HomeMy WebLinkAbout081793 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 Pujol Street
AUGUST 17, 1993 - 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will
determine which of the remaining agenda 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
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-17
Resolution: No. 93-70
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor J. Sal Muf~oz presiding
Flag Salute
Mayor Pro Tern Roberts
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Mu~oz
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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
n~l; 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 agenda items a "RequestTo 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 egenda will be
made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these
reports.
/-_,
Agende/OI1793 I 0111 1/13
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) at 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. Implementation Program. Environmental Impact Report
and Mitiaation Monitorino Proqram
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Review the Land Use Requests, the Housing Element, the EIR end
Mitigation Monitoring Program, take public testimony, and direct staff
to incorporate the materials as presented into the final General Plan
which will be presented for City Council adoption at the conclusion of
the Public Hearing.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: August 24, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Aileede/OI1793 2 01/11/13
ITEM NO.
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
August 17, 1993
City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation Program, Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
John Meyer
It is requested that the City Council review the Land Use
Requests, the Housing Element, the EIR and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, take public testimony, and direct staff to
incorporate the materials as presented into the final General Plan
which will be presented for City Council adoption at the
conclusion of the Public Hearings.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, the City Council has held six 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 August 17, 1993,
meeting, the Council will review the balance of the Parcel Specific Land Use Requests, the
Housing Element, the EIR and the 'Mitigation Monitoring Program.
1. DRAFT LAND USE PLAN
Staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend the land use
designation on their property. Staff has divided the requests into 6 area groups. The
following table indicates in which group the individual requests are located. To date, the
Council has reviewed all requests except for the Westside Foothills and Nicolas Valley areas.
GROUP} ". ...... LOCATION "1 .:. :... MAP,NUMBERS ...:' ' ':':
Hwy. 79 South
II Chaparral
1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 28, 29, 32,
36, 37, 40, 45, 52 and 54
4,11,14,17,18,19, 24, 25, 26, 38 and 60
S~GENR,AN~GP, CC7 1 Stete Deadline for General Ran Adoption: November 25. 1993
GROUP ' ' · ~L OCA TION . :..':
III
IV
V
VI
... :.MAP'NUMBERS
.I
Urban Core
5, 6, 13, 20, 30, 31,33, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4,
42.5, 42.6, 42.7, 42.8, 42.9, 47, 48, 49, 50,
58 and 62
Westside Foothills
15, 39, 42.1, 43, 44, 46 and 51
Nicolas Valley
8, 16, 23, 27, 35, 55, 56, 57, 59, and 61
Meadowview/Winchester
12, 41, 53.1 and 53.2
Land Use Map Clean Up
Request No.s 30 and 31.
Pursuant to City Council request, staff has invited the property owner/representative for
requests number 30 (Kemper) and 31 (Johnson + Johnson), to the meeting of August 17,
1993. During the June 15, meeting, the Council deferred action on the land use designation
of the two properties until a representative was in attendance.
Request No. 10.
Although the Council took a straw vote on properties located in Group I, staff is requesting
clarification regarding request No. 10 (Penfold). The City Council directed staff to combine
the request in a Specific Plan Overlay with request No. 32 (Johnson + Johnson). However,
Staff is not clear as to whether the underlying Very Low Land Use designation was to remain
or be changed to Professional Office, like the Johnson Property.
Request No. 43
Request No. 43 (Firestone) was granted based on its consistency with a previous Temecula
City Council approval of a zone change on the subject parcels. The City Council action
amended the west half of the parcels to R-5 which is an open space district. The open space
district was assigned because of the steep terrain of the site. The previous Temecula City
Council zoning action, along with the potential alignment of the Western by-pass corridor,
prompts staff to recommend replacing the current medium residential land use designation
with an open space land use designation.'
South Front Street
Because of several inquiries relating to this area, staff has re-evaluated the land use
designation along the west side of S. Front Street between First and the existing office
complex (north of the Pharris Concrete Plant). The current designation is Highway
Commercial. However, after careful consideration of the surrounding land uses, staff now
recommends a Service Commercial designation to duplicate the Service Commercial along the
east side of S. Front.
The Council is advised that Staff has not included any of the land use plan material previously
distributed in the May 18, 1993 City Council Agenda Packet. If new copies of the matrix or
maps are needed please contact Staff.
S%GENPLAN~GP. CC7 2 State Deedine fm General Pie Adoption: Nevembe 26, 1993
2. HOUSING ELEMENT
Background
This element was briefly discussed at the Council's April 6, 1993 meeting. The element was
continued to allow staff an opportunity to respond to comments recently received by the
State Department of Housing and Community Development.
The purpose of a housing element is to address local end 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) provide 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.
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.
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.
Planning Commission Hearings
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.
Comments from State Department of Housing and Community Development
The Draft Housing Element has been circulated to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) 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.
S~'GENPLAN'~GP'CC7 3 State Deadline fo~ Geneel Plan Adoption: November 25, 1993
After the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Element, staff sent a copy
of the updated version to HCD for additional comments. 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. In addition, broader provisions for emergency and
transitional housing will be provided in the Development Code.
3. CLEAN-UP ITEMS And 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.
The following section includes aspects of the General Plan that require further City
Council direction·
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
North General Kearney
During the discussion of the Circulation Plan, staff was directed to remove a section of N.
General Kearny Road (NGK) from between Call. Norte and Call. Madera. (The N. General
Kearny reference has also been removed from Policy 1.3, Page 3-9 of the Circulation
Element). At the March 16, 1993 City Council Meeting, a homeowner from Meadowview
addressed the Council concerning NGK between Call. Madera and Nicolas Road. Specifically,
the width of NGK to be improved by Tract 23583. As a result of this input, staff was
directed to investigate and present its findings to the Council·
Although this item is not a General Plan issue, its outcome may have impacts on the
Circulation Plan. Because of this, staff is requesting some Council direction at this time.
Staff's research has shown that the full width right-of-way has been offered and accepted for
dedication as a public street and utility easement on Tracts 20848, 22786, and 23583. While
the-dedicated rights-of-way vary from 88 feet wide to 110 feet wide, the physical
improvements have been completed only within the 88-feet wide portion fronting Tracts
20848 and 22786. In analyzing the situation, staff examined 3 alternatives (See Exhibit B):
Terminating North General Kearny Road at proposed Corte Coelho, and
constructing a cul-de-sac just southerly of Deer Meadow Road·
e
Terminating North General Kearny Road at extended Calle Olvera, and
constructing a cul-de-sac just southerly of Deer Meadow Road·
Reducing the proposed 64 feet wide paved roadway to 44 feet wide paved
roadway within a 66' foot right-of-way (see exhibit) from Calle Madera
northerly with a transition to the presently constructed 64 feet wide portion
southerly of Deer Meadow Road.
S~GENR, AN%GP.CC7 4 State Deadline for Genorad Pten Adoption: November 25, 1993
Staff contacted the various departments, utilities, and agencies most likely to be affected by
the proposed changes in both the roadway classification and physical width end accessibility
elements. A summary of the responses from these parties can be seen in Exhibit A.
The consensus of the respondents is that a through street best serves their short and long
term purposes. Any vacation of the street right-of-way will necessitate provision of, at the
minimum, public utility easement reservations and the construction and maintenance of an
access roadway for said utilities. The relocation of projected future traffic volumes to other
local streets will likely occur in varying degrees with each of the alternatives with the least
significant impact occurring under Alternative Three.
Vacation of portions of NGK will be required under all of the proposed alternative alignments.
Staff will evaluate the several options arising from the City Council's direction and/or selection
of the preferred alignment. Any excess land areas would revert to underlying fee owners or
fronting lot ownerships. Each alternative would also require revisions to existing approved
improvement and grading plans and improvement bonds and agreements. These revisions
would be performed by the developer at their cost. However, this would be more than offset
by anticipated reductions in construction costs.
Staff is requesting Council direction on which alternative the City should pursue. Based on
that direction, staff will bring back a Resolution of Intent to Vacate for Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council action.
Nicolas Road Extension
During the Planning Commission review of the Circulation Plan, Nicolas Road was extended
across Winchester to Margarita Road. This was as a result of a supplemental analysis (See
Attached) done to determine the need the N. General Kearny extension. According to the
supplemental analysis, the Nicolas Rd. extension only benefitted the circulation network with
the NGK extension. Therefore, with the NGK extension removed from the Circulation Plan,
staff also recommends the Nicolas Rd extension be removed from the Circulation Plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
School Facility Policies
As a result of joint meetings between the Council and the School Board, the District Staff
provided revised language for the School Facility Policies within the General Plan. In addition,
they included a copy of Riverside County Resolution 92-164. The District recommended that
the City adopt a similar resolution for school facility impact mitigation. As before, City staff
referred the revised language and resolution to the City Attorney's office for comment. In
summary, the City Attorney believes the County Resolution is contrary to the language of SB
1287 and relevant case law. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council retain the current
School Facilities Policies and not adopt a school facilities impact mitigation resolution until a
final resolution of the issue occurs through legislation or case law.
S~GENR. AN'~GP. CC7 5 State Deadline for Getted Ran Ad~tio.: N~vembor 25. 1993
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 end is recommending the following changes:
Remove the Chaparral Area from the Special Study Overlay.
Remove the area south of Santiago Road from the Chaparral Area.
Designate the Chaparral Area as Low Density.
Assign the L-1 Zoning District which will set · minimum lot size of I acre.
Include a section in the Community Design Element establishing criteria for
development for the Chaparral Area.
Staff believes the proposed changes to the Cheparrel 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 Rd.
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 zoning amendment· No general plan
amendment would be necessary.
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, as amended (CEQA), 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 end 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
S~GENPt, AN%GP. CC7 6 State Deadline for General Ran Adoptien: N~vember 25, 1993
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
environment;
The alternatives to the proposed project;
The relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity;
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 Certifying EIR's
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 and concerns and
determine the scope of the EIR;
Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR);
Notice of Completion (of an EIR) end 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 and 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 · P o p u I a t i o n, h o u s i n g a n d
· Air Quality ·
· Hydrology ·
· Biological resources ·
· Noise ·
· Land Use ·
· Agricultural resources ·
· Safety and the risk of upset ·
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.
