of approval that mitigation fees be paid to the District in accordance with the City of Temecula resolution, in the amount to be approved by the City and Temecula Valley Unified School District. If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340. Sincerely, Temecula Valle Uqified SChool District ~Dixon · Facilities Planning Analyst cc: Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Development 31350 Rancho vista Road,Temecuia, CA 92592 (909~67~-2661 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww \: Z6 May 2, 1995 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ;.-.,!-~ ~ ~ .' Riverside Transit Agency ~:.~'d ............. 1825 Third Street P.O, 8ox 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 RE: I'A 95-0003 Westside Specific Plan and TFM 28011 Applicant: Hancock Development Company, Inc. RTA staff has reviewed the Westside Specific Plan and the associated tentative map 2081 I. The project seems to be a logical, complementary extension of Old Town Temecula, including the connection of the Main Street pedestrian thorough/ire and the remote parking and shuttle service concepts. Curren~y, RTA Route 23 provides local transit service in the Old Town area. RTA would like the opportunity to expand bus service as the area develops. We request construction of bus turnouts on the Western By-Pass Corridor, consistent with the standards in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. We would like to specify turnout locations at the time of site development, if possible, so that the bus stops will facilitate the most convenient access. When the site development plan for the Wild West Arena becomes available, we would also like to review the provisions for on-site bus circulation and the proposed bus parking configuration. RTA bus turnout design guidelines are enclosed for your reference. The adjacent bike lane design might work best with the 8 ft. parking t;r bike lane o~ tbc Western By-Pass corridor. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cis LeRoy Planning Manager enclosures 35 Mr. Matthew Fagan TTM 28011 May 1, 1995 Page 2 The District is currently coordinating with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for information regarding the proposed Murrieta Creek Channel and potential scour depth in the channel. This information is critical to the final District sanitary sewer plan-of-service to the Westside Specific Plan area. Should you have any questions regarding these comment, please feel free to contact me at (909) 925-7676, ext. 4468. Sincerely, Eastern Municipal Water District Kevin L. Crew Senior Customer Service Engineer KLC/cz CC: John Pourkasemi, City of Temecula John Fricker, EMWD J:\WORDPROC\WP~NEW_BUSI.II\CLZ~TrM28011 hncho May 3, 1995 Mr. Matthew Fagan Assistant Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Westside Specific Plan Dear Mr. Fagan: Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has received a copy of the Westside Specific Plan for re,dew. fiAthough we did not receive this document with sufficient time for review and comment prior to the Development Review Committee meeting held on April 27, 1995, our comments follow along the lines of those for the previous Buffman project. The property is within RCWD boundaries and water service is available upon application for service and payment of the appropriate fees. As previously stated in other letters, a hydraulic analysis is needed to properly size the water system needed to serve this project. This analysis and eventual construction of any facilities to be constructed within the Western Bypass needs to be accomplished as soon as possible so contingent construction can be achieved. Please note that RCWD is the local purveyor of reclaimed water within the City of Temecula (City) boundaries. We have discussed the possibility of providing reclaimed water for landscape irrigation purposes along the parkways of the Western Bypass with Mr. Ray Casey of the City's staff. In fact, a 24-inch reclaimed waterline is under design to be constructed within the Western Bypass. Due to limitations for use of reclaimed water, it will not be available for all irrigation purposes. We suggest that the developer and City staff meet with us to discuss this project and RCWD's requirements. ff you should have any questions, please call us. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:eb058/FEG CO: John Hurlhurt, Planning & Capital Projects Manager Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Manager The Homeowner Association or appropriate community service district shall be responsible for the maintenance of the open space arms. Prior to approval of any development plan for land adjacent to open space areas, a fn-e protection/vegetation management plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. All questions regarding the meaning of this conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. Raymond H. Regis Chief Fire Department planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist Lstern Municipal ,,ter May 1, 1995 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Westside Specific Plan - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: GENERAL It is our understanding that the subject project is a proposed Specific Plan and Tentative Map No. 28011 comprised of 154.1 acres, located westerly of Pujol Street in the City of Temecula. The Westside Specific Plan proposes a combination of special event commercial areas, high density residential, and hotel uses. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area, however, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based upon the detailed plan of service, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. The District has been coordinating with the City of Temecula regarding the project and the Old Town Specific Plan. The information shown on Figure 6 in the Westside Specific draft document does not appear to be complete or in accordance with the expected District requirements for the project. The District requires a plan-of-service for the subject project which should be requested by the applicant and accompanied by a minimum $2,500 deposit for preparation of the plan-of-service. The findings of the plan-of-service for sanitary sewer service to the site shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan document. Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. SanJadnro Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E Oaldand Avenue, Hemet, CA Lounty of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH to: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner FROM: ~/Y~OHN C. SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer RE: RECEIVED MAY 2 1995 DATE: Ap~':~k4,.l~95.... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011 - A NINE PARCEL SUBDIVISION - SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 153.1 GROSS ACRES (Westside Specific Plan) WATER/SEWER: John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Engineer, Department of Environmental The referenced tract will require pipe-line extension(s) of the domestic water and sanitax7 sewer system(s). This work would be in concert with the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District. Whenever possible, the nine lots should try to implement the use of reclaimed water which is immediately adjacent to the proposed project. If you should have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. lS:dr :909) 275-8980 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERKIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183 May 10, 1995 TO: ArrH.q: 1~: PLANNING DEPARTM]ENT MA'rrA-n~W FAGAN WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN PA95-0003 - PAS5-0004 With respect to the review and/or approval of the above referenced document, the proposed project will have a cumulative impact on the depa~tment's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls generarod by additional buiJdlngs and human population. A portion of the impacts associated with capitol improvements or one-time costs such as land, building and equipment can be mitigated by developer participation in the fire protection impact mitigation program. However, the annual costs necessary for the incllm.sed rottuber of c-qlh is Only par~any off-set by the county structure fire tax and would mqu'ae an increase in the city general fund portion of the Fire depaxtment's annual operating budget. Fire protection impacts can be mitigated by use of the impact mitigation program and an increase in the annual budget. Therefor, the Fire Department recommends approval of the specific plan subject to the foilowing conditions and/or mitigations. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flow shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of Ordinance No. 460 and/or No 546, subject to approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. The project proponents shall participate in the fire protection impact mitigation program as adopted by the City of Temecula. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant reofmg material. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation ~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Ri~ers_ide, CA 92501 /909) 275-4777 · FAX ~909) 369-7451 FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION PLANNING SECTION 221 ]NDIO OFFICE 79-733 Cuuntry Club Drive, Suite F, Indio. CA 92201 /619) 863-8886 * FAX (619) 863-7072 76. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 77. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 78. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for the proposed land use elements in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan. 79. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit. Total acreage and land uses shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 80. Park land dedication requirements shall be determined for Planning Areas C and D in accordance with the Quimby Ordinance for high density residential development. 81. Upon determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, private recreational facilities within the high density residential areas may be entitled to receive a 50% credit towards Quimby. The remaining park land dedication requirement shall be satisfied through the payment of the equivalent "in-lieu" fees. 82. Quimby requirements shall be satisfied prior to recordation of each phased map. 83. Exterior slopes end landscaping that are adjacent to commercial/industrial development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by the property owner or a private property owners' association. 84. Slopes and open space areas within Planning Area F shall be maintained by the developer, the City, or other agency approved by the City. 85. All landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 86. Class II Bike Lanes shall be provided on site and in conformance with City standards. OTHER AGENCIES 87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated April 24, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 88. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated May 10, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 89. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated May 1, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 90. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated May 3, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 91. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated May 2, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 92. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Temecula Valley Unified School District transmittal dated April 19, 1995, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name R:~TAFFRrr~OTR~.~C ~/H/95 "r" 40 57. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 58. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows pursuant to current City and RCFC&WCD standards, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 59. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and detention basin provision pursuant to the master drainage plan and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 60. The Developer shall accept end properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. 61. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. Water and Sewer 62. A master water plan shall be reviewed and approved by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and the City prior to approval of subsequent development applications. Specific mitigation requirements shall be conditioned of the project at that time. Water facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of RCWD and the City. 63. A master sewer plan shall be reviewed and approved by Easter Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the City prior to approval of subsequent development applications. Specific mitigation requirements shall be conditioned of the project at that time. Sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of EMWD and the City. 64. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications or recordation of any subsequent maps, or issuance of building permit, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Westside Specific Plan development. Grading 65. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to subsequent development application approval. 66. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 67. 68. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 69. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. · Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. · Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material. · Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. · Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed pursuant to the approved erosion control plan or as directed by the Department of Public Works. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or plot plan for each phase of proposed development. 75. 49. Certain project related parking and circulation improvements will be implemented with the future development of Westside Soecific Plan as identified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study, prepared by Robert Khan, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 1995, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis of the Old Town Redevelopment Project, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1994, and the General Plan Build Out Traffic Impact Study of the Old Town Redavelopment Project, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, dated March 1995. Pursuant to submittal of subsequent development applications associated with the Westside Specific Plan, ensuing traffic reports, parking studies, and public facilities' analyses determining respective project specific and cumulative impacts identifying implementation responsibilities and the timing of necessary improvements shall be provided. These studies shall be subject to review and the individual project shall be conditioned accordingly and required right-of- way be reserved as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. The mitigation options to be considered are as follows: Page 35 of the CMP analysis specifies the Extension of Puiol Street southerly to intersect Western Bypass Corridor. Page 35 of the CMP analysis specifies improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road interchanoe. The improvements may include "a "loop" on ramp accommodating eastbound to northbound movements". Page 4 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "widening of the Rancho California Road bridge (on the south side) to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane". Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "construction of a southbound loop on ramp in the northwest ~luadrant of the I-15/Rancho California Road interchanoe". Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "construction of a new southbound off ramp at Santiago Road" (as an alternative). Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends improvements to the I-15/SR79s interchange. The improvements may include widening SR79s to accommodate additional vehicular turning movements and/or an southbound loop off ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "a realignment of Diaz Road north of Rancho California Road and the realignment of Puiol Street/Felix Valdez Street to make Diaz Road/Felix Valdez Street/Pujol Street a continuous north-south route may be implemented". Alternatively, a realignment of Diaz Road north of Rancho California Road to align with Vincent Moraga Drive shall be studied. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "Sixth Street may be extended westerly to intersect Pujol Street. This would require a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek". R:\$TAFFRIrfiOTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 35 Provision of adequately sized parking lots in compliance with the Old Town Specific Plan at locations specified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study to satisfy the parking demands. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "some form of people-mover system (local transit system) shall be provided along Main Street between Front Street (on the east) and the Arena (on the west). This could include a theme related shuttle system, funicular transit system, horse-drawn carts, or an actual pedestrian people-mover. In addition, as necessary, provision of some sort of shuttle system during periods of peak activity to transport patrons to/from parking facilities potentially located on the periphery of the project site". 50. A signing program shall be developed on I-15 which directs Project traffic to the SR79s interchange. 51. A Trip Reduction Plan shall be developed which includes local/internal traffic circulation and parking requirements of the Project. This plan shall address both vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including the Project's proposed people-mover and shuttle systems. 52. Supplemental onsite focused traffic studies shall be required to analyze access, stacking, and local circulation issues associated with more definitive development applications shall be submitted prior to subsequent approvals. 53. The Developer is responsible to dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the infrastructure improvements within and/or adjacent to the Westside Specific Plan including but not limited to the Western Bypass Corridor, First Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive. 54. In the event that an Assessment District is not formed for the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor and Vincent Morage Drive, half-width plus one 18-foot lane off site street improvements shall be constructed within dedicated rights-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. Signalization, acceleration/deceleration lanes and additional intersection improvements shall also be provided as directed by the Department of Public Works. Bonds may be posted in lieu of construction. Drainage 55. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 56. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan and hydrology/hydraulic reports analyzing adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities including the proposed retention design to the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD for approval. Pursuant to subsequent development applications, the created runoff and drainage impacts shall be analyzed and necessary mitigation measures shall be implemented. R:\STAFFRP~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 viw 36 45. 46. 47. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on mitigation measures identified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental impact Report and associated studies and as required by public/utility agencies. Any substantive changes to phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a phasing application. A phasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Westside Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report and associated studies and public/utility agencies requirements must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Pursuant to submittal of subsequent development applications associated with the Westside Specific Plan and/or substantive revisions to the proposed phasing plan, ensuing traffic reports, parking studies, and public facilities' analyses determining respective project specific and cumulative impacts identifying implementation responsibilities and the timing of necessary improvements shall be provided. These studies shall be subject to review and the individual project shall be conditioned accordingly and required right-of-way be reserved as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. In compliance with the Site Traffic Impact Analysis of the Old Town Redevelopment Project ~ Phase I, as prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1994, the following infrastructure improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy: Page 40 of the study states that "at the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 {I-15) north ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or restripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on-ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right turn lane, end one right turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on-ramp, widening and/or restriping may be required just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north". Page 19 of the study states that "at the State Route 79 south (SR79s)/I-15 interchanae, the I-15 north ramp and south ramp intersections with SR79s will be signalized, (and widened to provide additional through and turn lanes)". These improvements are currently identified in the Engineer's Report for Assessment District 159 and scheduled to begin construction by the end of 1995. Page 43 of the study states that "the Western Bvoass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed from the I-15/SR79s interchange to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Between the I-15/SR79sinterchange and the new R:'~STAFFRPT~OTPJP.I~C 5/11195 vgw 33 48. bridge over Murrieta Creek, a four lane, divided cross section shall be constructed, thereby providing two through lanes per direction plus a separate left turn lane at major intersections. West of Murrieta Creek to Vincent Moraga Drive, the street section may be reduced to a two lane, divided cross, thereby providing one through lane per direction plus a two way left turn lane and/or a separate left turn lane at major intersections". Page 43 of the study states that "Vincent Moraaa Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) shall be extended south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass (refer to the above item). A two lane, divided cross section shall be constructed, thereby providing one through lane per direction plus a two way left turn lane/or a separate left turn lane at major intersections (including parkway improvements and sidewalks)". The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate this same street section. Page 43 of the study states that "In relation to the above item, Ridoe Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive". Page 43 of the study indicates that "the Front Street/Santiaao Road/First Street intersection shall be redesigned to provide a four legged intersection via the removal of the existing First Street east leg of this intersection. The existing First Street east leg shall be "relocated" and shall operate as a "T" intersection with Front Street between Santiago Road and Second Street". Page 43 of the study states that "Front Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) from the Front Street/Santiago Road/First Street intersection shall be extended west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. A four lane, undivided, cross section, thereby providing two through lanes per direction (including a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, sidewalk and parkway improvements, and street lights); however, at major intersections, a separate left turn lane shall also be provided". Page 43 of the study states that "a traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of California Department of Transportation) indicates the Front Street/Western Bvoass Corridor intersection shall be signalized. It is recommended, therefore, that traffic volumes be monitored at this location to determine the precise scheduling of this installation. Moreover, when constructed this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the two traffic signals proposed at the I-15/SR79s interchange". Page 44 of the study states that "(once the First Street bridge is operational) the existing Main Street bridoe over Murrieta Creek may be restricted to pedestrian and local transit circulation". Sufficient parking and a local transit system shall be provided pursuant to the attached alternative scenarios to satisfy the parking demands of the project in compliance with the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study, prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 1995. R:'~STAFFRF'I~OTRP.PC 5111/95 vgw 34 29. Residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass Road that place residences within the 65 dB CNELd. noise contour shall install sound attenuation barriers or walls sufficient to reduce noise to a level below this significance threshold. Prior to the Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 30. Berming and landscaping shall be employed to conceal and soften visual impacts of parking areas. 31. A bond or equivalent commitment, as provided by City ordinance, shall be provided by the developer to ensure that all cut slopes can be revegetated after grading. 32. The applicant shall provide at least one day-care facility for employees working for the hotel and entertainment complex facilities. This facility can be provided on site or arrangements can be made with an offsite professional day-care provider(s) to meet the day-care needs of up to 2,400 employees. 33. Preferential parking shall be provided for car and van pools for employees. A plan illustrating preferential parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for the Westside Specific Plan. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. General Conditions 34. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider, 35. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 36. Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. 37. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 38. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent development application. 39. The Developer shall pay off any remaining assessment balance(s) or reapportion the remaining assessment(s) for any Financing District including the property based on the proposed specific plan. Circulation 40. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 41. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to the sites shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. 42. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances, standards, or as subsequently recommended in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Traffic Studies. 43. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. Accesses proposed from Western Bypass Corridor, First Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive to the site are conditional upon Director of Public Work's approval. 44. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. R:\STAFFP, P'BOTRP.PC ~/11/¢)5 vgm 3~ 15. Construction activities at the Western Bypass crossing over Murrieta Creel< shall be limited to daylight hours until the bridge is completed, except in an emergency as defined by the City. 16. Ownership of domestic dogs and cats for residential development within Areas C and D of the Westside Specific Plan shall be restricted. The restriction shall apply to all domestic dogs and cats and shall allow ownership of such animals only when they can be fully managed within the individual residence. 17. Transit facilities shall be installed at centralized locations within Old Town and the hotel/arena complex. The City shall work with regional transit agencies to provide service to these locations in the future when such transit service becomes available. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 18. To offset the loss of 64.6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the Chamise Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities within the project area the applicant shall implement one of the following measures: a) Acquire 97 acres of high quality Gnatcatcher habitat (1.5:1 ratio based on discussions with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Staff) and transfer ownership of the land or open space easements (which prevent any future use other than open space) and management responsibility for the property to the Riverside County Parks Department or other agent acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. This habitat shall be purchased within the Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Margarita River Potential Reserve area as identified within the Riverside County "Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan", or at a location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. An endowment of $50,000 shall be provided for use by the designated management agency to enhance wildlife carrying capacity of the 97 acres set aside as mitigation for this project; or b) pay fees as determined through negotiations with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Department of Fish and Game to an agent authorized by these two agencies for purchase of land-banked compensation habitat. 19. To offset the loss of up to one acre of Riparian/Wetland habitat in Murrieta Creek, the applicant shall develop two acres of RiparianANetland habitat or habitat improvements in the immediate area of the Western Bypass bridge crossing, or at an alternative location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. The requirements of this measure can be superseded by any alternative mitigation or compensation developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and Game 1601/1603Agreement. The plans for the two acres of RiparianRVetland enhancement shall be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation. 