HomeMy WebLinkAbout012593 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 25, 1993 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairman Fahey
Blair, Ford, Hoegland, Chiniaeff, Fahey
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners
on items that are not listed on the Ageride. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please coma forward and state your name and address.
For all other agend8 items a "Request to Speak" 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
Approval of minutes of November 23, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
Approval of minutes of December 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. {pink)
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Planner:
Proposal:
Final Environmental Impact Report and General Plan
City of Temecula
City Wide
John Meyer
Recommend certification of the Final EIR and recommend
approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Draft
General Plan to the City Council.
Next meeting: February 1, 1993, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday,
November 23, 1992, 6:10 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California. Chairman Linda Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Also present were City Attorney Scott F. Field, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior
Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Ziglet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Lettie Boggs, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, distributed letters to
the staff and the Commission regarding the School District's request for modification to the
sidewalk standards and their request for modification to the language contained in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and Draft Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.
Included was a Resolution of support adopted by the PTA.
Margaret Benzango, 41498 Avenida Barca, Temecula, expressed her concern with the
proposed closing of Calls PiCa Colada and provided a map illustrating the impact the street
closure would have on Avenida Barca.
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:15 P.M.
Rev. Tim Buttrey, 29798 Windwood Circle, Temecula, asked that the City demonstrate how
they plan to implement the goals and policies of the Growth Management Public Facilities
element of the General Plan.
James Marpie, 24280 Washington Avenue, Murrieta, representing Citizens for Responsible
Watershed Management, provided an overview of water resource conservation and pedestrian
travelways.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Aooroval of AQends
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to
approve the agenda.
PCMIN11/23/92 -1- 11130/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion was unanimously carried.
NOVEMBER 23, 1992
Minutel
Commissioner Hoagland requested Page 5, middle paragraph, fourth sentence be
modified to reed ".....service level E or worse..".
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
approve the minutes as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. General Plan
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Chiniaeff stepped down due to a conflict of
interest.
John Meyer presented the staff report.
Bob Davis, representing Wilbur Smith Associates, provided an explanation of
alternatives A, B and C to the North General Kearney Road extension.
Vice Chairman Blair opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
The following individuals expressed strong opposition to the North General Kearney
Road extension based on the negative impacts it would have on the residents of the
Meadowview Homeowner's Association:
Brian Sampson, 40655 Calle Medusa, Temecula.
George Buhler, 40265 Paseo Sereno, Temecula.
Kevin McKenzie, 40550 La Colima, Temecula.
Maria Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, Temecula.
Nelson Betancourt, 40835 Calle Medusa, Temecula.
PCMIN 11123/92 -2- 11/30/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1992
Lee Putnam, 29787 Dawn Crest, Temecula, presented a map outlining an alternative
route using Calle Chapos to Walcott Lane.
Chuck Peterson, 31196 Kahwea Road, Temecula.
David Ciabatoni, 41646 Avenida De Le Reina, Temecula.
Richard Moriki, 40445 Carmelita Circle, Temecula.
Greg Treadway, 40550 Calle Madero, Temecula.
Judy Andrick, 40732 La Colima Road, Temecula.
James Marpie, 27120 El Rancho, Sun City, discussed reducing the traffic impacts by
using the creek bed as a pedestrian travelway.
John Meyer advised the Commission he recieved a letter at the start of the meeting
from Joseph and Linda Ashcraft, 40397 Celle Medusa, Temecula, expressing their
support of the North General Kearney Road extension. John paraphrased the contents
of the letter for the Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair to direct staff to implement Alternative B and C,
and to continue to look for other alternatives. Commissioner Ford seconded the
motion with the addition of the following policy statement to added to the General
Plan:
"The North General Kearney Road extension linking Nicolas to the realigned Margarita
Road would not be implemented until all other major arterials and improvements:
Butterfield Stage Road north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Margarita Road from Solana to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Overland Drive Overpass
Widening of Highway 79 North, six lanes from Ynez to Auld
Widening of Winchester Road (79 North) 1-15 Overpasses and road
improvements
Nicolas Road easterly from Winchester Road to Butterfield Stage Road
Murrieta Hot Springs Road east from Winchester Road to Butterfield Stage Road
Calle Girasol to Calle Chapos to Walcott Lane (between La Serena and Nicolas)
Butterfield Stage Road from Highway 79 South to Murrieta Hot Springs Road)
has been completed.
Additionally, staff is directed to look at down grading Highway 79 North to a City
urban arterial and the traffic generated from outside the City redirected via the
implementation of a toll road. These traffic circulation plans to be studied at a 5, 10,
15 and 20 year buildout period to evaluate the need for the North General Kearney
Road extension. If the North General Kearney Road extension is to remain in the
circulation pattern, specific studies must be implemented for the roadway including
compliance with the then accepted CEQA guidelines for noise buffering and safety, and
be noticed.
PCMIN11123192 -3- 11/3OI92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1992
Vice Chairman Blair declared a recess at 7:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:58 P.M.
Commissioner Blair accepted Commissioner Ford's amended motion.
Commissioner Hoagland stated because the proposed road is in a valley and most of
the residences are above the proposed road, it would be difficult to address noise
buffering. Commissioner Hoagland added that Meadowview is an existing community
with established patterns of semi-rural activities which the proposed road would
negatively impact. Commissioner Hoagland concluded that he could not support the
proposed road which will negatively impact an existing community to the benefit of
future residents, when there may be other alternatives that would impact the level of
service and volume to capacity ratios, that aren't necessarily part of the circulation
plan, such as lowering gross densities.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
I COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Ford
Hoagland
Chiniaeff, Fahey
Chairman Fahey declared at recess at 8:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 P.M.
LAND USE ELEMENT
John Meyer presented the staff report.
Commissioner Ford asked that Figure 27, the Specific Plan Overlay Area Z, be
separated into Zone 1 and Zone 2, as they are separated by Highway 79 South; and
Goal 5, 5.1 delete the reference to "art in public places".
It was the consensus of the Commission to use the Draft Land Use Policies and Goals
to review the maps.
John Meyer advised that after the agenda packages were sent out, he received a
request for a change from the very low designation to commercial for the parcel at the
northwest corner of Highway 79 South and Jedediah Smith Road.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 8:40 P.M for Group I Requests.
GROUP I (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH}
Phillip Jones, 331 O0 Pauba Road, Temecula, representing Request 37 of which Parcel
2, currently under review by City staff for C.U.P. No. 12, is a proposed waterpark and
PCMIN11/23/92 *4- 11130192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23° 1992
family recreation center. The current zoning is open space and applicant is requesting
to change it to a designation of highway tourist commercial. Parcel 3 currently zoned
R-2 Open Space Designation and applicant requests highway tourist commercial land
use desingation for hotel/restuarant Parcel 1, currently zoned open space. The
applicant requested that the policies for open space allow for uses like a private picnic
area to be used for weddings, etc.
Elliott Urich, 37161 Van Gale Lane, Murrieta, representing Request 1 O, requested a
commercial or office/professional designation.
Herman Thorn, 30851 De Portola Road, Temecul8, regarding Requests I and 32,
would like to see them remain passive, requested green belt/equestrian trail buffering
between commercial and residental, and did not support Request 21 changing to a
commercial designation.
Steve Corona, 29926 Corte Folano, Temecula, representing Request 45, which is
currently zoned commercial and used for produce sales and packaging but taxed on a
commercial basis stated he would oppose a downgrade to residential zoning.
Dudley Schumacher, 29110 Vallejo, Temecula, regarding Request 3, opposes any
request for a change to commercial designation.
Nayree Davis, 28895 Vallejo Avenue, Temecula, representing the Meadowview
Homeowners Assocation, opposed any requests for commercial designations within
the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association.
Richard Denno, 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road, Palos Verdes, representing Request 7,
stated that due to the widening of Highway 79 South, his property cannot be
developed as R-1. Mr. Denno offered his proposal for office/professional would be an
adequate buffering between Los Ranchitos and Highway 79 South.
Dean Allen, 27450 Ynez Road, Temecula, representing Request 32, currently assessed
under Assessment District 159 as commercial, requested highway scenic commercial
designation.
Ernie Egger, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing Old Vail Partners,
Request 2.1 and 2.2, requested support of staff recommendation for Request 2.1. Mr.
Egger requested a mixed use designation for the office/professional designation on
Request 2.2.
Peter Edelmann, 15135 Paso Del Sol, Del Mar, requested the General Plan maintain the
zone change. granted by the County.
Robert Lapidus, 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 220, Temecula, representing
Request 2.1 and 2.2 and requested the opportunity to discuss with staff a mixed use
designation for Request 2.2.
PCMINT 1/23192 -5- 11/30/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1992
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N, Temecula, representing Request 1,
spoke supporting e specific plan overlay with a mixed use designation.
David James, TPC, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing Request 36,
advised they have submitted a request for a commercial designation and presented the
Commission with design guidelines for a Butterfield Station commercial center.
Marilyn Denno, 2256 Sunnyside Ridge Road, Palos Vetdes, representing Request 7,
requested the Commission's support of an office/professional designation.
Berry Burnell, 3242 Hellsday Street, Suite 100, Santa Aria, representing Kernper Real
Estate Management Company on Request 9, requested · change of land use
designation due to realignment of Pals Road Bridge to Highway 79 South.
Lettie Boggs, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, representing the Temecula Valley
Unified School District, spoke against a commercial designation for Requests 36, which
is in close proximity of future school sites. Additionally, the school district is in
opposition to the request for commercial designation of Request 22 which is adjacent
to an existing elementary school
John Moremarco, P.O. Box 406, Temecula, representing Request 3, requested a
commercial designation.
Don Swanson, 44405 La Paz, Temecula, owns property adjacent to Request 3 and
opposes a land use designation of commercial.
The Commission addressed each request individually as follows:
Commissioner Chiniaeff stated this request was an example of e case where a specific
plan zone would be necessary to address adequate implementation of the policies.
John Meyer stated that staff would concur with the applicant's request for a specific
plan designation.
Commissioner Chinieeff stated that he was still concerned about a specific plan that
has non-standard development standards with it.
Karen Gulley recommended that Table 2-9, Direction For Future Specific Plan Areas,
additional language be drafted to address Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and
acknowledging and recommending some future mixed use development within those
areas.
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to add language
to allow mixed uses through the specific plan process,
PCMIN11123/92 -6- 11/30192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1992
#2.1 and #2.2
A strew vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to support staff
recommendation of community commercial designation as opposed to high density.
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to approve staff
recommendation with Commissioner Chiniaeff voting No.
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to approve staff
recommendation with Commissioner Chiniaeff voting No.
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to recommend
professional office end commercial.
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to approve staff
recommendation with Commissioner Chiniaeff voting No.
#21
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to approve staff
recommendation.
#22
A straw vote was taken and the consensus of the Commission was to change to low-
medium density.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
None
PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORTS
None
PCMIN 11 ~23~92 -7- 11130/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Fahey declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held Monday,
December 7, 1992, 6:00 P.M. Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California.
Secretary
Chairman Linda Fahey
PCMIN 11123192 -8- 11130192
MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 7, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 7, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday,
December 7, 1992, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Linda Fahey.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill,
Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:05 P.M.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to
approve the agenda.
2. Minutes
Approve the minutes of October 19, 1992.
Chairman Fahey requested Page 5, paragraph eight, to read "....the language
addressing the transition between the different types of developments".
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the minutes of October 19, 1992 as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
None
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3.
DECEMBER 7,1992
Transoortation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance
Ray Casey presented the staff report.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:10 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to close the
public hearing at 6:10 P.M. and recommend to the City Council adoption of the
Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance, and consider
establishment of a corresponding review fee not to exceed $250.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
General Plan
The Commission continued its discussion on parcel specific land use requests.
Group 1
Request 28, 29 and 40:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 32:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation and
support mixed uses through the specific plan process.
Request 36:
Gary Thornhill advised the Commission a letter was received prior to the meeting from
David James, the applicant's representative.
Chairman Fahey asked if staff had any answers to address the concerns expressed by
the school district regarding this project.
Gary Thornhill stated that many of the concerns would be addressed in the design
phase of the project.
pcminl 2/07/92 -2- 12121/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992
Lettie Boggs stated that the school district has reviewed the design guidelines and is
not as concerned as they previously have been.
Commissioner Ford expressed the concern that if the creek gets widened then the
building setbacks and parking lot areas would be constricted.
Chairman Fahey stated she feels that commercial was not an appropriate transition to
large low/low density residential.
A majority vote by the Commission approved · commercial designation with Chairman
Fahey voting against the commercial designation.
Request 37:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 45:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 52:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to make the land use consistent with
council action on the specific plan zone.
Request 54:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Grouo II (Chaoarral)
PaUl Silverstone, 28828 Via Roja, Murrieta, addressed request 4, a neighborhood
commercial designation. Mr. Silverstone advised that his intent was to develop the
property with a resthome and/or professional office and related temporary uses.
Request 4:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 14:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation
pending a special overlay study zone,
pcmin~2107192 -3- 12121/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992
Request 17:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 18:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 19:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 24:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 25:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 26:
Commissioner Blair stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Commissioner Blair abstained.
Request 38:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Group III (Urban Core)
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite 100, Temecula, representing the owner
on Request 20 and 33, concurred with staff recommendation.
Curtis Lively, 27450 Ynez Road, Suite 200, Temecula, representing Request 6, advised
~at the owner had submitted a request for zone change since the City's incorporation
and prior to that with the County, based on the SWAP designation.
Bill Johnson, 27450 Ynez Road, Suite 200, Temecula, addressed Request 6, asking
for the Commission's support of the request for zone change.
John Meyer read into the record a letter received by Jane Vernon opposing the high
density designation on the Dixon property.
pcrninl 2/07/92 -4- 12121/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7. 1992
Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultants, 3242 Halladay Street, Santa Ana,
representing Request 30 and 42.2 - 42.9 on behalf of the owner in support of the
request.
Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 7:45 P,M. The meeting reconvened at 7:55 P.M.
Request 5:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve a Professional Office
designation.
Request 6:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve a medium residential
designation on Parcel 1 and 3, and a professional office designation on Parcel 2.
Request 13:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 20:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 30:
The majority vote of the Commission was to approve a Community Commercial
designation.
Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Blair were in support of a Business Park
designation.
Request 31:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 33:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 42.2, Request 42.3, Request 42.4, Request 42.5, Request 42.6, Request
42.7, Request 42.8, Request 42.9:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
pcminl 2/07/92 -5- 12/21/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992
Request 47:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 48:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 49:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 50:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation,
Grouo IV - (Westside Foothills)
Howard Omdahl, representing Request 43 and 44, advised that he would prefer a
business park designation on his parcels, however would take an I-P land use
designation.
Larry Markham, representing Request 39, asked that the Commission consider
approving 5 acres parcels.
Request 15:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 39:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 42.1:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 43:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 44:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve the business park, but deny
the request for high density.
pcminl 2107192 -6- 12121/92
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992
Request 46:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 51:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Group V - (Nicolas Valley)
David James, 27720 Jefferson, Temecula, representing Request 8, concurred with
staff recommendation.
Dennis Fitz, representing Request 23 (Hidden Hills), supporting a low density
designation.
Alicen Wong, P.O. Box 1137, Murrieta, requesting the Commission's support for a low
density designation.
Request 8:
The majority vote of the Commission was to approve an Average 2 DU/AC.
Commissioner Ford and Commissioner Chiniaeff were opposed.
Request 16:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 23:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 27:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Request 35:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to leave the very low designation until
the special study area defers otherwise.
John Meyer advised that additional requests #55, 56, and 57 had been received
requesting a land use designation to low density. John advised that staff would
recommend that the land use designation of very low remain until completion of the
special study area.
pcminl 2/07192 -7- 12/21192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 1992
Grouo VI - (Meadowview)
Melvin Southward, 40755 La Colima, Temecula, representing Request 53.1 and 53.2,
requested the Commission's support for the change in land use designation.
Paul Nelson, 40685 La Colima, Temecula, representing Request 53.1 and 53.2,
requested that the hillside buffer area be retained to adequately buffer between
Meadowview and the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
David James, representing Request 41, distributed a map exhibit of the project and
requested the Commission's support for the change in land use designation.
Request 12:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to support a medium density
designation.
Request 41:
The overall consensus of the Commission was to support the owners request for a
Neighborhood Commercial designation.
A straw vote was taken and Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Hoagland stepped down due
to a conflict of interest.
Request 53.1:
The majority vote of the Commission was to approve staff recommendation.
Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Hoagland abstained.
Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Chiniaeff stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Request 53.2:
The majority vote of the CommisSion was to approve staff recommendation and amend
Table 2-9 to read "and transition from the very low densities to the low medium
densities with appropriate buffers".
Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Chiniaeff abstained.
The overall consensus of the Commission was to adopt the Land Use Element and changes
in the maps.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey
pcmtn 12107192 -8- 12121192
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
DECEMBER 7,1992
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Gary Thornhill asked the Commission to vote on whether or not to hold a meeting on
December 21, 1992.
It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Ford to cancel the meeting
of December 21, 1992. The motion was unanimously approved.
Gary Thornhill advised of the outcome of the Storefront Open House held in Old Town to
present the Old Town Specific Plan to merchants and the community.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None
OTHER BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Fahey declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on
Monday, January 4, 1993, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, California.
Chairman Linda Fahey
Secretary
pcmin t 2107/92 -9,. 12121192
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 25, 1993
Case No.: Final Environmental Impact Report and General Plan
Prepared By: The Planning Center
John Meyer
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report and Recommend Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program and the Draft General Plan to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, November 2 and 23, December 7, 1992 and January 4, 1993, the Planning
Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report.
The Commission has conducted public hearings and tentatively approved all the General Plan
Elements and the EIR. At the January 25, 1993 meeting, the Commission will make a formal
recommendation to the City Council on the EIR and Draft General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Statement of Overridina Considerations
The Environmental Impact Report lists 26 environmental impacts, six of which cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. These are: air quality, biology, noise, agricultural,
transportation/circulation and library services. As a result, the City will need to adopt a
statement of overriding considerations.
State Law requires the City to balance the benefits of the General Plan against those
environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In order to make
a statement of overriding considerations the City must make written findings to support its
action.
Attached for the Commission's consideration is a Statement of Facts and Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations. This attachment documents the impacts, considers
alternatives to the General Plan and makes findings supporting the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Mitigation Monitorino Proaram
State law requires the City to adopt a mitigation monitoring program to ensure implementation
of all mitigation measures included in the EIR. The Program describes the roles,
responsibilities and procedures in implementing the mitigation measures. The program
includes a matrix which highlights, the mitigation, the key City department and the timing of
each mitigation. The program is subject to change up to the point it is formally adopted by
the City Council. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been attached for the
Commission's consideration. The City Attorney's office assisted Staff with the school policy
revision. Their position letter has been attached for the Commission's review.
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
At its last meeting, the Commission heard concluding public testimony and then closed the
public hearing and considered final revisions on the General Plan. The Commission requested
some additional revisions school policies, circulation impacts, language for future specific plan
are Z. The revisions have been attached for the Commission's review.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Statement of Facts Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations-blue page 3
Mitigation Monitoring Program-blue page 4
Revisions Addendum-blue page 5
City Attorney Letter Dated January 19, 1993 Regarding SB 1287-page 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRmING CONSIDERATIONS
TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) rexluires that the lead agency issue two sets
of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the
environment. In the tirst set of findings, the agency identifies the significant impacts; presents
facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis; makes one or more of three specific
findings for each impact; and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings.
