HomeMy WebLinkAbout100697 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 6, 1997, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members 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 rwt listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Spa" 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 Spa" form must be filed 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
2. Director's Hearing Update
3. Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Dye Golf Services, Inc. (Temeku)
4. Special Events Policy
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0170 (Conditional Use Permit)
ZB Investment
On the north side of Nicholas Road, approximately 900' east of the
intersection of Winchester and Nicholas Roads, south of Roripaugh Hills
development.
To construct and operate a 98. 165 square foot Self-Storage facility (687
units) includin~ an office and manager's residential unit of 2,258 square feet
and 8,685 square feet of R.V. parking area on a 5.15 acre site.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Gerry Alegria
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmen{al Action:
Planner:
Recoramendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan)
TI~V, Inc. (Zev Burruin)
West of Old Town Temecula (I00 feet west of Pujol Street), 700 feet south
of Ridge Park Drlve/V'mcent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western
border, within the Westsid~ Specific Plan
The construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat arena and associated
improvements (hartscape, parking, landscaping and roadways)
Adopt an Addendure to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which was
Previously Certified and make Findings that a Subsequent FIR or
Supplemental EIR are not required
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting: October 20, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ITEM #2
IVlF/ClORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnosk~, Planning Manager
October 2, 1997
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director' s Agenda items for September, 1997.
September 11 PA97-0274
September 18 PA97-0177
Conditional Use Permit for
serving beer and wine and
providing entertainment in
an outdoor pub.
Development Plan for Fish
House Vera Cruz
Restaurant
Ed Dool, Temecula Stage
Stop
IRAKK Properties
:Action:
Approved
Appmv~
Attachments:
1. Action Agenda~ - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S I~I~.ARING
REGULAR MEETING
SEFrEMBER 11, 1997 1:30 PM
T'EMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMlVI~-NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and fried with the Senior
Planner.
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 fled with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA97-0274 (Conditional Use Permit)
Ed Dool
NE comer of 6th and From, Old Town
A request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for serving
beer and wine and providing eilteftulnmel~ ill all o~-door pub.
Exempt
Saied N~eh
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMEaNT
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
SEFFEMBER 18, 1997 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. ff you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior
Planner.
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 filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0177 (Development Plan)
For the Fish House Vent Cruz restaurant
JRAIC,( Properties
East side of Ynez Road, south of Solana Way
To construct and operate a single story, 4,496 square foot restaurant
and fish market with 566 square foot loading dock and 740 square
foot outdoor patio
Negative Declaration
Carole Donahoe
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
APPROVED
R:~DIRHEARXAGENDA\9-1g-97.AON 9/29/97 kro
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
,, ,/
L
Debbie Ubnosk~j~lanning Manager
DATE:
October 6, 1997
SUBJECT:
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Dye Golf Services, Inc.
(The Temeku Golf Club) located at 41687 Temeku Drive
Prepared by:
Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
Specific Plan (SP)
Specific Plan (SP)
Open Space lOS)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Low Medium Residential Density (LM)
Open Space lOS)
Low Medium Residential Density (LM)
Open Space lOS)
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission make a public convenience or necessity
finding in order to sell and serve beer, wine and distilled spirits within the confines of the golf
course property. This finding is required because the applicant is requesting a Type #47 license
(On-Sale General Eating Place) from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC). The Temeku Country Club had been issued an ABC license previously in 1991 which
was allowed to expire in 1994. The applicant proposes to sell alcohol primarily to golf patrons
over 21 years in age in the club house (which is a full service, sit down restaurant), snack bar,
and roving golf cart. The facilities will also be open to the general public for meetings, dinners
or special events.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed criteria to either justify or not justify making a finding
of Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. These criteria and Staff's
preliminary responses are as follows:
Criteria to Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Does the proposed establishment have any unique features which are not found in other
similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special
services)?
Yes. Temeku Hills is the only golf course facility within the city limits of Temecula, and
one of the few banquet and special event facilities available to the community.
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
A: No,
Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the
community (i.e. a comedy club, jazz club, etc.)
Yes. Temeku Hills is the only golf course facility within the city limits of Temecula, and
one of the few banquet and special event facilities available to the community.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
Yes. Beverages will be available primarily to golfers before, during and after rounds of
golf.
Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e.
freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from
other establishments?
Yes. The Temeku Golf facility is within the Margarita Village Specific Plan, situated
nearly in the center of the golf course and surrounding residential development. It is
separated from other establishments by major streets, such as Rancho California Road,
Margarita Road, Meadows Parkway and La Serena Way.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods?
A: Yes, in so far as golfing is a seasonal activity.
Criteria to Not Justify Making a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q;
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
No, there are no licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment.
Q: Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(600 feet) to the proposed establishment?
A: No, there are no sensitive uses within 600 feet of the proposed establishment.
Q: Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
A: No.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property
by the residents of the area?
It is unlikely that the proposed establishment will interfere with residents. The golf
course is not in use after sundown, and events at the club house are primarily indoors.
Q: Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
Staff contacted the Temecula Police Department regarding the proposed liquor license.
Police officers do not expect the proposed establishment to add substantially to law
enforcement problems in the area.
Number of similar uses within the City
None.
Number of other licensed establishments within 1 mile and 3 miles
There are two licensed grocery/marts and two restaurants within one (1) mile of the subject
establishment, in the Palomar Village Shopping Center located at Rancho California Road and
Margarita Road. A three mile radius encompasses the licensed establishments along Ynez Road,
Front Street and at the Vail Ranch Center on State Highway 79 South, a total of fifty-one
businesses.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the Commission review the information included in this report and make the
appropriate finding.
Attachments:
Exhibits - Blue Page 4
A. Vicinity Map, including 1/4 mile radius
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Zoning Affidavit - Blue Page 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
R:XSTAR;RI~I'F_JdI~U.ALC 9/29/9/e.4 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NUMBER: N/A
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1997
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
i::.. ' SITE
~J~., ~7;'. '-, ~ . .:~.. L.-~ .',"v, -~ ~
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SPECIFIC PLAN (SP)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - OPEN SPACE (OS)
CASE NUMBER: N/A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 6, 1997
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ZONING AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
ZONING
AFFIDAVIT
PREMISES ADDRESS
PAR(~EL NUMBER O,= PROPERTY
~(~i4_U..~.T OBTAIN PARCEL NUMBER FROM
CONTAClIN{3 PLANNING DEPARI~EN1)
LICENSE ,~--Pz~r~ ;:
INFORMATION UPGRADE OFLICENSED I INDICATE CURRENT LICENSE TYPE
I:;:GES? ~..NO
TYPE OF BUSINESS (i,e.. RESTAURANI~, MINI,MART, GIA~ STATION, ET~,)
N SES STATE 'FYPE O,e,, "C' COMMERCIAL. 'R' RESIDENTIAL, ETC.)
DOES ZONING PERMIT INTENDED USE? ~'YES [] NO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C. U. P.) NEEDED? [] YES
IF YES, DATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FILED )'
NAME OF PLANNER CONTACTED AT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Under the penalty of perjury, I declare the information in Ibis affidavit is true to '~e best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that any felse
or misleading information will co~sl~tute grounds for denial of the applicatjon for the license or if Ihe license is issued in reliance on
information in this affidavit which is false or misleading, 'hen such informalion will cons~lule grounds for revocalion of the license so
issued.
APPUCAN'PS SIGNATURE
DATE
[] C. U. P. APPROVED
[] C. U. P. DENIED
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
IF APPROVED, EFFECTIVE DATE
DATE DENIED
RLE NUMBER
AaSC-255 (4-88)
ITEM #4
TO:
FROM:
Planning ComTfon
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
DATE:
October 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Special Events Policy
Prepared By:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
RECOlVIMENDATION: Receive and F~e
BACKGROUND
In early June, the City Manager received a letter from Mr. Ron Guerriero who voiced some
concerns about the processing of special events in Temecula. Mr. Guerriero suggested several
ways to improve the process. The City Manager, as a result of Mr. Guerriero's letter, met
with various staff to discuss the current process and talk about ways to improve the process. A
committee was formed headed by Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske. This committee was
comprised of representatives of all the City Departments, as well as, representatives from the
Police Department, Fire Department, Health Department and Department of Alcohol,
Beverage Control. The committee met on three occasions to discuss ways to improve the
existing process.
Staff was directed by the City Manager to prepare a Policy to take forward to the City Council
for adoption. This Policy is intended to provide information on the entire process in terms of
fees, timelines, conditions of approval, etc. This Policy is included in your packet as
Attachment A. In addition, staff decided to develop a Special Events Handbook which would
contain detailed information on how to process a special event through the City. This
Handbook will be provided to you the night of the Planning Commission meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
Attachments:
1. Special Events Policy
R:XFORM~hMEMO 10/7./97 cad
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SPECIAL EVENTS POLICY
R:XFORMSXMEMO 10/2/97 e. si
CITY OF TEMECULA
Policies and Procedures
Date:
Department: Community Development
BACKGROUND:
It is the belief of the Temecuh City Council that special events are beneficial to the community.
In an effort to provide a uniform approach for reviewing and approving events, the City Council
hereby adopts the following policy.
PROCEDURE:
AppHca~on
An application for a Special Event (temporary use permit) shall be filed with the Community
Development Department not less than sbcty (60) days before a Major Event or thirW (30) days
before a Minor Event prior to the date proposed for holding the special event. Such application
shall be signed by the applicant, appllcant's authorized agent and property owner and shall be
accompanied by a nonrefundable process'me fee payable to the City of Temecula. The
Community Development Director may, for good cause, or at the direction of the City Council,
accept for filing an application submitted less than sixty (60) or thirty (30) days before the
proposed evere. The application for a special event permit shall contain all information found
within the City' s Special Events Handbook available at the Community Development
Department's public information counter.
Procedures and Requirements
The procedures or requirements of this section shall not affect or supersede the provisions of law
or the requirements for the issuance of structural, electrical, encroachment or any other permit
issued by city departments prescribed elsewhere in the City's Municipal Code, when such permits
are otherwise required because of a particular condition or requirement of the special event.
Compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and State Fire Marshall regulations is required.
Bonds and Insurance
Prior to the issuance of a permit, the following conditions shall be satisfied: (I) the execution of
an agreement to compensate the City for any loss or damage to public property or the deposit of a
surety bond or cash in an amount sufficient to guarantee the cleaning up of the site and removal of
any debris let~ as a result of holding the special event; and (2) proof of public liability and property
damage insurance, including products liability coverage, written by an insurance company
acceptable to the City in the minimum limits and in a form acceptable to the city attorney, as set
by resolution of the City Council, naming the City as additionally insured. In addition, the City
will require execution of a hold harmless agreement indemnifying the City for any personal injury
or property damage arising from the special event.
Condi,ons of Permit Issuance
As a condition of permit issuance, the Community Development Director may impose reasonable
terms and regulations concerning the time and place of such event; the area and manner of
conducting such event; the maximum number of persons attending the event; the regulation of
traffic, if required, including the number and type of signs and barricades to be provided by the
City, if any, together with a plan of their disposition following the event; permissible decibel
levels; and such other requirements as may be reasonable and necessary for the protection of
persons and property.
Costs Associated with Events
The City may require the applicant to compensate the City for any incidental costs associated with
the event, including but not limited to utility charges, and any necessary or appropriate fire,
police, paramedic, or parking enforcement, or other services connected to or made necessary by
the event. The permittee, as a condition to issuing the permit, may be required to bear some or all
of such costs and to deposit a surety bond or cash in an amount sufficient to pay the cost of
providing these services. Such bond or cash must be deposited with the City no later than thirty
(30) days prior to the event.
Fees
The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all permit processing fees. In addition,
except as provided herein or when funded by City Council, the City shall charge an established fee
for the services provided by City personnel. For such personnel, the charge may be figured as an
actual cost of salary of City personnel involved in pernfit processing, event traffic control, fire
safety, or other facility or event support and the use of City equipment and other nonpersonnel
expense for any commercial special event. A commercial special event shall refer to any special
event organized and conducted by any organization that does not qualify as a tax-exempt
nonprofit organization. The City Manager shall require prepayment of such fees for a commercial
special event, or a reasonable estimate thereof, at the time the completed application is approved,
or in any event, no later than 30 days prior to the special event, unless the City Manager for good
cause ex~ends the filing deadline or time for payment.
Sale oj'Alcohol
Any serving of alcohol associated with a special event shall require the approval of the
Department of Alcohol, Beverage, Comrol. The City permits the serving of alcohol in beer
gardens where the serving and consuming of alcohol is controlled.
Street Banners
Street banners are permitted in accordance with City requirements. Banners attached to a
building shall not exceed 32 square feet, the height shall not exceed 3 feet and the width shall not
exceed 60 percent of the business or store frontage. Special event interim signs which are not
located in buildings or structures shall be securely attached to poles or structures on site and shall
not exceed 6 feet in height, 32 square feet, 3 feet in width and 15 feet in length. Signs are allowed
for any period up to 45 days.
Street Closures
Events conducted on public roads, sidewalks and public fights of way in the City of Temecula
require conformante with Resolution 91-96 of the City of Temecula. This Resolution requires
that any event of 25 or more persons or animals located on any street, highway, sidewalk or
public right of way obtain a special event permit.
Concurrence with Conditions Of .4pproval
The applicant will be required to review all conditions of approval and place his\her signature on
the conditions of approval stating that he~she agrees to abide by all conditions of approval.
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
October 3, 1997
Planning Application 97-0170
The City Attorney has requested that Planning Application PA97-0170, a Conditional Use Permit
for the design, construction and operation of a 98, 165 square foot self storage facility with 687
units be continued to the October 20, 1997 Planning Commission heating to allow further review
of the Specific Plan relative to this Development Application,
R:~qTAFFRP'BI70pA~7.MEM 10/1/97
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 6, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Ranner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOP]' Resolution No. 97- approving an Addendum to
a Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and make Findings that a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental
EIR are not required; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan), based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
TEV, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Engineering Ventures
PROPOSAL:
The construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat
arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking,
landscaping and roadways)
LOCATION:
West of Old Town Temecula (100 feet west of Pujol
Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent
Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border, within
the Westside Specific Plan
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan (SP)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Light Industrial (LI)
Specific Plan (SP) - Westside Specific Plan
Specific Plan (SP) - Old Town Temecula
Specific Plan
Specific Plan (SP) o Westside Specific Plan
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP) and High Density Residential (H)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single-family residences/multi-family
residences
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Arena Height:
33.1 acres
1,441,618 square feet
103,564 square feet
341,715 square feet
966,339 square feet
1,626 spaces
1,684 spaces
Seventy-five (75) feet
BACKGROUND
The pre-application submittal for this project was made to the Planning Department on
Monday, August, 4, 1997. Staff held a pre-application meeting with the applicant and his
design professionals on Thursday, August 7, 1997. A Planning Commission Workshop was
held on August 18, 1997. The Commission provided direction on the site plan, grading plan,
landscape plan and arena elevations. In addition, the Commission requested additional
information regarding traffic in the vicinity of the project. Staff provided detailed comments
to the applicant as a result of the Commission Workshop in a letter dated August 20, 1997.
The application for Phase I of development was formally submitted on August 28, 1997. A
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on September 11, 1997. The project
was deemed complete on September 22, 1997.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction and operation of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat
arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways).
Hardscape improvements include: the arena, walkways, driveways, parking areas and drainage
facilities. Landscape improvements include: slopes on the west side of the Western By-Pass
Corridor, all on-site slopes, street scape on First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor, and
Vincent Moraga Drive and median landscaping on the Western By-Pass Corridor. Roadway
improvements include: First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor, and Vincent Moraga Drive.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan
The site will take access from First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor and Vincent Moraga
Drive. Pedestrian access from Old Town will be from Main Street and First Street. A north-
south drive lane has been provided on the site and will run the length of the project from First
Street in the south to Vincent Moraga Drive to the north. This drive will be intersected by
access drives from the Western By-Pass Corridor and will provide access drives to the parking
areas. Two transit stops have been included on the main north-south drive lane within vicinity
of the proposed attractions.
The site plan shows details for Phase I of the development and has identified areas for Phase
II of the development. Phase II development will require additional application submittals. The
scope of improvements to be installed with Phase I has been listed above under the Project
Description portion of this Staff Report. The applicant has indicated that the application for the
Phase II component will be submitted soon after the Planning Commission considers Phase I of
the project. It is the applicants contention that both Phases of the project will probably be
completed at the same time. The arena requires a longer construction period than the
remainder of the project, and as a result, is being processed first.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan has been provided on multiple sheets at a scale of 1" =40'. The plan shows
the size and types of plants for the following: the parking areas, slope planrings on the east side
of the project (which serve as a buffer to the existing residences along Pujol Street), slope
plantings to the west of the Western By-Pass Corridor {to re-vegetate the slopes when the
project is graded), around the walkways and around the arena. Enlarged details have been
provided for the following: parking lot islands (diamonds and fingers), the slope west of the
Western By-Pass Corridor, the main entry landscaping, parking lot perimeters, Western By-Pass
Corridor Streetscape and raised landscape median, and the slope on the eastern side of the
project (behind Pujol Street).
A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which will require landscape and
irrigation plans for all slope areas which will be disturbed by project grading be approved prior
to the issuance of a grading permit. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been added which
will require the applicant to post a bond for the installation of the slope landscaping and
irrigation prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This includes the slope areas created within
the project itself, plus those slopes created south of First Street (to Front Street) and along and
adjacent to Vincent Moraga Drive.
Staff has met Several time with the applicant's landscape architect and the City's landscape
architect. Staff feels the landscape plans are comprehensive and address the Commission's
concerns regarding buffering residences along Pujol Street from the project and the
Commission's concerns regarding the re-vegetation of the slopes to the west of the Western
By-Pass Corridor.
Arena Elevations
The arena is the only structure proposed during Phase I of the development. The design of the
arena contains some elements of a old western fort (towers, doors, etc.). The height of the
arena will be seventy-five feet. Colors used for the arena are earth-tones: shades of white, tan
and brown. These colors will blend in well with the surrounding hillside. The base color of the
arena will be Dunn Edwards "Baja White" (see color and material board) and will be stucco. The
arena roof material will be metal and painted Dunn Edwards 'Bone." Other elements include:
wood trim, simulated wood shake roofing (for other roof areas), concrete and glass. Metal roll-
up door will be located on the northern side of the building and will provide access for large
vehicles for events at the arena. These doors will be painted the same as the base color Dunn
Edwards "Baja White" and will be compatible with the rest of the building.
Traffic Issues
The Planning Commission requested the applicant analyze these traffic issues: the effect of mall
traffic on the project and the underlying assumptions for baseline traffic and the impact of the
project on critical intersections where improvements are to occur (i.e., interstate 15/SR79
South and Interstate 15/Rancho California Road). The applicant has submitted two letters,
dated August 28, 1997 and September 21, 1997 further clarifying these issues. These have
been included in the Addendum.
Page 4 of the August 28, 1997 letter states: "the estimated reductions in peak hour trips
associated with the Old Town Entertainment Center project would actually help in off-setting
most of the added Mall traffic on Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Roads
as compared to the original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location." This is further
quantified and clarified on page 4 of the September 21, 1997 letter.
The August 28, 1997 letter also addresses the timing of roadway improvements at the SR79
South/Interstate 15 Interchange. According to page 4 of this letter, the current schedule for
State Route 79 South/I-15 Interchange shows completion of the improvement would occur by
October or November of 1998. This indicates that both interchange improvements (Rancho
California Road and State Route 79 South) would be completed before or at approximately the
same time as the Wild West Arena is scheduled to open.
SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
A General Ran consistency analysis was performed for the Old Town Redevelopment Project
(reference Attachment No. 4). Staff has reviewed this analysis and has determined the project
is consistent with that analysis, and is therefore is consistent with the General Plan.
The applicant performed an analysis entitled "Westside Specific Plan Project Description and
Consistency Evaluation" (Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report) which made a
determination that the project as proposed is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan. The
Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report was included in the Commission Workshop Staff
Report and has again been included as Attachment No. 5 to this Staff Report. Based upon this
analysis, Staff has determined the project is consistent with the Westside Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study (IES) to determine if the project was within the
scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town
Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031). In addition, the applicant
prepared an EIR Consistency Report which was included in the Commission Workshop Staff
Report. Based upon staff's analysis in the IES and review and examination of the EIR
Consistency Report, staff has determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR shall be
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. An addendum has been prepared because changes and additions were necessary
for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the Guidelines calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The addendum has been included as
R:~STAFFRPI~98pAg?,PCI 10/2/97viw 4
Exhibit A of Attachment No. I to this Staff Report. The Addendum contains the following:
a recommendation for adopting an Addendure, the IES(which includes the determination to
prepare an Addendum and Evaluations of Addendum Issues) and supporting (Traffic Analysis
and Visual Simulations for the Aesthetic Impact Analysis), Mitigation measures approved with
the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031 ) will apply to this
project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project consists of the construction and operation of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800 seat
arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). The site
will take access from First Street, the Western By-Pass Corridor and Vincent Moraga Drive. The
site plan shows details for Phase I of the development and has identified areas for Phase II of
the development. Phase II development will require additional application submittals.
The arena is the only structure proposed during Phase I of the development. The Planning
Commission requested the applicant analyze these traffic issues: the effect of mall traffic on
the project and the underlying assumptions for baseline traffic and the impact of the project on
critical intersections where improvements are to occur (i.e., Interstate 15/SR79 South and
Interstate 15/Rancho California Road). The applicant has submitted two letters, dated August
28, 1997 and September 21, 1997 further clarifying these issues,
A General Ran consistency analysis was performed for the Old Town Redevelopment Project
(reference Attachment No. 4). Staff has reviewed this analysis and has determined the project
is consistent with that analysis and is therefore is consistent with the General Plan and the
Westside Specific Plan. staff has determined an Addendum to the previously certified EIR shall
be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines.
FINDINGS
Addendum to the Previously Certified EIR
The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and an
addendum to the previously certified FEIR is appropriate for the following reasons:
On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of
the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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," certifying the Environmental
Impact Report for the Westside Specific Ran and Ranning Application No. PA95-
0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20 (Residential
Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the
Property.
R:'~TAI~IRFI~gSPA97.1}CI lO/2/9qviw 5
The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental
Study (IES), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development
Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which IES is
incorporated herein by this reference.
The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General
Plan, the Westside Specific Ban, the current zoning regulations for the Property,
the Mitigation Ran of Banning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental
Impact Report) and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies
governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and
construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the
proposed Development Ban which might affect the environment were discussed
and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to
the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendum to Planning
Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR).
Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of
the evidence, the Banning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither
a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR is required for the Development Plan
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code
Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning
Commission:
The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were
contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and
approved by the City Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum
prepared for the Development Plan (Planning Application No. PA97-
0298).
There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would
require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions
of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR
which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or
more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR.
There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR
which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously
examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR.
There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which
would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative
previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project.
There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR which
would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives
which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment.
