HomeMy WebLinkAbout092193 CC AgendaAGrNDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER -28816 Pujd Street
SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 - 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will
determine which of the remaining ageride items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00
PM and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Next in Order:
'Ordinance: No. 93-17
Resolution: No. 93-77
Mayor J. Sal Muf~oz presiding
Councilmember Birdsall
Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Mu~oz
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed-on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are -
limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item
not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink 'Request To Speak' form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other ageride items · 'Request To Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the-Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the .City Council on matters not on the agenda will be
made at this time. A total, not t0 exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these
reports.
.~genkiOe2193 I 01/11/13
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in sUpport of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) st the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences
delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
City of Temecula General Plan. Imolementation Prooram. Environmental Imoact Report
and Mitioation Monitoring Program
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Review the Housing Element, remaining Clean-up Items, Environmental
Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and direct staff to incorporate any changes
into the final General Plan;
1.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
1.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY
OF TEMECULA
1.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
:. RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
/~ende/Oe21 113 2 ol/11/11
~'- 1.5 Adopt a resolution emitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: September 28, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Aeemb/012113 2 OI/llJll
ITEM NO. I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPR~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plan 'ng/~'~
n~
September 21, 1993
City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation Program, Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
PREPARED BY: John Meyer and David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council:
Open the public hearing and receive public testimony;
Review the Housing Element, remaining Clean-up Items, Environmental Impact
Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and direct staff to incorporate any changes into the final
General Plan; and,
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING" THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY
OF TEMECULA.
State Deadline for General Plan Adoption: November 25, 1993
9114193 Idb
Adopt · resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL' FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, the City Council has held seven public hearings on the Draft
City General Plan. To date, the Circulation, Economic Development, Public Safety, Noise,
Air Quality, Community Design, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public
Facilities and Land Use Elements have been reviewed by the Council. At the September 21 st
meeting, it is anticipated that the City Council will review the balance of the Housing Element,
the remaining land use and clean-up items, the EIR, the Statement of overriding
Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, will Certify the EIR end approve the
General Plan.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of a housing element is to address local and regional housing needs. A housing
element is expected to: (1) assess local housing needs, resources, and constraints; (2)
identify sites to meet future housing needs; (3) develop goals and objectives to maintain,
improve and develop local housing; and (4) provide a five-year master plan to meet the City's
share of regional housing needs. This element was briefly discussed at the Council's April 6,
1993 meeting. This element was continued to allow staff an opportunity to respond to the
comments provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Discussion
The primary items'addressed in the Housing Element that affect the City of Temecula include
the following: compile community population trends and demographic information; inventory
the existing housing stock; assess special community housing needs; identify the City's
regional housing allocation; and address constraints to providing adequate housing.
State Deadline for General Pie Adoption: November 25, 1993
R:~S~OENPIANK~.C(3 9116/93 klb 2
~-_ The key aspects of the Housing Element are:
Provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of existing and future
residents; '-
· Provide affordable housing;
Remove governmental constraints in maintaining and developing
housing;
· Conserve the existing housing stock; and,
Provide equal access to local housing opportunities and prohibit
discrimination.
Initial Comments from State Department of Housing and Community Development
The Draft Housing Element has been circulated to the Department of Housing and Community
Development as required by State Law. HCD reviewed the Draft document in July of 1992,
and provided a number of comments regarding consistency with State Law. The City's
response to HCD comments were incorporated into the Draft General Plan recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission.
The most significant revision was the removal of target densities from the Medium and High
Residential Land Use Designations. Because the City's highest density is only 20 dwelling
units per acre, it was HCD's opinion that any constraints placed on achieving the maximum
density could result in an undue hardship or governmental constraint, in providing affordable
housing.
Planning Commission Headngs
The Planning Commission received limited public testimony and no major issues were
identified. As a result, only minor changes were made to the draft of this element.
Second Comments from State Department of Housing and Community Development
Following the Planning Commission's. review and recommended approval of the draft Element,
staff sent a copy of the updated version to Department of Housing and Community
Development for additional review and comment. Staff received a second set of comments
from HCD on March 19, 1993. The section on Governmental Constraints was expanded in
response to HCD _.comments and broader provisions for emergency and transitional housing
will be provided in the Development Code. The HCD's comments do not substantively change
the Housing Element to any significant degree. A copy of the revised Housing Element has
previously been provided to the Council.
State Deadline for General Pier AdoprioR: November 26, 1993
R:~S~O~.CC~ 9116/93 ldb 3
CLEAN-UP ITEMS AND REVISIONS ADDENDUM
The following section includes a number of minor aspects of the General Plan that require City
Council direction: '.
Land Use Bement
Request No. 30.
Pursuant to City Council request, staff has invited the property owner/representative for
requests Number 30 (Kemper) to the meeting of August 17, 1993. However, during the
meeting the Council was unable to reach a consensus as to whether this property should be
Business Park or Community Commercial. As a result, it is necessary for the Council to
determine what the land use designation for this property should be.
Request No. 64
At the August 17, 1993, City Council meeting, Mr. Dean Allen requested that this site be
changed from Professional Office to Medium Residential to be consistent with the current
zoning and the land use designation of the other vacant properties to the west of this parcel.
Request No. 65
Staff has reviewed the land use element and has three recommended changes along the east
side of Commerce Center Drive, between Vie Montezuma and Rider Way. Currently the this
area is designated Community Commercial; however, the existing development is typically
suited for industrial rather than commercial uses. There are both commercial and industrial
uses located in the area.
Staff was also contacted by the property owner of Jefferson Court, an industrial development
located between Jefferson and Commerce Center (north of Via Montezuma) with no frontage
on either street. The park is also designated Community Commercial. Currently, the uses in
this park range from welding and upholstery service to office and retail.
Staff agrees that Community Commercial is probably inappropriate for any of the these areas.
Unfortunately, because of the commercial and industrial mix of the uses, the City cannot
accommodate all of the uses. Therefore, staff is recommending the following modifications
to the land use plan:
East Side of Commerce Center, North of Overland:
East Side of Commerce Center, North of Via Montezuma:
.Jefferson Court Industrial Park:
Service Commercial
Business Park
Business Park
State Deadline for General Plan Adoption: November 26, 1993
4
Circulation Element
Nicolas Road-Extension
**
During the Planning Commission's review of the Circulation Plan, a segment of Nicolas Road
was added between Winchester Road and Margarita Road. The road segment was added as
a result of a Supplemental Traffic Analysis for the Extension of North General Kearney Road
which is contained in Attachment 2. According to this supplemental analysis, the Nicolas
Road extension provided · noticeable benefit to the circulation network only in conjunction
with the extension of North General Kearney (NGK). When the extension of NGK was
removed from the Circulation Plan, the need to extend Nicolas Road was therefore also
eliminated. As a result, Staff is recommending that the extension of Nicolas Road between
Margarita and Winchester Roads also be removed from the Circulation Plan.
Rural Road Standards
During the public hearing for the Circulation Element, a number of residents living in semi-rural
large lot areas of the City requested that the Council consider a rural road standard. In
response, the Council added language to the Community Design Element approving non-urban
roads in the City's rural areas. The Public Works Department staff is proposing that additional
language be added to the General Plan to ensure that the appropriate public works road
standard is used in these circumstances. Staff is recommending the Optional Rural Arterial
Highway cross section found in Figure 3-2 and that the following description be added to the
Roadway Function Design Guidelines:
10. Optional Rural Arterial Highway Standard
This optional interim roadway standard may be used in rural end semi-rural
areas with the following characteristics: (1) the adjacent parcels are used
primarily for residential purposes, (2) the lot sizes exceed 1/2 acre, (3) the
adjacent areas are primarily designated as either Hillside, Very Low, or Low
Density Residential in the General Plan, and (4) have general plan right-of-ways
which are less than ~110 feet.
Features include:
A two lane cross section; however, in limited circumstances, left and
right turn lanes may be required at some intersections.
· Sidewalk and bike lanes will be located along only one side of the
-: roadway to form a continuous system along each street, when needed.
Minimum intersection/access spacing along Rural Arterial Highways
should be approximately one-sixteenth of a mile (330 feet). Direct
access from private residential properties should be avoided where
possible.
· Retention of the full general plan right-of-way.
State Deadline for General Plan Adoption: November 26, 1993
R:~O!~/P[AI~P.CC$ 9116/93 Ir, lb 5
Should future traffic volumes on streets constructed to a Rural Arterial
Highway Standard reach Level-of-Service D, then the roadway should
be improved to full general plan standards."
Landscape Median Islands
To maintain consistency with the Community Design Element, staff is recommending that
medians within the City's major streets (110' or greater right-of-way) be installed with
landscaping. The cross-sections shown in figure 3-2, and accompanying descriptions on
pages 3-18 through 3-21 have been made to reflect this modification.
West Side Parkway
The Westside Parkway (Western Bypass Corridor) has been revised to an 88' right-of-way.
This right of way will be adequate to accommodate the proposed roadway.
Growth Management/Public Facilities Bement
School Facility Policies
At the August '17, 1993, Council meeting on the General Plan, representatives of the
Temecula Valley Unified School District proposed a number of changes to the education
related goals, policies, and implementation measures in the Public Facilities Element. The City
Attorney and Staff have reviewed the District's suggested changes to Goal 4, Policies 4.1 and
4.3, and the implementation measures, and instead recommends revised language, setforth
in the City Attorney's separate report which will be forwarded to the Council under separate
cover.
Also found in Attachment 3 is a letter from Kemper Community Development Company,
which strongly urges against the City adopting the proposed District resolution. Thisfurther
demonstrates why indemnification is warranted.
Community Design Element
Chaparral Opportunity Area
At its June 15, 1993 meeting, the City Council tentatively approved keeping the Chaparral
area as a special study area. However, the Council directed staff to continue to work at
developing criteria for the Chaparral Area in order to accommodate land planning for the
Chaparral area prior to the adoption of the General Plan.
Staff has further studied the Chaparral Area and is recommending the following changes:
Remove the area south of Santiago Road from the Chaparral Area.
Remove the Chaparral Area from the Special Study Overlay.
Designate the Chaparral Area as Low Density.
Assign the L-1 Zoning District which will set a minimum lot size of 1 acre.
State Deadline for General Pie AdoprioR: November 26, 1993
R:~SKiHIqPLA~OP.CC8 9116/93 ldb 6
Include a section in the Community Design Element establishing criteria for
development for the Chaparral Area at densities up to 2 units per acre in certain
circumstances.
Staff believes the proposed changes to the Chaparral Area will address the various concerns
previously raised by the Council. The Low Density land use designation will allow for greater
use of the property; however, the criteria found in the Community Design Element (found in
the Revision Addendum) will provide for appropriate transition and protection of natural
resources. To assure a better transition from adjacent areas, lots adjacent to Santiago Road
shall have a minimum lot size of 1.75 acres. A property owner would be able to develop half
acre lots upon showing justification through a zone change without having to apply for a
general plan amendment.
Revisions Addendum
Throughout the Public Hearing process, the City Council has been taking straw votes on the
individual elements. Along the way, Council has directed staff to make various corrections
to the text and exhibits within the Plan. Staff has made the requested modifications and
included them in a Revisions Addendum attached to this report. The addendum consists of
all recommended changes to the General Plan Elements provided during the Public hearings
before the City Council. Only those pages of the Draft General Plan, where modifications are
recommended, are included in the Revisions Addendum.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Background
An environmental impact report is a document which is intended to describe and analyze
potentially significant environmental effects and discuss ways to mitigate or avoid these
effects. The legal requirements for the preparation and adoption of an environmental impact
report are contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and
further explained in the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning
Research.
Contents of an Environmental Impact Report
The purpose of an environmental impact report (EIR) is to provide information to decision
makers, responsible and affected agencies, and the public about what is likely to occur as a
result of the proposed project. To facilitate this goal, the California Environmental Quality Act
and Guidelines require that an environmental impact report provide the following information:
2.
3.
4.
5.
A description of the project;
A description of the project's physical and environmental setting;
The significant environmental effects of the project;
The project's unavoidable significant environmental effects;
The mitigation measures or actions needed to reduce the effect of the project on the
environment;
The alternatives to the proposed project;
The relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity;
State Deadline for General Plan Adoption: November 26, 1993
i:~8~OENPLA,'~.CC8 9116/93 klb 7
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The significant irreversible effects and changes which would result from the project;
The project's growth inducing impacts;
The environmental effects which were found to not be significant;
The project's significant cumulative effects and,
The comment letters received on the draft EIR;
The responses to the comments received on the draft EIR; and,
A list of persons, organizations, and agencies consulted with or commenting upon the
draft EIR.
Process for Preparing and Cerlffying EIR'a
In additions to the contents of an environmental impact report, State Law also contains
standards for the preparation, notification, review and comment, and certification (adoption)
processes. The standardized process for the certification of an EIR is as follows:
5.
6.
7.
8.
Notice of Preparation (of an EIR) to solicit public and agency issues end concerns and
determine the scope of the EIR;
Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR);
Notice of Completion (of an EIR) and the distribution of the DEIR for public review and
comment;
The response comments received on the DEIR;
Preparation of the Final EIR (FEIR);
Certification that the EIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA;
Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and,
Notice of Determination (that a decision has made using the FEIR).
Initial Environmental Study
The Initial Environmental Study (IES) was completed for the Draft General Plan end a Notice
of Preparation (NOP) was issued on April 15, 1992. The IES identified a number of potential
impacts associated with the following issue and resource areas:
· Geology and seismicity ·
· Air Quality' ·
· Hydrology ·
· Biological resources ·
· Noise ·
· Land Use ·
· Agriculturel resources ·
· Sefety snd the risk of upset ·
Population, housing and employment
Transportation and circulation
Public services and utilities
Aesthetics
Light and glare
Cultural resources
Parks, recreation and trails
Fiscal impacts
The City received:a number of responses to the NOP from a number of federal, state, and
regional organizations and individuals on the scope and content of the proposed environmental
impact' report and these comments and concerns were considered in the preparation of the
Draft EIR. The Initial Environmental Study is included in the Draft EIR Technical Appendices.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed in August, 1992. The DEIR
was sent to responsible and trustee agencies and previously identified interested parties. The
official public comment period for the DEIR was from August 14, 1992 to October 2, 1992.
S~ate Deadline for General Pie Adoption: November 26, 1993
~3ENPLAN~P.C(~ 9116/93 k]b 8
During the comment period, the City received 13 comment letters from 12 different agencies
or organizations, In addition, a letter was received after the comment period ended. This
letter was also considered in the preparation of the FEIR. The majority of the comments were
focused on the continued identification and preservation of biological resources. Air quality,
circulation, aesthetics, and agriculture were also discussed in the comment letters.
Significant Environmental Effects
The following table lists the identified environmental issues and the level of significance of the
impacts after mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Geology and Seismic Hazards
Air Quality
Hydrology
Biology
Noise
Land Use/General Plan/Zoning
Agricultural
Risk of Upset
Population/Housing/Employment
Transportation/Circulation
Fire Service
Police Service
Hospital Service
Paramedic Service
Education
Library
Water
Sewer
Solid Waste
Electricity
Natural Gas
Aesthetics
'LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Significant
No significant impacts
Significant
Significant
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Significant
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
No significant impacts
Significant
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
No significant impacts
No significant impacts
Significant
Significant
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
No significant impacts
No significant impacts
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Sate Deadline for General Ran Adoption: November 26, 1993
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Light and Glare
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Cultural Resources
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Parks/Recreation/Open Space
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
Fiscal Impacts No significant impacts
Statement of Overridina Considerations
The Environmental Impact Report lists 26 environmental impacts, seven 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.
Mitiaation Monitorina Prooram
State law also 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 measures, the key City department
responsible for overseeing that function, 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.
Planning Commission Hearings
During the January 4 and 24, 1993 Public Hearings, the Commission received limited
testimony on the EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations and mitigation Monitoring
Program. The Commission made a few minor modifications to these documents. As a result
of the discussion on the School Facility Policies, The Planning Commission listed the Education
Environmental Impact as a Significant Unavoidable Impact within the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The School District has not yet provided information or data to verify this
action.
State Deadline for General Pie Adoption: November 26, 1993
R:~S~ENXq_.A~O~.CCS 9/16/93 Ub 10
CONCLUSION
The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Draft Element has been
adequately revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups, and other
agencies and recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No(s) 93- , Certifying the
Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopting the
City of Temecula's first General Plan and adopting the Implementation Program as contained
in Attachment No(s) 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Attachments:
5.
6.
7,
Revisions Addendum - Page 12
Supplemental Traffic Analysis for North General Kearney Road - Page 13
Attorney Opinions and Related Correspondence Regarding School Facility Policies and
AB 1287 - Page 14
Resolution Certifying the EIR - Page 15
Resolution Adopting Mitigation Measure Program - Page 20
Resolution Adopting General Plan - Page 24
Resolution Adopting General Plan Implementation Program - Page 28
State Deadline for General Plan Adoption: November 25, 1993
~OeNF, A~O~.CCS W~6m ~m I I
ATTACHMENT NO. I
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
R:~.S\GENPI.,AN~OP. CC~ 9/14/93
CITY OF TElVn ,CUL
INTRODUCTION
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
The Revisions Addendure con~s~s of the recomrne~de~ changes to the elements of the Draft
General Plan dated February 16, 1993. The pages included in the P, cviions Addendurn are ordy
those pages of the Draft General Plan where additions or deletions to language or mapping are
recommended. The additions are shown in bo/d/ta/ics and deleions are show with a strike out.
The recommended changes are the result of input received during the Public Hearings, staff
review, and from written comments by Sta~e Department of Housing and Community
Development.
CITY OF TEMEaJIA Land Use Element
!!i. GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal I
A complete and integrated mix of 'residential, comme~i=!; indusU'ial,
Fecreationa], mid public and opfn spa~e !and uses,
Discussion A well-balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are planned
in desirable patterns and intensifies. By providing for a bs~lsnc~J mixture of land
uses, the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing fDr a range of income
groups, a viable commercial slid employment base for x=sidemts and surrounding
communities, *,pie open space and r~r~a~onal opportunities, sad adequate
public fiu:ilities and ~vic~
Policy 1.1
Review all proix~scd dcve, lopmcnt plans for consistency with the
COmmUJ3jty Boats, policies and implementation programs of thin General
Plan.