20. A silt fence or alternative acceptable to the City and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be installed downstream of construction activities in Murrieta Creek to control siltation downstream of the construction site. The performance standard used for this measure shall be sufficient control to prevent downstream siltation that can cause degradation of the aquatic/riparian/wetland habitat. R:\STAFFRPT~OTI~P.PC 5/11/95 vgw 29 21. The applicant shall install fences or other measures to control human access from the Western Bypass to the west, except in Area D of the Westside Specific Ran. The City will require access controls around the boundary of Area D and the adjacent wildlife habitat when this area develops. 22. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 23. An earth berm or sound attenuation wall and landscaping be installed on the ridge above the houses on Pujol Street to minimize noise levels at the nearest residences. 24. Slope grading techniques on the slope facing Pujol Street shall aim to blend with the existing nature of the topography. Grading techniques shall emphasize slope contouring including contour undulation and variable slopes. In addition, tops and toes of slopes shall be rounded. Hard edges and angles are to be avoided. Slopes shall be designed to smoothly blend with remaining existing topography. 25. Grading on the slope edge facing Pujol Street shall be revegetated or landscaped immediately upon completion of grading activities, concurrent with project development. Landscaping shall be natural in appearance and linear arrangements of landscaping are to be avoided. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 26. A landscape plan shall be completed for review and approval by the Director of Planning. This plan shall provide for full revegetation of the Western By*Pass and First Street cut slopes utilizing native/ornamental plants which will serve as a fire buffer area. On the constructed building pads, the landscape plan shall include the planting of large trees (minimum 4" diameter) immediately after construction of the pads is completed. The effect of the revegetation plan will be to blend the slopes into the natural coastal sage scrub and chamisal chaparral communities west of the Western By-Pass Road. The revegetation goal for the pads will be to visually screen and soften the effect of the flat, graded and paved pads. 27. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated in a manner that does not result in overland flows of surface water and the discharge of fertilizer and pesticide contaminated surface runoff to Murrieta Creek. The landscape designs and irrigation systems shall be reviewed to verify runoff controls are adequate to prevent inadvertent surface runoff. 28. Along the west and east sides of the Western By-Pass Corridor, a fire and vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Department, RCFD, and CDF for review and approval. This plan shall provide a sufficient buffer of fire retardant planrings to ensure that structures on the east side of the road are not exposed to wildland fire hazards from a fire in the chaparral on the west side of the road. R:\STAFFRF~OTRP.PC ~111195 v~w 30 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95..0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN) R:\STA~OTRP.PC SI11/95 vgw ~7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 95-0003- Westside Specific Plan Project Description: A Specific Plan containing six planning areas ranging in size from 2.8 gross acres to 67.4 gross acres. Within the Specific Plan there are five {5} land use designations that correspond to the planning areas. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 940-310-013, 940-320-001,940-320-002, 940-320- 003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005,940-320-006 and 940-320-007 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements 12. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Westside Specific Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. 13. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within Planning Application No. 95-0031 (Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report). 14. During all construction periods within and/or adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitat (Chamise Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, or Riparian/Wetland), the applicant shall provide temporary fencing at the boundary between areas to be disturbed/graded and areas to remain undisturbed. In areas where fencing is not possible, the applicant shall survey and mark construction area boundaries and shall retain a qualified biologist with authority to stop construction activity when it construction extends beyond these boundaries. Any disturbances outside of designated areas of disturbance shall be restored to comparable habitat quality of the adjacent undisturbed habitat. R:~TAFFRFI~OTRP.PC 5111/95 vgw 28 land uses that support these objectives. The project will preserve significant open space area. Approximately 67.4 gross acres of the slopes west of the Western By-Pass Corridor (Westside Parkway), east of the City Limit will remain in an open space designation, with no development proposed on the site. Goal 5 of the Open Space/Conservation Element of the City's General Plan calls for "Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features." 2. The project is consistent with Government Code Section 65450. The Specific Plan contains the information required under Article 8 of the Government Code, and meets the intent of the Specific Plan as defined by state law. 3. The project will result in the construction of General Plan Roads and other infrastructure. The Western By-Pass Corridor is identified in the General Plan as the "Westside Parkway," a Secondary Highway. First Street is also identified in the Circulation Plan as a Principal Collector. The certified Final Environmental Impact Report and subsequent development proposals for this project will require that the potions of these roads that will be affected by this project be built as mitigation for the project. Additional infrastructure improvements including, but not limited to, storm drain improvements, water and sewer improvements, and other utilities will need to be completed as part of this project. 4. The project, as condifioned, will have adequate access. The Circulation Plan within the Westside Specific Plan provides vehicular access to the project site from the Western By-Pass Corridor (Westside Parkway), Vincent Moraga Drive and First Street. Pedestrian access is provided throughout the project site, along the projects' roads, as well as from Main Street. Additional access to the site shall be by transit service. 5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Specific Plan contains adequate provisions that will buffer sensitive uses from non-sensitive uses. 6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. a. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 95-0003, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of FEIR Planning Application No. 95-0031, adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Old Town Entertainment Project which includes the Westside Specific Plan and subsequent development proposals within this area. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. 95-0003 to change the zoning on 154.1 acres of land from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to Specific Plan on property generally located west of Pujol Street, east of the City of Temecula' Western border, south of Ridge Park Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 940-310-013, 940- 320-001,940-320-002,940-320-003,940-320-004,940-320-005,940-320-006 and 940-320-007 R:XS'T..~d~qU,~OTm,.PC 5/n/95 ~ 25 subject to the following ~nditions: A. Exhibit A, aUached hereto. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I R]~REBy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of May, 1995 by the following vote of th= Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORN}uIJ, SECRETARY R:XSTAFFRPT~OTR. P.PC 5/11/95 v~z 26 CITY OF TEMECULA BP BP BP j'k, CC H ~p BP BP '\ BP F RH H M '~ LM : VL RH OS VL OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXHIBIT-A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 15, 1995 R:/STAFFRPT/OTRP.PC 5/10'95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA F~'4 -S OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 15, 1995 ZONING MAP CITY OF TEMECULA OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXHIBIT- C MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 15, 1995 CITY OF TEMECULA LAN~ USr- / CIRCULATION PLAN P~STSI~E 5P~,~.IFiC PLAN OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXHIBIT-D WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 15, 1995 R:\STAFFRPT\OTRP.PC 5/10/95 CITY OF TEMECULA OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXHIBIT - E TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 15, 1995 R:\STAFFRPT\OTRP.PC 5/10/95 lab ATTACHN[ENTNO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 95~ A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMiMlrgSION OF TFIF. CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 9~-0003 (WESTSIDE SPECWIC PLAN) AND CHANGING ~ ZONE FROM R-A-20 (RF~IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - TWENTY ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO SPECWIC PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERA! .!.Y LOCATED WEST OF PUJOL STREET, EAST OF ~ C1TY'S WESTERN BORDER SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 940310-013,940-320- 001, 940-320-002, 940-320-003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, 940-320-006 AND 940-320-007 WtW. REAS, Hancock Development Company fried Planning Application No. 95-0003 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County I~nd Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHF. REAS, Planning Application No. 95-0003 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. 95-0003 on May 15, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be hoard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 95-0003; NOW, T!~REFO RE, ~ PLANNING COMlVlISSION OF THY~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. 95-0003, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The project as conditioned is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan Specific Plan Area Overlay. The General Plan requires: "in areas identified as Specific Plan Overlay, with an aggregate area of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use enti~ement or issuance of any building or grading permit." Further, the General Plan key objectives for this Specific Plan Area are to: "provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area and to increase the range of housing opportunities west of 1-15." The Westside Specific Plan contains R:\STAFFRF~OTI~P.PC 5111195 vgw 24 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 95- PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0061 MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ATTACItME~NT NO. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMI~NDING ~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN TFIF~ CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0003, CHANGING TFIF~ ZONE PROM R-A-20 (IIF.~IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - TWENTY ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO SPECITIC PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF PUJOL STREET, EAST OF T~F. C1TY'S WESTERN BORDER SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCF. L NUMBERS 940310-013,940-320-001, 940-320-002, 940-320003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, 940-320-006 AND 940- 320007 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CAL~ORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLTX)WS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Planning Application No. 95-0003 and in the above rifle, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Notice of Adoption. within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:~TAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 42 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 199 . Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: COUNCILM~MBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILM~MBERS June S. Greek, CityClerk R:'SrAFFRP~OTV..P.PC s/n/gs vs-,/ 43 ATTACHMENT N0.8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- PLANNING APPLICATION N0.95-0004 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011 5.5"- ! ~' [,, Pa--[ t s.s"-+-7..t t 7y t" 7.s"-+.' Re~ ",i. Dimensions for All Folds Be Hxacdy 8 ~n x 1'I PLANS AR~ TO BE FOLDED IN SINGLE SHZETS ~ First GrOup -- ! ot Folds I .~ Req'& 7.r Second Group of Folds , Pla'ts riot folded in this manner :;'ill not. be accepted for review RTA luly 26, 1994 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Planning Application 94-0061 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street Riverside. CA 92507-348. BUS (909) 684~850 FAX (909) 684~1007 RECEIVED JUI 2 8 199zf .......... Master CUP for Old Town Te:~2~ RTA staff has reviewed the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan and the environmental review materials associated with the project. We applaud the City's plan to develop a ..theme-related shutfie service, as described in the Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Shutfie service would definitely complement the pedestrian-friendly environment of Old Town and facilitate the development of consolidated parking on the periphery, as planned. Early planning and broad-based support will be essential to the success of a shut fie service in Old Town Temecula. Since a shutfie would benefit the project area as a whole, we suggest that the master CUP be used to set contribution requirements for future permittees. Please feel free to contact RTA for assistance with transit planning and service in Old Town and throughout the City of Temecula. Sincerely, Cis LeRoy ~ Planning Manager '.c154 F. c155 c156 c157 c158 c159 c16~ c161 c162 c163 c164 c165 c166 c167 c168 G. IRRIGATION DESIGN - CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAY AND CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAY Page 16 (FREEWAy] If Caltrans has water and/or electrical service avail- able in the area, the new irrigation may be connected to the existing facilities, provided the permittee assumes the costs for the water; otherwise new separate utilities for the proposed planting must be provided. Irrigation lines proposed under paved surfaces shall be installed in conduit. Separate control valves for supply lines operating overhead sprinklers at the top, intermediate and toe of slopes shall be provided. Bubbler or low flow sprinklers used on slopes 4:1 or greater should be pressure compensating or be equipped with pressure Compensating devices. All systems shall be designed to allow no more than a 5 ~eet per second (fps) water velocity. Each planting group (e.g., ground cover, trees, shrubs) shall be watered with separate control valves where possible. Irrigation systems shall be designed and operated to minimize fogging, and overspray of water onto paved surfaces. Uniform water coverage shall be provided when using overhead sprinklers. Design irrigation systems to operate properly at the lowest available pressure. 10. Drip irrigation or subterranean irrigation may be used if approved by the Permits Landscape Architect. Shut off valves shall be provided to isolate groups of control valves or areas of the irrigation system when servicing or shutting off sections of the system. 12. Anti-siphon/anti-drain valves shall be required on supply lines and sprinklers located on slopes in order to minimize toe of slope drainage. 13. To minimize drainage at the toes of slopes, anti- siphon/anti-drain valves are required on supply lines and sprinklers located on slopes. 14. Irrigation design must conform to Caltrans' current water conservation standards and policies. IRRIGATION DESIGN - CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAY Irrigation systems shall not be allowed unless adequate facilities exist to remove excess water. ~c169 c170 c171 c172 c173 c174 c175 c176 c177 c178 Page 17 A gate valve shall be installed within State right of way where the supply line(s) enter the right of way. Valves and backflow preventer (if installed) shall be installed outside the right of way unless between .. warerings they are not under pressure; by the use of master remote control valve. A subsurface drainage system shall be provided in irrigated medians to prevent water flowing onto the roadway. The drainage system should also prevent lateral infiltration of water into structural section of roadway and shall be approved by the District Permit Engineer.~ ADDITIONAL NEEDED ITEMS The connection(s) to the State culvert(s) must have a clean- out at the point of connection. Projects costing more than $300,000 in highway improvement - work will require a "Project Study Report". An approved Site Plan with a copy of the local agency "Con- ditions of Approval" should be included with the encroach- ment application. Six (6) sets of plans are required to circulate your pro- posed project for review. Plans must be 24" x 36" (maximum size)· Plans must be individually folded 8-1/2"' per attached diagram. x 11", The following should also be submitted if applicable: Environmental Document Copy'of the engineer's cost estimate Copy of the Conditions of Approval These comments may not be all inclusive. An effort has been made to identify all concerns, however, due to the number and range of comments it is possible that some (plans and/or specifications) omissions may have been overlooked. When · the above comments have been incorporated into the Plans and Special Provisions, another review of both will be made at that time. Assuming all items have been satisfactorily addressed, final comments will be made including recommendations on signal shut-down times and "As-Built" Plans. Please do not call f~r a status on your encroachment permit application until 30 calendar days after all pertinent documents, plans, information, etc., Have been submitted. However, if you have technical questions, please call the Permit office on (909) 383-4526 or 383-4536. Page c133 ~134 C135 c) Shrubs that.naturally grow over three feet (3~) high should not be allowed within twenty-five feet (25') of any driveway or intersecting private road. GROUND COVER a) Grass or an approved ground cover may be planted under permit between the curb and right of way line,.provided it is maintained for safe pedestri- an traffic. b) where ground cover other than grass is desired, the planted area shall be no longer than 50 feet' without leaving at least a five-foot (5') unplant- ed walkway between curb and sidewalk area for pedestrian crossing. ~136 ~137 c138 ~39 ~40 ~_42 c) No ungrouted decorative stone, gravel or loose material will be allowed for ground cover. TREE WELLS When planting is proposed in areas paved or to be paved between curb and right of way line, tree wells are required. The following conditions shall apply for such installations: a) b) Tree well design and installation shall consider the safety of pedestrian traffic. Tree wells in paved areas shall be a minimum of three feet (3') bythree feet (3') square. The street side of tree wells shall be parallel with the curb. Allow for a four foot (4') by four foot (4') tree well where possible. c) d) Trees should be planted in the center of any tree well. Tree wells should be made safe for pedestrians. Tree wells flush with the grade of pavement are required. e) At least two lengths of four-inch (4") diameter perforated plastic pipe or four-inch (4") diameter cardboard tubes should be installed vertically in opposite corners of each tree well. The pipe should be f~lled with two-inch crushed rock to provide for deep watering. f) Tree wells shall be provided with root barriers. c144 C145 C146 C147 c148 C149 C150 C151 C152 c153 Page 15 CONTAINER PLANTS The installation of container plants shall follow the appropriate general planting guidelines in addition to the following conditions: a) Containers will bepermitted only when: there is an existing speed zone of 35 miles per hour or less; there is a curb or other barrier between the traveled way and the container; and the container will'not lower sight distance below required stan- dards. b) Square or circular plant containers shall be con- structed of wood,'metal, concrete, brick or other appropriate material. Circular concrete contain- ers are most desirable. o) The size of plant containers shall not exceed the- available space between a point two feet (2') back of the curb face (in medians, six feet back of the curb face) and a point five feet (5') in front of the right of way line. In most cases, dimensions of the containers should not exceed four feet by four feet (4' x 4') for a square container or a diameter of four feet (4') for circular contain- ers. d) Public liability insurance shall be required, the minimum amount being $10,000.00, where permits are issued for installing plant containers. Govern-. mental agencies are exempt from the insurance requirement, but a bond may be required under certain circumstances. e) Plant containers shall be secured to the sidewalk to prevent overturning or shifting and placed to avoid creating a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The permittee shall be responsible for temporary relocation when necessary to install, repair, or replace underground facilities. f) The type of tree or shrub desired in the container should be specified in the permit application. g) Proper maintenance of the plant and the container is a requirement of the permit. Containers fre- quently become unsightly because of litter or unkept plants. h) Maintain trees so that the lowest limbs are at least seven feet (7') above the sidewalk surface. i) Containers with trees or shrubs are not to be use for an advertising display. kcll2 c113 c114 C115 c116 C117 B. c118 C. C119 D, c120 c121 Page 12 Existing features such as high hazard utilities, street names, guard rail, signs, edge of pavement (shoulder), plants, irrigation, curbs, sidewalks, slopes (2:1, etc.), ditch flow lines, walls and fences shall be. shown on the plans. Existing features to be removed also should be noted on the plans. The permittee is required to submit copies of correspondence to verify utility information. A general location map shall be provided with the plans and should show at the minimum, city limits, county lines, public roads, highways, limits of work, north arrow, scale and other features. Botanical name and common name, quantities, size of plants, e.g., 1-gallon, flats, and spacing (setbacks), etc., shall be indicated on the plans. Permittee is required to use Caltrans standard details, plant list, planting specifications sheet, and special provisions (all obtained from Permits Landscape Archi- - tect) where applicable. Irrigation plans should indicate electrical and water sourcelocation(s), and the name, address and phone number of responsible utility service company. Water connection information should include: a) Source(potable or reclaimed water) b) Available water pressure c) Meter size (inches) d) GPM & PSI at water meter DESIGN GUIDELINES Chapter 900 of the "Highway Design Manual" (obtained from Permits Landscape Architect) shall be followed in preparing plans. The following design guidelines supplement "Planting Design Standards" in Chapter 900. GENERAL ' Disturbed areas on State right of way, which will not be landscaped, shall be treated with erosion control. PLANTING DESIGN - CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAY AND CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAY (FREEWAY] Plants shall be located so as not tO obstruct motorist clear vision of any highway signs and signals. Floodlighting or lighting directed at trees or plants is not allowed. No planting should be located where it will interfere with sprinkler coverage. c~22 C123 c124 c125 E. c126 c127 c128 c129 c130 c131 C132 Page 13 Plants selected for use near pedestrian areas shall be free from thorns, heavy pollens, messy fruit and ber- ries or seed pods, poisonous parts, etc. Plants selected should be expected to live a minimum of 20 years. Plant selection, spacing and setbacks shall conform to the "Master Plant List" (obtained from Permits Land- scape Architect) unless otherwise required under "Plan- ting Design" of this section or approved by the Permits Landscape Architect. PLANTING DESIGN - CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAY 1 · GENERAL a) Planting located near intersections of public streets shall conform to the sight distance stan- dards in Chapter 200 and 400 of the "Highway De- sign Manual". 2. TREES a) Trees shall be planted a minimum of five feet from any walkway unless planted in paved areas between a curb and building entrance. (5,) b) Trees should not be planted within one hundred feet (100') of the nearest intersecting public street or in positions that restrict sight dis- tance. Distance is measured from the nearest ' intersecting right of way line. c) d) Trees should be planted a minimum of two and one half feet (2.5') behind the curb. Trees should be located a minimum distance of ten feet (10') from. any driveway, utility pole, fire plug, or to the rear of any highway sign. e) Spreading trees should be planted a minimum of thirty feet center to center· 3. SHRUBS a) Shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they will not grow closer than two feet (2') from be- hind the curb and five feet (5') from the right of way line. -- b) Shrubs or high-growing ground cover may be in beds no longer than fifty feet (50') in length with at least a five foot (5') interval between beds to allow pedestrian traffic from the curb to the sidewalk. :c 85 c86 c87 c88 c89 c90 c91 c92 c93 c94 c95 c96 c97 c98 c99 cl00 cl01 Page 10 Any work involving signals and/or lighting shall be at no cost to the State unless prior agreements were made which shall have included all the supporting documentation, i..e., DEIR's, Traffic Studies, and Traffic Warrants. The acclden- tal destruction of State facilities during construction shall be replaced in-kind at no cost to the State. Further- more, any damage resulting in signal failure shall be re- paired immediately. Loop detector placement and designations shall be consistent with the attached "typical detection layout". No detector loop shall be installed in the path of a drive- way or other intersection. The Conductor and Pole Schedules are not guide.statements, they shall be complete and accurate. Lighting conductors shall not enter the signal cabinet. controller Lumin~aires shall be furnished without photoselectric unit receptacles. If the luminaire housing is provided with a hole for the receptacle, the hole shall be closed in a weather-proof manner. Only one (1) lamp-type ballast shall be used. Overhead clearance of utility lines must be addressed. A service wiring diagram shall be provided. Provide a stub-out for future coordination. Controller software shall be approved by Caltrans. The intersection lighting schedule shall not be interrupted. Signal shut-downs shall be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except holidays. No shut-downs shall occur after 12:00 noon on a Friday preceding a holiday. The electrical inspector shall be notified 48 hours prior to performing any work that may cause damage to the existing signal system so that immediate adjustments or repairs can be made to maintain the system in operation. Traffic Operations shall be notified at least 7 days in advance of the anticipated "turn on" of signal controller from a new signal system and/or newly added phasing on existing signal controllers for modified signal systems. Wattage and mounting height of street lights should be specified. Unless otherwise specified, conduit runs across a State highway shall be 3". Page ll C102 C103 C104 C105 C106 IV. C107 C108 C109 C110 "Turn on" shall be performed on the following day after all other work is completed and satisfactory. The State will perform maintenance, energy and operation on the signal and lighting facilities. Maintenance and opera- tion cost will be shared with the city and/or the county as per Section 9 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Ownership will be the same as in the maintenance participation. At the completion of work, it shall be the permit applican- t's responsibility to provide six (6) blueline sets of "as- built" prints for signals and electrical work and one (1) blueline set' for civil work. Please send a copy of the approved permit with plans and specifications to L.A. Material Lab, Attention Gene Alexan- der. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION You shall furnish this office with a letter stating that you or the local agency will "own and maintain the proposed landscaping and irrigation system in an attractive and safe condition for the life of the highway planting". All landscape planting, other than required replacement of existing plants, will be covered by an "own and maintain condi- tion" contained in the encroachment permit (or separate permit an needed). These conditions shall remain in effect for a specific time period as defined in the permit and/or Cooperative Highway Improvement Agreement of public agency/private party, as applica- ble~ A. PLAN STANDARDS Plans shall be prepared and signed by a Registered Landscape Architect. The name, registration seal, expiration date and telephone number of the Landscape Architect and Irrigation Designer (if appropriate) is to be shown on the plans. Plans shall be drawn on a 24-inch by 36-inch size sheet at 50-scale (20-scale when appropriate). Scale and north arrow shall be indicated on the plans. State right of way line and centerline of highway shall be shown and labeled. Stations (100' on center) should be indicated on the centerline. c111 4. All existing highway striping, except on freeways, must be shown. c60 c61 c62 C63 c64 c65 c66 c67 c68 C69 c70 c71 Page 8 GRADING PLANS The Grading Plans must include existing and proposed con- tours with finished surface and flow line elevations called out at control points. Cross-slopeand side-slope ratios must be indicated on the plans. The top and toe of the side slopes must be indicated for the proposed grading. The profile of drainage facilities shall be provided, i.e., channels, pipes, ditches, etc. Hydrology and hydraulic calculations must be provided for all new drainage systems calculated at 100-year storm (Q10- 0). When a connection is to be made to an existing culvert in the State right of way, the junction structure shall have a cleanout; this may be a Flood control District design. The flow in an unlined channel shall not exceed the permis- sible velocity stipulated in Table 862.2 of the State High- way Design Manual. All lined channels must be constructed per Table 872.2 of the Highway Design Manual. STRIPING AND SIGNING PLAN The Striping and Signing Plan may be shown on the Street Improvement Plans, but separate Striping and Signing Plans are preferred. All existing signs and striping must be shown, identified, and dimensioned according to the Traffic Manual details. All relocated and new signing and striping must be shown, identified, and dimensioned according to the Traffic Manual details. All existing and proposed signals and detector loops must be identified. All striping, marking, and markers must be shown and must conform to the State Traffic Manual. TRAFFIC CONTROL The permittee shall install and maintain all traffic control devices as necessary to maintain public safety. All work within 6' of the shoulder will require closure of the shoul- der. All work within 6' of the traveled way will require closure of that lane. ,.e'7 2 2 C73 c74 C75 c76 c77 C78 c79 c80 CS1 c82 c83 c84 Page 9 The Traffic Control Plan shall clearly show: lane closure, placement of temporary barrier railing Type K (K-rail), detour, direction of travel for traffic, all signage type, existing sign locations, new sign locations, and relocated sign locations. Any stage construction shall be presented clearly showing the traffic control for each stage. All general notes related to traffic control need to be placed on the plan. Traffic 3 p.m., traffic traffic traffic ment to Control is generally authorized only from 9 a.m. to Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. On high volume highways, work may be limited to low volume .hours (night work) as determined by a Caltrans study. Changes to the State times require an amend- the permit or as authorized in the original permit. The Traffic Control Plan is to be signed by the Registered Engineer responsible for the plan. The State inspector shall close down any project found to have a lane closure without the required signage provisions' and/or other required signing placement. ELECTRICAL PLAN Any work involving electrical lighting will require a 50- scale Electrical Plan on a separate sheet. The Electrical Plan shall be prepared on a reproducible film media with blue-line prints provided for the reviews. Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap ramps shall be shown on the Electrical Plan. The use of a reproduction of an existing "As-Built" as the basis for a modification plan is not acceptable. Plans shall show the existing system as well as the proposed system. The proposed plans must be in bold print and the existing facilities shall be shown in dashed or broken lines. Wattage and mounting height of the street lights should be specified. SIGNAL PLAN A 20-scale Electrical Plan shall be provided depicting the existing conditions and the proposed modifications. The Plan must be an original drawing prepared on a standard layout size sheet (24" x 36"). A reproduction of an "As- Built" Plan will not be acceptable. If road work is involved, the entire package shall be pro- vided for review, i.e., Signal Plan, Striping Plan, Land- scape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan. Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap ramps shall be shown on the Signal/Electrical Plan. 'c33 c34 C35 C36 c37 c38 c3a c40 c41 c42 c43 c44 c45 c46 Page 6 There shall be Construction Notes for each item of the proposed work and they must be referenced to the location on the Plans. . All slopes in the State right of way shall be 2:1 or flat- ter. STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS The Street Improvement Plans shall be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The signature and stamp shall be on the original drawing. The signing or stamping of a copy or print of an original drawing is not acceptable. The Street Improvement Plans must call out all existing and proposed utilities, hydrants, including street lights and utility poles, which should be 20' from the edge of trav- elled way unless they are 2' behind the face of curb. All curb, gutter, wheelchair ramps, and driveways within the State right of way must be to State Standards. The curb and gutter within the State right of way must be placed over a minimum of 4" Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95% relative compaction per California Test No. 216. All pavement overlays and saw-cuts must begin, end, and run perpendicular or parallel to the State highway centerline. The saw-cut shall be on a lane line, but under no circum- stances shall it be less than 2' from the existing edge of pavement. The overlay must be feathered to the next lane line. All plans shall distinguish the existing and proposed con- struction on the plan view. Details and dimensions must be included to ascertain how the proposed work will fit the existing conditions. There shall be a Construction Note for each item of work and they must be referenced on the plans. The plans shall have a "NORTH,' arrow on each sheet. The plans should call out the scale used (40 or 50 scale preferred). There should be a Typical cross-section of a minimum of half-width of the proposed work within the State highway right of way. Radius-return driveways can be permitted within the State.. right of way when justified by traffic volumes prior to permit issuance. A soils report and design of the actual structural section shall be approved by this office and shown on the plans before an encroachment permit can be issued. kc47 C48 C49 C50 C51 C52 C53 c54 c55 c56 c57 c58 c59 Page 7 All improvements between the curb and the State right of way line, such as sidewalks, driveways, and landscaping must include a letter "to own and maintain" the improved area by either the local agency or the property owner if the local agency declines (see Landscaping Plan). CROSS-SECTIONS Cross-sections are required for any work within the State right of way. Cross-sections-shall be taken at 50' intervals, from 100' each side of the project limits, along the State right of way or a 300' minimum distance. Special sections are re- quired where existing or proposed conditions change signifi- cantly, such as a driveway. On projects 200' or less in length, cross-sections every 25' are required with a minimum of four (4) cross-sections. Additional age inlets, necessary. cross-sections at the center of culverts, drain-' driveways and road connections may also be The cross-sections shall show the existing ground and/or pavement surface and the proposed improvement including the curb, gutter, driveway, sidewalk, thickness and limits of the overlay and any other pertinent structural section information. Existing and proposed elevations shall be shown at grade breaks. Cross-slopes and/or slope ratios between grade breaks shall be indicated on the finish surface. Cross-sections shall indicate both vertical and horizontal scales and must not be distorted by more than a factor of five (vertical = 1/5 or horizontal). On cross-sections, the centerlines, saw-cut lines, property lines and State right of way lines shall be indicated by a vertical line and must be labeled accordingly. It is important that the cross-section stationing correspond to the stationing on the plans and that the work indicated on the cross-sections and plans is within the same limits. PROFILES Profiles shall include the centerline, top of curb, flow- line, trim-line or edge of pavement profiles, as applicable. The horizontal scale should match the Plan View and the vertical scale should be 1" = 4' or 1" = 5' (generally, 1/10 of the horizontal scale) or whatever will provide the needed detail. The Profiles should be combined into the Plan Views using half-plan/half-profile sheets. cll c12 c13 C14 C15 C16 C17 c18 Page 4 ALL disturbed areas in the State right of way must be treat- ed for erosion control (hydroseeding or equivalent, or as directed by the State's representative). The responsibility for maintaining erosion control will not be released until the seeding is well established. The Contractor will be responsible for the cost of Caltrans cleaning any drainage structures/channels which have become cluttered with debris and/or silt as a result of, or caused by, the construction project. Access control on the freeway will be maintained at all times~ i.e., the work inside the State right of way must be fenced off with no access to the work area from the freeway. No freeway ramps or freeway lanes may be closed or obstruct- ed at anytime unless specifically allowed per the encroach- ment permit and/or as directed by the State's representa- tive. ALL fence rerocated to facilitate the construction of this project inside the State right of way shall be replaced witfi type-CL-6 fence as shown in the State's Standard Plans or with a reinforced concrete block wall in accordance with acceptable local agency standards. Where Type CL-6 fence does not exist, the State right of way fence must be upgraded to type CL-6 fence, as shown in the Standard Plans. The structural section shown within the State right of way is for estimating purposes only. The actual section WILL BE designed by a Soil Engineer after native soil testing has been completed. A traffic index (TI) of shall be used in the design of the travelled way, and a TI of shall be used for the shoulder design. The laboratory reports and the design calculations shall be submitted to the State's representative for approval prior to construc- tion of the structural section. ALL State drainage structures/channels must first be com- pletely cleaned of debris and/or silt by the contractor prior to making the connection. The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that any State drainage facility which is connected to or directly affected by the contractors operation shall be clean and operational prior to final acceptance of the permit work by the State. Adequate clean-outs and access openings shall be provided in any construction within the State's right of way for future maintenance and repair work as needed. This work shall be furnished at no cost to the State. Where survey monuments exist, such monuments shall be pro- tected or shall be referenced and reset pursuant to Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805 (Land SUrveyor's Act). -c19 c20 c21 C22 c23 c24 c25 C. c26 c27 c28 c29 c30 c31 c32 ,Page 5 The pavement shall be ~aw-cut 2' minimum from the edge of pavement. The saw-cuts must be perpendicular or parallel to the State highway centerline. All signing, striping and pavement markings shall be in conformance with the current edition of the Traffic Manual, published by the State of California, Department of Trans- portation, and the Special Provisions. All pavement mark- ings shall be thermoplastic unless otherwise noted on the plans. The exact location of all signs shall be determined in the field by the.State's representative. All conflicting striping and pavement markings not shown on the plans shall,.be removed from the pavement by sandblasting by the contractor. All conflicting signs shall be either removed or relocated by the contractor. Relocatable signs shall be installed as specified on the plans or as determined in the field by the' State's representative. All signs, roadside markers, electroliers, etc., shall be protected and/or replaced in-kind according to the current State Standard Plans and the current Traffic Manual, at no cost to the State. All Plans shall include and distinguish the existing and proposed construction in the Plan View. Details and dimen- sions must be included-to accurately ascertain how the proposed project ~ill "FIT" the existing conditions. The existing centerline, bearings, distances, stationing, and any monumentation shall also be included. No wire mesh may be used for concrete reinforcement in the State right of way. Local agency (City, County, etc.) Standards will be permit- ted in the State right of way only if they exceed State Standards and are approved prior to permit issuance. The State highway centerline shall be shown with 100' sta- tioning on all plans. There must be a minimum of a 10' wide area on the State side of the. right of way fence so State vehicles can be driven along the fence for maintenance purposes. All dimensions and offsets shall be referenced from the centerline or layout lines'of the State highway at specific existing State stations. Right of way and property lines shall also be included and labeled on the Plans. All plans must include cross-sections. The following list of publications may be obtain~ from the - California Department of Transportation ~ Publication Distribution Unit 1990 Roya3/~ Oa~s. Rrive Sacramento~ 'd~ ~5 Telephone-,,,(.916)l, 445-3520 A AI~ QUALITY TEC~NI~L ANALYSIS NOTES ................. iNlAY ?~N/NG i DE$I~ $T~D~DS .................... 6,~0 ERIO~ BESI~ AIOS .................................... 5~,00 BRIDGE BENIGN BETAILS ................................. 5A,O0 BRIDGE DESIGN P~CTI~ ~L ......................... ERRODE ~i TO DESIGNERS .............................. C ~0 U$EE$ ~NUAL ..................................... 27,00 ~LIFORNIA STATE ~ ............... ~ ................... 2,00 ~LINE 3 RE~T - PREDICTING AIR ~L~TS ........... 11,00 C~INE ~ RE~T - PREDI~[NG A/R POLLSANTS ........... ~1,00 C~T~ET COST DATA i~ 1989 .......................... 27,00 C~CT C~T DATA E~ 1~ .................. ? ....... 27,00 MasterCard/Visa ACcepted O-. , ING & Pt. Ju~s NANUAI. ............................... 2Z.DO F FEASTNILITT STU~Y FOR A TRA~/~LEN INFORXATION CENTER USING SAFETT ROADSIDE. REST A~A~ ............................... 15,D0 H HIGH OCt::~oANCT YEHTC~.E GUIDE .............................. ZT. 0D HIGRVA. T CONSTRUCTION CM~Ci~Z ET ............................. l. OD HIG~dAT DESIGN RITUAL ..................................... ]3,00 MIe~IC HIGHVAT BRIDGES OF CALIFONNIA .................... |T.OO Page 2 L LABOR SURCHARGE & ~QUIPNENT RENTAL RATES ................... 5,Co LOCAJ, PROCUJ¢S NA~IAL VOL. 1 ................ ~ ............. -c6-0c LOO,M. pROGtAXS KANUAL VOL. 2 ............................. ,~.C~ LOCAL pRCt, RAXS KAk'UAL _VOL, 37 .,* ** ~ ........................ 5G,~ M RAI)ffEMAN~ MA~U. ............................. · ........... 27.0~ NANUAL OF TEST ~LUNES 1-~-3 (STANDARD TEST NETNn~S) ...... ~,Oc ~ OF TRAFFIC GONTROC$ ................................. 2.Cc P pEIXITS E~ITIO~S ......................................... pUUIS-XAP$-DESCRIPTIClJS .................................... 4.OC Pt. AJS SPECIFICATIONS & ESTINATES GUIDE .................... 17.DC pL.AXTTNG TECNNIGU~S & KATERIAL$ FOil REV~G'ETATICN OF CALIFORNIA ROADSIDES ................................... ~11.0C pUUIT RATERIAL $TLOY ...................................... 11.0( PREVAILING VANE RATES (OCTOeER ONLY) ................... '4~OO PROJECT DEVELBoNENT PROCBDURE$ NA~UAL ................. 27.D0 PROCEDURES I~L ~ SPECIAL FUNDED STATE SIGNVAY PROJECTS ............................................ 30.00 PROCEDURES FOIl SELECTING CONSULTANTS FOR FEDERAL*AID HIGHVAT PROJECTS ON LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS .......... 3,00 PROCEDURES FOR- SPECIAL ]fUNDED' STATE' HIGI~/AT PROJEOTS...].GO R RAILROAD CROS$1NC~ GUIDE,.... ............ ' ............... 3.00 NIGHT OF VAT VOLUNE 1 PLANNING & H,IUJAGD(ENT ................. 54.00 VOLUME 2 BIGHT DE VAT EXGZNEERING .... ;.'.l ...... 54.00 VOLLI~E 3 APPRAISALS ............................ 5z-.0O VOLUNE ~ ACQUISITIONS B-CONOB~JATION RAILROADS & G.tRARDSHIP & PROTECTION ............ 54.00 V~U.~E 5 UTILITT RELOCATION .................... 54.00 VOLUNE 6 RAP & SOUSING ......................... 5&.00 VOLUHE 7 PROPERTY ~AGEXENT ................... 5,~.00 VOLIJNE 8 AIRSPACE & TRAVELER SERVICES ........ ..3Z,.OO ' VOLUNE 9 LOCAL ASSTSTANCE ...................... 5A.OO VO~,UNE 10 EXCESS LA~0S ............... ; .......... 5~,.00 RIGNT OF VAY POLICY ................................... ROJTE 57 PEROT RATIONAL TOLL ROAD AUTHORIZATION CORPORATION ........ 11.00 ROUTE 91 CALIFORNIA PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION ........ 7.00 R~JTE 12,5 SAN DIEGO CCUNTY " CALIFOPNIA TRANSPORTATION V~NTURES INC ............... 9.OO T TRAFFIC KIdIUAL ........................................ 3].nO TRAFFIC SIGN SPECZFICAT~OIIS ........................... ZZ.13Q TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL EGUIMNT SPECIFICATIONS ........ 7.00 TRAFFIC V~LUNE$ ....................................... 11.00 TRJ. XBPGRTATZON PER.NITE MANUAL ......................... 27.00 U UNIFORM $ION CHARTS 8 1/'2 X 11 ......................... t..OO UNIFO~N SI~q VALL CHA~TS if,e X 36** ..................... b.00 O3 II. C4 III. c5 c6 C7 c8 c9 Page 3 It should be noted: The developer/contractor must obtain an encroachment permit prior to the commencement of any work within san Bernardino/Riverside Counties from: Department of Transportation Permit Section 247 West Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92402 (714) 383-4526 or 383-4536 (Caltrans) STANDARDS All work within the State highway right of way shall be to State Standards, the Title Sheet of the Plans shall include a General Note stating such. GENERAL SUBMITTALS REOUIRED General Note Statements, Street Improvement Plans, Grading Plans,' Striping & Signing Plans, Landscape & Irrigation Plans, Electri- cal Plans, and Signal Plans shall include sufficient pertinent details to provide the contractor and the State's representative with adequate information of the proposed project. ~All permit applications shall include a detailed engineer's estimate of cost of improvements within the State right of way. If the cost of improvements are estimated at $200,000.00 or ~ more a Highway Improvement Agreement may be required. A. TITLE SHEET The Title Sheetor Cover Sheet shall have a Vicinity Map with the project site indicated, General and/or Construction Notes, Legend, Quantities, and Index of the sheets. The Vicinity Map must cover a minimum of two (2) miles along the State route and at least one (1) major intersection. B. GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS An encroachment permit is required before any work may begin in or near the State right of way. All applicable General NOte statements shall be shown on the plans. All work within the State right of way shall conform to the latest State Standard Plans & Specifications or as directed by the State's representative (Standards other than State Standards must be pre-~pproved and justified). No equipment or materials may be stored on the State right of way. Mr. Matthew Fagan July 25, 1994 Page 2 5. We would like to have the items listed below: A copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. b. Any proposals to further develop this property. A copy of environmental study. A check print of the plans for any fmprovements adjacent to the State highway right of way. A check print of the grading and drainage plans for this proposal when available. When plans are submitted, please conform to the requirements of the attached "Handout." This will expedite the review process and time required for Plan ~heck. Please Provide to aPPlicant. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. Should clarification or further assistance be required, please call Mr. Ngoc Hoang of our Development Review Section at (909) 383-4830. Very truly yours, Branch Chief, Development Review Attachment STATE OF CALIFO~NIA---~USINF,.5S, T~ANSPO~TATION AND HO~J';ING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D,Sm,~ a. p.o. ~ox ~3, HANDOUT CHECKLIST SAN ~.NA.D,NO, ~UF~.,A ~ ( 07 / 20 / 93 ) TDD (~ 3~.5959 cO I. INTRODUCTION This "Handout" is intended to provide the permittee and/or the permittee's representative(s) with a few basic guide- lines for acquiring an encroachment permit including re- quirements for the design of typical roadway improvements and grading proposals within the State highway right of way. It does not contain all the design criteria that may be used in the review of a specific project nor does it contain any treatment for unusual situations which call for special consideration. cOO Submittal of an application and plans is required from anyone other than Caltrans who wish to perform work in the State right of way. c000 A fee deposit is required before the processing of the application and plans can occur. Public agencies are exempt from fees under State Code 679; however, con- tractors working for a public entity are not exempt from fees (Section 501.15). Only utility companies have been authorized by the State to be billed for fees. c0000 Per State Code 671.1, additional fees may be requested once our review of the application and plans has been completed. The fees may include plan reviews, meetings, telephone conversations, trips to the site, and site inspections. c00000 D. Bonds. (Performance and Payment) may be required and will be based on a detailed cost estimate of the improvements proposed within the State right of way. Additional information and design standards may be found editions of the following publications: in the latest ASHTO (Policy on Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets) Obtainable from: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 225 Washington, D.C. 20001 RECEIVED JUL 2 0 199z Water July 18, 1994 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planrdng Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 nlIT TED Water Availability: PA94-0061 Master Conditional Use Permit Old Town Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (R,CWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Additional on-site and off-site facilities may be required to meet the demands of this redevelopmerit project. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, if any, to RCWD. ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, R.42q'CHO CA~IFORN!A WATER DTSTRICT / c Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:SD:mcO4./F186 cc: Senga Doherty, En~neering Technician STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 23.1 SAN BERNARDINO. CALIF4DRNIA ~402 TDD (909) 383-5959 P[TE WILSON, Go~'mor JUly 25, 1994 Mr. Matthew FagS/ Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Development Review 08~Riv-15-4.28~/4.68~ Your Reference: Case No. 94-0061 Master Condition Use Permit Dear Mr. Fagan: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed plan for a section of Old Town Temecula located west of Interstate 15 at the above-referenced post miles. We ha~e the following comments to offer: Although the traffic generated by this proposal does not appear to have a ma3or effect on the State highway system, consideration must be given to cumulative effect of continued development in this area. It seems this i~only a portion of a larger western "Theme" development which has been proposed here. The whole development on both sides of Murrieta Creek should be considered and reviewed at one time. Consequently, an over all traffic study indicating on and off site flow patterns and volumes, probable impacts and proposed mitigation.measures shall be prepared for all developments impacting mainline Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange. Care shall be taken when developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the State highway. Particular consideration should be give to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem is not created. Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the State highway. It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise ~evels adjacent to ~eavily travelled highways. Land development, in order to be compatible with this concern, may require special noise attenuation measures. Development of this property t should include any necessary noise at enuatlon if needed. Eastern J unicipa[W'ater District Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Departmere 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 July 22, 1994 RECEIVED JUL 2 6 199 lns' l ............ n! klr B) SUBJECT: PA 94-0061 (Old Town Temecula - Master Conditional Use Permit) Dear .Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed "master conditional use permR" for the Old Town area of Temecula. Proposed uses include cabaret theaters, saloons, opera house, TV/radio studio, showboat, wild west arena, virtual reality complex, quick draw competition, visitors center. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's system are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the statUs of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit information describing the subject project to the District's Customer Service Department, (909) 766~1810, extension 409, as follows: Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oaldand Avenue, Hemer, CA Matthew Fagan PA 94-0061 July 22, 1994 Page 2 Written request for a "plan of service". Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required for extensive development projects or projects located in "difficult to serve" geographic areas). Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of the subject project. Especially helpful materials include grading plans and phasing plans. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The District is in the process of evaluating the ability of existing system facilities to provide service to the proposed wester theme land development. It is likely major system improvements will be necessary in order to provide adequate service to the subject development. These improvements are expected to include gravity-flow sewer pipelines, sewage lift station, and forcemain. The exact nature of these improvements cannot be established until such time as specific development locations/sites are reviewed. Other Issues Representatives of the land development projects which would be covered by the subject CLIP must contact the District's Customer Service Department to arrange for the following: 1) 2) 3) Plan-of-service Plan Check and field inspection of onsite & offsite facilities Establishment of service accounts and payment of fees Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G. Crosley ~ ~ Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 94-596 (wp-ntwk-PA940061 .clz) J. M. HARRIS FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 * (909) 657-3183 April 15, 1995 TO: ATTEN: PLANNING DHPARTHENT MATTFrE'W FAGAN RE: PA94-0061 With respect to the conditions of approval forthe above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecuh Ordinances and/or recognized fi_m protection standards: All subsequent development shall be required to meet Fire Safety requirements set forth in City of Temecula Ordinances, Local and State Fire regulations. These requirements will be reviewed when development plans axe submitted to the City of Temecula. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 5000 GPM and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2500 GPM for 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Approved super fire hydrants (6"x4x2-2 1/2") shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no poxlion of a~y lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be sigued by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Depaxtment approval siguamre block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans axe signed by the local water company, the ori~mals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The developer shall participate in the fire protection impact mitigation program as adopted by The City of Temecula. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Dep~tment Planner Fire Safety Specialist County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AI'I N: Matthew Fagan FROM: t~ ~GOR DELLENBACH, Environmgntal Health Specialist IV RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA94-0061 CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: July 19, 1994 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA94-0061 and has no objections. Sanitary sgwer and water services should be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PLAN REVIE~z f~r health clearance, the following items are required: 1. "Will-serve" lette~ from the appropriate water agency. 2. Three complete sets of plato for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture , schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan exanuners at (909) 358-5 172. No on-site ice n~ehines will be allowed. Ice must be imported. Use only low flush toilets in r~-~ht,,orns. 3. A clearance letter from the H~-~dons Sentices Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3. b. HaT~rdou5 Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2. c. lqa,ardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 65 1.1). d. Waste reduction management. 4. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste CollectionfLEA). GD:dr (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT L.