DeveloDment Plan
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan and the Westside
Specific Plan.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances
and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection
of the public health, safety and welfare.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
A. Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 13
PC Resolution - Blue Page 19
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 23
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Blue Page 40
General Plan Consistency Analysis from the Old Town Redevelopment Project - Blue
Page 41
Westside Specific Plan Consistency Report - Blue Page 44
Exhibits - Blue Page 45
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
D-I. Linkage to Old Town
E. Arena Elevations
F. Color Arena Elevations
G. Color and Material Board
H. Landscape Plan
H-1. Color Landscape Plan
I. Floor Plan
J. Grading Plan
ATTACHMENT N0.1
RESOLUTION 97-
R:'~STAFFRFI~98pA97.PC1 10/2197
ATrACHMI:.NT NO. 1
PC RF-~OLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM
TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFH~ FIR AND FINDINGS THAT
A SUBSEQUENT EIR IS NOT REQUIRE1} ON 33.1 ACRES
LOCATED WEST OF OLD TOWN TEMECULA (100 FEET
WEST OF PUJOL STREET), 700 FEET SOUTH OF RIDGE
PARK DRIVE/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF
~ CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, WITHIN THE
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR' S
PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940320-002 and 940-320-001
WHEREAS, Tev, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan)
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study (IES) to determine if the
project was within the scope of the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (FJR) for
the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) and determined an
Addendure to the previously certified ~ be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
WItFREAS, the Planning Commission considered the previously certified Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-
0031) and Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) on October 6, 1997, 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 desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report ~11~) for the Old Town Redevelopment
Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) and Planning Application No. PA97-0298
(Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RF~OLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are flue and correct.
Section 2. Ehldia~ The Planning Commission, in approving an Addendum to a
Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redeveiopment Project makes the following findings:
R:~ITAFFRPT'x298PA97.PCI lOf2Hc/~ 9
1. The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review
and an addendum to the previously certified FEIR is appropriate for the following reasons:
A. On July 13, 1995, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City
Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 95-49 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 95-0031 (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVING THE MFHGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED WEST OF INFERSTATE 15, EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER,
SOLrH-I OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA
RIVER," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Westside Specific Plan and Planning
Application No. PA95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan) and changing the zone from R-A-20
(Residential Agricultural - Twenty Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to S-P (Specific Plan) for the
Property.
B. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental
Study CiES), dated September 17, 1997, analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior
environmental actions on the Project, which IES is incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's
General Plan, the Westside Specific Plan, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the
Mitigation Plan of Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (Final Environmental Impact Report) and
such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density,
design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property.
All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment
were discussed and analyzed in Planning Application No. PA95-0031 (FEIR). Minor changes to
the project have been reviewed and examined in an Addendure to Planning Application No.
PA95-0031 (FEIR).
D. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration
of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent
EIR or a Supplemental EIR is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21166, 14 Cut. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following
findings of the Planning Commission:
1. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan
were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City
Council on July 13, 1995 and the Addendum prepared for the Development Plan (Planning
Application No. PA97-0298;
2. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project which would
require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects.
R:XSTAFPRFl~298pA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw
3. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
4. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
FEIR which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previous FEIR.
5. There is no new information since the certification of the previous
FEIR which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be
substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR.
6. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR
which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not
to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the Project.
7. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR
which would show or tend to show that miligation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study (IF.S) was
cox~.ducted to determine if the project was within the scope of the previously certified
Environmental Impact Report (FIR) for the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project (Planning
Application No. PA95-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendure to the
previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The addeodum was prepared because changes and additions
were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures
appwved with the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031) will
apply to this project.
Section 4. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
an Addendure to a Previously Certified EIR for the Old Town Redevelopmerit Project and
Findings that a Subsequent EIR Is not required on 28.6 acres located west of Old Town Temecula
(100 feet West of Pujol Street), 700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and
east of the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 940-310013, 940-320-002 and 940-320-001 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
R:~TAFFRFB298PA97.1t~CI 1{Y2/97 vgw '1 '1
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY 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 6th day of October,
1997, by the following vot~ of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIOn:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie LPonoske, Secretary
R:~,STAPPRFI~298PAg~.i~CI lO/2/97vgw
EXHIBIT A
ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
R:~TAFFRFI'~98PA97.1aCI 10/2/97 vgw 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recommendation for Adopting an Addendum ............................. 15
Initial Environmental Study Checklist for Addendure ....................... 16
Determination
Evaluation of Addendure Issues
Traffic Study .................................................. 17
Traffic Study dated August 11, 1997
Letter from WSA dated August 28, 1997
Letter from WSA dated September 21, 1997
Letter from WSA dated October 1, 1997
Visual Simulations .............................................. 18
RASTAFFP, PT~98pA97.PCI 10/TfijTvgw
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM
P.:wl'AFl~P.?r~,sl,^r/.i,ci 9rye7 m~ 15
Recommendation for Adoptin~ an Addendum
in 1995 the City of Temecula approved the Old Town Redevelopmere Project, including the Westside
Specific Plan CvVSP) and certified a Final EIR as the appropriate CEQA determination for the project.
The project envisioned about 12-14 entertainment venues as part of a western thereed entertainment
complex and support commercial and residential uses that would be constructed in two phases.
Substantial infrastructure improvements were also required to support the project, including
construction of several bridges, a major portion of the Western By-pass road, and improvements to
interchanges between major local roads and Interstate 15.
Over the past two years, the project proponent, Temecula Entertainment Ventures, Inc. (TEVI), has
evolved the design of the project from its original design concept with approximately 1,045,500
square feet (f~:) of commercial facilities to a current design concept with approximately 459,700 It:.
Along with this reduction in the number of initial facilities that are proposed to be constructed, the
TEVI proposes to focus all initial development in the WSP area. Because of these changes, the City
decided to reevaluate the potential environmental effects of the current design concept which is being
reviewed for approval as a Development Plan.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Article 11)
provide that an agency shall prepare an Addendum to a certified El:P, when some changes or additions
are necessary and where no substantial changes occur in the project. Section 15164 (a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendure to a
previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." To ascertain
whether the conditions in 15162 apply to the current design concept for the proposed project, the city
prepared an initial Study to evaluate each environmental issue and substantiate the need for either a
subsequent EIR or an Ardenrum to the certified EIR. The attached Initial Study indicates that for
all environmental issues, the physical changes of the project are either reduced compared to the
project approved in 1995, or are directly comparable to the impact forecasts contained in the certified
EiR. Two technical study updates, for traffic and aesthetic impacts, were prepared to verify the
conclusions presented in the attached Initial Study.
Based on these findings, the City intends to adopt this Addendum to the certified Final EIR for the
Old Town Redevelopment Project as the appropriate CEQA determination for the Development Plan
and related project approvals (such as the grading plan) currently before the City. The Addendure
consists of this recommendation and sununary of findings; the Initial Study substantiating the findings;
the technical data and materials prepared in support of this environmental finding; and the various
engineering and technical reports submitted in fulfillment of conditions of approval and mitigation
measures established as part of the original decision and certified EIR. If the Development Plan and
related implementation plans are approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination for the
Addendure following the final hearing on this matter.
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM
R:LrI'AITFRItI~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 16
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
for Addendum
6.
7.
8.
8.b.
Project Title: Old Town Temecula Entertainment Complex
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, (909) 694-6400
Project Location:
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.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: TEVI, 41934 Main Street, Temecula 92590
General Plan Designation: Westside Specific Plan
Zoning: Westside Specific Plan
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases
of the project and any secondary, support or off-site features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The original project consisted of a conceptual description
of the facilities and their proposed activity patterns. The Final EIR, Chapter 3, contains the detailed
descriptions of the proposed facilities and activities. The following summary is based on Chapter 3
of the Final EIR and the project summary contained in the adopted Statement of Overriding
considerations. The facilities consist of:
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 (t~2) and 40 feet high and the second theater is proposed to contain
about 45,000 fF. These cabarets are designed to entertain a maxtrnam of about 600 and 900 people
per event, respectively. Each show is expected to last for appronmately 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 OSTP core area. Both saloons
would be constructed during Phase I of the project and each saloon is proposed to contain
approximately 10,000 f~2 in a one-two story structure. Each saloon will be designed to entertain
appmxunately 350 persons, 250 at tables and about 100 at or adjacent to the bar. A small stage will
'be provided for typical bar entertainment, such as dancing girls. Staged bar fights, shootouts and
other entertainment will be provided. The saloons will operate every day of the week.
R:~:OR.MS\CEQA,IES 9/2,2/97 klb
8.d.
8.g.
8.h.
Opera 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 proscenium
approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to encompass 85,000 it: of space with a
building footprint of approximately 75,000-'. Estimated seating capacity will be 1,400 persons on
the first floor and 800 seats in the balcony. A television and radio studio ~vill occupy approxamately
2,500 It: within or adjacent to the opera house. It is anticipated that the opera house will have 13
performances per week.
Showboat: A westem 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 entertainment space justifies its construction. The showboat will be a two-story structure,
with the smokestacks approximately 30 feet high. It is proposed to be approximately 21,000 It2 and
it would have the capacity to entertain an estimated 600 pemoas 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
touting westem tent 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 summer "high" season. The arena will
encompass approximately 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 emmated that several shows will be performed per day, primarily on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
VIrtual Reality Pavilion(s): Three virtual reality pavilions with two theaters in each are proposed for
development willfin the OTSP. One pavilion with two theaters will be constructed as part of Phase
I of the project. The other two pavilions will be implemented as part 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 It: for
a total of -57,000 it" if all three pavilions are implemented. Each show requires about five to six
minutes with the theater portion running about three to four minutes. Performances would be
continuous after the facility opens each day.
"Ouick Draw" Competition Area: In the Old Town core area a plaza or town square will be
constructed which is proposed to contain a quick draw competition area. This facility will be
constructed as part of phase 1 and is proposed to encompass approximately 8,000 it-' outdoors in or
adjacent to the plaza. This will be a westernized "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 proposed for construction in the vicinity of the wild west arena within the
Westside Specific Plan. The initial configuration of the hotel is proposed to be four stories in height
and provide atotal 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 proposed to contain approximately 300,000
it2 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
.it2 of related retail space when constructed in Phase I and the range of retail uses inctudes
restaurants, service commercial uses, and retail commercial uses. An additional 50,000 it-' of retail
space may be constructed during Phase 2 if demand for the commercial capacity is sufficient.
R:~FOR2,1S\CEQA.IES 9/2Zt97 klb 2
8.i.
Retail Commercial: The City anticipates 50,000 to 100,000 f~: of the retail commercial area
identified in the OTSP ~vill ultimately be developed in Old Town to support the entertainment
facilities/activities. It is estimated that 30,000 t~: will be developed during Phase 1 as a component
ofthis project. No specific locations have been selected for these retail activities.
Visitors Center/Ticket Office: One or more visitors centers/ticket office facilities will be located in
the dontom area for ticket purchases and to provide information. This facility/facilities max!
encompass up to 5,500 ~ of area. It will be open during normal business hours and during evenings
when events are scheduled at the entertainment complex.
8.k.
Administrative Space: An additional 20,000 square feet of space for administrative offices and back-
of-house areas may be constructed to support the project. Some of this space may be located within
the opera house facility and others on the second floor of other structures or within independent
structures.
As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Tox~
portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass
corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were
approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and
residential uses by the City in 1995, as outlined above. The actual construction of the entertainment venue has
been delayed for a variety of reasons, including delays due to legal challenges to the project and the efforts to
justify fundmg of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. A few of
the major infrastructure components include: the Western By-pass and First Street bridges over Mumeta
Creek; installation of the required paved section of the Western By-pass from the Front StreetYHighway 79
South/Interstate 15 interchange to Vincent Moraga Drive; and alI of the water, sewer, and other utility
infrastructure systems required to support the facilities permitted by the Westside Specific Plan.
In order to obtain the significant funding commitments required to construct the entertainment venue in the Ci~'
in conformance '~ith the City's 1995 approvals, the project has evolved from the original concept as outlined
above, to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect
the fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all
facilities, including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project.
As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Toxvn
portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western Bypass
corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were
approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and
residential uses by the City in 1995. A comparison of the original and proposed design components is
presented below. Note that certain uses have been transferred from Old Town to Area "A" of the Westside
Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessaD' to support
the costs of the required infrastructure improvements defined in the original approvals. It also overcomes the
lack of economic. ally viable sites in Old Town where no specific sites were shown in the original applications
because of the difficulty of consolidating adequate building and parking areas. Keep in mind that Phase 1, as
defined in the original certified EIR and summarized above, encompassed almost all of the proposed
entertainment facilities. Phase 2 was proposed to consist of commercial and residential uses as required to
support the overall success of the entertainment venue.
Table I summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and other facilities
approved by the City of Temecula, such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in the
original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in
the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above.
R:XFOIh~.IS\CEQA.r~S 9,22/97 klb 3
Table I
Square Footage Summary
of
Entertainment Facilities
Original Design Concept
Current Design Concept
Cabaret Theatre (2)
27,000 fi2/45,000 fi2
Location: Old Town
Cabaret Theater/Western Music Dinner Theatre (1)
20,000 fi2
Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area
Western Saloon (2)
10,000 fi2 each
Location: Old Town
Western Saloon/Rockin Rodeo(l)
12,000 fi2
Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area
Opera House
75,000 fi2 building footprint
Location: Old Town
Opera House/Celebrity Auditorium
50,000 ft2 building footprint
Location: ancillary to Hotel in the WSP area
Showboat
21,000 fi2
Location: Old Town
Showboat (deferred to future)
No change at this time
No change at this time
Wild West Arena
I75,000 fi2,85-90 feet height
Location: WSP area
Wild West Arena
105,000 fi2,75 feet height
Location WSP area
Virtual Reality Pavilion (3)
19,000 fi~, total 57,000 fi:
Location: Old Town
Virtual Reality Experience
7,200 fi2
Location: WSP, a part of the Roy Rogers/Dale Evans
Museum, ancillary to Wild West Arena
"Quick Draw" Competition Area
8,000 fi2
Location: Old Town
"Quick Draw" Competition Area (deferred to future)
No change at this time
No change at this time
Hotel
300,000 fi2 initial; additional
I00,000 fi: for additional 150
rooms when justified in future
Location: WSP area
Hotel
125,000 fi2, 275 rooms
Location: WSP area
Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Exhibition
-23,000 fi2, including Virtual Reality Experience
Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West
Arena
R:XFORMS\CEQA.IES 9/2~97 Idb 4
Hotel Retail Commercial
50,000 fi2/50,000 fi2
Location: WSP area, ancillary
to hotel
Retail Commercial
50,000-100,000 fi2
Location: Old Town
Visitor Center/Ticket Office (1+)
5,500 ft2
Location: Old Town
Administrative Space
20,000 fF
Location: open
Festival Square
20,000 fi2
Location: Old Town
Temecula Wine & Food Exhibition
30,000 fi2
Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West
Arena
Chapel
1,600 ft2
Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West
Arena
Hotel Retail Commercial
69,600 fi2, kiosks, shops, restaurants
Location: WSP area, ancillary to hotel
Deferred to the Future
Visitor Center
2,500 fi2
Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena
Administrative Space
Same
Location: WSP area, part of Arena or Theatre
Arena Plaza/Sons of the Pioneers Music Plaza
Small gazebo stage/-500-1,000 ft2
Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena
10.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The Westside
Specific Plan area has residential uses to the east and northeast, open space to the northwest, west,
southwest and south, and residential uses to the southeast.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g. pernuts, financing approval or participation
agreement.) Permits or other approvals may be required from the State Water Control Board,
Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Regional Board, U. S, Corps of Engineers, Caltrans,
Metropolitan Water District, Riverside Count:,' Flood Control, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
R:LFOR2VfS\CEQA,IES 9/22/97 Idb 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ]
[ ] Population and Housing [x]
[ ] Geologic Problems [ ]
[ ] Water [ ]
[x] Air Quality [ ]
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ]
[ ] Biological Resources [ ]
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ]
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[]
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environmentl and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Ix ]
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but these effects
i) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) have been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. The evaluation in this Initial Study, including updated traffic and visual impact analyses,
constitute an Addendure to the Final EIR and the analysis in this Addendure indicates that none of
the conditions in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines call for the preparation of a
For
R:LFORMS/CEQA.IES 9/22/97 tdb 6
ISSUES AND SU?PORTrNG INFOKMATION SOURCES
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
[1 [] Ix] I]
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
[] [] [x] [1
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
II [1 Ix] []
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
Evaluation of Addendure Issues:
[ ] [ I [ ] Ix]
Land use was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIR.
A/I land use impacts, including land use conflicts and consistency with existing General Plan land use designations,
are mitigable to a nonsigni/icant level after apphcation of mitigation. Land uses within Area A remain consistent with
the original uses as outlined below. A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that the same mitigation
wiII ensure that all iand use impacts are mitigated to a nonsignificant level. The designation of the open space area
remains as originally envisioned (all property west of the We, siena By-pass Road), and other potential land use conflicts
are reduced even fiather than envisioned in the EIR by inclusion of the additional noise attenuation in the design. All
mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and land use impacts will be reduced to a nonsignificant
level. Consistency issues are further addressed in the following evaluation.
As originall>, envisioned. the Temecuia entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old Town portion
of the Ci.ty and within rite Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of file Western Bypass corridor, southwest of
Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside Specific Plan) were appmved for a mixture of
conmmmial entertaimnent facilities, hotels, support (ancillary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. As
the CiD' is aware. tile actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a variety of reasons,
including delays due to legal challenges to file project and the efforts to justify funding of the extensive infrastructure
that must be installed when the project is developed. In order to obtain the significant funding cormnitments required
to consu'uct file entertainment venue in file City in conformance with the City's 1995 approvals, the project has evolved
from file original concept as ou~ined in Attaclu'nent A, to a current concept that has been designed to be consistent with
the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect file fundamental project components that are necessary to attract the substantial
funds required to build all facilities, including the extensive infrastructure required to support the project.
To demonstrate consistency, of the current design concept for the entertainment venue with the original approvals,
particularly the Westside Specific Plan, a comparison of the original and proposed design components is presented
below. Note fluat certain uses tmve been transferred from Old Town to Area "A" of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP)
as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena. This has been necessary to support the costs of the required
infrastructure improvements defined in the original approvals. As is demonstrated below, the proposed conceptual
design now being presented to the City is fully consistent with the total scope of facilities envisioned and approved in
the project original approvals, and even though the current focus has shifted from Old Town to the WSP area,
R:XFORjx'IS\CEQA. IES 9F2ZI97 klb 7
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless L~ss Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Inco~orated lrnpa~ Impact
additional facilities remain to be sited in Old Town as demand for additional entertainment facilities evolves in the
futm'e.
Table 1, in the pmject description, summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and
other facilities approved by the City of Teroecula, such as the hotel. The square footage of facilities as envisioned in
the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where a facility is not shown in the
current design concept side of Table i, it is being deferred to the future as discussed above.
Based on the sununary provided in Table 1, the total square foomge of building space under the original design concept
is 1,045,500 re, excluding the outdoor facilities such as the "Quick Draw" and Festival Square areas. Of this 1,045,500
ft:, tile total square footage permitted within the WSP area in the original concept design and with City approvals is
esumated to be about 695,000 ft2, including the full 100,000 ft~ of commercial area allocated in Phases 1 and 2 of the
hotel and the 20,000 ft2 administrative area. The current design concept encompasses approximately 459,700
including 69,960 ~2 of commercial support uses. Thus, the total square footage of all proposed facilities falls well
within the total square footage and is approxiroately 235,300 ~2 less than originally authorized by the City when it
granted approvals in 1995.
Witat are the major differences bet~veen the current and original design concept? Perhaps the greatest change is a
decision to disaggregate the massing of square footage originally allocated to the hotel and Wild West Arena into
several structures. All oftlie facilities proposed in the current conceptual design are ancillary or supportive to the two
primary. facilities (hotel and Wild West Arena) that were approved for Area A of the WSP. Some uses have been
trm~sfened from the Old Town area, but it is our interpretation that comparable facilities were envisioned in the WSP
authorization, such as the auditorium (opera house), ~ine and food exhibition hall (exhibition uses), and cabaret
theatre (dinner theatre) in support of the hotel, and the museum (Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museum/Exhibition facilih.,)
in support of, or as part of the Wild West Arena. Similarly, the approximately 69,600 fF of commercial area is
consistent with the Phase 1 and 2 allocations of commercial square footage allocated as part of the hotel.
Although the original footprints of buildings have been altered, the focus on the western theme for the entertainment
venue has not caged and by disaggregating the facilities through redesign, the visual impacts of the large hotel and
arena structures will be reduced, enhancing the visual setting compared to the original design concept. In particular,
the original design concept of the hotel showed a vet), large massed visual feature (up to 300,000 ~: in Phase 1 and
an additional 100,000 ft: in Phase 2) and the arena was envisioned as a large, circus/tent-like structure (175,000 ft2)
xt'ith stripes. In the design concept presently under consideration by to the City, both of these facilities have been
redesigned by creating several structures. thereby reducing the overall visual impact of the project. In addition, by
enclosing rite arena structures and providing for insulation and dimate control, potential noise impacts to residences
aloog Pujol have been substantially reduced. For these reasons, the proposed, i.e. current, design concept is full)'
consistent with tile WSP requirements and overall approvals granted to the project in 1995.
Based on this review, implementa0on of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
nexl. significant land use effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant land use effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant land use effects not
previously discussed. Therefore, land use impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the
scope of analysis contained in file certified EIR.
R:~FOILMS\CEQA.IES 9'22/97 ldb 8
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING iNFORMATION SOURCES
Significant Mitigation Significant No
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
[ ] i I Ix] [ }
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
[ I [ I [xl I ]
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
The population issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause
or experience any significant adverse impact because population increases associated with the original project were
not forecast to exceed growth thresholds. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion
since the total development proposed under this concept is less than half of the scope of development envisioned in the
original project. Population increases should be comparably decreased, thus, population impacts remain nonsignificant.
Based on this review, iraplementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant population effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant population effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant population effects
not previously discussed. The development proposed is likely to reduce overall potential population impacts of the
project because a lower demand will be created for new employees. Therefore, population impacts from implementing
the current design concept remain nonsignLficant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified E[R.
The housing issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause
or experience any significant adverse impact because housing demands associated with the original project were not
forecast to exceed housing development capacity. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this
conclusion since file total development proposed under this concept is less than half of the scope of development
envisioned in the original project. Housing demand increases should be comparably decreased, thus, housing impacts
reznain nonsignificant.
Based on tl~s review, implementation of file current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project witl~
nexx, significant population or housing effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause
new. significant population or housing effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant
population or housing effects not previously discussed. The development proposed is likely to reduce overall potential
housing denland impacts of the project because a lower demand will be generated by new employees and a lower
population forecast. Therefore, population and housing impacts from implementing file current design concept remain
nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING rNFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impac,. Incorporated Impact lmpacl
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? [ ] [ I Ix] [ ]
b. Seismic ground shaking? [ ] Ix] [ ] l I
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
d. Seiche, Bunand, orvolcunic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix]
e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [x] I ]
Erosion, changes in wpography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
[ ] [xl [ ] [ I
g. Subsidence of the land? [ ] [ ] [x] I ]
h. Expansive soils? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
Evaluation of Ardenrum Issues:
The earth resource issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce
potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant
adverse impact. Detailed geotechnical studies were available for the project site and none of the earth resource
circtunstances tins clhanged since the approval in 1995. Although the current design concept envisions more structures,
the total square footage proposed in the current design concept encompasses 459,700 square feet (fl~) which is less than
could have been built under the City's 1995 approvals (695,000 fl2 )as summarized in Enclosure 1, All mitigation
measures identified for the project in the Initial Study were adopted by the City and all of these measures can and will
be implemented by the applicant. The basic footprint of grading activity for the project remains essentially the same
(encompassing WSP areas A, B and C, as proposed in the original EIR, with proposed cut slopes identified for rite
Western By-pass being implemented at a 1.5/1 slope ratio (horizontal to vertical). This is consistent with the original
topographic modifications, but with slightly longer slopes (20 feet maximum) due to the eleyation at which the Western
By-pass Road ~ill be constructed. Such slopes reqnim certification as suitable by a qualified geotechnical professional
before diey can be constructed and the modifications are consistent with the discussion in the EIR. With certification
by the geotechnical engineer, the earth resource impacts can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level.