There are thre~ findings available for this tirst set of findings. Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines provides the following three finding categories:
"Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
EIR."
"Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction or another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency."
"Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR."
These findings are presented in Section 2.0.
The second set of findings involves a "statement of overriding considerations." Where a project
will cause unavoidable, significant impacts, the agency may still approve the project where its
benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. As provided in Section 5.0, the City sets forth specific
reasoning to balance competing benefits against effects, and approve the project.
The City Council finds and declares that the EIR has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City
Council finds and certifies that the EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City
Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving this
project.
Based upon its review of the EIR, the City Council finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment
of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Temecula General Plan, represents
the independent judgement of the City and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this
project.
The Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
City of Temecula General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 12,
1992.
1
b. City of Temecula General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Technical
Appendices, August 12, 1992.
c. City of Temecula General Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, January, 1993.
d. City of Temecula General Plan, Responses to Comments, January, 1993
All of the above information has be~n and will remain on file with the City of Temecula,
Planning Department, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows: 1.0) Project Description; 2.0)
Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts; 3.0) Significant Unavoidable Impacts; 4.0)
Alternatives; 5.0) Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Temecula Study Area is located in the southwestern comer of Riverside County. The City
of MulTieta adjoins the northwestern City limit and the Pechanga Indian Reservation adjoins the
southeastern limit. The remaining sides are bound by unincorporated Riverside County.
The Study Area is located in the Temecula Valley Region, and is surrounded by rolling foothills
and mountains. The Santa Ann Mountains are located directly west of the Study Area, and the
Santa Margarita and Agua Tibia Ranges are to the south. The San Jacinto ranges lie
approximately 30 miles east of the Study Area.
Distances from the Study Area to major surrounding cities are as follows: 85 miles southeast of
Los Angeles; 60 miles north of San Diego; and 40 miles south of Riverside. Cities within a 30-
mile radius include Escondido, Hemet, Oceanside, Cadsbad, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Moreno
Valley.
The Study Area is linked to major metropolitan areas and transportation corridors in Southern
California by the Interstate 15 and State Route 79 freeways. The 1-15 traverses the western
portion of the Study Area in a northwest-southerly direction, south of its juncture with Interstate
215. State Route 79 is located in the northern and southern portions of the Study Area; SR-79
runs generally northeast to southwest through the northern portion of the Study Area, merges into
the 1-215 as it extends through the City, diverges in the southwestern portion and then trends in
a southeast direction.
The Study Area for the Temecula General Plan, consists of three distinct areas: the incorporated
City of Tcmecula; the adopted Sphere of Influence for the City; and an adjacent area west of
Winchester Road within the County of Riverside. For General Plan purposes, this third area is
called the Environmental Study Area. The General Plan Study Area totals approximately 60
square miles. The present City boundaries encompass approximately 26 square miles, the Sphere
of Influence is approximately 24 square miles, and the Environmental Study Area comprises an
estimated 10 square miles. The Sphere of Influence, adopted by the County's Local Agency
Formation Commission CLAFCO), includes the unincorporated area that will most likely be
annexed in the future, on a project by project basis, by the City of Temecula. The Environmental
Study Area is an area that significantly influences City planning and future development in the
City. The General Plan Study Area provides a reasonable measure of the City's present region
of interest.
1.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Each element of the General Plan contains goals and policies based upon the needs and desires
of the community, as derived from the background research, public workshops, Technical
Subcommittee Meetings, planning staff, and members of the Planning Commission and City
Council. A goal is defined as a broad vision of what the community wants to achieve or provide
to residents, landowners, business-owners, and tourists. It is a statement of a desired condition
based on community values. Goals are general in nature and usually timeless. Table 1 lists the
goals that have been set for the Temecula General Plan.
3
Table 1
Temecula General Phn Goals
Land Use Elemeqt=. =:~..':' .~.~ ...., .~ .... ::..,, :' .' .: ..' . ..',. '
A Oil/of diverdried development character where ruraJ and historical areas are protected and co-exist wP,,h newer urban
development.
Geal 3 A land use pat~m that will protect and enhance resldantjaJ neighborhoods.
Gol 4 A development pattern that presenms and enhances the environmental resources of the Study Area.
Goal 5 A land use pallam and intensity of development that encourages altema'dve modes of franoporintion, including transit,
bieycling, and waJIdng.
Goal 6 A Ran for Old Town Temecula that enhances economic virility, preserves historic structures. addresses parking and
public improvement needs, and establishes design standards to enhance and maintain the cl~'esthr and economic viiiit'/
of Old Town.
Goal 7 Ofdedy annealton and development of unincorporated areas within Temsoulais Sphere of Influence.
Goal 8 A CIty which Is compatible and coordinafod wffil regional land use patterns.
.Fir.':'.~.'.icn.cle...-.ent
S.-.'..,:::".,':"-v': `~=~`.:;~p~:~=~:~:~:~:::~`~:~*~:~`:~.~`~.:~:~:'~:~`~;~:~`
Goal 4
6~ 5
kn efficiant City clrculaban sysmm h'ough the use of t~anaporthtto~ system management and ravel demand management
An adequate euopiy of private and public paring to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City.
I Housing Element
Goal 2
Goal 3
A divers!b/of housing oppor, unitms tha~ sa:isb/the physical. social and economic needs o,' existing end luture residents ef
Temecula.
Affordable housing for aJt economic segments of Temecuta.
Removal of governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, where appropriate
and legally possible.
ConseNa~on of the existing affordable housing stock.
Equal housing opportunity for a~ residents ~q Temecula.
Goa~ 4
Goal 5
Goal 6
Goal 7
Goal 8
Goal 9
Conservauon ot energy resources through me use ot available technology and conserva~n pmcuces.
Coneerva~on of open spese arean for a balance of recreation, scenic enioyment, and protection of natural resources and
features.
Preservation of sign~icant historical and cutrural resources.
ProtecUon of pdme agricu~ral land from premature conversion to urbanized uses.
A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs.
Protectien of dark skies from irmusive Ught sources which may impact the Relomar Observatory.
4
Table 1
Temecula General Plan Goals
Gr-'.'Gih ¥r.f~e;e:ne~t:'P'jbi:c Facil ties Eiemef:t
Goat 4 Establishment of 8 diverse educa~n and trBtning and )oh placement system which will develop and ma~n~n a high quaTRy
work force In Teme~ula.
Goat 5 Promote the advantages to businesses of locating in Temecula, including cost advantages, artienifle$, housi~g, oommuaT~y
acR, ifles ~d civic sen4ces.
Goal 6 Develop Temecula as a comprehensive, recognizable toudst desknation, with a range of attractions throughout and beyond
the sphere of influence.
2,0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL I1VIPACTS
This section identifies the potentially significant impacts of the project by topic. It also lists the
mitigation measures as adopted and required of the project. Following the mitigation measures
is the level of significance after mitigation. Following the level of significance after mitigation,
one of three findings discussed below, is listed for each topic.
Geology and Seismic Hazards
Potentially Significant Impacts
Development of the proposed uses contained in of the General Plan would expose additional
people to effects of groundshaking from an earthquake as it would result in a population increase
in the Study Area. Property damage, personal injury, and loss of life may result from such an
event. This is especially true for areas with steep slopes and limited protection from landslides.
The overall level of risk associated with earthquake hazards is adverse, but similar to those
hazards present throughout the rest of the seismically active Riverside County.
Portions of the City are subject to liquefaction and subsidence hazards. The areas that can expect
the greatest impacts from liquefaction arc the Murrieta and Temecula Valleys along the Santa
Gertrudis and Temeeula Creeks. For subsidence and ground fissure impacts, the greatest
potential would be in the Murrieta, Temecula and Wolf Valleys. The areas listed above are the
only areas subject to liquefaction, subsidence and ground fissure impacts. The impacts in these
areas are potentially significant. The remainder of City lies outside of the liquefaction and
subsidence hazards zones; therefore, impacts to these areas would be iusigni~eant.
The Public Safety Element of the General Plan establishes the City's approach to ensuring a safe
living environment for its residents. The first goal of the Public Safety Element calls for a
reduction of impacts associated with natural hazards including seismic, liquefaction and slope
instability hazards.
The General Plan also addresses the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. The first
implementation program prohibits development of structures for human occupancy within 150
feet of an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, a County Fault Hazard Zone or an active or
potentially active fault unless seismic hazards can be mitigated to an acceptable level.
Remediation of seismically unsound buildings is also addressed in the proposed General Plan.
A seismic inventory of structures located in Old Town has been conducted. The proposed
General Plan calls for the monitoring of these buildings and the provision of technical assistance
and funding to property owners to reinedlate the structures.
Mitigation Measures
Require review of soil and geologic conditions to determine stability prior to project
approval. In areas that may have significant geologic constraints, require analysis by a
Registered Geotechnical Engineer. (Policy 1.1, Public Safety Element.)
Require mitigation of potential adverse impacts of geologic and seismic hazards, including
ground surface rupture and liquefaction, at the project level. (Policy 1.2, Public Safety
Element.)
6
3. Monitor hazardous buildings in Old Town and work with property owners to remediate
these buildings to improve structural integrity. (Policy 1.3, Public Safety Element.)
4. Require all new development to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code
seismic design standards. (Policy 1.4, Public Safety Element.)
Monitor the potential for seismic events and other geologic activity with the County of
Riverside and California Division of Mines and Geology. (Policy 1.5, Public Safety
Element.)
6. Establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and
landslides. (Policy 1.6, Public Safety Element.)
7. Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park system.
(Policy 5.12, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
In accordance with See. 2621.9 of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972, the
City shall require that any person who is acting as an agent for a seller of real property
which is located within a delineated special studies zone, or the seller if he is acting without
an agent, shall disclose to any prospective purchaser (including future purchasers,) that the
property is located within a special studies zone.
No structures designed for human occupancy (2,000 person hours per year) shall be
constructed on the trace of an active fault. Unless proven otherwise, the area within 50 feet
of an active fault is presumed to be underlain by active branches of the fault.
F~d~g
The City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project by adoption of mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lesson the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
B. Air Quality
Potentially Significant Impacts
Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts
Temecula currently has approximately 30,000 acres of undeveloped land. A considerable amount
of this land has been previously graded. However, most of the area will still require some type
of earthwork activity. It is not possible m accurately estimate the PM10 emissions for all of the
undeveloped land in the City. However, fugitive dust can generally be estimated by assuming
EPA's AP-42 standard of 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre per month of activity. It is estimated
that approximately 50 percent of the fugitive dust would be the Particles of concern from a public
health perspective.
The following sections discuss short-ten and long-ten strategies to reduce air pollutant
emissions in the City of Temecula. The first level of mitigation includes several policies and
aetious in the General Plan. Additionally, there is mitigation that can be incorporated as a
condition of development project approval. In this way, emissions from smaller projects are
minimized through appropriate planning and better construction practices.
Long-Term Regional Impacts
The emissions associated with the proposed General Plan are expected to be 69,158 pounds of
carbon monoxide, 3,796 pounds of reactive organic gases, 12,435 pounds of NOX and 4,155
pounds of particulates on a daily basis. The change in land uses from existing to proposed
C~neral Plan conditions results in a significant increase in regional air pollutant emissions from
mobile and stationary sources proposed in the General Plan.
Long-Term Local Impacts
Carbon monoxide concentrations at 50 feet from major Temecula intersections will be below the
current 20 ppm state standard and the 35 ppm federal standard (one-hour average) under General
Plan build-out conditions. The state and federal eight°hour carbon monoxide standards (9.0 ppm)
will also be below the state and federal standards.
Carbon monoxide concentrations are projected for the nearest sensitive receptor, based on the
land uses proposed in the General Plan. Sensitive receptors are generally defined as locations
where members of the public may remain for sufficient periods of time to be considered "at risk"
if exposed to unhealthy pollutant levels. With the exc.~ption of the intersection of Ynez Road
and Rancho California Road, each of the modeled intersections is near existing or planned
residential uses ranging from low to high density. The Ynez/Rancho California 'intersection,
though not adjacent to residential uses, is near a large duck pond that has the potential to be
frequented by members of the public at some point.
Under General Plan conditions, roadway contributions to carbon monoxide concentrations at 50
feet currently range up to 3.0 ppm over a 1-hour averaging and up to 2.0 ppm over an 8-hour
averaging period.
Mitigation Measures
Implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce motor vehicle trips,
including walking, bicycling, ridesharing, local transit, staggered work schedules and
telecommunications. (Policy 2.1, Air)
2. Maintain an orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation
systems management techniques. (Policy 2.2, Air)
3. Pursue development of a public transit system including local shuttle and bus routes, and
bicycle and pedestrian trails that are linked to regional light rail. (Policy 2.3, Air)
4. Promote alternatives to motorized transportation by establishing a convenient and efficient
system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. (Policy 2.4, Air)
Adopt a Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) that requires the preparation of trip reduction
plans for new and existing office, commercial and industrial facilities. (Implementation
Program, Air)
8
6. Promote the use of alternative work weeks and flextime among employers. (Implementation
Program, Air)
Encourage the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMA) for large
companies and/or groups of companies. Provide potential TMA's with administrative
guidelines and technical assistance, where feasible. (Implementation Program, Air)
Promote the development of compatible mixed use projects that promotes and enhances the
village concept, facilitates the efficient use of public facilities, and supports alternative
transit options. (Policy 1.6, Housing)
Attract and retain industry that complements Temecula's character and takes advantage of
Temecula's locational advantage for goods movement and cooperate mobility. (Policy 1.1,
Economic Development)
10.
Provide industrial land uses which facilitate a variety of user types, including manufacturing
space, storage and distribution, back-office space, and research and development space.
(Policy 2.1. Economic Development)
11.
Establishment of a diverse education and training and job placement system which will
develop and maintain a high quality work force in Temecula. (Goal 4, Economic
Development)
12.
Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and
encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient
trail systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that
pass through subdivision boundary wails. (Policy 4.4, Circulation)
13.
Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature trees, and
other significant vegetation on-site into the site and landscape design for proposed projects.
(Policy 3.4, Open Space/Conservation)
14. Promote the use of alternative clean fueled vehicles for personal and business use. (Policy
2.5, Air Quality)
15. Short-Term Mitigation Strategies
The following strategies should be incorporated into standard conditions of approval for
roadway and development projects. Steps should be taken to minimize fugitive dust during
grading and construction activities. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and
Regulations must be followed to reduce visible dust in the air and on surface roadways for
all development projects and roadways improvements. Additionally, the following methods
should be applied to construction sites:
Develop a watering program to wet down open graded surfaces to form a wind-
resistant temporary crust. The program should include control of wind-blown dust on
site access roadways.
9
· Water the site and spray construction equipment in the morning and the evening.
· Use soil binders to stabilize loose soil.
Plant ground covers and pave roadways as ea~y as possible in the construction
process.
Any earth being transported should be covered and the wheels and lower portions of
transport trucks will be sprayed with water before they leave the construction area.
In addition to fugitive dust control, any effort to mitigate mobile souwe emissions during
the constrnction period should be implemented. The following areas should be considered.
Coustruetion equipment should be selected considering emission factors and energy
efficiency.
· Construction equipment should be properly tuned and maintained.
Construction activities should minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent
to the site and a flagperson should be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways.
Electrical and diesel-powered equipment should be utilized in lieu of gasoline-powered
engines.
· Ridesharing for the construction crew should be supported and encouraged.
16. Long-Term Mitigation Strategies
Mitigation strategies should focus on reducing vehicle trips and vehicle trip lengths
associated with all development projects in the City of Temecula. Efforts should focus on
minimizing indirect-source emissions, thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle mil~
travelled wherever feasible. The following strategies should be utilized on development
projects wherever feasible.
Encourage higher density residential, mixed use development, and supporting public
and community facilities within Village Centers (Policy 5.6, Land Use).
Establish design guidelines, development standards, and incentive programs for uses
within Village Centers (Policy 5.7, Land Use).
Coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions in the preparation and adoption of air quality
measures to ensure mutual benefit and ensure that any jurisdiction is not placed at an
economic disadvantage.
10
Require development practices which maximize energy conservation as a prerequisite
to permit approval.
Use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium
vapor lights) should be considered for replacement and in new areas to reduce
emissions at the power plant serving the City.
Install low-polluting and high-efficiency appliances in new residential, commemial and
industrial facilities wherever possible.
Consider use of alternative-fuel vehicles for the City vehicle fleet and encourage use
of the vehicles by businesses and residents in Temecula.
Work with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to locate transit in the
City, which services the needs of employees, residents and visitors.
F~d~
The City Council finds that despite the application of substantial mitigation, the General Plan
would generate significant regional air quality impacts (local or microscale impacts are not
significant). The City Council further finds that specific economic, social, technological or other
considerations make infeasible the imposition of additional mitigation sufficient to reduce this
impact to a less than significant level.
C. Hydrology
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the General Plan would result in additional ranoff that would in turn
necessitate drainage facility improvements. The drainage facility improvements are necessary
to minimize the potential for flooding and impacts to persons or property. The drainage facility
improvements required to support the General Plan Project are described below. Please refer to
Figure 14 of the Draft EIR for location of drainage areas.
Line C-1 - The existing double 36" reinforced concrete pipes are inadequate to convey the flows.
A slope of 8.9% for the existing double 36" reinfomed concrete pipe or double 54" reinforced
concrete pipe at a slope of 1% is required to accommodate these flows. The 54" reinforced
concrete pipe is also inadequate. A slope of 4.6% for the existing 54" reinforced concrete pipe
or a 72" reinfomed concrete pipe at a slope of 1% is required to accommodate these flows to
Line C.
Line C - The runoff generated within this drainage area will pass through the proposed detention
basin/park at Campos Verde to maintain the maximum allowed flows that reach the existing
double 10' X 5" reinforced concrete box at Ynez Road; 1,250 cfs. The majority of the area is
currently undeveloped. If development occurs prior to construction of the Campos Verde
detention basin, the flows through the double 10' X 5' reinforced concrete box will not exceed
1,250 cfs. The area to the northwest, Lot 6, will act as a temporary detention basin if the flows
11
exceed the maximum capacity. The flows will then be conveyed through the newly constructed
double 14' X 5' reinforced concrete box in Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 19145. The existing
facilities under the freeway and to Murrieta Creek are adequate to pass this restricted flow rate.
Unnamed Drainage System - The drainage area consists of approximately 420 acres and
produces approximately 360 cfs of runoff to 1-15. The flows generated northeast of Ynez Road
are collected in a natural detention pond at the southeast comer of Solann Way and Ynez Road.
The pond is outlet with a 48" reinforced concrete pipe, thus restricting flows to 1-15. This design
was not considered in routing the 100 year developed flows through the exiting 48" reinforced
concrete pipe at 1-15 and beyond, because future development would eliminate this natural
retention pond. With the retention pond, restricted flows can pass through the existing 48"
reinforoed concrete pipe. Without this retention pond, a total of two 48" reinforced concrete pipe
culverts would be required to convey the developed flows. The 60" reinforced concrete pipe will
convey an additional runoff of approximately 390 efs. The existing 60" reinforced ooncrete pipe
will be able to convey this additional runoff with the assumption that there exists a sufficient
amount of head. A non-pressure system would require a 66" reinforced concrete pipe to convey
these flows.