S%GENPLAN~GP, CC7 7 State Deedline for Genefd Ran Adoption: Novme 25, 1993
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.
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
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 impact
S%GENPLAN~GP. CC7 8 State Deadline f~ General Ran Adeption: November 25, 1993
· ENVIRONMENTAL: IMPA'CTS ' ':.~ :.I~EV;L";OF: SIGNIFICANGE. ;AFTER MITIGATION·
Aesthetics
Mitigated to a level of insignificance
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.
Mitigation Monitorina Proqram
State law requires the City to adopt a mitigation monitoring program to ensure implementation
of all mitigation measures included in the EIR. The Program describes the roles,
responsibilities and procedures in implementing the mitigation measures. The program
includes a matrix which highlights, the mitigation, the key City department and the timing of
each mitigation. The program is subject to change up to the point it is formally adopted by
the City Council. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been attached for the
Commission's consideration.
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.
S\GENPt. AN~GP. CC7 9 State Deadline fix GateFad Ran Adoption: November 25, 1993
CONCLUSION
The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Community Design, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements have been adequately
revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups, and other agencies.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Revisions Addendum - Blue Page 11
Exhibit A NGK Agency Responses - Blue Page 12
Exhibit B NGK Alignment Maps - Blue Page 13
Exhibit C NGK Proposed Street Section - Blue Page 14
Exhibit D NGK Street Traffic Matrix - Blue Page 15
' NGK Supplemental Traffic Analysis - Blue Page 16
Attorney Opinions on School Facility policies and SB 1287 - Blue Page 17
S\GENR,AN%GP.CC7 10 State Deadine for Gene~l Pbm Adoption: November 25, 1993
,,,,,---,
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
S\GENPLAN%GP. CC7 11 State Deadline for General Plan Adoption: Novevtber 25, 1993
CITY OF TEM'ECULA
REVISIONS ADDENDUM
INTRODUCTION
The Revisions Addendum consists of the recommended changes to the elements of the Draft
General Plan dated February 16, 1993. The pages included in the Revisions Addendum are only
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//cs and deletions are show with a strikc out.
The recommended changes are the result of input received during the Public Hearings, staff
review, and from written comments by State Department of Housing and Community
Development.
CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element
III. GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 1
A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational, =r.-~_ public and open space land uses.
Discussion
A well-balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are planned
in desirable patterns and intensities. By pwviding for a balanced mixture of land
uses, the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income
groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents and surrounding
communities, ample open space and recr~tional opportunities, and adequate
public facilities and services.
Policy 1.1
Review all proposed development plans for consistency with the
community goals, policies and implementation program of this General
Plan.
Policy 1.2
Pwmote the use of innovative site plsnning techniques that contribute
towards the development of a variety of residential product stylcs and
designs including housing suitable to the community's labor force.
Policy 1.3
Require the development of unified or clustered community-level and
neighborhood-level commercial centers and discourage development of
strip commercial uses.
Policy 1.4
Consider the impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure when
reviewing proposals for new development.
Policy 1.5
Support the development of light industrial, manufacturing, research and
dcvclopmcnt, and office uses to diversify Tcmccula's economic base.
Policy 1.6
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 UBe
~ Specific Plan Overlay to achieve the comprehensive planning and
phasing of development and infrastructure.
Policy 1.8
Consider taking the lead on preparing specific plans for areas designated
on the Land Use Plan that have multiple landowners.
Policy
PER CC
DIRECTION
Encourage planned unit developments flexible zoning techniques in
appropriate locations to preserve natural features, achieve innovative. site
design, achieve a range of transition of densities; pwvide open space and
recreation facilities, and to provide necessary amenities and facilities.
TEM4nX0~OP-t2~.USE · Draft Dam: July 26, 1998 Page 2-9
VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY
PER CC
DIRECTION
General Plan Program
i
PLANNING
FIGURE 2..4
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY
Approved Specific Plan
Areas
Proposed Specific Plan
Areas
No~e: ~ee nam~ of Specific Plan
Arm on follo~nj I~Be.
General Plan Program
Ti THE
PLANNING
FIGURE. 2-5
CITY OF TEMECULA Land Use Element
Legend for Specific Plan Overlay
Figure 2-$ (Continued)
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
A. Winchester Mesa
B. Rancho Spa and Country Club
C. Warm Springs
D. Silverhawk
E. Mountain View
F. Margarita V'~lage
G. Rancho Highlands
H. Paloma del Sol
I. Vail Ranch
J. Redhawk
J.1. Roripaugh Hills
FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN AREASt
K, Winchester 1800
L. Quinta Do Lago
M. Murrieta Springs #1
N. Borel Airpark
O. Crown Valley Village
P. Hot Springs Village
Q. Johnson Ranch
R. Roripaugh 800
S. Winchester Hills
T. Winchester Meadows Busin~s Park
U. Temecula Regional C_~nt~r
V. Campos Verd~s
W. Old Town
X. Unnamed Specific Plan
Unnamed Specific Plan
ZpZ2,Z~. Unnamed Specific Plan
AA. Murdy Ranch
LOCATION
Area of Interest
Area of Interest
Area of Interest
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
.City of Temecula
City of 'I~mecula
City of Temecula
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
City of Temecula
LOCATION
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
Area of Interest
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence/
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
names of tke Future SpecOk Plan Areas are subject to vhange.
TEM-0ZX02GP-LND.USE · Draft Date: July 2.6, 1993 Page 2-38
CITY OF TEI~IECULA Land Use Elemen~
PER CC
DIRECTION
D. Special Study Overlay
The Special Study Overlay designation is intended for those areas in the community
that require a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and
counts. The City of Temecula will lead the preparaaon of a special study for
the Nicolas Valley area as shown on Figure 2-6. The land use designations
identified on the Land Use Plan are based on existing lot patterns, access
constraints, lack of infrastructure, topography, and other considerations. The
purpose of the special study is to recommend any changes to General Plan land uses
based on a detailed evaluation of the following:
the provision of flood control, sewer, water and other services;
impacts on surrounding development in terms of traffic, light, noise, and
other impacts;
methods to provide a transition between rural and suburban/urban
development;
topography and related visual impacts of development;
exisang lot patterns;
traffic circulation and impacts on level of service;
vegetation and wildh~re resources; and
the provision of recreation trails and open space linkages.
The special study(s) should also identify a arategy for financing and phasing of
infrastructure and other public improvements. Future development must be
consistent with the adopted recommendations of the special study. Should
development be proposed prior to completion of the study, the land use should be
consistent with the existing General Plan designation.
If the Special Study includes recommendations that necessitate an amendment to the
Gensml Plan, the cost of the amendment shall be borne by the City of Temecula.
July ?6, 1993 Page 2-42
SPECIAL STUDY OVERLAY
General Plan Program
PLANNING
FIGURE 2-6
CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element
III. GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal I
Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D " or better at all intersections within
the City during peak hours and Level of Service '*C" or better during non-
peak hours.
Discussion
The level of service concept is defined as a qualitative measure describing
operating conditions at an intersection or along a roadway segment. A level of
service definition generally describes operating conditions in terms of factors such
as speed, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, delay, comfort and
convenience, and safety. I~vel of S~rvicc "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 efficiently throughout the City
while ensuring that traffic delays are kept to a minimum.
Policy 1.1
Establish street standards and all new roadway facilities shall be
constructed or upgraded to meet City standards wherc feasible.
Policy 1.2
Require an adsquats evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with
new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation
measures prior to, or concurrent with, project development.
Policy 1.3
PER CC
DIRECTION
Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and
implementation of the City's roadway system. Tko North Gonoral
Koarnoy Road oxtonsion linking Nioolns Road to tho roslignod Margarito
Road will not bo implomontsd until tho following major srtorial roads
and improvemonts kave boon oomplaodt
lhtttsrfisld Stage ~oad vxtonsion from lligl~vay 79 South to
Murrista Hot $p~ngs Roadl
Overland Drive Ovorpassl
Margarit, Road from Solaria to Murriota llot Springs Roadl
W4nshoater Road (llig,hway 79 Noah) widoning to six ianvs from
Ysoz Road to Auld Roadt
W4nokogor Resd/l 15 intsrshange i..provomvutsl
Nioo!as ,n, oad vastorly from Winoksstor ,n, oc.d to Buttot2~dd Etago
Murriota llot Springs Road vast from t$~nokostor Road to
lhtttsrJioM 8tagt~ Roadl and
Calla Cirasol to Calla Chnpoa to Waloott Lano (bot~voon La
Sorena and Nioota~).
TEM-01M}3OP-CIR.CUL · July 26, 1993 Page 3-9
CITY OF TEMECULA Circulation Element
PER CC
DIRECTION
In nddition, City staff sknl! study the rodo~g..ntion of llighw, vy 79 North
from a 8this lligt;way to a C~ty Urban Aftovid, e..d the rseir~oaon of
waj~o g~nvn~tsd from o.tsids ti.e City to a toll rsad. The Genen~i Plan
Cin~intion P, len si~ll be pm, iodieslly studisd at $, 10> 15, and 20 ysar
baiHmtt p~,'oils to m~shtffte the ~wed for the Nm, th Cvnoral Kearnvy
Rsad extortslion. If the Noah Gone~l Koa~nay lts~# wttonsion is to
ro...t~ on the Cirmdntion Plffn, spedfie studioa mu~ bo undortalwn and
pt:blis~lly noaoed p~or to tko implementffaon of tke rsadwa)~ including
an Environmentel Impact Rsport tJ:ttt is in eomplinnev ~itk tho thon
aoeepto$1 CgQA gHidslines for noise b~fforing and public safety.
Policy 1.4
Policy 1.~
Pursue trip reduction and tran.~portation systems management measures to
reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the
City.
Periodioally Update every three years, or as needed; "build-out" traffic
forecasts to monitor the impact of development approvals and the
adequacy of the Circulation Element Roadway Plan.
Goal 2 Enhance traffic safety on City streets.
Discussion
The safe operation of vehicular traffic on City streets is a concern of both City
officials and residents of the community. The following policies are directed
towards minimizing safety hazards and encouraging safer operating conditions on
City streets.
Policy 2.1 The City shall enforce speed restrictions throughout the City.