Based on flus review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant earth resource effects: no substantial changes in circunlstances have occurred which may cause new,
sig~tificant eanl~ resource effects; and no new information shows rite project will have new, significant earth resource
effects not previously discussed. Therefore, earth resource impacts from implementing the current design concept
remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
R:~FOI~MS~CIZQA.IES 9,~2/97 Ub ] O
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant Mitigation Significant No
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rams, drainage patterns, or the
rote and mount of surface runoff?.
[ I [xl [ I [ ]
Exposure of people or property. to water related hazards
such as flooding?
[ ] Ix] I ] [ }
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidit2,')?
[ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water
body? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
[ ] [ ] Ix/ [ ]
g. Altered direction or rate oftlow ofgroundwater?
[ ] [ I Ix] [ ]
h. hnpacts to groundwater qualit3'? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
Substantial reduction in the amount of Foundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
El [l [xl I I
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
The water issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce potential
adverse impacts. it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse
mlpact. Three issues were addressed under this topic: surface runoff and flood hazards; water quality; and water
consumption. The evaluation in the Initial Study silowed that Surface runoff/flood hazard impacts would be controlled
b) retaining added surface runoff from development on Area A and delivering it to Mumeta Creek without causing
increased flooding downstream or erosion. This circumstance has not changed with the current design concept. The
uses and area affected by the project have not elmgod and the water quality mitigation will apply equally to the current
project Finally, overall ~ter consumption will be reduced due to the overall reduction in square foomge of uses. With
implementation of the identified mitigation measures, file ctm'ent design concept impacts will continue to be mitigated
to a nonsignificant level.
Based on tl~is m',dew. hnplementallon of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new. signific,'mt B~tter resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant water resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant water resuume
effects not previously discussed. Therefore, water resource impacts from implementing the current design concept
reinare nonsignificaot and within the scope of analysis contained in die certified EIR.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Signi~eam Mitigation Significant No
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ]
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
[ ] Ix] [ ] I ]
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
d. Create objectionable odors?
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
Air quality v, as one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the
Both short- and long-term air quality impacts were quantified as being significant. A review of construction emissions
indicates that f~gidve dust enassions calculation was based on a total of 87 acres of construction at a given time. The
proposed project will encompass approximately 80 acres of area (47 acres in Area A), ten acres of adjacent area for
mass grading, and about 23 acres in the First Street and Western By-pass corridors. Thus, construction emissions,
including fugitive dus~ are forecast to be less than identified in the EIR and, even though significant, the current design
concept wi~ not cause greater constm~on emissions. Project operation, or long-term emissions, were based on traffic
flows associated with a total of 1,045,500 square feet (~2) of facilities and the proposed project envisions only 459,700
~: of facilities. Emissions from these facilities will be less, both because facilities will utilize less energy and because
overall traffic flow will be reduced due to fewer square feet of entertainment venue destinations. All mitigation
measures identified in the EI~ will be implemented as required, but both short- and long-term air quality impacts will
remain significant, but well within the forecast contained in the EIK
Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
next, significant air qualit), effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred wlfich may cause new,
significant air quality effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant air quality effects
not previously discassed Therefore, air quality impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within
the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle ~ps or traffic congestion?
[ ] Ix} [ I l }
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
[ ] Ix} l ] [ }
c Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [x]
[l
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
I ] Ix] [ ] I ]
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
[ I Ix] [ ] [ }
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
[ } [x] [ ] l ]
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
[ ] [ I [xl [ I
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
Transportation/circulation issues were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and the}, were.
therefore, evaluated in the EIK All u'ansportation/circolation impacts are mitigable to a nonsignificant level after
application of mitigation, including the construction of major infrastructure improvements such as two bridges,
freeway interclmge impmvements, and the Western By-pass roadto Vincent Moraga Road. Areview ofthe proposed
current design concept indicates that truffc wilt be redirected from Old Town to Area A of the WSP, and the
mitigation for access to Area A, as identified in the revised traffic report, will ensure that all transportation/circulation
impacts are rmtigated to a noasigni~cant level. ThernitigationhicludesrelocationofVinoentMoragatothenorthwest
aod extension of tile Western By-pass road a few hundred feet to this new intersection. All mitigation measures
identified in the EIK and the revised traffc study will be implemented and traffc/circulation impacts will be reduced
to a nonsignificant level. The tra~c study is attached as Enclosure I to this document and it includes responses to
issues raised at the August 18, 1997 Planning Commission workshop.
Based on fitis review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new. significant transportation/circulation effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may
cause new, significant transportation/circulation effects; and no new information shows the project will have new,
significant transportation/circulation effects not previously discussed. The bottom line with the
tram3~ormtion/circutation impacts for the current design concept is that impacts can be fully mitigated as outlined in
tile attached traffic stud>'. Therefore, transportadon/circulation impacts from implementing the current design concept
remain within file scope of analysis contained in the certified ErR.
R:XFOILMS\CEQA,IES 911~j971db ]3
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING [NFORjx{ATION SOURCES
potentially
Significant Mitigation Sigific,anI No
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
[ ] Ix] [ ] I ]
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
[ ] Ix] [ ] I ]
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
Biological resources ~vere one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated
in the EIR All biological resource impacts, including endangered species, habitat and wetland issues, were determined
to be potentity significant, but mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application of extensive mitigation. A review
of the footprint of the proposed current design concept footprint indicates that the same amount of acreage will be
disturbed ni the WSP area, in the bridge corridors, and in tile First Street areas of disturbance as projected in the EIR.
Within the WSP and along the Western By-pass the El?, evaluation assumed that all 87.9 acres would be disturbed.
including the area required for cuts and fills along tile corridor. No specific definition of the boundaries of the cuts
and fills was possible when the EIR was completed, but an accurate estimate of disturbance was possible based on the
footprint of the total area of disturbance. Subsequently, negotiations with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ffWS)
identified mitigation that was accepted for the area to be disturbed as defined in the Elk understanding that exact
acreage could not be precisely determined until final engineering was completed. As a result, extra mitigation for
disturbance was proposed and accepted by FWS and full mitigation has been provided for endangered species and
habitat losses. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and based on negotiated regulator3'
permits. the impacts will remain within file forecast contained in the EIR.
Based on fitis review. implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new. significant biological resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause
new, significant biological resource effects; and no new information shows file project will have new, significant
biological resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, biological resource impacts from implementing the
current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
I ] I ] [ I Ixl
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
I } I I Ix] I I
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
I1 [ ] Ix] II
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING rNFORMATION SOURCES
Signi~cant Mitigation SignHicam No
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
The natural msoume, mineral and energy, issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the
original project would not cause or experience any significant adverse impact because no mineral resources will be
affected by the project and adequate energy msoumes are available to meet forecast demand for the foreseeable future.
The proposed current design concept has not potential to alter this conclusion since no such msuarces occur within the
area of potential effect and energy consumption will be reduced because of less one/half of the square footage will be
constructed and the arena is now an enclosed, not open, area. Thus, natural msoume impacts remain nonsignificant.
Based on this review, hnplementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant natural resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant natural resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant natural
resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, natural resource impacts from implementing the current design
concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
9. BAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited m: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
[ I [ ] [xI [ I
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
d. Exposure ofpeopte to existing sources ofpotential health
hazards?
l] [xl [ ] I ]
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees?
[l Ix] [ ] I ]
Evaluation of Addendure Issues:
TIle risk of upset issues were addressed in tile Initial Study and it was concluded that tile original project would not
cause or experience any significant adverse impact because policies and measures included in the CiLy's General Plan
guide management and control of such upsets. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this
conclusion since the same policies and measures apply to the new project. Thus, risk of upset impacts remain
nonsignificant. The health risk issues were also addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original
projec~ would not cause or experience any significant adverse health risk impact because the proposed uses do not entail
activities fluat create health risks. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter fitis conclusion since
the uses remain file same and total development proposed under this concept is less than hall' of tile scope of
development envisioned in the original project. Health risk impacts should be comparably decreased, thus, health risk
impacts remain nonsignificant.
B,'tsed on tiffs review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant risk of upset or health risk effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred wl~ch may
cause new, significant risk of upset or health risk effects; and no new inforuuation shows tile project will have new,
significant risk of upset or health risk effects not previously discussed. Therefore, risk of upset and health risk impacts
from implementing file current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the
R:~rORMS\CEQA.IES 9,~Zt97 tdb 15
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
potentially
Signifieam
Potentially Unless Ltr~s Than
Signitieant Mitigation Significant No
certified EIR.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? [x] [ J [ ] [ ]
b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
[ ] Ix] [ I [ I
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
Noise was one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and it was, therefore, evaluated in the EIX. Both
short- and long-term noise impacts were quantified and determined to be potentially significant, but mitigable to a
nonsignificant level. A review of the proposed current design concept footprint indicates that the same general amount
of acreage will be disturbed during construction, the noise impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level through
the mitigation measures identified in the E[R. The noise impacts from operating the facilities in Old Town becomes
a moot point since no facilities are initially proposed in this urea. The noise impacts from the urena and other facilities
in Area A will be reduced even further than proposed mitigation because the arena will be a solid, insulated structure
tlmt will contain noise from operations much better than the original tent. All pertinent mitigation measures identified
in the E[P, will be implemented and based on implementation of these measures, the impacts will remain within the
forecast contained in the EIR.
Based on tiffs review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant noise effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new, significant
noise effects: and no new information shows the project will have new, significant noise effects not previously
discussed. In fact. the current design concept will reduce overall operational noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts
from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the
certified EIR.
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? [ ] [x] I ] [ ]
b. Police protection?
I ] Ix] I ] [ ]
c, Schools? [ ] [ ] [x] I ]
d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities. inchiding roads?
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
e. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] Ix] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendure Issues:
The public service issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce
potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience any significant
adverse trnpact Pubhc service impacts will be mitigated by providing resources (infrastmctare and capacity increases)
to addres~ those service impacts where demand requires mitigation, and through no effect for other impacts, like
recreation facilities. These same measures must be applied to current design concept and, as a result of reduced
demand because of the reduced size of the project, the net result is that there will be no increase in public service
demand impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure, the public service impacts either remain
R:XFORj~IS\CEQA.IES 9,'22/97 lab ] 6
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant Mitigation Significant No
nonsignificant, or can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level.
Based on this review, Unplementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant public service effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant public senrice effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant public service
effects not previously discussed. Therefore, public service impacts from implementing the current design concept
remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
12.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ ] Ix]
[1 [1
d. Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
e. Storm water drainage? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
f. Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
g. Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
The utility issues were addressed in the Initial Study. It was concluded that the original project would not cause or
experience any significant adverse utility impacts because adequate infrastructure connections are available at the
propert3' 's periphery. As a result of reduced demand because of the reduced size of the project, the net result is that
there will be no increase in overall utility demand impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation measure,
the utility impacts either remain nonsignificant.
Based on this review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant utility effects; no substantial changes in ciraanstances have occurred which may cause new, significant
utility effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant utility effects not previously
discussed. Therefore, utility impacts from implementing the current design concept remain nonsignificant and within
the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
R:XFORMSXCEQA.IES 9/22/97 klb 17
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Leas Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact impact
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
[ I Ix] [ I [ ]
c. Create light or glare? [ ] [x] [ ] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
Aesthetic/visual impacts were one of the issues identified as being potentially significant, and they were, therefore.
evaluated in the EIR. All aesthetic impacts were determined to be mitigable to a nonsignificant level after application
of ex~iensive mitigation, including rapid revegetation of the cut slopes along the Western By-pass Road and on the berm
adjacent to residents on Pujol Street. A review of the proposed current design concept indicates that the original pad
elevation will be lower than shown in visual simulations; tlmt the large mass of the hotel will be divided into several
structures; and the tent-like arena will be replaced with a smaller, building. Cut slope length will be increased relative
to that previously shown, but the combination of lowered pad elevation and landscape revegetation identified to
mitigate this impact wili be implemented as envisioned in the certified EIR and provided in the current landscape plan.
This is shown in die new visual simulation of the project developed to illustrate the changes from the original design
concept This new simulation is available at the Planning Department for review and consideration. Implementation
of all pmposed mitigation measures can ensure that all aesthetic impacts will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level.
All mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented and aesthetic impacts will be reduced to a
nonsignificant level.
The light and glare issues were addressed in the Initial Study and after identifying mitigation measures to reduce
potential adverse impacts, it was concluded that the original project would not cause or experience an3' significant
adverse impact. Light and glare impacts are controlled by meeting performance requirements (absolute thresholds)
established by Cat Tech for the Mr. Palomar Observatory. These same measures must be applied to current design
concept and the net result is no additional light and glare impacts. With implementation of the required mitigation
measure. the light and glare impacts can be mitigated to a nonsignificant level.
Based on tiffs review, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant aesthetic effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant aesthetic effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant aesthetic effects not
previously discussed. The net effect with the aesthetic impacts for the current design concept is that impacts can be
fully mitigated in the same manner as for the original design concept by utilizing the same intensive cut slope
revegetation program. Therefore, aesthetic impacts from implementing the current design concept remain within the
scope of analysis contained in tile certified EIR.
R:'at'OPJ~tS\CEQA.IE~ 9F2~97 tdb I g
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
[ I [ 1 IxJ [ ]
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
[ I [ ] {x] I ]
c. Affect historical resources?
[ ] Ix] { ] [ ]
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
[ ] [ ] [xl [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
The cultural resource issues were addressed in the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would
not cause or experience any significant adverse cultural resource impact because no cultural resources occur within
Area A based on site specific surveys and because no facilities will be placed within Old Town at this time where
historical suuctures exist The pmposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion since the uses
remain the same and the area affected remains the same. Cultural resource impacts mumin nonsignificant under the
current design concept.
Based on this review, knplementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant cultural resource effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant cultural resource effects; and no new information shows the project will have new, significant cultural
resource effects not previously discussed. Therefore, cultural resource impacts from implementing the current design
concept remain nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
[ ] {x] [ ] { ]
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
[ ] [ ] Ix] [ }
Evaluation of Addendure Issues:
The recreation issues were addressed n the Initial Study and it was concluded that the original project would not cause
or experience any significant adverse recreation impact because the proposed uses provide recreation and do not affect
an), existing or future recreation uses. The proposed current design concept has no potential to alter this conclusion
since file uses remain file same. Recreation impacts remain nonsignificant under the current design concept.
Based on Otis m~ew, implementation of the current design concept does not pose substantial change in the project with
new, significant recreation effects; no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which may cause new,
significant recreation effects; and no new information shows file project will have new, significant recreation effects
not previously discussed. Therefore, recreation impacts fxom implementing the current design concept remain
nonsignificant and within the scope of analysis contained in the certified EIR.
R:LFORMS',CEQA.IES 9.'22/971db 19
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNEFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualit>'
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or aremat community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of Calfforma history
or prehistory?
[ ] Ix] [ ] [ ]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Ix]
[] 1] [1
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCnmulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Ix] [1 [] []
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[ ] ix] [ ] [ ]
Evaluation of Addendum Issues:
The puxpose of this analysis has been to determine whether the current design concept, which represents two yeass of
design evolution and facility selection for Area A of the WSP, wilt cause additional or different significant effects than
those forecast in the Final EIR certified by the City in 1995. Fundamentally, the current design concept remains
relatively close to the original in terms of focus and types of uses. As discussed in the project description in this Initial
Stu~' and the Land Use evaluation 1, the original structures in Area A of the WSP have been separated into individual
support uses that were originally envisioned to be contained within one facility, such as the anditorium/opem house
being separated from the hotel and the museum being separated from the wild west arena. Based on the evaluation
of the new design concept as presented above, implementation the current project would not alter the findings reached
~Uthin the certified Final EIR. The only issues of real concern are the change in the cut slopes which will be
lengtheneeL not increased in absolute elevation or visibility, due to lowering the elevation of the Western By-pass road
and traffic flows, which have been reduced overall from the original project. The new traffic stud)', the new visual
simulation, and the required mitigation illustrate how the aesthetic impacts remain as depicted in the Final ElK As
described in the final EIK the cut slope impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by implementing the rapid
and effective revegetation of these slopes in accordance with mitigation requirements and as demonstrated in the
landscape plan being reviewed for the current project by the City.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be ased where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIP,. or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a. Earher analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The certified
Final EIR for the Old Town Redevelopment Project was relied upon in preparing this Initial Study and
Addendure.
b. Impacks adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were witi~n the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All impacts evaluated in this
R:XFOIR~IS/CEQA. IES 9?22797 ldb 20
document include mitigation measures, and monitoring plans, that were adopted when the original project
was approved and the Final EIR certified in ]995.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Signfficant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigaUon measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project. No revisions to original mitigation measures have been
required for the current project, but specific measures are more well defined at this point.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Enviroumental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Old Town Redevelopmerit Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, 1995
TRAFFIC STUDY
WILBUI.
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS * PLANNERS
2300 E. VATELLA AVE. ,, SUITE 275 · ANAHEIM. CA 92B06-6047, (71.4) 978-8110 · FAX (714) 978-1109
AugUst 11, 1997
Zcv Buffman
President
Tamecuts EntertaLmicnt
41934 Main Street
Temeanla, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Buffman:
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) is pleased to submit thlsFina. lRcport which documents the
key findings of the traffic study update wc have completed for the Old Tov,,n Entertainment
Center project located in Tcmccula California. The purpose of this study is re-evaluate traffic
impacts of the project b~cd on v~ious revisions which have been made to the Old Town
Entcrtalmmcnt Center since the EIR traffic study was performed in October 1994. The focus
of the traffic study update is to assess impac!s of the proposed project revisions on traffic
generation, and traffic distribution.
The general scope of WSA's work is dcslgned 1o respond to the City of Temccula's request
to review the currently proposed project plan trod verify the net change in traffic impacts from
the original EIR study, which ~vould result from the revised plan.
A more detailed description of work tasks xvhich ~verc involved in the preparation of a "traffic
study update" for the Old Tow'n Entertainment Center (OTEC) is provided below:
l)
Review land use components of the currently defined OTEC and note differences which
will require a re-evaluation of trip generation. A~y change in the seating capacities and/or
planned "show" schedules for the major project venues ~vill require adjuslznents in trip
generation.
2)
The traffic generation assessment generally applies previously accepted methodology (used
in the Barton-Aschman study) to re-~ssess vehicular traffic generation for the project. As
addressed in the Barton-Asclwaan study, traffic generation for the revised project is
estimated for both the weekday evening nnd Saturday midday peak-hour condition. These
peak-hour periods represent the critical period of operation for the s~eet system in the
vicinity of th~ project. It is during this period that addition,'d traffic generated by the
EMpLOYEE'OWNED COMPANY
Zev Buffman
August 11, 1997
Page 2
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
project could potenti~.lly have the most significant impact on arca traffic operation. A
comparative analysis is presented of the updated project traffic generation study findings
and the previous study traffic generation estimates.
3) Vehicle trip distribution characteris-tics for the project were re-evaluated and adjusted based
on the current spaeial distrlbutioff of activity nodes within the project as well as planned
parking facilities.
4)
Based on the updated project traffic generation (estimated in Task 2) and revised trip
distribution characteristics (evaluated in Task 3), updated traffic assignments of project-
related traffic were developed for the study area street network. Updated project traffic
assignments '~vere developed for b6th the weekday evening and Saturday midday peak-hour
condition. A comparative analysis was made of the updated project traffic assignments
and the previous study trzf~e assignments. ·
5) WSA reviewed the proposed northe~y relocation of the Vincent Moraga connection with
the Western Bypass concerning traffic operations and parking accessibility.
Updated Project Land Use
Current project land use, as defined by Temecula Entertainment, is suramarized in Table 1.
It should be noted that Phase II uses .include one theater (refered to as the "Palane Theater")
which is actually anticipated to be implemented in a third development phase. For purposes
of the cummulative project traffic generation analysis, it is conservatively assumed that this
entertz~inment venue occurs in Phase II. Based on discussions with Temecula Entertainment,
it is our understanding that Phase I and Phase I1 are expected to be completed by the fourth
quarter of 1998 and fourth quarter of 1999 repectively.
Project Trip Generation
WSA has carefully reviewed the principal land use components of the revised project including
seating capacities, floor areas, and event schedules. It was also important to gain a good
understanding of the planned operations and interrelationships of the various project uses~
UJ
.W
-8
d
'7
.<
U.I
U)
"r'
o
Zev Buffman
August II~ 1997
Page 3
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
One critical refinement which has been made since the last study. relates to the planned
scheduling of shows and events which would occur at the arena and various theaters within the
project. These schedules, which we understand would be controlled by the project
operator/manager, have a direct affect on the magnitude of project-related traffic impacts which
would be experienced during the normal .weekday evening (5:00 to 6:00 p.nt.) and Saturday
midday (I:00 to 2:00 p;m. peak-hour periods. Current event/show programming for the project
generally schedule mo~t weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30, 8:00 or 8:30 p.m.
On weekends, the events/shows would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m., 3:00-3:30 p.m., or
7:30-8:30 p.m. If these event/show schedule times are implemented, related traffic impacts
would be nominal d~tring the typical traffic peak-hours on the study area street system.
WSA has taken a very conservative approach in the methodology used to derive project-related
traffic during the high',vay peak-hour periods. In the ease of the arena and theaters, it is
assumed that all venues are operating at maximum seating capacities that a minimum of 10
percent of the generated trips for the event/show would occur during the preceding highway
pe',kk-hour regardless of the time differential. Typically, all attendcos ave well within a 90
minute period preceding "show time." The trip generation analysis also includes the
conservative assumption that the "Food and Wine Court" would a~ the same lavel as featured
dining establishment in tenns of its ability to draw public to the project. In reality, most food
cotlrt facilities typically operate as an "amenity" to the major attractors such as retail and
principal event/show venues and rarely draw public to a project on their own.
It should be noted that some of the land uses within the project were assessed to be incidental
or passive in nature and are not expected to contribute significantly to the primary attraction
of vehicle trips to the project. These include the chapel, Roy Rogers Experience/Museum (and
down-sized virtual reality venue), and informal/incidental entertainment components of the
dining and retail core. As described to us, the chapel located on the central courtyard portion
of the project site. would serve as an informal place of rest and self-reflection]meditation for
visitors, The Roy Rogers Experience/museum and virtual reality ride as well as other general
entenalnment components of the project are considered as a secondary-level auractions
available to visitors attending the primary events/sho~vs, dining establishments and retail
shopplug attractions. Based on similar entertainment-oriented projects, these second:q-level
uses become incidental to the primary attractions. Traffic generation for these uses is
considered insignificant relative to traffic generation for the primary antactions.
Zev BuffmE
August 11, 1997
Page 4.
VVILDUI<
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Assumptions used in the derivation of traffic generation for each of the primary project land
uses (which arc expected to generate traf~O have been summarized by project phase and are
attached. A summary of gross vehicle trips estimated to be generated by project Phase I and
Phase H dt~ring the weekday and Saturday peak-hour periods is presented in Tables 2 and 3
respectively.
A comparison of the gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I with
the earlier Barton Aschraan study indicates a substantial reduction in gross weekday peak-hour
trips (170 vs. 1,g25 inboand vehicles and 50 v-~. 780 outbound vehicles). The reduction in
goss Saturday peak-hour vehicle trips is also significant (170 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and
170 vs. 850 outbound vehicles).