Policy 1.2,
Promote thc use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute
towards the development of a variety of residential product styles and
designs including housing suitable to the commuzdty's labor force.
Policy
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and
neighborhood-level commercial cenets and discourage development of
strip commercial uses.
Policy 1.4
Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infa'asmxaure when
reviewing proposals for new development.
Policy 1.5
Support the development of light industrial, manufactm'ing, research and
development, and office uses to divcmify Tcmccula's economic base.
Policy
Provide well defined zoning and development standards and procedures to
guide private sector planning and development.
Policy 1.7
Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Land U6o
iv, as Specific P/an Over/ay to achieve the comprehensive planning and
phasing of development and infrastructure.
Policy 1,8 -~. Consider taking the lead on preparing specific pl,n-~ for areas designated
on the Land Use Plan that have multiple landowners.
Policy
PER cc
DIRECTION
Encourage plannod unit devolopmonts ~tx/ble zoning tfchniqu6 in
appropriate locations to preserve natural fr, atutcs, achieve innovative site
design, achiepe a range of transaion of dm,via~ provide open space and
recreation facilities, and to provide necessary amenities and facilities.
Tmd~X~2OP-CHD. USB · Draft Dgs: July 26, 1993 Pa8~ 2-9
PER CC
DIRECTION
The City of
:EMECU A
L
General Plan Program
FIGLrB~ 24
i~ At:provcci Specific Plan
.,~-~,~ ProDosccl Specific Plan
Arc'as
N~: ~ ~m ~ ~f~ ~
F
The City of
ZEMECULA , ii B88
General Plan Program
FI~URI 2-5
CITY OF TEME~ Land Use Element
Legend for Specific Plan Overlay
Figure 2-~ (Continued)
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
A. W'mchester Mesa
B. Rancho Spa and Country Club
C. Warm Springs
D. Silvcrlmwk
E. Mountain View
R Margarita Vt!lagc
G. Rancho Highlands
I-I. Paloma del Sol
I. Vail Ranch
J. Redhawk
1.1. Roripaugh Hals
FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS~
W'mchester 1800
h Quizam Do Lago
M. Murrieta Springs #1
N. Boml Airpark
O. Crown Valley Village
P. Hot Springs V~lage
Q. Joh-~on Ranch
R. Roripaugh 800
S. Winchester Hills
T. Winchester Meadows Business Park
U. Temecula Regional enter
V. Campos Vexdes
W. Old Town
X. Unnamed Specific Plan
Y. Unnamed Specific Plan
ZpZ,z,Zs. Unnamed Specific Plan
AA. Murdy Ranch
LOCATION
Area Of Interest
Area of Interest
Area of Interest
Sphere of I-~uence
Sphere of Infiu~n~
.City of
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
Sphm'e of Influence
Sphere of I-qucnc~
City of Tenecula
LOCATION
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of l-fiuence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of I-i=luence
Sphere of l-fiucnce
Area of Interest
Sphere of I-euence
Sphere of Influence/
City of Temecula
City of Tcmccula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temccula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
x rh, namex of the Fum,w Sp~if~ Plan Areas art subject
Tm~X~aUV-U~D.t~ · Drat~ Da=: July 26, 1993
2-38
CFFY OF TEMECULA Land Use Elemen~
PER CC
DIRECTION
D. Special Study Overlay
The Special Study Overlay daignation is .intended for those areas in the community
that require a comprehensive, ~eWiled evaluation of dtvelopment opportu:tities and
co~ Tht City of Ttmeaula will ltad the prtpatuaon of a special study for
tht 3Ftcolas Vallty area as shown on Figure 2-6. Tht land use dtsignaaons
idenafitd on the Land Use Plan are based on existing lot patterns, access
consftai~ lack of infrastructure, topography, and other considerations. The
purpose of the special sttufy is to recommend any changes to General Plan land uses
based on a daailed valuation of the foEowing:
the Fovision of flood contro~ stwtr, wattr and othtr sirvices;
impacts on surrounding dtvelopment in ttrms of traffic, light, noise, and
mahods to provide a transiaon ba~een rurul and suburbaNurban
dtvdopment;
topography and rtlattd visual impacts of d~vtlopmtnt;
exisang lot patterns;
tra30~c circulation and impacts on level of service;
vtg~vtion and wildlife resources; and
the provision of r~creation trails and optn space linkages.
The special audy(s) should also identify a strattgy for f nancing and phasing of
infrastruaure and other public irnproverntnt~ Future devtlopmtnt nutst bt
consistent with the adopted recommendations of the sptcial study. Should
development be proposed prior to completion of the study, the land use should be
consistent with the _,-__-_'sting General Plan designation.
If the Special Study includes recommendations that necessitate an amendment to the
General Plan, the co~t of the amendment shall he borne by the City of Temecul~
July 2~ 1993 PaF 242
Special Study Overlay ~ ....... ~ '~
,~,
ir ~ "' f f L
,:j i~ ~, f x .'_,"' '-,,[
· --, ,.~t.k.~,-, ~
The City of
~'~ ECULA
M
General Plan Program
FIGURE
~ OF TEME~ Circulation Element
--- III. GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal I
Strive to maintain a Levd of Service "D " or better at an intersections within
the City during peak hours and Levd of Service "C" or better during non-
peak hour~
Discussion The level of service .concept is defined as a qualitative measure describing
operating conditions at an intexsection or along a roadway scgnlcnt. A level of
service definition generally describes operating conditions in terms of facton such
as speed, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, dclay, comfort and
convcniemce~ and safety. Level of Service 'D" is typically considered tolerable
ff limited to the peak hour periods when traffic flows are heaviest.
The stated level of service goal serves as the foundation for providing a street
network that moves people and goods safely and cfficicntiy throughout the City
while ensuring that traffic delays are kept to a minimum.
Policy 1.1
F..stablish street standards and all new roadway facilities shall bc
constructed or upgraded to meet City standards where fr, asiblc.
Policy 12
Require an adoqunte evaluation of potential war:tic impac~ associated with
ngw development prior to project approval, and re~ui~ adequate mitigation
measures prior to, or concurrent with, project development.
Policy 1.3
PER CC
DIRECTION
Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed plnnnln5 and
implementation of the City's roadway system. The No.-tk Co..t. il
X~. ..oy Rs~d e. rte..ds.. li.,id..g Ariaelns-Rsad to #1.~ rvdig~.ed J!n. ga, it,
Rsad wal not bo ~ptt...v..~od unta ths follmd..g ...ajar arto.~vl m~t~
c..d i...erov~...v..~s Imv~ bsv.. ss...Flstodt
BlmsrJiald $tcgo Rsed e. wensie..' fro... Highw,-y 79 $mrth to
Mn. . :aw list $p. :..gs P, evdl
Ov~rl~-,d Driv~ Ov~Fpessl
Ms.-g:ritn Rsar~ fro... 8dane to Mtrn~ste list 8pri..g5 Reed~
V~q..sksst~ Rs~d (IIighwsy 79 Nerth) wifta~..g to si~ Is..ss fro...
Y.-oz Rs~d to Auld IIsodl
W~..ohaavsr RotutlI 15 i.~t,s~hv..g~ i...Fr~v~..s.~tsl
Niosloa~Roej vastst4y fro~. W~..si, sgfsF Rsrd to B4r_*tsrfisld $tqg~
Mu..;s~v llst St~..gs Rsad soa, t ~o... i~al, sasf Rsotl to
Bq~rtsrfisld $t~g~ Rs~dt =..d
Calla Girasol to Coils Ckspos to H(qlsstt rrns ~onvsa. r.
July 26, 1993
Pa~3-9
CITY OF TEh~CULA Circ?._l~_~on Element
PER CC
DIRECTION
lc ed#ition, City staff sl~B ~t~,ty tha n~il,..otio.. sf llighwmy 79 No.-:k
fro..~ = $trts Iligh.~y to = City U~b",. A.--.#.~4, =.t the sseiraation of
WaJflo g4z..a .wMt~ fFo... stwttida the City to s toll ssa~. Ties Conoral PIn..
Ch.cnlotio,. Pin.. sh-ll ke 1;e..'allwily gvlise at $~ 20, 25, n..d 20 y~e
Itvalor't pt. Codr Is c'-hmts She ,.eet far gee No, q~ Ca..s~l Koe...q
Rs~t stts..a~is... If ths .Vs~qie Ge..t.d Ks~...q Its~4 ~v~sr. sion is to
Pa.r~ e= g~s C~latisn PIe.., spwifie t~vfiea '....g bs w',dortake.. and
p,_' liecity .. s~ed r ~sP ts tka i ..;k......r'is.. sf flee..n t~ ray, ~ .e~e'q. ~g
_-.. R=vi~s:'~~.s.j.l l. nlms$ Rq;o~t thrt is i.. eo...p//--'~eo ~dtie the tken
..6ee;ttd CBQ. A gmtir~i..~s fot, ..sise ~mtffe. ;_.g -.~ p..~lge if/sty.
Policy 1.4
Poncy zz
Pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to
reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along szxccts within the
City.
Periodioally UpdaUr e, my tkr~e ytars, or as utdtd, "build-out" tragic
forecasts to monitor the impact of dcvclopmcnt approvals and the
adequacy of thc Circulation Eicmcnt Roadway Plan.
Goal 2 Enlume~ nafile ~afety on City street.
Discussion
Policy
Policy
The safe operation of vehicular traffic on City streets is a concern of both City
officials and residents of the community. The following policies axe directed
towards minimizing safety hazards and cncouraging safer opcra~g conditions on
City strcczs.
2.1 The City shall enforce speed restrictions throughout the City.
2.2
Require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed
to minimize traffic confliCtS such as those which resttit from curb parking
mancuvczs and uncontrolled access along heavily traveled roadways.
Poficy 2.3
Policy 2.4
Rcquixc that thc dcvclopmcnt of ncw privatc drivcways do not introduce
significant tr~mc conflicts along major su'cets and primary residential
collenten wads.
Rcquizc that vehicular and pedestrian trn~c be separated to thc mnrimum
cxtcnt feasible,.
Policy 2.$
Establish an ongoing maintenance pwgram to ensure the saf=ty of the
City's madway system.
TEM-OXMamt*-CUt~X, · July :26, 1993 Page 3-10
CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element
IV, CIRCULATION PLAN
PER CC
DIRECTION
The Cix'~lation Plan d~-velop~ for the City of Tcme~'ula has been designed to me~t the
following objcaives:
To provide adequate capacity to accommodate the travel needs resulting from the
General Plan Land Use Element as well as from anticipated development in adjacent
Riverside County and City of Muftieta areas; and
· To maintain a positive quality of Life in Tomecub.
The proposed Circulation Plan for the City of Tcmccula Sphere of Ineuene and Area of
Interior and Sph~e/Area of lnflu~ct, and Environmental Stud~ Ar~, is illustrated in
Figure 3-1. The alignments shown for future planrid roadways art Imliminaty and are
subject to re. liniment ba~ed on futur~ m~,oinetting $ntdie$. F~gute 3 I dopiotc the
rsoommended oiroulation ~y~tom for ntsnc outrids the City and Sphere and illuctrnteo the
continuity and internotion of the Cjty'c Cirrqation Plan with the cutrtv-_nding oiroulation
· yctom. Figur~ illasm~g the plannd conanuity and htt~aaion of the City~
Circulation Plan with the surrounding drculaaon systm m hsclr,,ted in the Gen~
Plan EZR Appendix, Volume ZU.
A. Principal Plan Features
While all components of the Circulation Plan arc important, some of the Plan futures
are being highlighted in this section. These features have been selected based on one
or more factors:
· The facility serves as a primary traffic carrying arterial within the City;
The facility represents a significant change from the previous SWAP Circulation
Element; and/or
· The facility/corridor includes special design features or serves a special function.
The principal features of the Circulation Plan include:
Designation of Winchester Road, east 'of Jefferson Avenue, as an "access
restricted" Urban Arterial with special added casements rucrvcd for future uansit
or travel demand management use.
Designation of State Route 79 (south), east of 1-15, as an "access restricted"
Urban Arterial to Butterfield Stage Road and an "access restricted" Arterial east
of Butterfield Stage Road.
Designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an "access restricted" Arterial north of
State Route 79 (south) except for the seSzncnt between Nicolas Road and Borel
Road which would be an "access restricted" Urban Arterial.
Tn~4-On03OP-~R.~Ut. * July 26, 199'3
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS
· 78' FlOW ·
LS' 12' 12' 5'
I- ·
~ 7~*- 101' ROW
* S* 14' 14'
·
·
OPTIONAL RURAL ARTERIAL.
* Sidewalk
J;.V. To be used forcud~paddng. blceMne ordimmeskme
,** Forintedmuseinlemj.namllndlmgekXameswlhin
the ¢:~ In maior. acBnclay. and ocmeomr Feght-d-weyt
General Plan Program
RGTYRE 3-2
CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element
V. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
This section of the Circulation Element discusses a broad range of topics related to
transportation improvement implementation strategies and programs which collectively work
towards the realization of the Circulation Element goals and objectives.
A. Roadway Functional Design Guidelines
The following functional design guidelines
classifications depicted on the Cimulation Plan.
sections for the Circulation Plan roadways.
are recommended for roadway
Figure 3-2 shows the typical cross-
1. Freeway
Interstate 15 freeway design standards are dictated by Caltrans District 8. The
ultimate facility planned by Caltrans (as defined in the Route Concept Report for
Interstate 15) through the City of Temecula will add one High Occupancy
Vehicle (I-IOV) lane to the current four mixed flow lanes in each direction.
Interchange improvements identified in the Circulation Plan will need to be
coordinated and approved by Caltrans. It is likely that all interchanges on-ramps
along Interstate 15 within Temecula will be subject to peak period ramp metering
within the next ten years. The City should support the concurrent implementation
of HOV bypass lanes at the ramps (where possible) to promote ride sharing and
express transit usage by area commuters.
2. Urban Arterial Highway
Features include:
A six to eight-lane high speed highway with raised landscaped median (use
for left turn movements) and striped shoulders.
Access restriction may vary depending on where the facility is located
within the City and the degree to which the roadway serves through traffic.
Generally, one-quarter mile intersection spacing should be considered as a
minimum although one-third mile would be a desirable target. Where
overriding circumstances will not allow the desired intersection spacing
policy to be met, left turn restrictions should be considered at all
unsignalized intersections and "high-speed" design features should be
incorporated into the intersection design (e.g. curb radii and
acceleration/deeeleration lanes where appropriate.
Urban Artefials designated as "access restricted" on the Circulation Plans
should maintain a minimum one-third mile spacing and a desirable target
spacing of one-half mile. Raised medians should be used on "access
restricted" Urban Arterials.
nuvi-ozxo3ov-~v, ctn. · September I4, 1993 Page 3-18
CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element
Curbside parking is generally not considered appwpriate along a heavily
traveled facility of this type. -.
Riverside County design standards should be used as a basis for developing
City standards. State Route 79 is subject to Caltrans District 8 design
standards and policies. A segment of Ynez Road is classified as an Urban
Arterial primarily due to its' planBed six-lane section. Right-of-way
constraints and existing development will not allow for the typical cross
section to be pwvided or desired access controls to be achieved.
Additional right-of-way/easement dedications should be considered at all key
intersections with other Urban Arteriais, Arterials, and Major streets for the
accommodation of full width auxiliary turn lanes.
Traffic earvying capacities of 53,000 to 70,000+ vehicles per day (at Level
of Service D) can be achieved depending on the degree of access control
and peak period traffic loadings.
3. Arterial Highway
Features include:
A four-lane cross section with raised or painted landscaped median (used
for left-turn movements).
Desirable minimum spacing for major street intersections along an arterial
is approximately one quarter mile. Minor street and driveway access may
be allowed at shorter intervals but consideration should be given to left turn
restrictions at these locations..
Arterials designated as "access restricted" on the Circulation Plan should
maintain a minimum one-quarter mile spacing and a desirable target spacing
of one-third mile. Raised medians should be used an "access restricted"
arteriais.
As a primary traffic carrier, curbside parking may not be considered
appropriate along the more heavily traveled Arterial segments within the
City.
Additional right-of-way/easement dedications should be considered at key
intersections with Urban Artcriais, other Arteriais, and Major streets for the
accommodation of full-width auxiliary turn lanes.
Traffic carrying capacities of 34,000 to 45,000+ vehicles per day (at Level
of Service D) can be achieved depending on the degree of access control
and peak period loadings.
THM-0X~0SOP-CIILC:UL · Septctnber i4, 1993 Page 320
CITY OF TF. JV~CULA Circulation Element
Riverside County design standards should be used as a basis for developing City
standards for Arterial roadways. A s.~gment of State Route 79 (south) east of
Butterfield Stage Road would be subject to Caltrans design standards and
policies.
4. Major Highway
Features include:
A four-lane cross section with painted or raised landscaped median '(used
for left-turn movements).
Minimum spacing for principal street intersections along Major streets
should be one-~ighth mile. The desirable target spacing would be one-
quarter mile between principal intersection. Where overriding circumstances
will not allow the minimum spacing policy to be maintained, left turn
restrictions should be considered at minor unsignalized driveways.
As a primary traffic carrier, curbside parking may not be appropriate along
some of the more heavily traveled Major street segments within the City.
Additional right-of-way/easement dedications should be considered at key
intersections with Urban Arterials, Arterials, and other Major streets to allow
for full-width auxiliary turn lanes or dual-left turn lanes.
Traffic carrying capacities of 34,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day (at Level of
Sewice D) can be achieved depending on the degree of access control and
peak period loadings.
Riverside County design standards should be used as a basis for developing City
standards for Major roadways.
5. Secondary Highway
Features include:
· A four-lane cross section without median (undivided).
Minimum intersection spacing along Secondary streets should be
approximately one-sixteenth mile (330 feet). Direct access fxom private
residential properties should be avoided where possible.