Policy 2.2
Require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed
to minimize traffic confficts such as those which result from curb parking
maneuvers and uncontrolled access along heavily traveled roadways.
Policy 23
Require that the development of new private driveways do not introduce
significant traffic conflicts along major streets and primary residential
collectors roads.
Policy 2.4
Require that vehicular and pedestrian traffic be separated to the maximum
extent feasible.
Policy 2.5
Establish an ongoing maintenance program to ensure the safety of the
City's roadway system.
TEM-OX~0SOP. ClItCUL · July 26, 1993 Page 23-10
CITY OF TEME~ Circulation Element
PER CC
DIRECTION
IV. CIRCULATION PLAN
The Circulation Plan developed for the City of Temecula has been designed to meet the
following objectives:
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 Murricta axeas; and
· To maintain a positive quality of life in Temeeula.
The proposed Circulation Plan for the City of Temecula Sphere of In~uonoe and Area of
Interest and Sphere/Area of Influence, and Environmental Study Area, is illustrated in
Figure 3-1. The alignments shown for future planned roadways are preliminary and are
subject to refinement based on future engineering studies. Figure 3 1 depicts the
rocommended oirculntion syotsm for areas outt:ids the City and Sphere and illuctrate6 the
continuity and internotion of the City's Ciroulntion Plan with tho surrounding oiroulntion
6yetore. Figures illustrating the planned continuity and interaction of the City's
Circulation Plan with the surrounding circulation system are included in the General
Plan EIR Appendix, Volume III.
A. Principal Plan Features
While all components of the Circulation Plan arc important, some of the Plan features
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 easements reserved for future transit
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 segment between Nicolas Road and Boxel
Road which would be an "access restricted" Urban Arterial.
TEM-OI~OSOP-QR. CUL · July 26, 1993 Page 3-15
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
V. CONSTRAINTS
A. Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints are policies, standards or requirements imposed by the
various loveIs of government on development. Although federal and state agencies
play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, these agencies are beyond
the influence of local government and are therefore not addressed in thIs document.
The following factors constrain the maintenance, improvement, and/or development of
housing in Temecula: land use controls; building codes; processing procedures; and
development fees.
The General Plan Is the foundation of all land use controls in a jurisdiction. The
Land Use Element identifies the location, distribution and intensity of land uses
in the City. The primary instruments for implementing the General Plan will be
the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The current Zoning Code being
used by the City is the County of Riverside's Ordinance 348. The City is
currently preparing a Development Code which will be consistent with its
General Plan. For purposes of the Housing Element, an analysis of the Draft
Temecula Development Code is providetL This analysis may be further refined
during the next Housing Element update, when the Development Code will be
adopted. The current Subdivision Ordinance being used by the City is the
County of Rivwside's Subdivision Ordinance 460. The City expects to conanue
to rely on the County's Code for at least the next fiscal year.
The proposed Temecula Development Code incorporates residential standards
that will enable the continued development of higher density projects as
constructed under the County's Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The
proposed Development Code contains seven residential classifications, which
cover the six General Plan Land Use designations. The land use controls
pertnit by right single family residences in all zones except 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, setbacks, and open space requirements per
zoning district. The overlay zones are a special designation which are subject
to site-specific regulations.
Approval for development in the Village Center Overlay requires satisfaction
of performance standards articulated in the Development Code. These
standards reflea a focus on unique and creative development that promotes
integration of retail, open space and residential uses. Diversity of housing,
including affordable housing is one factor in the ptrfortnanct standards. The
Planned Development Overlay also provides flexibility in development
'n~-0~X04OP-HOU.SZ~O · January 4, 1993 Pa~ 4-33
CITY OF TEMECULA Housin~ Element
standards. Development standards for the seven residential zoning
classifications are provided in Table 4-19.
Dra~ Residential Development Standards
Minimum Lot Aria
Minimum Average Net Lot Area p~r Dwelling
Maximum Dwelling Units Per Am
l. Or
Minimum Width at Required Front Setback Area
Minimum Average
Minimum Front Yard
Minimum Corner Side Yard
Minimum Interior Slde Yart
Mlnhtmm Rear Yard
MAXIMUM !!EJG!!T
MAXZMUM 96 OF LOT COVEPAGE
OPEN ~PACE REQUIRED
Private Ope~ Space/Per Unit
NoU$:
1.
Table 4-19
Draj~ Residential Development Standards
HR VL L4 L-2
Stnior Citizen Housing or Congregatt Care Facaiat$:. pamiued up w 30 DUIAC in the H Distt~ 18 DUIAC in the
M District, and 12 DU/AC in the LM District.
2. Variable Setbade: In order to allow for a more interesting visual image and more ~etible site planning variable
setbacks may he permitted in the L-2, LM, M and H districts. Front yard setbacks shall have an average of at least
twenty feet. Garages with entrances not facing the from yard area may he setback a minimum of IO ]~. Other portions
of a structure may have a front yard setback of a minimum of ten feet; how~wr, tiw average setback of twenty feet
shall be maintainell
3. Variable Sidt Yard Sma~P_J~ Variable side yard Setbac~ may be permitted provided the sum of the side yard
a zero lot ~ arrangement with a zero setback on one side yard and fifteen feet on the oppoxi2 side yarcL
Soillye:
1'he development standards are based on the Dra)~ Development Code dated March 1993, prepm'ed by The
Planning
Development standards may add to the cog of housing because the standards
may necessitate additional construction and building materials and labor.
These standards are enacted for the protection of the community's health,
safety and welfare.
Modb~cation or flexib'di~ in development standards can reduce the cog of
housing construction, which may in turn, result in lower housing prices. In
Temecula's proposed Development Code, variable setback standards are
allowed, which provides more flexibility in site planning, paracularly on
irregularly shaped parcels. In addiaon, residential development in both the
Planned Development and Village Center Overlay Zones can take advantage of
even greater flexibility in development standards for these areus. It is expected
TBM-OlXO4OP-HOU..9,10 · January 4, 1993 Page 4-34
CITY OF TEME~ Housing Element
that d~velopment under these standards in #hose =m~s will promote a wider
range of housing opportuniti6 in comparison to the traditional zoning districts.
The identification of affordable housing as a factor in the performance
standards for the lrdlage Center Overlay provides a mechanism for the
reali~aon of this objecave.
Parking requirements in the Draft Development Code call for two covered
spaces per single family residence with three or fewer bedrooms, and three
covered spaces for a single family residence with four or more bedrooms.
Parking requirements for multifamily housing are generally two spaces per
unit, with an additional requirement of one guest space per every four units.
Parking requirements for Senior Citizen housing and Congregate Care are
reduced to .q spaces per unit and one space per five units for guest parking.
Temecula's draft standards are comparable to other cities in Riverside County
and are not identified as a constraint to development.
2. Subdivision Ordinance
State law requires local governments 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 local government discretion. As noted above, the
Subdivision Ordinance being used by the City is the County of Rivm,side's
Subdivision Ordinance 460.
The Subdivision Ordinance like all land use controls, can be so restrictive as to
increase cost of development and stifle development interest. The Subdivision
Ordinance used by the City is the same or similar to the requirements imposed
by many other local governments in Riverside County, and therefore does not
pose any special constraints on the production of housing. Temecula conforms
to the procedural requirements established in the Subdivision Map Act and does
not impose additional requirements.
3. Building Codes
Building Codes regulate the physical construction of dwellings and include
plumbing, electrical and mechanical divisions. The purpose of the Building Code
and its enforcement is to protect the public from unsafe buildings and unsafe
conditions associated with construction. The City of Temecula enforces the
Uniform Building Code as established by State Law. State affords local
government with some flexibility when adopting the uniform codes: the building
codes can be amended based on geographical, topelogical or climatelogical
Note: Condominium and stock cooperative conversions are also subject to the Subdivision Map Act,
TBM-01MMOP-HOU.SNO · January 4, 1993 Page 4-35
CITY OF TF.,.MECULA Housing Element
Housing ProFErn
PROVISION OF 'ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES
Landbsnkin~
Acquire sMs (or
funds) for
Table 4'25
City of Temecnla
Housing Plan Summary
(# on~ m h, Fumln~
AdeqUatemsidentislsilssto
accommodate ~e regional fair
share determined at ;Fd) 129
Vsy I. sv;, ~s137 Lower;,
AboveModenmincome
househokls.
ee.~,,~,ra~tl ~ kkstkl
~ Bedlure and HIgh
Reslds~sl Degslty zDnss,
shelfera In the remaining
Commffdal srd Industrial
s~J8.t ~ dboreler.~ry
Develop a Landbanking
ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Density Bonus Encourage
Program development of
through provision of
Mortgage Revenue Increase supply of
Bond Financb~g rental ownership
units affordable to
Iow-andmoderee-
or Handicapped
Housing
hanmcap~.
Incorporate Density Bonus
Program into Zoning Ordinance.
Include Fortsions to ensure the
continued affoKlabllty of units.
Work wire Riverride County in
securing tax exempt MRB
hnc~ The~vebk~
the slngb family program and
to promote the use of
midfamily MRB financing.
Support all viable nonprofit
None
None necessa~
m part of lhe Zoning code.
The Second Unit Ordinance
sha~pennitsecondunitson
reddereal lots zmecl for single
and multifamily residenMI use.
Include in ~e Ordinance
second-unib intended for
occupancy by pemons over the
Responsible TIme
Agency Frame
Planning Depamnent Two Years
Two years
Planning Deparlment One year
Pkmnlng Ongolng
Redeveloprent
Agency
TEId-OIM),~3P-HOU. SNO · January 4, 1993 Page 449
CITY OF TEM~CULA Housing Element
A. Provision of Adequate Housing Sites
1. Land Use Element/Zoning Ordinance
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance provide the
planning and regulatory framework necessary to achieve adequate housing sites.
The Land Use Plan provides for development of a range of housing, at varying
densities. The 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 Ordinance can pwvide regnlatory incentives for the development of
affordable housing. The Density Bonus allows for additional intensity in
residential development which includes affordable housing. With regard to the
needs of the homeless, the Zoning Ordinance will allow for development of
emergency and transitional shelters in specified areas.
Objective:
Adequate residential sites to accommodate the regional fair share
determined at 25~129 Very Low; 155137 Lower;, 151171
Moderate; and ~r5433 Above Moderate income households.