~ciies ~ Gentlemen: RECEIVED AUG 17 199zl The District doee not normidly recommend conditiom; for land dMsions or other lend use cases in incctporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land Use cases, Or ;'ovide State Division of Reid Estate letmrs Or other flood hazard relx~ts fOr such cases. District commentsJrecommend~ons for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the Disl~ict Including District Master Drainage Ran facilities, other regionid flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component of extension of a master plan system, and District Ares Drainage Plan fees (development mitigmion fees). In addition, information of ,~ 9enerid nature is provideS. The District has not revieweS the proposed project in detail and the following cttec~ed comments do not In any way constitute or Imply DiStrict approval or endorseroam of the proposed project wffil respect to flood hazard, pub{ic health and safety or any other such issue: i"'q This project would not be impacteS by District Master Drainage Men fadlittes not are olher fecililjas of regional Interest proposed. F'~his project involves District Master Plan facilities. The Disfrict will acoept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Fadlities must be constructeS to District standarde, and District plan check arid Inspection will be required fOr DisThct acceptance. Men check, inspedion end administrative fees will be required. "']This project proposes chennds, storm drains 36 inches Or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regionai in nBt, and/or · IogicaJ extension of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The Disb'ict would consider ownership of such radiities on wrttten request of the City. Facilities must be ~eS to Disthct slanderale, and Disb'ict plan check inspection will be required for Disbtct su-z'~t_ance. Ran Check, inspection and adminis~ative fees will be required. of a parcel map or subdivision prior to issuance of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should he at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the antuai permit. GFNERAI INFORMATION This project may require a Nationai Potluta~t Discharge Bimina~on System (NPDES) permit fl'om the State Water Resources Cona'ol Board. Ciearance for grading, recordation, or other ~nai approval, should not be given until ~e CJty has determined that ~ project has been grenteS a permit Or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves · Faderid Emergency Management Agency (I=EMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to . provide ail studies, caiCulations, plans and other informmion required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, record~co er ofher finai approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior 1o occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain Is impacted by this project the City should require the applic. snt to obtain a Sec~on 16Ol/1603 Agreement from the CaJifornia Department of Rsh and Game and a Cieen Water Ac~ Section 404 pen'nit from ~e U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wT~en correspondence from these agerides Indicating the project Is exempt from ltlese requirements. A Clean Water Affi Sedjon 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the loci Ciditomia Regional Water Quidity CocYfol Board prior to issuance of the Corps Very mjly y~,Jrs, ,~y- DUSTYWIIIIAMS Senior Civil Engineer Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "some form of people-mover system (local transit system) shall be provided along Main Street between Front Street (on the east) and the Arena (on the west). This could include a theme related shuttle system, funicular transit system, horse-drawn carts, or an actual pedestrian people-mover. In addition, as necessary, provision of some sort of shuttle system during periods of peak activity to transport patrons to/from parking facilities potentially located on the periphery of the project site". 46. A signing program shall be developed on I-15 which directs Project traffic to the SR79s interchange. 47. A Trip Reduction Plan shall be developed which includes local/internal traffic circulation and parking requirements of the Project. This plan shall address both vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including the Project's proposed people-mover and shuttle systems. 48. Supplemental onsite focused traffic studies shall be required to analyze access, stacking, and local circulation issues associated with more definitive development applications shall be submitted prior to subsequent approvals. 49. The Developer(s) of future plot plan(s) is (are) responsible to dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the infrastructure improvements within and/or adjacent to the Master CUP. OTHER AGENCIES 50. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated July 19, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 51. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated August 15, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 52. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal dated April 15, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 53. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated July 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 54. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 55. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the State of California - Department of Transportation's transmittal dated July 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 56. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency's transmittal dated July 26, 1994, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name R:~,STAFFRPT',(YrRF.PC 5/11/95 vgw 59 44. 45. Page 43 of the study states that "Vincent Moraoa Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) shall be extended south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass (refer to the above item). A two lane, divided cross section shall be constructed, thereby providing one through lane per direction plus a two way left turn lane/or a separate left turn lane at major intersections (including parkway improvements and sidewalks)". The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate this same street section. Page 43 of the study states that "In relation to the above item, Ridoe Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive". Page 43 of the study indicates that "the Front Street/Santiaao Road/First Street intersection shall be redesigned to provide a four legged intersection via the removal of the existing First Street east leg of this intersection. The existing First Street east leg shall be "relocated" and shall operate as a "T" intersection with Front Street between Santiago Road and Second Street". Page 43 of the study states that "Front Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) from the Front Street/Santiago Road/First Street intersection shall be extended west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. A four lane, undivided, cross section, thereby providing two through lanes per direction (including a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, sidewalk and parkway improvements, and street lights); however, at major intersections, a separate left turn lane shall also be provided". Page 43 of the study states that "a traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of California Department of Transportation) indicates the Front Street/Western Bvoass Corridor intersection shall be signalized. It is recommended, therefore, that traffic volumes be monitored at this location to determine the precise scheduling of this installation. Moreover, when constructed this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the two traffic signals proposed at the I-15/SR79s interchange". Page 44 of the study states that "(once the First Street bridge is operational) the existing Main Street brides over Murrieta Creek may be restricted to pedestrian and local transit circulation". Sufficient parking and a local transit system shall be provided pursuant to the attached alternative scenarios to satisfy the parking demands of the project in compliance with the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study, prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 1995. Certain project related parking and circulation improvements will be implemented with the future development of Master CUP as identified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study, prepared by Robert Khan, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 1995, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis of the Old Town Redevelopment Project, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1994, and the General Plan Build Out Traffic Impact Study of the Old Town Redevelopment Project, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, dated March 1995. Pursuant to submittal of subsecluent development applications associated with the Westside Specific Plan, ensuing traffic reports, parking studies, and public facilities' analyses determining respective project specific and cumulative impacts identifying implementation responsibilities and the timing of necessary improvements shall be provided. These studies shall be subject to review and the individual project shall be conditioned accordingly and required right-of-way be reserved as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. The mitigation options to be considered are as follows: Page 35 of the CMP analysis specifies the Extension of Pujol Street southerly to intersect Western Bypass Corridor. Page 35 of the CMP analysis specifies improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road interchanee. The improvements may include "a "loop" on ramp accommodating eastbound to northbound movements". Page 4 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "widening of the Rancho California Road bridoe (on the south side) to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane". Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "construction of a southbound loop on ramp in the northwest quadrant of the I-15/Rancho California Road interchanoe". Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "construction of a new southbound off ramp at SantiaQo Road" (as an alternative). Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends improvements to the I-15/SR79sinterchanoe. The improvements may include widening SR79s to accommodate additional vehicular turning movements and/or an southbound loop off ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "a realignment of Diaz Road north of Rancho California Road and the realignment of Puiol Street/Felix Valdez Street to make Diaz Road/Felix Valdez Street/Pujol Street a continuous north-south route may be implemented". Alternatively, a realignment of Ipiaz Road north of Rancho California Road to align with Vincent Moraga Drive shall be studied. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "Sixth Street may be extended westerly to intersect Pujol Street. This would require a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek". Provision of adequately sized parking lots in compliance with the Old Town Specific Plan at locations specified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study to satisfy the parking demands. R:~STAFFR~T~OTRP.PC 5111/95 vgw 57 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to the sites shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances, standards, or as subsequently recommended in the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project Traffic Studies. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. Accesses proposed from Western Bypass Corridor, First Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive to the site are conditional upon Director of Public Work's approval. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on mitigation measures identified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report and associated studies and as required by public/utility agencies. Any substantive changes to phasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a phasing application. A phasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Master CUP, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City R:~TAFFRF~OTRP.I~C 5/|U91 ~ 54 42. 43. procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report and associated studies and public/utility agencies requirements must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Pursuant to submittal of subsequent development applications associated with the Master CUP and/or substantive revisions to the proposed phasing plan, ensuing traffic reports, parking studies, and public facilities' analyses determining respective project specific and cumulative impacts identifying implementation responsibilities and the timing of necessary improvements shall be provided. These studies shall be subject to review and the individual project shall be conditioned accordingly and required right-of- way be reserved as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. In compliance with the Site Traffic Impact Analysis of the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Phase I, as prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1994, the following infrastructure improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy, or as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works: Page 40 of the study states that "at the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 (I-15) north ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or restripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on-ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right turn lane, and one right turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on-ramp, widening and/or restriping may be required just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north". Page 19 of the study states that "at the State Route 79 south (SR79s)/I-15 interchanqe, the I-15 north ramp and south ramp intersections with SR79s will be signalized, (and widened to provide additional through and turn lanes)". These improvements are currently identified in the Engineer's Report for Assessment District 159 and scheduled to begin construction by the end of 1995. Page 43 of the study states that "the Western Bvoass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed from the I-15/SR79s interchange to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Between the I-15/SR79sinterchange and the new bridge over Murrieta Creek, a four lane, divided cross section shall be constructed, thereby providing two through lanes per direction plus a separate left turn lane at major intersections. West of Murrieta Creek to Vincent Moraga Drive, the street section may be reduced to a two lane, divided cross, thereby providing one through lane per direction plus a two way left turn lane and/or a separate left turn lane at major intersections". R;\STAFFRI~T~OTRP.PC SIllIcJS vF S5 20. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit for Each Subsequent Development Proposal 21. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. 22. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of an Occupancy Permit for Each Subsequent Development Proposal 23. An application for signage or a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 24. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 25. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 26. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 27. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at e minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. R:~STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 28. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 29. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 30. Conditions of approval will be applied to the project on subsequent development proposals. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No specific development activities shall be permitted with this Master CUP application unless or until a site specific development permit or plot plan has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works. The specific land uses of the Master CUP as defined in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) result in mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Pursuant to the submittal of subsequent development applications associated with the Master CUP, ensuing traffic reports, parking studies, and public facilities' analyses addressing project specific and cumulative impacts identifying implementation responsibilities and the timing of necessary improvements shall be provided. These studies shall be subject to review and individual projects shall be conditioned accordingly. Public rights-of-way shall be reserved as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works pursuant to the Cities' adopted General Plan, the Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report, and subsequent project specific traffic studies. The Department of Public Works shall review and clear all subsequent development applications associated with the Master CUP prior to issuance of "Subsequent Development Permits" as identified in Item f. of Section 2. of Ordinance No. 94-19. Subsequent development applications shall all be subject to the following requirements: 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 32. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 33. The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot/unit/acre, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. 34. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. R:~TAFFRF~OTR. P.PC 5/11/95 vgw 53 s Prior to the expiration of the Master Conditional Use Permit, the permittee may request an extension of time in which to use the permit. For good cause, two (2) twelve (12) month time extensions may be granted by the City Council. The City Council may add additional conditions or requirements to the conditions of approval when approving a time extension. The request for an extension of time shall be made on the forms and in the manner prescribed by the Director of Planning. This Master Conditional Use Permit may not be transferred or assigned without the specific written approval of the City Council. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with The Old Town Specific Plan. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within Planning Application No. 95-0031 (Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report). This Master Conditional Usa Permit may be revoked upon the findings and procedures contained in Section 18.31 of Ordinance No. 348. The boundary of the Master Conditional Use Permit and specific uses shall conform with Exhibit A, as approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0061, or as amended by these conditions. 10. Subsequent development permits shall be consistent with the conditions identified in this approved Master Conditional Use Permit. 11. During all construction periods within and/or adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitat (Chamise Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, or Riparian/Wetland), the applicant shall provide temporary fencing at the boundary between areas to be disturbed/graded and areas to remain undisturbed. In areas where fencing is not possible, the applicant shall survey and mark construction area boundaries and shall retain a qualified biologist with authority to stop construction activity when it construction extends beyond these boundaries. Any disturbances outside of designated areas of disturbance shall be restored to comparable habitat quality of the adjacent undisturbed habitat. 12. Construction activities at the Western Bypass crossing over Murrieta Creek shall be limited to daylight hours until the bridge is completed, except in an emergency as defined by the City. 13. Transit facilities shall be installed at centralized locations within Old Town and the hotel/arena complex. The City shall work with regional transit agencies to provide service to these locations in the future when such transit service becomes available. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Permit for Each Subsequent Development Proposal 14. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. To prevent the loss of any Southwestern Pond Turtles during construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to collect any turtles within the Western Bypass bridge crossing construction area. The biologist shall also oversee installation of barriers to prevent turtles from occupying the construction area during active construction in the channel. The applicant shall fund maintenance of the turtles, if required, until they can be returned to Murrieta Creek following construction. To offset the loss of 64.6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the Chamise Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities within the project area the applicant shall implement one of the following measures: a) Acquire 97 acres of high quality Gnatcatcher habitat (1.5:1 ratio based on discussions with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Staff) and transfer ownership of the land or open space easements (which prevent any future use other than open space) and management responsibility for the property to the Riverside County Parks Department or other agent acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. This habitat shall be purchased within the Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Margarita River Potential Reserve area as identified within the Riverside County "Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan", or at a location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. An endowment of $50,000 shall be provided for use by the designated management agency to enhance wildlife carrying capacity of the 97 acres set aside as mitigation for this project; or b) pay fees as determined through negotiations with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Department of Fish and Game to an agent authorized by these two agencies for purchase of land-banked compensation habitat. To offset the loss of up to one acre of RiparianRVetland habitat in Murrieta Creek, the applicant shall develop two acres of RiparianANetland habitat or habitat improvements in the immediate area of the Western Bypass bridge crossing, or at an alternative location acceptable to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. The requirements of this measure can be superseded by any alternative mitigation or compensation developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and Game 1601/1603Agreement. The plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland enhancement shall be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation. A silt fence or alternative acceptable to the City and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be installed downstream of construction activities in Murrieta Creek to control siltation downstream of the construction site. The performance standard used for this measure shall be sufficient control to prevent downstream siltation that can cause degradation of the aquatic/riparian/wetland habitat. The applicant shall install fences or other measures to control human access from the Western Bypass to the west, except in Area D of the Westside Specific Plan. The City will require access controls around the boundary of Area D and the adjacent wildlife habitat when this area develops. EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0061 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) R:~TAFFRF~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 48 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit Project Description: To locate cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), an opera house, TVIradio station, virtual reality theaters (2), a quick draw area, administrative and ticket offices in the Tourist Retail Core Designation of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0061 is for the siting of cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), an opera house, TV/radio station, virtual reality theaters (2), a quick draw area, administrative and ticket offices in the Tourist Retail Core Designation of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Master Conditional Use Permit which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used shall be null and void three (3) years after approval unless the permittee has commenced the conditionally approved use(s). Commencement of the use(s) shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of the authorized use(s), which construction must thereafter be pursued diligently to completion, or in the case of an existing building, the actual occupancy of the building or land under the terms of the approved permit. R:%STAFFRPT~OTRP.I~C 5/11/95 vgw Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of FEIR Planning Application No. 95-0031, adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Old Town Entertainment Project which includes the Master Conditional Use Permit and subsequent development proposals within the area. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. 94-0061 to permit cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), an opera house, TV/radio station, virtual reality theaters (2), a quick draw area, administrative and ticket offices, and a town square/plaT~ in an area generally bounded by Sixth Street to the north, First Street to the South, Murrieta Creek to the west and Interstate 15 to the east subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1995. STEXrF2~ J. FORD CHAIRMAN I HEI~ERY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of May, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:'.~I'AFFRFI~OTRI,.PC 5/11/95 vgw 47 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIRSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0061 FOR A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT CABARET THEATERS (2), SALOONS (2), AN OPERA HOUSE, TV/RADIO STATION, VIRTUAL REALITY THEATERS (2), A QUICK DRAW AREA, ADMINISTRATIVE AND TICKET OFFICES IN AN AREA GENEILALLY BOUNDED BY SIXTH STREET TO ~ NORTH, FIRST STREET TO THE SOUTH, MURRIETA CREEK TO THE WEST AND INTERSTATE 15 TO THE EAST WHEREAS, TZBG fried Planning Application No. 94-0061 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WItEREAS, Planning Application No. 94-0061 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; ~S, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0061 on May 15, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 94-0061; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RF-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Application No. 94-0061 makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan, the development code, and applicable specific plans. Ordinance No. 94-19 was adopted by the City Council to permit Master Conditional Use permits within the City of Temecula. Planning Application No. 94-13061 will facilitate development in Old Town Temecula and implement The Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. This is an extension of Land Use Element Goal No. 6 which called for "A Plan for Old Town that enhances the economic viability, preserves historic structures, addresses parking and public improvement needs, and establishes design standards to enhance and maintain the character and economic viability of Old Town." R:XSTAFFRP~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 45 Further, upon approval of the Master CUP, and submittal of subsequent development plans at specific sites, the plans wffi be reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency with the Old Town Specific Plan. 2. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with a signed memorandum of understanding or development agreement between the City and a private party. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the City of Temeeula and TZBG on January 31, 1995. The Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with this Memorandum of Understanding. No development agreement is applicable to this finding. 3. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit will result in a tangible and substantial public benefit. The project proposes cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), an opera house, TV/radio station, virtual reality theaters (2), a quick draw area, administrative and ticket offices. These developments will enhance and maintain the character and economic viability of Old Town, by attracting patrons and consumers to the areas. 4. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and sn'uctures and that the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. Upon approval of the Master CUP, and submittal of subsequent development plans at specific sites, the plans will be reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency with the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. This will insure that the project will be consistent with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and that the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures. 5. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the zoning ordinance. Upon approval of the Master CUP, and submittal of subsequent development plans at specific sites, the plans will be reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency with the Old Town Tcmecula Specific Plan. This will insure that the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. 6. The nature of the pwposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Old Town Temeeuh Specific Plan. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified and the impacts of the project as laid out have been mitigated. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 94-0061 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its pwposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. R:'~ITAFFRFBOTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 46 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DV95-0001 R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw ~3 _e E -~ E c~ E .9 0~ 0 May 2, 1995 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street RO. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 ' Fax: (909) 684-1007 RE: PA 95-0003 Westside Specific Plan and TTM 28011 Applicant: Hancock Development Company, Inc. RTA staff has reviewed the Westside Specific Plan and the associated tentative map 20811. The project seems to be a logical, complementary extension of Old Town Temecula, including the connection of the Main Street pedestrian thoroughfare and the remote parking and shuttle service concepts. Currently, RTA Route 23 provides local transit service in the Old Town area. RTA would like the opportunity to expand bus service as the area develops. We request construction of bus turnouts on the Western By-Pass Corridor, consistent with the standards in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. We would like to specify turnout locations at the time of site development,. if possible, so that the bus stops will facilitate the most convenient access. When the site development plan for the Wild West Arena becomes available, we would also like to review the provisions for on-site bus circulation and the proposed bus parking configuration. RTA bus turnout design guidelines are enclosed for your reference. The adjacent bike lane design might work best with tl;e 8 ft. parkir~g cr bike lane o:~ the Western By-Pass corridor. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cis LeRoy Planning Manager enclosures 35 D~-~ ,/S~A~ C~..~ May 1, 1995 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department -43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Westside Specific Plan - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: GENERAL It iS our understanding that the subject project is a proposed Specific Plan and Tentative Map No. 28011 comprised of 154.1 acres, located westerly of Pujol Street in the City of Temecula. The Westside Specific Plan proposes a combination of special event commercial areas, high density residential, and hotel uses. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area, however, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based upon the detailed plan of service, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. The District has been coordinating with the City of Temecula regarding the project and the Old Town Specific Plan. The information shown on Figure 6 in the Westside Specific draft document does not appear to be complete or in accordance with the expected District re_quirements for the project. The District requires a plan-of-service for the subject project which should be requested by the applicant and accompanied by a minimum $2,500 deposit for preparation of the plan-of-service. The findings of the plan-of-service for sanitary sewer service to the site shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan document. Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto. CaLifornia 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. Sa.nJag~n~o Avenue, San Jadnto · Customer Servict/Enginee.4ng Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, He,net. CA Mr. Matthew Fagan TTM 28011 May 1, 1995 Page 2 The District is currently coordinating with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for information regardin9 the proposed Murrieta Creek Channel and potential scour depth in the channel. This information is critical to the final District sanitary sewer plan-of-service to the Westside Specific Plan area. Should you have any questions regarding these comment, please feel free to contact me at (909) 925-7676, ext. 4468. Sincerely, Eastern Municipal Water District Kevin L. Crew Senior Customer Service Engineer FLC/cz CC: John Pourkasemi, City of Temecula john Fricker, EMWD RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE , PERRIS, CALII:ORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183 May 10, 1995 TO: R,E: PLANNING DEPARTIVIENT MATA1-L~W FAGAN W'ESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN PA95-0003 - PA.95-0004 With respect to the review and/or approval of the above referenced document, the proposed project will have a cumuhtive impact on the department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due m the increased number of emergency or public service call.q generated by additional buildings and human population. A portion of the impacts associated with capitol improvements or one-time costs such as land, building and equipment can bc mitigated by developer participation in the tim protection impact mitigation program. However, the annual costs necessary for the increased number of call.q is only partially off-set by the county structure fn'e tax and would reqnlm an increase in the city general fund portion of the Fire depa.tmcnt's anmlal epemtlng budget. Fire protection impacts can be mitigated by use of the impact mitigation probe-am and an increase in the annual budget. Therefor, the Fire Department recommends approval of the specific plan subject to the following conditions and/or mitigations. All water mains and fn'e hydrants providing required fire flow shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate sections of Ordinance No. 460 and/or No 546, subject to approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. The project proponents shall participate in the fire protection impact mitigation pro~ram as adopted by the City of Temecula. Art buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation ~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 [2 h S reel. Rx~e:-~dc. C~. 92501 HRE PREVENTION D[',ISION PI,.XNNING SECTION 21 [ND[O OFFICE 79~'33 Cuunlr? Cub Drive, Sunc F. lndic. CA 92201 ~19/8~34886 · FAX iolg} 863 '072 The Homeowner Association or appropriate community service district shall be responsible for the maintenance of the open space areas. Prior to approval of any development plan for land adjacent to open space areas, a fire protection/vegetation management plan shall be submitted to the Fire D~tment for approval. All questions regarding the meaning of this conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. Raymond H. Regis Chief Fire Department Pl. nner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist 96. The slopes and open space area within Parcel No. 9 shall be maintained by the developer, the City, or other agency approved by the City. Prior to the Recordation of Final Map(s) 97. Prior to recordation of the final map, or respective phased map, the park land dedication requirements for Parcel Nos. 7 and 8 shall be determined in accordance with the Quimby Ordinance requirements for high density residential development. 98. Private recreational facilities provided within Parcel Nos. 7 and 8 may be entitled to receive a 50% credit towards the Quimby requirement. The remaining park land dedication requirement shall be satisfied through the payment of "in-lieu" fees. Prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy(s) 99. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for each phased map, the developer, or his assignee, shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the maintenance program. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 100. No comments at this time. OTHER AGENCIES 101. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated April 24, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 102. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County of Riverside Fire Department's letter dated May 1 O, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 103. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated May 1, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 104. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated May 2, 1995, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval, Applicant Name R:',STAFFRPT~OTRY.PC 5lI1/9S vg,v 8~ Uounty of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENV[RONM2ENTAL ttEALTIt TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner FROM: ~/~OHN C. SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer RECEIVED r,tAy u 2 S&5 DATE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011 - A NINE PARCEL SUBDIVISION - SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 153.1 GROSS ACRES (Westside Specific Plan) WA TER/SEWER: John C. Silva. P.E.. Senior Public Health Engineer. Department of Environmental Health The referenced tract will require pipe-line extension(s) of the domestic water and sanitary sewer system(s). This work would be in concert with the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District. Whenever possible, the nine lots should try to implement the use of reclaimed water which is immediately adjacent to the proposed project. If you should have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. JS:dr (909) 275-8980 Smith Associates, dated March 1995. Pursuant to submittal of subsequent development applications associated with the Westside Specific Plan, ensuing traffic reports, parking studies, and public facilities' analyses determining respective project specific and cumulative impacts identifying implementation responsibilities and the timing of necessary improvements shall be provided. These studies shall be subject to review and the individual project shall be conditioned accordingly and required right-of- way be reserved as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. The mitigation options to be considered are as follows: Page 35 of the CMP analysis specifies the Extension of Pujol Street southerly to intersect Western Bypass Corridor. Page 35 of the CMP analysis specifies improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road interchanoe. The improvements may include "a "loop" on ramp accommodating eastbound to northbound movements". Page 4 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "widening of the Rancho California Road brides (on the south side) to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane". Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "construction of a southbound loop on ramp in the northwest quadrant of the I-15/Rancho California Road interchanoe". Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends "construction of a new southbound off ramp at Santiaao Road" (as an alternative). Page 5 of the General Plan Build Out traffic analysis recommends improvements to the I-15/SR79s interchanoe. The improvements may include widening SR79s to accommodate additional vehicular turning movements and/or an southbound loop off ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "a realignment of Diaz Road north of Rancho California Road and the realignment of Puiol Street/Felix Valdez Street to make Diaz Road/Felix Valdez Street/Pujol Street a continuous north-south route may be implemented". Alternatively, a realignment of Diaz Road north of Rancho California Road to align with Vincent Moraga Drive shall be studied. Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "Sixth Street may be extended westerly to intersect Pujol Street. This would require a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek". Provision of adequately sized parking lots in compliance with the Old Town Specific Plan at locations specified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study to satisfy the parking demands. · Page 35 of the CMP analysis states that "some form of people-mover system (local transit system) shall be provided along Main Street between Front Street (on the east) and the Arena (on the west), This could include a theme related shuttle system, funicular transit system, horse-drawn carts, or an actual pedestrian people-mover. In addition, as necessary, provision of some sort of shuttle system during periods of peak activity to transport patrons to/from parking facilities potentially located on the periphery of the project site". 84. All improvements shall be completed and in place per the approved plans in compliance with the site traffic impact analyses, including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, drainage facilities, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 85. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 86. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan. 87. All traffic signal interconnection shall be installed per the approved plan. 88. The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works. 89. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersection and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance as directed by the Department of Public Works. 90. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 91. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 92. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 93. Class II Bike Lanes shall be identified on the street improvement plans and constructed in conformance with City standards. Where indicated, Class II Bike Lanes shall have a minimum width of 11 ' to allow for on street parking. 94. All slopes and landscaping shall be improved in accordance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines. 95. All slopes and landscaping adjacent to commercial and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by the property owner or a private property owners' association. R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP.P~ 5/11~95 v~w 81 the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to the Issuance of Certificates Occupancy 80. In the event that an Assessment District is not formed for the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive, half-width plus one 18-foot lane off site street improvements shall be constructed within dedicated rights-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. Signalization, acceleration/deceleration lanes and additional intersection improvements shall also be provided as directed by the Department of Public Works. Bonds may be posted in lieu of construction. 81. In compliance with the Site Traffic Impact Analysis of the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Phase I, as prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1994, the following infrastructure improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy: Page 40 of the study states that "at the Rancho California Road/Interstate 15 (I-15) north ramps, on the westbound intersection approach, widen and/or restripe Rancho California Road to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate left turn lane at the I-15 south on-ramp, one through lane, one optional through/right turn lane, and one right turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right turning traffic onto the I-15 north on-ramp, widening and/or restriping may be required just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes should merge into one lane, however, prior to intersecting the mainline of I-15 north". Page 19 of the study states that "at the State Route 79 south (SR79s}/I-15 interchanqe, the I-15 north ramp and south ramp intersections with SR79s will be signalized, (and widened to provide additional through and turn lanes)". These improvements are currently identified in the Engineer's Report for Assessment District 159 and scheduled to begin construction by the end of 1995. Page 43 of the study states that "the Western Bvoass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed from the I-15/SR79s interchange to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, median and parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights). Between the I-15/SR79sinterchange and the new bridge over Murrieta Creek, a four lane, divided cross section shall be constructed, thereby providing two through lanes per direction plus a separate left turn lane at major intersections. West of Murrieta Creek to Vincent Moraga Drive, the street section may be reduced to a two lane, divided cross, thereby providing one through lane per direction plus a two way left turn lane and/or a separate left turn lane at major intersections". · Page 43 of the study states that "Vincent Moraoa Drive (78 feet full width R:\STAFFRPTXOTRP,PC 5/11195 vgw 78 82. 83. right-of-way) shall be extended south of its current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the Western Bypass (refer to the above item). A two lane, divided cross section shall be constructed, thereby providing one through lane per direction plus a two way left turn lane/or a separate left turn lane at major intersections (including parkway improvements and sidewalks)". The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate this same street section. Page 43 of the study states that "In relation to the above item, RidQe Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive". Page 43 of the study indicates that "the Front Street/SantiaQo Road/First Street intersection shall be redesigned to provide a four legged intersection via the removal of the existing First Street east leg of this intersection. The existing First Street east leg shall be "relocated" and shall operate as a "T" intersection with Front Street between Santiago Road and Second Street". Page 43 of the study states that "Front Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) from the Front Street/Santiago Road/First Street intersection shall be extended west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. A four lane, undivided, cross section, thereby providing two through lanes per direction (including a bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, sidewalk and parkway improvements, and street lights); however, at major intersections, a separate left turn lane shall also be provided". Page 43 of the study states that "a traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of California Department of Transportation) indicates the Front StreetANestern Bvoass Corridor intersection shall be signalized. It is recommended, therefore, that traffic volumes be monitored at this location to determine the precise scheduling of this installation. Moreover, when constructed this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the two traffic signals proposed at the I-15/SR79s interchange". Page 44 of the study states that "(once the First Street bridge is operational) the existing Main Street bridoe over Murrieta Creek may be restricted to pedestrian and local transit circulation". Sufficient parking and a local transit system shall be provided pursuant to the attached alternative scenarios to satisfy the parking demands of the project in compliance with the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study, prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 1995. Certain project related parking and circulation improvements will be implemented with the future develooment of Westside Soecific Plan as identified in the Old Town Redevelopment Project Parking Study, prepared by Robert Khan, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated February 20, 1995, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis of the Old Town Redevelopment Project. prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated October 28, 1994, and the General Plan Build Out Traffic Impact Study of the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project, prepared by Wilbur R:~STAFFRF'BOTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 79 71. 72. 73. 74. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Special Study Zones information shall be on the ECS. The Developer shell deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the Developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to the following Engineering conditions: a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and related facilities. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. R:\STAFFRPT~OTI~P.PC 5111195 vgw 76 All parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. ii. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 75. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Western bypass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive" in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 76. This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 77. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 78. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 79. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest R:XSTAFFRPTXOTRP.PC 5111193 vgw 77 54. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 55. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 56. All conditions of the grading permit and encroachment permit shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 57. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the Recordation of Final Map 58. The Developer shall pay off any remaining assessment balance(s) or reapportion the remaining assessment(s) for any Financing District including the property based on the proposed subdivision. 59. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 60. The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18 months in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways). d. Erosion control and slope protection. e. Sewer and domestic water systems. f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · City of Temecula Fire Bureau · Planning Department 61. R:XSTAFFRFI~OTRP.PC 5111195 vgw 74 62. 53. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers Legal all-weather access as required by Ordinance no. 460 shall be provided from the map boundary to a paved City-maintained road. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Vincent Moraga Drive, Western Bypass Corridor, and First Street and so noted on the final map. Specific access locations shall be determined upon submittal of subsequent development applications as approved by the Department of Public Works prior to recordation of the final map. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. A 32 foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all private streets and drives. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." R:x, STAFFRlr~OTRP.I'C $/11/95 vgw 75 g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under-sidewalk drains. 45. Private roads MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved by the Department of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to: a. Minimum paved road widths of 32 feet within adequate right-of-ways or easements (shown on typical section). b. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road. c. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards (200-ft. minimum). d. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards. e. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required (all centerline radii should be identified on the site plan). f. 90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a minimum safe distance from intersections. g. Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so, configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. h. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°). i. All driveways providing access to two or more buildings shall be designed as a cul-de-sac or a loop road. 46. Concentrated on-site runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. 47. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. 48. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 7~2 49. Letter of Approval or a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the grading plan. 50. An Encroachment Permit shall be required from Caltrans for any work within their right- of-way. 51. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development of this project. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits 52. Improvement plans, including but not limited to, streets, parkway trees, street lights, driveways, drive aisles, parking lot lighting, drainage facilities and paving shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars and approved by the Department of Public Works. Final plans (and profiles on streets) shall show the location of existing utility facilities and easements as directed by the Department of Public Works. 53. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207,207A, 208, and 401 (curb and sidewalk). c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under-sidewalk drains. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Department of Public Works for approval prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of any permit. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. I~:\STAFFRF~OTRP.PC 5111195 vgw 70 40. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 41. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 42. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for any off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works at no cost to any agency. 43. A Drainage Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. c. The impact of the site to any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary protection mitigation measures. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. 44. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207,207A, 208, and 401 (curb and sidewalk). c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:'~STAFFILr~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 7], (4) Ownership of domestic dogs and cats for residential development within Areas C and D of the Westside Specific Plan shall be restricted. The restriction shall apply to all domestic dogs and cats and shall allow ownership of such animals only when they can be fully managed within the individual residence. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 15. 16. 17. 18. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director: A. Construction landscape plans consistent with City standards including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: (1) Front yards and slopes prior to issuance of building permits for any lot(s) (2) Private common areas (3) Wall and fence plans B. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. C. The Model Home Complex Plot Plan (if applicable for Parcels 7 & 8) which includes the following: (1) Site Plan with off-street parking (2) Construction Landscape Plans (3) Fencing Plans (4) Building Elevations (5) Floor Plans (6) Materials and Colors Board Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within Parcels 7, 8 and 9 of the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. Residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass Road that place residences within the 65 dB CNELd. noise contour to install sound attenuation barriers or walls sufficient to reduce noise to a level below this significance threshold. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:~STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/~5 vltw (~ Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 19. Front yard and slope landscaping shall be completed for inspection (Parcels 7 & 8). 20. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection (Parcels 7 & 8). 21. The applicant shall sign an agreement and/or post a bond with the City to insure the maintenance of all landscaping within private common areas for a period of one year. 22. Berming and landscaping shall be employed to conceal and soften visual impacts of parking areas. 23. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. General Requirements 24. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 25. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all on-site flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 26. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 27. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 28. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. 29. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 30. Tract Map No. 28011 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits. R:~STAFFRF~OTP, P.PC 5111195 vgw (~9 notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Planning Application No. 95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan). The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Development Agreement No. DV95-0001. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within Planning Application No. 95-0031 (Old Town Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 10. Slope grading techniques on the slope facing Pujol Street shall aim to blend with the existing nature of the topography. Grading techniques shall emphasize slope contouring including contour undulation and variable slopes. In addition, tops and toes of slopes shall be rounded. Hard edges and angles are to be avoided. Slopes shall be designed to smoothly blend with remaining existing topography. 11. An earth berm or sound attenuation wall and landscaping be installed on the ridge above the houses on Pujol Street to minimize noise levels at the nearest residences. 12. Grading on the slope edge facing Pujol Street shall be revegetated or landscaped immediately upon completion of grading activities, concurrent with project development. Landscaping shall be natural in appearance and linear arrangements of landscaping are to be avoided. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director: A. A copy of the Final Map B. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans C. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: (1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. (2) Planning Application No. 95-0031 (Old Town Redevelopmerit Project Environmental Impact Report) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. D. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) (1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. (2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meat changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. (3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5111195 vF ~7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING APPLICATION N0.95-0004 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011 } R:~STAFFRPTXOTRP.PC 5f11/95 vgw 64 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 95-0004- Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 Project Description: A subdivision of 154.1 acres into nine (9) parcels Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 940-310-013, 940-320-001,940-320-002, 940-320- 003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005,940-320-006 and 940-320-007 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in comoliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning (Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly R:\ST~OTRP.I~C 5111/95 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1995. STEVEhi J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ItERRRY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temeeula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of May, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNRILL SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 63 A'rrACHIV~NT NO. 8 PC RF-~OLUTION NO. 9~- A IH~-~OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 950004 (TF_,NTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011) TO SUBDIVIDE 154.1 ACRES INTO NINE (9) PARCELS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF PUJOL STR~T, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 940.310.013, 940-320-001, 940-320-002, 940.320.003, 940-320-004, 940-320.005, 940-320-006 AND 940- 320-007 WREREAS, Hancock Development Company filed Planning Application No. 9543004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 95-43004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; Wltl~S, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) on May 15, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WltEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, said Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011); NOW, THEREFORE, TIlE PLANNING COMMIgSION OF TI~E CITY OF EMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: I. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan and the proposed Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0004). 2. The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development and the design of the proposed land division is not likely to cause serious health problems. The project as conditioned is consistent with the City's General Plan, the State Subdivision Map Act, Ordinance No. 460, and the proposed Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003); thereby, it is assured to be suitable for the type of development and not cause serious health problems. 3. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Final Environmental Impact for this project has been certified and any impacts that were identified in the FEIR will be mitigated to a level less than significant. 4. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. A. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 95-0004, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends certification of FEIR Planning Application No. 95-0031, adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Old Town Entertainment Project which includes the Westside Specific Plan and subsequent development proposals (including Planning Application No. 95-004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) within the area. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. 95-0004 to subdivide 154.1 acres into nine (9) parcels generally located west of Pujol Street, east of the City of Temecula' Western border, south of Ridge Park Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 940-310-013,940-320-001, 940-320-002, 940-320-003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, 940-320-006 and 940-320-007, subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:~TAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5111/95 v~w ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 10 EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS R:~STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw ~ Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DV95-0001 The following areas are part of the Westside Specific Plan and are included in, and subject, to this Agreement: Parcels 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of Parcel Map 18254 on file in Book 116, Pages 69 through 78 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California. Those unconstructed portions of First Street that were created by abovementioned Parcel Map 18254 and are generally located between abovementioned Parcels 23, 24, 25, and 26. Those portions of Calle Cerillo that were created by abovementioned Parcel Map 18254 and are immediately east of abovementioned Parcels 26, 27, 28, and 29. Those portions of Via Santa Rosa that were created by abovementioned Parcel Map 18254 and bisects abovementioned Parcel 29. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On , 19__, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SE L) Notary Public in and for said State EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Agreement of the date first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney HANCOCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. By: President John F. Firestone STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ) On , 19 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared and , known to me to the persons who executed the within instrument as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF TEMECULA, the public agency therein named, and acknowledged to me that such Commission executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its members. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Name (typed or printed) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF } on , 19 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared , known to me to be the President of and , known to me to be the Secretary of the corporation that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of HANCOCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., the Corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such Corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Name (typed or printed) With a Copy to: Peter M. Thorson, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen 611 West Sixth Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 If to Developer: Mr. Eugene S. Hancock, President Hancock Development Company, Inc. 3183 Airway Avenue, Building E Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Stevan J. Gromet, Esq. Pinto, Gromet, Dubia & Worcester TWo Park Plaza, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92714-8513 Mr. John F. Firestone 702 South Laurinda Avenue Orange, CA 92669 With a Copy to: Ronald I. Silverman, Esq. Cox, Castle & Nicholson 2049 Century Park East, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3284 Samuel C. Alhadeff, Esq. Lorenz, Alhadeff, Cannon & Rose 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 203 Temecula, CA 92591-4677 20. SeverabilitY and Termination. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is superseded or rendered unenforceable according to any law which becomes effective after the Effective Date, the remainder of this Agreement shall be effective to the extent the remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform, taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 21. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 22. Force Maieure. In the event of changed conditions, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, floods, delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire, acts of god, or other circumstances which substantially interfere with carrying out the Project, as approved by the City, or with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and which are not due to actions of Developer and are beyond its reasonable control, the parties agree to bargain in good faith to modify such obligations to achieve the goals and preserve the original intent of this Agreement. 23. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a RISILVER 25675 206640 4 -- 13 -- 05110/95 duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. 24. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who, now or hereafter, owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Site is, and shall be, conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Site. 25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties, the City Council and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 26. Attornev's Fees. If either party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission of this Agreement, or for specific performance for the breach hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. Attorney's fees under this Section shall include attorney's fees on any appeal as well as any attorney's fees incurred in any post-judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. 27. IncorPoration of Exhibits. The following Exhibit is part of this Agreement and each of which are incorporated herein by this reference: Exhibit No. A Legal Description of Site 28. Entire Aureemen~: Conflicts. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties. Should any or all of the provisions of this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any other provision or provisions found in the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules, or Subsequent Applicable Rules, then the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. 16. Administration of Aareement and Resolution of DisPutes. All decisions by the City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and the Project which is the subject hereof are appealable to the City Council and all like decisions by the City Council shall be final. However, decisions of the City Council shall also be subject to judicial review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 or any other applicable provision of law or equity. The resolution of disputes shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of this Agreement. 17. Transfers and Assianments. (a) Riaht to Assjan. Developershall have the right to sell, assign or transfer all or portions of the real property comprising the Property to any person at any time during the term of this Agreement. (b) Liabilities UPOn Transfer. upon the delega- tion of all duties and obligations and the sale, transfer or assignment of all or any portion of the Property, Developer shall be released from its obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, so transferred arising subsequent to the effective date of such transfer if (i) Developer has provided to City ten days' written notice of such transfer and (ii) the transferee has agreed in writing to be subject to all of the provisions hereof applicable to the portion of the Property so transferred. Upon any transfer of any portion of the Property and the express assumption of Developer's obligations under this Agreement by such transferee, City agrees to look solely to the transferee for compliance by such transferee with the provisions of this Agreement as such provisions relate to the portion of the Property acquired by such transferee. A default by any transferee shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Developer's rights hereunder with respect to any portion of the Property not owned by such transferee. The transferee shall be responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such transferee, and any amendment to this Agreement between City and a transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such transferee. 18. Mortaa~ee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lender(s) providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Developer and repre- sentatives of such lender(s) to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any mortgagee of a mortgage or a beneficiary of a deed of trust ("Mortgagee") on the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Prop- erty made in good faith and for value. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, who has submitted a request in writing to City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by Developer in the performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten days of sending the notice of default to Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such Mortgagee be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of Developer arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such Mortgagee, except that any such Mortgagee or its successors or assigns shall not be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate until all delinquent and current fees and other monetary obligations due under this Agreement for the Property, or portion thereof acquired by such Mortgagee, have been paid to City. 19. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when personally delivered or upon receipt after deposit in the United states mail as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following representatives of the parties at the addresses indicated below: If to City: City of Temecula Attention: City Manager 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 tions to this Agreement to render it valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by applicable law. 10. Review of Compliance. (a) Periodic Review. The Director of Planning of the City shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in accordance with the procedure and standards set forth in this Agreement and the Temecula Municipal Code in order to ascertain compliance by the Developer with the terms of this Agreement. (b) Procedure. During a periodic review, the Developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on the Developer. The parties acknowledge that failure by the Developer to demonstrate good faith compliance shall constitute grounds for termination or modification of this Agreement in accordance with Government Code SS65865.1. (c) Cure of Default. If, on the basis of review of this Agreement, the Director of Planning concludes that the Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms of this Agreement, then the Director of Planning may issue a written "Notice of Non-compliance" specifying the grounds therefor and all facts demonstrating such non-compliance. The Developer's failure to cure or commence and diligently pursue the cure of the alleged non-compliance within thirty (30) days after receipt of said notice, shall constitute a default under this Agreement, subject to possible termination of the Agreement as provided below. Upon completion of a periodic review, the Director of Planning shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by the Developer with the terms of this Agreement and the recommended finding on that issue. 11. Proceedings UDOn Termination. If the City determines to proceed with termination of this Agreement, the City shall give written notice to the Developer of its intention to terminate this Agreement and comply with the notice and public hearing requirements of Government Code SS65868 and 65867. At the time and place set for the hearing on termination, the Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the Developer has not reasonably complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement. 12. Modification. Amendment, or Cancellation. Subject to the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code, this Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time by mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest in accordance with the provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 65868 of the Government Code. 13. OperatinG AGreement. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer and the refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that clarifications are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the term of this Agreement, City and Developer agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, they shall effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such operating memoranda shall constitute an amendment to this Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Attorney shall be authorized to make the determination whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to ~his Section or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 12. The City Manager may execute any operating memoranda hereunder without Council action. 14. Term of A~reement. This Agreement shall become operative and commence upon the Effective Date. It shall remain in effect until [TeEm - to be based on projected build-out of the Project] unless this Agreement is terminated, modified, or extended upon mutual written consent of the parties hereto. Following the expiration of said term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect; provided, such termination shall not automatically affect any right of the City or Developer arising from City approvals on the Site prior to the expiration of the term and arising from the duties of the parties as prescribed in this Agreement. 15. LeGal Action. Any party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 63S, et sea., all legal actions shall be heard by a referee who shall be a retired judge from either the Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, the United States District Court or the United States Court of Appeals, provided that the selected referee shall have experience in resolving land use and real property disputes. Developer and City shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before such referee. If Developer and City are unable to agree on a referee within ten days of a written request to do so by either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section shall be considered or portions of City, shall apply to the Site to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with this Agreement; provided, however, the provisions of this Section shall not affect City's compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental agencies or court- imposed moratoria or other limitations. (g) Permitted Fees. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and specifically excluding fees set by entities not controlled by City that are collected by City, City shall only charge and impose those fees and exactions, including, without limitation, dedications and any other fees or taxes (including excise, construction or any other taxes) relating to development or the privilege of developing, which are in effect on a City-wide basis as of the Effective Date. This Section shall not be construed to limit the authority of City to charge application, processing, and permit fees for land use approvals, building permits, and other similar permits and entitlements, which fees are designed to reimburse City's expenses attributable to such application, processing and permitting and are in force and effect on a City-wide basis at such time as said approvals, permits, or entitlements are granted by City. 9. Cooperation and Implementation. The City agrees that it will cooperate with Developer to the fullest extent reasonable and feasible to implement this Agreement. Upon satisfactory performance by Developer of all required preliminary conditions, actions and payments, the City will commence and in a timely manner proceed to complete all steps necessary for the implementation of this Agreement and the development of the Project or Site in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer shall, in a timely manner, provide the City with all documents, plans, and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations. Specifically: (a) Further Assurances: Covenant to SiGn Docu- ments. Each party shall take all actions and do all things, and execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit, if required, any and all documents and writings, that may be necessary or proper to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. (b) Reimbursement and Apportionment. Nothing in this Agreement precludes City and Developer from entering into any reimbursement agreements for the portion (if any) of the cost of any dedications, public facilities and/or infrastructure that City may require as conditions of the Project Approvals or the Future Approvals, to the extent that they are in excess of those reasonably necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Project. (c) ProcessinG. Upon satisfactory completion by Developer of all required preliminary actions and payments of appropriate processing fees, if any, City shall, subject to all legal requirements, promptly initiat% diligently process, complete at the earliest possible time all required steps, and expeditiously grant any approvals and permits necessary for the development by Developer of the Property in accordance with this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the processing of applications for and issuing of all discretionary approvals requiring the exercise of judgment and deliberation by City, including without limitation, the Future Approvals; (2) the holding of any required public hearingsl (3) the processing of applications for and issuing of all ministerial approvals requiring the determination of conformance with the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, site plans, development plans, land use plans, grading plans, improvement plans, building plans and speci- fications, and ministerial issuance of one or more final maps, zoning clearances, grading permits, improvement permits, wall permits, building permits, lot line adjustments, encroachment permits, conditional and temporary use permits, certificates of use and occupancy and approvals and entitlements and related matters as necessary for the completion of the development of the Property ("Ministerial Approvals"). (d) Processing During Third Party LitiGation. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against City or Developer relating to this Agreement or to other development issues affecting the Property shall not delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project, approval of the Future Approvals, or issuance of Ministerial Approvals, unless the third party obtains a court order preventing the activity. City shall not stipulate to the issuance of any such order. (e) State. Federal or Case Law. Where any state, federal or case law allows City to exercise any discretion or take any act with respect to that law, City shall, in an expedi- tious and timely manner, at the earliest possible time, (a) exercise its discretion in such a way as to be consistent with, and carry out the terms of, this Agreement and (b) take such other actions as may be necessary to carry out in good faith the terms of this Agreement. (f) Other Governmental Bodies. To the extent that City, its Council, Planning Commission or any other city agency constitutes and sits as any other board or agency, it shall not take any action that conflicts with City's obligations under this Agreement. (g) Defense of AGreement. city shall take all actions which are necessary or advisable to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Agreement. If this Agreement is adjudicated or determined to be invalid or unenforceable, City agrees, subject to all legal requirements, to consider modifica- public needs. The City acknowledges and agrees that there is good and valuable consideration to the City resulting from Developer's assurances and faithful performance thereof and that same is in balance with the benefits conferred by the City on the Project. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the exchanged consideration hereunder is fair, just and reasonable. Developer acknowledges that the consideration is reasonably related to the type and extent of the impacts of the Project on the community and the Site, and further acknowledges that said consideration is necessary to mitigate the direct and indirect impacts caused by the development of the Project. In consideration of the foregoing and the City's assurances set out in Section 8, Developer hereby agrees to use its reasonable best efforts, in accordance with its own reasonable business judgment, taking into consideration market conditions, financing and other economic factors, to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Applicable Rules. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, it is understood and agreed that the obligations of Developer under this Agreement shall not be personal recourse obligations of Developer, but shall be conditions which, if not satisfied by Developer, its successors or assigns, will give the City the right to seek a modification or termination of this Agreement in accordance with the procedures described in Sections 10 through 12 of this Agreement. 8. Acknowledaements. Aareements and Assurances on the Part of the City. In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement, and in consideration for the Developer to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section 7 of this Agreement, the City hereby agrees and assures Developer that Developer will be permitted to carry out and complete the development of the Project within the Site, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the conditions of the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules. Therefore, the City hereby agrees and acknowledges that: (a) Entitlement to Develop. The Developer is hereby granted the vested right to develop the Project on the Site to the extent and in the manner provided in this Agreement, subject to the conditions of the Project Approvals, the Applicable Rules and the Future Approvals. (b) Conflicting Enactments. Any change in the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, any change in any applicable general, area or specific plan, zoning, subdivision or building regulation, adopted or becoming effective after the Effective Date, including, without limitation, any such change by means of an ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, commission or department of City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate, as the case may be, which would, absent this Agreement, otherwise be applicable to the Site and which would conflict in any way with or be more restrictive than the Applicable Rules ("Subsequent Rules"), shall not be applied by City to the Site. Developer may give City written notice of its election to have any Subsequent Rule applied to the Property, in which case such Subsequent Rule shall be deemed to be an Applicable Rule. (c) Permitted Conditions. Provided Developer's applications for any Future Approvals are consistent with this Agreement and the Applicable Rules, City shall grant the Future Approvals in accordance with the Applicable Rules and authorize development of the Property for the uses and to the density of the Project described herein. City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions in connection with Future Approvals and, in approving tentative subdivision maps, impose dedications for rights of way or easements for public access, utilities, water, sewers, and drainage necessary for the Project; provided, however, such conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules or Project Approvals, nor inconsistent with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement. Developer may protest any conditions, dedications or fees while continuing to develop the Site; such a protest by Developer shall not delay or stop the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. (d) Term of MaD[S) and Other Pro~ect APProvals. Pursuant to California Government code Sections 66452.6(a) and 65863.9, the term of any subdivision or parcel map that may be processed on all or any portion of the Site and the term of each of the Project Approvals, including the Tentative Map and any Future Approvals shall be extended for a period of time through the scheduled termination date of this Agreement as set forth in Section 14 below. (e) Timina of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure of the parties to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later- adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties' agreement, it is the Developer's and City's intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Site in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exer- cise of its subjective business judgment. (f) Moratorium. No City-imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Site, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the Council, an agency of City, the electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements to use or service (including, without limita- tion, water and sewer) approved, issued or granted within City, necessary improvements, provides for public services appropriate to the development of the Site, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. 2. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "Applicable Rules" means the rules, regula- tions and official policies governing permitted uses of the site, governing density, and governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Site in force at the time of the "Effective Date" (as hereinafter defined), including, without limitation, the General Plan, City's current Zoning Code, which is comprised of County of Riverside Ordinance No. 348, as adopted and amended by City, and the Project Approvals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude City from applying changes occurring from time to time in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, or Uniform Plumbing Code, provided that such changes (i) are found by City to be necessary to the health or safety of the citizens of City and (ii) are generally applicable to all property in City. Prior to the Effective Date, City and Developer shall use reasonable efforts to identify two identical sets of the Applicable Rules, one set for City and one set for Developer, so that if it becomes necessary in the future to refer to any of the Applicable Rules, there will be a common set of the Applicable Rules available to both parties. (b) "Discretionary Actions; Discretionary Approvals" are actions which require the exercise of judgment or a decision, and which contemplate and authorize the imposition of revisions or conditions, by the City, including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City, in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an activity which merely requires the City, including any board, commission, or department of the City and any officer or employee of the City, to determine whether there has been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or conditions of approval. (c) "Effective Date" is the date the ordinance approving this Agreement became effective, which date was , 1995. (d) "Future Approvals" means any development of the Property which requires Discretionary Approvals pursuant to the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, parcel maps, tentative subdivision maps, and conditional use permits. Upon approval of any of the Future Approvals, as they may be amended from time to time, they shall become part of the Applicable Rules, and Developer shall have a "vested right," as that term is R/SILVER 25675 206640 4 -- 23 -- 05110195 defined under California law, in and to such Future Approvals by virtue of this Agreement. (e) "Public Improvements" means those public improvements contemplated by the Project Approvals. 