A similar comparison of cummulative gross vehicle trip generation for the currently defined
project Phase I and II with the earlier Barton Aschman study of Phase I indicates a smaller but
still significant reduction in weekday peak-hour trips (841 vs. t,825 inboand vd~iclcs and 435
vs. 780 outbound vehicles). For the Saturday pe,-xk hour, the current estimate of cumulative
Phase I and II gross peak-hour vehicle trips is again substantially lower than that estimated
for Phase I in the earlier Barton Aschman study (996 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 660 vs.
850 outbouud vehicles).
Gross t~ip estimates developed for the project are adjusted to reflect the interaction of trips
between individual uses on the project site and Old Town Temecula- This trip interaction is
referred to as "internal trip-making" and occurs in the pedestrian mode of travel. For Phase
I of the project, the analysis conservatively assumes that no internal trip-making occurs. In
reality. there would be opportunity for trip interactions between the arena and Old Town. For
Phase II, it is assumed that up to 65 percent of the hotel trips would be internal to the project
and Old Town. It in also assumed that up to 50 percent of the dining and retail trips would
be internal to the project and Old Town. These. are basically the same internal trip-making
assumptions applied in the previous study.
Illu.~trated summaries of the final "adjusted" trip generation assessment for Project Phase II
(Weekday Evening and Saturday Midday Peak-Hour) conditions are provided in Figures I a and
2a. Also provided, for comparison, are the previous traffic study trip generation summaries
Table 2
Phase I Trip Generation
Old Town Entertainment Center
WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR (5:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M,)
LAND USE COMPONENTS
Wlld West Arena
Administration/Back of House
INBOUND
160
10
170
VEHICLE TRIPS
OUTBOUND
0
50
50
TOTAL
160
60
220
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR (1:00 P.M. TO 2:00 P.M.)
13
LAND USE COMPONENTS
Wild West Arena
Administration/Back of House
INBOUND
160
10
170
VEHICLE TRIPS
OUTBOUND
160
10
170
TOTAL
320
20
340
Table 3a
Phase II Trip Generation
WEEKDAY pEAK HOUR (5:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M.)
Old Town Entertainment Center
LAND USE COMPONENTS
GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
TOTAL
I a Wild West Arena 200 0 200
2 Ce]ibrity 73 0 73
3 Studio Theater 25 25 50
4 Western Dinner Theater 17 0 17
7 Palace Theater 73 0 73
Sub-Total 388 25 413
5 Food and Wine Court 60 30 90
6a Dining 60 20 8D
8b Retail 220 220 440
Sub-Total 340 270 610
8 Hotet 103 60 193
10 50' 6D
lb Administration/BackofHouse
Total 841 435 1,276
(1) Trip generation represents gross vehicle trips without adjustment for internal trip-making.
Table 3b
Phase II Trip Generation I~)
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR (1:00 P.M. TO 2:00 P.M.)
Old Town Entertainment Center
LAND USE COMPONENTS
GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS
INBOUND OUTBOUND
TOTAL
1 a Wild West Arena 200 , 200 400
2 Celibrity 73 0 73
3 Studio Theater 75 10 85
4 Weslem Dinner Theater 42 0 42
7 Palace Theater 73 0 73
Sub*Total 463 210 673
5 Food and Wine Court 60 30 90
6a Dining 60 20 80
5b Retail 300 300 600
Sub*Total 420 350, 770
8 Hotel 103 90 193
10 10 20
1 b Administration/Back of House
Totat 996 660 1.656
(1) ~rip generation represents gross vehicle trips without ad. iustment for internal trip-making.
Zev Buffman
August II, 1997
Page 5
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
for the same analysis .periods. These arc shown in Figure Ib and 2b for the weekday and
Saturday peak-hours respectively.
Findings of the updated trip gcneratlon analysis arc as follows:
Net vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I land use is 170 inbound and 50
outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 170 inbound and 170 outbound
vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour.
Net cumulative vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I and II land use is
539 inbound and 216 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 672
inbound and 322 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour.
For comparison, the net vehicle trip generation for the earlier defined project Phase I land
use w~s 995 inbound and 325 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and
1,475 inbound and 330 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour,
Trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I represents less than 17 percent
of the total weekday peak hour trip generation estimated in the EIK traffic study. In this
case the reduction in peak hour trips is fai~y evenly distributed between inbound and
outbound traffic.
Saturday midday peak hour trip ~eneratlon for the revised Project Phase I represents less
than 19 percent of the total trip generation estimated in the EIR traffic study. For the
Saturday peak hour, the greatest reduction in trips occurs in the inbound traffic direction.
The new outbound traffic estimate represents approximately 52 percent of the outbound
traffic given in the EIR study.
Cumulative weekday peak hour trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase
I and II represents approximately 54 percent of the total Phase I EIR study trip generation
with close to equal trip reduction in both the inbound nnd outbound directions.
f
<(
n
z
0
m
.0
0
n...cD~ ' .
coLuj
O00L~
,,~LU
ZL.U
.,JI.-~s~J
n-IDI,UU) O
I.ul.-''r'
ct~.
LL! O.,~
,,O 0
.,.I J
V
V
0:D~
...J
...s ~J
OoOI.Li
..~d
.i, ·
Og
Woo
_
Zev Buffman
August 11, 1997
Page 6
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
For the Saturday .midday peak hour, proposed Project Phase I and II cumulative trip
generation is 'estimated to represent only 55 percent of the total trips estimated for Phase
I in the earlier study. For the Saturday analysis condition, most trip reductions associated
with the current project plan occur in the inbound direction. The outbound trip generation
level is currently esth'nated at approximateIy 98 percent of that given in the Phase I ElK
study.
Projeel Trip 2)islribution and Assignment
WSA has reviewed the trip distribution assumptions included in the previous EIR traffic study.
Adjustments have been made in the inm~ediate study area to reflect the shift of all project land
uses out of the central Old Town area and consolidated on the site adjacent to the Western By-
pass. A major factor considered in the re-distribution of project trips is also the revised
location of designated parking areas oh the project site and existing parking in Old Town. The
revised project-related trip distribution is provided in Figure 3. All but approximately 8
percent of the traffic is estimated to approach the project via file Western Bypass, ist Street,
and Vincent Moraga Drive.
Based on the revised trip generation and trip distribution, Phase I and Phase I and II combined
project trips were assigned to the area street system for the weekday and Saturday analysis
scenarios. The results of the assignment procedure are presented in Figures 4 and 5 which also
show the previous study traffic asslgmnent.
As can be seen in Figure 4a and 4b, all of the current Phase I traffic volumes at the affected
intersections are substantially lower than those previously estimated. With the currently
proposed Phase I. project traffic volumes would be less than 19 percent of that previously
estimated for the weekday peak-hour condition and less than 25 percent of the previously
estimated for the Saturday peak-hour condition.
Traffic assignments shown in Figure 5a and 5b indicate that the cumulative Phase I and II
traffic volumes resulting from the current proposal would be be lower in almost all cases at
individual intersection movements and in all cases based on total traffic added to the
inter'sections.
:
LEGEND
XX~a F.,N'T'rj~TAJNI,/ENT 'CORC TRiP DtSTRIBU'~ON
N.T.S,
PRO!JECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
1
CiTY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
r
PROJEOT WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIO VOLUMES ~
[ Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. FIGUR.~]
CiTY OF TEMECULA - OLD TOWN R~D~VELOPMSNT PROJECT ~ ~&
KT.S,
'.PROJECT SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAKs-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' [']
I Barton-Aschman Associates. lnc: ~
' CITY OF TEMBQUI_A - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
k,
I Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
CITY OF TSMECULA - OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PROJECT WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES F~
F/GUREJ
Zev Buffman
August 11, 1997
Page 7
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Vincent Moraga Drive. Extension Realignraent
The specific issue which was requested to be addressed involves the proposed realignment of
Vincent Moraga Drive extension to the Western Bypass at thc north end of the project site.
In the Conceptual Master Plan, 1he proposed alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension
resulted in a bisection of the parking area located at the north end of the site. This presented
a situation which requircd access drives to three separate parking lots formed by the road
alignment. This pasldng access layout would have resulted in a relatively high potential for
turnlag movement conflicts, related accidents, and traffic congestion.
As currently proposed, the alignment of the Vincent Momga Drive extension is shifted north
in a manncr which would essentially place all parking on the south side. With lhis
configuration, only two parking lots would be formed with a collector-type street serving as
access to both lots. The proposed intersection spacing along the Vincent Moraga Drive
extension is more t~vorable than in the Conceptual Master Plan and fewer potential turning
movement conliters would result. With the current street alignment and parking layout WSA
recommends parking access locations as depicted in Figure 6.
Conclusions
The results of the WSA traffic update demonstrate that, the currently defined Phase I and
combined Phase I and H project would have significantly lower traffic impacts than the
previous study estimated. This is evident by the comparative findings of both the trip
generation n,,nlysis as well as the trip assignment evaluation. Modifications to the project land
uses, location of uses, and the progra.m.med schedule of events/shows have cumulatively
contributed the reduction in Irafile impacts.
F/cuRE ~
Zev Buffman
August 11, 1997
Page 8
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 973-gl 10.
Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Planner
RAD:rad
Attachments
" /~OO X b, IO '- l~O yO4~eL.F3 .T~Sto~t~ Ik~t~Z~_ e,u'rSoo, uZ)
.. '1~0 O
I '70 5'0
Ib
trr~t2oD .
.270
I~GOO X O, [O =
A-I
X o. IO -- %00 vr~ru, r~
200 vr. tt
I~b ~ O.?_~T -' ZS yr~ttcz..E:s hvs~u~,b
3e + I.ZPPV = 25' VE,W,"z-E% O~A't~o,aJ)
5':00 TY, f~a~ :2:ooP, t{
+:2, =- .3D
Fr~ 1 T~
l l~zoo~7'~- = ef,&Ob FF~-)
ZZo v,r--..qj,'z.r,_~ huBc~Jb
2~7 X O, z5' '-..q. 7 vr, Jhc,t~_-s IMBbo~jD
A-+
Ptt,~sE jr 7~lP ~vra,nvo,J (c~m ) 54ro~,~7·
b. HoTr~-- Z5'~ Pa~o~,S
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS * PLANNERS "
3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 - Riverside, CA 92,r'Z]} - (T/4) 9.74-0566 · FAX (7 ]4) 274-9220
August 28, 1997
Zev Buffman
President
Temecula Entertainment
41934 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Wild West Arena Formal Site Development Plan Conditional Use Permit Submittal
Dear Mr. Buffman:
in preparation of the referenced submittal package for the City of Temecula Planning Department,
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been requested to address the subject of traffic impacts related
to the proposed Old Town Entertainment Center project. In response to this request, WSA has
prepared the following discussion which addresses traffic impacts for Phase I - Wild West Arena
and responds to traffic issues raised at the recent Planning Commission Workshop for the project.
Traffic impacts related to Phase I of the project have been studied and are addressed in WSA's letter
report dated August 11, 1997. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate traffic impacts of the
project based on revisions which have been made to the Old Town Entertainment Center since the
EIR traffic study was performed in October 1994. The focus of the traffic study update was to
assess impacts of the proposed project revisions on Ixaffic generation, and project traffic distribution
on the surrounding street system. The study scope was designed to respond to the City of
Temecula's request to review the currently proposed project plan and verify the net change in traffic
impacts from the original EIR study, which would result from the revised plan. The following
provides an overview of the findings of the project Phase I analysis.
Phase I of the project consists of the Wild West Arena which will have an initial seating capacity
of 4,800 persons. the current development schedule anticipates completion of Phase I by December
of 1998.
~NY. NY · ALLIANCE. OH · CAIRO, EGYP[, CItA,qLESTON. SC · COLUMBIA. SC · COLUMBUS. OFI · DES MOINES, IA · FAI.IS CI;[IRCII. VA
JNG KONG · HOUSION. TX ', K."',/OXVILLE, IN . LEXINGTON. KY * EONDON. ENGLAND · LOS ANGtjI.ES. CA · MIAM;. rL · NIl'NAIl. WI
W FIAV/N CT · OAKLAND. CA · ORLAt;DO, Fl · PITTSBIJRGIt, PA PORTSMOUTII, NIl · PROVIDENCE. I?1 - RAI[IGtl, NC
MC'ND VII · ?,,,r,~,n,~ C/~ o "?C]~FLI l' II · SAN rRANCfSCO. CA · SAN JOSE. CA . SINGAPORE ·TORON[O, CANADA · VvAS!IiN~CZ. rON, DC
EMPLOYI~E-OWNED COMPANY
Zev Buffman
August 28, 1997
Page 2
WSA has reviewed the traffic generation assuming full utilization of the seating capacity and the
planned event schedules for the arena. These schddules, which would be controlled by the project
operator/manager, have a direct affect on the magnitude of project-related traffic impacts which
would be experienced during the normal weekday evening (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and Saturday, midday
(1:00 to 2:00 p.m. peak-hour periods. Current eventJshow programming for the Wild West Arena
generally schedule weekday events and shows commencing at 7:30. On weekends, the events/shows
would be scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. and/or 7:30 p.m.p.m. If these event/show schedule times
are implemented, related traffic impacts would be nominal during the typical traffic peak-hours on
the study area street system.
A comparison of the ~'oss vehicle trip generation for the currently defined project Phase I with the
earlier Barton Aschman study indicates a substantial reduction in gross weekday peak-hour trips
( 170 vs. 1,825 inbound vehicles and 50 vs. 780 outbound vehicles). The reduction in gross Saturday
peak-hour vehicle trips is also significant (170 vs. 2,425 inbound vehicles and 170 vs. 850 outbound
vehicles).
For Phase I of the project, the trip generation analysis conservatively assumes that no internal trip-
making occurs. While in reality, there would be opportunity for trip interactions between the arena
and Old To~qn, none of the vehicle trips estimated to be generated by the project were discounted.
Findings of the updated trip generation analysis have been reported as follows:
Net vehicle trip generation for the revised project Phase I land use is 170 inbound and 50
outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 170 inbound and 170 outbound
vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour.
For comparison, the net vehicle trip generation for the earlier defined project Phase I land use
was 995 inbound and 325 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday peak hour and 1,475
inbound and 330 outbound vehicle trips during the Saturday peak hour.
Trip generation for the currently proposed Project Phase I represents less than 17 percent of the
total weekday peak hour trip generation estimated in the EtR traffic study. In this case the
reduction in peak hour trips is fairly evenly distributed between inbound and outbound traffic.
Zev Buffman
August 28, 1997
Page 3
Saturday midday peak hour trip generation for the revised Project Phase I represents less than
19 percent of the total trip generation estimated in the Ell>, traffic study. For the Saturday peak
hour, the greatest reduction in trips occurs in the inbound traffic direction. The new outbound
traffic estimate represents approximately 52 percent of the outbound traffic given in the EIR
study.
Daily trip generation for Phase I of the project is estimated at approximately 9,750 total vehicle
trips for the weekday condition an{l 19,500 for the weekend condition. It is important to note
that the Wild West Arena in anticipated to have only one show per week on a weekday (Friday)
and occasionally two shows per day on the weekend days. As such, the above daily traffic
generation estimates should not be interpreted as "average" daily traffic.
WSA's reviewed of the trip distribution assumptions used in the previous EIR traffic study included
adjustments in the immediate study area to reflect the consolidation designated project parking areas
on the project site adjacent to the Westem Bypass Road. The revised project-related trip distribution
estimates all but approximately 8 percent of the traffic approaching the project via the Western
Bypass, 1st Street, and Vincent Moraga Drive.
According to the re-distribution analysis, all of the current Phase I traffic volumes at the affected
intersections are substantially lower than those previously estimated. With the currently proposed
Phase I development, project traffic volumes would be less than 19 percent of that previously
estimated for the weekday peak-hour condition and less than 25 percent of the previously estimatcd
for the Saturday peak-hour condition.
The results of the WSA traffic update demonstrated that, the currently defined Phase I project would
have significantly lower traffic impacts than the previous study estimated. This is evident by the
comparative findings of both the trip generation analysis as well as the trip assignment evaluation.
Modifications to the project land uses, location of uses, and the programmed schedule of
events/shows have cumulatively contributed the reduction in traffic impacts.
Additional'~traffic issues raised at the recent Planning Commission workshop included concerns
regarding traffic which would be added by the opening of the Temecula Mall and timing questions
related to the programmed interchange improvements at Rancho California Road and State Route
Zev Buffinan
August 28, 1997
Page 4
79 South. The Temecula Mall project w/ll add an increment of new l~'affic to the Rancho California
Road/I-/5 interchange which was not defined at the time the original fIR traffic study was
performed. The estimated reductions in peak hour trips associated with revised Old Town
Entertainment Center project would actually help in off-setting most of the added Mall traffic on
Rancho California Road at the interchange and Ynez Road as compared to the original fIR traffic
impact assessment at this location. Even more significant, is the mitigative impact of the
programmed Rancho California Road//-] 5 interchange improvement. According to the most current
construction schedule obtained from the City of Temecula Public Works Department, the Rancho
California Road interchange improvement is expected to be open to traffic by December 1998. This
improvement combined with the reduction in project-related traffic impacts would result in better
traffic operating conditions than anticipated in the Original fIR traffic study, even with the
additional Mall traffic.
The current schedule for the State Route 79 South/I-15 interchange shows completion of the
improvement would occur by October or November 1998. This indicates that both interchange
improvements would be completed before or at approximately the same time as the Wild West
Arena is scheduled to open.
Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110.
Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Planner
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
2300 e KA:~FLLA A'.'E · SLJI,TE 275 · ANAHEIM CA 92800-6047 · (714) C78 81 !C, · PAX :7 1~! c278-1 ~Oc
September 21, 1997
Zev Buffman
President
Temecula Entertainment
41934 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Development Review Committee Traffic Circulation Comments on
Planning Application No. PA97-0298 Westside Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Buffman:
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been requested to address traffic circulation comments made
by the City of Temecula Development Review Committee relative to the proposed Westside
Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center project. In response to the traffic issues
raised by City staff, WSA has conducted additional analysis of the current project plan and has
prepared the following discussion of the analysis findings,
Re~,iew of Project Circulation Plan
WSA has carefully reviewed the circulation plan proposed for the project and has analyzed issues
related to: access location and spacing; sight distance; vehicle stacking requirements for principal
turning movements; the need for deceleration and acceleration lanes; and traffic control
requirements including waffle lane configurations and intersection controls. Also addressed in the
study are turning radius considerations for larger vehicles (such as buses and trucks) expected to use
the on-site circulation roadways, fire truck access and specific parking areas.
Access Conszderations- Primary access for the project, would be provided via the Western By-pass.
Secondary access would be provided by Vincent Moraga Drive and 1st Street. Access spacing along
the Western By-pass road is a minimum of 1,320 feet (1/4-mile) for full movement intersections and
a minimum of 450 feet for fight-in/right-out only access drives. This spacing generally meets the
City's arterial spacing policy and should provide favorable flow conditions along the Western By-
pass road.
EMPLOYEE*OWNED COMPANY
Zev Buffman
September 2 I, 1997
Page 2
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Minimum access spacing is 365 feet on Vincent Moraga Drive and 430 feet on 1st Street. This
spacing should be adequate for these Principal Collector roadways.
It is important to consider that the peak traffic periods for the project do not coincide with those of
the adjacent land uses. Impacts of the project during the typical highway peak hour would be
considerably less than most other potential uses for the site.
SIght Dzstance- Given the current layout of on-site madways, sight distance appears to be adequate
at all intersection locations along the perimeter of the site. On-site intersection sight distances are
also adequate at all locations with one exception. The eastbound approach of the northernmost
access drive, to the north-south access road, could have a sight distance problem (looking north) if
a pedestrian crosswalk is provided. A retaining wall along the west side of the north-south access
road could obstruct motorist's ability to see oncoming traffic if the limit line is located behind a
crosswalk. As such, pedestrians flows should be directed to cross the north-south access road north
of the intersection and proceed along the east side of the access road. The final landscaping plans
for the site should be reviewed to insure that corner sight lines will not be obstructed.
Vehicle Stacking- WSA has reviewed general stacking requirements for peak period traffic
conditions at key intersections and is working with the site engineer to display the recommended
striping plan. Left-turn lanes provided on the Western By-pass road and Vincent Moraga Drive for
entering project traffic should be a minimum 200 feet in length. Along First Street, between the
Western By-pass road and the north-south access road, peak inbound and outbound left turn
movements would require more storage length than can be provided by a back-to-back center left-
turn lane. The options am to eliminate the shoulder areas and strip the two left-turn lanes side-by-
side or provide a "reversible" center left-turn lane which could be "toned" during peak entering and
exiting periods. Since the demand for left turn movements at this location would be very
"directional" during peak periods, the reversible left-turn lane concept would work quite well.
Stacking for exiting traffic along the on-site access roads would be adequate. Given the typical
peaking characteristics of traffic exiting from a major events, there will be some delays to traffic
exiting the parking lots. With a moderate amount of manual traffic control a key on-site locations,
exiting traffic would operate in a more orderly fashion with minimal delays. It is our understanding
that manual traffic control would be typically provided during major events/shows.
Zev Buffman
September 21, 1997
Page 3
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Deceleration and Acceleration Lane Considerations- As designed, the Western By-pass road
provides a cross-section of 33 feet in each direction. WSA proposes that two through lanes (one 11-
foot inside lane and a 12-foot outside lane) be sniped in each direction. This would leave a 10-foot
outside shoulder area on each side. With this shoulder configuration, which is similar to that
provided along Winchester Road east of I-15, inbound fight turn traffic movements can be made
from the shoulder area. Given the "directional" nature of event traffic, and the ingress/egress
distribution of project traffic, there would be negligible weaving movements (inbound right turns
across outbound fight turns) at these locations dunng peak project traffic conditions.
Traffic Control Features- As previously mentioned, WSA is working with the site engineer on the
definition of circulation system lane striping and intersection traffic controls. It is our understanding
that the conceptual striping layout is currently being incorporated into the plans. This includes a
revised U'affic control plardcireulation configuration for the centrally located drop-off/pick-up area.
WSA will continue to work with the site engineer and City staff in the refinement of these plans.
The intersection traffic control plan generally calls for two-way or all-way stop sign controls at all
intersection locations except the main ass intersection on the Western By-pass. Although a one-
way stop control would be adequate at this location for project Phase I, a signal is recommended for
project Phase II.
Bus Truck Access Considerations- WSA has reviewed the circulation layout relative to Bus and
mack access. Various intersection curb radius and parking layout modifications have been suggested
and are being incorporated in the plans. These modifications would provide the necessary
cimulation design features to adequately accommodate these larger vehicles.
I qncent Moraga Drive Alignment and Parking Access
In WSA's August 11, 1997 addendure traffic letter, we discuss the more favorable characteristics
of the currently proposed alignment of the Vincent Moraga Drive extension. In this letter we also
suggest various access drive locations to on-site parking lots. It should be noted that these parking
access suggestions were made prior to reviewing the revised grading plans. Based on the difference
in elevation between Vincent Moraga Drive at Ridge Park Drive and the adjacent overflow parking
lot, we do not recommend access to the parking lot from this intersection.
Zev Buffinan
September 21, 1997
Page 4
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
1-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Traffic Impacts
As further clarification of WSA's discussion of traftic impacts associated with the Temecula Mall
project, we are providing the following supporting traffic dam:
· The Mall project is projected to add 208 vehicles to the northbound I-15 ramp intersection and
116 vehicles to the southbotmd 1-15 ramp intersection during the weekday evening peak hour.