2. Sites for Emergency and Transitional Shelters
The homeless population refcrs to persons lacking consistent and adequate shcltcr.
Homeless persons can be considered resident (those remaining in an area year-
round), or transient. Emergency and transitional shelters can help to address the
needs of the homeless. Emergency shcltcrs provide a short-term solution to
homclessness and involvc limited supplcmcntal services. Transitional shelters,
in contrast, are directed at rcmoving the basis for homclessness. Shcltcr is
provided for an extended period of time, and is combined with other social
services and counseling to assist in the transition to serf-sufficiency.
Objective:
Adopt a Zoning Ordinance which permits transitional and
emergency housing in oommeroial and industrial s~ones Me.d/urn
and High Residential Density zones, and conditionally permits
shelters in the remaining Residential zones and Commercial and
Industrial zones. Thee tmo~ will be subject to discretionary
approval.
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.
TBM-01~04OP-HOU.SNO · January 4, 1993 Pagc 4-53
CITY OF TE1V~CULA Open ~pace/Conservat~on Elemen~
A number of additional improvements are currently underway or being planned.
These improvements include the construction of a community recreation center,
pool complex and amphitheater at the Sports Park, and other facilities at Pala
Park.
The City has a joint use agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District 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 recreation facilities to the public at large,
such facilities are considered adjuncts to the city-wide park system. Table 5-2
below provides a summary of the existing facilities at the school sites for use by
the public.
School
Sparkman Elementaxy
Rancho Elementary
Vail Elementary
Nicolas Valley
ElemenUwy
Temecula Elementary
Tcm~ula Middle
Margarita Middle
Temecula Valley
High
R~d Hawk
Elementary
Table S-2
Temeeula Valley Unified School District
Existing Sehool Faeilities
Location Recreation Facilities
East of Matgnfita Road, Playgrounds, Handball, Basketball,
north of De PortoIn Road Volleyball
North of Ln Sorenn Way, Soccerfield, Playgrounds, Basketball,
west of Enfield Lane Volleyball, Baseball, Handball
North of Rancho Vista Playgrounds, Basketball, So~ball,
Road at Mira Lotm Drive Soccerfield, Baseball, HandbaH
North of Nicolas Road, Playgrounds, HandbaH, 2askettmll and
west of Joseph Road Volleyball
Playgrounds, X.]alldbaH, Sw~mmln~
North of Raneho California, Pool, Baseball, Soccerfield,
west of Momgn Road
South of Pauba Road, west
of Butterfield Stage Road
North of Keamey Road,
east of Via Monterey
South of Rancho Vista
Road, east of ~ta
North of Wolf Valley, West
of ButterfisM Stage
Volleyball, I-hndball, Baseball, TennL~
Courts, Basketball, Softball,
Soccerfield, Football
Volleyball, Bandball, Baseball,
Courts, Football, Basketball, Softball,
Soccerfield
Basketball, Tennis Courts, Volleyball,
Soccerfield, Gymnasium, Baseball,
Football
Playgrounds, Basketball, Volleyball,
Tetlserball
Private recreation facilities are found primarily in planned communities and
apartment complexes. These facilities usually include tennis courts or a
basketball court. The existing facilities are so few that they have a minor impact
on meeting the demand for parks and recreation facilities within the community.
Them am also several existing commercial recreation facilities within the City
and Sphere of Influence including four golf comes. Two additional goff comes
TEM.OINOKIP-OPN.SPA · Date: July 2,6, 1993 Pa~e
DRAFT BICYCLE ROUTES
Class II and III
el, eE Bicycle Trails
~" F"'*"**' Class I Bicycle Trails
..... ~,~ ~-
J
Connee. is to Lake Skinner
Trail System
PER CC
DIRECTION
t
2211 ii
~\ ~
. rJ''J .
,~EMECULA ~
....... i.i
General Plan Program '" ..........................
FIGURE 5-2
CITY OF TEMECULA Open Space/Conservation Element
Historic and Culturally Significant Resources including: 23 recorded
archaeological sites; 47 properties listed on the Historic Resources Inventory
prepared by Riverside County; four listings on the California Inventory of
Historic Resources; and several historic resources of local importance including
the Butterfield Overland Stage Route. The Temecula properties listed in the
California Inventory of Historic Resources are the Murrieta Creek Archaeological
Area, Temecula's first Post Office, Temecula Quarries, and the Little Temeeula
Rancho Adobe. The archaeological sites include prehistoric sites, sites occupied
by Native American.% and historical sites associated with the occupation of
Temecula Valley by Europeans and Euro-American-q. FiFes 5-6 and 5-7
identify the sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources of the Study
Area. Due to the presence of reliable water sources and a fertile valley floor, the
Temecula area has always been a desirable place to live. Temecula contains
many older structures, historic sites and districts, and archaeological evidence
which may be threatened with demolition or removal as urbanization continues.
10.
Nighttime skies within the Mt. Palemar Observatory conservation areas. The City
is within close proximity to the Palomar Observatory which requires 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 8an DiogoCay of Temecula 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 arc within a
15-mile radius of the Observatory and should boare subject to stringent lighting
controls and some limitation of uses that may generate significant amounts of
light and glare 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, wildlife, and
slopes. Policy guidance for the dedication of open space for public health and safety
is provided in the Public Safety Element.
D. Mineral Resources
State law requires the General Plan to address the need for conserving mineral
resources within the General Plan Study Area. The State Division of Mines and
Geology has 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 Valley Area. Riverside County CaliJ'ornla. Special Report 165. evaluates
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 (MRZ) and
Scientific Resource Zones (SZ). The zones identify the statewide or regional
TEM-0lX0SOP-OPN.SPA · Date: July :26, 1993 Page 5-21
CITY OF TEMECUI.~ Open Space/Conservation Element
significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of the deposits and
accessiFtlity. 14qthin the City of Temecula, its Sphere of Influence, and the
Environmental Study Area, the zoning classification of MRZ-3a has been applied by
the State. The MI~ areas contain sedimentary deposits which have the potential
for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed s~one for aggregate,
hawever, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant
economic value based on the available data.
'r!~-0XX0~P-OPN. SI,^ · Date: July 26, 1993 Page 5-22
PAI,OMAR OBSERVATORY LIGHTING IMPACT ZONE
15-Mile Radius
Lighting Impact Zone
45-Mile Radius
Lighting Impact Zone
The City of
" "EMECULA
General Plan Program
FIGURE 5-8
CITY OF TEMECULA Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RELEVANT ISSUES
Facilities and services pwvided in Temecula may be categorized as either 1) those under
the direct responsibility and authority of the City, either directly or through contract
arrangements; or 2) those under the responsibility and authority of another unit of
government which are vitally important to the well being of the City and its citizens.
The facilities and services under direct City responsibility include:
Fire protection (contracted to Riverside County Fire Department)
Paramedic Emergency Services (contracted to Riverside County Fire Departmen0
Police/Sheriff (contracted to Riverside County Shefiff's Department)
Civic Center
Flood Control/Drainage (local storm drain facilities)
Solid Waste (contracted to private companies)
The facilities and services currently under other governmental responsibility include:
PER CC
DIRECTION
Library (Riverside County)
Water Supply (Rancho California Water District)
Sanitary Sewer Facilities (F_.astern Municipal Water District)
Schools (Temecula Valley Unified School District)
Flood Control (major facilities by Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District)
Gas and Electric Service
The differences are significant in terms of the City's ability to control policies, programs
and budget related to these functions. The City has direct control in the first category and
therefore exercises direct authority over level of service standards. Where contract services
are provided, such as fire and police protection, the City may address level of service
standards through the contract process.
The City may only influence decisions regarding the second category. Thus, the levels of
service may or may not be to the City's liking. In those eases, the option would be to find
ways of negotiating changes ff the City desired different standards.
An additional consideration is the degree 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 Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), who operates in conjunction with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), provides fire pwtection
services on a contract basis to the City. The City contract provides funding for 23.6
fire personnel.
THM..01X06OP-43RO.MOT · July 2,6, 1993 Page 6-10
PUBLIC FACILITIES
·
0
,
·
,
·
Existing Fire Stations
Proposed Fire Stations
Sheriff's Department/
County Justice Center
Library
Interim City Hall Site
French Valley Airport
PER CC
DIRECTION
General Plan Program
Ti THE
PLANNING
FIGURE 6-1
16" Gas Line
24" Gas Line
II
II
II
GAS LINES
II
II
II
30" Gas Line
The City of
' 'EMECULA
General Plan Program
#
·
8
f i._-
·
·
#
·
#
#
i
_s
PL.ANNINC~
,)
EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
115 K VOLT TRANSMISSION LINES
I I
I I
I I
I I
I :
I
I
I
~! 1*1
F..... Existing or under construction
llS K .Volt Transmission Line
General Plan Program
PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
C. Solid Waste Disposal
The City presently contracts with two private firms for solid waste disposal. Both
haulera transport the City's waste to the El Sobrante Land fill, located in unincorporated
Riverside County, south of Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is a Class III landfill
with a life expectancy through' the year 2002. The landfill occupies 160 acres and
accepts an average of 900 tons per day. Western Waste Industries, the owner and
operator of the landfill, has indicated that expansion of the facility could increase the
life expectancy. Expansion plans are currently under preparation.
The City began implementation of its curbside recycling program in the fall of 1991.
The purpose of this program is to reduce solid waste disposal through recycling and
cornposting of wastes. Residents in the City separate recyclable materials and garden
materials ~'om their waste. Recyclable materials are transported to a center in Perris
for processing. Garden materials are hauled to a separate facility for composting, and
the remaining waste is hauled to the E1 Sobrante Land fill.
Sufficient land fill capacity to accommodate projected 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 programs are necessary
to achieve the 25 percent diversion goal by 1995 and 50 percent diversion goal by
2000.
D. Libraries
The City of Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Library District. This
District maintains 25 library facilities throughout Riverside County, in both
unincorporated and incorporated areas.
A 15,000 square foot library facility has recently opened in the Walt Abraham
Administrative Center, noah 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 Ternecula 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 Muftieta
and Temecula.