3. Interest of Developer. The Developer represents to the City that, as of the Effective Date, it either owns or is contractually entitled to acquire all of the Site subject to encumbrances, easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other matters of record. 4. Binding Effect. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall run with the land comprising the Site and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective assigns, heirs, or other successors in interest. 5. NeGation of AGency. The parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing under this Agreement, each is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers, partners or employer/ employee. 6. Development of the PropertV. The following specific restrictions shall govern the use and development of the Project and the Site: (a) Permitted Uses The Site may be developed and used for the development of the Project in accordance with the terms of the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules. (b) Development Standards All design and development standards applicable to the development of the Site shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules. (c) Density and Intensity of Use The density and intensity of use shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules. (d) Maximum HeiGht and Size of Pro~ect BuildinGs The maximum height and size of the Project buildings shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules. (e) Reservation or Dedication of Land for Public Purposes The reservation or dedication of land for public purposes shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules. 7. Acknowledgments. AGreements and Assurances on the Part of the Developer. The parties acknowledge and agree that Developer's faithful performance in developing the Project on the Site and in constructing and installing public improvements and complying with the Applicable Rules will fulfill substantial DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement ("Agreement") is made this __ day of , 1995, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a general law city in the State of California (the "City") and HANCOCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a California corporation ("Hancock") and JOHN F. FIRESTONE, an unmarried man ("Firestone") (together, Hancock and Firestone are referred to herein as the "Developer"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the parties: A. The City is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute") to enter into binding agreements with persons or entities having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to establish certainty in the development process. B. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement in conformance with the Development Agreement Statute and the City of Temecula Municipal Code in order to achieve the development of the "Westside Specific Plan" area (the "Site") as expressly provided under the terms of this Agreement. The legal description of the Site is shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The parties likewise desire to provide complementary land uses to the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan and provide public services and urban infrastructure, all in the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Temecula. C. The development for the Site, as contemplated by the Westside Specific Plan includes special uses that complement the uses permitted by the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan and the General Plan of the City (the "General Plan"), including a "Wild West" arena, a hotel, supporting commercial, high density residential, a mixed-use transition area and natural open space areas (the "Project"). D. On May 15, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Developer's application for this Agreement, the Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003) (the "Westside Specific Plan") and Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 (Planning Application No. 95-0004) (the "Tentative Map") (together, the Westside Specific Plan and the Tentative Map are referred to herein as the "Project Approvals") and by Resolution Nos. recommended to the City Council approval of the Project Approvals and this Agreement. RISILVER 25675 206640 4 05/10/95 E. On , 1995, the City Council, held a duly noticed public hearing on the Westside Specific Plan, the Tentative Map and this Agreement. F. On , 1995, the City Council of the City adopted Ordinance No. approving the Westside Specific Plan, Resolution No. approving the Tentative Map and Ordinance No. approving this Agreement with the Developer. G. An environmental review has been conducted and approved in conjunction with the Project Approvals and this Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City Council has considered and certified Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. PA95- 0031). H. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer for the development of the Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the approved Project. I. The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Developer to develop the Project and Site in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. J. Developer has applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures for approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and City Council of the City has given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code, and has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, the Westside Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. K. This Agreement is consistent with the present public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the Project upon the welfare of the region. L. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in this Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development of the Project on the Site, except as provided for herein. M. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty in planning process and provides for the orderly development of the Project. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, allows installation of ATTACHMENT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DV95-0001 R:XSTAFFRPTXOTRP.PC S/11/95 vgw 87 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code SS 6103, 27383 Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND HANCOCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND JOHN F. FIRESTONE INC. Development Agreement No. DV 95-0001 THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE 5S 65868.5 Section 3. The Development Agreement imposes upon the subject property the sam land use regulations imposed by the Westside Specific Plan. Therefore, the Development Agreement will have the same impact on the environment as the Westside Specific Plan. No further environmental review beyond that undertaken for the Westside Specific Plan is necessary because none of the circumstances described in Section 15162 of Ti~e XVI of the California Administrative Cede (*CEQA Guidelines') are found to exist. Section 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to be transmitted to the City Counc'~ for further proceedings in accordance with State law. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1995. STEVEN l'. FORD CHAIRMAN I lnrRRRy CERTIYY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of May, 1995, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMlV~SSIONERS: PLANNING COMIVHSSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:\STAFFRIr~OTRP.I~C 5/11/95 vgw 86 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 9~__ A IH~-~OLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF DEVFJ~OPMENT AGREEMEaNT, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95- 0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN) DEVELOPIv~NT AGI~EMENT NO. DV95-0001 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES BrV-RF, BY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WtW~REAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an application for a Development Agreement, Westside Specific Plan, Hancock Development and John F. Firestone Agreement No. DV95-0001, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"); and, WtlEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on May 15, 1995, on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOIJI3WS: Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Development Agreement, in substantially the form of Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That in recommending the adoption by the City Council of the Development Agreement the Planning Commission hereby make the following findings: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for commercial, residential and open space development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations for the site; and, 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located as the Development Agreement provides for commercial, residential and open space development and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and, 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and, R:\STAFFRPT~OTRP.PC 5/11/95 vgw 84 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and, 5. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fLre protection, and to all property owners within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and, 6. Notice of the public hearing before the Manning Commission included the date, time, and place of the public heating, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or by diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; and, 7. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed; and, 8. The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Specific Plan zoning of High Density Residential is consistent with the Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; and, 9. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this legislation and this Development Agreement are as follows: a. Generation of municipal revenue; b. Public infrasU'ucture facilities; c. Enhancement of the quality of life; including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City; d. The opportunity for an adjacent residential-commercial project creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City; e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and traffic signal mitigation); L Participation in special assessment districts to finance regional infrastructure improvements; and, g. The creation of recreation dedications and payment of in lieu fees for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. R:XSTAFFRP~OTRP.PC 5/11/9J vgw 85 ATTACHMENT NO. 11 EXHIBITS R:I.STAFFRPTXOTRP.PC 5111195 vgw ~9 Mr. DAvid Hogam Pubrusty 2. 1995 l%go 5 prep',tatiuo tjf the R,'Cional Trztmportalion Plan (RTP) t, nd Regional 'l'rnnspottntlem hnprovcmunl Program (RTIP) ttn.dcr Ca|ll;t~rnia Onvexmmm! Cod,~ SeL.'fiUU 65080. 5CAG is r~pOrutlhln fi,r d~veloping the dmnnl~taphlc projecti~m~ ~ ~ integr~t~ laM use, housing, emplt~ym~t, ~d Iram~alion p~gras, ~sur~, aM s~ntegl~ pott~ns of (h~ ~h Co~t Aft ~lily Managtm~ Plan, pursuit Io Califnrnia H~lth imd SaMy Cmle S~lion 404~)-(c). SCAG · ~ also d~iguutM ~er 42 U.S.C. 17504(a) M a C~ ARen~ for air qualily planning for the Central Co~t mffi Souffiml D~m Air B}$1n DIsWIct. 5~CA G is rcspon.xihlc under the- P~h..r-,l Clean Air Act Ihr dt~enniniu!~ Con. farm~fy ofl~rnjects. Plmu~ and Programs tO ~e Air Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 17506. Pursuant to Cali~rtda Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG i~¢ reaponaiblc I~r ~vle~ng all Congestion Managcmt~ ~ans (CMP~} for con~islrncy w~h ug[onal tm~po~aon pl~ rcqulr~ by S~liOn &5080 Of the Gavinmeal Cndc. SCAG muKt sign evaluate the co~igtalcy and cnmpat;hilily cff iuch prog~i wiffiin Ih~ real,re. SCAG is th~ authoriz. od regional ~gency for inre~over~mcnl~ Revitw of I'rogra~ proem for f~eml financial a~tan~ and dir~ dev~opme~t activitl~. puts,ant to, Pf~ldenllal Ex~,tive ~der 12.372 (rq)l~ing A~S ~icw), ~CAG r¢vigwti, puruuant to I'ubl;C Ite-gour,'es CtXle SectiOns 210g3 and 21097o RnPlrOamtnlal Irapan Repotfs of proJt.'cls Of regional Slgnl ficanc¢ for co m:lsle. acy with regional plans lealiforMa Envl tonmenta! Quality Acl Gnklr. line. a ~gc:tium; 15206 and 15125(b)J. P,~rsuant tc~ 33 U.S.C. § 12118(a)C2) (Scction 208 oF d~c I:cdcral Water Pollution Conlrol Act). SCAG iu SCAG is respon.sit~lc for prq~armion of the Regiontd tIoul'lng Ntedl. As~.esxn#ent, purauant lu Ca] ifnntia Government Cod0 S0ction 65584(a). SCAG is rr.'~pun~iblu (with tht; San Diggo As.sociation of Guvcmmenla ~ul fire Sanla Barb~a Cnunty/Citi~ Area Planning Cem.eil) for prqluing the Ra~!,ern G[~ornia lla~oa$ Waae Manageme~ )'fail pursuant to CaJifofnia }l~dth ag~ ~afely Code Section 25135.3. 6-9 Mr. David February 2, PaRe 4 Draft FIR proposals. The Draft RIR Kldrcsscs TDM prngrams in Ap~ R.4 whl~ 1~ ref~r~ 1o ~ th~ B~n As~man ~9~ Re~mm~dmit~. ~m I~ It~s in ~ app~di~ Is word~ ~ follows: 6-8 "A Transportation Manag,'mez~t Plan should be developc:d which Includ~ loc'al/intcrnsl U'affic circulation and parkinl: r~lulremems of ~he l'mjeet. 'l~ls plan should addre~ both v~i~ular and petlestri:m s:irc'ulalion, htchsdlng th~ Proj~'s proposed people-mover and shuule systems.' It ia not clear however, from the summary provid~ in Table 3-1 uf the Drafl EIR, titat mitigatimt m~uxur~ has It~n prupos~ to be implemumed as a condition of approval for Project. SCAG staR' cnmnmentS. The environtaunted documentation for the Project xhould b0 cl~i~ to rcquirc preparation of a Tr~nsl~u t3titm Man;~B~ncnt Phn lhat includ~ die foatures re~mmend~ in Lhe II~mn A~man Ig~G R~nrnmc~ati{~. CONCI.USIONS AND.RBCOMMBNDA~ONS As d~cri~ in ~c Dra~ EIR, lhe Pmj~{ app~ Io be suhs~amlally ~osislent with regional goals and polici~ with ~e un~ ~sible ex~Dplion noL~ a~ove. All millgallon measur~ sssocialcxl witIt any approval pmj=L'l shemid be mnnitor~ in acc~rdan~ with An 3180 requirements. ~DN~K ,5OLrI'IIIr-RN CAIJFOItNIA A.~,~,OCIA'rlON OF GOVERNMIRI'~rF~ Rol~ ~nd A~thoriH,'~ SCAG IS a Joistt Powers Agt'ncy established umlcr Califonda Guvcmm~a Cud~ St:t..l itllx 6502 el s~I. Undttr Ituleral and stall: law, SCAG is alesignaled as a Council or Go~ermnent8 (COG), a Rcgionul 'l'rallSpurla|iun Plalmin,g Agc.cy (R'FPA). and a Mct.qu~lil:m PI;mninl| Orllanizatlon (MPO). .~.AG's mamlal,.-d ,~[t'~ and fc.~polD. ibilltle/i includc Ihc rollowhql: SCAG is d~lgnalet:l b.y Ihc federal govcrnmcal at~ Ihc ItCghm's Metropolitna Pl~ning O~ani~tlon and ma,,dat~ to main~in a conlinuing, c~pcratiuo. II~ ~}tnprdsc~lve (r~nalinn pl~m~n~ prac~s r~ul ling isY a Rcg}~ll~ ~Ya~ponation Phm a-d a Rcglon~ Tran~po~all~n Improvement Pr~gr~n pursUam to 23 U.S.C. ~134~)-00.49 U.S.C. ~I~(0-~) el seq.. 23 C.F.R. ~450. ae~ 49 C.F.R. ~6B. SCAG is al~ ~e d~lgna~ Regiond ~tttt~paHaaan P/an,tint Agency, aM ~s sucl~ L~ repressible ~r Imlh Old Town Rcdew. lopmcnt Plan ~i..~ v~.,~ Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 6-8 6-9 Mitigation measure 4.2.3.14 requires the preparation of a "fide share" program and measure 4.2.3.16 requires the provision of preferential parking for car and van pool employees. These measures were used to implement the transportation management plan requirement by the Project. Measure 4.2.3.14 will be revised .to include the requirement of a transportation management plan in addition to the required ride share program. This mitigation measure will be implemented as a condition of approval of the proposed project. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be implemented by the City for this Project in accordance with AB 3180 requirements. Mr. David Hogan P~bruary 2, 1995 PaSo 2 SCAC Cumment~ o. time Draft EIR for IlmC Old Tt,wfi 8ctR-vclopmmt Project 6-6 6-7 DI~CRIPTION OF PROJECT -The proposed Old Town .Rcdcvclopmont.-l}rojoct .L~ a joinl.lmhlic/prlvae x~caturc con.~isli.g tif 10 enidlament and supra faciliti~ in tbc Old Town ~re ares of ~c CIty of Tem~ula, It would Include a 350-rtcm hot:l with suplwnling co.unercial ux~ at~ a 4 ,Sueat Wild West Aa we~t t~f Old Tn~t. ~e Pfoj~t would include neeessay roadL parking are~, a~ o~cr infr.t~cture in Order to sup~rt ~c r~dupm~t of Old 'l~wa. Provision would ~ ~de for the ~ction of up to 429 dwelling uni~ in mul{Iple fatally st~ctures tu nx~t the n~s of futm c cmplay~ of the propos~ Project. '~c would he provision lbr am prol~tlon ur a 67.4 acre undcvchtp~ m'~ ~ polenti~ h~}i~ mitigation aM visual o~n ~pace. 'H}e PfoJc~:l wtasld also inch~(10 the linkage of the Old Town entertainment facilities with the Wild West Arcnt fitrough ins|alladotl of a (helutxl traoslmrt system along the main arterial. CONSI.qTENCy WITII REGIONAIj COMPREIIENSIVE P~-.AN AND GUIDE POLIC!I~¢; The recently adopted Growth Manallemr. an Chaprex (GMC) of the ReSidual Cmnprehcnslve Phm cm~lainx a at,rebel of polici~ that arc particularly applicable to the Project~. The following are selected growth managetaunt pt~licics of th= GMC in italk'x ;rod SCAG st't't't't't't't't't~ff ctunmuntx regardillS die, COnsistency of rile ProjwA with those policies: o Encaurogt pa//erns qf urban devth~pnwnt and I(.td use ,a~Hch reduce cost.r on infra.ttrttClttre constrUctinn and make. better use of eaisting facllilics. SCAG staff cornrot:his: Titis is ;m "in~ll" project. Its Imrpt~c is lu ~¢zt;tilt ;llid ~d~ance tht: hislt~s w~tern theme .l' fl~e Old Town ;uea of file Cily. Encoura.ee subreglon.~ to de'fine an economic strntegy to maintail, the economic vitality of the subreRion, including the devt.'h~pment atM u_~e .f marI~elln$ program.r. oral oilier economic incenlit~tL which support alialament of subregional goals and ]~olicies. ~CAG ,~laff cotnnxents: 'Fills i,'olmsed ratcvchqlnnmt project de~igrted ~atn~d flit theme of the 'old w~t' repr~ents a ~(~ example of the type of ~unic ulralegy envisioned by thi~ regional plan pttliCy. It ix m~tkipat~ that the Proj~t wotdd al~;ta a siglfiHcant uttmh~ of hmfisL~ fnm~ ou~id0 ~e region ~ well a rexiden~ thm~ wi~hln the region. See Endnote. Old Town l~edev~lopment Plan ~a, Focused EZR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 6-6 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. 6-7 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 Mr. David Hogan Fd.~raary 2, 1995 Page 3 o ~'ulT. rxmt ]JrovlMons oaul incentive.f created by local Jurisdictions to altracl housjng grtNJh in job- riCh Subring)ant and Job growth In housing-riCh ~ul~regloru. SC~AG staff comtnenlS: Tho Project is located in the Wcslctn Rived)it Counly Subregion which Is a housing-rich .,;uhrcgiou. 'llte Project will serve u,) imptaro the jet)n-housing halalice, ratio in file subregion in Oral. alfl|ough 429 huusing units a~e being propo.~:d. the a~ded hemdug would 'be more Ihnn off.~ct hy the-err. at)oil of .plnvximately-2,400 nt~w job opportuuitlcs. Encourage developments in and around activity realera. Iran$tnorfallon mKle corridors. undenailized itVrrastrut~ure ~ystetns and areas ne. edling recycling aM redevelOJ~Vtent. o 3CAG stiff comn)cnls: '11)c Old Town area Is regard~ a-~ an activity conlet and transient)orion n~de for the City or Temecula. Encourage planned tle. v~.It~pmenl in h~cattolI$ least likely to cause adverse environmental h,poct. A'upport policies and ac4ionx that pre4e)~'e open apace areas Identified in local. state. atu/ federaJ plans. ~CAG staff commune-';: 'JIlt Project w~uld hc cons)steal wltlt thr_.se two p~liclCS in that it prt~vldc%s that s~ dev01ol)mcat would I)c pt~'n)ilh:d Willlit) a 67.4-acr~ open spaco buffer along Murti~ta Creek which hisccl~ Ihc Project. Encourage mittgallon nlea.~urex fhtU rrduce ,toi.~t~ In L?.rtain locations, measurr. s aimed al prnervalloa Qf biological a,d ec~dalCical rcse, urt.v's measures that would reduce i. rparure to sei.~r:dc hazards', minlmi~.q eat'lhqtto&e daltltlge ~ le~ develop e/lterlZtttt.~ re~po/l$t at~d reco~ planL :SCAG shift ctmnncJfis: The Dfafl FJR Ibr the Project contaht~ th.mul:h analys~ .f the clsvi~l~eotal impacts of de l>stsj~l ~d prcsc;~t~ a full slate of mitigation m~sur~ ~sich would N~l~r m i~ ad~ume tO protect existing tcstntrcl~. provid~ girth BI~DI~ arc ~upl~ M coMitiant of hoj~ approval. 'l~e new R~ionM Mahility Ch~r of ehe R~ional Comprehensive Plan also h~ ~dici~ pe~hmnl Io lh~ Pfoj~~. 0~ Of ~e n~st relevant af ~ is th~ em~ d~ling wid~ T~porlalion Ma~g~cnt ~DM) ~ follows: o Promote TDM t,rograms alonl~ ~qfh ,'ansh and ride.~huriag foc~lities as n viable and desirable I~.qrt Of the m~rall mobility program while recognizhtl~ the particular needs of indi),idual ~ubreglont. 2 c;ne* Endnntc. Old Town Redev~lopment Plan Final Focused EIR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETfER #6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 Your corrmaent is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Your corrmaent is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The Old Town Redevelopment Project provides a good opportunity for implementing an effective transportation demand management program. ',~ 0%E79%] LEGEND ~ e OLO TOWN SPECI,rlC PL/,J~I - CN1ERTAIN~ENT · COR[' J~ -Wt:STSID[: SPECIFIC Pt~N XX(XX) - [NIER1AINMENT 'CORE' TRIP DIS1RIBUTION (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN IRIP DISIRIBUTION) PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ----on-Aschm~n Associates+ Inc. -:-v CF TE~,~E.ZUL~ , r',! ,-, T,3WN F;EDEVELC,~L,~.ENT pROJECT FICUE LETTER ,~6 ' ' B'~R Wait Seventh Siremt,12th Floor ~. Los Ang~les. Caillmn|e, 90017-3435 I ~ (213) 236-1800 e FAX (213) 236-1R2~- February 2, 1 Mr. David Hogan, Projcc~ Manager City uf Team:~ula ,13174 Business Par~ Drlvc, Te~nccuh, CA Cummen{~ on the Draft EIR far lhe Old I'~wn Rt'dcvde~Fnazl !'nUiNjI - SCAG I~k~, ! ll)enr Mr. Hog~m: ']l}~ank yuu for lla~= oppununity to review and commo.t on the Draft 13nvironmcnfal ImpaCt Report (fIR) fbt th~ Otd 'rowel Redevelopmeal Proled. A.~ areawide clcarinllh. Lu4c f.r felltonally ~ig, nll~cault pmj~tx, SCAG as.sist~ ~;illr--'~, countle.,s and 0thor agc.cl~ Io review profeels amd pl^ns for co.slstency with regio.al plans. Th~ attad:r~l com:n~nts at~ incafit tO provide g~ddnnce for addrcs~i,~g dac proposed Project within the context tlf tlur regitmal goal~ and planx, wl,ich at= lu~,,,I Jn pad upon state luld federal :nandates al, noted hcrcin. If ynu have any ttumlions ubout IIs~ coml!lelll~, l}te4tSc contact Glenn nlo~om C213) 236-1876. Sincerely, ERIC H. ROTH ManaRer~ Intorgovcrnmcntal P-eviow Old Town Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. City ofTemecula; Zev Buffman Group; Public Review I'efiod December ?, 1994. to January 25, 1995 .1'anuary19.1995 Page 5 5-9 When and if a Murrieta/Temecula joint uniform mitigation fee is adopted by both cities, the project should pay its fair share toward mitigating deficient facilities in both agencies. Old Town Redevelopment Plan Final Fck"~d EIR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5-9 Where appropriate and necessary, the City of Temecula will fund its fair share under a joint uniform mitigation fee toward mitigation deficient facilities. Old Town Redevelopment Project Draft Environmenial Impact Report, City of Temecula; Zev Buffman Group; Public Review Period December 7, 1994, to .Tanuary 25, 1995 January I9, 1995 Page 4 5-5 5-6 Weekdny P.M. Segment Dir. Penk-Hour LOg I-15 N/O Ib. ncho California Rd. (N/B) F/F l-I 5 NIO Rancho California Rd. (S/B/ ElF' I-15 hetwe,'n Rancho Califonfia Rd. 81. SR79 (N/B) F/F I-15 betweem Rancho California Rd. & SR79 (S/B) DID 1-15 S/O 5R79 (N/B) E/F 1-1 ,S SIn SR79 (S/B) B/I:I SR79 F,/O - -- two-way F/F The CMP-dcsignated roadway segments tabulated above resulting in a level of service of "F" with the project's traffic do not coinply with the requirements or the Riverside County CMP. Therefore, a defttie.hey plan will be filed with RCTC, as recommended in the report. 5-7 5-8 As a resuh of the review of tho report, the following concerns exist, on behalf of the City of Murrieta: · The CMP traffic study should analyze a larger area, particularly the 1-15 and 1-215 freeway segments in tile Murrieta sphere of influence. The City of Murrieta is potentially concen~ed about iml>acts of the project on the 1-15 and 1-215 freeways lllrouBh Murrieta. · A potential concern exists over the possible "spillover" effects of traffic associated with the project from 1-15 onto Jefferson Avenue in Murrieta. Due to the increasing congestion at I-I 5 interchanges in the City of Temecula. many motorisis currently utilize Murrieta interchanges and Jefferson Avenue to bypass the I-15 route to/from Temccula. · The project trip disu'ibution (Volume 11. Appendix 1Ii. page 31 of the draft EIR) appears 1o favor the SR79/Front Street Inte,'cha,~ge over tile Rancho California Road Interchange for the 60% of the project traffic expected to utilize 1-15 to the notch of the pn~ject site. Although it is logical to assume that a shift in project traffic oriented along I- 15 to the north will occur from the Rancho California Road Int. erchange Io the SR79/Fs'ont Street Interchange due ~o the severe congestion at ~he Rancho California Road Interchange, it seems unrealislic to assume that 90% of this 60% project traffic split will utilize the SR79/Front Street Interchange. The Rancho California Road Interchange provides a much closer means of access ~o/from the 1-15 for the project than does the SR79/Fronl Street lnlerchnnge and was only assigned 10% of the 60% share. Old Town R~d=vtlo~ment Pian ~.., F~d m RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5-5 The Old Town Redevelopment Project is not forecast to cause any significant impact on local roadways. However, if such a problem should occur in the future, the City would develop a deficiency plan for implementation through the RCTC. 5-6 Please .refer.to responses to_comments_5-2,.Sr3,.and 5,4. The Congestion Management Plan study area was explicitly defined by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Congestion Management Agency for Riverside County, in a technical "scoping" meeting held April 26, 1994, at the City of Temecula City Hall. This study area was endorsed at that time by Cultruns and the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula believes the scoping meeting identified the roads and road segments that would incur the most significant impact from the projects. The City does not agree that additional traffic impact analysis is required at this time. 5-7 Please refer to responses to comment 5-3 and 5-4. No adverse impact due to the Project is forecast to affect the Winchester Road/I-15 interchange and adjacent surface streets for the reasons outlined in the Draft EIR, Technical Appendices and the above referenced response. 5-8 Please refer to responses to comments 5-3 and 54 which indicate that traffic flow to entertainment facilities wilt be managed to ensure that the SR-79/I-15 interchange is utilized as the primary access. All Project traffic to/from the north on 1-15 was assumed to utilize either the 1-15/Rancho California Road interchange (10 percent) or the 1-15/SR-79 South interchange (90 percent). The precise distribution or "split" between these two interchanges was based upon (a) the congestion anticipated along Rancho California Road west of 1-15 and along SR-17 South/Western Bypass west of 1-15, (b) the location of the Project's primary off-street parking facilities, and (c) the City of Temecula's expressed desire to encourage (via freeway signing and traffic management plans) Project traffic --and Old Town Temecula traffic, in general--to use the 1-15/SR-79 South interchange. Based upon these three factors, the 10:90 "split" was adopted by the City of Temecula. The proposed circulation improvements will ensure adequate quality of traffic flow at this interchange, and the implementation of a traffic management plan in conjunction with Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, and local jurisdictions can ensure that traffic will use this interchange instead of the Rancho California/I-15 interchange. Old Town Rcdev~lopmcnt Plan Fi.al vo~..d Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 54 As cited in Barton-Aschman's summary report "Site Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopmere Project-Phase 1," October 28, 1994, Table 6, p. 40 (Draft EIR Technical Appendices) the primary intersections involving Rancho California Road which would serve the Project would operate at level of service D or better in 1996 assuming.the implementation .of Pxoject -Phase- 1 and certain other mitigation measures. These primary intersections include the 1-15 North ramps, the 1-15 South ramps, Front Street and Diaz Road. The provision of LOS D operating conditions in the Rancho California Road corridor would not be expected to encourage Project patrons to exit 1-15 in advance of Rancho California Road in the City of Murrieta during the first phase of the Project in 1996. Further, as cited in Barton-Aschman's summary report "Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopment Project," October 28, 1994, Table 4, p. 28 (Draft EIR Technical Appendices) 1-15 would operate at level of service B-D north of Rancho California Road in 1996 assuming implementation of Project Phase 1. The provision of LOS D operating conditions on 1-15 north of Rancho California Road would not be expected to encourage Project patrons to exit 1-15 in advance of Rancho California Road in the City of Murrieta during the first phase of the Project in 1996. However, in 2010, LOS F is projected north of Rancho California Road assuming Project buildout. Therefore, if alternative routes (to 1-15) exist which would provide noticeably faster travel times than 1-15, it is feasible that traffic would be diverted from 1-15 to parallel surface streets. However, because LOS E-F is projected without the Project, such diversion by non- Project would be anticipated as well, thereby raising a question as to whether noticeably faster travel times on surface streets would, in fact, be feasible. Please refer to responses to comments 5-2 and 5-3. The City of Temecula does not expect any impact in the area identified in this comment, but the use of traffic officers to control traffic flow so it does not affect this area can be implemented if it is found to be a problem in the future. The City of Temecula will be implementing traffic management plans in cooperation with Caltrans and Riverside County to ensure traffic flow to entertainment events is managed without significant impact to the freeway and local surface streets. The City of Murrieta can be included in the development and implementation of these traffic management plans to ensure that the areas identified in your comment do not become significantly impacted by implementation of the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Old Town Redeveloplnent Projecl Draft Environmental Impact P, eport, City ofTemecula; Zev Buffman Group; Public P, eview Period Decentbet 7, 1994, to January 25, 1995 J'anuary 19, 1995 Page 3 The following Congestion Management Program (CMP)-designated freeway/highway segments are projected to operate at the following levels of service in 1996, including the project's traffic: --Weekday P,M. Selfmeat Dir. Peak-Haur LOS 1-15 N/O I~ncho Califomla P,d. ('N/B) B I- 15 N/O Rancho California Rd. (S/B/ D 1-15 between l~.aocho California P,d. & SP,79 (N/B) B 1-15 between Rancht~Calirornia R.d. & SR.79 (S/B) C 1-15 S/O 5R79 (N/B) C I-t5 S/O SR79 (S/B) D SR79 FJO two-way B The following signalized intersections arc projected to operate at the rollowing levels or service, with mitigation, at build-out, including the project's traffic: Weekday P.M. |,tersection Peak-Hoar LOS Rancho California Rd. qt3 Vincent Moraga Dr. C B. ancho California Rd. @ Diaz R.d. D R.m~cho California Rd. (,~ Fwnt St. D Rancho {-'alifornia Rd. a,~ I-I 5 N/B B P, an~:ho California Rd. ~ 1-15 S/B D/B Santiago Rd. ~J Front St. D SR79 ~ 1-15 N/B D SR79 r~ ~-~5 S/B B Western B~ass ~ Front c:t. C Western Bypass .