Long Canyon Drainage Basin - The runoff generated from Empire Creek is approximately 1,900
era, and the Mira Loma Wash produced 1,200 cfs. The Long Canyon drainage system consists
mainly of grass-lined channels with reinforced concrete drain culverts at street--crossing. The
existing system is adequate to convey the 100 year flood to Murrieta Creek. There are no
existing improvements in some stretches of the system. The proposed quadruple 12' X 10'
reinforced concrete box have been designed and approved through the propused North Plaza site.
The developed flows that reach 1-15 would be approximately 3,000 cfs. The system continues
beyond 1-15 to Murrieta Creek with an unlined trapezoidal channel with a 20' base, 2:1 side
slopes and a depth of 10.5'. A channel proposed by Riverside County Flood Control calls for
development of a concrete lined channel with equal dimensions but with 1.5:1 side slopes. Either
proposed channel would accommodate the proposed General Plan land uses.
Pechanga CreekDrainage Basin - The runoff calculated for this area is approximately 6,000 efs.
The existing Peehanga Creek is improved for approximately 9,000' south from the Peehanga
Indian Reservations's northwest boundary, only on the north slope. The 100 year flows through
the creek will oontinue to flood the existing Temeeula Creek Golf Course as it flows to Temecula
Creek. This flooding will continue until improvements are made to the south slope of the
Pechanga Creek. Flooding to the golf course is considered an adequate solution to drainage
patterus for this area.
Mitigation Measures
Prohibit development in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. (Policy 1.7,
Public Safety Element.)
2. Encourage only compatible uses within the 100-year floodplain. (Policy 1.8, Public Safety
Element,)
Minimize the intrusion into and alteration of the 100-year floodplain. (Policy 1.9, Public
Safety Element.)
12
Work with the Riverside Coumy Flood Control District and other agencies involved in the
Murrieta Creek flood control improvements to implement a flood control solution that
maximizes the retention of natural resources and the provision of recreation opportunities
along the creek. (Policy 7.1, Growth Management Plan.)
Facilitate the preparation of a City of Temecula Master Drainage Plan which incorporates
the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan and additional planning efforts into one document.
(Policy 7.2, Growth Management Plan.)
6. Develop master drainage plans, when appropriate, for the Sphere of Influence, in
conjunction with the Flood Control District. (Policy 7.3, Growth Management Plan.)
Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other responsible agencies on
the design of the flood control pwject for Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga
Creek, and other waterways in the City. (Policy 4.5, Land Use Element)
8. Consider alternative flood control methods to reduce capital and maintenance costs and
provide recreational and open space opportunities. (Policy 4.6, Land Use Element)
Conserve the resources of Pechanga, Temecula, and Murrieta Creeks through appropriate
densities of development, setbacks, landscaping, and site design of surrounding projects.
(Policy 4.7, Land Use Element)
10.
Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control
improvements for Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek that preserve the important natural
features and resources of the local creeks and the riparian forest of the Santa Margafita
River, to the maximum extent feasible. (Policy 2.1, Open Space/Conservation Element)
11.
Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site
sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways
in the community. (Policy 2.5, Open Space/Conservation Element)
12. Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the
Regional Water Resources Control Board. (Policy 2.6, Open Space/Conservation Element)
13.
Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with
Federal, State, Regional and local agencies, and non-profit organizations. (Policy 2.9, Open
Space/Conservation Element)
Fmd~g
The City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project by adoption of mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lesson the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
13
D. Biology
Potentially Significant Inipacts
The communities of concern occurring in the region include: sage scrub (Diegan and Riversidian)
and alluvial fan sage scrub, alkali sink scrub, native grassland, alkali meadows, alkali and
freshwater seeps, freshwater marsh, vernal pools, riparian including cottonwood-willow riparian
forests, willow riparian forests, coast live oak riparian forest, southern sycamore riparian
woodland, southern riparian scrub, riparian herb communities, coast live oak woodland, and
Engelmann oak woodland. Other significant habitats include streambeds, clay and pyroxenite soil
areas.
With respect to sensitive plant communities, there are about 7,274 acres of coastal sage scrub,
oak woodland, and grassland habitat would be impacted by implementation of the General Plan.
A substantial part of these impacted plant communities occur in Specific Plan areas within the
Sphere of Influence and the Environmental Study Area. Of the estimated 6,699 acres of coastal
sage scrub habitat found in the Study Area, 5,840 acres would be impacted and 859 acres would
be conserved within open space conservation areas.
The Study Area contains an estimated 316 acres of oak woodland, 302 acres of which could be
lost and 14 acres of which is located in open space conservation areas. An estimated 1,028 acres
of grassland habitat would be lost. The acreage of lands currently in agricultural use were not
quantified. There are approximately 104 sensitive plant and animal species that are known to
occur or potentially occur in the project region, 96 of which could be expected to Ibe adversely
impacted by implementation of the Temecula General Plan. This includes 9 endangered or
threatened species that are protected under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, two
species proposed for federal listing, 43 candidates for federal listing, 15 species listed by the
Department of Fish and Game as Species of Concern, two species protected under the DFG Code,
and 25 species currently of concern to the California Native Plant Society and the National
Audubon Society.
Implementation of the General Plan can also be expected to adversely impact the movement of
mountain lions along the Pechanga Creek and Santa Margarita River corridor, as an immediate
result of residential development along Pethangs Creek. The impacts on these biological
resources that would result from implementation of the General Plan represents a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures
1. Habitat linkages shall be maintained with a minimum of a 75 foot buffer from the edge of
the streambed or the edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
Conserve sensitive species and plant communities and wildlife habitats to the maximum
extent feasible through open space dedication and easements, creative site design and other
workable mitigation actions (Policies 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, Open Space/Conservation
Element).
3. Landowners within the Fee Plan Area shall participate in the Habitat Conservation Plan for
Stephens' kangaroo rat.
14
Maintain and enhance the r~sources of the Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River,
Pechanga Creek and other waterways to the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat,
wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. (Policy 3.7, Open Space/Conservation Element).
Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide
mitigation including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the provision of
replacement habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including wildlife
corridor/recreational trails; and other appropriate measures. (Policy 3.1, Open
Space/Conservation Element).
6. The City of Temecula shall maintain and periodically update a biological resource inventory.
Fhdh~
The City Council finds that despite the application of substantial mitigation, the General Plan
would generate significant biological impacts. Specific economic, social or other considerations
make infensible additional mitigation sufficient to reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.
E. Noise
Potentially Significant Impacts
The major source of future noise will come from automobiles and trucks traveling on existing
and proposed roadways and transportation corridors in the City. Other future sources of noise
include overhead aircraft from the French Valley Airport. By identifying future noise levels
throughout the City, compatibility between land uses and adjacent roadways can be determined.
Motor Vehicle Noise
Noise levels on roadways in the City of Temecula and its Sphere of Influence were quantified
for General Plan build.-out traffic conditions based on the trip generating characteristics of future
land uses. The future noise contours indicate the areas in which noise is within 70 dBA, 65 dBA
and 60 dBA within the City limit. The exterior noise exposure table for these conditions is
provided in the Technical Appendices. As shown therein, build-out noise levels at 100 feet from
the roadway centerline will range from 49.5 CNEL along Cherry Avenue, El Chimisal Road and
Enterprise Circle to a high of 76.5 CNEL along Winchester Road (SR 79 North). Noise levels
of Interstate 15 range from 77.5 to 80.0 CNEL at 150 feet from the centerline. The 70 CNEL
contour will be located within the right-of-way along 81 of the 279 links analyzed for build-out
conditions.
Changes in noise level between the future and existing noise environment range from -0.8 to
+21.0 dBA. The increases associated with these roadways are primarily related to the amount
of new development occurring in the area and the current low traffic volumes on the roadways.
Noise decreases are expected on Rancho California Road, Rancho Vista Road, and Front Street.
A comparison between these noise levels shows a decrease in noise along 3 of the 279 links
analyzed. These decreases are considered "inaudible" and insignificant. Implementation of the
15
policies and implcmcntation programs listed below will reduce impacts associated with
development of land use proposed in the General Plan.
Compared to existing CNEI~, all roadways within City limits under the General Plan buildout
condition, except Calle Medusa Road and Rancho Vista Road will experience greater than a
3 dBA increase over existing noise levels. Fifty-one of the 65 links compared have "audible"
increases in noise levels. Four links have "inaudible" increases and eight links have "potentially
audible" increases. The most severe increase is Margarita Road north of Solana Way, which
experiences a 21.0 dBA increase.
Roadway links exist where the future noise level is expected to exceed 65 CNEL at 100 feet from
the centerline and therefore exceeds standards for sensitive receptors. Sensitive uses adjacent to
these links may be adversely affected by motor vehicle noise and be significantly impacted.
Proposed land uses in proximity to the identified roadways must have an analysis of future noise
levels on. site, with mitigation if necessary, to ensure compatibility in land use. Existing and
future land uses adjacent to these roadways may be impacted at General Plan buildout.
French Valley Airport
At this time, there are no projected noise contours to reflect the future operations of the airport.
At this time, a master plan is being prepared for the French Valley Airport. This plan could
potentially revise the existing noise contours. However, it is anticipated that potential changes
to the noise contours would not significantly affect sensitive areas in Temecula.
The General Plan proposes no change in operations at the airport of encroachment of sensitive
uses within the 65 CNEL contour of the airport. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the
airport are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures
City Planning and Enforcement
Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be
implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively,
encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require
appropriate interior working environments. (Policy 1.1, Noise)
2. Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network. (Policy 1.8, Noise)
3. Enforce the Noise Ordinance of all non-emergency construction operation. (Implementation
Program, Noise)
4. Require a revision to the noise contour map with every General Plan update.
(Implementation Program, Noise)
16
Development Projects
Encourage the use of site design and building design techniques, including the use of
landscape setbacks or berms, building orientation, and buffering of noise sensitive areas, as
a means to minimize noise impacts. (Policy 3.3, Noise)
6. Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects. (Policy 3.4, Noise)
7. Require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. (Policy
3.5, Noise)
Incorporate measures into all development projects to attenuate cxterior/intcrior noise levels
to acceptable levels. The City's noise standards for land use compatibility are provided in
Table 18. These standards shall be adhered to and implemented during the review of all
proposed development projects. (Implementation Program, Noise)
Exterior living areas of multiple family uses should have a maximum noise level of 65
CNEL. A combination of site planning techniques, noise walls, and architecture treatments
should be incorporated into the design of a project to ensure that the 65 CNEL is achieved.
In multiple family uses where all of preceding mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the project design and the exterior living area still can not be mitigated to 65 CNEL,
a maximum exterior noise level of up to 70 CNEL may be allowed. (Implementation
Programs, Noise)
10.
During review of development applications, consider noise impact of the proposed land use
on the existing and future noise environment of existing or planned contiguous uses.
(Implementation Program, Noise)
11.
Require proposed noise producing projects to have an aeoustieian prepare a noise analysis
with recommendations for special design measures if the project is to be located close to
existing or planned noise sensitive land uses. (Implementation Program, Noise)
12.
Require proposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas to have acoustical
studies prepared and to provide special design measures to protect noise sensitive uses from
ultimate projected noise levels. (Implementation Program, Noise)
13. Discourage projects that are incapable of successfully mitigating excessive noise.
(Implementation Program, Noise)
14. Consider site design techniques as the primary means to minimize noise impacts.
Utilize building setbacks to increase the distance between the noise source and
receiver.
Promote the placement of noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance
facilities, and utility areas between the noise source and reeeptor.
17
Orient buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source. Quiet outdoor spac~s
can be provided by creating a U-shaped development which faces away from thc
roadway or by clustering land uses. (Implementation Program, Noise)
15. Where feasible, require the provision of landscaped parkways between roads and sidewalks.
(Policy 4.5, Community Design Element.)
16. Require alternative architectural layouts to meet noise reduction requirements.
Place bedrooms on the side of the house facing away from major roadways. The use
of noise tolerant rooms such as garages, bathrooms and kitchens to shield noise-
sensitive areas will be encouraged. When bedrooms cannot be located on the side of
a house away from a major roadway, require extra insulation and double-pane
windows.
Avoid balconies facing major travel routes. Development proposals including
balconies in the design will need to be evaluated for potential noise impacts during the
environmental review process. (Implementation Program, Noise)
17.
Where architectural design treatments fail to adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will
significantly increase the costs of land developments, require the use of noise barriers and
landscaped betins in combination. (Implementation Program, Noise)
Transportation
18. Develop a program to construct barriers to mitigate sound emissions where necessary or
where feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. (Policy 4.1, Noise Element)
19. Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State, and Federal noise standards by all
appropriate City Divisions. (Policy 4.2, Noise Element)
20. Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts from vehicles,
particularly in residential areas. (Policy 4.3, Noise Element)
21.
Coordinate with Cultruns m ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design
of new highways projects or improvements to existing facilities including, interchange
improvements along 1-15, widening of SR 79 South and the proposed Date Street/l-15
interchange. (Policy 4.4, Noise Element)
22.
The City shall participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the Airport
Land Use Commission and other regional or state agencies relative to any proposed
expansion of the airport or change in flight patterns. (Policy 4.5, Noise Element)
F~d~
The City Council finds that despite the application of substantial mitigation, the General Plan
would generate significant noise impacts. Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible additional mitigation sufficient to reduce this impact to a less than significant level as
explained in Section 7.0.
18
F. Land Use/General Plan/Zoning
Potentially Significant Impacts
The Land Use Element sets forth the planned distribution and intensity of development in the
Study Area. Central to this component is the development of land use designations. The Zoning
Code will establish detailed regulations and requirements for permitted uses identified in the
General Plan.
Development at target intensity/density would result in 79,299 dwelling units in the Study Area.
The break-down by Study Area is as follows: 39,658 City of Temecula; 28,854 Sphere of
Influence; 10,787 Environmental Study Area. Development of non-residential uses is estimated
to be on the magnitude of approximately 130,609 square feet with the Study Area.
Both residential and non-residential uses within the Study Area would experience significant
increases. The proposed General Plan would result in an estimated 245% and 171% increase in
residential dwelling units and non-rnsidential acres, respectively, in the City. The greatest
increase of residential development in the City is anticipated to be within the Low/Medium
Density ranges. The greatest increases in non-residential development would occur in the
Highway/Tourist & Service Commercial designation, followed by Business Park/Industrial uses.
The Sphere of Influence and Environmental Study Area would also experience significant
increases in residential and non-residential development. A total of 4,040 acres of non-residential
development would occur within the Sphere of Influence with implementation of the proposed
General Plan. A total of 28,339 dwelling units would also be added within the Sphere of
Influence. The Environmental Study Area would increase non-residential uses by 807 acres and
8,523 dwelling units.
The Study Area is characterized by an urbanizing area, the City area, surrounded by large
expanses of open space. Development of the Study Area would change the nature of the area,
and in particular the Sphere of Influence and Environmental Study Area, from one of a rural to
an urban environment. While open space areas would be retained, the basic premise of the
proposed General Plan per the goals is the orderly development of the Study Area to an urban
environment. The loss of undeveloped land to both residential and non-residential uses is a
significant impact. In addition to the loss of open areas, the loss of agricultural lands is
additional impact. This impact is addressed in Section 4.7, Agricultural Resources of the DEIR.
Mitigation Measures
1. Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals, policies
and implementation programs of this General Plan. (Policy 1.1, Land Use Element.)
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level
commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. (Policy 1.3, Land
Use Element.)
3. Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals
for new development. (Policy 1.4, Land Use Element.)
19
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level
commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. (Policy 1.5, Land
Use Element.)
5. Provide well defined zoning and development standards and procedures to guide private
sector planning and development. (Policy 1.6, Land Use Element.)
Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to
achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. (Policy
1.7, Land Use Element.)
Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to preserve natural features,
achieve innovate site design, provide open space and recreation facilities, and to provide
necessary amenities and facilities. (Policy 1.9, Land Use Element.)
Provide physical and visual buffera areas to create a transition between rural residential and
agricultural areas and commercial,industrial and other higher density residential
development. (Policy 2.1, Land Use Element.)
9. Apply rural development standards to specified areas of the City to maintain the rural
character of those areas. (Policy 2.2, Land Use Element.)
F~d~
The City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project by adoption of mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lesson the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
G. Agricultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the General Plan would result in redesignation of agricultural lands throughout
the Study Area. The General Plan includes two residential land use designations (hillside and
very low) which allow for continued agricultural land uses. There are approximately 12,805
acres allocated to these two land use categories throughout the Study Area. Although the
allocation of these low density type land uses lessens the potential impact of development in the
area, the impact is still significant. As defined by the California Environment Quality Act,
Appendix G, the conversion of Prime Agriculture lands to non-agricultural uses is significant.
In addition, to conversion of Prime Agriculture lands, the General Plan designates current
Agriculture Preserves to active non-agricultural land uses. The development of General Plan will
result in a significant impact on agricultural uses within the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley District.
The General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element includes a goal and several policies which
help guide the future conversion of agricultural lands in the Study Area. They encourage the
preservation of agricultural lands and discourage the development of urban uses outside of City
boundaries closer to agricultural lands. Through implementation of these policies, the agricultural
20
uses outside of the City and adjacent to the Study Area boundaries should be buffered from urban
Implementation of the policies listed below help alleviate some of the impacts associated with
development of the General Plan.
Mitigation Measures
1. Encourage the continu~ production of Prime Agricultural soils, groves and other
agricultural activities in the Study Area and adjacent wine country. (Policy 7.1, Open
Space/Conservation.)
2. Coordinate as necessary with Riverside County in the preparation of a County Agricultural
Element. (Policy 7.2, Open Space/Conservation.)
3. Discourage urban development in agricultural areas outside the Village Contcr or the
existing built-up areas of the City. (Policy 7.3, Open Spaco/Conservation.)
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Findings
The City Council finds that despite the application of substantial mitigation, the C~neral Plan
would generate significant agricultural impacts. Specific economic, social or other considerations
make infeasiblc additional mitigation sufficient to reduce this impact to a less than significant
level as explained in S~ction 7.0.
H. Risk of Upset
Potentially Significant Impacts
The population within the City of Temccula is projected to increase 63 percent, from 31,603 to
112,254, with implementation of the General Plan. The population for the Sphere of Influence
and Environmental Study Area are projected at 81,655 and 30,526, respectively, at build-out.
The increase in population at risk in the event of an upset due to either an incident involving
hazardous materials or dam failure is an adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures
1. Minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials through careful land use planning.
(Policy 2.1, Public Safety Element.)
2. Provide for and maintain a coordinated emergency services response to reduce community
risks and property damage in the event of a disaster. (Policy 4.1, Public Safety Element.)
3. Coordinate with emergency response planning with Riverside County and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. (Policy 4.2, Public Safety Element.)
21
4. Encourage community-wide emergency preparedness among City residents and the business
community. (Policy 4.3, Public Safety Element.)
5. Regulate location of critical facilities to ensure their continued functioning following a
disaster. (Policy 4.4, Public Safety Element.)