While the Secondary street cross section allows for curbside parking, this
parking' must be prohibited near principal intersections where left-turn lane
striping is provided.
TEM-0t~3P-ClItCUL · S~tember 14, 1993 Page 3-21
~.~i!i~ii~ Chaparral Area
CHAPARRAL AREA
~/L_
General Plan Program
CIRCULATION PLAN
The City of
General Plan Program
! /
!
! J'
i
FIOURE
~ OF TEIVXBCULA Housing Element
V. CONSTRAINTS
A. Governmental Constraints
Govcrnmcntal constraints are policies, standards or requirements imposed by the
various levels of government on development. Although federal and smt~ agencies
play a rolc in the imposition of $ovemmental constraints, these agencies are beyond
thc influence of local government and are therefore not addressed in this document.
The following fa~.ors constrain the maintenance, improvement, and/or development of
housing in Tcmocuia: land use controls; building codes; Foecuing proccduzes; and
dcvglopment legs.
1. Zo-h,S Code
The General Plan is the foundation of all land use controls in a jurisdiction. The
Land Use Elcment identifies the location, distribution and intensity of land uses
in the City. The primary instruments for implementing the General Plan will be
the Z~ning Code and Subdivision Ordinance,. The current Zoning Code being
used by the City is the County of Rivtrside's Ordinance 348. The City is
currenay Wepa~g a Development Code which will be consistent with its
General Piar~ For purposes of the Housing Element, an analysis of the DraJ~
Temecula Development Code is pmvidetL This analysis may be further refined
during the next Housing Element update, when the Development Code will be
adopteeL The current Subdivision Ordinance being used by the City is the
County of Riverside's Subdivision Ordinance 460. The City expects to continue
to rely on the County's Code for at least the next fiscal year.
The proposed Temecula Development Code incorporates resid~ gtmdards
that will enable the continued development of higher density projects as
congtruaed under the County's Zoning Code and S~' ~ Ordinance. 2~ae
proposed Development Code contains seven residential clas~.acatlons, which
cover the six General Plan Land Use designations. 17ae land use controls
permit by right single family residences in all zones ctcept the Medium and
High Density categories~ Townhomes, multifamily housing, and mobile homes
are permitted by right in the Low Medium, Medium, and High Density zones.
In addition, the Code provides for a Village Center Overlay and a Planned
Development Overlay. The Development Code regulates such features as
building height and density, lot area, setlmck~ and open space requirement= per
zoning district. The overlay zones are a special dedgnaaon which are subject
to site-specific regulations.
Approval for development in the vvPdlage Center Overlay requires satisfaction
of performance standards aractdattd in the Devtlopment Code. These
standard~ re, flea a focus on unique and creative development that promotes
integration of retail, open rpace and ruidential uses. Dh,~ of housing,
including affordable housing is one factor in the ptrfornumce standards. The
Planned Development Overlay also provides ~e__-_'Hlity in development
CTI'Y OF TEMECLTLA Housing Element
standards. Development standards for the seven residential-zoning
classifications are provided in Table 4-19.
Table 4-19
Dralt Residaad Development Standards
Dra]t Residential Dtvtlopmnt Standards
Miaimum Lot Arut
Minimum Avtmgt Na lot Aria ptr Dvntling
Ma=imm~ Dvnlllnl Otatt Per Atre .2
~ Mimmam Width at Retlmred Fr~nt ..~tbm'ic Area I lO0 .fi.
[$e.TBaC2gS4 ' ~, 7~., .. .~. ; ...;. ..
Minimum l~rant Yard 40 It
Minimum Corner Sldt Yard 40 )t
Miniram Intvtor Slat Yards 10 )~
~ ItXIGHF
I~ ~ OF ~ COlERAGE
90 qb [
2000 [ 1~00
Tht dvelopvm~ .mmdartU are bam~ o~ tU Dralt Dm~!opmat Cork ~_,~__ Mard~ 19t).,', ~ by TU
planninI C~nttr.
Development standards may add to the cost of housing because the standards
may nece, g'imte additional construcaon and building materials and labor.
The standards are enaad for the protection of tht community's health,
safety and welfare.
Modification or ~~ in devtlopmtnt standards van reduce the cost of
housing e, onstrm=tion, which may in turn, rault in lowtr housing prices. In
Tttntctda's propostd Devtlopmtnt Code, vatiablt stthnck standards are
allowtd; which provides mort flttibaity in silt planning, parlictialrly on
irregularly shaped paratl~ In addia~ residenaal devtlopment in both the
Plonntd Developmat and Village Celtter Overlay Zones can ~ advantage of
even greater fle__~_'baity in development standards far these areas. It is expected
'Tlad-OtV~tOP440~ · January 4, :1.993
CITY OF TEMECUL~ Housing Element
that dtvdopment under these gandatd$ i.. these qn~s will promote a wider
range of housing opportttnit~ in comparison to the traditional zoning dixt~ctx.
Ttw ~cation of affordable hO .aVing as a factor in the performance
standards for the V'alage..Center Overlay provides a meehan~ for the
renli~,tion of this objective.
Parking rtquirments in the Draft Dedopment Cotlt r$2t for two eovtr~l
spaces per single family rtddtnee with thrte or f~wer l~Irooms, and three
covtrtd spaces for a single family riddance with four or mor~ bedrooms.
Parking rtquinment$ for multifamily housing are g~nmdly two spaces per
unit, with an additional requirtm~t of one guest space per ~very four units.
Parlang rtquirvntnts for Senior Ciaztn housing and Congregate Cure are
rtduced to .q ~ac~s p~r unit and au ~ate per five units for gust parking.
Temecula's draJ~ standards art compamblt to other cities in Rivmide County
and ar~ not itltntift~d as a consm~ to d~velopmm~
2. Subdivision Ordinanee
State law requires local gnvernmcnts to adopt a Subdivision Ordinance. The
Subdivision Ordinance governs the process of convening raw land into
development sites.n State Law grants local governments the authorities to
regulate the design and improvements of subdivisions and to impose dedication
and exactions on developers. The Subdivision Map Act establishes statewide
uniformity in local subdivision procedures; standards for design and
improvements are left to lc~al government discretion. As noted above, tht
Subdivision Ordinance b~ing ustd by tht City is the County of Rivtr$ide's
Subdivisw' n Ordinance 460.
The Subdivision Ordinance like all land use controls, can be so restrictive u to
increase cost of development and stifle development interest. The Subdivision
Ordinance used by the City is the same or similar to ti~ requirments imposr, d
by many other lor~ governments in Riverside County, and thtrtfore does not
pose any special constraints on the production of housing. T=mecuia conforms
to the procedural requirements established in the Subdivision Map Act and does
not impose additional requirements.
3. Bundin Codes
Building Codes regulate the physical construction of dwellings and include
pl-,,~bing, electrical and mechanical divisions. The purpose of the Building Code
and its enforcement is to protect the public from unnf= buildings and rural=
conditions associated with construaion. The City of Temecula enforces the
Uniform Building Code u established by State I~w. State affords local
government with some flexibility when adopting the uniform codes: the building
codes can be mended based on geographical, topological or climatological
CITY OF TEM:ECULA Hou3ing Element
PROVISION OF ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES
Land Use Pmvlea~
Otdba~ ~v~k,_ ~t
mlmm Im
rand "_._ pn~/rand
Trmmlenm $mNm
Table ~-2~
City of Temec-!,,
HousanS X'hn Summary.
Acqunmm(or
rumram) for
dl~ .... m/nninr
Adequalemeldmtisiest~
n:n.._,,m"t1 Nmglxelbir
mhsmdeendnemele
Vmmy Lmmm; .12137 LmuuC,
-161./711dedemXmdlli433'
Abemlixlemelnmme
Ix~wmNY It
Rem/mn ~' ~ ~
r/Hf~,t, "-'zmmman~
zemm Thume,;.mwillm.
mCjmmll imwMimnry
Deempmtadme~
]mmmmmm omfmm~ eke.
m,m;mmemzoramm~
Inciudepmmionsmemtnem
rASSIST IN DEVEI.OPM2NT OP A~ORDA~I,E HOUSNG
Dens~ Bonus encen;e
Mhoumgaml
h--~ trpm~-
albedableher,~,i
None ~,,/
mmmmmdemZmimecme~
llmSmmMUdtOmdirmmmm
mmlpmmmmmmdunamm
midmldlm:mmmdkrmingim
mndmmmlimmlymmidmmddum.
kmmdvm for{k.. ~...;.d. of
~:a4mm~bylmemmmemfN
rllm!:or~f'm
Ag.nc~ r. rmm
Plmm~ DmF le,,uat Two Ymam
Rm& .amp....nt
Twoyems
Raining DmF l.~...it Ome yem
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
A. Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
Land Use Elmnent/Zonlng Ordimmc,
Th= Land Us~ Element of the C~neral Plan and the Z~ning Ordinanc~ provide the
planning and regulamry fpm~,,~rk n~'~ary to achi~vc adc~luat~ housing situ.
Th= Land Us= Plan pmvid~ for d~valopm~nt of a rau~ of housing, at varying
densities. Th~ densities range from .1 units per acre for lands in areas designated
Hillside Residential, to 20 units per acre in the High Density category.
The Zoning Ordimmc~ can provid~ mgulatory inccn~v~ for tho dtwclopmcnt of
affordable housing. Thz I~nsity Bonus allow~ for additional intensity in
residential development which includes affordable housing. With regard to the
needs of the homeless, the ZOning Ordinallee wit[ allOw for development of
emergency and transitional shclt~s in specffiexi areas.
Objective:
Adequate residential sites to accommodate the regional fair share
dctermined at '_e~lD Very ~ I~..eI37 Lower, ~.~.171
Moderate; and 4B-S433 Above Moderate incomc houscholds.
2. Sites for Emergency and Transitional Shelters
The homelcss population refas to pasons lacking consistent and adequate shclter.
Homeless persons can be considered resident (those r~nsdning in an ~ year-
round), or trnn-~ient. Emergency and transitional shelters can help to address the
needs of the homeless. Emergency shelters provide a short-term solution to
homelessness and involve limitai .supplemental serviccs. Transitional shelters,
in conwast, are directed at removing the basis for homelesshess. Shelter is
provided for an extended period of time, and is combined with other social
services and counseling to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency.
Obje -ti :
Adopt a Zoning OrdinaIlc~ which pennis transitional and
emergency housing in oommoroial and indur, trial zones MetHum
and High Rtside~ Density zones, and conditionally permits
shelters in the remaimn' g Residential zones and Commerdal and
I~ zones. Those us ,.vill be subjoot to disspationary
nppwval.
3. Landbanking
Landbanking is the acquisition of land by public agencies in anticipation of future
development. This technique serves as a hedge against speculation and inflation
as it secures land for affordable housing until further resources are available for
their development. Where development of the land is not feasible, the local
agency can sell the land at market rate, and capture the increase in value for such
public uses, e.g., senior/low-income housing.
TEM-OnO4m'-HOUm,~O · Juugry 4, lg~3
Ps~ 4-f'3
Open Space/Conservadon Elemenz
A number of additional impwvements arc currently underway or being planned.
Thesc impwvcmcnts includc thc consmwtion of a community xr, creation ccntcr,
pool complex and amphitheater at the S. pom Park, and other facilities at Pala
Park.
Thc City has a joint use agreement with the Tanecula Valley Unified School
Distria which allows the City to utilize school facilities. School facilities are
generally open to the public during non-school hours, weekends and vacations.
Due to the partial availability of school reaeation facilities to the public at large,
such facilities arc considered adjuncts to thc city-widc park system. Tablc
below provides a s,,mmary of the existing facilities at the school sites for use by
the public.
Tabk S4
Temecnla Valley Unmed School District
Existing School Facilities
Red Hawk
Elmenfa:y
South of Pauba Road, west
of Bunofficial Stage Road
North of Kcarney Road,
ust of Via Monterey
South of Raneho V~ta
Road, =st of Max~-im
North of Wol./' Valley, West
Recre~en Facilities
PiaBXounds, ~ Bssketball,
Soccerfield, PlayBxmn2, Bssketball,
PlayFounds, Bssk~ Softball,
Soccerfield, n-,eb-U, thnaball
Piaygrounm, EandbalL Swirrrmln=~
Cou~s, Footl~tL, Basketball, Softbell,
Soccerfield
Basketball, Tennis Courts, Volleybail,
Soccerfield, C~/msasiu~ Baseball,
FoodaU
PlayFounds, B,,ex',tball, Vdleybal~
Private recreation facilities arc found primarily in planned oommtmities and
apartment complexes. These facilities usually include tennis courts or a
bn~l,'etb*11 com't. Thc existing facilities are so ~ that they have a minor impact
on meeting the demand for parks and x~creation facilides within the conunity.
There are also several exi-~dng oommcrcial recreation facilities within thc City
and Sphere of Infiue, nee including fzmr ~olf comes. Two mddi~onal golf oouzses
July 2.6, 19F3 PaF ~.9
Class II and III
Bicycic Trails
· -' Class I Bicycle Trails
Ii
J' r m=,,.,, ~ ~o Lay. Skinner
i ,u,o m Trail
PER CC
DIRECTION
2211 _
,a · l I "'=' '='E~"~4~
dlr I
~',--h e C i t y o f
EMECULA
General Plan Program
FIGUgg 5-2
CITY OF TSMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element
Historic and Culturally Significant Resources including: '2.3 recorded
arahaeological sites; 47 properties//szed on the Historic Resouwes Invcntory
prepared by Rivetside County; bur l'.tstings on the California Inventory of
Historic Reso..m'cm; and several historic resources of local importance including
the Butterficld Overland Stag Route. The Temecula properties listed in the
California Inventory of Historic Resources are thc Murricta Creek Archaeological
Area, Temecula's first Post Of:flee, Te~a Quarries, and the Little Tcmecula
Rancho Adobe. Thc awhaeological sites include prehistoric sites, sites occupied
by Nativc Amcrica-,~, and historical sites associated with the occupation of
Tcmccula Valley by Europeans and Bum-Americans. Figurm 5-6 and 5-7
identify the sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources of the Study
Area. Due to the presence of reliable water sottrees and a fertile valley floor, the
Tcmccuia area has always been a desirable place to live. Temecula contains
many older structures, kistoric sites and districts, and archaeological cvidence
which may be threatened with demolition or removal as urbanization continues.
10.
Nighttime skies within the Mt- Palomar Observatory conservation areas. The City
is within close pro~dmity to the Palomar Observatory which requites unique
nighttime lighting restrictions. Generally, Observatory sites need to be 30 to 40
miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened.
The County of San DiogoC/ty of Tetnecula has adopted an ordinance which
restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile .radius
of Palomar Observatory. Southeastern portions of the Study Area are within a
15-mile radius of the Observatory and should beare subject to slringent lighting
eontrois and some limitation of uses that may generate sigrdfwant amounts of
//ght and g/are to preserve nighttime skies (Figure 5-8).
The Open Space/Conservation Plan (Figure 5-9) identifies the undeveloped areas of the
Study Area which, at a minimum, should remain as open space or extremely low
density development for the conservation of resources, including water, wildlif'~, and
slopes. Policy guidan~ for the dedication of open space for public health and safety
is provided in the Public Safety Element-
.D. MineralResources
State law requires the General Plan to address the ned for conserving mineral
resources within the General Plan Stutly Area. The State Division of Mines and
Geology !ms prepared mineral resource reports designating the mineral deposits of
statewide Or regional significance, that are to be used to address mineral resources
within the Study Area. The report entitled; Mineral Land Classification of the
Temescal Vallev Area, Riverside County California, Svecial Report 165. evabuttes
the mineral deposits of the Temecula Study Area. This report was prepared in
accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
The State Geologist has classified areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MP, Z) and
Scientific Resource Zones (SZ). The zones identify the statewide or regional
Ta~!-e~l~:)!'S.~A · Date: July 26, 1993
CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element
significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of the deposits and
acces~ibilfry. W'tthin the City of Temecula, its Sphere of Influence, and the
Environmental Study Area, the zoning classi .~ation of MRZ-3a has been applied by
the State. The MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits which have the potential
for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate,
however, these. areas are deiermined as not containing deposits of significant
ecortomic ya/,tte based On the ayailable dat~
Ligming h-npact Zone
~ 45-~liic Radius
l_ _,- Li~ting Impact Zone
General Plan Program
FIGUI~ 5-S
CITY OF TElVlE~
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
!11. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RELEVANT ISSUES
Facilities and services provided in Tcmccula may be cateSorized as either 1) those under
the direct responsibility and authority of the City, either directly or through contract
arrangements; or 2) those under the rupousibility and authority of another unit of
government which are vitally imporumt to the well being of the City and its citizens.
The facilities and services under direa City responsibility include:
Fire protection (contracted to Rivemide County Fh-e DeparuncuO
Paramcdic Emer$cnc7 Services (contractai to Rivcrsid= County Fire Department)
Police/Sheriff (contracted to Riverside County Sheriffs Deparuncno
Civic Center
Flood Control/Drainage (local storm drain facilities)
Solid Waste (contracted to private companies)
The fac~ifies and services curren~y under other I~'crnmental responsibility include:
PER CC
DIRECTION *
Library (Riverside County)
Water Supply (Rancho California Water District)
Sanitary Sewer Fac~ities (Eastern Municipal Water District)
Schools (Temccula Valley Unified School District)
Flood Control (major facilities by Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District)
Gas and Elearic Service
The differences are significant in terms of the City's ability to control policies, progr~m-~
and budget related to these functions. The City has direa conu'ol in the first category and
therefore exercises direct authority over level of scrvic~ standards. Where contract services
are pwvided, such as fire and police protection, the City may address level of service
standards through the contnct process.
The City may only influence decisions rcffarding the second category. Thus, the lcvcb of
service may or may not bc to the City's liking. In those cases, the option would bc to find
ways of negotiating changes ff the City desired different standards.
An additional consideration is the dc~rcc of control the City has over placing conditions of
approval on proposed development projects regarding public services that are impacted by
a project Again, the City has the ability to impose conditions directly regarding the first
category and only indirectly in the second.
A. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The Rivaside County Fire Dcparuncnt (RCFD), who operates in conjunction with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Pwtection (CDF), pwvides fire protection
services on a contract basis to the City. The City contract pwvides funding for 23.6
fn'c personnel.
TEM-0P~SOP-ORO. MGT · July 7.6, 199~j Pags 6-10
I I
Existing Fiz~ Stations
Proposed Fire Stations
SherifFs DeVanmenV
County Justice Contar .
~bm~
hznm QW ~1 Siz
Fm~h Valley ~on
PER CC
DIRECTION
T~h e C i t y o f
xEMECULA i~ "
General Plan Program
RGURB 6-1
16" Gas Lin~
24" Gas Line
.. U?~ LIiNJz~
30" Gas Lin~
!
T~,he City of / ""~'
EMECULA
General Plan Program '1
· ·
EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTlOiN
115 K VOLT TRANSMISSION LINES
·
! I
I I
I I
i I
I
I
I
I
.... ; Existing or under construction
115 K-Volt Transmition Lin~
The City of
'ZMECULA
General Plan Program
CITY OF TER~CULA Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
C. Solid Waste Disposal
The City presently contracts with two private firms for solid waste disposal. Both
haulers tran,pon the City's waste to the El Sobrante I -qndfill, located in unincorporated
Rivehide County, south of Corona. The E1 Sobrante Land fill is a Class HI landffil
with a life expectancy through the year 2002. The landffil occupies 160 acres and
accepts an average of 900 tons per day. Western Waste Industries, the owner and
operator of the land fill, lass indicated that expansion of the facility could increase the
life expectancy. Expansion plans are cun'ently under preparation.
The City began implementation of its cm'bside recycling program in the fall of 1991.
The purpose of this program is to reduce solid waste disposal through recycling and
composthag of wastes. Residents in the City separate recyclable materials and garden
materials f~om their waste. Recyclablc ma~riais are transported to a center in Pen'is
for process~ Garden materials are hauled to a separate facility for cornposting, and
the remaining waste is hauled to the El Sobrante Land fill.
Sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate pwjeaed growth is an issue the City must
address. The City will adopt its Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SSRE) in
Fall, 1993, pursuant to State law. Implementation of the SSRE program-,: are necessary
to achieve the 25 percgnt diversion goal by 1995 and 50 percent diversion goal by
2000.
D. Libraries
The City of Tcmccula is a member of the Riverside County Library District. This
District maintains 25 library facilities throughout Riverside County, in both
unincorporated and incoqx:rated areas.
A 15,000 square foot library facility has recently opened in the Walt Abraham
Adminiswative Center, north of Winchester Road (Figure 6-1). The facility was
originally intended to serve residents in the southwest area of unincorporated Riverside
County. However, as a result of Temecula's incorporation, the Temecula Library is
now located within City boundaries. The library will contain 50,000 volumes and is
anticipated to be adequate to serve the current populations of the Cities of Muzrieta
and Temecula.
The iasue..of gatest importance to the Library District is adequate funding to pwvide
for its adopted library service standards. The standards call for 1.2 volumes and .5
squar~ feet of library space per capita. The District currently provides only .13 square
feet and .97 volumes per capita County-wide. Revenue for the Library District is
obtained from a Special District tax collected by the County. However, the District
competes with other County agencies for this funding and therefore the level of
funding to the County Library is uncertain. Demand for libraries goes hand in hand
with population increases. The library is often seen as a community symbol, a source
of community identification. Although the Tcmecula Library is currently adequate to
Tm-OnOiOP-C}RO.MOT · August 10, 1993 Pala 6-14
CITY OF TE1VIE~ GrowrA Maru~gement/Public Fadliz~es Element
G. Educational Facilities
The Temecula Valley Unified School District serves the General Plan Study Area. The
District maintains the full spectrum of educational facilities fzom day care to adult"
care. Table 6-3 identifies the educational facfiifies in the General Plan Study Area,
with the cuffcnt capacity and enrollment levels of each facility.
Table
School Facilities
Enrollment
asof
Curtrot July ~
Name Location C~pref~y 1993
......
Razr, bo Day Care 31530 Ls Sergna Way ~ 7d -'~ 74
Vail Day Care 29915 Mira Loma Drive 99 74 ~4 74
,gparimumDayCare 32225RioPioPicoRoad 74
Red Fawk Day Ca.,e~ 32045 Camino San Jose (Tcmccula) gO ,$S 90
Rancbo momentary [ 31530 La Scram Way 900 930 846 861
3oan F. Sparkman 32225 Pio Pico Road
Temecula Elementary 41951
Vail Elementary 29915
Nicolas Vatlay Eleznem~ 39600
Moraga Road
MiraLomaDrive
N. oem~ Kearney (Tenr.,nda)
900 i10 ~ 750
960 7,$$
660 1,Od$ 43& 727
Red Hawk. Elmnenmtya 32045 Camino San Jose (Teaan)
· .Marg, anm Middle 130600 Manesrim Road I 0t8, 1J99
'17eraecru, hUrlcue 14207s d=do h, ,,ay 1,0 0 I I
Tcmecula Valley 31555 Rancho Vista Road _~,~,,_n
2,S20 2,29a
Rancho Vista 31340 Rancho Vista Road ~ 1.~ 96 137
[ Temecula Adult School J31350 Rancho Vista Road J n/a I n/a
Ix L,-~__tadwiiia Sphemdlnllumm.
The District recen~y completed an expnmzion phase and as a result has s~rt'Ficient
permanent facilities to meet current student populations t/u,ough the use oj~pennanent
and interim ,facaigfes. As shown in Table 6-3, the capacity of school facilities is
greater than current student enrollment ~tres. The District alr, o mainthins cm'~rgZy
~tses interim and rciocatable facilities to naoommoda~ 6tudsaic in eaostm of the
Tn~otmowoao~u-r · July 26. 1993 Page 6-19
CITY OF TBR~CtJ'LA Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
PER CC
DIRECTION
Quasi-public uses include churches; counseling centers; cultural facilities (thcatrcs,
auditoriums, museums, zoos, etc.); day care facilities; medical facilities; social service
ccntcrs; and similar public serving uses. Quasi-public uses are frequen~y, though not
always, funded and opcratcd by non-profit organizations. Such uses differ from public
facilities and services in that they do not typically have legally prescribed standards
and not normally rcquirat as a condition of approval for privatc development projects.
It is common to accommodate quasi-public uses through a city's land use policies and
regulations, while prescribing spccial development standards. Such uses do not
generally have lcvcl of service standards. Qualitative standards arc pan of the
cvaluation and ncgotiation process associated with cacti dcvclopmcnt projcct as it is
proposed. To thc maximum extent possible, it is desirable to cluster quasi-public uses
in activity centers, where the facilities can r~inforc~ other activities (such as retail or
scrvicc businesses) and bcncfit from thc availability of othcr scrviccs (such as but
transportation).
Gas and El~arie Service
Sotthem California F2ison supplies eicaricity W the Study Area via underground
and overhead lines, 5C2~ main snbstation is located on Mira Loma Drive in the
City of Temecula. SC_,E is a public utility and therefore functions on demand.
Extensions for electrical service to new developments are governed by roles
established by the Public Uff_t_~aes Commission of California. The hierarchy of
establishing electrical power lines from gtnertaion stations to customt~ is as
follows: transmission line; suh-transmiaaion line; and service lint. Figure 6-5
locates the e.z~'ng transmis~n lines in the community which carry the main
electrical supply to smaller dislribuaon lines.
Natural gas is Fovided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). Plastic
and steel underground lines are located throughout the Study Area. A small number
of residents not serviced by SCGC tailize bottled propane or bttane fuel. Exisang
gas lines are shown on Figure 6-6.
Tm-oxmov-oao. Ma'r · July 26, l~q3 Pa~
CITY OF ~CULA Public Safety Element
located over the Study Area. Some-existing development in the Study Area, is
potentially ezposed to air traffic accidents.
G. Nuclear Hazards from San Onofre NUclear Generating Station
The San Onofre Nuclear Gencrating Station (SONGS) is located in Camp Pendleton
in San Diego County approximately 25 miles west of Temecula. Radioactive by-
products arc contained within the plant, with the exception of small quantities of
radioactive ~as released into the air and liquids released into the Pacific Ocean. The
releases arc monitored by SONGS personnel; and accordinS to SONGS, radiation
exposure due to material releases is less than the typical exposure from natural
baclq]xound radiation. The two most likely sources of radiation contnminsition arc
transportation accidents involving nansport of radioactive materials and uncontrolled
releases at the plant site.
f
The U.S. Nuclear Rcgulatory Commission !ass identified the area surrounding every
nuclcar Sencrating station as an Emergency Planning Zonc (BPZ). Thc State of
California has dcfined thc arca outside, and adjaccnt to the EPZ as a Public Bducation
Zone (PKZ). The Pederal Gore, ..... ent establishes the area with a 50-mile radius
around every nuclear generating station as an Ingestion Pathway Zone (IPZ). The
Tcmccula Study Area is located in the IPZ (Figure 7-5).
H. Emergency Preparedness
The City of Temecula has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan puzsunnt to the
California Emergency Services Act. The primary objective of the plan is to ensure the
cffcctivc managcmcnt of City pcrsonncl and resources in responding to cmcrgcncy
situations Stemming from natural disasters, technological incidents and nuclear defense
emergencies.
The plan includes a responsibility matrix which dclineates specific responsibilities to
City dcpanmcnts or pcrsonncl in the cvcnt of an cmcrgcncy. The plan also includes
a comprehensive hazard analysis that addresses the seven following areas: earthquake,
hazardous material incident; flooding; dam failure; major fire/wildfire; nuclear incident;
transportation incident.
The Multi-Hazard Functional Plan provides a general guidtllut on the evtwttevtion
route$ in the event of a disaster. Due to the unprtdictability of the impaa of a
-disaster on struts and highways, appropriate evacuation routt$ cannot be prt-
determinttL In general, all trajTw will he channeled to the nearby fretways, state
highways, and other major arttrials. 1-25 will serve as the north-south evacuation
channel Winchester Road and Rancho California will he used for east-west
evacuation.
CITY OF TEMECI. K~ Public Safety Element
Once the decision to evacuate is.made, the public will be alerid and given
~vacuation instructions by various means~ including school altrtlmonitor r~ceiv~rs,
AM/FM radio announcments, TV announcments, sirens, mobile loud spe. akers,
hailers, and personal coma.
Mov~meut information Fov~ed to the public will include the following:
· Why they must ~vacuatt.
· Routes to tak~ including condiaons of road~ bridgs~ and fr~sway ovvZ~s~s.
· What to do 0~ a yehiclt brtalcs down.
· The locations of assembly points for those without access to automobiles.
· Where to go for mass rare until the ffn~rgency sittta~ion has passe&
T~4X~:OP~JB.~AP · Dat~ ~snusty 4, ~ Ps~ 7-14
CITY OF TEMECI. JLA Communixy De. sign Element
C. Village Center Concepts
The Land Use Element describes the concept of the development af Village Centers
throughout the Tanecula area. Thc intent of the Village Center Concept is-to-provide
opportunities for development of mixtures of commercial and residential uses that will
minimi~ vehicular circulation Irips, avoid sprawling of commercial devclopmcat, and
offcr incentives for high quality urban design. While each of the Village Centers may
develop with differcat criteria, regulation~ and visual thcmcs, there are certain
common elemcnts that should bc addressed as a pan of each Village Center Plan. The
foBowing ilh2tratz2 these common con~ifterafioB$, or what could be described as thc
"palcue of design coaccpts" for a Village Ccnter arca. Many of thew design concepts
are also applisble to dvdopment projects outside the Fdlage Centers. The
dvdopment of beneficial mi. mvw of uses, sirered parldng f~v dliti es, and pede.vtfian-
oriented design, are _._,'_~_,nplss of the com:epts tinst should be erscouragsd throughout
the community.
1. ' Mixtures of Uses
A Village Center is intended to include a diversity of different types of land uses.
While retail development may be the primary land use, it is envisioned that the
Village Center will also include additional employment opportunities such as
offices, and personal servic~ shops. Community meeting centers could be
included for private or public activities. Residential development could be
integrated with the non-residential uses. The mixtures of land uses could be in
separate structures or combined within a single building. One possib~ity is to
have retail use on the ground floor level, office uses on the second level, and
residential units on the upper levels.
I'las:~ls.sl~ ever alice snd ~ rslsl ts~s
~ OF TEME~ Community D~gn Elemen~
H. Chaparral Area
The Chaparral Area iz characterized by moderately sloped hii!_~des above dry
washbeds. F, xigtZng devgopment con~rs of zegmented lot patur~ of varying sizes.
This ar~ provides an oppommigy to transiaon down from the larger lots found in
the Los Rancidto~ and Stmaago F, rtates aret~ to the ~outh and we~ Special
devdopmtnt consid~n$ are nectsamary to aszure developmint doe$ not exceed the
carrying capacity of tht area, while salZ providing appropriatt transiaon of density.
The methad$ idenafied below 8hould be refined and incorporated within the
Development Code and other regulations and ordinances.
1. ConUmint Area~ are recognized as having the following characteristics:
a. Areas with natural slopes of 25% or greater.
b. Areas within natural drainage courses.
c. Areas with seuaive biological resources as idenafied or referenced in the
General Plan or site specific study.
Encroachment of grading, conUruc~n or surface altmzaon acaviaes
('including leach fields) shall not exceed 15% of the Conaan~ Are~
NotwRikrlmu~ng this guideline, ~ aaivities shall bt avoidul unltss sps'i~
miagations can he implmenttd to reduce pou~ impacts to a level of
Draft Dam: August 10, 1993
Pale 10-28
C~TY OF TEMEC'~LA Communi~ De~Sn Elemenl
Proposed building pad~ driveways and septic-leach field locations shall be
shown on the tentative map.
3. A written stormrot (Form SAN 53) from the Health O~ger of Rivmide
ComUy Department of Environmental Health shall be provided smang the type
of sewage disposal that will be p~, mitttd for the proposed lots.
o
· 1. All drainage arms Will r~main natural (no undergrounding or placement in v-
ditches). Use of energy dis~ators, retention basins or alesilting hasins, will he
permitted as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works.
5. Joint access and drives~ays shall be required to the greatest extent possible to
reduce impact~
Residenses should be designed using alternative foutwlation techniques to
maintain the existing topography to the greatel extent possible. Rather tlum
using extensive grading to create flat Imading arms, stepped and pier and beam
foundations shall be encouragexL Retaining walls intm,ior to the structur~ are
encouraged over stem walls along the exterior face of the structure.
No graded slopes shall exceed a 2:1 gradient. The maximum vertical height of
graded slopes over a 3:1 gradient shall be 10 fe~
Where grading occurs, finished slopes should be contoured with land form
Fading, rather than a formal engineered look.
Retaining walls shall be discouraged to the greatest extent possible, particularly
between a structure and the public view. Crib walls or similar structures, shall
be used in lieu of retaining walls when possible and planted with appropriate
shrubs and vines. Where retaining walls are used and visible from the public
view, the wall shall be colored block or color coated to match the natural earth
tone of the area or planted with appropriate vines.
10. To assure a better transh~n from adjacent areas, lots adjacent to Santiago
Road shall have a minimum lot size of 1.75 acres.
11. Roadways and driveways shall be limited to a maximum grade of 15%.
The Land Use Element designates the Chaparral Area as Low Residential, however,
much of the Chaparral Area is inappropriate for development of half. am lots. The
Development Code wilt implement the Low Residential designation through two
zoning districts. These districts will have different developmat standards, such as
half-acre and one-acr~ minimum lot siza. Bused upon the above policies, it can be
anticipated that much of the Chaparral Area will be zoned for the larger one-acre
lot sizes.
1'EM.OXU0OP4X}M.I:~ · Draft Date: August 10, 1993 h$~= 10-29
CITY OF THMECULA Community Design Elemenz
I. ~ Neighborhood Compability
Special attention has been given in the General Plan to the interface between rural
residenaal and urban dtvdopmtta. However, the compaability between the
character of existing single-family ntighborhoods and adjacent proposed projects is
also an important consideration within the community. Key considerations in the
planning and design of projtcts adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods
includes the following:
Proposed land use densities should provide a density transition or buffer
to improve compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods;
Proposed projtcts should be designed in terms of height, architectural
style, b~ location of parking, and vthicular and non-vehicular access,
to be compatible with sun~unding neighborhoods; and
The design of commercial and o~ct projtas should allow for convenient
non-vehicular access by adjacent neighborhoods to the extent feasible.
T~f-OlU0OP-CI:~:r'm~ · Draft Dam: January' 4, l~Y3
Pag~ 10-2~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR
THE EXTENSION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNEY ROAD
R:~S~G22~IPLA~OP. CC8 9/14/93 k/b I ~
SUPPLE~fENTAL TRA_rFIC ANALYSIS
GENERAL I,L'F_~ ROAD Et"I!NSION
Ci~ of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element
Introduction
At the request of the' City of Temecula Planning Commission and Staff, W~bur Smith
Associates has prepared supplemental analysis r~lative to the potential exclusion of the
General Kearny Road Extension between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road.
In more specific terms, the supplemental analysis included the development and assessment
of build-out traffic forecasts for two roadway network alternatives which eliminate the
General Kearny Road Extension. The two network alternatives identified by the Planning
Commission to be studied are as followS'.:
A. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension without addition roadway network
modifications; and
Removal of General Kearny Road Extension and additional of Nicolas Road
E,,'aension east~riy to Margarita Road.
Thc supplemental analysis also included a 'select link" analysis to identify the 'zonal
(geographic) ori~ns and destinations of vehicle trips projected to use General Kearny Road
under the currently recommended Circulation Plan. This addresses the basic question
regarding who (e.g. which development areas) would use the General Kearny Road
Ex'tension if it were implemented.