~] Front St./I-J5 S/B On-R. amp C (with new ]-15 S/B loop off-ramp) The following CMl'-designated freeway/highway segments are projected to operate at the following levels of service in 2010, without and with the project's t ra~c, respectively: MEMORANDUM TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJ'ECT: Ben Minamide, Director of Public Works 1 lank Mohle, Traffic Engineer January 19, 1995 Old Town Redevelol;ment Project Draft Environmental hapact Report, City ofTemecula; Zev BufFman Group; Public Review Period December 7, 1994, to January 25, 1995 Summary Comments The overall project has two phases. Phase 1, anticipated for operation in 1996, will consist of the following to be located in the Old Town area of Temecula: · Cabare~t Theaters--One at 27.000 square feet and a second at 45,000 square feet · Western Sakmns--3'wo at 10,000 square feet · Open House--g5,000 square feet · Wild West Arena--175.000 square feet · Virtual Reality Pavilions--One pavilion with two theaters with 50 seats each · "Quick Draw" Competition Area--8,000 square feet · Hotel-.-. 350 rooms · Retail Commercial--30,00O square feet · Visitors Center/Ticket Office--5.000 square feet · Administrative Space--20,000 square feet Phase 2 of the project, to be built at'a future undetermined time, will consist of the following: · Showboat--21,000 square feet · Virtual Real. ity Pavilions--Two pavilions · Hotel.- Expansion of Phase 1 hotel with 150 rooms · Retail Commercial--20,000-70.000 square feet Old Town ~edevelopmem Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, City ofTemecula; Zev Buffman Group; Public Review Period December 7, 1994, to January 25, 1995 January 19, 1995 Page 2 5-4 The "bottom Hne" to Murrieta is that visitors traveling on I-] 5 to/from the entertainment complex may find the I-15 at Rancho California Road interchange is excessively congested each time they attend a performance and will, therefore, change their routing to use .Tefrerson Avenue to Front Street or to Date Street to Diaz Road to Rancho California Road to Front Street. This routing -can be' used when there is ,a bridge .on Date. Street.,over-.Murrieta-Creek..-This-route would represent a "back way" to the complex. Therefore, Mun'ieta Jefferson Avenue traffic volumes may be impacted by the project. The exact impact cannot be reliably quantified at this time. Continued cooperation between both cities Io develop the l-15/I-215 corridor syslem is my best recommendation. Detailed Comments" The project is cxpcctcd to generate 995 inbound and 325 outbound p.m. peak-hour net vehicle trips during a typical weekday. The project is also expected to generate 1,475 inbound and 330 mid-day peak-hour outbound net vehicle trips during a typical Saturday. The project traffic is expected to have the following distribution of traffic: · 60% on 1-15 noah of the project; · 20% on 1-15 south ofthc project; · 5% on l{.ancho California Road, both east and west of the project; · 5% on Santiago Road east of the project; and · 5% on State Route 79 east of the project. The following signalized intersections are projected to operate at the following levels of service, with mitigation, in 1996, including the project's traffic: Weekday P.M. Saturday Mid-Day ],terseetion Peak-Horn' 1,05 Peak-Hour LOS Ranelm Califomia Rd. ~} Diaz Rd. B B Rancho Califor,ia Rd. (a] Front £7. D D Rancho California Rd. ~ 1-15 S/B C C Rancho California Rd. (.a]I- 15 N/B D D SR79 .g/B/Front St. @ 1-15 S/B D C SR79 S/B (?3 1-15 N/B B C Front St. (aJ Western By-Pass C C 5-1 .5-2 5-3 LETTER W5 CITY OF MURR 26442 Beckman Court, Murfieta, CA 92562 Telephone: 909-698-1040 Fax: 909-698-4509 I E T A January 24, 1995 Mr. Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 CITY OF TE~,IEC;;Lf, SUBJECT: Public Comments - Old Town Redevelopmerit Project, Zev Buffman Group Dear Gary: Attached are the City of Murrieta comments after review of the Old Town Redevelopment Project Draft ErR. Our comments, by Hank Mohle City Traffic Engineer, relate to impact concerns that should ~'Omclude a larger traffic analysis area on the 1-15 and 1-215 corridor through Murrieta. We are also concerned about the "spillover" effect of project traffic on our reach of Jefferson Ave. to the interchanges at 1-15 and 1-215. Las~y, a concern focuses on the trip distribution assignment at SR79/Front St. Interchange vs. 1-15/Rancho California Road all as addressed by Mr. Mohle. We appreciate the opportunity provided to us to critique the E.I.R. and stand ready to work with Temecula towards cooperative resolvement of mutual traffic concerns in our cities. Attachment: Mohle memo of Jan. 19, 1995 Sincerely, Director of Public Works/City Engineer CC' Stephen G. Harding Steve Mandoki Fred Buss Ernest Perea Dan Clark Mayor & City Council Old Town Redcv~lopmcnt Plan n.., ro~a ~IR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER #5 CITY OF MURRIETA 5-1 5-2 5-3 The comments by the City's Traffic Engineer are addressed on the following pages. See particula~y response to comment 5-6. Based on the traffic impact evaluation provided in the Draft EIR, all traffic flow into the entertainment facilities that would be constructed under the Old Town Redevelopment Project can be managed without a significant impact after improvements are installed, primarily at the SR-79/I-15 interchange with some traffic utilizing Rancho California Road. The data indicates that little or no Project traffic is forecast to affect the Winchester Road and 1-15 interchange and the related surface streets, such as Jefferson Avenue/Front Street. Mitigation of impacts includes signage on Interstate 15 to direct entertainment facility traffic to the SR- 79/I-15 interchange, the Western Bypass and the majority of the parking facilities which will be located on the south side of the City of Temecula, well away from the areas of concern identified by the City of Murrieta. See also responses to comment 5-4 and 5-8. Please refer to response to comment 5-2 which also addresses this comment. Experience at other major entertainment venues is that traffic flow on a freeway, in th{~ instance 1-15, can be directed to the preferred interchange, in this case the SR- 79/1-15 interchange, by use of passive and active signage and, if necessary, traffic officers to control the flow of traffic. See also responses to comment 5-4 and 5-8. Old Town Redevelopment January 23, 1995 Page 2 4-4 4. 4-6 The construction of the Western Bypass and two new bridges over Murrieta Creek will have significant envirorunental impacts. There are numerous grammatical errors, as well as illegible and upside down exhibits throughout the document. The Transportation Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the project. We should request that upon completion of the EIR process, the Department will receive complete copies of the Draft and Final EIR's with the accompanying Technical Appendices. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ruthanne Taylor Berger, Senior Transportation Planner, at (909) 275-2076. Sincerely, Edwin D. Studor Transportation Planning Manager RTB:mw cc: Laurie Dobson Bob Harvey, Caltrans District 8 La Keda Johnson, Caltrans District 8 Old Town R~dc-vcloprncnt Plan ~n.~ Fo¢.,~ Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 4-4 4-5 4-6 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The construction of these facilities will contribute to the short-term air quality and noise impacts that are ..identified as significant in the Draft Ell{. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it comiders the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. Copies of the Technical Appendices and the Final EIR will be provided to the Department as requested. 4-2 4-3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND IA.ND MANA GEi iENT AGENCY Transportation Department David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation TP3~NSPORTATION PI~A/{NING AND SYSTEMS MANAG~-M~NT DIVISION '~ RECEIVED January' 23, 1995 JAIl 2 6 1995 Alls'd ............ Mr. Gary Thornhill, Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Old Town Redevelepment Dear Mr. Thornhill: The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed above referenced project and offers the following comments: the The Department did not receive the Technical Appendices that were referenced in Volume I, and therefore staff could not perform a detailed review. However, based on the information provided, the Department does not anticipate any unacceptable degradation in Level of Service (LOS) on County maintained roads due to the project. Section 4.6.4.6 and 4.6.4.7: Assessment District 159 plans for the State Route 79 South/Interstate 15 Interchange are complete and are expected to be signed by Caltrans within 60 to 90 days. The County of Riverside anticipated bid advertisement in the summer of 1996. Inclusion of any modifications to the improvement plans for either the interchange or State Route 79 South would have to be proposed in the immediate future for the County to consider. An agreement between the County of Riverside and the project developer requiring the developer to cover all redesign and increased construction costs associated with the interchange modifications would be necessary. The document proposes massive infrastructure improvements for the City, but does not identify the responsible party(s) for construction. Page 3-12 and 13 indicates the City has identified a range of improvements that would enhance circulation in the project vicinity and that they are expected to be in place by Phase I of (1996) the project. Does this mean that the City has programmed these improvements. It is not clear whether the applicant will be providing any of the improvements. 4050 Lemon Slrc=I. Sd/Floor · Riverside, C.ahfomia 92501 · (909) 275-6740 PO Box tOO0 · Riverside. C.~iilorn,a 925U2-1090 · F.-LX (909) 275-o721 Old Town Redevelopmerit Plan Fi,a~ Fo~d Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETFER #4 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 4-1 , ..Your comment is noted .and.,will..be.made_available-to _the_City ,Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The City has provided the County with a copy of the Technical Appendices in response to this comment. 4-2 Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. If the project is approved, the City will coffer with both the County and Caltrans to incorporate design changes that will be necessary to accommodate the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project. Arrangements can be made at that time regarding funding for any redesign costs and any consequent increases in construction costs attributable to the Project. 4-3 The City will not make any formal commitments to the infrastructure improvements required to implement the Old Town Redevelopment Project until a decision is made on the application. If the project is approved, the City and the Zev BuKman Group would assume responsibility for ensuring these infrastructure improvements, including circulation system improvements outlined in the Draft ErR, are in place prior to the occurrence of any significant project impacts. O)d Town Redevelopmerit Plan F~,, F~,cd Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER #3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 The technical Analyses conducted by Banon-Aschman Associates, Inc., as specified --by the City of Temecula. Department of,Public-Works-considered.oniy the weekday evening peak hour occurring between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM and the Saturday midday peak hour occurring between 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM. No analysis of the 24-hour data was required for the project-specific evaluation after conferring with Caltrans, County, and City representatives in an agency 'scoping" meeting held prior to preparing the traffic studies. This meeting was held April 26, 1994 at the City of Temecula City Hall. It was concluded that the 24-hour traffic data would not be needed to make a worst-case traffic impact evaluation which is provided by the focus on the peak hour impacts of the project. Barton-Aschman's summary report "Congestion Management Program Traffic Analysis of the Proposed Old Town Redevelopmerit Project," October 28, 1994, contains analyses of existing (1994), 1996 (Phase 1 Project), and 2010 (full Project Development) conditions along 1-15. This document was provided to the public in the Draft EIR Technical Appendices. For 1996 and 2010, analyses both without and with the Project traffic are included. However, the analyses are based upon weekday evening peak-hour data as specified by Caltrans, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, and the City of Temecula in a technical "scoping' meeting held April 26, 1994, at the City of Temecula City Hall. This scenario was selected as a worst- case analysis of potential traffic impact and is, therefore, indicative that the 24-hour impacts will not be significantly adverse. Your comment is noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopment Project for decision. The City will require funding of infrastructure improvements associated with the Old Town Redevelopment Project to be funded concurrently with development of the project or prior to occurrence of a significant impact on a particular infrastructure system. As noted in response to comment 3-3, the City will require circulation system improvements associated with the Old To~m Redevelopment Project to be completed concurrently with the development or when required to mitigate potential traffic impacts below a significant level as outlined in the Draft EIR. The City has consulted Caltrans since the inception of the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project applications. If the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project is approved, the City will continue to consult and work closely with Caltrans to implement improvements that may affect state highways. ,TAM ~5 ~95 ~=5'/PM Cq_TRAMS DIST 8 RIV SBD COORD Mr. David Hogan, January 25, 1995 Page 2 Project Manager at If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen (909) 383-4233 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, Transportation Planning Old To~n Rcdcvclopmcnl Plan si... Fo~d sm RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2-5 If the project is approved, the City intends to hold a pre-application meeting with the Corps and the Flood Control District to discuss alternative bridge engineering designs and processing requirements and schedules. 3P~ 25 '95 82:56PM CqLTRANS DIST 8 RIV SBD COGRD P.2/3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION January 25, 1995 08-Riv-15-4.9 .8CH~-.94012039 Mr. David Hogan, Project Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business ?~rk Drive Temecule, CA 92590 .... ' Dear Mr. Hogan: 01d To~n RedeveloDment Pro~ect Draft Environmental Impact Report We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request consideration of the following comments: 3-1~ This document should include project trip-ends generated per day. 3-2 The project "Transportation/Circulation" section does not adequately disclose the cumulative nor project's direct traffic impacts to mainline Interstate 15 (I-15). The traffic study portion of this report should be amended to include the following from a worst case scenario: existing and build-out projected average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. 3-3 3-4 As stated in the Draft Route Concept Report for 1-15 (January, 1992) the ultimate corridor plan in the project area is a ten (10} lane freeway including two (2) High Occupancy_ Vehicle (HOV) lanes within a 300 foot right-of-way. The City should utilize Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) or Other development fee programs as a method for each development to fund improvements to mitigate the deterioration of the level of service (LOS) for which it is responsible. The improvements to state facilities identified tO mitigate the project impact should be completed prior to the relevant phase of development which generates the additional traffic. We urge a continuou~ liaison with Celttans on all 3-5 proposed plans as they affect state highways. Old Town Redeveloprnent Plan Final pccased SIR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2-3 Your comments are noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the proposed project for decision. A decision regarding the specific type -- of permir(nationwide.or individual) cannot-.be.made~,until..the .bridgo designs are completed by the City. The bridge designs will only be undertaken if the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project is approved by the City. 2-4 Please refer to response to comment 2-3. Your comments are noted and will be made available to the City Council when it considers the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project for decision. -3- We encourage you to arrange a pre-application meeting with us at an appropriate time so that we can further discuss permitting of your proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Please refer to this letter and Project No. 95-00093-ES in future correspondence. Sincerely, John A. Gill Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosure USEPA; Attn: James Romero USFWS; Arm: John Konecny CDFG; Arm: Dee Sudduth Tom Dodson and Associates; Arm: Tom Dodson Old Town Re, development Plan vi.al vo~..d Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETI'ER #2 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 2-1 2-2 The Draft EIR specifically identifies the Corps as one of the permitting agencies that the City of Temecula will have to consult prior to implementing the proposed project. Your comment indicates a misunderstanding of the 150 foot distance discussed in the Draft EIR. The 150 foot distance represents an estimate of the current width of the existing Murrieta Creek channel at each of the proposed crossing locations. It was used to estimate the specific area that would be subject to Corps jurisdiction when it comes time to obtain the Section 404 permits from the Corps. If the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project is approved by the City, any bridges included in the approval would have to be engineered in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District and Corps design requirements. If the bridges must be 220 to 245 feet in width to meet the ultimate channel design for Murrieta Creek, then the City will meet this design requirement. However, for the purposes of calculating the area currently within the channel and subject to the Section 404 permit process, the estimated 150 foot width was the appropriate value in the EIR. If the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project is approved, the City will evaluate the three alternatives for obtaining Section 404 authorization identified in your comment in the context of the required timing to meet the proposed project's schedule. If the bridges will be constructed before the Corps approves the Hood Control Distfict's Murrieta Creek project, the City will design the bridges for to span the widest alternative currently being considered as suggested in your comment. If you choose to pursue the second or third option, the following considerations should be taken into account with regard to the nationwide permit program (see enclosure): Nationwide Permit 26 permits discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters. Because the locations of the proposed bridges are below the headwaters of Murrieta Creek, which is not an isolated waters, Nationwide Permit 26 would not apply to your proposed project. Nationwide Permit 14, which permits fills for roads crossing waters of the United States, limits the filled area to no more than a third of an acre and no more than 200 linear feet of fill for the roadway placed in any special aquatic sites, including weftands. A 220 to 245 foot long, 100 foot wide bridge would impact between 0.50 and 0.56 acres of waters; therefore, Nationwide Permit 14 would not apply to your proposed project. Nationwide Permit 25, which permits structural discharges, and Nationwide Permit 33, which permits temporary construction access and alewatering, may apply to your proposed project provided the project meets all the general terms and conditions of the nationwide permit program at 33 CFR Part 330, Appendix A(C). If all bridge abutments and related bank protection are placed outside of waters of the U.S., the bridge may comply with the conditions of the nationwide permit program, provided it can be designed in a manner which will not result in greater than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects. If your project cannot comply the terms and conditions of any of the nationwide permits, an individual permit would be required. If an individual permit is required, you will need to submit an alternatives analysis satisfying the Section 404Co)(1) Guidelines and a review of all public interest factors relevant to the proposal, including the cumulative effects thereof. The following information would be required as part of either an individual or nationwide pern~t application: A conceptual mitigation plan for impacts to all aquatic resources affected by all phases of the project. A final mitigation plan can be prepared concurrent with permit application processing and review. Verification that you have contacted the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the resolution of all outstanding cultural resources issues. Verification [hat you have contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the presence of all federally listed species on the proposed project site. Focused species surveys for all proposed, threatened or endangered species which may be impacted by the proposed project. Please be advised that these surveys are generally only valid for a period of one year. Old Town Redevcloprncnt Plan Fin,, Fo~d Em RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER #1 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1-1 This letter verities that the City of Temecula has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act review requirements for the Draft EIR which addresses the Old Town Development Project. This information will be made available to the City Council when it considers the proposed project for decision. Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch LETTER ~2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 300 NORTH LOS ANGELES STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 December 20, 1994 r ECEI /ED DEC 3 0 ,, , ns'd ........... . 2-1 2-2 City of Temecula Planning Department Atm: David Hogan 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. Hogan: This letter is in regard to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated December 1994, for the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. According to the DEIR, the proposed project would include the construction or replacement of four bridges crossing Mubrieta Creek, impacting approximately 1.4 acres of wetland habitat. Construction of these bridges would result in a discharge of fill into waters of the U.S. and would require a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. As you are aware, Riverside County Flood Control District (District) is currently proposing to construct flood control facilities within Murrieta Creek. Because the bridge crossings associated with your proposed project are sufficiently related to the District's proposed flood control project, we will need to evaluate the impacts associated with the bridge crossings in light of the District's overall plan for Murrieta Creek. Specifically, the DELR states that the bridges would be 150 feet long; however, the most recently proposed design for Murrieta Creek through Old Town Temecula includes a channel width between 220 and 245 feet. The Corps would not authorize construction of bridges in Old Town which would preclude design alternatives for the Murrieta Creek project. Therefore, construction of the proposed bridges would not be authorized until a final design for Murrieta Creek has been approved by the Corps. There are three options by which you could obtain Section 404 authorization to construct the proposed bridges across Murrieta Creek. First, you could request that the District include the proposed bridges as part of their permit application for the Murrieta Creek flood control project. Second, you could wait for the Corps to approve a design for Murrieta Creek and then apply for a separate permit to construct the bridges. Third, you could apply for a permit to construct the bridges before Corps approval of the District's Murrieta Creek project if the bridges were designed to span the widest alternative currently being considered for Murrieta Creek through Old Town Temecula. STATE OF CALIFORNIA LETTER #1 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET c:ACRAMENTO. CA 95814 PETE WILSON. Governor January 23, 1995 DAVID W. HOGAN CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 43174 BUSINESS PAi~K DR. TEMECULA, CA 92590 Subject: OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCH #: 94072039 1-1 Dear DAVID W. HOGAN;~ The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have-comments. 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 Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight- digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. S i ncerely, ~ Chief, State Clearinghouse Planning Department Notice of Completion Project Tilte: OLD TO%¥N REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Phone: (909) 694-6400 Tou, I Acres: 170 (including ro~s end open space) [ ]NOP [ ]Negative Declaration [ ]Supplemot ~ [ ]E[R (Prior SCH/) [ ]EArly Consultation [XSDnft EIR [ ]Subsequent EIR ' [ ]Other [X~Gcn=raJ PI~ Amendmeat [ ]Mastu plan [ ]prezone Development Type DqRuidemia~: Un. iu4~9 Acrcs_,I,,L [ ]Office: Sq.f~. Acres [ ]lnd~t~: ~.~. Ac~s [ )~hc~ [)Wmtcr Facilities: Employeu___ [ TTnmsporation: Employees 2400 [ ]Mining: Employre.__ [ ]Power: [ ]WuIe Trutme~t: [ ]Armcxatlon [X}Rcdevelopmgnt [ ]C-*-'-! Permit [X]Ci velopmcnt Project T STALE / Old Town Redevelopmerit Plan Fi.., Focu~d s~ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS CHAPTER 9 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula received written comments on the Draft Enviromental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (SCH #94072039) from six government agencies. The following agencies submitted written comments which are addressed in the Responses to Comments which is provided as Chapter 9 to the Final EIR. The eight chapters included in the Draft EIR are not reproduced herein and this chapter, Chapter 9, should be placed with the Draft EIR to constitute the Final EIR. Responses to comments begin on the following page. Agencies submitting comments include: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State Clearinghouse Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers Department of Transportation, Caltran~ District 8 County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency City of Murrieta Southern California Association of Governments Old Town Rcaevclopmcnt Plan n.al F~d Sm RESPONSES TO COMMENTS CHAPTER 9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SCH #94072039 Prepared for: City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590-3606 Prepared by: Tom Dodson & Associates 463 North Sierra Way San Bernardino, CA 92410 March 1995