6. Establish and maintain an emergency operations center (EOC) for emergency and disaster
situations in a safe and secure location. (Policy 4.5, Public Safety Element.)
The City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project by adoption of mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lesson the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
I. Population/Housing/Employment
Potentially Significant Impacts
The population projected at build-out within current City limits with implementation of the
proposed General Plan is 112,254. Utilizing 1992 Department of Finance estimates, this figure
represents an increase of approximately 63 percent. The projected population for the Sphere of
Influence is 81,655, and 30,526 for the Environmental Study Area. These population increases
would occur over a 40-50 year period.
The projected population figures for the Study Area at build-out are generally consistent with
population projections contained in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Growth Management Plan (1988).
At build-out, a total of 39,658 dwelling units are projected for the City. The residential
development projection is based on target density. Development could occur at densities either
greater or less than the adopted targets. The Housing Element and Land Use Element include
a discussion of the circumstances under which development could occur at maximum densities.
Development that confers a special public benefit, for example affordable housing, would be able
to occur at maximum densities.
The net increase of dwelling units between existing conditions and built-out conditions is 28,190
units within the City. The total increase in dwelling units is consistent with SCAG projections
for the sub region.
The Study Area is predominately a residential community with large areas of undeveloped land.
Implementation of the General Plan would result in 118,900 additional employment opportunities
and therefore a positive impact. Specifically, the City area would generate 63,400 employment
opportunities and the Sphere of Influence 47,500 and Environmental Study Area 8,000. These
additional opportunities result in an improved balance between jobs and employment.
A mix of employment and housing opportunities is a major focus of the proposed General Plan
and policies contained in the Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, and Air Quality
22
Element reflect this focus. Therefore the General Plan is anticipated to encourage a stronger
jobs/housing balance.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures arc required.
Fhdhg
The City Council finds that project will not produce a significant environmental effect.
J. Transportation/Circulation
Potentially Significant Impacts
Development associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in a total study area daily
trip generation of approximately 1,802,700 vehicle trip ends. Approximately 993,000 daily
vehicle trip ends, 55 percent, would be generated by land use within the City of Temecula. The
remaining 809,700 daily vehicle trip ends, 45 percent, would be genevated by land uses planned
for the Sphere of Influence and Environmental Study Area.
A sample review of 24-hour traffic counts on the more heavily traveled roadways within
Temeeula reveals the following typical loading characteristics:
Traffic volumes begin to build at 5:30 AM and continue to a mid-day peak and then
maintain relative constant plateau throughout the afternoon/early evening until approximately
7:00 PM when volumes begin to steadily decline.
· In all cases the mid-day peak period was higher than the morning peak period.
In most cases the mid-day traffic volumes were comparable to the early evening traffic
volumes.
In some cases the mid-day peak period volumes were even higher than the early evening
peak period.
Evening peak hour traffic volumes (usually occurring between 4:40 and 6:30 PM) often
represent less than eight percent of the total daily link volume.
Morning peak hour volumes (usually occurring between 6:00 and 8:00 AM) often represent
less than six percent of the total daily link volumes.
Based on the results of the roadway segment Level of Service analysis, four roadway corridors
are projected to have traffic operating service levels that fall below the minimum target level,
Level of Service D. The four roadway corridors are identified below.
Winchester Road/State Route 79 (north):
· from Interstate 15 to Ynez Road (LOS E);
· from Margarita Road to Nicolas Road (LOS F); and
23
· from Date Street to Auld Road (LOS F) (within Sphere of Influence).
2. State Route 79 (south):
· from Intentate 15 to Pals Road (LOS F).
Margarita Road:
· from Ove~and Drive to Solana Way (LOS 1=); and
· from Rancho Way to Moraga Road (LOS E).
Murrieta Hot Sprin~s Road:
· from Whitewood Road to Margarita Road (LOS F) (within Environmental Study Area);
and
· from Margarita Road to Date Street {LOS E) (within Environmental Study Area).
It is probable that intersections located along roadways with a projecte~i Level of Service D
would also be pwne to peak period congestion problems. This is particularly a concern where
the intersecting side streets are approaching their capacities (LOS D or worse).
It is therefore likely that peak period intersection service levels at several intersections along
Rancho California Road, as well as other segments of the four roadway corridors identified above
would also fall below the Level of Service D goal.
The projected build-out traffic volumes also indicate that all of the current freeway interchanges,
Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and State Route 79 (south), would need to be
reconstructed to accommodate additional crossing lanes and access ramp improvements.
During the development phase of the Draft Preferred Circulation Plan, it was determined through
traffic modeling analysis technique that more than 40 pement of the projected traffic using
Winchester Road (between Interstate 15 and Murrieta Hot Springs Road) is not generated by
development within the City.
As such, projected volumes on Winchester Road are not measurable reduced when adjacent land
uses within the City are significantly deintensified. The congestion problems projected to occur
along the Winchester Road corridor will require "regional-based" mitigation measures to solve.
Based on standard transit planning guidelines, existing and planned housing densities throughout
most of the City of Temecula are not high enough to support widespread fixed-route transit
service unless the cost of this service is subsidized by outside sourues. Socio--economic factors,
such as automobile ownership by area households, influence the residents willingness to use
public transit.
Community design features can promote transit use (by providing more convenient access to
transit facilities and establishing concentrated commercial and employment centers). Favorable
community design features also facilitate effective route planning.
24
Mitigation Measures
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. (Policy 1.2 - Circulation)
2. Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation
of the City's madway system. (Policy 1.3 - Circulation)
3. Pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit
congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. (Policy 1.4 - Circulation)
Require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed to minimize
traffic conflicts such as those which result from curb parking maneuvers and uncontrolled
access along heavily traveled roadways. (Policy 2.2 - Circulation)
Actively pursue the construction of a new interchange north of Winchester Road and other
recommended system improvements outside its jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the
City of Murrieta, Riverside County, and local developers. Measures should be taken to
preserve anticipated right-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for the
interchange improvement. (Policy 3.2 - Circulation)
Pursue the improvements to existing interohanges within the City and construction of new
overpasses as required to achieve the adopted service level standards. (Policy 3.3 -
Circulation)
Coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency to provide fixed route transit service (bus or
shuttle) along major transportation corridors connecting to regional employment and
commercial areas, airports, health care facilities, and major recreation areas. (Policy 3.4 -
Circulation)
8. Provide for express transit service through implementation of park-and-ride facilities along
regional transportation corridors. (Policy 3.5 - Circulation)
Establish a citywide Circulation System Phasing and Financing Program for the orde~y
implementation of system improvements identified in the Circulation Element. (Policy 4.1 -
Circulation)
10.
Require proper spacing and interconnect traffic signals where feasible to maximize the
smooth progression of traffic flows and to minimize delay and stop and go conditions which
result in higher vehicle emissions and noise levels. (Policy 4.2 - Circulation)
11.
Discourage the provision of on-street (curbside) parking along principal arterial roadways
to minimize traffic conflicts and increase the traffic carrying capacity of these roadways.
(Policy 4.3 - Circulation)
12. Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and
encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient
25
trail systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that
pass through subdivision boundary walls. (Policy 4.4 - Circulation)
13.
Require specific plans and other mixed use projects to provide an internal system of trails
linking schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities within residential areas.
(Policy 4.5 - Circulation)
14.
Provide a comprehensive system of Class I and/or Class II bicycle lanes to meet the needs
of eyelist traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. (Policy 4.6 -
Circulation)
15.
Encourage a mix of uses within a project designed to maximize internal trip making,
maximize the use of parking facilities, and to promote a shift from auto use to pedestrian
and bicycle modes of travel. (Policy 4.7 - Circulation)
16.
Encourage the provision of additional regional public transportation services and support
facilities, including park-and-fide lots near the 1-15 freeway and within village centers.
(Policy 4.8 - Circulation)
17.
Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review
at the Specific Plan or Plot Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval
prior to the issuance of building permits, in accordance with the City's Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance. (Policy 4.9 - Circulation)
18.
Encourage the implementation of employer Travel Demand Management (TDM)
requirements included in the Southern California Air Quality Management District's
Regulation 15 of the Air Quality Management Plan. (Policy 4.10 - Circulation)
19.
The City shall establish a local Congestion Management Plan and monitor the performance
and effectiveness of travel demand management programs within the City. (Policy 4.11 -
Circulation)
20.
Require the consolidation of parking, and related circulation facilities, where appropriate,
to minimize the number of ingress and egress points onto arteriais. (Policy 5.2 -
Circulation)
21. Require project developers to provide adequate on-site parking and/or to contribute to a
program to acquire and maintain off-site facilities. (Policy 5.4 - Circulation)
22. Encourage joint development of parking facilities (e.g. joint-use of parking facilities) where
feasible to maximize the efficient use of available parking. (Policy 5.6 - Circulation)
23.
Traffic signals located along bike routes and where significant pedestrian activity is present
shall be properly designed and periodically adjusted to allow for the safe movement of these
non-motorized modes. (Policy 6.4 - Circulation)
Adequate linkages shall be provided for non-motorized modes, between residential areas and
commercial/employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. (Policy
6.5 - Circulation)
26
25. Dcsignatc primary truck mutes on selected arterial streets to minimize the impacts of truck
traffic on residential areas. (Policy 7.]_ - Circulation)
Fhdh~
The City Council finds that despite the application of substantial mitigation, the General Plan
would generate significant transportation related impacts. Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible additional mitigation sufficient to reduce this impact to a less than
significant level as explained in Section 7.0.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Service
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would adversely impact the RCFD in terms of
pwviding adequate fire service to accommodate future development. The proposed General Plan
alters both the intensity/density and type of land uses in the Study Area. The predominant land
use in the Study Area is currently single-family residential. The proposed General Plan calls for
development of an integrated mix of land uses. Urbanization of the Study Area would result in
different fire protection needs; intensive commercial and industrial uses and higher residential
densities uses require different equipment and personnel levels than rural residential land uses.
In addition to physical dimensions of urbanization, continued development would be accompanied
by population increases. The number of emergency-medical incidents is expected to increase
commensurate with development. The Riverside County Comprehensive Master Plan provides
guidance for the provision of fire protection and emergency services in areas protected by the
RCFD. A major theme of the Plan is the provision of adequate fire protection in response to
increasing urbanization.
The Plan establishes fire and emergency medical service levels for different land use
classifications in its service area. The RCFD will utilize this document in evaluating changing
land use patterns and population increases in the Study Area.
Mitigation Measures
Require new development to address fire and police protection in a pw-active and
preventative way through street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures,
landscaping, lighting and other security features. (Policy 3.3, Growth Management/Public
Facilities Element.)
Coordinate with the County of Riverside in the location and phasing of new fire facilities
or fire stations to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. (Policy 3.4, Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element.)
Strive to provide a minimum response time of between 7 and 10 minutes of an alarm for
90 percent of all fires in accordance with the Riverside County Fire Protection and
Emergency Master Plan. (Policy 3.2, Growth Management/Public Facilitias Element).
27
F~d~g
The City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project by adoption of mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lesson the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
L. Police Service
Potentially Significant Impacts
Continued development in the Study Area would adversely impact the Sheriff's Department as
it would result in increased demand for police services. Residential development in the Study
Area under the proposed General Plan would result in 39,658 dwelling units at build-out within
current City boundaries with a projected population of 112,254 persons. Annexation of properties
within the Sphere of Influence and Environmental Study Area would increase this figure.
Urbanization of the Study Area also increases traffic levels. As noted in the traffic study, traffic
in the City of Temecula would significantly increase with implementation of the General Plan.
It is expected that the number of traffic incidents would also increase, thereby placing additional
demands on the police department.
Mitigation Measures
4. Strive to provide a minimum of one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for police
protection services. (Policy 3.1, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
Promote the establishment of Neighborhood Watch Programs in conjunction with the
Sheriff's Department to increase the surveillance of neighborhoods. (Policy 3.5, Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element.)
6. Promote community awareness regarding drug use and gangs through the Police
Department, Public Service Department, and public service organizations. (Policy 3.7,
Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements.)
Fhdhg
The City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project by adoption of mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lesson the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
M. Hospital Service
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not adversely impact the facilities at
Riverside County General Hospital, Inland Valley Regional Valley Medical Center, Menifee
Valley Medical Center or Sharp Hospital. The current staffing and facilities at these hospitals
are adequate to service additional demands on these facilities due to population growth in the
Study Area.
28
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding
The City Council finds that the project will not produce a significant environmental effect.
N. Paramedic Service
Potentially Significant hnpacts
No significant impacts to paramedic services are anticipated to occur at this time due to the
implementation of the General Plan. However, a study is being conducted by E1VIS to establish
criteria to assess if additional paramedical service is needed in the Study Area.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Finding
The City Council finds that the project will not produce a significant environmental effect.
O. Education
Potentially Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in significant increases in the student
population, and generate additional demands on educational facilities. The proposed General Plan
would result in development of 39,658 residential units within current City boundaries.
The proposed General Plan would result in an estimated 31,726 students within City limits at
build-out. A total of 23,083 students are projected at build-out for the Sphere of Influence, and
5,629 students in the Environmental Study Area.
The Temecula Valley Unified School District has expressed concern over the availability of
adequate school sites to accommodate proposed development as issues. The City is currently
working with developers in order to designate locations of school facilities. So far, eight
elementary sites, two middle school sites, and two high school sites have been tentatively
designated.
With regard to the Sphere of Influence and Study Area, the Murrieta Valley School District has
indicated that the boundaries of Temecula's Environmental Study Area, conflict with their efforts
to redraw District boundaries.
The District is currently trying to define district boundaries so that the cities of Murrieta and
Temecula will be served by one district, Temecula and Murrieta Valley Unified School Districts,
respectively.
29
Provide informalion m time Tcmecula Vall~y Uuiih~l School Distr~ when considering
8eueral pin m,,a,,cl,.a,~t~ or other leEislativ~ laud use policy dm:isions lu allow ~ School
DisWit2 lu pwpsr~ ~,,r{ pwvid~ and as.s~sm~uI of whethc~ adequale sctool facilili~s esjst
in ozd~ to fEffi~.~ the m.~.g of such decisions. (Policy 4J., C-~wth
Promote ,~ eu~oumS~ ~]~ phasing of project develol=nem so lhsz the School District my
phm, finance and consW,..ct school iac. Gilies intended to serve th~ development. (Policy 4.2,
O,,,,,~ Y._~ag~n~c F~ilkies ~l~mem,)
Provide safe ~ev-~,~ for ~noI du.qdren w~Iking. bicyctiu~. or driving U~ and flora school
sites thwu~ cootclinton be~w~n lh~ s~xool district, and city deparlznenls of Plm,,,q,,5
Publi: Wozk~ and tuSine~-inS. (Policy 4.4, C-ro,.~ ManaSe~e, xt/Pub~ic FacUitim
Element.)
10. Pro:sue the esmblisiunent of a wade school. j,,,~inr ~ or ~yesr coll~e in ~meculs ~st
~rr,~,= an emptmsis in the educalion x~lt~ed by th~ caBinciting .bioiw. lmical ,,,~ biomedicat
industries hcszed ht T~neccla. (Policy 4.5, C-wwth Ma.=ag~n~zt/gu~Hc F~ilit~es ElemmxL)
11. The City will require u~w d~wr. lopment m Fay school impact fees Io m{.~mq.,,. impac~ of
n~w d~velopme~t on the s~hool distzicL
The City Council finds that nh...o,~ or algadons hav~ been requjxud in. or ixr. ozporatexi inlo ~x~
project by adoption d mili~tion measures thaz avuid or substantially Irason th~ s{~it~.t
P. Lmrm-y
pote~mny SI~nffic~ut Impsin
hnplem~utmion ef the ln~rl~sed 6,~_,,rd Plan would --L~lt%mntly impLL-t Hbm-y services in the
Study Ax~a. Bxistin~ h'brary Pacililies a~ inad~ua2 m ~ cxi~u~ populations. Additional
gzowth in the Study Azes would w~l-ate addilional demands on lib.~zy facilitie,~ In addition,
the District has iuAicatecl that full fxxndi.5 i3r __s~l_ffional fzcilllies is not available.
3O
Mi~i~tionMm
13. Th~ C'~] of ~ shall esu~ljsh a dcvclopmc~ mitigation ~c~ ~r Hbrary services.
cox~sidcration* mak~ i~;C~I~ addifion~ mid~don smePiqicn~ ~o ~-_'~_- Tt~ impact to a less thau
siBni~ca~ level ~s explained in $ec~ou 7.0.
Q. Wamr
PotenOally ~f~u~nt r,-pam
Implementedon o~ ~ pmposcd Ococral Plan would rcsult in addidoma] dcmmsd of 4J mfiUnn
~slJons p~ d~y;, 27 mffiion ~Jlons 8zne~red by addJ. doosl dw~ih~E.units; taxi dze, ~.;n;~g 18
14.
Rcqu~ Iandowncm m demonsin that an avzilab!e water supply exists or will be pwvidai
to serve Froposed develolm~nt, ~rior to Lugnee of b,-~m-g p~-~i~s. (Policy 6.1, 0mwth
Muagancm/Public Facilities Element.)
15.
17,
Use recl.lm~t water for the i~gntion of parks, Solf ~omes, publicly !=,/~aped amss snd
other fe~sx'ble applications u s~ice I~co~,~ avon.bit from RCWD and EMWD. (Policy
1,4, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
l& TI~ C.~ shall Equi~ n~w dev~lopment to comply with State r~2irmenls fvr water-
et~i~t plumbing/kmtes in ~.
31
Ixoje~'t by adopi/cm of mi~/o~ m~su~s r~st avoid or $u~,~-,HsHy lesson
cm.'iwnmmt-~ et~ea ~s iden~ed in the Fm~ ~
Sewer
Po~-nas)l~ s~snm~mnt
hnplcmc~ta~on of thc proposed ~ plan would rcsult/n ._Hdit/OUal d,.,,..~l on wst~-.vax~r
sczvic~.
Th~ moun, of sewa2e Je~erszed by the 1xoposcd 0cncral Plan wm bsscd on th~ asatmption that
aR/xox~ataly one-thLrd af waier pm-w~/cd is r.,nxmed as sew-aBe- Al~lyin~ ,h~ factor of
wazr dcnmnd fxx th~ Study Area rcaRts in a daily s~waj~ 8~ r~ of al~wx;~-~ly 15
19. Rr. qu/m lxndowne~ xo dcmonsu'ate thsl an a~ailable watcr supply and sewer capac~y
or will be p)to~Eded lo sexwe proposed developmcm prior to Exsuancc of buildin5
Requ/ze buXdown~s, pzior ~ issuauc~ of build(n5 perm/t~ tO demanstra~e limt adequme
wastewater c~pa~ity .lqs to acc-,.,-cdat~ th~ 1xop~ed ctc-~4opmeat (PoLicy 6.2, General
ManaSemenVPeblic Fac~ide~ Blemenn)
21.