Build-Out Daily TrafFic Forecasts
Daily traffic forecasts representing build-out conditions within the City of Temecula and
surrounding communities were developed for the two roadway network alternatives using
the Temecula Circulation Element traffic model. The results of the traffic forecasting
procedure are illustrated in Figure 1 through 3. Traffic forecasts for key roadway segments
imoacted by the elimination of the General Kearny Extension are as follows:
e· ~
Ahernntive A - Without Genernl Kenmy ~xtension
· W'inch-,stcr Road between Margarim Road and Nicolas Road would
' be,'ween 81,000 and 83,000 vehicles per-day.
- Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry. an
average of 26,000 vehicles per day. ,
· Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Eeamy Road would serve
an average of 35,000 vehicles per day.
Alternative B - Without General Kearny Extension and with Nicolas Road Extension
to MarEar'ira Road
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
betwe=n 78,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day.
· Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an
avenge of 28,000 vehicles per day.
-. Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Mar[arita Road would carry an
average of 10,000 vehicles per day.
· Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Eearny Road would
serve an average of 34,000 vehicles per day.
Other shif5 in traffic would occur as a result of eliminating the General Eeamy Extension
which are not explicitly noted on ~'i~ure 1. These generally include increases in traffic along
th-~ following roadways:
the Butte.~eld Stage Road corridor between Borel Road and Paula Road;
the Bore! Road/Hunter Road corridor west of But~e~eld Stage Road;
- the La Serena Way corridor west of But~erfield Sta~e Road; and
the Margarita Road corridor between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road.
Draft Circulation Plan - With General Kearny Enension
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
between 76,000 and 79,000.
Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an
average of 21,000 vehicles per day. .
* Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General. Kearny Road would
serve an average of 30,000 vehicles per day.
Traffic ODention Imoacts
The assessmere of forecasted volume to capaclW ratios and corresponding Level of Service
is summarized in The following table:
Draft
Circulation Plan
Alternative A
Alten~afive B
Winchester Road
Los vie I, os wC Los
Nicolas Road (East) 0.50 A
Nicolas Road
C~aension)
N.A. N.A.
Margarita Road 0.71 C
-:.
V/C - Volume to capacity ratio
LOS - Level of Service
N.A. - Not applicable to akemative
1.09-1.12 F
0.62 B
\,
0.83.
/' ~
r.05-1.08/:F
0.67 B
0.59 A
Select Link Anatvsis
--~ele:: Link" analysis is a tool offered by the tra~-~c foreca~mg computer model which
the user to identify the ori~ins and d~tiom of ~ ~ps ~i~ed xo a road~y
se~n~ (~) or sc~cn~ ~ the ~~ nc~or~ ~ pro~d~c ~ ~cd xo idcn~ xhc
g=n~ral gco~phic london of o~~~om of vc~c ~ps w~ would ~c the
G~ncnl K:my ~mion.
The results of the General Kcarny E~ctcnSion "select link" arialyre are illustrated in Figure
4. For the purpose of graphically showing geographic origins/destinations of trips which
would use General Keamy, the Tcmecula Circulation Element Tra~c Model traffic analysis
zones were grouped into larger zones which represent the geographic locations of the trip
ends.
The numeric value shown in each area represents the number of vehicle trip ends either
"originating in" or destined to" the area which would use the General Kcarny Extension.
Number shown nex~ to arrows indicate the general direcdonal location and magnitude of trip
ends outside of the City.
In response to questions regarding the general contn'bution of trips to and from the proposal
i,~emver Urban Core Proices (e.g. Ternemile Regional Center, Campos Vetdes, and
ester Fills), the conrrfoution would total approximately 1,620 nip ends for the three
pro.~cts. Temecula Regional Center, which w~l offer shopping and employment
opportunities to area residents in the principal contrfoutor of the three Urban Core Projccu.
It should be noted however, that ff these shopping and employment oppornmities arc not '
~rovided at this location, residents would seek these opportunities .elsewhere in the
community or outside the area. Since most other shopping and employment opportunities
are orienm:i along the 1-15 corridor (within and outside the City) the trip routings would still
maintain the same general orientation.
Findings
The projected build-out traffic volume and traffic operation analysis result in the following
key findings:
1. Alternative A, which eliminates the General Kearny =,:aension
would result in appro~matety 4,500 vehicles per day being added
to the c~ticaI Winchester Road se_m~em. The projected volumes
on the se_rment of Winchester Road would result in volume to
capaciW ratios ranging from 1.09 to 1.1~ Level of Service remains
at F (as compared to the Draft Circulation Plan) only because
service levels arc no~. defined beyond the poin~ tha~ n-affic volume
exceed the mazi,~um roadway capacity..The increase in daily
volume to capacity ratio e,~dally indicates that severe congested
traf~c conditions could be expected during e~ctcnded periods of the
Alternative B, which also el{~nates the General Keamy Lension
but provides an extension of Nicolas Road to Margax~ Road,
results in a smaller increase of approximamly 1,400 vehicles per
day on Winchester Road. Tra~c operation on Winchester Road
would worscn by extending the period of s~vcre wafiSc congestion,
but not to the degree. resulting from Alternative A. Although the
analysis suggests that the Nicolas Road ~ctcnsion would
most of the traffic increase on Winchester Road resulting from the
elimination of the General Kearny E~ctension, data generated by
'the General Kearny "select link" analysis indicates that the Nicolas
Road .~ctension serves less ~han ~,00 of the approximate 11,000
ve.hicte trips which would otherwise have used the G~neral Ireamy
Extension. In other words, the shift in tra~c from General
Kearny is still being 'added ~o the critical Winchester Road
se~-ment, and other traffic on Winchester Road is being shifted to
the Nicolas Road extension.
Both Altemative.A and B would result in a significant increase in
tra~Sc volume on Margar~ta Road Coev,veen Winchester Road and
General Keamy Road) and would degrade the Margarita Road
level o£ service from "C" to "D".
ATFACHMENT NO. 3
ATTORNEY OPINIONS AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING SCHOOL FACILITY POLICIES AND AB 1287
R:\S\OENP~P.CC~ 9114/93 Idb 14
URA ~'0UNTY OFFICE
Z310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAMARILL0. CAI, IFOIqNIA S3010
(805)
LAW OFFICES
COSTA MESA, ~--~I, IIrOFINIA 9='626
PAC!IMILe' (~'14} 7li-8641
September 2, 1993
LOS ANGILe'S OFFICE
611 FirST SIXTH STREET. SUITE ZSOO
LOS ANGILIS. CALIFORNIA IOOI7
-'. p n 8 19e3
An,.. 'd ............
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone
4020 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re:
Proposed Resolution for City of Temecula
re School Impact Fees
Dear Mr. Doering:
Our office received yesterday the proposed "School
Facilities Mitigation Resolution" presented to the City of
Temecula by the Temecula Valley Unified School District
("District") with its letters dated August 19 and 27, 1993.
While we have not had the opportunity to review the proposal in
detail, we would like to take this opportunity'to provide our
initial comments at this early opportunity so that you may
respond in advance of the City Council's September 21, 1993
meeting.
As stated in the District's letter of August 19, the
proposed resolution is modelled after County Resolution No. 93-
131 "which has not been legally challenged." The fact t_hat the
County's Resolution has not yet been legally challenged does not
necessarily establish its validity or consistency with relevant
statutory and caselaw authority. To the contrary, it is our
understanding that no developer has yet signed a mitigation
agreement pursuant to the County Resolution. Consequently, our
office continues to have the following concerns regarding the
legality of adopting the District's proposal.
First, we presume that the District is only making this
proposal i~ ACA 6 (Proposition 170) fails in November, and as a
result, SB 1287 is rescinded. Otherwise, the Santa Maria case
holds that the District's proposal is preempted.
Second, even if SB 1287 is rescinded, we believe the
District's proposal is overly broad in light of the recent
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
September 2, 1993
Page 2
appellate court decision in the case of Co~ona-Norco Un.~ted
School n.~str~ct v. C~ty of Co~on~, 13 Cal.App.4th 1577 (Feb.
1993). We note that in your August 12, 1993 letter to the
Temecula City Council, you discuss the Corona case and state that
its holding "is consistent with the Mira Decisions in
distinguishing between the authority cities.. . have requiring
school mitigation in excess of statutory Fees, depending on the
type of approval being requested." It is our opinion that the
Corona case stands for much more than merely being "consistent
with ~,e Mira Decisions."
Specifically, in Corona, the school district argued that the
city should have denied approval of two tentative tract maps
because the maps were inconsistent with the city's general plan
based on inadequate school facilities mitigation. The court held
that the more specific provision of Government Code Section 65996
that no public agency may, pursuant to CEQA or the Subdivision
Map Act, deny approval of a project on the basis of inadequate
school facilities, prevails over the general plan consistency
doctrine in Government Code Section 66473.5. Id. at 1585.
In so holding, the court discussed the district's argument
that "the approval of a tentative tract map, ordinarily a quasi-
adjudicatory act, is transformed int~ a legislative act when it
involves the breach of a duty set forth in a legislative
enactment such as a general plan." Id. at 1586. However, the
court rejected the district's argument by stating:
"However, the nature of the action, not the duty
involved, determines whether an act is adjudicatory or-
legislative. Every adjudicatory action of a local
agency necessarily implements legislative standards
such as those expressed in a general plan. The
District's position would eliminate the distinction
between legislative and adjudicatory acts." ~d.
It is our view that the position being advocated by the
District for the Temecula City Council to adopt certain general
plan language and a resolution comparable to the County's
Resolution would have the identical effect of eliminating the
distinction between legislative and adjudicatory acts.
Specifically, the District's proposal exempts adjudicatory acts,
but then attempts to condition adjudicatory acts that were
preceded by a Specific Plan. At pages 3-4 of the proposed
Resolution, it reads:
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
September 2, 1993
Page 3
The school mitigation requirements established
under this Resolution shall not apply to:
1. Administrative acts, such as approval of
subdivision maps, which are processed without
any related legislative approvals as when
prior legislative approvals and which were
not conditioned upon mitigation of impacts on
School Facilities of District by a prior
legislative approval (e.g. a specific plan
condition requiring future tentative tract
maps within that specific plan to mitigate
School Facilities impacts)."
Such effort to use the consistency doctrine and particular
language in a city's general plan to "bootstrap" school impact
mitigation requirements to adjudicatory approvals is contrary to
the decision in Corona. As the Corona court explained, the City
may not place legislative standards into the general plan (or a
specific plan) in order to create grounds to condition a tract
map.
Moreover, is it your position that the District's proposal
would only extend to new/amended Specific Plan areas, and all
remaining residential subdivisions would be excluded? If not,
please describe what circumstances besides Specific Plans, would
provide the opportunity to condition the subsequent approval of
tract maps.
While we have received a copy of the proposed resolution
which was sent to the City Council, we do not have copies of any
District Mitigation Plans or Mitigation Agreements which are
specifically discussed in the Resolution. We would appreciate
your providing us with examples of those documents for our
review.
Finally, we note that the District is not prepared to defend
the City should the City adopt this Resolution. Given the Santa
Maria ruling, 'and the Corona decision, it appears that your
"cutting edge" approach would almost guarantee litigation. (See,
enclosed correspondence from Kemper.) Given this reality, I
would ask that the District reconsider its decision.
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
September 2, 1993
Page 4
We look forward to receiving your response to our comments.
To that end, we will be calling you next week to further discuss
t_his matter.
Very truly yours,
Scott Field
City Attorney
City of Temecula
1030906. LTR
CO:
Dave Gallaher, Dir. of Facilities Development, TVUSD
Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher, Esq.
Gar~ Thornhill, Planning Director
John Meyer, Senior Planner
I,,AW Oielel4Ce'e
B17r~rr, Wrr-t-v_aHS 8c SOttteNS]~r
2ZOO BI~LS.T~L BTREaeT
SUITE 940
f~14,J ~d.S-~'g$ -.
e,,0~, ANO. i:a..~.e Gal~lirOleW lA lOOt?
AUgUSt 27, 1993
VTA FAr~TWTT.I~ AID U. R, leXTT.
Nr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Implementation of Riverside County
Resolution No. 93-131, SB 1287 (School
Impact Fees)
Dear John:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the recent
information we have received from the Itiverside County Counsel's
OffSUe regarding implementation of the County's Resoluf/on No.
93-131 on School Impact Fees.
According to)fir. Jay G. Vickers of the County Counsel's
Office, County Resolution No. 93-131 is being implemented by ~he
County. HoWever, no mitigation agreements between the school
districts and any developers have been signed yet. The County
has several maps son hold" and the developers keep requesting
extensions. YoU may wish to discuss this matter directly with
the County's Planning Department to confirm~-h4s information.
Also, please be advised ~hat we are not aware of any other
cour~ cases or decisions at this time dealin; wi~h school impact
fees except ~he case of ~anta Maria-Ronita
The Planning Com~igsion Of the City Of S~n~
Superior Court Case No, SM 78558. As you will recalX, we advised
you regarding ~he trial court's decision in that case in our
previous letter to you dated August 8, 1993. However, should we
learn of additional cour= decisions on this subject, we will so
advise you.
,F/9CS;/.*/I,/., mJ:l -- g£:*/;d~!, ZZ ~ /,ep.tJt:
Mr. Joh~Heyer
August 27, 1993
Page 2
It is our understandingtha~the legal counsel for the
Temecula Valley Unified School Dis=Tic= ("T'I~SD") Will be
submitting a proposed ordinance to our office to implement a
mitigation proqram similar to the one adopted by =he County.
Whenwe receive the ordinance, we will review it and provide you
with our conents.
We will be forwarding a copy of this letter to the TVUSD and
we welcome ~heir comments on the matters discussed in this
letter.
cc:
Very truly yours,
Scott F. Field, Ci~yAttorney
Cary Thornhill, Planning Director
Dave Gallabet, Dir. of Fac. Dew., TV~SD
Eric Doering, Bowie, Ameson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone
~0 'd
8t;,g¢;~i.~..t~lL. '0K
TE ECULA VALLEY
Unified School District.
.
~_.:_:_- ';~'--.'~:_'_'.°
: ~,'C:.'l ,; ',;',OT'.'~ _:_* _'
August 27, 1993
Mayor Sai Munoz
City Council Members
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Ddve
Temecula, CA 92590
AU6 3 0 1993
CITY OF T[tJECUL~
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED SCttOOL FACILITIES MITIGA T/ON RESOLUTION
AS REFERENCED IN THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LANGUAGE
As mentioned in our August 19, 1993 letter to you following the August 17, 1993 Council Meeting, we
are forwarding the enclosed Resolution for your review.
This Resolution is what our District is referencing in the proposed General Plan Language Iltem #3, page
2 of document considered at The August 17 Council Meeting, copy attached) . The Resolution is modelled
after the County Resolution 93-131 previously reviewed by City STaff, and further refined and improved
in the following ways:
Addresses mitigation requirements relating only to those actions which require legislative approval,
consistent with statutes and case law.
· Provides format enabling adoption by the City on September 21.
A copy of this Resolution was forwarded to the City Manager, Assistant CiW Manager, and Director of
Planning concurrent with This letter, and will be provided To local developers and parenr~ groups prior To
September 21.
We will contact you and the City staff prior To September 21 to help ensure that any questions you may
have are answered promptly. Thanks again for your continued support in helping our Two agencies come
Together to help meet our shared goal of excellent schools to serve Temecula's residents.
Dave Gallaher
Director of Facilities Development
CO:
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John D. Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
LetTie Boggs, Coordinator of Facilities Planning
Alex Bowie/Eric Doering, Bowie, Ameson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone
· .31350 Rancno v~sta Roao. Temecula. CA 92592; 909t 676-2~61
i ::i TE ECULA VALLEY
Unifies Scttom Oistric!
AuguSt 19, 1993
Mayor Sal Munoz
City Council Members
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecuta. CA 92590
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO REVISE THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POUCIES
SCHOOL FACIUTIES GOAl - PREPARATiON FOR SEPTEMBER 21 COUNCIL MEETING
We thank you for hearing our presentation at the August 17 Council Meeting, where we requested the
General Plan improvements (copy attached) to met the City's and Disu'ict's scl'tool facilities goal. We also
thank you for The positive response to our request, and look forward to your approval of these
improvements with the General Plan being considered at the September 21 Council Meeting.
In response To the questions The Council raised at The August 17 Meeting, we are providing the following
clarifications:
City Authority For Develol3ment AI313rovals: Our DropDeed General Plan improvements would place into
policy througl~ resolution, The DistricT'S accounTabiliW to provide a Distric~ mitigation plan aDDroved '
the City prior to the consideration of developer mitigation measures. Under the resolution, The City fu~.,
retains authority to approve new development consistent with the aDDroved mitigation plan.
Legal ConsideraU~ns: We wish to clarify the Oistricfs position on the Question of the District legally
defending the City if a party may oppose a school facilities resolution. The DisTricfs goal is to make the
best use of the limited resources to provide adeauate school facilities, not tO use limited resources on
legal actions or defenses.
We feel this goal can be achieved by modelling the resolution after the County's, which has not been
legally challenged, with some modifications. The modifications are intended To further etrengthen the
resolution's legal foundation.
We will forward to you and City staff in advance, the draf~ ordinance which would meet The objectives in
our proposed General Plan improvements (Implementation Program, Item #3 on at~achment).
Thanks again for your continued suDpor~ in helping our two agencies come together To held meet our
shared goal of ex~:ellent schools to serve Temecula's residents.
Sincereiv,
.
D~'~'veGa aher il
Director of Facilities OeveloUmem
Pstricia B, Novpiney, Ed,D,, Superintendent
John D. BrOoks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
'-,.~.ec;:.t C -~ ~:.=9: ?~9~ ~'.=.-2-.'-."
: DG:dlm
i CO:
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY CF TEMECULA
Growth Manauement/Public Facilities Element
GOAL 4
A quality school system than contains adequate facilities and
funding to educate the youth of Temecula.
Discussion
Adequate school facilities and funding are necessary to ensure
than the high quality of education is extended- to future
residents of the City. Mitigating impacts of development on the
school system through the provision of school sites, the
imposition of statutory development fees and neuotiated
development fees as permitted bY law. as well as providing
information to the School District are the primary mechanisms to
sustain quality educational services.