The issue of greatest importance to the Library District is adequate funding to provide
for its adopted library service standards. The standards call for 1.2 volumes and .5
square feet of library space per capita. The District currently pwvides only .13 square
feet and .97 volumes per capita County-wide. Revenue for the Library District is
obtained ~'om 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 Temecula Library is currently adequate to
TEM-O1NO6OP-GRO.MCff · August 10, 1993 Page 6-14
CITY OF TEMECULA Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
G. Educational Facilities
The Temecula Valley Unified School District serves the General Plan Study Area. The
District maintains the full spectnun of educational facilities from day care to adult
care. Table 6-3 identifies the educational facilities in the General Plan Study Area,
with the current capacity and enrollment levels of each facility.
Table 6-3
School Facilities
Enrollment
asof
Current July ~
Name Location Capacity 199J
Rancho Day Care 31530 La Serena Way ~5 74 -7~ 74
Vail Day Care 29915 Mira Loma Dave O0 74 S4 74
Spa~ Day Car~ 32225 Rio PIe Pico Road 74 74
Red Hawk Day Ca~x 32045 Camino San Jose Cl"eme, cula) 90 ~8 90
Rancho Elemenuln,' 31530
Joan F. Sparkman 32225
Temecula Elementary 41951
Vail Elementary 29915
Nicolas Valley Elementaryx 39600
Red Hawk Elementan/ 32045
il 's~mnhs~csoo~s; (~s)..
]Margarita Middle l'30600
l.,z: Serena Way
Pie Pico Road
Moraga Road
Mira Loma Drive
N. General Keamey (Temecula)
Camino San Jose (Temecula)
. ',["".~.'~'?:' · . ... .;.~:.
Margarita Road
I
.990 930 846 861
500 1j03 5~ 888
~ 810 57. 750
~ 755 501 692
550 1,045 '~3_.° 727
~ 838 5!7 657
1,199 ~75 1,046
t.' Tomecain Middle j 42075 Meadows Parkway 960 1,090 I °..;2 1,009
Temecula Valley
31555 Rancho Vmta Road
Rancho Vista 31340 Rancho Vista Road
iADUL~SCtlOOL"' ' '
· Tcmcc,.da AduR School 1 31350 Rancho V.,su: Ror~
:
i- I.~w. amd 'eatbin Sphere of Influence.
3,120
~7~ 155
n/a :
I
2,198
~6 137
I
rb'a il
The District recently completed an expansion phase and as a result has sufficient
permanent facilities to meet current student populations through the use of permanent
and interim facilities. As shown in Table 6-3, the capacity of school facilities is
greater than current student enrollment figures. The District also maintainn currenay
uses interim and relocatable facilities to accommodate ctudents in exoeJc of the
TBM-0X~0OOP-GRO.MOT · July 26, 1993 Page 6-19
CITY OF TEMECULA Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
PER CC
DIRECTION
Quasi-public uses include churches; counseling centers; cultural facilities (theatres,
auditoriums, musenmg, zoos, ew.); day care facilities; medical facilities; social service
centers; and similar public serving uses. Quasi-public uses arc frequently, though not
always, funded and operated 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 required as a condition of approval for private development projects.
It is common to accommodate quasi-public uses through a city's land use policies and
regulations, while pr~scribing special dcvelopmcnt standards. Such uses do not
generally have level of service standards. Qualitative standards are part of the
evaluation and negotiation process associated with each development project as it is
proposed. To the maximum extent possiblc, it is desirable to cluster quasi-public uses
in activity centers, whcrc the facilities can reinforce other activities (such as retail or
service businesses) and benefit from the availability of other services (such as but
transportation).
Gas and E/ectr/c Serv/ce
Southern California Edison supplies electricity to the Study Are via underground
and overhead lines. SCE~ main substation is located on Mira Loma Drive in the
City of Temecula. SCE is a public uality and therefore functions on demand.
Extensions for electrical service to new developments are governed by rules
established by the Public Utilities Commission of California. The hierarchy of
eaablishing electrical power lines from generation stations to customers is as
follows: transmission line; sub-transmission line; and service line. Figure 6-5
locates the exi~ing transmission lines in the community which carry the main
electrical supply to smaller distri3u~n lines.
Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). Plasac
and steel underground lines are located throughout the Study Area. A small number
of residents not serviced by SCGC utilize bottled propane or butane fuel. Existing
gas lines are shown on Figure 6-6.
T!~-OfiO~OP-~RO~T · July 26, 1993 Page 6-21
CITY OF TEIVIE~ Public Safety Element
located over the Study Area. Some existing development in the Study Area, is
potentially exposed to air traffic accidents.
G. Nuclear Hazards from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is located in Camp Pendleton
in San Diego County approximately 25 miles west of Temecula. Radioactive by-
products are contained within the plant, with the exception of small quantities of
radioactive gas released into the air and liquids released into the Pacific Ocun. The
releases are monitored by SONGS personnel; and according to SONGS, radiation
exposure due to material releases is less than the typical exposure from natural
background radiation. The two most likely sources of radiation contamination are
transportation accidents involving transport of radioactive materials and uncontrolled
releases at the plant site.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified the area surrounding every
nuclear generating station as an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The State of
California has defined the area outside, and adjacent to the EPZ as a Public Education
Zone (PEZ). The Federal Government establishes the area with a 50-mile radius
around every nuclear generating station as an Ingestion Pathway Zone (IPZ). The
Temccula Study Area is located in the IPZ (Figure 7-5).
H. Emergency Preparedness
The City of Temecula has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan pursuant to the
California Emergency Services Act. The primary objective of the plan is to ensure the
effective management of City personnel and resources in responding to emergency
situations stemming from natural disasters, technological incidents and nuclear defense
emergencies.
The plan includes a responsibility matrix which delineates specific responsibilities to
City departments or personnel in the event of an emergency. 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 guideline on the evacuation
routes in the event of a d/saaer. Due to the unpredictability of the impact of a
disaster on streets and highways, appropriate evacuation routes cannot be pre-
determined. In general, all traffic will be channeled to the nearby freeways, state
highways, and other major arterlals. 1-15 wilt serve as the north-south evacuation
channel. Winchester Road and Rancho California will be used for east-west
evacuation.
TBM-0XX07GP-Ptm. SAV · Date: January 4, 1993 Page 7-12
CITY OF TEMECIIA Public Safety Element
Once the decision to evacuate is made, the public will be alerted and given
evacuation instructions by various means, including school alert/monitor receivers,
AM/FM radio announcements, TV announcements, sirens, mobile loud speakers,
hailers, and personal contact.
Movement information provided to the public will include the foilowing:
· Why they must evacuate.
· Routes to take, including conditions of roads, bridges, and freeway overpasses.
· What to do 0e a vehicle breaks down.
· The locations of assembly points for those without access to automobiles.
· Where to go for mass care until the emergency situation has passed.
Date: January 4, 1993 Pap 7-14
CITY OF TEMECULA Community Desi~Tz Element
C. Village Center Concepts
The Land Use Element describes the concept of the development of Village Centers
throughout the Temccula area. The intent of the Village Center Concept is to provide
opportunities for development of mixtures of commercial and residential uses that will
minimize vehicular circulation trips, avoid sprawling of commercial development, and
offer incentives for high quality urban design. While each of the Village Centers may
develop with different criteria, regnlations, and visual themes, there are certain
common elements that should be addressed as a part of each Village Center Plan. The
following illustrates these common considerations, or what could be described as the
'*palette of design concepts" for a Village Center area. Many of these design concepts
are also applicable to development projects outside the V'dlage Centers. The
development of beneficial mixtures of uses, shared parking fadtines, and pedestrian-
oriented design, are e~camples of the concepts that should be encouraged 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 service 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 possibility is to
have retail use on the ground floor level, office uses on the second level, and
residential units on the upper levels.
Mixture of uses
Residential over office and over retail uses
Tm4-0I~t0OP-COM.DSN · Draft Date: January 4, 1993 Page 10-12
CITY OF TEMECULA Community Design Elemem
H. Chaparral Area
The Chaparral Area is characterized by moderately sloped hillsides above dry
washbeds. Exia~g dtvdoptn~nt consists of s~gmented lot ~ of varying sizes.
This area provides an opportunity to transiaon down from the larger lots found in
the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates areas to the south and west. Special
development considerations are necessary to assure development does not exceed the
carrying capacity of the arm, whil~ ~ providing appropriate transition of density.
The methods identified below should be refined and incorporated within the
Development Code and other regulations and ordinances.
1. Constraint Areas are recognized as having the following characteristics:
a. Areas with natural slopes of 25% or greater.
b. Areas within natural drainage course&
c. Areas with sensitive biological resources as identified or referenced in the
General Plan or site specific study.
Encroachment of grading, construction or surface alteration activities
(including leach fields) shall not exceed 15% of the Comtmint Area.
Notwithstanding this guideline, said acavities shall be avoided unl6s specO~c
mitigations can be implemented to reduce potential impacts to a level of
insignO~cance.
T~M-OIXIOOp-COM.EI~N · Draft Date: August 10, 1993 Pa~e 10-28
CITY OF TEMECLILA Community Design Element
2. Proposed building pads, driveways and septic-leach ~eM locaaons shall be
shown on the tentative map.
A written statement (Form SAN 53) from the Health OJ~cer of Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health shall be provided stating the type
of sewage disposal that will be permitted for the proposed lots.
AH drainage areas will remain natural (no undergrounding or placement in v-
ditches). Use of energy dissipators, retention basins or desilting basins, will be
permitted as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works.
5. Joint access and driveways shall be required to the greatest extent possible to
reduce impacts.
Residences should be designed using alternative foundation techniques to
maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible. Rather than
using extensive grading to create flat building areas, stepped and pier and beam
foundations shall be encouraged. Retaining walls interior to the structure are
encouraged over stem walls along the exterior face of the structure.
7. No graded slopes shall exceed a 2:1 gradient. The maximum vertical height of
graded slopes over a 3:1 gradient shall be 10 feet.
Where grading occurs, finished slopes shouM be contoured with land form
grading, 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 transition 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-acre lots. The
Development Code wilt implement the Low Residential designation through two
zoning districts. These districts will have different development aandards, such as
half-acre and one-acre minimum lot sizes. Based upon the above policies, it can be
anticipated that much of the Chaparral Area will be zoned for the larger one.acre
lot sizes.