2.t Cootlfbnte ~ the w',~lewater d/strict m mske zecl,{~,ed water av~,'l,ht~ for ~r~Eafion
purposes tu ~hc City- (PoIf~y 6.4, C-caera/M,-%e~menVPublic muff/ties Element)
2.3. Ncw scptic sy~ ~h.U bc seiback at lcag S0 feel fzom thc ou~cd~e c~an
~ riparisn canopy fu- w--~hs.)ds ..H at Imsx 100 fcct fzom tixc o,,,~_ edge a( l~c _~H-
dpa~an or oak canopy r-r sccp=~c Film. Oxmuer setbac~ shall be euf~x~ed ,~ F~-vcnt
lau:ral scc~a~c f, v.x ~ bcds into s~ waiex~ i~ nc~,x.F.~xt'y (PoH~ic~ 4.3 ,.a
I.,mxl Use l~.ameut; Policy 1.6, Open Space and Cou~en~on Bleu~nt).
Thc Ctvy Coun~ fmds Xhat clnm4~ or aircraYons have been rcqufa-..d iz~ or Eucoxporaled into thc
pzojea by adq3don of mii/~xt/on rne~strrCs tha~ avoid or substantisIly lessen the
emf, roumcntal dfr~ as !a~HI~j. iu thc Fmat
32
Solid Waste
Development in the Study Area would zsuh in an increase in th~ amount ai solid wa~z
gc~c~az~L Tmplanuu-ddion d ~xe p~,ji~,ed Gen~rai Plan would ~ult in 79,2.99 dwell{rig un~s,
and 6,0L5 ~ vfnon-~stdenxhl dev~1opment (~Sure does not inch~ ~ Spa~Ja~on
d~.o~edon) within the S-,dy at build-out. Tlzz would be an cstim~ed generation af 79~96
tons ofsolkt war~ p~r yem: at bm'Id-our. This figure rapresents a signfficam increase over 1990-
.~_,t,.tiovxl solid w-Z would be generarod by business pazk, cvmmcrcisl and ,~,~,~fiicmr~ uses.
As the ammm~ of wasz gc~n-aZd is clcfxmdaxt on ~c spcd~ type of non-rcsiclcnfial use. b is
(PolL--y 8.1, Growth ~,,--o_cmcm,~biic Fsc~ities Elcan~.)
2~ Piodde for solid was~ z~m~_'on sn~t ~-ycEng wit~;~ th~ City through tlz adoption
~OtLrCC R~uction and Recy~H~E ElcmcnL (Policy 83, C-mwth Mznag~blic
Facililies ~)
The City Coundl finds tha~ changes or aimrations hav~ be~n requi~ h, or incorpora~ into the
project by adoption d n~i~afion inca-urns that avoid or substantially lesson ~hc signi~-~
Votes,my S~,,~n,,,-,,
Impi~mentst~on of ~he pwlxsed G*n_,-ral Pbm would result in ~ dem~ncl :fnr electcity.
As a public u~ty, SCE is wquiztd to provid~ 6]=nicst sm, ic~ to ~,,-~,~odet~ demsnd
resulting finm new development SC~ w~ conswact additional faoiHtics in the $t~iy Arca to
F_x~ation Mensuns
serve toddants and businmset (Policy 9-1, ~ ldansgement/Public Fatalities Elem~t. )
The C~ Council finds that ~J~anges or ~tm'~ttons have been required h, or incorporamd ~ the
proje~ by adopfian of m~tig~on nxessm'~ f~at o, oid t~ subsmn~_o,y ksson the signi~axn
lJ. Nanlral
Potentinky ~_~m~.~ Ixnpacls
phnned development can be adequstety served. The~zfoz~ implementation o~ the C,~nen] Plan
would not si.~m~-tTI qn~a,a ~ uzfiity sacritz.
serv~ zside~ and busizsscs. (Po~ P. 1, Growth Mans~em~./l~lic Facilities Hiemeat. )
The City C~un~ finds that t~,~s ~ralzrations hav~ ~ m~ ~ or h~an~ h~ ~
~j~ by ~p~ of ~on m~ ~sz avoid ~ ~y l~on ~ ~t
~~ ~ ~ id~ ~ ~c F~ ~
Pomufm]ly m_~,~,,t
cavimnmcm.L Specifically, impJcs~ervt~tir~ of Lh~ GcnaJl Ptal:t would Kesult in 8n iIltetlJ~r~On
Of land uscs in desi~na~:f o.~,.~ommity ansas. x ~-',4 use in~m'i~cz~an tins ~ poxcat/z/alter !c
34
1.1. Communi~ D~i~a
2. Dsvslop design stsndazds to e~asac~ the visual chs~c~nr of commemial c~z=s that
locamd ad.iacsm m 1-15. (Policy 1-4, Community Desifp2 El~n~.m. )
3. F_smblBh and consLslsntly apply d~sign standan:Is and g~id~nes
nonz~sidsmial clsvslopm~nt. (Policy 2.1, Community Dssign
5. Provide d~velopmem mandazds m ensm hi~ quality d~ that is well integrated with
the inf'nnlzucmsz ~nd cin~nstlnn systems. (Policy 2.3, CommuniW Design SlemimL)
F~alms i~n'bls densip standshis f~r c~mmc~mial d~velopme~t that ~nh~nc~s th~ sp~isl
tcl~tity and visual ~ of th~ ~mm~'isl d~elopm~nL (Poli~ 24, Conmzunit~
Dssi~n E!sm~nz. )
hnpwva the sp~ of zzi~hborhuod areas anmt the "ed~s" berween neighborhoods
thr~ l.nH.rmpirmg, location of opea space: buff=as. and sp6cial Iandscs~.s fas.~. (Polic3,
3.1, Cnmm,mity D~sign F/cmm=sI.)
Prse. n,e the ~ ..a chszac~r of ~esidential aevelnpme~t by crestin5 a lnnsition in
cle~iliss bstw~n lower d~nsity or rural a~sss, snd hi~sr clz~sity d~velopm~nt (Policy
Formuin: a compmhemtvs su~sczt~ pmgr~-m nbr the major streets in the City, including
unffied 1..H~api,5 li~ti~5 paving patrons and other p,lblic im.umvenn~nls. (Policy 4.2.
Commmli~y Design B~uai.)
10. Work with the County of Rivaside to pm~t the h,'n~de areas located west of the City..
(Polic7 s.1, Con~,-,~ DesiSn EI~m~nt)
1L Promote the dc-ve/_opment of tam-ou~s on scenic m.__,ts: (Policy 52., C~-munity Dc~i~
12. l~quize the r~e~-tation of graded slop aresas. (PoIL'y 53, n~,,-~,~nity Design
iS. Bncom-~e th~ mldeitzotmding of miIiti~s slong art6fial roads, wh~w feasible, (Poli~
C~wih lV,,,_auag~n~t/Public Facilities ~emem.)
project by nd~fion of mfii~sff-.~ messurns fh~r nvoid or suhs~ndsUy lesson the si~
mvironmcnUd c-ffc~ as identffied in the Fhal ~
r,-plem-w.tion of lhe (3eneTal PMn wo-ad ~sul~ in intemfficatiun of both da3nim,¢ and nightlime
1~ffht SO1KCeS. AS |&l:ld USeS ~ more I~U sourues would be hlmduced imo the local
envfro.-,~L Ocncrally, the =ddidoual light som'cc~ would bc cons~ on an ind~du~l
pmjec~ by project basis, howard, due to t. hc sc~Li,,ity of ~c Palomxr Obsc'xu,r,ry, tl~
cumul~vc [ncmssc in light sources is c:omt[dcmd a poten~l .t~-~.t impel
poHcim ~ moxdieation between r~c Cry and SEn Diego County and Palomar O~
p~sonnel,
ThmuSh impi--~fion of the General Plan Sosls and policies, the sit~ifnnt *,-pact sssociatmi
with h~h'--~6~dOn Of land uscs can bc mitigated to a nan-siSnificam level
1WniSatbn Messares
Coo~.usIe wfdx the Coumy of Riverside and CAlifornia
]=Pn"nm~C PnEr~8~ ID ~l=r~ pEe~XVat~on pIDC~hlI~ for cr~l'k
City dmlopment mew p_~___. (PoEc7 9.1, OFm Spa~e/Conser~fion Ele, mem.)
Z
Amend approp~u~ ozd~n.,,r~ to C,~Lrol sources of li~bl ,h.T advcmcly aftca Palomar
Obse~vaU~. (Implcmcnta~o- Prom Open ~ Conservation Elemem, Omr~vation
Dad~ Sl~s.)
3. Psnidpate in Paloff Obs~rva~ry% a.r~- sky consenrich rams. (Policy 9.2, Open
Sl~c/Com Bl~nem~ )
4. r-;mq~lightJgl=~o]lulic~thx~ut~desi~nst.~a.tds~3ro.~norH~xdngandthc~=c~w
36
Developmcm assoda~ with implementsdon of the G-enend Plan would advertely impa~
,malscovered aw. ixa~Io~ical and pal~m~ini-Sic zsom in thc City. Und~vdoped
conlain sensitiv~ ardmswlo~sl resources ~ scstmx~d thx~n~hout th~ City. Addilionaly, the
nurth~n portion af th~ Study Ansa and th~ ~ adjstz~ {o the s~,.e-~..tern City limiis ax~
identified as areas of s~esixivity tbv axcha~lo~icsl resou~es. Wllh xTdard In paleomolo~ic
n~ouzccs ~cvc~pmcm ~ ~t c~m~ct m ~npa~ s~n~can~ ~a-t~oe~a~l~
x~sou~'-~_, in axeIs ~ =s low pot2liaL 1L~__-~ alluvium along th~ outer fa-in~s of sl~sm
the depth of e~zva~, cle~gopme~ in thee az~s ~ould txsibly c~us~ imt~I to
non-zen~wablc psleomolo~i~ rmom~s.
Ar~as msrk__ed as higlly se~itive axe aonsid~i'ed vn-y fllssiliferous. DevelopUleut ~ lhe axeas
could s~nfficsmly impaa paleontolo~ic ~souw, es.
The Open Space Element of~he General Plan _,ymt.ir~ policies ~hal fx~ns on the p~ese~,~uion of
adnu~l and paleon~o~ic x~so~rc~s. lmplem~nmiion of the Fop~-d Oenewal Plan would
adve~dy impa~oulmral and p,|~',na~lol~n:sour~s u f~ ~ d~velol~u~ c~awhaeologi~l
and psleontolo~icsl sensitive sx~ss. The pz~ Gene~l Plan esmblishes poHcles to p~_
thes~ impor~ ~sour~s.
MlllSallon Measez~
L Maimminaninventaryofa~ssofs~nsidv~ardn~lo~icl[/palea~Io~i~alsemitiviWh~
pT,enT,g sze~ (Poll~y ~1, Open
Rsquiz~ sites l~oposed for fi.~re d~v~lo~n~nt to be evaluated fur archeoloEical and
paleonloloSical zesom'ces, in accordance with the pmcedm-es ~smbl~sh~l in a M~morandum
of Agreemere with ~ Bast~rn Information Center at UC Pa?enicIc. ('Polloy ~.2, Open
Space/Conse~nfion Element. )
Requize sits pmpesd fnr funIr~ development tl~ identified in rids F..I~n~nt ss be~ of
hi~ix or ,mdsle-m~,ed psl,~onwlo~ical senslllvlty tmxie~nnined paleomolo~ical sens~
U3 l~ ~valua~d by a qunl{~ed venebra~ paleonIolo~ist. (Policy 6.3, Open
Spacs/Conssrntion ElemenL )
Requ~ ~ ~,,~.i-i~5 si~m~-t archaeolo~ical or paleontolo~icsl resomces to ehher
develo[m~eslL (Policy 6.4~ Opea Space/Cn-e~rvmion HlesnenL)
37
n~..~ssary by ~. eerci~d srchseolotJist or paleontologist- (PolL-7 6.5, Open
Space/Conseival/on ~ )
Pot~x~lnily .~l,o.m~t Impsc~
The City is cun~.ly ddt~ie~ in providin8 adequa~ usabl~ Faztda~ Th~ City ne~s
appro,~uately 1~3 aaes of pszldand to me~t i~s ~trrent ne~s. Therefore, zny hcreas~ in
dsvelopment would f~sher the imrkland defivit, thus Esultin~ in a si~ficant impsa.
Specifically, imp1e~0e,~erm of the prolx~ed General Plan would resul~ in populmion incr~ses
which, ill turn, world g~nerato additional alemend for parldm2d. The population a~ build-out
wanslates into a ~ fur a~y 558 ac~s of pafidand, us/rig the City's parlds~d suugszd.
Usin~ ~h~ demlancl bssed fl~s)r of 6.8 ac~s pe~ 1,000 insons, the City would need to provide
758.8 ac~s d pszkland to znecl this demand.
Ultim~ly, the goals af the Ivlmst~r Plan is to mint th~ parklead densrid for th~ Chy of Tama=ula
by 2012. Themb~ t2am, L.gh implementation of the General Plen, imp~,-~ ssso~iamd with
intensi~ation of dr~,.k.v.~.~t would bc ~t,--.-.{ to a L-re2 d non-si~ificsnc~.
Tho'Parks and Re_~_~on Master Plan inclades a Bike Roum end Recreation Tr.a~ Plan. The
Mssmr Plan cells far the pmparmbn af a subseque~ Msslar Recreaxioa Trails Plan ~o be
trmpsxed th~ would re[he rome alj!,~,,,,ms, pt-m, ide design st.~-_._dards and establ/sh
fmplfrnenmtlon me~hsm~...................~mg Ill acl~v'~ a co~lplabf-n~lve SyS'fr.w, of Waijs wit]~ill the {~ty. ShllilK!'
population n~mlt h sj_m~m~--..~ impms. However, l!L,~ugh/mpl~nentation of th~ General Pt~n.
~he Parks Msste~ Plan snd Trails Mss~ Plsn; impacts are redac~l to s kss th,n s~mcant level.
Apply rt~ politics .ha standsrds c~n~-~ in the C. ity's Pail: and Rearmfrom Masmr Phm
to acquire sufficient psrkiand and recz:slion facilities to support new developmeaL (Policy
1.I, Op:n ~t~n
Requin~ the dedication of pa~asi and develo~a~-n~ of facilities
Parks znd Recremion Mss~r Pls~ C2olicy 1.z, Open SpaceJC~servarton
38
Reqv. iz developus af residential l:n'oje~'m S~cazer ,~.- fifty dwelling unim to dealloam land
based ~ rlme ps~ aa~ snncl~ of five (~ acres of usable parEand to one thorsand (1,000)
pop,,m,,,~,m, ar the 9~ of in Heu ~ in --,~rdam~ with the p,,rt-~ and
1Viesrex Plan. (Poli~y L3, OlMm Spa~ConservsZion Element-)
Recz~:ion Mm=~t~r Plan. ~oIicy 1.4, OpeD Spmc:~/C~n~emlnra.~o: lq~:Et.)
6. COOt'dillSI~ ]O11~ ~ pSZk sad open space pl.nn~n_e with Riverside Colrely and the City
of Mtu, ri~ta (Polt~y 1.9, Open Sps~/Consa'va~ion
7. lVl~rl-w-,,, pedestrian ~.M bbycl~ a__,y>~_ to --k't;nE ud now par~s as an al~a~ive to
atm:,~uobile acc~s. (Policy 1,10, Open Spa~e/Conserv~on Element)
Consider tl~ po~ntisI fDr joint recm*~!onsl us~ of new or nl~ancled s~imol and ~
fadlilies wh:n pbr..~.~ snch f,,~Hti~s, (Policy 1.10, Open Spa~JConservation Element)
10. Nolotiara land deeds as nc~,,msav] to implsme, nz the dty-~ tra~ system. (9olicy 8.2,
Open SFacs/Conservazion h'rbnnent )
1I. Reqni~ proposed ctenlopm~t to provide nail c, onnec~ions to tho ~ity-wid~ wail syst~ as
de, freed by the psrlm and R~t~on Mssmr Plan snd fun~ Masmr Plan at ~ (Policy
8.:t, Open SpacrdCcmscrvmion F_,l~n=nr,)
Pots,,e,,fiy SL~,,m,~-t k-p.*m
39
Imp~ m fi~ City
In 1~S, ~ revenues az~ projected at S2.51 mi,ion and tccun'~ cams m= pmjcc~t ,r
$L97 mtlt~nn. This z~.tlts in a positive fiscjd i~.pec~ of aboul 1r~38.7 ll~oumm{L
pzojc~ecl io im~s~ ~t a/:aster ram tbs. n recurring costs rc~ti~ in a ~ surplgs-.-$3.l.2
No miziSstion messt~s sm required.
Th~ ~ eou~,l fl~ that tI~ ~u~ ~e~ not r~gnt an envL~nme~;ai ~-~ No CEO. A
finding ~ ~equiz~t
3.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As explained in Chapter 2.0, the impacts listed below were found to be significant after
mitigation, and therefore, as unavoidable, significant impacts. These effects require a statement
of overriding considerations to support adoption of the General Plan and are provided in Section
5.0.
3.1 AIR QUALITY
The project will result in significant regional air quality impacts after mitigation. Growth in
population and employment naturally increases the emission burden of the area and feasible off-
sets are minimal at this time. Significant air pollution emissions will result from resident and
non-resident mobile sources. However, actions identified by the SCAQMD for local government
implementation would substantially reduce mobile source emissions associated with the General
Plan.
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Implementation of the General Plan would result in substantial losses in the acreages and
numbers of native plant and animal communities. The impacts to sensitive communities and
species are significant. While the mitigation measures lessen the magnitude of these impacts,
they are still considered significant.
3.3 NOISE
Changes in noise levels from existing to General Plan build-out conditions relate to increases in
traffic volumes on roadways that are to be developed in the future along with the approved land
uses in the City's Sphere of Influence. The cumulative traffic volumes would increase noise in
sensitive areas of the City and result in significant impacts. However, the discussed mitigation
measures derived from the General Plan Noise Element will help mitigate these significant
impacts.
3.4 AGRICULTURE
The General Plan will result in the potential loss of 842 acres of Prime Agricultural lands and
2,633 acres of Agriculture Preserves. This loss results in a significant and unavoidable impact
which cannot be mitigated. However, implementation of several General Plan policies may help
to mitigate impacts associated with urban/agriculture land use conflicts and buffers.
3.5 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The transportation/access impacts associated with the proposed General Plan will be significant,
even with implementation of the roadway and transit improvements identified in the Circulation
Element and the proposed C~neral Plan policies.
41
The following four major roadway corridors are projected to have traffic operating service levels
that fall below the minimum target level, Level of Service D, and therefore remain significant
impacts.
Winchester Road/State Route 79 (north):
· from Interstate 15 to Ynez Road (LOS E);
· from Margarita Road to Nicolas Road (LOS F); and
· from Date Street to Auld Road (LOS F) (within Sphere of Influence).
2. State Route 79 (south):
· from Interstate 15 to Pala Road (LOS F).
Margarita Road:
· from Overland Drive to Solana Way (LOS F); and
· from Raneho Way to Moraga Road (LOS E).
Murrieta Hot Spring Road:
from Whitewood Road to Margarita Road (LOS F) (within Environmental Study Area);
and
· from Margarita Road to Date Street (LOS E) (within Environmental Study Area).
3.6 LIBRARY
The proposed General Plan contains policies designed to mitigate impacts on library facilities.
However, due to the current inadequacies of library facilities in the Study Area, implementation
of the proposed General Plan is a significant impact.
42
4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO TIlE PRO.YECT
The following sections identify the various alternatives considered in the EIR and explain the
reasons these alternatives are infeasible.