Policy 4.1
Policy 4.2
Coordinate with the Temecula Valley Unified School District,
when considering General Plan amendments, SDeCifiC plans,
zone chan~es or other legislative land use policy decisions,
to ensure that adequate school facilities will be available
to serve students from new development to the extent
Permitted bv law.
Promote and encourage the phasing of project development so
that the School District may plan, finance and construct
facilities intended to serve the development.
Policy 4.3
Review PrODoSed develoDment in the context of the adeuuacv
of present and future facilities as Permitted bv law.
Policy 4.4
Policy 4.5
Policy 4.6
Provide safe access for school children walking, bicycling,
or driving to and from school sites through coordination
between the School District and City Departments of
Planning, Public Works and Engineering.
Pursue the establishment of a trade school,.junior college
of four-year college in Temecula which offers an emphasis
in education required by the engineering, biotechnical and
biomedical industries located in Temecula.
Plan for the joint use of school/municipal facilities
wherever feasible and desirable, including the joint use of
school grounds, buildings, City parks, multipurpose
buildings and recreation facilities.
i:.!pL-i/~.EjTATION PROGRAM
School Facilities
Request the School District ~o provide the City with information
concerning potential impacts associated with proposed residential
development· The information should include a status report of the
available school facilities to serve proposed projects. To the extent
than adequate school facilities are not available on a timely basis,
the City will seek to assist the District and developers in arriving
a= a solution to provide adequate school facilities, as mermitted by
law.
Coordinate with developers and the School District to ensure that
school sites are adequately sized and located to meet increases in
demand. Require proposed projects with school sites to include a
phasing plan that links project development with the provision of a
school facility when needed.
Establish a school mitiuation ordinance or resolution which specifies
the ,procedures to be followed bv the City. School District and
developers in order to determine school facilities impact associated
with residential development. available sources of fundina for school
facilities impact associated with residential development, available
sources of fundinu for school facilities necessitated bv
develomment and the appropriate mitigation measures, to the
provided bv law.
RFgOI,UTION NO.
RESOl .UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl.
oF mE crr¥ OF'T M .Ctr,,A
REGARDING SCHOOl.
FACII ,ITIF-S IMPACT MITIGATION
WHEREAS, rapid population growth in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City")
has resulted in large increases in the numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified
School District is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge existing school
plant facilities and construct new facilities to house the students in accordance with the policies
of the District and standards specified by state law, and
WHEREAS, financing the construction of school plant facilities is the ultimate
responsibility of the State of California, and
WHEREAS, the State of California has 'been unable to adequately fulfffi its obligation
for funding such additional school facilities and has shifted the primary responsibility for
financing of them to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, and
Chapter 1354, Statutes 1992, may establish developer mitigation fees for residential,
commercial and industrial uses, and may establish Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
(CFD's) to provide for school plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the laws of
the State of Califorhia, and
WHEREAS, the combination of state school bond monies, school district imposed
developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of financing have generally been
ED/B$.OI
1
inadequate to provide for the enlargement and construction of school plant facilities sufficient
to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the
State of California. and
WHEREAS. adequate school facilities are of benefit to both new developments as well
as the commumty at large, and are necessary components of the City's social and
infrastructure systems, and
WHEREAS, new student impacts on school plant facilities are due primarily to
residential uses, except senior citizen development, and
WHEREAS, impacts due to commercial and industrial developmere are less significant
than residential development, may be partially mitigated through developer fees authorized by
the State of California under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, and furthermore, axe partially offset
by the contributions of commercial and industrial uses toward a strong tax base in the City to
support public services, including schools, and
WHEREAS, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are
oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities. and a need exists m fund permanent
K-12 school facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of special or
disadvantaged students of the District ("School Facilities"), and
WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQAD,
has the authority to review development proposals for impacts on School Facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts, including general
plan amendments, specific plans and amendments thereto. development agreements,
armexatious and changes of zone, if it finds that impacts on School Facilities of the District
BD/II$.OI
Auluml6, IW3-Df'aft3
2
have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, and
WHEREAS. the County of Riverside ("County.") has adopted Resolution No. 93-131. a
requirement for mitigation of impact on School Facilities· from new development within
unincorporated County. territory, including portions of the District, which Resolution provides
for School Facilities Mitigation comparable to the provisions herein adopted as to the portions
of District within the City.
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council
of the City of Temecula in regular session assembled on September 21, 1993:
Any school district located partly or totally within the City of Temecula ("District")
may present requests to the City that impacts on school facilities resulting from new
residential developments and the associated increases in the number of students within
its district be mitigated, and the City shall review and consider granting such requests,
in accordance with the provisions and procedures established herein. Any District that
requests the City to consider financial mitigation in conjunction with any proposal, that
exceeds that provided for under Government Code Section 58080, 65995 Co) and
65995.3, shall have received prior certification from the City that a District Mitigation
Plan ("Mitigation Plan") prepared by or on behalf of the .District conforms to the
content requirements for such plans as specified herein.
The school mitigation requirements established under this Resolution shall not apply w:
1. Administrative acts, such as approval of subdivision maps, which are
F,.DIId$ .01
3
processed without any related legislative approvals as when prior
legislative approvals and which were not conditioned upon mitigation of
impacts on School Facilities of Disu'ict by a prior legislative approval
(e.g. a specific plan condition requiring future tentative tract maps within
that specific plan to mitigate School Facilities impacts).
2. Commercial or industrial projects.
3 Senior Citizen housing as defined in Government Code Section
65995. l (a).
These projects shall pay only statutory school fees ("School
Fees").
Co
Any residential development proposal for which an agreement has been executed, prior
to the effective date of this resolution, between the developer and the District, to
provide for mitigation of the student impacts of the proposal on the school facilities of
the District, and said agreement has been acknowledged as adequate mitigation by the
City in the adoption of the resolution, ordinance. and/or conditions of approval for the
proposal, is exempt from consideration of mitigation under this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the
'District' s Mitigation Plans shall be prepared and considered in accordance with the
following provisions and procedures:
ED/I45.01
Augurn*6. J~!3- DFMY3
4
A. The Mitigation Plan shall contain documentation of the need for any level of mitigation
that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be received' by the school district from
School Fees. plus any other source of funding available or anticipated to be available to
the District for the provisions of School Facilities. The Mitigation Plan shall contain.
at a minimum. the following elements:
1. Student C, eneration Factors
The SGF are to be established based on a household survey taken within
the school district.
The SGF survey parameters shall include:
1) Dwelling units constructed within the last three years shah be
surveyed.
2)
A minimum sample of !50 dwelling units shall be surveyed.
EDII45.01
August 26, 1993- Draft
3)
The sample taken shouM be representative of the current or
anticipated future characteristics of the community, including
consideration for any resort or second home characteristics of the
community.
4)
The housing product types sun'eyed shall be identified. including
whether single-family, single-family 'attached. or multi-family
rental properties and mobile home product types are included.
5)
The SGF for elementary, middle. and high schools shall be
included.
6)
The SGF shall be based on an assessment of student "pass
through" from new homes over at least a five-year period.
7)
(8)
The SGF shall reflect peak student loading.
The household survey used to develop the SGF shall exclude
senior citizen housing from consideration.
9)
The school district shall retain the opportunity to identify special
conditions that affect the SGF, and accordingly present a case for
modification of the parameters affecting development of the SGF.
2. Typi~:al School Factors (TSF~.
26. 199~- Drag
a. Land Cost:
6
l)
2)'
Shall be based on reasonably current estimates or reasonably
comparable acquisitions of school sites, and
Shall be based on timshed and improved school sites, construction
ready, including the extension of necessary infrastructure.
Development of school sites shall be based on California Department of
Education standards for infrastructure, location, and acreage.
School construction costs shall be as authorized by the State Office of
Local Assistance (OLA), or as required by local and state codes.
de
All costs for plans, test, inspections, furniture and equipment, and
contingencies shall be in accordance with OLA requirements.
3. Optim-m Facility Utilization.
The District shall demonstrite, in the Mitigation Plan, optimum
utilization of its facilities.
ED/14$.01
Aqu.~26, Igg3- Dra~3
The Mitigation Plan shall include consideration of a year-round, multi-
track education program. double school sessions. and alternative .student
loading programs.
;
4. Rond Issues and Other Funding Sources.
as
The District shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the
Mitigation Plan that it is pursuing state and alternative facilities
financing.
bw
If the District is not pursuing or does not anticipate pursuing alternative
financing, it shall explain in the Mitigation Plan its rationale for not
doing so.
The Mitigation Plan shall include considerations of methods of financing
the payment for and construction of School Facilities, to ensure th~
provision of adequate facilities and to minimize actual costs to future
residents, including the use of developer loan funds based on anticipated
state bond funds reimbursement and community facilities districts.
ED/MS.01
Aelust ,'6. 1993- ~ 3
Central Administration and -~Oport Facilities and Interim Facilities.
a. The District shall have the opporumity, through the Mitigation Plan, to
present an ar,mnnent justifying mitigation for impacts on administration
8
and support thcilitie~ and interim facilities.
bw
If the District elects to present an ar.manent pursuant to Section A.5.a..
above. its Mitigation Plan shall demonstrate that the mitigation requested
is proportional to the impacts directly attributable to new development.
6. l .evel of Stll~port From New r}eve!Qpment.
The Mitigation Plan may provide for total mitigation, from all potemial funding
sources, of the impacts on school facilities that are shown to result from new
residential developments. The Mitigation Plan shall not be used to provide for
mitigation of impacts attributable to existing development.
7, Coordination Of Planning Review for School Site F~evelopment.
The Mitigation Plan shall include provisions for consultations between the
District and the City on school facility location and site development plans, in
order to promote compatibility with City land use, circulation, and other plans,
and coordination on public improvements, including streets, sidewalks, and
-~.
traffic control mechanisms.
B. The Mitigation Plan shah be adopted by the District board of trustees.
..~ust 26. 19~]- Dr~fc 3
9
C. The District shall submit its adopted Mitigation Plan to the City for its review and
certification as to whether it conforms to the required content specified herein. in
accordance with the following procedures: "
1. The District shall submit the adopted Mitigation Plan to the Planning Director.
Within 30 days following receipt of the District's Mitigation Plan, the Planning
Director shall review the plan to determine whether it conforms to the required
content as specified herein. After reviewing the Mitigation Plan, the Planning
Director shall take one of the following actions:
as
Certify, by written notice to the superintendent of the applicant school
district, that the Mitigation Plan conforms to the requirements for content
as specified herein. The P!annmg Director shall provide a copy of the
notice to the City Clerk.
Notify, in writing, the superintendent of the District that the District's
Mitigation Plan will not be certified as conforming to the requirements
specified herein, and describing the deficiencies that will need to be
corrected before the Mitigation Plan can be certified.
ED/M.S.Ol
Am,ruing?36.
The District or any other interested party may appeal any decision of the
10
Planning Director regarding certification of the Mitigation Plan. Any such
appeal shall be made to the City. Council. Any such appeal shall be limited to
considerations of whether the content and effect of the District's Mitigation Plan
conforms to the requirements specified her. in. Any such appeal shall be made
and considered in accordance with the following procedures:
The appeal shall be ~lect with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days
after the notice of the Planning Director's decision appears on the City
Council's agenda.
be
Ce
The appeal shall be filed in writing, stating tl~ basis for appeal.
Upon the filing of the appeal, the City Cleric shall set the matter for
public hearing before the COuncil on a date within 30 calendar days after
the date of the riling of the appeal.
de
The Council shall render its decision on the appeal within 10 calendar
days after the close of the public hearing.
De
Upon certification by the Planning Director, and following the period within which
appeals therefrom may be filed, or following action by the City Council to certify the
District' s Mitigation Plan upon the filing and hearing of an appeal, such plan shall
EDI~,S.OI
11
thereafter be regarded as being the basis for the identification by the District of specific
impacts attributable to individual residential development proposals. and mitigation
measures appropriate to eliminate or reduce to a level of insignificance the impacts
attributable to such residential development proposals. The City shall not adopt any
financial mitigation in excess of the District imposed development mitigation measure.
unless it is found to be consistent with the provisions of the District's Mitigation Plan
previously certified by the City and the mitigation measure or measures are permitted
by state law. The City shall consider for adoption financial mitigation proposed by the
District, where a Mitigation Plan prepared by or on behalf of the District has been
certified by the City, in project environmental assessments and decisions for project
approval, or conditioning, to the extent permitted under applicable state laws.
E. The District may request, at any time, that the City certify an amendment to its
previously certified Mitigation Plan, in accordance with the provisions and procedures
described above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that all
residential development proposals that require legislative approvals by the City shall be
reviewed for potential impacts on School Facilities, and mitigation for such impacts, in
accordance with the following procedures:
A. The Planning Director shall notify, by means of wri~n notice, as to any proposed
ED,'I,i$.0I
12
development located within the District prior to the completion of the environmental
assessment. The District's comments and recommendations with respect to the
proposed project shall be requested prior to the first Design Review Committee
{"DRC") meeting, if applicable, and prior to completion of the environmental
assessment.
The Planning Director's notice to the District shall include information regarding the
proposed development, including a site plan, in sufficient detail to enable the District to
determine what potential impacts. if any, on School Facilities could result if the
proposed project is implemented. The information provided shall identify the
developer., the location of the site, and the number and type of dwelling units'proposed
or that could result from the proposed development. The notice shall also include a
statement that all comments and recommendations regarding the proposed development
must be received by the Planning Director prior to the date of the first DRC meeting, if
applicable, and prior to a specified date for completion of the environmental
assessment, in order to be included in the environmental assessment and/or staff report
for the proposed development.
The application for the proposed development shall not be deemed complete and filed
for purposes of the Planning & Zoning Law. CEQA or any ordinance or regulation of
the City, unless the status of School Facility impacts and mitigation, if needed, has been
determined. If such a determination cannot be made within 30 calendar days following
13
the submittal of the application for the proposed development. the Planning Director
shall notify the developer that additional information or special study or an
Environmental Impact Rel~ort ("EIR") is required to assess the status of impacts and
mitigation relative to the School Facilities of the District. Mitigation shall be evidenced
by a legally binding written agreement between the District and developer, where such
an agreement has been reached between the District and developer. Within 30 calendar
days following the submittal by the developer of an application to the Planning Director
for the proposed project, any one of the following actions may occur:
The status of the potential School Facility impacts due to the proposed
development has been determined, and it has been determined that either impacts
will not occur, or will occur but can be eliminated or reduced to a level of
insignificance as evidenced by legally enforceable, executed agreement between
the District and developer.
F..D/M5.01
Aullm26. 1993-Dra~.l
The status of the potential School Facility impacts due to the proposed
development has not been determined, and either the developer has been notified
that additional information or special study is required prior to completion of the
environmental assessment, or a Notice of Preparation for an EIR has been issued
to r~'quire an analysis of the specific nature of impacts of the project on School
Facilities and the potential mitigation measures available. The developer may
appeal to the City Planning Commission from the Plnnning Direcwr's decision
14
to issue the Notice of Preparation for an EIR in accordance with the City's
applicable ordinances or re~latiorts.
The status of the potential-School Facility. impacts due to the proposed
development has not' been determined. As an alternative to the submittal of
additional information or special study or the preparation of an EIR, if the
developer believes that adequate initiation has been or will be provided, the
developer may request that the proposed development be scheduled for a hearing
before the appropriate hearing body in lieu of responding to an additional
information request. or submitting a special study or prior to responding to a
Notice of Preparation for an EIR, even though tl~ Planning Director has
determined that an initial study cannot be completed, and a negative declaration
or a mitigated negative declaration cannot be adopted. Under this alternative,
the Planning Director shall recommend denial of t!~ proposed development,
based on the proponent's non-compliance with this Resolution as an
implementation of the' General Plan.
The Planning Director shall include in the environmental assessment and in the staff
report to the hearing body for the proposed development an analysis of any potential
impacts of the proposed development on School Facilities, and steps which have been
taken or will be taken to mitigate such impacts. The Planning Director shall include in
15
the environmental assessment and staff report any written comments or
recommendations that have been provided to the Planning Director by the District as
impacts of the proposed development as its School Facilities. The Planning Director
shall recommend that one of the following actions be made by the hearing body with
respect to School Facilities impaction:
Recommend adoption of a negative declaration, based on finding that the
proposed development will not significantly impact School Facilities of the
District.
Recommend adoption of a mitigated negative declaration, with a finding that the
proposed development could result in significant impacts on School Facilities of
the District, but that mitigation has occurred or will occur, as evidenced by an
agreement between the District and 'the developer, or other appropriate
documentation, which has been identified in the initial environmental
assessment, that will eliminate potential impacts or reduce them to a level of
insignificance.
Recommend certification of an EIR, and approval of the proposed development,
witti:'or wiu~out mitigation measures, and with or without a statement of
overriding considerations, as appropriate.
F,D/i.tS.01
AuSUU .~6. 1993- Dra~ 3
16
Recommend denial of any appeal from a requirement by the Planning Director
to prepare an EIR to address the potential impacts of the proposed development
on School Facilities.
E. The hearing body shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives:
Adopt a negative declaration for the proposed development based on a finding
that the proposed development will not significantly impact School Facilities.
Adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed development, based on a
finding that the development could result in significant impacts on School
Facilities, but that mitigation has occurred or will occur that will eliminate
potential impacts or reduce them to a level of insignificance.
ED/845.01
Certify an EIR, based on a finding that the EIR has adequately addressed the
potential impacts for the development on School Facilities of the District in
accordance with the General Plan of the City, CEQA and the City's Rules to
Implement CEQA. Under this alternative, the hearing body may either conclude
that:'full mitigation is proposed and is appropriate, or may conclude that full
mitigation is illfeasible or concludes that less than full mitigation is appropriate.
A statement of overriding considerations may be made if full mitigation is
17
t~asible but less than full mitigation is appropriate.
Require that an EIR be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Ciry's Rules
to implement CEQA and its applicable ordinances and regulations, based on a
finding that the proposed development could result in significant impacts on
School Facilities of the District.