TF.M-OlUOOP-COM.D~N · Draft Date: Augus~ 10, 1993 Page 10-29
CITY OF TEMECULA Commun~ly Design Element
I. ,l,f. Neighborhood Compability
Special attention has been given in the General Plan to the 'interface between rural
residential and urban development. However, the compatibility between the
character of exisang single-family neighborhoods and adjacent proposed projects is
also an important consideration within the community. Key considerations in the
planning and design of projects adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods
includes the following:
Proposed land use densities should provide a density transition or buffer
to improve compaU'baity with adjacent neighborhoods;
Proposed projects should be designed in terms of height, architectural
style, buli~ location of parking, and vehicular and non-vehicular access,
to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; and
The design of commercial and office projects should allow for convenient
non-vehicular access by adjacent neighborhoods to the extent feasible.
TEM-0XU0GP-COM.I:~ · Draft Date: January 4, 1993 Page 10-29
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBIT A: NGK AGENCY RESPONSES
S\GENPLAN\GP. CC7 12 State Deedline for General Plan Adoption: Novmr 25, 1993
EXHIBIT "A"
Resource Agency Responses
The Gas Comoanv: Alternatives One and Two do not meet their long-range program
or existing investment in pipe and supply
provisions which were based on the SWAP (Southwest Area Plan). Alternative Three
meets their needs. They would, however, consider a graded roadway and easement
through any vacated or amended road alignment.
Eastern Municioal Water District: The District favors Alternative Three but would
consider an easement along any vacated road. This is the District's proposed access
into Meadowview for future sewer service.
Riverside County Fire Deoartment: The Fire Department indicates that they consider
this road their future "Initial attack" access into the Meadowview area from the
proposed fire station. The connection made under alternate no. 3 represents an
important reduction in response time as compared to other access points. This fire
station is anticipated to be in service within the next year.
Rancho California Water District: The District indicates that
there is an existing 12-inch water main along this street
alignment with a 16-inch water main planned for the later
nineties. Alternate Three is preferred with Alternative
Two acceptable, subject to conditions. Their systems are also
based on the SWAP alignment and the fact that the street has already been dedicated.
Southern California Edison CoreDany: The Edison Company does
not have facilities within the possible street vacation but
would request public utility easement reservation as provided
under the Streets and Highway Code for street vacations.
GTE California: GTE's major feed from the Meadowview area is contained within an
existing easement which runs along the westerly edge of the NGKR right-of-way
between Calle Madera and the southerly limits of Tract No.22786. GTE requires access
to this easement and would seek a general easement reservation in any portion of
NGKR which is vacated.
Riverside County Sheriff's Deot: The Department recommends
either Alternative One or Two as they address the local
residents concern with traffic volumes and speed anticipated
from through traffic on NGKR. Some minor re-routing of traffic
is expected with the opening of Calle Olvera which is
currently a dead-end street. Closure of NGKR avoids the
problems which occurred on Calle Pina Colada, Calla Medusa,
and Avenida De La Reina.
City Planning Department: The Department favors Alternative Three as providing the
best neighborhood and area-wide circulation. This plan also eliminates the alternatives
of a very long cul-de-sac (Corte Coelho) and the creation of a potential loitering area
by dead-ending NGKR as proposed under Alternatives One and Two.
· !
""' .x\,S"l'll:S ~'1"
6
/ ...?'.
/
I
\
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBIT B: NGK ALIGNMENT MAPS
S\GENPLAN~GP. CC7 1 ~3 State i for Generel Plan Adoption: Nove~ber 25, 1993
EXHIBIT C:
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
NGK PROPOSED STREET SECTION
S\GENPLAN\GP. CC7 14 State Deadlieqe for General Plan Adoption: Novefftber 25, 1993
EXHIBIT "C" I
Urban Arterial
8- Lanes
Urban Arlerial
6 - Lanes
Ar,rial
4 - Lanes
Major
4 - Lancs
Secondary
4 - ~nes
Principal Collector
2 - Lanes
S~cific Plan Road
Size Varies
Transil Corridor
lmerchnnge Improvemeal
CIRCULATION PLAN
The City of
TEMECULA
General Plan Program
i
i / ',iJ
, z.< .............., ..................................~ .....j[
-" i
FIOURE 3-1
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT D: NGK STREET TRAFFIC MATRIX
S\GENPLAN\GP.CC? 15 State De~dtine for General Plan Adoption: November 25, 1993
EXHIBIT "D"
Street Traffic Matrix
N. General Kearny
Winchester Road
Nicolas Road (East)
~ ,arita Road
Draft
Circulation Plan
'Alternative A
{AIt. I & 2)
Altemative B
(AIt. 3)
ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT VIC LOS
10-12K 0.2 A
81-83K 1.09-1.12
76-79K 1.02-1.06
21K 0.50 A 26K 0.62 B
C 35K 0.83 D
30K 0.71
10-12K 0.4 A
76-79K 1.05-1.08
B
21K 0.67 B
30K 0.81
D
V/C
LOS
N.A.
- Volume to capacity ratio
- Level of service
- Not applicable to alternative
Alternative A - Without General Kearny Extension
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
between 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 Keamy Road would serve
an average of 35,000 vehicles per day.
Alternative B - Without General Kearny Extension and with Nicolas Road Extension
to Margarita Road
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
between 78,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day.
· Nicolas Road bcnvecn Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an
average of 28,000 vehicles per day.
· . Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Margarita Road would carry an
average of 10,000 vehicles per day.
· Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would
serve an average of 34,000 vehicles per day.
Other shifts in traffic would occur as a result of eliminating the General Kcamy Extension
which arc not explicitly noted on Figure 1. These generally include increases in traffic along
the following roadways:
the Butterfield Stage Road corridor between Borel Road and Paula Road;
the Borel Road/Hunter Road corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road;
the La Sercna Way corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road; and
the Margarita Road corridor between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road.
DraR Circulation Plan - With General Kearny Extension
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. Keamy Road would
serve an average of 30,000 vehicles per day.
Traffic Operation Imnacts
The assessment of forecasted volume to capacity ratios and corresponding Level of Service
is summarized in the following table:
Draft
Circulation Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
Winchester Road
v/c LOS v/C LOS
Nicolas Road (East) 0.50 A
Nicolas Road
(Extension)
N.A. N.A,
Margarita Road 0.71 C
V/C - Volume to capacity ratio
LOS - Level of Service
N.A. - Not applicable to alternative
1.09-1.12 F
0.62 B
\,
N.A. N.A.
0.83.
D
v/c LOS
L05-1.08 /,,/F
0.67 B
0.59 A
0.81 D
,t
Select Link Analysis
The "select link" analysis is a tool offered by the traffic forecasting computer model which
filows the user to identify the origins and destinations of vehicle trips assigned to a roadway
segment (link) or segments in the highway network. This procedure was used to identify the
general geographic location of origins/destinations. of vehicle trips which would use the
General Kearny Extension.
· The results of the General Kearny Extension "select link" analysis are illustrated in Figure
4. For the purpose of graphically showing geographic origins/destinations of trips which
would use General Kearny, the Temecula Circulation Element Traffic 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 Kearny Extension.
Number shown next to arrows indicate the general direetional location and magnitude of trip
ends outside of the City.
in response to questions regarding the general contribution of trips to and from the proposal
Kernper Urban Core Projects (e.g..Temecula Regional Center, Campos Vetdes, and
~chester Hills), the contn'bution would total approximately 1,(520 trip ends for the three
projects. Temecula Regional Center, which will offer shopping and employment
opportunities to area residents in the principal contributor of the three Urban Core Projects.
It should be noted however, that if these shopping and employment opportunities are not ·
provided at this location, residents would seek these opportunities .elsewhere in the
community or outside the area. Since most other shopping and employment opportunities
are oriented 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 Extension
would result in approximately 4,500 vehicles per day being added
to the critical Winchester Road segment. The projected volumes
on the segment of Winchester Road would result in volume to
capacity ratios ranging from 1.09 to 1.12. Level of Service remains
at F (as compared so the Draft Circulation Plan) only because
service levels are not defined beyond the point tha~ traffic volu.me
exceed the maxlmum roadway capacity..,The increase in daily
volume to capacity ratio essentially indicates that severe congeared
traffic conditions could be expected during extended periods of the
day.
Alternative B, which also eliminates the General Kearny Extension
but provides an extension of Nicolas Road to Margarim Road,
results in a smaller increase of approximately 1,400 vehicles per
day on Winchester Road. Traffic operation on Winchester Road
would worsen by extending the period of severe traffic congestion,
but not to the degree resulting from Alternative A. Although the
analysis suggests that the Nicolas Road Extension would offset
most of the traffic increase on Winchester Road resulting from the
elimination of the General Kearny Extension, data generated by
'the General Kesrny "select link" analysis indicates that the Nicolas
Road Extension serves less than ~400 of the approximate 11,000
vehicle trips which would otherwise have used the General Kearny
Extension. In other words, the shift in traffic from General
Kearny is still being 'added to the critical Winchester Road
segment, and other traffic on Winchester Road is being shifted to
the Nicolas Road extension.
Both Alternative A and B would result in a significant increase in
traffic volume on Margarita Road (between Winchester Road and
General Kearny Road) and would degrade the Margarita Road
level of service from "C' to "D'.
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ATTORNEY OPINIONS ON SCHOOL FACILITY POLICIES AND SB 1287
S\GENPLAN\GP.CC7 17 State Deadline for General Pin Adoption: November 25, 1993
V[NTURA COUNTY OFFICE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA g3OIO
(605) 987-3468
LAW OFFICES
BURKE, ~TILLIAI~IS 8~ SOR]~NSBN
3200 mmI:;IISTOL STI:irEiT
SUITE 640
COSTA fvlr,SA, CALIFORNIA 92616
(714) S4SoSSSg
FACSIMILE: (714) 755-5548
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
6tl WEST SIXTH STREET. SUITE Z5OO
LOS ANGELES., CALIFORNIA 90017
(:'13) 23G-OGOO
TEL[COPIER: (Z13) P. 3G-2/OC)
August 2, 1993
RECEIVED
VIA FACST~T.R AND U.S. MATT.
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
AUG 0 1993
Ans'd ..... - .........