· During the Saturday midday peak hour, the Mall is projected to add 284 vehicles and 159
vehicles respectively to the northbound and southbound I-15 ramp intersections.
The currently proposed Westside Specific Plan reduces impacts at the interchange by 34
vehicles (northbound ramp intersection) and 62 vehicles (southbound ramp intersection) during
the weekday evening peak hour.
Similarly the current project reduces impacts at the interchange by 42 vehicles (northbound
ramp intersecnon) and 86 vehicles (southbound ramp intersection) during the Saturday midday
peak hour.
As can be noted from these traffic adjustments, the estimated reductions in peak hour trips
associated with revised Westside Specific Plan project would help in off-setting a significant portion
of the added Mall traffic impacts on Rancho California Road at the interchange as compared to the
original EIR traffic impact assessment at this location. The mitigative impact of the programmed
Rancho California Road/I-15 intemhange improvement provides an even more significant mitigative
effect on the added traffic. This improvement, combined with the reduction in project-related traffic
impacts would result in significantly better traffic operating conditions than anticipated in the
original ElR traffic study, even with the additional Mall traffic. The Rancho California Road/I-15
interchange improvements were n~l assumed to be completed in the original E1R traffic study
analysis and is now scheduled to be completed prior to opening of Phase I of the Westside Specific
Plan.
Zev Buffanan
September 21. 1997
Page 5
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
Should you have any questions concerning our findings, please contact me (714) 978-8110.
Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Engineer
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
2300 E;*KATELLA AVE." SUITE 275 * ANAHEIM, CA 92806-6047 "(714) 978'8110" FAX (7 14) 978-1109
October 1, 1997
Matthew Fagart
Senior Planner
City of Temecula Planning Depaxhaent
43200 Business .Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Impact of Temecula Mall Trips on Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula
Entertainment Center Traffic Analysis
Dear Mr. Fagan: .'
In response to your request, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared the following
statement of clarification related to our assessment' of the impact of Temecula' ~i~l~i"tiii~S '0n (.fie
Westside Specific Plan/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center ixaffc analysis.
In oar letter dated August 28, 1997, WSA addressed the Mall traffic issue which had been
raised at the August Planning Commission Workshop for the project. In this leRer, WSA states
that the Temecula Mall development would add an increment of traffic to the interchange area
roadways which was not specifically eatled out in the original EIR traffic study. This
statement should be clarified to say that the added Mall traffic was not identified ' "sp~cificallyh
as a component of the forecaster traffic but the a~alysis included an assumption of growth in
baclcgrotmd traffic equal to 2.1 percent Compounded annually. This general traffic .growth
assumption was intended to account for increases in area traffic related to ongoing and future
development projects. Although ~e Temecula Mall project was not identified specifically2the
compounded t~a~,fic growth-assumption is intended .to compensate for .traffic increases related
to area development projects such as the Mall.
Ihc ~tlbjcct ufM'all halflu hapaut~ was ftaLhct ~xlaahded iu utu ",,.,ovuzz~ t~, haffi~, ~i~,ulatiun .......
comments" letter dated September 21, 1997. The estimated reductions in peak hour ttips
associated with revised Westside Specific Plan project discussed in this letter would further
reduce the increment of traffic added by the Mall at the Rancho California Roact/I-15
interchange.
EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY
Matthew Fagan
Octobe( 1, 1997
Page 2
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
In addition, it is also relevant to note that the Westside SpecLqc Plan EIR included a
City/General Plan Build-Out Scenario Traffic Study which addressed long-term project impacts
and ultimate area circulation needs. This analysis essentially resulted in the deftulti0n of
circulation syste~n improvements needed to accommodate the cumulative lxaffc conditions
which would result from build out of the originally defined Westside Specific Plan as well as
the remaining undeveloped portions of the City. The build-out scenario traffic analysis
includes full implementation of the Temecula Regional Center.
We hope that this added information helps clarify the issue of traffic impacts related to the
Temecula Mall. Should you have any qu~,stions concerning our findiXtgS, please co~._u!ct me
(714) 978-81 I0. '
Sincerely,
WIJ. BUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Engineer
VISUAL SIMULATIONS
R:',STAFFP, PT~gBpA~7.PC1 10/2/97 vgw 1 ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION 97-
R:%STAFFRI~98PAg"/.PCI 10/2/97v~w 19
A~ITACI-IMF~NT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 103,564 SQUARE FOOT,
4,800 SEAT ARENA AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
(HARDSCAPE, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND
ROADWAYS) ON 33.1 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF OLD
TOWN TEMECULA (100 FF~RT WEST OF PUJOL STI~F~F-T),
700 FF~F~T SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE/VINCENT
MORAGA DRIVE AND EAST OF THE CITY'S WESTERN
BORDER, WITHIN THE WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-310-013, 940-
320002 and 940-320-001
WIIEREAS, Tev, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Man)
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Man) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0298
(Development Plan) on October 6, 1997, 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 aH testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE~ 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. Eiading~ The Planning Commission, in approving Manning Application No.
PA97-0298 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The project is consistent
with all City Ordinances including the City's General Plan and the Westside Specific Plan.
R:XSTAFFRFI~98PA97.PCI 10/2/97vgw 20
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study OF, S) was
conducted to determine if the project was within the seopo of the previously certified
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning
Application No. PA95-0031). Based upon this analysis, staff determined an Addendum to the
previously certified EIR be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The addendum was prepared because changes and additions
were necessary for the project, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Mitigation measures
approved with the Old Town Redevelopment Project (Planning Application No. PA95-0031 ) will
apply to this project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan) to construct and operate a 103,564
square foot, 4,800 seat Arena and associated improvements (hardscape, parking, landscaping and
roadways), an Addendure to a Previously Certified EIR and Findings that a Subsequent EIR Is not
required on 28.6 acres located west of Old Town Temecula (100 feet West of Pujol Street), 700
feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of the City's western border,
within the Westside Specific Plan and known as Assessor's Parcel lqo. 940-310-013,940-320-002
and 940-320-001 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
and made a part hereof.
R:XSTAFFRYI'X298pA97.PCI 10/2/97 vgw
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 1997.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meetjag thereof, held on the 6th day of October,
1997, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRPT~98PA97.PC1 10/2/97
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRFI'~SPA97.1~I I(Y2/9?vlqv
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0298 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 103,564 square foot, 4,800
seat arena and associated improvements (herdscape, parking, landscaping and
roadways}
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 940-310-013, 940-320-002 and 940-320-001
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 One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, 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 for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. 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 shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
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 Planning Application
No. PA97-0298 (Development Ran). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant
of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
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.
s
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan),
and approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0298, or as amended by these
conditions.
R:~TAFFRPT~95pA97.PC1 10/2/9'/vgw 24
Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Westside
Specific Plan requirements.
Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
A linkage to Old Town shall be provided as depicted on Exhibit D-1 and shall
meet all ADA requirements.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building color elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by
these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color and material
board), or as amended by these conditions.
Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (walls)
Synthetic Stucco/Concrete(accent)
Wood (trim applique)
Concrete (roof shingle)
Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (4" stripe)
Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (6"/10" stripe)
Synthetic Stucco/Concrete (12" stripe)
Concrete (textured panel)
Synthetic Stucco (8" stripe)
Concrete (textured band)
Wood (shutters)
Glass
Synthetic Stucco (8" cap stripe)
Concrete (42" high divider)
Wood (6'x6' column w/4'x4' strut)
Metal (roof)
Wood (8'x8' column w/accent trim)
Metal (door)
Synthetic Stucco (2" stripe)
Colors
Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Similar to Cedarlite Concrete Muirwood-Shake
Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172)
Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172)
Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74) & (Hickory: SP172)
Clear
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Dunn-Edwards (Cocoa: SP74)
Dunn-Edwards (Bone: SP112)
Dunn-Edwards (Hickory: SP172)
Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14)
Dunn-Edwards (Baja White: SP14)
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these
conditions.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the
satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is
not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require
the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved
landscape plan.
R:~STA~SPAr/.PCI lO/2/r/viw 25
Landscaping south of First Street shall be consistent with the landscaping north
of First Street. Slopes to the west of the Western By-Pass Corridor shall be
planted and irrigated in a similar manner to those to the north of First Street.
Slopes on the east side of the Western By-Pass Corridor shall be planted and
irrigated in a similar manner to those to the north of First Street.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or the application submittal for Phase
II of development, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit landscape
and irrigation plans for the parking lot areas immediately adjacent (to the south
and west) to the Phase II component (Rogersdale). Said plans shall provide
parking lot landscaping consistent with Section II.B.4.e. (Landscape
requirements) of the Westside Specific Plan.
Prior to any expansion to the seating capacity (above 4,800 seats) of the arena, or the
application submittal of Phase II of the project, whichever comes first, the applicant shall
submit three (3) copies of a parking study to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division for review and approval. Said study shall analyze the adequacy of
existing parking facilities, the possibility and feasibility of reciprocal parking, and make
recommendations for the amount of additional parking which will be required to
accommodate the uses on-site.
10.
The project shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program adopted for the Old Town Redevelopment Project.
11.
The project shall comply with the provisions contained within and the Conditions of
Approval for the Westside Specific Plan.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation), if applicable.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans, for all slope areas
created as a result of the grading operation, shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. All slope areas
to the east of the Western By-pass corridor shall be planted and irrigated in a manner
similar to those areas on the east side of the Western By-Pass Corridor on the approved
conceptual landscape plans. All slope areas to the west of the Western By-pass corridor
shall be planted and irrigated in a manner similar to those areas on the west side of the
Western By-Pass Corridor on the approved conceptual landscape plans. The location,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans
shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the
total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied
by the following items:
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance).
R:\STAFI~RPT~98PA97-1~CI 10/"2/~//vgw 26
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan).
14. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of planrings and irrigation for all slope areas in accordance
with the approved landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
15. 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
16. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
17. All slope landscaping and irrigation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning
Manager.
18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation 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. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the
corner landscape and monumentation features shall be included on the plans. These
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall
identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan).
19. 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 Occupancy Permits
20. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
21. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
22.
P-:~STAFFRFT~98PA97.1~CI 10/2/97vgw 27
23.
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
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.
24. Bicycle racks shall be installed.
25.
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 Community Development Department - Planning Division.
26. All major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed.
27.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
28.
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
29.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code.
30.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
R:~STAFFRFI'~98pAJ7.PCI lO/2/97vgw
33. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
34. Provide path of travel to all areas of the buildings including stage area and lower arena
floor.
35. Provide conceptual seating plans for arena floor area and show exiting requirement from
lower area.
36. Show handicap seating areas.
37. Exit widths don"t comply with Uniform Building code, show compliance for complete
occupant load, which half of required load to go through main exits.
38. Provide exit widths and cross-aisle sizes for compliance with exiting requirements.
39. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
40. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
41. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
42. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
43. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. Women's restrooms are
required to be equal to mens restrooms as per Appendix C of the Uniform Plumbing
code.
44. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
45. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
46. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
47. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. 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 will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
R:~STAFFRFI'X298PAr/.PC1 10/2/97vgw
General Requirements
48.
A Grading Permit for rough end/or precise grading, including all onsite flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
49.
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.
50.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent proiects and existing improvements contiguous to the site
and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula myiars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
51.
All roadway, slope and utility 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.
52. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
53.
The Developer shall 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.
Western Bypass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) from the intersection
of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor to intersect
the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive (including the bridge
crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and parkway improvements,
sidewalks, and street lights). Improvements 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.
Vincent Moraga Drive (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension to south of its
current intersection (existing terminus) with Ridge Park Drive to intersect the
Western Bypass Corridor and restriping of the existing segment of Vincent
Moraga Drive to Rancho California Road to accommodate the proposed
improvements. Improvements 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.
In relation to the above item, Ridge Park Drive "T" intersection configuration with
Vincent Moraga Drive. Improvements 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.
ds
First Street (78 feet full width right-of-way) extension from Pujol Street west to
intersect the Western Bypass Corridor. Improvements 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.
R:~STAFFRPT~98pA97.PCI 10/2197 viw 30
A traffic signal at the First Street/Western Byl~ass Corridor intersection and
interconnection with the traffic signal proposed at the Front Street/State Route
79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection.
Full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol Street west to the
project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection.
g. Storm drain facilities within the road right-of-way.
h. Landscaping (slopes and parkways).
i. Erosion control and slope protection.
j. Sewer and domestic water systems located within the road right-of-way.
k. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines within the road right-of-way.
54.
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.
55.
A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their Right-of-Way.
56.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
57.
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.
58.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil 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.
59.
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.
60.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations
to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. The impact of the site to any flood
zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and to any adjacent floodways and
necessary protection mitigation measures shall be identified. Adequacy of capacity of
existing and proposed downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading
R:~STAFFRF~298PA9?.PCI 10/2/9'/vrw 31
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Daveloiter.
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
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
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
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 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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permitS, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
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.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared 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 Ranning Department for review
and approval. Special Study Zones information shall be on the ECS.
R:~STAFFR~T~ggPA97.1~C1 10/2/97vgw 32
68.
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 Issuance of a Building Permit
69.
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.
70.
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.
71.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the 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 Standard Nos. 207, 207A, 208,
and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
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.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved 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 under-sidewalk drains.
72.
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:
Minimum paved road widths of 32 feet within adequate right-of-ways or
easements.
b. Knuckles being required at 90° 'bends' in the road.
R:~STAFFRPT~298PA97.PC! 10/2/97 vgw
73.
74,
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
c. Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City Standards.
d. Cul-de-sac geometries shall meet current City Standards.
e. Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required.
90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located a
minimum safe distance from intersections.
g. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°).
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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Vincent Moraga Drive, Western Bypass Corridor,
and First Street other than shown on the approved site layout.
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.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-O1.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
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
Ranning, 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.
R:~STAFFRt'T~98PAr/.I~CI liF2/~'Tvg~ 34
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.
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.
81.
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 Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
82.
The Developer shall complete the following infrastructure improvements prior to
issuance of any occupancy:
Western Bypass Corridor (88 feet full width right-of-way) shall be constructed
from the intersection of Front Street and State Route 79 South/Western Bypass
Corridor to intersect the (proposed) southerly extension of Vincent Moraga Drive
(including the bridge crossing over Murrieta Creek, landscaped median and
parkway improvements, sidewalks, and street lights).
Vincent Moraga 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 Corridor. The existing segment of Vincent Moraga Drive to
Rancho California Road shall be restriped to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
R:\STAFFRFI'X298pA9'/.PC1 10/2/97
· In relation to the above item, Ridge Park Drive shall form (be reconstructed to
form) a "T" intersection with Vincent Moraga Drive.
~ (78 feet full width right-of-way) from Pujol Street shall be extended
west to intersect the Western Bypass Corridor.
A traffic signal warrant analysis (utilizing criteria established by the State of
California Department of Transportation) indicates that the First Street/Western
Bypass 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 by the Developer. Moreover, when constructed
this traffic signal shall be interconnected with the traffic signal proposed at the
Front Street/State Route 79 South/Western Bypass Corridor intersection.
83.
The Developer shall construct full improvements of the Main Street extension from Pujol
Street west to the project site's proposed escalators for the pedestrian connection.
84.
Sufficient parking and a local transit system shall be provided to satisfy the parking
demands of the project.
85.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City Standards and 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 to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works.
86.
All traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping shall be installed
per the approved traffic signal, traffic signal interconnection and signing and striping
plan, respectively.
87.
The Developer shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of local streets with
arterial streets as directed by the Department of Public Works.
88.
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.
89. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
90.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
91.
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
Department of Public Works
92.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
R:~STAFFItFI~gPAfT.I~CI lOF~ef/vtw 36
FIRE DEPARTMENT
93.
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All
questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire
Prevention Bureau.
94.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
95.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow
may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction
type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
96.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants
(6" x 4" x 2-2 ~" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and
adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be
located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
97.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
98.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface
for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
99.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or
any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be
an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15)
100.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen
(13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
101.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4)
R:~STAFFRFF~98PA97.PC1 lO/2/97vgw 37
102.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a
registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and
National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
103. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3)
104.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building.
The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6)
inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses
shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
105.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
106,
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(UFC Article 10)
107.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall
be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised
by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4)
108.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
OTHER AGENCIES
109.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's's transmittel dated September 18,
1997, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County
Flood Control Water District' by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the
issuance of permits, based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
110. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated September 4, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
111. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated September 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFP, I~'f~98PA97,1~I lO/2/97v&,w 38
112. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated September 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
113.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated September 3, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be
maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish
to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRIr~298PA97.PCI l{)/')d97vgw 39
£Em :Z '97'
DAVID P. ZAPPE
lttVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROI.,
AND WATER CON~ERVATION DISTKtCT
Cit7 Of Temecula
Pk3nnin Department
43200 ~u$iness Park Drive
Te~la. California 92590
Atten~n: JVhctTT/'l'E,I,g
Laclies and Gentlemen:
The Dlsffict does not normally rand mixlions IN laM dlvisms ~ other ~ use cases in incorporat~ cmes.
TheDLSt~s~d~esn~tp~indqeckci~y~anduse~ase&~pr~8t~D~V~i~Re~Bitate~e~em~r~
hazard . .m~xtmfor~uchcase,, .Distrk~;em'nmerdls/r~dcncklic4~qo~uuehcasesmnom~l~limitedtoltemsof
I tere~ t~ the DI~ In~_l~ District Mallmr P[l~ flll'dj~. other ioniJ ~ mtrol and
· efffieClty, Facllrde~mustbemMtnmledt~Distfid andDisffictplaqchecklmd
inspection will be required for DiffiQ 8ot~ptance, Plan check, inspeelton and Idmlnlslzalive fees wig be
required.
GENEp, AL INFORMATION
'~-q r'~ mtheldcalCilifomiaReglenalWsterQualityCixqtrolBoirdpdortoieauem:eoft~eCo~4~
Km.
Very truly yours,
STUART E.. MCKIBBIN
F
ll, ancho
Water
September 4, 1997
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
E, p, ¢Boh" Lemons
Kennelh C, Dealy
Pert> R. hmck
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY, PARCELS 23, 24, AND 25 OF
PARCEL MAP 18254, APNS 940-310-013, 940-320-001, AND
940-320-002, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298
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.
This development may require the relocation of existing RCWD water facilities
and the construction of additional water facilities to provide domestic and fire
protection service for this development. The relocation of existing RCWD
facilities and the construction of new facilities will be the responsibility of the
developer.
When domestic and fire protection services are determined, the customer will
need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements.
.~,..~,~K.,.,~.LL. 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 an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb168/F012/FCF
C: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
September 12. 1997
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. CA 92590
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
PO, Box 59968
Rwersi0e, CA 92517
Phone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684 1007
RE: Planning Application No. PA97-0298
Dear Mr. Fagan:
RTA recommends moving the transit stop facility, located near the proposed First street. further
away from the intersection. A 40-foot transit vehicle requires a minimum of 140 feet and
preferably 160 feet after a turn for a bus stop zone on the far-side of the intersection. This allows
the vehicle to clear the intersection.
In addition, RTA recommends relocating the second transit stop facility, located near the arena
bus and employee parking, from the northeast to the southeast comer. We are concerned about
the safety of the bus stopping and disabled passengers boarding and alighting on a 4.5% grade.
If you have questions or comments, please call. Enclosed are copies of text and diagrams from
RTA's Design Guideline.
Sincerely,
Anne MacCracken
Transit Planner
AM:cam
enclosure
CC:
Stephen C. Oller,
Director of Operations &
Resource Development
When a large percentage of passengers using a stop are destined for a
single trip generator (a school, office, shopping center or sirefiat
generator), the Stop should be located to minimize pedestrian actNIty
through the intersection. Depending on the location of the generator. the
preferred stop could be farside (Figure 6) or nearside (Figure 7B).
District staff Should be consulted whenever special circumstances regarding bus
stop placement arise. Bus stop zones can usually be accommodated on-street in the
parking or Curd lane, bike lane, or in right-turn lanes (see Figure 8). In cases where
there are no parking or right-turn lanes, or where traffic speeds or bus volumes are
high, a bus turnout may be necessary (see discussion under Bus Turnout).
Complimentary stops for both directions of travel and crosswalks at intersections
must also be provided on two-way streets.
Design Criteria: For 40-foot transit vehicles, bus stop zones for nearside and
farside stops should be a minimum of 115 feet long and preferably 160 feet long.
Bus stop zones for mid-block stops should be a minimum of 130 feet long and
preferably 170 feet long. Sidewalks and wheelchair access ramps should be
provided at all stops. For articulated bus stop zones, the bus berth position should
be 70 feet long (as compared to 50 feet for, the 40-foot vehicle), thereby increasing
the overall length of the zone by 20 feet. These dimensions for bus stop zones are
illustrated in Figure 9.
At some bus stops, more than one vehicle may be at the stop at a given time. Figure
10 provides a sample of how two or three buses could be accommodated at a single
stop. District staff are available to determine whether single or multiple berths are
required at a given stop.
The curd adjacent to the bus stop zone should be painted red and signs posted to
clearly identify the area as no parking or stopping except for buses. A solid white 6 -
8 inch lane line separating the bus stop from adjacent traffic lanes and/or "Bus Stop"
pavement stencils should be provided in areas of heavy congestion.
Where possible, or necessary due to high traffic volumes, bus stops should be
accompanie~ by co~icrs~a pads to reduce lung term maintenance costs. A typical
concrete pad cross section is shown in Figure 11.
A number of passenger amenities are typically provided at bus stops and should be
arranged to maximize passenger convenience and minimize disruption to pedestrian
flow adjacent to the stop. A typical layout is shown in Figure 12.
The front or rear door of many 40-foot transit coaches is equipped with a drop-down
wheelchair lift that allows wheelchair passengers to safely and easily board RTA
buses. To ensure that sufficient clearance is provided to allow wheelchair patrons to
maneuver and enter or exit these lifts safely, special attention should De made to
provide a clear zone in the vicinity of the doors on the coaches. Figure 13 details the
clearance zone necessary for safe use of these wheelchair lifts. The "kneeling"
feature On the front end of many buses, which reduces the step height for mobility
impaired patrons, requires no special bus stop design features to operate.
20
MID-BLOCK STOP
U
· .40'Minimumfotliwspeed.itx:lliwvolume
stmet~ 60' dejrible f~ high
high volume
i
FARSIDE STOP
NEARSIDE STOP
"This 50' berth is for a single large 447 ling vehicle.
~ aniculmd vehicle, a 70' berth is necessary'.
These dimeions are for one bus position only;
if more ;xxitions are required at a stop, see Figure
10 on how to estimate the length needed for multiple
berths.
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 9
DIMENSIONS FOR
ON-STREET BUS STOPS
22
C~
Z
aewwwww-waw.,w-we ~:
:
IIIIIllllllllll~' ..~
! ·
"00
--.~n'
z':
General Ma,,agey
John B. Bmdm
L,Zal Caurael
Rzdwine and Shetrill
Dimetar af The Metr~palt~an Watt~
September 12, 1997
Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
SUBJECT:
West Area
Westside SP/Old Town Temecula Entertainment Center -Wild
(PA97-0298)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office
describing a proposal to construct a 103,564 square foot, 4,800
seat arena and associated improvements (bardscape, parking,
landscaping and roadways). The subject project is indicated to be
located west of Old Town temecula (100 feet west of Pujol Street),
700 feet south of Ridge Park Drive/Vincent Moraga Drive and east of
the City's western border, within the Westside Specific Plan.