Fe
If the hearing body's action is appealed, the appeal body, or the Council if it eventually
assumes jurisdiction over the matter and orders the project set for hearing, shall adopt
one of the same alternative actions with respect to School Facilities as required of the
original hearing body.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMIlqED AND ORDERED that any
residential proposal that would constitute the final legislative action taken by the City that is
necessary to permit development of a property at a higher residential intensity than is currently
permitted. shall be accompanied by the filing of a quasi-judicial project or projects that
demonstrate specific and full utilization of the legislative action proposed, except under the
following circumstances:
F.D/giS.01
Aumat 26. 1993- D~R 3
Any quasi-judicial residemial projects that have been approved by the Counc~
prior to the effective date of titis resolution, that include in the conditions of
18
approval thereof. a requirement for the filing of a general plan amendment or
zone change prior to the use permitted. or
Any quasi-judicial residential project that includes in its conditions of approval.
the requirement tbr the filing of a general plan amendment or a change of zone.
where it is determined by the hearing body that the general plan amendment or
zone change will not result in significant impacts on School Facilities, or
mitigation has occurred or will occur that will eliminate impacts on the School
Facilities of the District or reduce them to a level of insignificance.
Any specific plan, or development agreement, where a specific, legally
enforceable agreement has been executed between the developer and the District,
regarding mitigation, phased or not, of any school facility impacts resulting from
residential uses, has been included in the conditions of approval of the specific
plan or the terms of the development agreement.
Any legislative action where it can be seen with certainty, as determined by the
Planning Director or hearing body, that either there will be no significant
impacts on School Facilities, or mitigation has occurred or will occur that will
eli~iinate the impacts or reduce them to a level of insignificance.
Any quasi-judicial project hereby required to be filed concurrently with any legislative
ED/MS.0I
Au~mt 26. 1993- D~n 3
19
action proposal. is thereafter required to proceed together with the referenced legislative action
to any and all required public hearings before the appropriate hearing body and the Council.
In the event that an applicant developer for a legislative proposal refuses to file the required
quasi-judicial projects. the proposed legislative action shall proceed to the appropriate hearing
body with a recommendation for denial, based on a finding that significant impacts on School
Facilities could result from the proposed project. but sufficient mitigation to such impacts
cannot be determined and required in the absence of a quasi-judicial development proposal that
makes full use of the legislative action proposed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that for
administrative and/or legislative actions including but not limited to general plan amendments,
specific plans, specific plan amendments, changes of zone and development agreements,
evidence that adequate mitigation has occurred or will occur may be established as follows:
For general plan amendments, evidence of a legally enforceable agreement between the
District and developer that specifies the exact nature, amount, process, and conditions
of mitigation to be provided by the developer, shall be provided to the Planning
Director and incorporated by reference into the resolution adopting the general plan
amendment.
For specific plans and specific plan amendments, evidence of a legally enforceable
agreement between the District and developer that specifies the exact nature, amount,
~:D/8~S.O!
~.ugvsl "*6. 19~- Dr~ 3
20
process. and conditions of mitigation to be provided by the developer, shall be provided
to the Planning Director and incorporated by reference into the conditions of approval
of the specific plan and the resolution adopting' the specific plan. or into'the terms of
the development agreement.
For changes of zone, evidence of a legally enforceable agreement between the District
and developer that specifies the exact nature, mount, process, and conditions of
mitigation to be provided by the developer, shall be provided to the Planning Director
prior to the adoption by the Council of the ordinance effectLug the change of zone.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that any
legislative residential proposal that would not constitute the final legislative action taken by the
City that is necessary to permit development of a property. at a higher residential intensity than
is currently permitted, shall be evaluated under the assumption that the property will be
developed to the maximum density and intensity of use that would be permitted if legislative
approval of the proposal were granted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the
Planning Director, Planning Commission, and Council shall not condition approval of any
project to provide mitigation in excess of the mounts authorized by Govermnent Code Section
65995 and Section 65995.3 unless the District has a Mitigation Plan which has been certified
in accordance with this Resolution.
A~t _~. I~))- Dr~ 3
21
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. FOUND. DETERMINED AND ORDERED that
nothing in this. Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or restricting the ability of the
Planning Director, Planning Commission. or Council to require additional information. special
studies or an EIR on environmental issues. other than adequacy of School Facilities. that may
be associated with residential projects submitted to the City for approval.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that it is
the intent of the Council that this Resolution be in force and effect until mended, rescinded,
suspended, superseded or until a subsequent resolution or ordinance is enacted which
supersedes this Resolution.
ADOPTED this day of ,199~.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Temecula, California
Approved as to Form:
Burke, Williams & Soremen
City Attorney, City of Temecula
~D/g.01
Aultug .~, 19W}- Dra~ 3
22
Mayor of the City of Temecula,
California
k~mper Community Development Company
Division of Kernper Real Estate Management ,Company
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula. California 92591 · 909 / 694-0666 · Fax: 909 / 694-0749
August 26, 1993
J. Sal Munoz, Mayor
Pat Birdsall, Councilmember
Ron Parks, Councilmember
Ron Roberts, Cmmcilmember
Jeff Stone, Councilmember
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re: Request from Temecula Valley School District to Revise General Plan
Hand Delivered
Dear Mayor Munoz and Councilmembers:
You received a request from the Temeatla Valley Unified School Disui""~ (TVUSD) to revise
your proposed General Plan policy requiring the entire impact of residential development on
schools be fully mitigated before the City could approve applicable zonin~ changes, eXz:. In
addition, TVUSD iraends to ask the City to adopt a resolution similar to County Resolution
93-131 to codify their position. TVUSD's actions arc designed to increase school mitigation
fees, paid by residential builders, in order to replace the loss of adequate slam funding for
schools either directly or through the creation of community facilities disuicts.
Although Kernper believes that good schools and community support of its school system are
essential, we strongly disagree with TVUSD's last minute approach to disrupt the City's efforts
to adopt a General Plan. h is our firm conclusion that home builders within the Temecula
District are already paying their fair share for the impact they create and the benefit they
receive.
We believe the City's currein proposed General Plan accurately reflects existing school
mitigation requirements. Currently, the District imposes a $2.65 per square foot fee for each
house built or approximately $4,000.00 for a 1,500 square foot home. A builder only receives
benefit for being in the District once when be sells his product. Other groups, including
homeowners, who subsequently sell their homes, receive similar benefit from being in the
District. In the past, the District directly and indirectly received funding from these groups
through the reallocation of state tax revenues and through the issuance of local general obligation
bonds. Finally, together with the League of Women Voters, the California State PTA and the
Caiifomia Chamber of Commerce, we support the passage of Proposition 170 in the next
Mayor Munoz and Councilmembers
August 26, 1993
Page Two'
i
election. The passage of that proposition will solve school financing issues without subjecting
the City to any adverse impact.
We do support a cooperative effort to look at other means of funding and ways to reduce school
costs. To do othex~vise and seek higher mitigation fees would result in higher house prices and
reduced new home sales. Failure to attract new home buyers would reduce, if not severely
limit, economic growth of the City. The community will lose potential buyers and a labor force,
making Temecula less atlnctive to existing businesses and to those who might wish w relocate
here. With the loss of such an economic support base, the City would suffer a substantial
reduction in its own revelrues at a time when its infrastructure needs are substantial and
imperative.
Finally, if the City adopts TVUSD' s proposal, it will subject itseft to litigation from any number
of sources and parties. Attached is correspondence from our attorney which summarizes our
legal position, related to the issue.
Kernper stands ready to participate and cooperate with all representatives of the community in
support of quality education for Temecula.
Very truly yours,
Bryn C. Noreen ~
Presidem
BCN/kl
Enclosure
Dave Dixon, City Manager
Gary Thornhill, planning Director
LORENZ ALHADEFF CANNON & ROSE
A PAI~TI~CRSHIP INCLUDING P~OFF~SSIONAL. CORPORATIONS
August 26, 1993
TEIdI[CUI,.A OIPIPICI:
mI.&IA YOWl~ll
R?SIS YNCZ JQO&O. SUITE
6961.1034
HAND DELIVERED
I. Sal Munoz, Mayor
Pat Birdsall, Councilmember
Ron Parks, Councilmember
Ron Roberrs, Councilmember
Jeff Stone, Councilmember
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temccula, CA 92~90
Re:
Support of Existing Proposed General Plan and Statement
in Support of Ouality Schools for the Citv of Temecula
Dear Mayor Munoz and Councilmembers:
'*You received a request ~om the '~emecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD)
to revise your proposed General Plan policy to include specific language similar to County
Resolution 93-131 requiring the City to approve mitigation measures when residential
applications are approved. The intent of this request is to impose upon residential
applications a new tax in the form of a requirement to include the necessity of financing
under a CFD for mitigation of school fees and costs.
h appears to us that TVUSD is reacting to the loss of state funds and therefore is
attempting to impose additional and new taxes on homes within the City of Temeafia. In
support of thi.~ position, TVUSD has submitted w you its outside counsel opinion letter
qUeStiOning the wisdom of your own City Attomey's opinion of August 2, 1993. That
opinion provided, in summary, on page 1 that the County of Rivcrside's Resolution
No. 92-164 {and by inference, the replacement County Ordin=nee 93-131) that school impact
mitigation is ,...contrary to the language of S.B. 1287 and judicial interpretation of the
relevant law." We agree with that statement and are in support of your City Attomey's
opinion of August 2, 1993.
LORENZ ALHADEFF CANNON & ROSE
Mayor Munoz & Councilmembers
August 26, 1993
Page 2
Two recent and very relevant cases support your City Attomey's opinion with regard
to this issue. Those cases include the Corona-Norco Unified School District. City of Corona
and Joseph DeLeo. Jr.. The Corona-Norco maner was decided on August 5, 1993 by the
appellate court that would govern any case involving the City of Temecula. In that case, the
School Dislrict fried a petition challenging the city's approval of a zone change for a
residential project on the grounds that the zone change was inconsistent with the city's
general plan and the city had failed to conduct an adequate CEQA review. The school
district, similar to TVUSD, requested the city to condition approval of the new residential
development on a requirement that the developer agree to be part of a CFD district financing
to provide construction funds on a per dwelling unit bash. In supporting the city, the trial
court stated the city had not abused its discretion in approving the zone change and, further,
that the general policy statements of the city in support of good schools does not mean that
the city's determination in approving the zone change was arbitrary or capricious.
That decision is an important one for Temecula in its consideration of adding any new
"mitigation" element to the existing General Plan. To include any such language which
would subject the City to future Ikigation and constitute an invitation for such litigation by
any impacted parW. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the City maintain its .existing
General Plan and adopt such General Plan without the addition of any new "mitigation"
element.
State law has preempted and precludes a public agency from doing what TVUSD
seeks to impose on the City of Temecula. The most recent decision to involve this same
issue arose from a case in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Barbara. In that case,
the Plnnning Commission and City Council of Santa Maria prevailed in a petition attacking
certain action taken by the city. The Superior Court "ttn'ew out" the Santa Maria-Bonita
School District' s complaint by sustaining a demurrer w a petition without leave w amend and
dismissing the action. In a very important ruling, the court in that case said, in part, "Senate
Bill 1287 prohibits a public agency, in the exercise of its legislative authority, to adopt
general plans, zoning laws, and other land use regulations, from either denying approval of a
project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities or imposing fees, charges,
dedications or other requirements, other than the requirement to pay the limited school
facilities fees provided in Government Code §§ 65995 and 65995.3, on the approval of a
project for the purpose of providing school facilities."
LORENZ ALHADEFF CANNON & ROSE
Mayor Munoz & Councilmembers
August 26, 1993
Page 3
The court went on to state that a public entity cannot exact a f~, charge, dedication
or other requirement in excess of that authorized by the applicable Government Cod~
sections. To allow TVUSD's proposed ordinance into the C.~n~ral Plan at thi~ date would
expose the City to exactly the kind of litigation and the results that tl~ Santa Maria decision
discusses. We have attached that Order of the Court to thi.q letter.
Finally, to allow such an element to be introd~ed into tl~ Gea~ral Plan would
subject the City to litigation from any number of sources and parti~. h would only be
logical that a party affected by such issu~-would have to contest and seek remedies where the
imposition of any fe~, tax, dedication Or requirement would exceed that required and
provided for under existing law.
In fact, TVUSD had previously suggested to the City that it was going to explore a
number of alternative financing sources which we submit hs yet to be done in conjunction
with the City and other potentially affected and impact~l parties, including home builders
and the business community within the City of Temecula. At a special joint m~ting of tl~
Temecula City Council and TVUSD held on March 6, 1993, the School District pledged to
work within its general obligation bond (G.O.) authorization to r~tuc~ costs and fees. We
believe that the TVUSD has not yet utilized its full G.O. bond authorization or pursued the
appropriate reimbursements from the state school building program in conjunction with its
G.O. bond authorization.
Sinc~ly,
Samuel C. Alhdeff, P.C., of
LORENZ ALHADEFF CANNON & ROSE
SCA/js
Enclosure
cc: Dave Dixon, City Manager
Gary ThOrnhill, Planning Dir~tor
Bryan Nore~n
1o
17
'22
~7
S~IOR COtroT OF 'rl:m STAT~ 01: CALII=O~
FOR THS COU~ OF SARrA ]~,RB~
SANTA MAXlA-BONITA S CH0 0L)
DI~'P-ICT, a pali~a[ subdivision. Of thet
S~sm of
P=ddoner, )
)
,vs. )
)
CO1vIM:ISSION 0Z= THE)
CITY)
~ANTA)-
MARIA]
)
)
]
I~RT-T-T/'IOKN,~01,1 'I,TD,, a limited)
"~rm=~ ~om~soN FZO~EETmS. ~)
T<zal Psrtla tn Inf:er~sL )
.
TI~ PLANNING
CITY OF SANTA MAR!A:
COtlNc:-n, OF THB C.rI"Y OF
MARIA, THF_,,-.CITY OF SANTA
80 'J
BVBSSSLP&L '0N
ORDE~ SUSTAINING D~MI]lq.~EPS TO
PEI~TION ~NTrHOUT LP--Awv'S TO
AMEND AND DXSMXSXm;G ACZ10~
PosUt" brand f~xtransrnitlat memo T671 },.epse-- >/-/
':""" I""""';'-~--'.~-/-- ~"~',-
'l'hc Demurfro ~xf Rr, spond=n Lm PlanninS C, arnmimJlon ~31r tho City of :~rt~ ~ C-~t7
Coxmci[ Dr th: City, of ~zj'qJl Mr~ the Cit'y of Santa 1Nfarjz and Real ~ Lu
K=Ib, IJohmon, Lid,, ~ohr~son l'rotr-x'd== to r,h= l=irm: Am-,,ude, d .Y~x/~iou hcr~fim cam~ uu rr, luXhrt:y
f~r hex,~,g on by th~ Court, Dclnrtmcnt t, on .Turf:,. I., 1993. W'dliam t- Ksdl apFnzc=d as counsel
£or B:dtio,,cr SannMnria-l~nitx Eerncn~rY School D~tri~ ~ A. Smith ap~,c,,,,-d as ~
for R. eml lmxiqies in Intm~st, Xcily/l?hr, sax, LxL~ and loknson Pzvfx~c=, Artbet R. lqxmtm~dmm
~sfes! as c~unsel for P-P-41mondenzs Platsin2 Ccrmmtuimm of gas Ch7 of Sanix ~ t!~ City
Cox..-ucll cf dtc Cit'y cf Ssnta Mxxia and ~ City uf 3anmx ~ ~ hearing, ~hc matlet -was
Tn= c~ hzviz,l read and cvn~dct~1 u't= ~~ ~d opposing ~ tnd ~~
~ is OEDBRI~ that thc DcmurrCrs be:, znd be,~y ~ sust3in~ w~thout le:W~ to m'nend
a-s to ill cz,_,_~-~ af zajon ~n t~= foilowing. Jrmru:Lx: . :-
-1. Th~ l:ix~ Cau.~ of A~t~. "Genefzl Plan: Inconsistency: does xx}t state ~ '
3~Uch~K ID cons6tute a cau3c of l~ljon in that:
x. Wb~h~ ~ pr~v~ons or ~z~zxe am 1287, Adoled Stxtx l~jr~ ci~ ~
tIz C.~ven~m~ Code, lr=~ejnsft~ Se~U~ Bill 12:~7, modi,'ying th= ~cho~l Pam]~ti~ ACt .a~Iy io
~ within zxinn Ix ~ ques~on of lrnf for thm Court, ~nd ~e Court ca~ctud~ that ~aid
,2~,ly to fi~ wit,bin -,,zion ~ the I=,w in ~ffea z; ~ tlma xi~ msIt~is d~ded by ~ Court is
zu
th~ st~ropri~ law w
22 .. ~ug~oziry ~v ziopt,-euersl phns, zan~n~ laws, and oth.~land uz le~la~iou. fxum c]dmcr d,-zyir~
ap~a~al if a pr~jr-x on ~e buLs of r~c ade~.t~cy of r-boo] hciliti'.s or irnD'i~g re=s, cha~cs,
2 ~ d=diczdons vr cth:r requir. mc~ts, c~cr Than ~ s~q~ent to Fay xhc lirnirsi school
~ Fz~v~tc~ j.n Government Cvd~ f§65~5 z~d 6;59915, on tI~'3~oval cfz pr~ect for
27
:' c, 'Tae rclicf rcqu=$md in the Pczltion cuamti~ the cxac~l~xt of t fee~
-2-
~0 'd
8~g955LVtL '0H ~Vd
80:9t :BI'].L$6-Lt
2a
~,o 'd
Bt,~SBLt~ I L 'ON
~S"'~ ~,LSd3 ~8 6o:9t SiLL k~-cj.-or
·
3
4
5
9
'lCI
11
19
20
2.~
25
26
27
Th~ rcrna~n~g czu.~,s oir act~n art rcrglgrgxl m~ by ~~i=x ~munct~ £or th~
,~
e.~ilJ Ui.q'Y1 .q4,Q
I'!1 'QT ~'ll CP-._I z. ~
August 19, 1993
TE ECULA '/ALLEY
Unifiea Scn00i 0istrict
AUG 2 0 1993
Mayor Sal Munoz
City Council Members
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT:
REQUEST TO REVISE THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
SCHOOL FACILITIES GOAL - PREPARATION FOR SEPTEMBER 21 COUNCIL MEETING
We thank you for hearing our presentation at the August 17 Council Meeting, where we requested the
General Plan improvements (copy attached) to meet the City's and District's school facilities goal. We also
thank you for the positive response to our request, and look forward to your approval of these
improvements with the General Plan being considered at the September 21 Council Meeting.