Re:
Riverside County Resolution No. 92-164,
SB 1287 (School Impact Fees) and General
Plan Policies
Dear John:
This letter is in response to the City's request for our
opinion concerning the County of Riverside's recent adoption of
Resolution No. 92-164 regarding school facilities impact
mitigation. The Temecula Valley Unified School District has
requested that the City Council include a similar policy in the
City's General Plan.
To our knowledge, no new legislation on school impact fees
is currently under consideration by the State Legislature.
However, two California appellate cases were decided in February
1993 regarding school fees which provide insight on judicial
thinking on this subject. The following discussion on the
County's resolution and the recent court cases is offered to
assist the City Council in deciding how to proceed with its
General Plan policies on this subject.
SUMMARY OF OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is our opinion that the County of Riverside's Resolution
No. 92-164 regarding school facilities impact mitigation is
contrary to the language of SB 1287 and judicial interpretations
of the relevant law. Therefore, it is recommended that the City
Council does not adopt a similar resolution or amend the General
Plan language currently recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Meyer
August 2, 1993
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
Under the School Facilities Law of 1986, cities were
expressly prohibited from denying adjudicatory approval (i.e.,
map or plot plan) of a development project on the basis of the
adequacy of school facilities even if the General Plan required
you to do so. However, certain court decisions limited the
statutory prohibition by holding that it does not apply to
projects that require legislative land use approvals such as
general plan amendments or rezonings. (Murrieta, Mira, and Hart
cases).
In our previous correspondence to the City on this subject,
(see attached letters dated December'8, 1992 and January 15,
1993), our office analyzed SB 1287 and its impact on the above
law and court decisions and made recommendations regarding the
City's planning procedures and General Plan policies on impacts
on school facilities. Based on our analysis, it was our view
that SB 1287 extended the statutory prohibition to include
projects requiring legislative approvals. Therefore, we
recommended the following:
(1)
That individual development projects involving
legislative (as well as quasi-judicial) land use
approvals cannot be denied or conditioned on the
grounds of inadequate school facilities.
(2)
That the adoption of any policies within the City's
General Plan requiring that individual development
projects demonstrate that adequate school facilities
exist or will be provided to support their project
(i.e., a "will serve" letter from the schooldistrict
prior to the approval of a project by the City) be
avoided.
(3)
That specific language recommended for the General Plan
in its Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
regarding Goal 4 on school facilities be adopted.
It was also our opinion that our specific recommendations
regarding language for the General Plan were not incompatible
with the Legislative Counsel's Opinion No. 30455 (dated December
4, 1992) on SB 1287. In that Opinion, the Legislative Counsel
determined that:
Mr. John Meyer
August 2, 1993
Page 3
". . .[T]he apparent effect of [SB 1287] will be to
specifically prohibit the inclusion within a general
plan or zoning law of any provision that would
authorize the denial of individual development projects
on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities."
However, the Legislative Counsel also concluded that SB 1287:
". . .does not prohibit a city. . .from considering the
adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting
or implementing legislative land use policy in the
form. . .of a general plan or zoning ordinance."
(emphasis added).
Thus, the City may establish land use densities in its zoning
laws and general plan requirements to insure the number of school
children is consistent with available school facilities.
However, such policies do not authorize the denial of specific
development projects on the hasps Of the adequacy of school
facilities.
It is our view that the County's policy does not meet this
standard since its enforcement would have the apparent effect of
denying a project on the prohibited basis even though its
requirements are not mandatory but nonetheless would achieve the
same result as a compulsory program.
SB 1287
Through an amendment to Government Code Section 65995(a),
(all future references shall be to Government Code Sections
unless other indicated), SB 1287 prohibits the denial of
individual development projects due to inadequate school
facilities. The section states:
"Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other
requirement authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant
to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), no fee,
charge, dedication, or other requirement shall be
levied by the legislative body of a local agency
against a development project, as defined in Section
53080, whether by adm~n.~strat.~v~ or ]eg.~s]ative action,
for the construction or reconstruction of school
facilities." (emphasis added).
Mr. John Meyer
August 2, 1993
Page 4
The statute also states in Section 65995(e):
"The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of
the financing of school facilities with development
fees is a matter of statew~de concern. For this reason
the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of
mandatory development fees and other development
requirements for school facilities finance to the
exclusion of all local measures on the subject."
(emphasis added).
Under SB 1287, Section 65996(a) identifies the following
laws as the "exclusive methods" of mitigating environmental
effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when
considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for
the approval of a development project by administrative or
legislative action pursuant to CEQA:
(1) Lease-purchase (Education Code 17700 et seq);
(2) Emergency Classroom Law (Ed. Code 17785 et seq);
(3) California School Finance Authority (Ed. Code 17870 et
seq);
(4) Leasing Facility Act (Ed. Code 39327 et seq);
(5) School District Development Fees (Section 53080);
(6) Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Section 53311 et
seq);
(7) School Facilities Act (Section 65970 et seq).
Also, Section 65996(b) specifically states:
"No public agency shall, pursuant to [CEQA] or [the
Planning and Zoning Law] deny approval of a project on
the basis of the adequacy of school facilities, or
impose conditions on the approval of a project for the
purpose of providing school facilities that exceed the
amounts authorized pursuant to this chapter."
(emphasis added)
This amendment to Section 65996 expands the restrictions from
those enumerated in the 1986 legislation as the previous
reference to the Subdivision Map Act (Section 66410 et seq) in
former Section 65996(b) was replaced with the reference to the
Planning and Zoning Law.
Subsequent to SB 1287, the following two court decisions
discussed and interpreted school impact fee laws.
Mr. John Meyer
August 2, 1993
Page 5
Grupe Development Co. v. Ch~ no Un~ f~ ed School Di stri ct
4 Cal.4th 911 (Feb. 1993)
In Grupe, the Supreme Court held that a local measure
imposing a "special tax" on all new residential construction to
fund new school construction was preempted by Section 65995. The
Court stated that the intent of the legislative act which
included Section 65995 was to make uniform throughout the state
the process of financing new school construction and to empower
school districts to impose development charges rather than
depending on local government to do so on their behalf. To allow
school districts to collect special taxes to offset development
costs in addition to collecting the maximum amount under the
statute would upset the legislative intent of Section 65995. Id.
at 919.
Corona-Norco United School District v. City of Corona
13 Cal.App.4th 1577 (Feb. 1993)
In Corona, the city's general plan included a "District
Sign-Off or Certificate Sheet" that would indicate the adequacy
of school operating capacity and other public services prior to
city council approval of a final tract map. (This approach is
very similar to the one suggested by the Temecula Valley Unified
School District but rejected by the Planning Commission based on
our recommendation.) In Corona, the school district claimed that
the city had a duty, under CEQA, to impose conditions in addition
to the statutory fee to mitigate the alleged impacts of the
projects on school facilities. (This appears to be the approach
adopted by the County of Riverside in its resolution.)
The appellate court rejected all of the school district's
claims and held that although generally, approvals of tract maps
must be consistent with the general plan, the later and more
specific provisions of Section 65996, dealing with the mitigation
of impacts on schools from development approvals, creates an
express exception to the general requirement of consistency
between the two code sections. Id. at 1585.
Thus, the court found that the provision of Section 65996(b)
that no public agency may, pursuant to CEQA or the Subdivision
Map Act, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities, prevails to the extent it is inconsistent
with the requirement of consistency of Section 66473.5 In so
holding, the court stated that:
Mr. John Meyer
August 2, 1993
Page 6
" . .the Legislature has clearly mandated that
development takes precedence to the adequacy of school
facilities." Id- at 1585.
Although this case was decided prior to passage of SB 1287,
the language of the case seems to emphasize the strict limits on
local agencies' powers to demand mitigation measures and the
statutory prohibition in Section 65996(b) that cities cannot use
the CEQA process as a method to deny approval of a project or
impose conditions on the approval of a project on the basis of
the adequacy of school facilities. Such language supports our
view that the County's resolution is beyond the scope of
permissible powers of local agencies regarding mitigation
measures for school facilities impacts.
Attorney Genera] Opin~ on
As you may know, the Riverside County Counsel's Office
requested an opinion from the State Attorney General concerning
the imposition of school facilities fees. (See attached letter
to the Attorney General dated February 17, 1993). In response to
that request, the Attorney General's Office solicited the views
of all "interested parties" prior to issuing an opinion. (See
attached letter to League of California Cities dated March 1,
1993). However, we have been advised by the County Counsel's
Office that the Attorney General has since declined to issue an
opinion due to pending litigation involving the City of Santa
Maria. Thus, no additional insight on this subject will be
forthcoming from the Attorney General in the foreseeable future.
Recommendations
Based on our understanding of the current state of the law,
it is not permissible for the City Council to put policies in the
City's General Plan that require the City to deny or condition
individual projects based on the adequacy of school facilities as
the County has adopted. Specifically, the use of the CEQA
process by the County to compel mitigation measures seems clearly
proscribed both by statute and case authority. Rather, it is our
view that what is permissible under the law is for the school
district to participate in the General Plan process by looking at
the recommended land use densities to determine their impacts on
the schools and providing input to the City Council regarding
such densities.
Mr. John Meyer
August 2, 1993
Page 7
Our current view is also based on the lack of any additional
legislative or other clarification on this issue since our
earlier letter. However, should subsequent legislative or
judicial developments occur which may alter our previous opinion,
you will be so advised. If we may be of further assistance or
answer any questions you may have regarding the above discussion,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
attach.
cc: Scott F. Field, City Attorney
John E. Cavanaugh, Asst. City Attorney
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
sb1287.2. LTR
VENTURA COUNTY 0FFICr
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAk!ARILLO. CALIFORNIA 93010
(805) 987-3468
TELECOPIER: (SOS) 482-9834
LAW OFFICES
]~1:~:]~, WTT'T'TA'IVJ:S ~C S01~Tl:~4'Slq~l
3~'(}O BRISTOL STRrrT
COSTA MEt'A, CALIFORNIA 926::*6
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
Sll WEST SIXTH STRrE:T. SUITE 2500
LOS ANGELrS, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) Z36-OBO0
TELECOPIrR: (213) 236-2100
January 15, 1993
VIA FACSIMILE AND 0.8. NAIL
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re: SB 1287 and General Plan Policies
RECEIVED
AUG 0 4 1993
Ans'd .............