Alternative One: No Project Alternative
Implementation of this alternative assumes that no development would occur and therefore, the
community would remain as it currently exists. The Study Area is predominantly single family
residential, with commercial development that serves as a regional base for the area. Because
the City recently incorporated, no General Plan has been adopted and land use decisions would
continue to be made based on the County's designations for the approved planned communities
or specific plans.
The No Project Alternative, although it would not significantly alter the environment from what
currently exists, would not achieve the project objectives which is the City's vision outlined at
the beginning of the EIR. The adoption of the No Project Alternative would leave this area, or
other areas in the region, open for future growth which may not be comparable in quality with
the development under the proposed General Plan, Hence, if the development did not occur in
Temecula it would probably occur elsewhere in the region. Development in other areas could
result in a greater impact on the environment.
The No Project Alternative would represent an increased level of impact for some issues when
compared to the proposed General Plan. However, overall the level of impact under existing
conditions is less than significant, with the exception of Parks and Recreation and Traffic
impacts.
The No Project Alternative fails to accomplish the project objectives the City's vision and has
other potential environmental impacts resulting from its implementation. The No Project
Alternative, due to these reasons, is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed
General Plan.
F~d~
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the
project and rejects the No Project Alternative for the following reasons:
Mitigation measures incorporated into the project have substantially reduced the project's
environmental effects. The enforcement of the mitigation measures identified for the project
reduces the mitigating benefits of the No Project Altemative.
The No Project Alternative would mean that the project's objectives would not be achieved.
Positive fiscal impacts, especially those associated with commercial land use provided under
the Plan would not occur. Also, increased housing and employment opportunities provided
under the Plan would not occur. In addition, recreational opportunities would be
unavailable for public use.
43
The No Project Alternative fails to accomplish the project objectives the City's goals and
objectives and has other potential environmental impacts resulting from its implementation.
The No Project Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Preferred
Alternative.
Alternative Two: Existim~ Trends
Alternative Two essentially includes development under the existing Specific Plan and Planned
Community guidelines. This alternative was named "Existing Trend" because of the nature of
the development expected to occur over the next 50 years under the curr~nt land use regulations.
Development under this alternative would result in a further intensification of commercial and
industrial uses in the area generally west of 1-15, while all residential development would occur
cast of 1-15.
Implementation of Alternative Two would result in a slight deercase in residential development
and a similar amount of non-residential development than the proposed Gcncral Plan. This
Alternative would result in an increase of environmental impacts related to traffic and biology
as compared to the proposed G-encral Plan. This Altcrnativc involves fcwcr benefits to
agriculture, parkland and open space, air quality and noise than thc proposed General Plan. This
Alternative is not considered cnvironmcntally supcrior becansc of its greater impact in some issue
areas, as well as its inability to meet the project objectives.
F~d~gs
The City Council finds that the Existing Trends Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than
the project and rejects the Existing Trends Alternative for the following reasons:
Mitigation measures incorporated into the project have substantially reduced the project's
environmental effects. The enforcement of the mitigation measures identified for the project
reduces the mitigating benefits of the Existing Trends Alternative.
This Alternative involves fewer benefits to agriculture, parkland, open space, air quality and
noise than the Preferred Alternative. This Alternative is not considered environmentally
superior because of its greamr impact in some issue areas as well as its inability to meet the
project objectives.
Alternative Three: Conservation
Under the Conservation Alternative, a Temccula Conservation Zone and a Greenbelt Agreement
with the County of Riverside and possibly with the City of Murrieta would be implemented. The
Temecula Conservation Area would cover areas within the Sphere of Influence and which is
anticipated to be annexed by the City in the future. The Greenbelt Agreement would apply to
open space lands located in the Sphere of Influence and Environmental Study Area currently in
unincorporated territory. Within the Temecula Conservation Zone, a Resource Management Plan
would be implemented with the following major policies:
The loss of sensitive plant communities (coastal sage scrub, riparian forest, and oak
woodland) in the Study Area would be compensated by a minimum of a 1:1 replacement
of these habitats in the Temecula Conservation Area.
44
2. Intensive development would be encouraged in the Study Area south of the Temecuta
Conservation Area, for example through the use of development credits.
Management of the fragmented sensitive plant communities would include the establishment
of corridors linking the coastal sage scrub and riparian woodland communities within the
Conservation Zone and with these plant communities to the east, noah, and west of the
Study Area.
Development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Temecula Creek and the mountain
lion movement corridor along the Santa Margarita River channel and Pechanga Creek, would be
restricted.
Alternative Three represents a significant change in planning direction from Riverside County's
current and past policies. While it may be theoretically possible to reverse these entitlements,
this scenario would be prohibitively expensive. Development of greenbelts and conservation
areas am most feasible where the targeted area has yet to be impacted by development pressures.
In these circumstances, nearby cities and the county can establish agreements to limit
development through land use regulation. In this instance, land use controls would not be
sufficient to accomplish this goal. The presence of the land use entitlemerits makes this approach
economically infeasible.
Overall, this Alternative does preserve biological and open space resources, however, ignores the
need for a balanced community with village centers, civic and cultural centers and strong identity.
It is also not consistent with existing land use panems for the County areas and does not enhance
the local economy or the City's economic viability. The loss of future potential developments
in the area would limit the City's ability to provide services and infrastructure to an area already
under strain. Also, without the limited development proposed in the Preferred Alternative, the
City would contribute only housing to an already housing rich sub-region and conflict with
Southern California Association of Government goals for the area. In conclusion, due to the
economic infeasibility as well as loss of balanced land uses and inconsistency with regional plans,
Alternative Three is not desirable for the Temecula General Plan and is therefore rejected."
F~dh~
The City Council finds that the Conservation Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the
project and rejects the Conservation Alternative for the following reasons:
1. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project have substantially reduced the project's
environmental effects.
The areas identified for conservation buffers already have received numerous development
entitlemerits. Establishing open space agreements in such circumstances would be
prohibitively expensive. This alternative is infeasible because of these existing entitlemerits.
45
$.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council finds that the specific positive environmental impacts discussed below outweigh
significant impacts associated with implementation of the C~neral Plan, and justify approval of
the General Plan.
POPULATION/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT
At buildout, a total of 39, 658 dwelling units are projected for the City resulting in a 28,190 unit
net increase from existing conditions. This residential development offers a variety of housing
types and recreational opportunities and is therefore a positive impact.
Implementation of the General Plan would result in 118,900 additional employment opportunities
and represents a positive impact. Specifically the City area would generate 63,400 jobs; the
Sphere of Influence, 47,500; and the Environmental Study Area, 8,000. These additional
opportunities result in an improved balance between jobs and employment.
A mix of employment and housing opportunities is a major focus of the proposed General Plan.
Policies contained in the Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, and Air Quality Element
reflect this focus and it is anticipated the General Plan will encourage a stronger jobs/housing
balance.
5.2 FISCAL IMPACT
In 1995, recurring revenues associated with the General Plan are projected at $2.51 million and
recurring costs are projected at $1.97 million resulting in a positive fiscal impact of
approximately $538.7 thousand.
With the addition of more commercial land uses by the year 2,000, recurring revenues are
projected to increase at a faster rate than recurring costs resulting in a larger surplus--S3.12
million. This trend continues through 2005, with a positive impact projected at $5.85 million;
and at build out, with a positive fiscal impact of $9.58 million.
The positive fiscal impacts associated with commercial land use, in particular retail land use
identified in the Land Use Plan, include sales and use tax revenues projected conservatively.
However, the market may or may not necessarily support this level of retail development. Even
without the projected sales and use tax revenues, the fiscal impact at build out would be positive
under this scenario.
5.3 QUALITY OF LIFE
The benefits of the project are delineated in the General Plan's vision and objectives. The
General Plan expresses a vision of the future of the City and prescribes techniques to manage
growth and development so that the vision can be achieved. The vision embodies an active
approach to shaping the dynamics of change. The challenge of the General Plan is to establish
clear and sustainable direction. General plans frequently fail in this respect because of their
singularly physical orientation, and their complexity and detachment from the real process of
46
decision making. This Vision Statement is intended to document the rationale for the new City's
General Plan in order to facilitate its implementation.
Given this planning context, a statement of the most important dimensions of community
character to be preserved or achieved as development occurs is essential. That is the community
vision. The purpose of this Vision Statement is to declare a commitment to a quality of living
that substantially exceeds what would otherwise occur. The Vision Statement will enable future
community leadera and citizens to recall and endorse the meaning of the Plan and maintain
diligence in eartying out its intent.
The thrust of the Vision Statement draws upon the Mission Statement adopted by the City
Council prior to preparation of the General Plan. This Mission Statement, as follows below,
established a positive framework for the General Plan.
The mission of the City of Temecula is to maintain a safe, clean, healthy and orderly
community; balance the utilization of open space, parks, trail facilities, quality jobs, public
transportation, diverse housing and adequate infrastructure; and to enhance and revitalize
historic areas.
The City will encourage programs for all age groups, utilize its human resources, preserve
its natural resources while stimulating technology, promoting commerce and utilizing sound
fiscal policy.
It is the City Council's resolve that this mission will instill a sense of pride and
accomplishment in its citizens and that the City will be known as a progressive, innovative,
balanced and environmentally sensitive community.
The Vision for Temecula is intended to represent the values of the community that will contribute
to Temecula's future image and physical character. The concepts and values presented within
this Vision Statement are the foundation for the goals and policies of the General Plan elements.
The complete Vision Statement is included in Volume II, the General Plan Appendices. The key
concepts of the Vision for Temecula are summarized below.
· A Balance of Residential, Commercial and Industrial Opportunities;
· The concentration of retail and business development within Village Centers;
A convenient and effective transportation system which includes vehicular circulation,
transit, bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel;
· An outstanding open space and parks system;
A community dedicated to preserving family values, neighborhood conservation and public
safety;
· Opportunities for community activities for a wide array of interests, ages and lifestyles;
· Preservation and enhancement of historical and cultural resources within the community;
47
· Assurances that adequate public scrvices are provided concurrently with development.
Capitalize on the eommunity's greatest asset, its people, by encouraging community
involvement and community responsibility.
The City Council finds that, to the extent that any impacts attributed to the project remaha
unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social, economic and other
considerations set forth heroin. The Council finds that the specific social, economic and other
benefits of the project outweigh the unmitigated impacts, and justify approval of the project.
48
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
General Plan Update/Environmental Impact Report
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
January 25, 1993
Prepared for.'
The City of Temecula
Prepared by.'
The Planning Center
DRAFT
CITY OF TE1VIECULA Environmental Impact Report
Table of Contents
Section
1.0
MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE .................. 1
1.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ........................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................... I
ROLE/RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES .......................... 3
2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .................................. 3
2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES .......................... 3
2.3 PROGRAM OPERATIONS ........................................ 3
3.0
MEASURES TO BE MONITORED ..................................... 4
3.1 GEOLOGY & SEISIvfiC HAZARDS .................................. 4
3.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................. 5
3.3 HYDROLOGY ................................................ 7
3.4 BIOLOGY .................................................... 8
3.5 NOISE ...................................................... 9
3.6 LAND USE/GENERAL PLAN/ZONING .............................. 11
3.7 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ................................... 12
3.8 RISK OF UPSET .............................................. 12
3.9 POPULATION/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT ............................ 13
3.10 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ................................ 13
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES .................................... 15
3.12 AESTHETICS ................................................ 18
3.13 LIGHT AND GLARE ........................................... 19
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................... 19
3.15 PARKS/RECREATION/OPEN SPACE ................................ 20
3.16 FISCAL IMPACTS ............................................ 21
4.0
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX ................................ 22
4.1 MATRIX .................................................... 22
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page i
DRAFT
CITY OF TE1VIECULA Environmental Impact Report
1.0 MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
1.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
Assembly Bill 3180x re, quire public agcncies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs for
all projects for which an cnvimnmcntal impact report or "mitigated" ncgativc declaration has bccn
prepared. This ncw law is intended to ensure the implcmcntation of all mitigation measures adopted
through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
The following is ~e full text of ~e legislation:
Section 1. Section 21081.6 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 21081.6. When
making findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative
declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21061, the public agency shall
adopt a reporting or monitoring pwgram for the changes to the pwject which it has adopted or
made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The reporting of monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during
project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the
project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by
the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and
submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
Section 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the
California Constitution because of the local agency or school district has the authority to levy
service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated
by this act.
This legislation does not convey any new powers to public agencies. The conditions and changes imposed
on projects through CEQA have always been enforced through the previously existing police powers of
the agency. This is the same with the implementation of AB 3180.
No regulations or guidelines concerning the implementation of AB 3180 have been issued by the state and
numerous interpretations of its requirements are possible. The program defined in this document is
intended to satisfy the spirit of the new law, and is based on significant research of ongoing monitoring
programs throughout the state.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRlt'TION
The Vision Statement of the General Plan expresses community values that will contribute to the future
image and physical character of Temecula. These concepts and values provided the overall direction for
the preparation of the Goals and Policies that are central to each of the General Plan Elements. As such,
these concepts and values represent the project objectives. The following represents a summary of the
key concepts of the Community Vision for the City of Temecula:
· A balance of residential, commercial and industrial opportunities
~ Codi~ed as Public Resources Code 21081.6.
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 1
DRAFT
CITY OF TEIVIECULA Environmental Impact Report
Retail and business development within multiple commemial centers-not necessarily within a
single Central Business District.
A convenient and cffective transportation system which includes vehicular circulation, air, rail,
bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel.
· An outstanding open space and parks system;
· A community dedicated to preserving family values, neighborhood conservation and public safety.
· Opportunities for community activities for a wide array of interests, ages and lifestyles.
· Preservation and enhancement of historical and cultural resources within the community.
Assurances that adequate public services are provided concurrently with development.
The General Plan objectives are presented so that the environmental analysis will consider and mitigate
potential impacts in a manner consistent with the City's objectives. Also, the statement of objectives
provides justification for the significance of net impacts in consideration of overall benefits.
THE PLANNING CENTER o January 18, 1993 Page 2
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
2.0 ROLE/RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES
2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Mitigation Monitoring Program 0MMP) for the proposed General Plan will be in place through all
phases of implementation of the plan. The City of Temecula will have the primary enforcement role for
the mitigation measures which are the responsibility of the City of Temecula to implement. This includes
mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. The Planning Director of the City of Temecula may
delegate individual enforcement tasks to various City departments.
The Environmental Monitor (EM) will be responsible for the operation of the Monitoring Program. The
EM is responsible for managing the technical advisors and coordinating monitoring activities with City
staff and for directing the preparation of Compliance Reports and filing of same with the City. EM is also
responsible for coordinating the efforts of various City ~eviews and maintaining project files.
Monitorim~ Team
The following briefly outlines the key positions in the program and their respective functions:
Environmental Monitor: Principal manager of monitoring program (City Planning Direcu~r).
Technical Advisors:
Experts in various fields to assist EM in monitoring effort. This team
includes: Project Archaeologist, Project Geotechnical Engineer, etc.
2.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The Environmental Monitor (EM) manages the efforts of all members of the Monitoring team and
coordinates these efforts with key City staff. Others require the help of technical advisor or consultation
with City staff. In all cases, it is the EM's responsibility to inform all parties of the proper timing and
completion of reports.
It is the intent of this program for the City to oversee the monitoring and be responsible for submitting
a quarterly mitigation monitorrig report. It is the intent of this program to use existing City review
procedures and inspectors to the extent possible and without adding signi~can~y to the paperwork
generated by City staff.
The following section provides a list of all the Mitigation Measures and finally a matrix that shows the
timing and staff responsibilities for all mitigation measures adopted for the project.
2.3 PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix.
During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of
mitigation measures, particularly in the case of a project similar to a General Plan with a multi-year
phasing program. The Planning Director CEM) of the City, with advise of staff or another City
Department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed, If mitigation
measures are refined, the change will be documented by the Planning Director and the appropriate design,
construction, or operations personnel shall be notified of the refined requirements.
THE PLANNING CEN'I-I~ · January 18, 1993 Page 3
DRAFT
CITY OF TE1VIECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.0 MEASURES TO BE MONITORED
The following text includes a summary of mitigation measures for the General Plan. The mitigation
requirements am based on the analysis contained in the Temecula General Plan Final EIR. The Temcula
General Plan EIr was a program level EIR and therefore, contains several types of mitigaton varying from
long range goals to area specific. Because of the conceptual plan-level nature of the project, some of the
mitigation measures involve the requirement for further study. Final determination of the measures
necessary to mitigate construction impacts can only be made when an applicant submits the details plans
associated with a development project.
Consequently, for those mitigation measures that would occur during project construct/on and/or
operations, this program-level monitoring plan consists of carrying forward ~e measures to the project-
level of CEQA compliance for finalization and implementation.
3.1 GEOLOGY & SEISMIC HAZARDS
3.1.1
Require review of soil and geologic conditions to determine stability prior to project appwval.
In areas that may have significant geologic constraints, require analysis by a Registered
Geotechnical Engineer. (Policy 1.1, Public Safety Element.)
3.1.2
Require mitigation of potential adveme impacts of geologic and seismic hazards, including
ground surface rupture and liquefaction, at the project level. (Policy 1.2, Public Safety Element.)
3.1.3
Monitor hazardous buildings in Old Town and work with property owners to reinedlate these
buildings to improve structural integrity. (Policy 1.3, Public Safety Element.)
3.1.4
Require all new development to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code seismic
design standards. (Policy 1.4, Public Safety Element.)
3.1.5
Monitor the potential for seismic events and other geologic activity with the County of Riverside
and California Division of Mines and Geology. (Policy 1.5, Public Safety Element.)
3.1.6
Establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides.
(Policy 1.6, Public Safety Element.)
3.1.7
Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park system. (Policy
5.12, Open Spaco/Conservation Element.)
3.1.8
In accordance with See. 2621.9 of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972, the City
shall require that any person who is acting as an agent for a seller of real property which is
located within a delineated special studies zone, or the seller if he is acting without an agent,
shali disclose to any prospective purchaser (including future purchasers,) that the property is
located within a special studies zone.
3.1.9
No structures designed for human occupancy (2,000 person hours per year) shall be constructed
on the trace of an active fault. Unless proven otherwise, the area within 50 feet of an active
fault is presumed to be underlain by active branches of the fault.