Please be advised the proposed project is located within Eastern
Municipal Water District for sewer service. The provisions of
service are contingent upon the timing of the subject project and
status of the District's permit to operate. The developer must
contact the District's Customer Service Department for plan cf
service, plan check, connection fees and agreement for service.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 766-1810,
extension 4467.
Sincerely,
Warren A. Back
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
WAB/
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, 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
Operations &: Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 9284777 Fax (909) 928-6177
TO:
FROM
R~E:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: September 3, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
~GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA97-0298
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA97-0298
and has no objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), 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 2.
GD:dr
(909) 285-8980
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
R:\STAFFRPI'~98PAg~/.FC1 10/2/9?vgw 40
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
OLD TOWN DEVELOPMENT 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 I~.IR. 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 first heading identifies the "General Impact."
The second heading lists the specific "Mitigation Measure." Next, the "Specific Process"
for monitoring is listed. It is followed by identification of the "Mitigation Milestone" and
"Responsible Monitoring Party." Finally, the "Prerequisite Action(s) For" heading
identifies those items and activities that can not occur until the mitigation measure has been
accomplished or guaranteed.
3)
A separate mitigation monitoring record, in the format outlined above, as well as copies
of the MMP and supporting data records will be retained by the City of Temecula as part
of its project fLIes.
10-1
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
4)
The MM2P has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to
compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those
responsible for implementing the Program.
5)
If changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed
and incoq~orated into the Program. The total Program, including any modifications, will
be retained by the Agency as part of the project files.
The Final Mitigation Monitoring Program reflects changes that were made during the project
approval process. These changes are being made to the MMP because the Planning Commission
and City Council adopted the Modified Westside Specific Plan Alternative. This alternative
eliminated draft Planning Area D (High Density Residential) and incorporated this area into draft
Planning Area F (Open Space). The primary changes to the MMP are listed below.
A reduction in the amount of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat that the project is expected to
impact. The estimated impacted Coastal Sage Scrub acerage, in Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.7, is being reduced from 64.6 to 54.7 acres. In addition, the number of replacement
habitat acres have also been changed, from 97 to 82 acres.
The references to draft Planning Area D, in Mitigation Measure 4.3.3.11, have b. een
deleted.
The individual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting acti6ns follow. They are
numbered in the same sequence as presented in the Initial Environmental Study and the ErR.
I0-2
v~--. vo~.~d vn~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
B. Mitigation M~n~ures Identified in the Initial Study
Gener31 Impact
Grading for wads and building pads may create unstable slopes with potential for slope failures.
Mitigation Measure
HI.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 shall be completed prior to any
grading at the project site. Gradin~ 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 shall 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 create 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(a) 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.
10-3
o~ xo~ v-~a,,m~t Pu~
Fi.., vo~ ~m MITIGATION MO~TO~NG PROG~M
Gene~l l~act
G~g for ~ ~d building pads may er~ uns~le slo~s wi~ ~ten~M for slo~ fffiures.
Mitigation M~ure
~.l.a.2 ~e ma~nm ~c~on of ~ cut ~Op~ Sh~ be 2:1 ~or~on~ to veni~D.
~cepfiom ~y ~ ~ted whe~ a sio~ eviction by a p~f~ional eng~eer
or ~e~d en~ geolog~ d~omnt~ that ~e geologic foma~om
may be able to ~ ~r slo~, but ~e ~b~ty of any ~ch proposed
sio~ shah be vexed dung geolo~c h-gra~g ~tiom.
SFi~c Pr~ess
Review ~d appro~ of ~e bu~d~g ~ns~cfion pl~s by the City after the profession~ engin~r
~d/or engulfing g~logist has review~ ~e plus ~d determin~ that g~ding will not cr~te
a ~ten~ for slo~ f~lure or ~at m~sures have b~n ~co~o~t~ to ~nimize slo~ f~ure.
~g~r or g~logist s~ provide w~tmn ~d vefifi~on of ~e slo~ s~bili~ to ~e Ci~, or
provide Mm~ve design ~u~emen~ during ~ns~c~on.
Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issu~ce of grading pe~t(s).
Prior to completion of eons~c~on for written field verification.
Responsible Monitoring Pa~
Licens~ Enginering G~logist ~d City of Tem~ula Pubic Wor~ Dep~ment
Prer~uisite Ac~on(~3 For
Review of the grading pl~ by the enginering g~logist prior to submit~ to the City.
Submit~ of grading pl~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
~a~ng field ~view du~ng cons~c~on.
10-4
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Grading and ground disturbance creates a potential for erosion and sedimentation, on- and off-site.
Mitigation Measure
lll. l.b.3
The applicant shah 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 nntll 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 shall 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 fwes).
All slopes that will be greater than ten feet high shah be evaluated to
define the Opfimnm ]eugth and steepness to minimiTe flow velocity and
erosion potential. Lateral dr3innge 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 carried in the natural channels on the site.
Mea.in~ in man-made channels to mlnimi,~ runoff velocities shah be
identified and implemented.
Disturbed areas shah be protected through 1) physical stabilization
(such as geotextiles, mats, or other materials (where needed); 2)
vegetative stabili-~tion; and 3) mulching.
Establkh 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.
10-5
M HIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The channel designed to tramport flows to the nearest regional flood
control facility shall be described and the adequacy of the channel shah
be demonstrated with a detailed dr3ingge 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.
All disturbed areas shah 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
sufficient to ensure that surface runoff 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 erosion/sedimentation remediation
where erosion control measures fail and erosion occurs until on- and off-site erosion is eliminated.
MitLgation Milestone
Prior to issuance of grading permit(s).
During construction and when operations are initiated.
Re~0onsible Monitoritlg Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(~ For
Review and approval of the erosion control plan prior to initiating the grading plan by the City.
Initiating field review during construction.
10-6
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Ground disturbance on the hillside can cause short-term visual impacts due to exposed graded
slopes.
Mitigation Measure
III.l.c.4
A landscape plan shall be completed for review and approval by the City. This
plan shall provide for full revegetation of the road 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 chamise 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 shill occur by inspections during constraction and facility operation.
Responsible Monitoring ParD,
City of Temecula Planning Department
10-7
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Prerequisite Action(8) For
Review and approval of the landscaping plan prior to initiating ground disturbance on Westside
Specific Plan facilities.
Initiating construction and operation.
10-8
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General ImpaCt
Disturbance of Munieta Creek Channel.
Mitigation Me~qure
Hl.l.g.5
The bridges shah be installed in a manner that wffi not adversely impact the
ability of Murrieta Creek to carry the design flows established by the Corps
of Engineers and the Riverside County Flood 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 tish and Game, and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The developer shah
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(,9 For
Review and approval of bridge designs by reguhtory agencies.
10-9
Construction Of the bridges.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-10
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Disturbance of Murrieta Creek Channel.
Mitigation M~ure
llI.l.g.6
The bridges shall be constructed during the dry, or low flow season to the
extent feasible. During construction of the bridges specific erosion and
sedimem control measures shall be implemented to mlnimi,e movement of
sediment from active construction areas. Measures to accomplish this include
diverting any surface water around the project site, installation of slit 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.
SpecificProcess
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 remedia~on where erosion control measures fail and ~rosion 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.
Re~onsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Review and approval of the schedule and plan prior to initiating bridge construction.
10-11
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Review of erosion following a winter with normal flows in Murrieta Creek.
I0-12
Fr--, v~.~ Rm MITIGAT/ON MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Exposure of people or property to geologic b~7~rds.
Mitigation Measure
BI.l.h.7 All new struaures installed in conjunction with this project shall be designed
to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code seismic design
~andards. If the Engineering Geologist/Registered Engineer idenf~ies more
stringent site specific design standards, the developer shall implement such
~andards for buildings cometed under approvals for this project.
Specific 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 shatl be obtained prior to initiating construction on any
specific structure.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the s~ructures.
Responsible Monitoring Part,V
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department.
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Submittal of the building plans.
Initiating construction of buildings.
10-13
General Impact
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards.
Mitigation Measure
III.l.h.8
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
The developer Shall have a site specific geotechnical evaluation prepared by a
qualified and licensed Engineering Geologist and/or Registered Professional
Engineer. This report shah address, but is not limited to, ground shaking
hal'nrd~t 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 humans occupying the
structures in the future. The City shah require the developor 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(~) For
Submittal of the geotechnical evaluations and building plans.
Initiating construction of buildings.
10-14
r;-.' ~a nm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards.
Mitigation Measure
llI.l.h.9
If existing structures are utilized, the structural integrity shah be remediated
to meet the design requirements of the Engineering Geologist and/or
Registered Professional Engineer.
Specific Process
The City shah 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 shah be obtained prior to
initiating construction on any specific sU'ucture be'rag reused.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction 0f the structures.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
Prerequisite Action(a) For
Submittal of the design requirements and building plans.
Initiating construction of buildings.
10-15
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General lrrtpact
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 Mengure
IH.3.a. 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 shall 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 shall 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.
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 consU'uction on any facilities west of Mumeta Creek. Conformante with
building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
Prerequisite Action(t) For
10-16
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Submit~a/of the drainage system design and building plans for facilities west of Mumeta Creek.
Initiating construction of facilities.
10-17
vi..~ vo~u~a ~v~ M]TIGATION MONITORING PROG~M
Gene~l I~act
~e volume of ~noff ~m ~ ~ious ~ ~uld incr~ downs~ fl~ b~rds.
Mit~ation M~sure
~.3.b.ll When the development pa~ are eng~ee~d and eo~Bcted wi~ the
Westside S~c Plan Ar~, the surface ~noff above the vol-me pr~ently
gen~d ~ ~ detained on ~e p~j~t sRe and ~l~d approx~ately 2~
ho~ ~er ~ flows ~hin M~ C~k ~ve p~d through the project
a~.
S~ific Pr~ess
~e Ci~ sh~ ~ew ~d a~ove ~e su~ace dr~ge system design ~om ~ese pads, ~duding
· e deten~on facffifles ~d ~e ~forma~on u~n which they ~e designS.
Mo~to~ng du~ng cons~c~on to ve~fy const~cflon proems ~ iden~fi~ on dr~nage system
Mit~ation Milestone
Approves for ~e su~ace d~nage sysmm from ~e pads sh~l be ob~n~ p~or to ini~a~ng
const~c~on of ~y development pads west of M~em Cr~k.
Conform~ce wiffi building plus sh~l be monito~ng du~ng cons~c~on of the pads.
Res~nsible Monitofi~
City of Tem~u~ Public Wor~ Dep~ment.
Pre~uisite Action(9 For
Submit~ of ~e dmnage sysmm design, ~d g~d~g ~d building plus for facilities west of
Mu~em Cr~k.
Ini~ating consnc~on of faci~es.
10-18
/~i.., Fo~.~a ~m MITIGATION MO~O~G PR~M
Gene~l Impact
~ volume of moff ~m ~ ~ious m co~d incr~ downs~nm fl~ h~ds.
Mit~a~on M~ure
m.3.b.12 ~e p~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~inaee ~p~vemen~ wi~ the Mu~e~ C~k
chan~J ~at a~ ~u~ to hanffie ~om ~noff f~m ~ a~ ~proved
~ ~ of ~e p~ p~jm. ~e p~j~ ~ ~ contribute iB f~ sha~
to any chard ~prov~enB ~at m~ be completed to e~re ~at
cumuh~ve ~noff ~ do n~ ~ dow~m flood hanr~ or
signScam ~age from ~ace ranoff ~ M~ C~k and ~e Sama
~a~ ~ver.
S~i~c ~ess
The City sh~ review ~d a~rovg ~ surface ~ imp~vemenU for new s~ace flows
ente~ng Mu~em Cr~k. ~e app~t shfl sub~t flare to ~e Ci~ identifying ~y f~ sh~
cos~ for ~e ~ c~n~ ~d the Ci~ sh~ ~vi~w ~ a~rove ~s dam ~ ensure f~r s~re
~n~s ~ provid~ to ~e ~ency ~ns~c~ng ~e~ improvements.
Monitoring dmng cons~c~on to ve~ cons~c~on proc~s ~ iden~ on dmnage
improvement plus.
Mit~a~on Milestone
Dam sub~t~s ~d a~mv~s for ~e s~a~ d~e improvemen~ ent~g Mumera Cr~k
sh~ ~ ~ prior ~ ~g ~ns~cfion of ~y development ~ds west of Mu~em Cr~k.
Conforesee with bu~ding plus sh~l be monitoring during cons~ction of ~e pads.
Re~onsible Monitofi~ Pa~
City of Tem~a Pubic Wor~ D~ment ~d ~venide CounW H~d Con~l.
Pre~uisite ActionS) For
Submit~ of ~e d~nage system improvements for facilities west of Mu~em Cr~k.
I~fing cons~c~on of facilities.
10-19
o~a to~ R~o~t P~
Pi.d ~o~..w ~n~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The development of the facilities west of Mumeta Creek could cause adverse water quality
impacts due to urban pollutants.
Mitigation Measure
IIl.3.e.13 The landscaped areas shall be irrigated in a inner that does not result in
overland flows of surface water and the discharge of fertilizer and pesticicle
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 imgation 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 Mumeta Creek.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Department.
Prerequisite Action(l) For
Submittal of the landscape design and irrigation system plans for facilities west of Mumeta Creek.
Initiating construction of facilities.
10-20
~., v,~.~a nn~ MVfiGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The development of the facilities west of Murrieta Creek could cause adverse water quality
impacts due to urban pollutants.
Mitigation Meaqure
lIL3.e.14 The project owners ~{hnll prepare and implement a sweeping plan approved by
the City to sweep paved areas and graded parking areas one time per week at
a winimllln, 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 Monitoring P~rty
City of Temecula Community Services and/or Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Action(a) For
Submittal of the sweeping plan for City review.
Initiating use of or operation of paved and/or parking areas.
10-21
~i~,~ ~,~ m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The runoff from the animal stable area of the Wild West Arena west of Mumeta Creek could
cause adverse water quality impacts.
Mitigation Meanure
HI.3.e.15 The project owner shah implement sanitary house-keeping procedures that
minimize the potential for surface water poHutants to be incorporated into
surface water discharges from the project site. These procedures shah 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 ActionGs] For
Submittal of the housekeeping plan for City and Regional Board review.
Initiating use of or operation of the arena.
10-22
o~ T,,~ ~,~,~ X'h~
Fh,,I Fo~u,~ nm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The runoff from the animal stable area of the Wild West Arena west of Mumeta Creek could
cause adverse water quality impacts.
Mitigation M~ure
Hl.3.e.16 Any surface ranoff generated from the stable area shah either be retained,
treated and reused on the project site, or treated to standards required to
protect lhe 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 ol~rations 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
Prerequi.~ite ActionC.9 For
Submittal of the surface water management plan for City and Regional Board review and
approval.
Initiating arena operalions.
10-23
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-24
o~ To-~ a~,,~v== F~
F~.l F~=d Em MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Exposure of si~'ucmres or people to flood hazards in Old Town.
Mitigation Measure
111.3.i.17 Bridges and enterLslnment structures and infrastructure shall be installed in
a manner that protects them from si~,nificant ~nmage from a 100-year flood
along Mnrrieta Creek. The structure and bridge designs shall 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 shall participate in the dam inundation evacuation phns 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 fwm
significant damage due to the 100-year flood by submitting a flood bnTnrd report for review and
approval.
Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified in the flood hazard
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 hazard report and evacuation plan shall be obtained prior to constructing
any of the facilities within bnT~rd areas within Old Town.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads.
Responsible Monitorirt[ P~rty
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(i) For
Submittal of the flood haza~rd report and evacuation plan for City review and approval.
10-25
Initiating construction of facilities.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-26
o~a To~ a~-,a~,~ P~
vi,.' p~ pm MITIGATION MO~O~G PROG~M
Gene~l I~act
Bridges could b~ome b~s to mign~on or movement of ~im~s.
Mit~ation M~ure
~.5.d.18 B~e ~ ~ for bd~ eo~ed ~ ~ppo~ of th~ proj~t shaR
not ~te ny ~manent ba~en to ~e moveeat of ~nlma~ along the
Mu~ C~k ~n condor.
Sp~i~c Pr~ess
Bridge d~s s~ be ~clud~ ~ sub~t~s w ~e Co~s of Engin~rs ~d Dep~ment of Fish
~d Game (DFG) W vefi~ that no b~ers w ~m~ movement is cr~.
Mit~a~on Milestone
~e Co~s 4~ ~d DFG l~l ~agr~ment sh~ ~ ob~n~ prior W initiating construction
on ~y bridge.
Re~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
Co~s of Eng~rfU. S. Fish ~d Wildlife Se~ice ~d Dep~ment d Fish ~d Game
Prer~uisite Action~ For
Prepration d b~dge deigns ~at do not ~se a brier to ~im~ movement.
Submit~ d appli~fions W ~e Co~s ~d DFG.
10-27
~.., ~,~ ~,~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Lighting for faci~es could ~n~ct wi~ P~om~ 0b~ato~ o~mfions.
Mit~ation M~ure
~.7.19 A ~t~ plan ~ be ~b~ ~ ~e City Planning Depa~ment for review
~d approval for faciti~ develo~d by th~ proj~t. ~ plan shah ~clude
prior co~on ~ te C~o~ ~itute of Technolo~ for aH proposed
outdoor H~t~g d~ig~ and ~H demo~te comp~nce with quanti~tive
H~t~g ~qu~men~ con~ed ~ Or~nce ~655.
S~i~c Pr~ess
The ligh~g pl~ sh~l be r~iew~ ~d approv~ by ~e CiW.
Mo~to~g d~g cons~cflon to verify cons~cfion pr~s as iden~fi~ in ~e Hghting ply.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e pl~ sh~l be approv~ prior W cons~cflon of ~y facffifles with exte~or lighting.
Co~o~ ~ b~g p~s sh~l be monito~g during cons~cfion of ~e exterior ligh~ng
at facffi~es.
Res~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
CiW of Tem~ula Building ~d Safety Dep~ment
Prer~uisite Acfion~ For
Submi~ of the ligh~ng pl~ for review ~d approve.
Ini~a~ng const~c~on of fatrifles.
10-28
General Impact
Increased traffic hazards during construction.
Mitigation Me~qure
lll.13.f.20
/vHTIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
During 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 fight-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 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.
10-29
General Impact
Increased traffic baTards du~ng construction.
Mitigation Measure
111.13.f.21
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Traffic baTn~ls that may affect vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, or horses (such
as speed bumps, trenches, or uneven paths) shah be identif'led and access
controlled by the project owner.
Specific Process
A traffic safety plan for constructing fae'flities 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 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.
10-30
General Impact
Increased traffic hazards during construction.
Mitigation Measure
IH.13.f.22
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
No open trenches or traffic safety hazards shah be left in road fights-of-way
during periods when traffic controls and construction personnel are not
present. Such hazards shah 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.
Mit~ation 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 Monitorir~ Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite ActionC9 For
Submittal of the traffic safety plan for review and approval.
Initiating construction of facilities.
10-31
ou T,~ a~
General Impact
Increased traffic hazards during construction.
Mitigation Measure
IlI.13.f.23
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
All roads shah be adequately repaired after construction is completed in an
area to ensure that traffic can move in the same m~nner as before construction
without d~m~ge or discomfort to vehicles and passengers.
Specific Process
A circulation system repair plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring dining 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.
10-32
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Adequacy of water supply to meet fire protection requirements for Westside Specific Plan Area
facilities.
Mitigation Me~qure
HI. 14.a.25
The City and developers shall confer with the Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) during the engineering of the Western By-pass to ensure that
the water distribution/trangm[~sion line, if deemed necessary for fwe
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 wffi be installed in the Western By-pass Road, if 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 conformance with the engineering
drawings shall be verified.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(,eO For
Submittal of the letter and drawings for review and approval.
Initiating construction.
10-33
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-34
o,, To~ a~-,~t m~
v~,.i vo~.a Fm M/TIGATION MONTTORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Wildland fire b~7~rds may affect facilities proposed by the Westside Specific Plan.
Mitigation M~ure
I1].14.a.26 Along the west and east sides of the Western By-pass Road a fwe and
vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City,
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), and California Department of
Forestry (CI)F) for review and approval. This phn shall provide a sufficient
buffer of f'we retardant plantlags to ensure that structures on the east side of
the road are not exposed to wildland f'we hazards from a fire in the chaparrai
on the west side of the road.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a fire and vegetation management plan to the City, RCFD and CDF
for review and approval.
Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed.
Mitigation Milestone
The fn'e and vegetaton management plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities
west of Mumeta Creek.
During consauction inspections the installation of the fire protection and vegetation components
in conformance with the plan shall be verified.
ReSponsible Monitoring Par~,
City of Temecula Planning Department
RCFD/CDF
Prer~uisite Action(S) For
Submittal of the plan for review and approval.
Initiating construction.
10-35
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-36
F~,., F~-~ .m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General ImpaCt
The project may create a significant demand for limited law enforcement resources.
Mitigation Measure
111.14.b.27 The facility owner/operator shall negotiate an agr~ment with law enforcement
oftleials to provide adequate law enforcement personnel for all entertainment
facility operations, inelading related traffic control.
Specific Process
A copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City.
Mitigation Milestone
The agreement shall be fried with the City prior to initiating operations of any facility.
Re~0onsible MonitoriRg Party
City of Temecula City Manager' s Office and Police Department
Prerequisite Action(a) For
Submittal of the agreement for retention in the project file prior to operating any of the facilities.
10-37
o~ T~a Re.~,r..Io/m~t PI~
Vi~., V~.~ ~m M~GA~ON MO~O~G PROG~M
C. Mit~tlon Mpa~u~ Identified in the ~nvironmental I~act Repo~
Gene~l l~act
~e proj~t may cause sig~t ~ ~llu~t emissions du~ng const~cfion.
Mitiga~on M~ure
4.2.3.1 ~or to ~ance of a ~g pe~t, ~e proj~t proponenB shah
d~o~te to ~e CiW ~ te ac~om tat wi be ~ken to comply with
South Co~ ~ Quality Ma~g~ent D~ria (SCAQ~) Rule 402, which
requ~ that there be no du~ ~c~ offsite sufficient to ~use a nuance,
~d SCAQ~ Rule 403, whi~ ~tricB vhible emi~sio~ from co~ction.
S~ m~ ~ ~dude mo~enlng soft prior to grading, ~Hy water~g
of exposed ~ffac~ or t~t~g with soft conditioner to ~billze ~e soil;
w~ t~ck ~ ~d cove~ loa~ of ~ t~oned offsite; c~ation of
gn~g dung ~Ho~ of hi~ w~ over 25 mil~ ~r hour, and pav~g,
coat~g or s~g ~ded ar~ at the ear~ po~ible t~e after soft
~rbance.
S~i~c Pr~ess
The applic~t sh~l submit a ~gifive dust con~ol pl~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
Mo~to~ng du~ng coas~cfion to ve~ that the pl~ is implement~ as pro~s~.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e Ci~ p~or ~ ~6a~ng ~y const~ction ac~vi~es in sup~ of ~e
proj~t.
Du~ng cons~c~on ins~ons dismrb~ ~s sh~l vefi~ that the fugi~ve dust m~sures
con~n~ in ~e pl~ ~e berg implementS.
Res~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
Ci~ of Tem~ula ~blic Works Dep~ment
Prer~uisite Ac~on(~ For
Submi~ of ~e pl~ to ~e Ci~ for review ~d approve.