In response to the questions the Council raised at the August 17 Meeting, we are providing ~e following
clarifications:
City Authorfry For Development Approvals: Our proposed General Plan improvements would place into
policy through resolution, the District's accountability to provide a District mitigation plan approved~
the City prior to the consideration of developer mitigation measures. Under the resolution, the City
retains authority to approve new development consistent with the approved mitigation plan.
Legal Considerations: We wish to clarify the DistTict'S position on the question of the DiStTict legally
defending the City if a party may oppose a school facilities resolution. The District's goal is to make the
best use of the limited resources to provide adequate school facilities, not to use limited resources on
legal actions or defenses.
We feet this goal can be achieved by modelling the resolution after the Count~'s, which has not been
legally challenged, with some modifications. The modifications are intended to further strengthen the
resolution's legal foundation.
We will forward to you and City staff in advance, the draft ordinance which would meet fie objectives in
our proposed General Plan improvements (Implementation Program, Item #3 on attachment).
shared goal of excellent schools to serve Temecula's residents.
Sincerely, -----..,-- -
Director of Facilities Development
DG:dlm
cc:
Thanks again for your continued suppor~ in helping our two agencies come together to help meet our
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John D. Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
350 Rancno Vista RoaD. Temecu~a. CA .~2592 , ~09~. 676-2661
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF T.vM. ECULA
Growth Manauement/Public Facilities Element
GOAL 4
A quality school system that contains adequate facilities and
funding to educate the youth of Temecula.
Discussion
Adequate school facilities and funding are necessary to ensure
that the high quality of education is extended to future
residents of the City. Mitigating impacts of development on the
school system through the provision of school sites. the
imposition of statutory development fees and neuotiated
development fees as permitted by law. as well as providing
information to the School District are the primary mechanisms to
sustain quality educational services.
Policy 4.1
Coordinate with the Temecula Valley Unified School District,
when considering General Plan amendments, SDeCifiC plans.
zone chanaes or other legislative land use policy decisions,
to ensure that adequate school facilities w~l.] be available
to serve students from new development to the extent
oermitted by law.
Policy 4.2
Promote and encourage the phasing of project development so
that the School District may plan, finance and construct
facilities intended to serve the development.
Policy 4.3
Review DrODOSed develOPment in the context of the adequacy
of present and future facilities as permitted by law.
Policy 4.4
Provide safe access for school children walking, bicycling,
or driving to and from school sites through coordination
between the School District and City Departments of
Planning, Public Works and Engineering.
Policy 4.5
Pursue the establishment of a trade school, junior college
of four-year college in Temecula which offers an emphasis
in education required by the engineering, biotechnical and
biomedical industries located in Temecula.
Policy 4.6
Plan for the joint use of school/municipal facilities
wherever feasible and desirable, including the joint use of
school grounds, buildings, City parks, multipurpose
buildings and recreation facilities.
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
School Facilities
Request the School District to provide the City with information
concerning potential impacts associated with proposed residential
development. The information should include a status report of the
available school facilities to serve proposed projects· To the extent
that adequate school facilities are not available on a timely basis,
the City will seek to assist the District and developers in arriving
at a solution to provide adequate school facilities, as permitted bv
law.
Coordinate with developers and the School District to ensure that
school sites are adequately sized and located to meet increases in
demand. Require proposed projects with school sites to include a
phasing plan that links project development with the provision of a
school facility when needed·
Establish a school mitigation ordinance or resolution which specifies
the procedures to be followed by the City. School District and
developers in order to determine school facilities impact associated
with residential development. available sources of fundinu for school
facilities impact associated with residential development. available
sources of fundina for school facilities necessitated bV such
development and the appropriate mitiaation measures. to the e'~_~
orovided bv law.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE EIR
R:~XGEI~FP'L,A,N~OP.CC8 9/34/93 IrJb 15
,--- ATTA~ NO. 4 ~
RE.qOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF
TI~MECULA CERTWYING ~ FINAL ENVIRO~AL IMPACT
REPORT FOR ~ GENERAL FIAN AND ADOFrING A STA~
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ~ GENERAL PlAN FOR
~ CITY OF TIMECULA.
W!~REAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgemoat of the city, bears a relationship to its planning;
and
~, Sections 65302 of the Government Code requires that a general plan
address the following issues: land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources,
open space, noise, and public safety; and
WIiEREAS, Sections 65303 of the Government Code allows the City to include any
other issues or concerns into the general plan which may relate to the physical development of
the City; and :
WHEREAS, the process of preparing the General plan has included a number of
opportunities for public and citizen involvement included a number of town meetings, technical
committee meeting and public hearings, and by making numerous copies of the plan and
associated documents available to the public; and
WH~REM, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as mended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the t~nd Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the project on the environment; and
WI~.REAS, the City of Temecula prepared an lnlti31 Study for the General Plan and
determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the General Plan
in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CBQA Guidelines prepared by the Office
of Planning and Research; and
W!~~, the City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation on May 12, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the a number of comments were received concerning the scope and content
of the EIR for the General Plan which were used to guide the preparation of the Draft EIR; and
W!~REAS, the City of Temecula issued a Notice of Completion for the Draft ~ on
August 12, 1992; and
R:~S~OENPLAN~P.CC~ 9/14/93
W/P,~A5, the Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from August
14 through September 27, 1992; and
WI~.~.EA5, the City received a number of letters with comments and concerns about
the content of the Draft EIR for the General Plan; and
WR'EREAS, the Slate Clearinghouse notified the City on October 2, 1992, that the Draft
EIR had been circulated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ~ for the General Plan identified a number of significant
impacts relating to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biology, cultural resources,
education, fire services, geology and seismic hnvnrds, land use, library, light and glare, noise,
open space, parks and recreation, police services, risk of upset, sewage treatment, solid waste,
transportation and circulation, and water resources; and
WHEREAS, the EIR determined that a number of significant impacts could be mitigated
and reduced to a level of insignificance for the following: aesthetics, cultural resources, fire
services, geology and seismic hazards, land use, library, light and glare, open space, parks and
recreation, police services, risk of upset, sewage treatment, solid waste, and water resources;
and
W!~REAS, the ~ determined that, even with the application of available mitigation
measures, the foliowing could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality,
agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise, and transportation and circulation; and
WHEREAS, the PInning Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on October
19th, November 2nd, November 23rd and December 7th, 1992, and January 4th, 1993 to
consider the pwposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1993, the Planing Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and appwve and adopt the
draft General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a copy of the Response to Comments to all responsible
agencies on September 9, 1993 as pwvide in State hw; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held duly noticed public hearings on February 16th,
March 16th, April 6th, April 20 th, May 18th, June 15th, August 17th, and September 21st, 1993
to consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
R:XS%GBHPI.A~OP. CL~ 9/14/93 idb '~ 7
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TIi~%IK"ULA
DOES mmERy RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS F0tJ~)WS:
Section 1. The City Council has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the City General Plan, has considered the information contained within it, and hereby
certifies that the Repo~ has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
Section 2. The City Council finds that to the extent that any impacts attributed to the
General Plan remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable in light of the overriding social,
economic and other considerations which will result from implementing the City General Plan.
As a resuR, the Council finds that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the unmitigated
impacts which may resuR and hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
following environmental impacts: agricultural resources, air quality, biologic resources,
education, library services, noise, transportation and circulation.
R:~S~OENPLAN~OP.CC~ 9114/93 kib '. ] 8
S~ion 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1993.
ATTEST:
J. SAL mr rOz
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI-r~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMEC~)
I HE!IERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Re,solution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of
September, 1993 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CO~CILMEMB~:
CO~CH.MEMB~:
CO~CU~MEMBERS:
JUNE S.
CITY Cw,l:n~K
R:~S~OENPLA_~GP.CC8 9/14/93 Ir~ -. 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:%S%O~TPI.,A~OP.CC$ 9/14/93 Ir.b 20
ATTACtt]VfRNT NO. 5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING ~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR ~ ENVIRO~AL IMPACT I~EPORT FOR ~ GENERAL
PLAN FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA.
~~AS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relgtionship to its planning;
and
WITF, REAS, Sections 65302 of the Government Code requires that a general plan
address the following issues: land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources,
open space, noise, and public safety; and
Wnk~gAS, Sections 65303 of the Government Code allows the City to include any
other issues or concerns into the general plan which may relate to the physical development of
the City; and
W~W,R~,a,S, the process of preparing the General Plan has included a number of
opportunities for public and citizen involvement included a number of town meetings, technical
commiCtee meeting and public hearings, and by making numerous copies of the plan and
associated documents available to the public; and
WHEREM, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as mended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the project on the environment; and
W!~.RI~AS, the City of Temecula prepared an Initial Study for the General Plan and
determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would he required for the General Plan
in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office
of Planning and Research; and
WHgREAS, the City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation on May 12, 1992; and
W!~-REAS, the a number of comments were received concerning the scope and content
of the EIR for the General Plan which were used to guide the preparation of the Draft PTR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula issued a Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR on
August 12, 1992; and
R:XS\OI~PLAN~O P.C'C8 9/14/93
W~EREAS, the Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from August
14 through September 27, 1992; and
WREREAS, the State Clearinghouse notified the City on October 2, 1992, that the Draft
EIR had been circulated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA; and
WI~REAS, the City received a number of letters with comments and concerns about
the content of the Dx~ EIR for the General Plan; and
~, the Draft ~ for the General Plan identified a number of significant
impacts relating to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biology, cultural resources,
education, fire services, geology and seismic bnnrds, land use, library, light and glare, noise,
open space, parks and recreation, police services, risk of upset, sewage treatment, solid waste,
transportation and circulation, and water resources; and
WItEREAS, the Draft EIR identified a number of mitigation measures which reduced
these significant impacts to a level of insignificance for the following: aesthetics, cultural
resources, fire services, geology and seismic hazards, land use, library, light and glare, open
space, parks and recreation, police services, risk of upset, sewage treatment, solid waste, and
water resources; and
WHEREAS, the foliowing impacts, even with the application of available mitigation
measures, can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality, agricultural resources,
biology, education, library, noise, and transportation and circulation; and
W~EREAS, the Planing Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on October
19th, November 2nd, November 23rd and December 7th, 1992, and January 4th, 1993 to
consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1993, the Platting Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve and adopt the
draft General Plan; and
W~EREAS, the City provided a copy of the Response to Comments to all responsible
agencies on September 9, 1993 as pwvide in State hw; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, held duly noticed public hearings on February 16th,
March 16th, Apffi 6th, April 20th, May 18th, June 15th, August llth, and September 21st, 1993
to consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report and Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Certified the EIR and adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration on September 21, 1993.
R:~S\GI~PLAI~6P.CC$ 9/14/93 lab 22
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HERFRy RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLI~)WS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adoptS'the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as
amended, and directs Staff to implement the measures identified in the Program as needed to
mitigate and reduce the environmental impacts associated with and resulting from the City
General Plan.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1993.
ATTEST:
J. SAT. MU OZ
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALwOP, NL4,)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEvII~ULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecuh .at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of
September, 1993 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNTERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ruNE S. GI~n~K
CITY Ct-n~JC
R:~XOBNPLANXOP.CC$ 9/14/93 idb 23
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN
R:~OENPLAN~GP. CC~ 9/14/93 klb 24
~ ATrACttMENT NO. 6 "
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF TBY~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF
~ ADOFrlNG TBY, GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
Wn'ERm'AS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgemeat of the city, bears a rchtionsh~ to its planning;
and
WHERI?.A~q, Sections 65302 of the Government Code requires that a general plan
address the following issues: land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources,
open space, noise, and public safety,
WHEREAS, Sections 65303 of the Government Code allows the City to include any
other issues or concerns inW the general plan which may relate to the physical development of
the City; and
WTn~-~RI~-AS, the process of preparing the General Plan has included a number of
opportnnities for public and citizen involvemeat included a number of town meetings, technical
committee meeting and public hearings, and by making numerous copies of the plan and
associated documents available to the public; and
WHEREAS, Section 65360 of the Governmeat Code requires that all new Cities to adopt
a General Plan within 30 months of incorporation; and
WtIEREAS, the City of Temecuh was incorporated on December 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Research, in accordance with the provision
of Section 65361 of the Governmeat Code, has extended the deadline for adoption of the General
Plan fwm May 1, 1992, m November 25, 1993; and
WTIF-~RI~-AS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CBQA), as mended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requites that prior to the approval of any
pwject the Lead Agency consider the potential imlmcts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the pwject on the environment; and
WBT, RI~,AS, the City of Temecula has prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan in accordance with the provisions of CBQA and the CBQA Guidelines prepared
by the Office of Planning and Research; and
R:~S~GENPLAN~GP.CCg 9/14/93
WRERRAS, Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that the City of Temecula
submit a copy of its draft Safety Elemem to the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) for their
review and comment; and
WB'ER!~AS, the City of Temecula submitted its draft Public Safety Element to the DMG
on August 26, 1992; and
WIlERE,KS, the City of Tomecub has made changes to the draft Public Safety Element
in response to the concerns raised by DMG; and
W~W. RE~.S, Section 65585 of the Government Code requires that the City of Temecuh
submit a copy of its draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development for their review and comment; and
WItEREAS, the City of Temecuh submitted its draft Housing Element to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (I-ICD) on May 18, 1992, January 20,
1993, and August 3, 1993; and
WffEREAS, the City of Temecuh has made changes to the draft Housing Element in
response to the concerns raised by HCD; and
W!~-REAS, the Planing Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on October
19th, November 2nd, November 23rd and December ?th, 1992, and January 4th, 1993 to
consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1993, the Phning Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Council approve and adopt the draft General Plan; and
WFrEREAS, the City Council has held duly noticed public hearings on February 16th,
March 16th, April 6th, April 20th, May 18th, June 15th, August 17th, and September 21st, 1993
to consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Certified the EIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the EIR for the General Plan on
September 21, 1993.
NOW, TFIEREi~ORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES BY~REBY RF.~OLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the General Plan for the City
of Temecuh, as amended.
Section 2. The City Council hereby determines that until the new zoning ordinance
for the City of Temecuh is brought into conformance with the General Plan, development
decisions shall be based upon the General Plan land use designations and policies, and not the
existing zoning when these two documents are in conflict, in accordance with the consistency
requirements of State Law.
R:~S\(~PLAI~GP.CC8 9/14/93 klb 26
Section 3. The City Council hereby directs Staff to submit a copy of the final General
Plan to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission for their review and comment on
airport related issues in accordance with the provisions of Section 21676 of the Public Utilities
Code.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 21st day of September, 1993.
ATTEST:
SAL MU OZ
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALmORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TElVIEC~)
I tIEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of
September, 1993 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCKIVrsa:MBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
IUNE S. G1H:n~K
CITY CLERK
R:~GBI~'PLA~OP.CC~ 9/14]93 kib 27
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
R:~S\OENPLAI~OP.CC~ 9114/93 Idb
AITACtIMENT NO. 7
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
A RESOLUTION OF Tar. CITY COUNCIL FOR THF. CITY OF
TIEMECULA ADOPTING THF~ IMPt.~ATION PROGRAM FOR
~ GENERAL PLAN FOR THF~ CITY OF 'I~MECI_rLA.
WHERF.~kS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning;
and
WREREAS, Sections 65302 of the Government Code requires that a genend plan
address the following issues: land use, circu~on, housing, conservation of natural resources,
open space, noise, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, Sections 65303 of the Government Code allows the City to include any
other issues or concerns into the general plan which may relate to the physical development of
the City; and
WFW~REAS, the process of px~aring the General Plan has included a number of
opportunities for public and citizen involvement included a number of town meetings, technical
committee meeting and public hearings, and by making numerous copies of the plan and
associated documents available to the public; and
WHEREAS, Section 65360 of the Government Code requires that all new Cities to adopt
a General Plan within 30 months of incorporation; and
WI~EREAS, the City of Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Research, in accordance with the provision
of Section 65361 of the Government Code, has extended the deadline for adoption of the General
Plan from May 1, 1992, to November 25, 1993; and
VgrHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminqte the
impact of the project on the environment; and
WI~q~EAS, the City of Temecula has prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the
General Plan in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines prepared
by the Office of Planning and Research; and
R:LS'~O~qP]..AN~OP. CC~ 9114/93 klb 29
WHI~AS, the Planing Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on October
19th, November 2nd, November 23rd and December 7th, 1992, and January 4th, 1993 to
consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
WHI~EAS, on January 4, 1993, the Planing Commission recommended to the City
Council that the Council approve and adopt the draft General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held duly noticed public hearings on February 16th,
March 16th, April 6th, April 20th, May 18th, June 15th, August 17th, and September 21st, 1993
to consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and
~, the City Council Certified the PIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the EIR for the General Plan on
September 21, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1993, the City Council approved and adopted the draft
General Plan, as mended.
NOW, TH~.REI~ORE, THY. CITY COUNCIL FOR THY. CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HY~REBy RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Implementation Program to
implement the General Plan, as mended, for the City of Temecuh and hereby directs staff to
begin to implement the implementation measures and actions identified in the Plan.
R:\S~GBNPLAI~OP. CCI 9/15/93 klb
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 21st day of September, 1993.
ATTEST:
sat, MuNoz
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSmE) SS
CITY OF TEMP_EULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of
September, 1993 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCH-MEMBERS:
COUNTERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
IUNE S. GP~
CITY CT-PP, K
R:~G~PLAN~OP.CC~ 9/1S/93 klb ~ '[