THE PLANNING CENI'H.R · January 18, 1993 Pag= 4
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.23
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.10
3.2.11
3.2.12
3.2.13
Implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce motor vehicle trill,
including walking, bicycling, ridesharing, local transit, staggered work schedules and
tclcconununications. (Policy 2.1, Air)
Maintain an orde~y flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation
systems management techniques. (Policy 2.2, Air)
Pursue development of a public transit system including local shuffle and bus mutes, and bicycle
and pedestrian trails that am linked to regional light rail. (Policy 2.3, Air)
Promote alternatives to motorized transportation by establishing a convenient and efficient
system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. (Policy 2.4, Air)
Adopt a Trip Reduction Ordinance CrRO) that requires the preparation of trip reduction plans
for new and existing office, commercial and industrial facilities. (implementation Program, Air)
Promote the use of alternative work weeks and flextime among employers. (implementation
Program, Air)
Encourage the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMA) for large
companies and/or groups of companies. Provide potential TMA's with administrative guidelines
and technical assistance, where feasible. (implementation Program, Air)
Pwmote the development of compatible mixed use projects that promotes and enhances the
village concept, facilitates the efficient use of public facilities, and supports alternative Wansit
options. (Policy 1.6, Housing)
Attract and retain industry that complements Temecula's character and takes advantage of
Temecuh's locational advantage for goods movement and cooperate mobility. (Policy 1.1,
Economic Development)
Provide industrial land uses which facilitate a variety of user types, including manufacturing
space, storage and distribution, bacl~-of~ce space, and research and development space. (Policy
2.1. Economic Development)
Establishment of a diverse education and training and job placement system which will develop
and maintain a high quality work force in Temeeula. (Goal 4, Economic Development)
Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and
encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail
systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass
through subdivision boundary walls. (Policy 4.4, Circulation)
Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other
significant vegetation on-site into the site and landscape design for proposed projects. (Policy
3.4, Open Spaca/Conservation)
THE PLANNING CI~'iI:,R · January 18, 1993 Page 5
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.2.14
3.2.15
3.2.16
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993
Promote the use of alternative clean fueled vehicles for personal and business use. (Policy 2.5,
Air Quality)
Short-Term Mitigation Strategies
The following strategies should be incorporated into standard conditions of approval for roadway
and development projects. Steps should be taken to miulmizc fugitive dust during grading and
construction activities. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations must
be followed to reduce visible dust in the air and on surface roadways for all development
projects and roadways improvements. Additionally, the following methods should be applied
to construction sims:
· Develop a watering program to wet down open graded surfaces to form a wind-
resistant temporary crust. The program should include control of wind-blown dust on
site access roadways.
Water the site and spray construction equipment in the morning and the even/ng.
· Use soil binders to stabilize loose soil.
Plant ground covers and pave roadways as early as possible in the construction
proeess.
Any earth being transported should be covered and the wheels and lower portions of
transport trucks will be sprayed with water before they leave the construction area.
In addition to fugitive dust control, any effor~ to mitigate mobile souroe emissions during the
construction period should be implemented. The following areas should be considered.
Construction equipment should be selected considering emission factors and energy
efficiency.
Construction equipment should be properly tuned and maintained.
Construction activities should minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent
to the site and a flagperson should be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways.
Electrical and diesel-powered equipment should be utilized in lieu of gasoline-powered
engines.
Ridesharing for the construction crew should be supported and encouraged.
Long-Term Mitigation Strategies
Mitigation strategies should focus on reducing vehicle trips and vehicle trip lengths associated
with all development projects in the City of Temecula. Efforts should focus on minimizing
indirect-source emissions, thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled wherever
feasible. The following strategies should be utilized on development projects wherever feasible.
Page 6
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact RepOrt
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
Encourage higher density residential, mixed use development, and supporting public
and community facilities within Village Centers (Policy 5.6, Land Use).
Establish design guidelines, development standards, and incentive program for uses
within Village Centers ('Policy 5.7, Land Use).
Coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions in the preparation and adoption of air quality
measures to ensure mutual benefit and ensure that any jurisdicflon is not placed at an
economic disadvantage.
Require development practices which maximize energy conservation as a prerequisite
to permit approval.
Use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium
vapor lights) should be considered for replacement and in new areas to reduce
emissions at the power plant serving the City.
Install low-polluting and high-efficiency appliances in new residential, commercial and
industrial facilities wherever possible.
Consider use of alternative-fuel vehicles for the City vehicle fleet and encourage use
of the vehicles by businesses and residents in Temecnia.
Work with the Rivemire County Transportation Commission to locate transit in the
City, which services the needs of employees, residents and visitors.
HYDROLOGY
Prohibit development in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. (Policy 1.7, Public
Safety Element.)
Encourage only compatible uses within the 100-year floodplain. (Policy 1.8, Public Safety
Element.)
Minimize the intrusion into and alteration of the 100-year floodplain. (Policy 1.9, Public Safety
Element.)
Work with the Riverside County Hood Control District and other agencies involved in the
Mumeta Creek flood control improvements to implement a flood control solution that maximizes
the retenflon of natural resources and the provision of recreation opportunities along the creek.
(Policy 7.1, Growth Management Plan.)
Facilitate the preparation of a City of Temecula Master Drainage Plan which incorporates the
Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan and additional planning efforts into one document. (Policy
7.2, Growth Management Plan.)
Develop master drainage plans, when appwpriate, for the Sphere of Influence, in conjunction
with the Flood Contwl District. (Policy 7.3, Growth Management Plan.)
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Pag~ 7
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.3.9
3.3.10
3.3.11
3.3.12
3.3.13
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other responsible agencies on the
design of the flood control project for Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and
other waterways in the City. (Policy 4.5, Land Use Element)
Consider alternative flood control methods to reduce capital and maintenance costs and provide
recreational and open space opportunities. (Policy 4.6, Land Use ElemenO
Conserve the resources of Pechanga, Temecula, and Murrieta Creeks through appropriate
densities of development, setbacks, landscaping, and site design of surrounding projects. (Policy
4.7, Land Use Element)
Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control
improvements for Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek that preserve the important natural
features and resources of the local creeks and the ripa~an forest of the Santa Margarita River,
to the maximum extent feasible. (Policy 2.1, Open Space/Conservation Element)
Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site
sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in
the community. (Policy 2.5, Open Space/Conservation Element)
Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional
Water Resources Control Board. (Policy 2.6, Open Space/Conservation Element)
Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with
Federal, State, Regional and local agencies, and non-pwfit organizations. (Policy 2.9, Open
Space/Conservation Element)
BIOLOGY
Habitat linkages shall be maintained with a minimum of a 75 foot buffer from the edge of the
streambed or the edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
Conserve sensitive species and plant communities and wildlife habitats to the maximum extent
feasible through open space dedication and easements, creative site design and other workable
mitigation actions (Policies 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, Open Space/Conservation Element).
Landowners within the Fee Plan Area shall participate in the Habitat Conservation Plan for
Stephens' kangaroo raL
Maintain and enhance the resources of the Temecula Creek, Santa Margarita River, Pechanga
Creek and other waterways to the ensure the long-ten viability of the habitat, wildlife, and
wildlife movement corridors. (Policy 3.7, Open Space/Conservation Element).
Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation
including the use of adequate buffering; selective preservation; the pwvision of replacement
habitats; the use of sensitive site planning techniques including Midlife corridor/recreational
trails; and other appropriate measures. (Policy 3.1, Open Space/Conservation Element).
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 8
DRAFT
CITY OF TEIVIECUI~ Environmental Impact Report
3.4.6 The City of Temecula shall maintain and periodically update a biological resoume inventory.
3.5 NOISE
City Planning and Enforcement
3.5.1
Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be
implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Ahematively, encourage
leas sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require appwpriate interior
working environments. (Policy 1.1, Noise)
3.5.2 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network. (Policy 1.8, Noise)
3.5.3
Enforce the Noise Ordinance of all non-emergency construction operation. [implementation
Program, Noise)
3.5.4
Require a revision to the noise contour map with every General Plan Update. [implementation
Program, Noise)
Development Projects
3.5.5
Encourage the use of site design and building design techniques, including the use of landscape
setbacks or berms, building orientation, and buffering of noise sensitive areas, as a means to
minimize noise impacts. (Policy 3.3, Noise)
3.5.6 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects. (Policy 3.4, Noise)
3.5.7
Require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. (Policy 3.5,
Noise)
3.5.8
Incorporate measures into all development projects to attenuate exterior/interior noise levels to
acceptable levels. The City's noise standards for land use compatibility are provided in Table
18. These standards shall be adhered to and implemented during the review of all proposed
development projects. [implementation Program, Noise)
3.5.9
Exterior living areas of multiple family uses should have a maximum noise level of 65 CNEU
A combination of site planning techniques, noise walls, and architecture treatments should be
incorporated into the design of a project to ensure that the 65 CNEL is achieved. In multiple
family uses where all of preceding mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project
design and the exterior living area still can not be mitigated to 65 CNEL, a maximum exterior
noise level of up to 70 CNEL may be allowed. [implementation Programs, Noise)
3.5.10
During review of development applications, consider noise impact of the proposed land use on
the existing and future noise enviwnment of existing or planned contiguous uses.
(Implementation Program, Noise)
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 9
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.5.11
Require proposed noise producing projects to have an acoustician prepare a noise analysis with
recommendations for special design measures if the project is to be located close to existing or
planned noise sensitive land uses. (Implementation Program, Noise)
3.5.12
Require pwposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas to have acoustical studies
prepared and to provide special design measures to protect noise sensitive uses from ultimate
projected noise levels. (Implementation Program, Noise)
3.5.13 Discourage pwjects that are incapable of successfully mitigating excessive noise.
(Implementation Program, Noise)
3.5.14 Consider site design techniques as the primary means to minimize noise impacts.
Utilize building setbacks to increase the distance between the noise source and
receiver.
Promote the placement of noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance
facilities, and utility areas between the noise source and receptor.
Orient buiMings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise soume. Quiet outdoor spaces
can be provided by creating a U-shaped development which faces away from the
wadway or by clustering land uses. (Implementation Program, Noise)
3.5.15 Where feasible, require the provision of landscaped parkways between roads and sidewalks.
(Policy 4.5, Community Design Element.)
3.5.16 Require alternative architectural layouts to meet noise reduction requirements.
Place bedrooms on the side of the house facing away from major roadways. The use
of noise tolerant rooms such as garages, bathrooms and kitchens to shield noise-
sensitive areas will be encouraged. When bedmores cannot be located on the side of
a house away from a major roadway, require extra insulation and double-pane
windows. -
Avoid balconies facing major travel routes. Development proposals including
balconies in the design will need to be evaluated for potential noise impacts during the
environmental review process. (Implementation Program, Noise)
3.5.17
Where architectural design treatments fail to adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will
significantly increase the costs of land developments, require the use of noise barriers and
landseapod burros in combination. (Implementation Program, Noise)
Transportation
3.5.18 Develop a program to coustroct barriers to mitigate sound emissions where necessary or where
feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. (POlicy 4.1, Noise Element)
3.5.19 Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State, and Federal noise stsndards by all appropriate
City Divisions. (Policy 4.2, Noise Element)
THE PLANNING CBIVI~i~, · January 18, 1993 Page I0
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.5.20 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads m reduce noise impacts from vehicles,
particularly in residential areas. (Policy 4.3, Noise Element)
3.5.21
Coordinate with Caltrana to ensure the inclusion of noise midgation measures in the design of
new highways projects or improvements to existing facilities including, interchange
improvements along 1-15, widening of SR 79 South and the proposed Date Street,q-15
interchange. (Policy 4.4, Noise Element)
3.5.22
The City shall participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the Airport Land
Use Commission and other regional or state agcncics relativc to any proposed expansion of the
airport or change in flight pettcrna. (Policy 4.5, Noise Element)
3.6 LAND USE/GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
3.6.1
Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals, policies and
implementation programs of this General Plan. (Policy 1.1, Land Use Element.)
3.6.2
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level
commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. (Policy 1.3, Land Use
Element.)
3.6.3
Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for
new development. (Policy 1.4, Land Use Element.)
3.6.4
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level
commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. (Policy 1.5, Land Use
Element.)
3.6.5
Provide well defined zoning and development standards and procedures to guide private sector
planning and development. (Policy 1.6, Land Use Element.)
3.6.6
Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Overlay to achieve
the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. (Policy 1.7, Land
Use Element.)
3.6.7
Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to preserve natural features,
achieve innovate site design, provide open space and recreation facilities, and to provide
necessary arechilies and facilities. (Policy 1.9, Land Use Element.)
3.6.8
Provide physical and visual buffers areas to create a transition between rural residential and
agricultural areas and commercial,industrial and other higher density residential development.
(Policy 2.1, Land Use Element.)
3.6.9
Apply rural development standards to specified areas of the City to maintain the rural character
of those areas. (Policy 2.2, Land Use Element.)
3.7 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
THE PLANNING CENI'i~F, · January 18, 1993 Page I1
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.7.1
Encourage the continued production of Prime Agricultural soils, groves and other agricultural
activities in the Study Area and adjacent wine country. (Policy 7.1, Open Space/Conservation.)
3.7.2
Coordinate as necessary with Riveraide County in the preparation of a County Agricultural
Element. (Policy 7.2, Open Space/Conservation.)
3.7.3
Discourage urban development in agricultural areas outside the Village Center or the existing
built-up areas of the City. (Policy 7.3, Open Space/Conservation.)
3.8 RISK OF UPSET
3.8.1
Minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials through careful land use planning.
(Policy 2.1, Public Safety Element.)
3.8.2
Provide for and maintain a coordinated emergency services respouse to reduce community risks
and property damage in the event of a disaster. (Policy 4.1, Public Safety Element.)
3.8.3
Coordinate with emergency response planning with Riverside County and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. (Policy 4.2, Public Safety Element.)
3.8.4
Encourage community-wide emergency preparedness among City residents and the business
community. (Policy 4.3, Public Safety Element.)
3.8.5
Regulate location of critical facilities to ensure their continued functioning following a disaster.
(Policy 4.4, Public Safety Element.)
3.8.6
Establish and maintain an emergency operations center (EOC) for emergency and disaster
situations in a safe and secure location. (Policy 4.5, Public Safety Element.)
3.9 POPULATION/HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT
No mitigation measures are required.
3.10 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
3.10.1
Require an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to
pwject approval, and require adequate mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, project
development. (Policy 1.2 - Circulation)
3.10.2 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of
the City's roadway system. (Policy 1.3 - Circulation)
3.10.3 Pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit
congestion at interseetious and along streets within the City. (Policy 1.4 - Circulation)
3.10.4
Require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed to minimize traffic
conflicts such us those which result from curb parking maneuvers and uncontrolled access along
heavily traveled madways. (Policy 2.2 - Circulation)
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 12
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.10.5
3.10.6
3.10.7
3.10.8
3.10.9
3.10.10
3.10.11
3.10.12
3.10.13
3.10.14
3.10.15
3.10.16
Actively pumue the construction of a new interchange north of Winchester Road and other
recommended system improvements outside its jurisdiction in cooperation with Cultruns, the City
of Murrieta, Riverside County, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve
anticipated fight-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for the interchange
improvement. (Policy 3.2 - Circulation)
Pursue the improvements to existing intemhanges within the City and construction of new
overpasses as required to achieve the adopted service level standards. (Policy 33 - Circulation)
Coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency to provide fixed mute transit service (bus or
shuttle) along major transportation corridors connecting to regional employment and commercial
areas, airports, health care fac~ities, and major recreation areas. (Policy 3.4 - Circulation)
Pmvids for express transit service through implementation of perk-and-ride facilities along
regional transportation corridors. (Policy 3.5 - Cimulation)
Establish a citywide Circulafion System Phasing and Financing Program for the orderly
implementation of system improvements identified in the Circulation Element (Policy 4.1 -
Circulation)
Require proper spacing and interconnect traffic signals where feasible to maximize the smooth
progression of traffic flows and to minimize delay and stop and go conditions which result in
higher vehicle emissions and noise levels. (Policy 4.2 - Circulation)
Discourage the provision of on-street (curbside) parking along principal arterial madways to
minimize traffic conflicts and increase the traffic carrying capacity of these roadways. (Policy
4.3 - Circulation)
Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and
encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail
systems through projecls to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass
through subdivision boundary walls. (Policy 4.4 - Circulation)
Require specific plans and other mixed use projects to provide an internal system of trails
linking schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities within residential areas.
(Policy 4.5 - Circulation)
Provide a comprehensive system of Class I and/or Class II bicycle lanes to meet the needs of
cyclist traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. (Policy 4.6 -
Circulation)
Encourage a mix of uses within a project designed to maximize internal trip making, maxim
the use of parking facilities, and to promote a shift from auto use to pedestrian and bicycle
modes of travel. (Policy 4.7 - Circulation)
Encourage the provision of additional regional public transportation services and support
facilities, including park-and-ride lots near the 1-15 freeway and within village centers. (Policy
4.8 - Circulation)
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 13
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.10.17
Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review at the
Specific Plan or Plot Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval prior to
the issuance of building permits, in accordance with the City's Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance. (Policy 4.9 - Circulation)
3.10.18
Encourage the implementation of employer Travel Demand Management CrDM) requiremenls
included in the Southern California Air Quality Management District's Regulation 15 of the Air
Quality Management Plan. (Policy 4.10 - Circuialion)
3.10.19
The City shall establish a local Congestion Management Plan and monitor the porformance and
effectiveness of travel demand management programs within the City. (Policy 4.11
Circulation)
3.10.20 Require the consolidation of parking, and related circulation facilities, where appropriate, to
minimize the number of ingress and egress points onto arterials. (Policy 5.2 - Circulation)
3.10.21 Require project developera to provide adequate on-site parking and/or to contribute to a program
to acquire and maintain off-site facilities. (Policy 5.4 - Circulation)
3.10.22 Encourage joint development of parking facilities (e.g. joint-use of parking facilities) where
feasible to maximize the efficient use of available parking. (Policy 5.6 - Circulation)
3.10.23
Traffic signals located along bike routes and where significant pedestrian activity is present shall
be pwperly designed and periodically adjusted to allow for the safe movement of these non-
motorized modes. (Policy 6.4 - Circulation)
3.10.24
Adequate linkages shall be provided for non-motorized modes, between residential areas and
commercial/employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas. (Policy 6.5 -
Circulation)
3.10.25 Designate primary track routes on selected arterial streets to minimize the impacts of truck
traffic on residential areas. (Policy 7.1 - Circulation)
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES
Fire Service
3.11.1
Require new development to address fire and police protection in a pw-active and preventative
way through street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting
and other security features. (Policy 3.3, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
3.11.2
Coordinate with the County of Riverside in the location and phasing of new sheriff facilities or
fire stations to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. (Policy 3.4, Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element.)
3.11.3
Strive to provide a minimum response time of between 7 and 10 minutes of an alarm for 90
percent of all fires in accordance with the Riverside County Fire Protection and Emergency
Master Plan. (Policy 3.2, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element).
THE PLANNING CENTP_,K- Jamtory 18, 1993 Page 14
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
3,11.5
Promow ~ ~qq~it.hmemr Of Nc~J])odJood Watch ProJrams in conj~mc~n_- WIth die -ghr. d~'S
3,1,Z.6
3.13..7
Provide tnfn,'m,,tian zo dac Tcznvzula Valley Uxdfi~ Scho~ Dislzi,'., when cans~:;,~t. 2cncnl
plan amc~ o~ otttc~ lcgfslaXivc hind mc FoEcy dedsions to a.gow the School Dfsui~ xo
hdlimm zhc ,~u..: o1~ macix d=cSs[o~. ~ol[~y 4.Z, C-row~ Mm,%oemem/~zb~c Facetdes
3.XL8
Provide saf~ -,'~___ f~ school ctx~dmn waBdng, bi~Hn~ or dxi-Aug to and flora school sties
through cooattnatfon bctwecn dac school CHSU'iCT, :..a dry depm',~.'.t~ of pl.~i..~ Public
wa~s, ~ Ez~m~. (Pc~y 4.4, C-xow~Ivanagc=ncn~/l~xic ~--~.-. l~zne~z.)