10-38
Initiating construction of the project.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-39
o.a To~ R~v~ ~,~
ei~., ~,~u.,~ .m MITIGATION MON H 'ORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant mr pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3.2 All construeion 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 fried 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 ActionC.~) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
10-40
e~-.' p,~ pm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General ImpaCt
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3.3 Equipment shah 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 conwaetor 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 conu'act shall be fried 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.
Re~X:~onsible 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.
1041
ozd T,~ R~,,~, P~
Fi-., Foc..a P.~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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 extent 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 constxuction 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(~) For
Submittal of the list to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
10-42
F~., F~u..~ ~m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General lrRpact
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 thnn 15 minutes shah be shut down.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the
connet 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.
Mitil/a~on 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.
Re,~ponsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite ActionCl) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
10-43
p~., v~,~.a ~m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3.6 To the malill3mm extent f~anlble, 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 fried 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 Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Aetion(~) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
10-44
w., w~ Fm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3.7 Construction employees shall be provided with transit infoemation and the
contractor shall submit and implement an approved fide share progrmn 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 be'rag 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.
10-45
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-46
o~ To,~ a~,,h,~t P~
F;-.-, F,~,a m M~GA~ON MO~O~NG PROGRAM
General ImpaCt
~e pmj~t may ~u~ signifier ~ ~Humt e~ssions dung cons~ction.
Mit~ation M~ure
4.2.3.8 ~d ~d p~olo~d ~t~a~ ~ ~ ~ed ~ co~ction to the e~ent
f~ible.
Specific Pr~ess
~e a~H~t sh~ sub~t a ~o~ ~ identifying ~o~ facili~es for which pre-coat~ ~d pre-
color~ ma~s c~ ~d will be us~.
Monito~ng dung cons~c~on to veery ~at ~ese mate~s ~e berg us~ where idenfifi~ in
' ~e ~n.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e ~y of ~e ~ ~fl ~ ~ wi~ ~e Ci~ prior to inifia~g ~y cons~cfion activities in
sup~ of ~e proj~t.
During cons~c~on ins~ons sh~ veery ~e use of ~ese matefi~s by conducting ~dom
insp~fions du~ng ddive~ ~d use of such matefi~s.
Re~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
City of Tem~ula Building ~d S~ety DeCent
Prer~ui~ite Action(~ For
Submit~ of ~e re~H to the City for review ~d retention.
I~tia~ng cons~cfion of the proj~t.
10-47
oa T--. n~-~.~=~, P~
F~., F~.~ pm MITIGATION MONITORING PROORAM
General Irrtpact
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 axe being used in the manner required
where identified in the report.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the report shall be fried 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 conformance with
requirements by conducting random inspections during use of such materials.
Responsible Monitoring Part~
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.
10-48
o~ To~, a~-.,~,,~,
F~.~ Fo~.~ ,rn MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitigation M~a~ure
4.2.3.10
Project design will incorporate energy-saving features throughout the project,
inCludim, low-emi~ion water heate~, central water heating systems, and built-
in energy efficient appliances.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a short report identifying all energy-saving futures used in the facilities
and compiling a summary of total energy savings for each facility.
Monitoring during consWuction to verify that these features have been installed as identified in the
report.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the report shall be fried 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 Monitorirtg Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Aetion(~) For
Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
10-49
F~., eo~d sr~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General i~act
~e proj~t may ~u~ sig~t ~r ~llumt emissions dung operations.
Mitigation M~ure
4.2.3.11 The project w~ ~aR b~ tramit shelte~ and ben&~ ~ Old Town and
with~ the W~ide Spe~c P~n area ~ coord~ation with the local tramit
agency and ~e City to pro~de on sRe tmmit service.
S~i~c Pr~e~s
~e a~H~t ~ sub~t ~sit implementation p~ iden~fying ~ ~it f~difies ~at ~ffi be
~s~ ~ sup~ of the proj~t for City review ~d approv~
Mo~m~g d~g ~ns~cfion to verify that ~e ~sit f~tures have ~n ~s~l~ as idenfifi~
~ ~e ply.
Mitigation Milestone
~e ~y of ~e pl~ sh~l be f~ with ~e Ci~ prior to initiating ~ns~cfion of ~y fa(flifies.
Dung cons~cfion in~fions s~l verify ~e ins~afion of ~ese f~mres in accord~ with
the ply.
Res~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~v
City of Tem~ula Public Worh Depmment
Prer~uisite Action(~ For
Submit~ of the p~ to ~e Ci~ for review ~d app~v~.
Initiating cons~cfion of the proj~t.
10-50
F~-, po~,a Pn~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitigation Meaqure
4.2.3.12 Provide Ineentlves 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 be'rag met by tour buses.
Responsible Monitorirlg Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Submittal of the list and notification to the City for review and approval.
Initiating project operations for tour buses.
10-51
ola w~,~ ~,:~:
~;.., ~;,,:~a ~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3.13 The applicants shah provide at least one day-care facility for employees
working for the hotel and entertsinment 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.
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 Temecuta Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Submittal of the identification and notification to the City for review and retention.
Initiating facility operations.
10-52
v;n., ~o~,,~ ~n~ MI~GA~ON MO~O~NG PROG~M
General I~act
~e proj~t ~y ~u~ sig~t ~ ~llumt e~ssions dung o~nfio~.
Mitigation M~nure
4.2.3.14 Hotel and enteminment hc~ty employ~ ~aH be provided with tra~it
~o~ation and the appH~t ~aH ~b~t and ~plement an approved ride
share pro~ for ~manent employs.
S~i~c Pr~ess
~e a~H~t s~ sub~t a ~y of ~e ~t ~o~flon ~d fide shoe prog~m to ~c City for
r~view ~d approve. The Avenge Vehicle ~dership (A~) ~get sh~l be idenflfi~ ~ ~is
~fo~a~on p~hge sub~ to ~e Ci~.
Mo~W~g d~g ~on W v~ ~at A~ is ~g ~ sh~l be submit~ by ~e facility
operators ~d inde~nden~y vefifi~ by the City.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e copy of the ~formaflon ~d program pac~ge sh~ be ~l~ wiffi ~e Ci~ prior to ~itiafing
~y o~mfing ac~vi~es in sup~n of ~e proj~t.
Dung o~ons ~e facffi~ ~mm~ ~ sub~t A~ vexation at l~st one time per queer
~d City ~s~flons sh~ ind~nden~y verify ~e AVR at l~t one time ~r y~.
Res~nsible Monito~
Ci~ of Tem~ula Pl~ng D~ment
Prer~uisite Acfion(~ For
Submit~ of ~e ~for~on ~d prog~ pachge W ~e Ci~ for review ~d approve.
Ini~afing facility o~ra~ons.
10-53
om ~o,,~ ~-~w~ ~
F~.I ~.~ ~m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3.15 The applicant or City shah purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people
from parking areas to the entert3inment facilities.
Specific Process
The applicant shall identify the txaras 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 fried with the City prior to initiating any operating
activities in suppert of the project.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite ActionCs) For
Submittal of the tram information to the City for review and retention.
Initiating facility operations.
10-54
o~ T,~,. a,~-.c~,~t ~,~
F~,., w~ vm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The project may cause significant air polhtant 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 paricing areas for employee car and van pools
in a submittal to the City.
Monitor~g 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 fried 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.
10-55
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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
wi}dl|fe habitat (Cbami~e Chapart~d, Coastal Sage Scrub, or Riparian/
Wetland), the applicant shah 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 shall 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.
Re~0onsible Monitoring Party
10-56
o~, To~ ~.~-.,~.,.~ ~,~
w-, v,~u~ .m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
City of Temecula Public Works and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Action(.~) 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.
10-57
r~.,: s~ :::~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Meaqure
4.3.3.2
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.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be included in the contract with the bridge builder which shal/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 consauction 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 MonitorirXg Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Ac~on(,~) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the bridge.
10-58
vi.., ~__ .m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Intpaet
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.3
Construction staging areas and access routes shah 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 areas/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 ongoing construction activity.
Responsible Monitoring par~,
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(a) For
Submittal of the drawings to the City for review and approval.
Initiating construction activity.
10-59
General Impact
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.4
Construction personnel will be educated by a quaiLfled biologist
regarding proper behavior when working near wildllfe areas.
Information, in the form of reading material and/or onsite training,
will address such issues as wildlife harassment, trespass, and protocols
to deal with wildllfe 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.
10-60
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports fiste~ or sensitive species.
Mitigation MPa~ure
4.3.3.5
AH construction debris, such as food fitter, will be collected and placed
in wDdlifckproof coBtainerS each day. All refuse receptacles shah have
tight-fltfmg lids to prevent wildlife access.
Specific Process
This measure refers to trash generated by consWuction 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 shah occur during routine inspections of the oagoing 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.
10-61
o~ ~, a~,~,,~_, Ph~
Fh,-, F~.~ ,~m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation M~.a~ure
4.3.3.6 To prevent the loss of any Southwestern Pond Turtles 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
shall 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 approvai 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 Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(S) For
Submittal of the plan to the City for review and approval.
Initiating construction activity.
10-62
Old Town R~d~v~ctn~mt Plan
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.7
To offset the loss of 54.7 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the Chami~e
Chapanal and Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities within the project area
the applicant shah implement one of the following measures: a) Acquire 82
acres of high quality Gnatcatcher habitat (1.5:1 ratio based on discussions
with U. S. Fish and WiJd!ife StalT) 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 WHdlife Service
and Department of Fish and Game. This habitat shah be purchased within
the Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Margarita River Potential Reserve area as
identif~d within the Riverside County *Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plann, 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 82 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 54.7 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 54.7 acres of habitat.
ReSponsible Monitoring Parl~
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Completion of negotiations with the wildlife mgulatory agencies prior to submitting verification
to the City.
10-63
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General IrrtpaCt
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Me~nure
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 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
1601/1603 Agreement. The plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland
enhancement shah be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. F~sh and
Wildlife Service, and Department of F~sh 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 weftand habitat in Mumeta Creek prior to disturbing the weftand 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 Acfion(,~) For
Completion of negotiations with the stream channel alteration regulatory agencies prior to
submitting verification to the City.
10-64
F~.~ ~d P~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General lml~act
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 shah be iastaHed downstream of construction
activities in Murrieta Creek to control sHtation downstream of the
construction site. The performance standard used for this measure shah be
sufficient control to prevent downstream sHtation that can cause degradation
of the aquatic/riparian/wetland habitat.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a plan for conlwolling siltation downstream of construction activities
in Mumeta 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 Part~
City of Temecula Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Action(i) For
Submittal of the siltation plan to the City and Regional Board for review and approval.
Initiating construction activities.
O~d :ro,~ a,,k-,,~.,~ P~
F~,-' F~.,~d ~ra MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General ImpaCt
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.10 The applicant shah install fences or other measures to control human access
from the Western Bypass to the west.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a plan for contxolling access west of the Western By-pass Road 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 Work~ Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the access control plan to the City for review and approval.
Completing construction of the mad.
10-66
~.., v~,~ .m MITIGATION MONrITORING PROGRAM
General lnlpact
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 cats when approvals are granted for future residential development
within Ar~a C 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.
Specific Process
The City will include a condition implementing the above requirements if and when it approves
development in Area C.
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 development in Area C.
Copy of the conditions of approval placed in project f'~e when a land use entitlement is granted
for Area C by the City.
Responsible Monitoring Par~,
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(S) For
Submittal of an application to develop Area C.
Approval of a development in Area C.
10-67
o~ 7o~.~ m,,~,,,,,,~,~, ~u~
F~., Fo~ vm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General ImpaCt
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation MPa~ure
4.3.3.12
The applicant 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 Monitofin~g Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action6.S) For
Determination that a fee is required and payment of the fee.
10-68
Otd To,~ ~cap,,~, P~
Fi--' Focu~ Fa MITIGA~ON MO~ORING PROG~M
Gene~ I~act
Signific~t ~ns~cfion noi~ levels may ~f~t ~nMfive residenfiM ~s ~st of ~e Westside
S~i~c PI~ ~.
Mitigation M~ure
4.4.~.1 ~e Ciy ~ ~ ~ common ~pment ~at genent~ mo~ than S0
~ to have ~und attenntion devic5 (reuben, etc.) ~at meet cu~ent
stan~r~ and ~at a~ fuBy f~io~! at aB ~ the equipment h berg
o~nted at ~e eom~ion site.
Sp~ific Pr~ess
~e a~t ~ sub~t a copy of M1 cons~cfion con~cts wi~ ~is r~u~ement idenfi~ in
· e ~nnct ~d ~e me~ of comp~ by ~e ~n~ctor idenfifi~.
Mo~w~g d~g wns~cfi~ W v~ ~t wns~cfion ~uipment noi~ atten~fion de~ces ~e
~ pla~ ~d func~o~ng pr~rly.
Mit~afion Milestone
A copy of the con~ct shM1 be provid~ to ~e City prior to ini~afing ~y cons~cfion.
During constriction ins~fions ~uipment noi~ o~nfing dam sh~ be provid~ to ~e City at
l~st one time ~r month W verify compli~ce wi~ this r~uirement.
Res~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
Cky of Tem~ula Pubac Worh ~d/or Building ~d Safety D~nenB
Prer~uisite Action~ For
Approv~ of ~nstmcfion plus for s~i~c proj~ts.
Inifia~g cons~cfion activities.
~'~,., ~u~ ~n~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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
shah 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.
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 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 constraction respections the City shall monitor work periods to verify compliance with this
requirement.
Responsible Monitorirtg Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite ActionC'O For
Approval of construction plans for specific projects.
Initiating construction activities.
10-70
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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 wails or sound buffering materials between the noise source
and impacted 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 flowed 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 Monitorirtg Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Notification of the public of a noise complaint phone number.
Noise attenuation plan submitted for City review and approval.
10-71
Initiating consU'uction activities.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-72
om ~ R~-~,,, ~,~
~i-.~ F~u~ ,m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Imlnct
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 dismace of 50 feet. Routine
or periodic noise monitoring shall be candueted 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.
Reaponsible MonitorinS Parl~
City of Temecula Police and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Noise monitoring is conducted by the property owner.
Noise attenuation plan submitted for City review and approval.
10-73
v,-.. ~o~u,~ ~m MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation Me~q~ure
4.4.4.5 The City shall establish a noise complaint program when construction of
entertaimnent 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.
10-74
F~., Fo,~.~ ,n~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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 permanent 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 dB 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.
Re,e4~onsible Monitoring P~rty
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Noise data indicates that an entertainment facility exceeds this threshold.
Plan completed for City review and approval.
City verities attenuation meets threshold.
10-75
o~ T,~. a,~,,~ ~-~
ph,.~ P,,,u~ Fn~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Irrtpact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation Measure
4.4.4.7 Exterior sound levels during performances at Old Town entertainment
fac'tli~es shall not exceed 65 dB L~ at 50 feet from the budding. At no time
shah 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 q,a~ified noise consultant or acousticinn 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 submitted to the City for review and approval.
The noise attenuation plan shall be prepared and appmved by the City within two weeks following
notification that noise thresholds are be'rag 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 Patty
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(~ 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.
10-76
MH'IGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-77
Old Town R~L-'ve, bl~ss~
F~,,, ~,~,~ ~"~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Gene~l Impact
Signi~t o~ra~ng noise levels may aff~t sensitive noise r~eptors.
Mit~ation M~ure
4.4.4.8 ~e City shall ~u~e ~at an ~h bern or sound attenuation wall and
lan~caping be ~Bed on ~e ridge above the ho~ on hjol Street to
mlnimlz~ no~e leveb at ~e n~ ~idenc~.
Sp~ific Pr~ess
~e ~d a~n~on f~ ~ be shown on ~e gm~g/cons~cfion plus for ~e hotel/~ena
~ ~d d~umen~on of ~e l~el of a~n~fion sh~ be pm~d~ by a qu~fi~ noise consul~t
or acous~ci~ to ~e Ci~ for review ~d approve.
Once cons~c~on is ~mple~ CiW insetors verify ~at the attenuation f~tures ~ve b~n
ins~l~ ~d at~nua~on achiev~ m~ts ~e forust.
Mit~ation Milestone
Plans and documentation sub~tt~ to the City prior to initia~ng const~ction of the hotel ~d
~ena ~.
~e ~fion ~m, includ~g noise m~urements, sh~l be plac~ in ~e proj~t file with~ one
w~k of verifying ~e f~mre's eff~tiveness.
Re~nsible Monimfi~
City of Tem~ula BulldOg ~d S~ety Dep~ment
Prer~uisite Action(~ For
Pl~/d~umenm~on sub~tt~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
City verities atten~fion m~ts ~reshold.
10-78
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General lnlpact
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 Wrightson, johnson, Haddon &
Willlam~ Inc.
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/ftz.
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
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.
10-79
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-80
o~ T,,~ R,~v~t ~,~
F~,.a F,~ ~m MITIGATION MONrFYORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Milestone
Documentation submitted to the City prior to initiating hotel and arena operations.
The inspection dam, including noise measurements, shall be placed in the project file within one
week of verifying the design's effectiveness.
ReSponsible Monitorirll 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.
10--81
p;-., po~.~a ..~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation M~agure
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 CNEL~ 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 ~ntitlement is granted
for such residential development.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Action(~ 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.
10-82
~., Fo¢.,,~ .m MITIGATION MO~OR~G PR~RAM
General I~act
Sig~fi~t o~nfing noi~ lifeIs my ~t ~five noise r~pmrs.
Mit~ation M~u~
4.4.4.11 When no~ leve~ along ~e W~ern Byp~ Road near exhtMg r~idene~
exe~ the City t~hold of sig~nee for midemial ar~ (65 dB
C~IAL~), ~e City sMH ~e a sound afienuation w~ to ~duce no~e
kve~ from ac~d~g th~ v~ue at the ~idenc6.
Sp~i~c Pr~ess
A contingency for ins~g a sound at~n~on w~l in ~e ~ of concern sh~l be includ~ ~
the road engin~g plus ~d fund~g.
A copy of ~e drawing/funding d~um~ts sh~ be plac~ ~ the proj~t file for retention.
U~g n~ noi~ m~mm~ or ~ ~le noi~ m~el ~d ~nu~ ~ffic count, ~e City
sh~l dete~ne when ~e sound a~n~on w~l must be ~ns~c~ ~d ~en ins~l ~e w~l.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e dinrigs ~d funding com~tment sh~l be made p~or to cons~c~ng the Western By-p~s
Road ~d ~e d~uments pla~ in ~e proj~t file p~or to i~tia~ng cons~cdon.
~e Ci~ ~ conduct nu~ noise m~uremen5 adjacent to ~e Western By-~s Road dung
June of ach y~, on a day when ~e ~ena is conducting a perfon~ce.
Re~nsible Monito~ Pa~
City of Tem~ula PlUg ~d Building ~d S~e~ D~ments
Prer~uisite Action(~ For
Sub~ of dm~g/~n~g d~uments for ~e Western By-p~s Road to ~e CiW for retention.
Sel~t date for ~nu~ monitorrig ~ June ~ch y~ when ~ ~ena ~orm~ce is sch~ffi~.
10-83
MFHGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Inlpact
Loss of an identified park/recreation area due to implementing the Westside Specific Plan as
proposed.
Mitigation Measure
4.5.3.1
The City shall require a modification in the text of the Westside Specific Plan
CvVSP} that reqllires the inclusion of a neighborhood park/recreational facility
in the high density residential designated land at the future intersection of
Pujol Street and the Western Bypass Road. 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 approved 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 Temecula Planning and/or Community Services Departments
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Revisions to the Westside Specific Plan for submittal to the City.
10-84
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General lrnpaet
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 malnline 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 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 placed in the project Erie after completing their installation.
Reaponsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(i) For
10-85
~,, v,,¢u~ .ha M rrlGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Funding has to be identified. Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-86
ou To~ ~
el-., w.~ Em MITIGATION MO~ORING PR~M
Gene~l I~act
~e 1~ ~u~on sys~m is for~t to ~cur signifi~t r~ucflons in qu~ity of ~affic flow in
1996.
Mit~ation M~ure
4.6.4.2 To ~gate 1~ wi~-proje~ c~ulation sy~m hpacB at the Front
St~t/W~e~ Byp~ R~d ~te~ion, ~e foHow~g ~e~ m~ be ~ken:
On ~e ~u~bound ~te~ion approach, Front St~et shah coma~ one ieft-
tu~ lane and one optional left-tuWright-tu~ lane.
(Note: B~u~ Front SWat will extend no~ of ~e Western B~ass Road to
S~flago R~d ~ a ~ve-l~e facility (two ~rough l~es ~r dir~on plus a two-
way-left-ram ~e a~or~g to ~e Ci~), ~s ~u~und appr~ch (~r~ng
the Wes~m B~ss Ro~) ~uld ~n~ ~ l~es; two lefl-~m ~es ~d one
fight-turn lue. If ~s ~r~-l~e ~mma~ve is implementS, ~e inmr~on's
~vel of Se~i~ ~OS) would be even beuer ~ that cit~ ~ Table 4.6-6.
Sp~ific Pr~ess
Engineering draw~gs Bco~m~g ~ese improvements sh~l be provid~ to ~e City for
implementation ud funding made av~lable for ~eir implementation.
~e CiW sh~ verify ~at ~e~ improvements ~e ~s~ as drown ~ter they ~e cons~ct~.
Mi~ation Milestone
The dmw~gs ~d funding sh~ be in place p~or m o~ng proj~t facilities for o~ra~on.
~e as built drawings sh~ be plac~ in ~e proj~t file after completing ~eir ins~a~on.
Re~nsible Monim~ Pa~
City of Tem~uh Public WorB D~ent
Prer~uisite ActionB) For
Funding h~ m be iden~.
Drawings must be complet~ prior m sub~t~ m ~e City.
10-87
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-88
vin.~ v,~=a vm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
General Impact
The local circulation system is forecast to incur significant reductions in quality of traffic flow in
1996.
Miti~gation Measure
4.6.4.3 Barton Aschm~l's traffic study identifies several additional road design
measures that are recommended to reduce overall traffic impacts. These are
reproduced in Appendix 8.4 in Volume I of the Draft EIR. (They are also
located in Section 6 of Appendix Ill located in Volume H of the Draft EIR.)
These recommenchtloB5 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 shall be assessed as part of the City*s annual traffic survey
and evaluation.
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 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 place~ in the project file after completing their installation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Work Department
Prerequisite Action(S) For
Funding has to be identified.
Drawings must bc complctca prior to submittal to the City.
10-89
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-90
r~,., F~,~d Pm MHIGA~ON MOtTORING PROGRAM
Gene~l I~act
~e 1~ c~cuh~on system is lost to incur sig~fi~t ~uc~ons in qu$ty of ~fie flow.
Mit~ation Ma~ure
4.6.4.4 ~e City shall mqu~e ~tion of tmmit fac~ti~ at cemn~ed !~atiom
withh Old Town and the hoteYam~ compla. ~e City shah work with
~io~l ~t qenci~ to provide ~ice to ~ io~tiom h the futu~
when ~ ~n~R ~e b~om~ ava~ble.
S~ific Pr~ess
Engineering dnw~gs inw~mflng ~e ~sit facilities in Old Town ~d at ~e hotel/~ena
complex ~ be provid~ to the CiW for implemenm~on ~d funding made av~lable for their
implemenm~on.
~e Ci~ sh~ ve~ ~at ~e~ improvements ~e insmll~ as drown ~r ~ey ~e cons~ct~.
Mi~a~on Milestone
The d~wings ~d ~nding s~ be in pla~ p~or W o~ning pwj~t f~ilifles for o~nflon.