3.ILIO
lie emblir, hment of a tnde r--bool, jm~or callele or 4-year college in Tcmccala that
3.1171 Tr~ C~ ~ ~ ~ dm,'~lopment m pay school iu:qma r~es w ~.in~i~ Impacts of n~w
develol:~nem on ~ ~ dLfaic~
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
Library
3.11.13
3.11.14
Water
3.11.15
3.11.16
3.11.17
3.11.18
3.11.19
Sewer
3.11.20
3.11.21
3.11.22
3.11.23
3.11.24
Cooperate with Riverside County to provide for library facilities and services that am consistent
with community needs. (Policy 5.9, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
The City of Temecula shall establish a development mitigation fee for library services.
Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply exists or will be pwvided to
serve proposed development, prior to issuance of building permits. (Policy 6.1, Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element.)
Coordinate with the water and wastewater districts when considering general plan amendments,
annexations, or development agreements in order to assist the districts in planning for adequate
capacity to accommodate future growth. (Policy 6.3, Gwwth Management/Public Facilities
Element.)
Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development.
(Policy 2.3, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, publicly landscaped areas and other
feasible applications as service becomes available from RCWD and EMWD. (Policy 2.4, Open
Space/Conservation Element.)
The City shall require new development to comply with State requirements for water-efficient
plumbing fixtures in structures.
Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply and sewer capacity exists or
will be provided to serve proposed development prior to issuance of building permits. (Policy
6.1, Growth Management, Public Facilities Element.)
Require landowners, prior to issuance of building permits, to demonstrate that adequate
wastewater capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development. (Policy 6.2, General
Management/Public Facilities Element.)
Coordinate with the water and wastewater districts when considering general plan amendments,
annexations, or development agreements in order to assist the districts in planning for adequate
capacity to accommodate future growth. (Policy 6.3, Gwwth Management/Public Facilities
Element.)
Coordinate with the wastewater district to make reclaimed water available for irrigation purposes
in the City. (Policy 6.4, General Management/Public Facilities Element.)
New septic systems shall be setback at least 50 feet from the outer edge of an existing oak or
riparian canopy for leachfields and at least 100 feet from the outer edge of the existing riparian
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 16
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
or oak canopy for seepage pits. Greater setbacks shall be enforced to prevent lateral seepage
from disposal beds into stream waters, if necessary (Policies 4.3 and 4.4, Land Use Element;
Policy 1.6, Open Space and Conservation Element).
Solid Waste
3.11.25
Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide and expand service for the collection,
storage, transportation, recovery, and disposal of solid waste to meet the needs of the City,
(Policy 8.1, Gwwth ManagemenffPublic Facilities Element.)
3.11.26
Provide for the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste through the adoption of
a Household Hazardous Waste Element (Policy 8.2, Growth Management/Public Facilities
Element.)
3.11.27 Provide for solid waste reduction and recycling within the City through the adoption of a Source
Reduction and Recycling Elemem. (Policy 8.3, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
3.11.28 Require recycling containers to be included in new commercial centers,
Electricity
3.11.29
Coordinate with the responsible companies to provide for the continued maintenance,
development, and expansion of electricity, natural gas, and telecomrnunications system to serve
residents and businesses. (Policy 9.1, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
3.11.30 Encourage the undergrounding of utilities along arterial roads, where feasible. (Policy 9.2,
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
Natural Gas
3.11.30
Coordinate with the responsible companies to provide for the continued maintenance,
development, and expansion of electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems to serve
residents and businesses. (Policy 9.1, Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
3.12
3.12.1
3.12.2
3.12.3
AESTHETICS
Promote the development of a comprehensive system of trails and open space areas that connect
schools, public recreation areas, residential areas and commercial centers. (Policy 1.1,
Community Design Element.)
Develop design standards to enhance the visual character of commercial centers that are located
adjacent to 1-15. (Policy 1.4, Community Design Element.)
Establish and cousistently apply design standards and guidelines for residential and
nonresidential development. (Policy 2.1, Community Design Element.)
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 17
DRAFT
CITY OF TEIVIECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.12.4
3.12.5
3.12.6
3.12.7
3.1Z8
3.12.9
3.12.10
3.12.11
3.12.12
3.12.13
3.13
3.13.1
3.13.2
3.13.3
Promote a cohesive and integrated pattern of development for large undeveloped areE, by
requiring the preparation of Specific Plans. Establish a minimum acreage requirement or other
thresholds for requiring a Specific Plan. (Policy 2.2, Community Design Element.)
Provide development standards to ensure higher quality design that is well integrated with the
infrastructure and circulation systems. (Policy 2.3, Community Design Element.)
Formulate flexible design standards for commercial development that enhances the special
identity and visual character of the commercial development. (Policy 2.4, Community Design
Element.)
Improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and the "edges" between neighborhoods through
landscaping, location of open space buffera, and special landscape features. (Policy 3.1,
Community Design Element.)
Preserve the scale and character of residential development by creating a transition in densities
between lower density or rural areas, and higher density development. (Policy 3.2, Community
Design Element.)
Formulate a comprehensive streelscape program for the major streets in the City, including
unified landscaping, lighting, paving patterns and other public improvements. [Policy 4.2,
Community Design Element.)
Work with the County of Riverside to protect the hillside areas located west of the Qty.
(Policy 5.1, Community Design Element.)
Promote the development of turn-outs on scenic wads. [Policy 5.2, Community Design
Element.)
Require the revegetation of graded slope areas. [Policy 5.3, Community Design Element.)
Encourage the undergrounding of uffiilies along arterial roads, where feasible. [Policy 9.2,
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element.)
LIGHT AND GLARE
Coordinate with the County of Riverside and California Institute of Technology for Economic
Purposes to ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are incorporated into the City
development review process. [Policy 9.1, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Amend appropriate ordinances to contwl sources of light that adversely affect Palomar
Observatory. (implementation Program, Open Space/Conservation Element, Conservation Dark
Skies.)
Participate in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation areas. [Policy 9.2, Open
Space/Conservation Element.)
THE PLANNING C$ · January 18, 1993 Page 18
DRAFT
CITY OF TE1VIECUI_,A Environmental Impact Report
3.13.4
3.14
3.14.1
3.14.2
3.14.3
3.14.4
3.14.5
Limit light/glare pollution through design standards for outdoor lighting and the use of low
intensity lights. (Policy 2.5, Community Design Element.)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Maintain an inventory of areas of sensitive archaeological/paleontological sensitivity in the
planning area. (Policy 6.1, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Require sites proposed for future development to be evaluated for archeological and
paleontological resources, in accordance with the pwcedures established in a Memorandum of
Agreement with the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside. (Policy 6.2, Open
Space/Conservation Element.)
Require sites proposed for future development that identified in this Element as being of high
or unclerefrained paleontological sensitivity undetermined paleontological sensitivity to be
evaluated by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist. (Policy 6.3, Open Space/Conservation
Element.)
Require sites containing significant archaeological or paleontological resources to either preserve
identified sites or provide or the professional retrieval of arfifacts prior to development. (Policy
6.4, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Require that a certified archaeologist and/or paleontologist be present on site during grading,
earth moving, or demolition of structures when these resources have been discovered during
construction, and for sites designated or potentially designated as culturally significant in order
to ensure these sites are preserved and protected. Native American observers will be requested
to be present on site to observe and retrieve cultural resources when deemed necessary by a
certified archaeologist or paleontologist. (Policy 6.5, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
3.15
3.15.1
3.15.2
3.15.3
3.15.4
PARKS/RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
Apply the policies and standards contained in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan to
acquire sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development. (Policy 1.1,
Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Require the dedication of parkland and development of facilities to be consistent with the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan. (Policy 1.2, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Require developers of residential projects greater than fifty dwelling units to dedicate land based
on the park acre standard of five (5) acres of usable parkland to one thousand (1,000)
population, or the payment of in lieu fees in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan. (Policy 1.3, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Park credit for land with floodplains shall be given in accordance with the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. (Policy 1.4, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 19
DRAFT
CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report
3.15.5
3.15.6
3.15.7
3.15.8
3.15.9
3.15.10
3.15.11
3.15.12
3.15.13
3.16
Pumue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation purposes including lands
under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California
Edison, water districts and other public agencies. (Policy 1.5, Open Space/Conservation
Element.)
Coordinate long range park and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of
Murrieta. (Policy 1.9, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Maximize pedestrian and bicycle access to existing and new parks as an alternative to
automobile access. (Policy 1.10, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Consider the potential for joint recreational use of ncw or expanded school and park facilities
when planning such facilities. (Policy 1.10, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Provide a city-wide recreational trails system that connects to the County's regional trail system
through adoption of a Master Plan of Trails that provides for bicycling, equestrian, hiking and
jogging Wails and support facilities. (Policy 8.1, Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Negotiate land deeds as necessary to implement the city-wide trail system. (Policy 8.2, Open
Space/Conservation Element.)
Require proposed development to provide trail connections to the city-wide trail system as
defined by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and future Master Plan of Trails. (Policy 8.3,
Open Space/Conservation Element.)
Require development plans to identify locations for an internal trails/sidewalk system that links
land uses and provides convenient travel to transit facilities. (Policy 8.4, Open
Space/Conservation Element.)
The City shall approve a Final Parks Master Plan and Final Trails Master Plan.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No mitigation measures are required.
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993
Page 20
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The following Matrix outlines all mitigation mcasures includcd in the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report, and rcspoasiblc agency, timing and action taken. It will be completed as mitigation measures arc
~nalizcd and implcmcntcd. The procedures for use of the matrix arc outlined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of
thc Mitigation Monitoring Program.
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 199~ Page: 21
DRAFT
CITY OF TE1VIECULA Environmental Impact Report
MATRIX TO BE INSERTED WHEN COMPLETED. LOCATED IN TEM-01UVIIT-MON2.MTX.
THE PLANNING CENTER · January 18, 1993 Page 22
:= z =
.o ] _.! ._o -~ :~:.i z z z z z
· U
o
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
5
Cit of Temecula
DRAFT GE~I~RAL PLAN
Revisions Addendum
January 25, 1992
THE PLANNING CENTER
R:%SXGENPLAN\DRAFTGP, M2P
CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element
F. Focused Studies
Implementation of the Cimulation Plan and other components of the Circulation
Element will require a wide range of "focused" or "special" studies. Some of these
studies are already underway or soon to be undertaken. The following provides a
partial list including some of the more critical issues.
· Western Corridor facility engineering studies.
1-15 interchange/access improvement engineering studies at all existing
interchanges as well as potential new interchanges north of Winchester Road and
at Santiago Road.
Engineering study for Date Street Extension from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to
Winchester Road.
· Rancho Way Overpass engineering studies.
Santiago Road and Avenida Alvaratio extension engineering studies.
· Roadway Implementation Phasing study.
· Local Congestion Management Program development study.
G. Regional Coordination
As reflected in many of the Circulation Element components, regional coordination is
essential to the suceessful implementation of the Circulation Plan. Several of the
critical roadway system improvements which will be required to adequately
accommodate build-out traffic flows are currently outside the City's jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the most significant of the City's long-range congestion problems are
located along State Route 79 North OVinehester Road) and State Route 79 (South)
which are regional routes. It is estimated that almost 50 percent of the traffic using
Winchester Road (within the City) is traveling through the City. The solution to this
and other regional related traffic problem will require close coordination of traffic
issues with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, Caltrans District 8, and other
communities within the Southwest Area of Riverside County.
In order to more accurately monitor and provide input to the County on proposed
County development affecang traffic levels within the City, the City will work with
the Couty to eaablish a County Project Referral Process. The purpose of this
Project Referral Process will be to provide the City with an opportunity to review and
comment on proposed projects within the City's Sphere of Influence and outside the
Sphere to extent that such proposed projects may have traffic and other impacts on
Temecula.
T~4-OI~O3Op-CIR, CUL · January 4, 1995 Pag= 3-29
Goal 4
Ptsnnmg Commk'sion
R~,ommsna~l~on
impsc~s d dewelopmcm on the school system a~,x~h the ~i~ of
d~lo~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
Poney
Ponc~ 4,3
Pmxnox~ and eocoun~c dx~ phirig of project 'dcv~lopmcnt so that th~
Sn-h_OOI Di.~zic~ my p~--. fxnance and consm~ school faciliHc~ ~cndcd
Revi,,'w irm!mc,~ dev',olopmen~: in ~he seate~ of ~ 3declp_~y .of
*-" _.~: _ c~hoot ~
Poxicy
P~ovid~ ss,f~ sc.c~ss f~ sch~l christen ws/.l~ bicF. li~ ~ drivin~ ~
..d fmm sc~olsia:s fim~,h c~n~dina~on botw=~ d~sch~ol dialcl, a.d
PoUcy 4,X4
Puj.w~ thc establishment of a trade school, Junior colle~c or 4-year college
in Temecttls thsI offe~ au cmphssis ~n ~he education Eequired by the
Goal 5
pn~l~ rout _Q,p~__-Imblie focxllties and services wR~,~ provide for the so~1;
cdUn~l, civic, p-~nns, ..a recx~_.on_~/neeas of the
D~cu.ss/on As xhe City maxm'es and new developme. at consumes proporXiona~ly less aliendon
and resounds, flu: public and quasi-public conznrb~ons w connnunivy satisfa~ion
p~
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY ATTORNEY LE ~ ~ ER
DATED JANUARY 19, 1993
REGARDING SB 1287
6
Januar~ 15, 1993
VIA FACBIMILE AND 0,8. MAIL
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re: SB 1287 and General Plan Policies
RECEIVED
JAN 19 1993
Ans'd ............
Dear John:
As you are aware, substantial disagreement currently exists
among interested parties regarding the meaning and legal effects
of SB 1287, the recently enacted School Impact Fee Legislation.
As we noted in our December 8, 1992 letter to Gary Thornhill,
(copy attached), one of the unsettled issues regarding the
legislation relates to its impact on earlier court decisions.
The Murrieta, Hart, and Mira cases, which exempted development
projects requiring legislative land use approvals from the
limitations and prohibitions of the School Facilities Law of
1986, permitted local agencies to deny such approvals based on
inadequate school facilities.
Apparently, it is the position of some school districts that
SB 1287 did not overrule these cases and that local agencies are
still obligated to require new development projects to mitigate
their school impacts when seeking legislative land use approvals.
It is their view that support for this position can be found in
the Legislative Counsel's Opinion No. 30455 (December 4, 1992)
which concludes:
"[SB 1287] does not prohibit a city. .from considering the
adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or
implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other
legislative land use policy."
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 2
Obviously, this view is not totally consistent with our
previous recommendation to your office that legislative land use
approvals cannot be denied or conditioned on the grounds of
inadequate school facilities (see December 8, 1992 letter).
Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to reconcile the con-
flicting opinions and provide meaningful guidance on the appro-
priate General Plan policies that should be considered in light
of the controversy surrounding SB 1287.
Legislative counsel's Opinion No. 30455
In its discussion on the impact of SB 1287 on school impact
fee laws, the Legislative Counsel's Opinion states that under the
law existing prior to adoption of SB 1287:
". . .Section 65995 precludes local agencies . .from
adopting any legislative requirement, except to the extent
authorized by Section 53080 and Chapter 4.7, that imposes
fees as a condition to approval Of a development Dro~ect in
order to reduce the project's negative impact on school
facilities. . "(Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455, page
6) (emphasis added).
However, the Counsel further concludes at page 6 that:
". .[Section 65995 et seq] does not prohibit a city.
.from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the
course of adopting or implementing legislative land use
policy in the form. .of a general plan or zoning ordi-
nance." (emphasis added).
Thus, according to the Legislative Counsel, the law prior to SB
1287 permitted cities to consider the adequacy of school facili-
ties in the context of adopting or amending general land use
policies but ~ot when considering individual development pro-
jects.
The Legislative Counsel then analyzes the effect of SB 1287
on the above stated conclusions and determines that:
". .[SB 1287] will expressly prohibit a city. . .from
either establishing legislative standards, or applying any
legislatively established standard, so as to require, as a
condition of the approval of any development Dro~ect, that a
fee be paid or other requirement be met for the purpose of
funding school facilities construction or reconstruction,
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 3
other than as levied pursuant to Section 53080 or Chapter
4.7." (Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455, page 8) (em-
phasis added).
The Legislative Counsel further determined at page 11 that:
". .[T]he apparent effect of [SB 1287] will be to specifi-
cally prohibit the inclusion within a general plan or zoning
law of any provision that would authorize the denial of
individual development projects on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities." (emphasis added).
Finally, the Legislative Counsel opined (at page 12), that SB
1287 did not address the authority of local agencies to consider
the adequacy of school facilities "in any context other than the
approval of individual development Droie~ts." (emphasis added).
As a result, the Legislative Counsel concluded that SB 1287 does
not prohibit a city from considering the adequacy of school
facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a general
plan, zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy. The
net effect of this conclusion is that SB 1287 did not chanqe the
law reqardin~ a citv's authority to consider the ade~uacV of
school facilities when adoDtin~ or implementina leaislative land
use Policies! (See above discussion on law existing prior to SB
1287).
In our opinion, the Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455 is
not completely incompatible with our previous recommendations to
you regarding the denial or conditioning of legislative land use
approvals on the grounds of inadequate school facilities.
Nevertheless, the Legislative Counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB 1287 to permit a
"loophole" in what was considered an intentional effort by the
Legislature to close a "gap" in the law created by the above
referenced court decisions. In so doing, it appears even more
likely that "clean up" legislation or further judicial interpre-
tation will occur in order to resolve this controversy.
Recommendations
In the meantime, it is our opinion that the City of Temecula
should take a prudent approach when considering land use policy
decisions such as the adoption of its General Plan until these
issues are finally settled. In our view, such an approach would
include the following actions:
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 4
1. Avoid the adoption of any policies within the City's
General Plan requiring a developer to demonstrate that ade-
quate school facilities exist or will be provided to support
their project. An example Of such a policy would be to
require a "will serve" letter from the school district prior
to the approval of a project by the City. Such a require-
ment would, in all likelihood, be considered impermissible
under SB 1287.
2. Recommend the adoption of the following language for
the City's General Plan in its Growth Management/Public
Facilities Element regarding Goal 4 on school facilities:
"Discussion. Adequate school facilities and funding
are necessary to ensure that the high quality of educa-
tion is extended to. future residents of the City.
Mitigating impacts of development on the school system
through the imposition of development fees as permitted
by law and providing information to the School District
are the primary mechanisms to sustain quality educa-
tional services.
Policy 4.1 Provide information to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District when considering General Plan
amendments or other legislative land use policy deci-
sions to allow the School District to prepare and
provide an assessment of whether adequate school facil-
ities exist in order to facilitate the making of such
decisions.
PoliCY 4.2 Promote and encourage the phasing of pro-
ject development sothat the School District may plan,
finance and construct school facilities intended to
serve the development."
3. Delete the current language in Policy 4.3 and renumber
remaining Policies 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 accordingly.
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 5
We hope this discussion sufficiently answers your questions
regarding this complicated area of the law to assist you in your
preparation of the City's General Plan. If we may be of further
assistance or answer any questions you have regarding the above,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
CC:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
John E. Cavanaugh
TEN/110150o.LTR