~e ~ bu~t drawings sh~ be plac~ ~ the proj~t file ~ter complet~g ~eir ins~ation.
Responsible Monitod~
City of Tem~uh Public Wor~ ~d/or P~ng Dep~ments
P~r~uisite Action~ For
Funding h~ to be idenflfi~.
Dmw~gs must be comple~ p~or to submit~ to ~e City.
10-91
o~ x,,~ a~v~.h,~,,~
vh,.~ v,~..~ pn~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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
l~anaoeE~ellt P!au 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
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 in the file 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 place when required by the City.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Funding has to be identified.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-92
MITIGATION MONrlORING PROGRAM
10-93
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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 !eft 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 requir~l and place as-built
drawings in the file 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 place when required by the City.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation.
ReSponsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(~) For
Funding has to be identified.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-94
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-95
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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 rdocating 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 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 in the file after they are constructed.
Mitigation Milestone
The funding shall be identified prior to initialing operation of any project facilities and the funding
shall be in place when required by the City.
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
Funding has to be identified.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-96
Okl Tt~/n Rs~%-ve~ Phm
MTHGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-97
Old To~n Rc~velq~acmt P~o
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
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 deftbed in the Congestion
Management Plan Trafrm 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 Front Street where it
intersects the Western Bypass Road.
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 in the file 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 place when required by the City.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Funding has to be identified.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-98
Old Tow~ R~-velcpmmt
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10-99
t~,,, F~c~,~a Fm MITIGATION MONH'ORING PROGRAM
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 inCludln_~ contour undulation and variable slopes.
In addition, tops and toes of slopes shah be rounded. Hard edges and angles
are to be avoided. Slopes shall be designed to smoothly blend with remaining
existing topography.
Specific Process
Copies of the grading plan incorporating the above grading techniques shall 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 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to initiating construction on this
slop~.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation.
Re~onsible Monitoring Parlaz
City of Temecula Public Works Department
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.
10-100
t~.~ v,~-~ pm MITIGATION MONrTORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Potential significant visual impacts have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the
community.
Mitigation M~a~ure
4.7.5.2 Grading on the slope edge facing Puj ol Street shah be revegetated or
landscaped hnmediately upon completion Of grad|n~ activities, concurrent with
project development. Landscaping shall 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 file after completing their installation.
Re~nsible Monitoring ParW
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(~ For
Landscaping plan prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-101
o~ To~ a~--¢~,
F~-., p~u~ .m MITIGATION MO~OR~G PROG~M
Gene~l Impact
Poten~ signifi~t visu~ impacts have b~n fo~t ~ ~cur at a few l~tions wi~ the
communi~.
Mit~afion M~ure
4.7.5.3 Vile ~ininE wl over e~t f~ h he~t shah be avoMed uM~ vhuaHy
Mte~ted hto buH~g d~i~.
S~ific Pr~ess
Copies of ~e ~ds~ping pl~ ~co~o~fing ~e ~y visible reining wMls over eight f~t in
height sh~l be provid~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
~e Ci~ sh~ verify ~at such reining w~(s) h~/have ben complet~ in accord~ce with the
~d~ing pl~ by vefi~g it wi~ field ins~fions dung cons~ction ~d when compleX.
Mit~afion Milestone
The ~ds~p~g pl~ sh~ be sub~ttM for ~view ~d approv~ prior to i~fia~g cons~ction
on such re~ng w~s.
The ~ built drawings sh~l be plac~ in ~e proj~t file after completing ~e~ ~s~lafion.
Re~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
City of Tem~ula Plying ~d/or BuiMing ~d S~e~ Dep~menB
Prer~uisite Action(~ For
~d~ping pl~ p~p~ ~d submit~ to the City for review ~d approve.
Drawings must be complet~ prior to submit~ to the City.
F~.s Fo-,,.~ ~n~ MI~GA~ON MO~O~NG PROG~M
Gene~l I~act
Potent~ ~g~t visu~ im~cts have b~n for~t to ~cur at a few l~fions within
~mmu~ty.
Mit~ation Me3~ure
4.7.5.4 U~ti~ shah be !~ted unde~ound.
S~i~c ~ess
C~i~ of ~e p~s sho~g ~d~go~d~g of u~s ~ ~ W~ide Sp~ific PI~ ~ sh~l
be provid~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
~e Ci~ ~ verify that such underground~g h~ b~n ~mplet~ in ac~rd~ce with ~e plus
by vefi~g it wi~ field in~fions during ~ns~cfion ~d when ~mple~.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e plus sh~ be submitt~ for review ~d approv~ prior to ini~fing ins~afion of u~ifies.
~e as built ~w~gs sh~ be plac~ in the proj~t f~e afmr completing ~e~ ~s~lafion.
Re~nsible Monitofi~ Pa~
Ci~ of Tem~ula Pl~ning/Build~g ~d S~eW Dep~ment
Prer~uisite ActionS) For
~e p~s pr~ ~d sub~ to ~e Ci~ for review ~d approve.
Drawings must be comple~ prior to submit~ to ~e City.
10-103
~,~,.~ ~,~ ~n~ ~GA~ON MO~ORING PROGRAM
Gene~l I~act
Poten~ signifier vis~ impacB Mve b~n foist m ~cur at a few lotions with~ the
commu~ty.
Mi~ation Measure
4.7.5.5 Beming and lan~p~g shah be ~ployed to conceal and soften v~ual
~pac~ of par~g a~.
S~i~c Pr~ess
Copi~ of ~d~ p~s sho~g m~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~d ~n visu~ im~cts of p~ng
~s sh~l be provid~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
~e Ci~ sh~l veery ~at such be~ing ~d ~ds~ping h~ b~n comple~ in accord~ce with
· e pl~s by verifying it wi~ ~dd ins~fions du~ng cons~c~on ~d when complete.
~it~ation Milestone
~e ~d~ p~s s~ ~ sub~ for r~iew ~d approv~ prior to ~i~a~ng const~c~on on
the p~ng ~.
~e ~ bu~t drawings sh~l be plac~ ~ ~e proj~t file a~er completing their ins~la~on.
Responsible Monito~ Pa~
CiW of Tem~ula Pl~g Dep~ment
Prer~uisite Action(~ For
~e plus prep~ ~d submitt~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
Dnw~gs must be complet~ prior ~ submit~ to ~e City.
10-104
o~a T~,, a~:vc, ks,=~t
Fi.., F~.,~ vm MITIGATION MO~O~NG PROGRAM
Gene~l I~act
PotenfiM sig~fi~t ~cha~logi~ im~cB may ~cur due to subsu~aee disturb~ee of the
proj~t.
Mit~ation M~u~
4.8.3.1 No f~ ~eolo~ ~v~a~on h ~omm~d~ for ~ proj~t. How-
evff, ~offid ~y ~o~ or ~ted a~aeologi~l mteria~ be encountered
duri~ proj~t development, a quaked h~ori~l archaeolog~t should be
conicted. Work should be s~pended ~ ~y a~ whe~ archaeologi~l
Rmainl ~ found ~H ~ey ~n be pro~rly evaluated and salvaged ff found
signora.
Sp~i~c Pr~ess
The applicant sh~l submit ~e name of a qu~ifi~ ~ch~logist who will be on c~l for this
project ~d who wffi overs~ m~agement of ~y ~cha~logic~ rem~ns discover~ du~ng
cons~c~on.
A res~n~ program sh~l be sub~tt~ for review ~d a~rov~ by ~e City for implementation
if ~y such resources ~e dis~ver~.
Mit~ation Milestone
~e prog~ ~d ~e of ~e qu~ifi~ ~cha~logist sh~ be submitt~ for review ~d approv~
p~or to ~a~ng cons~ction at ~y lo~on for ~is proj~t.
Re~nsible Monitod~
City of Tem~ula B~lding ~d Safe~ ~d/or Public Works Dep~ments
Prer~uisite Action~ For
~e plus pre~ ~d sub~tt~ to ~e City for review ~d approve.
Drawings must be comple~ p~or to submit~ to the City.
10-105
Fi.., Fo¢.,¢a Pm MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Gene~l I~act
Pomn~ sig~fic~t histo~cM s~cmre impacts may ~ur due m implementing the proj~t.
Mi~ation M~sure
4.8.3.2 Potemial project ~paeB to hMo~e buB~gs, Meluding those that are not
fomBy r~og~ed, w~ be ~tigated below a level of sigteanee ~ough
~pl~tion of ~e pro~om ~dy confined ~thin ~e OTSP OM Town
H~ ~se~n ~t OMi~ce. ~ provhiom aBow for con~tiom
of approval for Ce~t~ of HMoric Appropriaten~. It ~ recommended
that con~tiom of approval for demolition or altention of any hMoric
b~dlng hclude app~p~te ~ofi~l and a~hit~mrai docnmemation prior
to moication of the buffcling.
Specific Pr~ess
If ~stofic structures will be impact~ by the proj~t, appropriate histofi~ ~d ~c~t~tur~
d~umenmfion shMl be prep~ in accord~ce with smd~d documentation r~uirements
esmblish~ by ~e State Office of Historic Prese~ation.
~e ~ali~ d~umenmfion for ~y such ~stofic s~emre sh~l be submitt~ City for review ~d
approvM.
Mitigation Milestone
~e d~umenmfion s~ ~ ~ prior ~ ~y ~smrb~ce of a historic structure ~d complet~
within six monks of ~e ~ifiM disturb~ee of the s~cture.
Responsible Monitofi~ Pa~y
City of Tem~ula PlUg Depmment
Prer~uisite Action~ For
A d~ision to impact a historic s~cture.
The d~umenmtion must be complet~ prior to submit~ to the Ci~.
10--10~
Fi-.: P~.,:~ .n~ MITIGATION MONrFORING PROGRAM
General Impact
Potential significant historical structure impacts may occur due to implementing the project.
Mitigation Measure
4.8.3.3 In order to dlst'mguish recognized historic buildings from new construction
which uses historic architectural elements, it is recommended that historic
buildings in comm~clal areas be marked with small plaques containing their
historic ~s~mes and dates of construction, and that promotional/interpretive
literature for the project clearly distinguish between historic building~ and
recent construction.
Specific Proces~
The City and applicant shall identify structures that require plaques and develop the interpretive
literature for distribution to the public.
Mitigation Milestone
The plaques and documentation shall be submiRed to the City prior to initiating operation of any
project facility.
ReSponsible Monitoring Pnrty
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Action(l) For
A decision to proceed with the project
The documentation must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
10-107
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FROM THE
OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
GENERAL PLANCONS~TENCY
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.
Housing
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 pwvide
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 Wails; 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
F~tern Information Center at UC Riverside.
R:\STAFFRPTX298PA97.PCI IlY2197 vgw 42
6.3: Require sites proposed for future development that are identified in this Element as being
of high or undetemined palcontological 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 plates 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.
R:\STAFFRPT~298PA97.PC1 10/2/97 vim'
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY REPORT
R:~STAPF~98PA97.PCI lO/2/9~Tvgw
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
Introduction
As originally envisioned, the Temecula entertainment venue was to develop simultaneously in the Old
Town portion of the City and within the Westside Specific Plan area located northeast of the Western
Bypass corridor, southwest of Old Town. These two development areas (Old Town and Westside
Specific Plan) were approved for a mixture of commercial entertainment facilities, hotels, support
(anciliary) facilities, and residential uses by the City in 1995. The approved land uses were perhaps
best summarized in the "Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations" adopted by the
City of Temecula when it approved the whole project and certified Environmental Impact Report in
1995. Attachment A contains a list of project components approved for development as summarized
in the "Facts,"which can be developed, with appropriate subsequent review, in the two phases of the
project.. See Attachment A.
As the City is aware, the actual construction of the entertainment venue has been delayed for a variety
of reasons, including delays due to legal challenges to the project and the efforts to justify funding
of the extensive infrastructure that must be installed when the project is developed. A few of the
major infrastructure components include: the Western By-pass and First Street bridges over Murrieta
Creek; installation of the required paved section of the Western By-pass from the Front
Street/Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 interchange to Vincent Moraga Drive; and all of the water,
sewer, and other utility infrastructure systems required to support the facilities pern~tted by the
Westside Specific Plan. In order to obtain the significant funding commitments required to construct
the entertainment venue in the City in conformance with the City's 1995 approvals, the project has
evolved from the original concept as outlined in Attachment A, to a current concept that has been
designed to be consistent with the Westside Specific Plan, yet reflect the fundamental project
components that are necessary to attract the substantial funds required to build all facilities, including
tile extensive infrastructure required to support the project.
To demonstrate consistency of the current design concept for the entertainment venue with the
original approvals, particularly the Westside Specific Plan, a comparison of the original and proposed
design components is presented below. Note that certain uses have been transferred from Old Town
to Area "A" of the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) as "ancillary" uses to the hotel and wild west arena.
This has been necessary to support the costs of the required infrastructure improvements defined in
the original approvals. It also overcomes the lack of economically viable sites in Old Town where
no specific sites were shown in the original applications because of the difficulty of consolidating
adequate building and parking areas. Keep in mind that Phase 1, as defined in the original certified
E1R and in the approvals referenced in Attachment A, encompassed almost all of the proposed
entertainment facilities summarized in Attachment B. Phase 2 was proposed to consist of support
commercial and residential uses as required to support the overall success of the entertainment venue.
As is demonstrated below, the proposed conceptual design now being presented to the City is fully
consistent with the total scope of facilities envisioned and approved in the project original approvals,
and even though'the current focus has shix~ed from Old Town to the WSP area, additional facilities
remain to be sited in Old Town as demand for additional entertainment facilities evolves in the future.
A time line (schedule) for the project as currently proposed is provided as Attachment C to this
document.
Table 1 summarizes the square footage for each proposed entertainment venue facility and other
facilities approved by the City of Temecula, such as the hotel, The square footage of facilities as
envisioned in the original design concept and the current design concept are presented below. Where
a facility is not shown in the current design concept side of Table 1, it is being deferred to the future
as discussed above.
Table I
Square Footage Summary
of
Entertainment Facilities
Original Design Concept
Current Design Concept
Cabaret Theatre (2)
27,000 f~;/45,000 ft;
Location: Old Town
Cabaret Theater/Western Music Dinner Theatre (1)
20,000 ft2
Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area
Western Saloon (2)
10,000 ftz each
Location: Old Town
Western Saloon/Rockin Rodeo( 1 )
12,000 f~2
Location: ancillary to hotel in the WSP area
Opera House
75,000 fi~ building footprint
Location: Old Town
Opera House/Celebrity Auditorium
50,000 fi2 building footprint
Location: ancillary to Hotel in the WSP area
Showboat
21,000 ~2
Location: Old Town
Showboat (deferred to future)
No change at this time
No change at this time
Wild West Arena
175,000 ~:, 85-90 feet height
Location: WSP area
Wild West Arena
105,000 ~2,75 feet height
Location WSP area
2
I1
12
15.
Virtual Reality Pavilion (3)
19,000 f~2, total 57,000 R2
Location: Old Town
"Quick Draw" Competition Area
8,000 ~2
Location: Old Town
Hotel
300,000 fi2 initial; additional
100,000 f~2 for additional 150
rooms when justified in future
Location: WSP area
Hotel Retail Commercial
50,000 fv~/50,000 fr2
Location: WSP area, ancillary
to hotel
Retail Commercia[
50,000-100,000 ft2
Location: Old Town
Visitor Center/Ticket Office (1 +)
5,500 ft2
Location: Old Town
Administrative Space
20,000 ft2
Location: open
Virtual Reality Experience
7,200 ft:
Location: WSP, a part of the Roy Rogers/Dale Evans
Museum, ancillary to Wild West Arena
"Quick Draw" Competition Area (deferred to future)
No change at this time
No change at this time
Hotel
125,000 R2, 275 rooms
Location: WSP area
Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Exhibition
-23,000 ft2, including Virtual Reality Experience
Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena
Temecula Wine & Food Exhibition
30,000 fF
Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena
Chapel
1,600 ~-~
Location: WSP area, ancillary to the Wild West Arena
Hotel RetailCommercial
69,600 R2, kiosks, shops, restaurants
Location:WSP area, ancillaryto hotel
Deferred to the Future
Visitor Center
2,500 ~2
Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena
Administrative Space
Same
Location: WSP area, part of Arena or Theatre
16
Festival Square
20,000 fi:
Location: Old Town
Arena Plaza/Sons of the Pioneers Music Plaza
Small gazebo stage/~500-1,000 fi2
Location: WSP area, ancillary to Wild West Arena
Based on the summary provided above, the total square footage of building space under the original
design concept is 1,045,500 ft2, excluding the outdoor facilities such as the "Quick Draw" and
Festival Square areas. Of this 1,045,500 fi2, the total square footage permitted within the WSP area
in the original concept design and with City approvals is estimated to be about 695,000 ~2, including
the full 100,000 fi2 of commercial area allocated in Phases 1 and 2 of the hotel and the 20,000 ~2
administrative area. The current design concept encompasses approximately 459,700 fi2, including
69,960 fi2 of commercial support uses. Thus, the total square footage of all proposed facilities fails
well within the total square footage and is approximately 235,300 ~2 less than originally authorized
by the City when it granted approvals in 1995.
What are the major differences between the current and original design concept? Perhaps the greatest
change is a decision to disaggregate the massing of square footage originally allocated to the hotel
and Wild West Arena into several structures. All of the facilities proposed in the current conceptual
design are ancillary or supportive to the two primasy facilities (hotel and Wild West Arena) that were
approved for Area A of the WSP. Some uses have been transferred from the Old Town area, but it
is our interpretation that comparable facilities were envisioned in the WSP authorization, such as the
auditorium (opera house), wine and food exhibition hall (exhibition uses), and cabaret theatre (dinner
theatre) in support of the hotel, and the museum (Roy Rogers/Dale Evans Museurn/Exhibition
facility) in support of, or as part of the Wild West Arena. Similarly, the approximately 69,600 fi2
of commercial area is consistent with the Phase 1 and 2 allocations of commercial square footage
allocated as part of the hotel.
Although the original footprints of buildings have been altered, the focus on the western theme for
the entertainment venue has not changed and by disaggregating the facilities through redesign, the
visual impacts of the large hotel and arena structures will be reduced, enhancing the visual setting
compared to the original design concept. In particular, the original design concept of the hotel
showed a very large massed visual feature and the arena was envisioned as circus/tent-like structure
with stripes. In the design concept presently under consideration by to the City, both of these
facilities have been redesigned by creating several structures, thereby reducing the overall visual
impact of the project In addition, by enclosing the arena structures and providing for insulation and
clingate control. poteqtial noise impacts to residences along Pujol have been substantially reduced.
For these reasons. we believe that the proposed, i.e. current, design concept is fully consistent with
the WSP requirements and overall approvals granted to the project in 1995.
ATTACHMENT A
Entertainment Venue
Summary of Project Components
Sumraary of Approvals
The City ofTemecula approved Master Conditional User Pennit ('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). These approvals
were grained by the City Planning Commission and City Council in J'une, 1995 to facilitate
development of a variety of entertainment facilities, hotel, commercial and residential uses.
Summary of Project Components
Cabaret Theaters: Two cabaret theaters are proposed to be located in the OTSP core area.
Both cabaret theaters would be constructed during Phase I of the project. One cabaret is
proposed to contain about 27,000 square feet (fi2) and 40 feet high and the second theater is
proposed to contain about 45,000 fi2. These cabarets are designed to entertain a maximum
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 OSTP core area. Both
saloons would be constructed during Phase I of the project and each salbon is proposed to
contain approximately 10,000 t~2 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 entertainment, such as dancing girls. Staged bar
fights, shootouts and other entertainment will be provided. The saloons will operate every
day of the week.
Opera 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 proscenium approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to
encompass 85,000 fr of space with a building footprint of approximately 75,0002. 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 approximately 2,500 t~2 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 entertainment space justifies its construction. The showboat
will be a two-story structure, with the smokestacks approximately 30 feet high. It is proposed
to be approximately 21,000 ft2 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 toudng western tent 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 summer "high"
season. The arena will encompass approximately 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.
Virtual Reality Pavilion(s): Three virtual reality pavilions with two theaters in each are
proposed for development within the OTSP. One pavilion with two theaters will be
constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project. The other two pavilions will be implemented
as part 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 t~2 if all
three pavilions are implemented. Each show requires about five to six minutes with the
theater portion running about three to four minutes. Performances would be continuous a~er
the facility opens each day.
"Ouick Draw" Competition Area: In the Old Town core area a plaza or town square will be
constructed which is proposed to contain a quick draw competition area. This facility will
be constructed as part of Phase 1 and is proposed to encompass approximately 8,000
outdoors in or adjacent to the plaza. This will be a westernized "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 proposed for construction in the vicinity of the wild west arena
within the Westside Specific Plan. The initial configuration of the hotel is proposed 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 proposed to
contain approximately 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 t~2 of related retail space when constructed in
Phase I and the range of retail uses includes restaurants, service commercial uses, and retail
2
10
11.
15
commercial uses. An additional 50,000 R2 of retail space may be constructed during Phase
2 if demand for the commercial capacity is sufficient.
Retail C0mmerciai: The City anticipates 50,000 to 100,000 R2 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 i~2 will be developed during Phase 1 as a
component ofthls project. No specific locations have been selected for these retail activities.
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 ft2 of area. It will be open during normal
business hours and during evenings when events are scheduled at the entertainment complex.
Administrative Space: An additional 20,000 square feet of space for administrative offices
and back-of-house areas may be constructed to support the project. Some ofthis space may
be located within the opera house facility and others on the second floor of other structures
or within independent structures.
Area A: This area encompasses 47.7 acres and the Plan designates it for Special Event
Commercial (SEC). The SEC designation is designed to be an extension of the OTSP and
it will allow for tourist and hotel commercial uses. Allowable 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 Community
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 contains 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-[DR designation would allow
a range of 13 to 20 units per acre in the Westside Specific Plan. Assuming 15.1 net acres
(excluding road rights-of-way), the number of residential units that can be constructed
assuming 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 28 acres that is designated Mixed Use (MU). This use provides
3
office, commercial, light industrial and overflow parking that will serve the local residents and
the commercial uses associated with the Arena and hotel.
17.
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 the Western By-Pass which will
not be developed. The intent is to preserve this area 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.
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK), H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN|
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
r-
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXmRIT D-1 LINKAGE TO OLD TOWN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ~LE'~/ITION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN}
EXHIBIT E ARENA ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
SOUTH ELEVATION
IIIt,II
"e ~' \,.,._.,..~
EAST ELEVATION
,_ ,/,,.,,-,
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXnTBIT E ARENA ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
NOT INCLUDED
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXInRIT F COLOR ARENA ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
NOT INCLUDED
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHntlT G COLOR AND MATERIAl, BOARD
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA~7-02~)8 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER {~, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Exmnrr H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA,qT-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXIHRIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXFImlT H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:~0CTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EX/IIBIT H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
ExHmrr H LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING C_ OMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-4}298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIRIT H-1 COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING CO1VIMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
FLOOR PLAN - ARENA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97.4}298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT I FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6~ 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
2 FLOOR
PLAN - UPPER ARENA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXIHRIT I FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
FLOOR PLAN
- ARENA SEATING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXBmlT I FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
CROSS SECTION LOOKING SOUTH
CROSS SECTION LOOKING WEST
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXH/BIT N/A ARENA CROSS SECTION
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT J GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXI-IIRIT J GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
I i
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
E~CHIRIT J GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHIBIT J GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Exm~rr j GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0298 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
EXHmIT J GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1997