Dear John:
As you are aware, substantial disagreement currently exists
among interested parties regarding the meaning and legal effects
of SB 1287, the recently enacted School Impact Fee Legislation.
As we noted in our December 8, 1992 letter to Gary Thornhill,
(copy attached), one of the unsettled issues regarding the
legislation relates to its impact on earlier court decisions,
The Murrieta, Hart, and ~ira cases, which exempted development
projects requiring legislative land use approvals from the
limitations and prohibitions of the School Facilities Law of
1986, permitted local agencies to deny such approvals based on
inadequate school facilities.
Apparently, it is the position of some school districts that
SB 1287 did DOt overrule these cases and that local agencies are
still obligated to require new development projects to mitigate
their school impacts when seeking legislative land use approvals.
It is their view that support for this position can be found in
the Legislative Counselts Opinion No. 30455 (December 4, 1992)
which concludes:
'[SB 1287] does not prohibit a city. . .from considering the
adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or ,
implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other
legislative land use policy."
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 2
Obviously, this view is not totally consistent with our
previous recommendation to-your office that legislative land use
approvals cannot be denied or conditioned on the grounds of
inadequate school facilities '(see December S, 1992 letter).
Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to reconcile the con-
flicting opinions and provide meaningful guidance on the appro-
priate General Plan policies that should be considered in light
of the controversy surrounding SB 1287.
Leaislative Counsel's OD.~n.{on No. 30455
In its discussion on the impact of SB 1287 on school impact
fee laws, the Legislative Counsel's Opinion states that under the
law existing pr{or to adoption of SB 1287:
".. .Section 65995 precludes local agencies . .from
adopting any legislative requirement, except ~o the extent
authorized by Section 53080 and Chapter 4.7, that imposes
fees as a condition to approval of a development protect in
order to reduce the project's negative impact on school
facilities. · ." (Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455, page
6) (emphasis added).
However, the Counsel further concludes at page 6 that:
".. .[Section 65995 et seq] does not prohibit a city..
.from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the
course of adopting or implementing legislative land use
policy in the form.. .of a general plan or zoning ordi-
nance." (emphasis added).
Thus, according to the Legislative Counsel, the law prior to SB
1287 permitted cities to consider the adequacy of school facili-
ties in the context of adopting or amending general land.use
policies but not when considering individual development pro-
jects.
The Legislative Counsel then analyzes the effect of SB 1287
on the above stated conclusions and determines that:
". . .[SB 1287] will expressly prohibit a city. . .from
either establishing legislative standards, or applying any
legislatively established standard, so as to require, as a
condition of the approval of any development protect, that a
fee be paid or other requirement be met for the purpose of
funding school facilities construction or reconstruction,
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 3
other than as levied pursuant to Section 53080 or Chapter
4.7." (Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455, page S) (em-
phasis added).
The Legislative Counsel further determined at page 11 that:
".. .[T]he apparent effect of [SB 1287] will be to specifi-
cally prohibit the inclusion within a general plan or zoning
law of any provision that would authorize the denial of
individual development Dro~ects on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities." (emphasis added).
Finally, the Legislative Counsel opined (at page 12), that SB
1287 did not address the authority of local agencies to consider
the adequacy of school facilities "in any context other than the
approval of indiv~dua~ development p~ojects." (emphasis added).
As a result, the Legislative Counsel concluded that SB 1287 does
not prohibit a city from considering the adequacy of school
facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a general
plan, zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy. The
net effect of this conclusion is that SB 1~87 did not chanae the
law regardina a city's authority to consider the adeauacy of
school facilities when adoDtina or implementing leaislative land
use policies! (See above discussion on law existing prior to SB
1287).
In our opinion, the Legislative Counsel's Opinion ~30455 is
not completely incompatible with our previous recommendations to
you regarding the denial or conditioning of legislative land use
approvals on the grounds of inadequate school facilities.
Nevertheless, the Legislative Counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB 1287 to permit a
"loophole" in what was considered an intentional effort by the
Legislature to close a "gap" in the law created by the above
referenced court decisions. In so doing, it appears even more
likely that "clean up" legislation or further judicial interpre-
tation will occur in order to resolve this controversy.
Recommendations
In the meantime, it is our opinion that the City of Temecula
should take a prudent approach when considering land use policy
decisions such as the adoption of its General Plan until these
issues are finally settled. In our view, such an approach would
include the following actions:
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 4
1. Avoid the adoption of any policies within the City's
General Plan requiring a developer to demonstrate that ade-
quate school facilities exist or will be provided to support
their project. An example of such a policy would be to
require a "will serve" letter from the school district prior
to the approval of a project by the City. Such a require-
ment would, in all likelihood, be considered impermissible
under SB 1287.
2. Recommend the adoption of the following language for
the City's General Plan in its Growth Management/Public
Facilities Element regarding Goal 4 on school facilities:
-Discussion. Adequate school facilities and funding
are necessary to ensure that the high quality of educa-
tion is extended to future residents of the City,
Mitigating impacts of development on the school system
through the imposition of development fees as permitted
by law and providing information to the School District
are the primary mechanisms to sustain quality educa-
tional services.
Policy 4.1 Provide information to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District when considering General Plan
amendments or other legislative land use policy deci-
sions to allow the School District to prepare and
provide an assessment of whether adequate school facil-
ities exist in order to facilitate the making of such
decisions.
Policy 4.2 Promote and encourage the phasing of pro-
ject development so that the School District may plan,
finance and construct school facilities intended to
serve the development-"
3. Delete the current language in Policy 4.3 and renumber
remaining Policies 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 accordingly-
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 5
We hope this discussion sufficiently answers your questions
regarding this complicated area of the law to assist you in your
preparation of the City's ~eneral Plan. If we may be of further
assistance or answer any questions you have regarding the above,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
cc:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
John E. Cavanaugh
TEIq1101509.LTR
WILLIAM C
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY COUNSEL
RIVI[IIaDE COUNTY
3535 TENTH g~.EET0 SUITE 300
RIVEI~IOf. CALIFORNIA 92501-3674
NLEI~ONE (714) 2154300
tAX (714) &8,1-492S
I'J,)~J. tl CCX. WTYF, MIM~IOH:).SUIIT 113
TTL.I:FHI3e~ (714) 354-4125
February 17, 1993
The Honorable Daniel H. Lungren
Attorney General
State of Californfa
1515 K Street, Suite 511
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Request for Opinion
Chapter 1354, Statutes of 1992 [S.B. 1287]
Dear Mr. LungTen:
District v. County of R~vers~de (1991) 2 .App. ·
worksho s, public hearings before the Pl.a~ning Cornmiss.ion ..and
~ = ded en~ ~he voo
chapner~g of S.B. 1287 ( P ' ·
Session] . The p~lic..he~ings, before ~he Board of
~his reco~enda=ion, are still continuing-
The County of Riverside is now in the process of attempting to
adopt a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment and has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that project. The only.item
that cannot be mitigated to a level-of insignificance, if we are
limited to the fee's authorized by Chapter 1354, is school
facilities. Because of the constraints of Chapter 1354, our office
is recommending overriding findings On this issue. The school
districts are opposing the General planAmendmentand certification
of the EIR with overriding findings, asserting that Chapter 1354
.does not limit the Counties ability to mitigate for school
facilities to the fee's authorized by Chapter 1354. This
opposition by the school districts is based primarily on the last
paragraph on page 12 of a letter dated December 4, 1992 from Bion__
M. Gregory, Legislative Counsel, to the Honorable W~11~C E--,'~°°~,
Jr. 'The public hearings before the Board of Sl~er~iso~% on the
Comprehensive General Plan endman~ ~-a ~4~ication of the EIR
are still continuing-
] . 0004?6
41 E --
!
Page two I
Because of legal opinions which have beenwritten regarding Chapter
1354, Statutes of 1992 [Senate Bill 1287], (hereinafter referred to
as "S.B. 1287") which conflict with our written opinions, we seek
your opinion on various.matters affected by S.B. 1287. Because
this legislation (S.B. 1287) amended and added two versions of
Government Code §65995 and 65996 our questions will be asked by
reference to Sections contained in S.B. 1287.1 Our questions are
as follows:
1.a. Does the term "development project" as used within the
provisions of §65995 (Section 4 of S.B. 1287) and §65996
(Section 7 of S.B. 1287) include General Plan Amendments,
Specific Plans, Specific Plan Amendments and/or Changes of
Zoning [legislative actions] (see Sectio..n 7{b) of S.B. 1287)?'
b. Does'the 'te~m "development project" for the purpose of
§65995 (Section 4 of S.B. 1287) and S65996 (Section 7 of S.B.
1287) mean something different from the term "development
project" 'for the'.purpose of S65995 (Section 3 of S.B. 1287)
and §65996 (Section 6 of S.B. 1287)?
c. Do §6599S (Section 3 of S.B. 1287) and~65996 (Section 7
of S.B. 1287) abrogate [repeal] M~ra Development Corporation
v. City of San Dieao (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1217-1218,
Wil 1 iam S. Hart Union H~ ~h School District v. Re~ ona~
Plann~n~ Commission (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612 and
Va~.]ev Unified School District v. County of R~vers~de (19.91)
228 Cal.App.3d 12127 This question may be restated as - l
Pending the results of the vote on ACA6, are Mira, Hart and
Mu~ieta abrogated [repealed]?
d. What is the effect of-Section 8 of S.B. 1287 which
repealed Section 34 of Chapter 1209 of the Statutes of 19897
e. What is the significance of'the different references in
§65996(b) (Section 6(b) of S.B. 1287) and §65996(b) (Section
7(b) of S.B.. 1287)? In Section 6(b) of S.B. 1287, the
reference is to Division 2 (commencing at §66410) while in
Section 7(b) of S.B. 1287 the reference is to Title 2
(commencing at §65000)?
f. Does the term "project, as used in §65996(b) (Section
7(b) of S.B. 1287) include General Plans, General Plan
Amendments, Specific Plans, Specific Plan Amendments and/or
Changes of Zoning?
9- Is the preemption clause of §65995(e) (Section 4(e) of
S.B. 1287) broader then the preemption clause of §65995(e)
II
t
I
I
I Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Government Code.
Page three
(Section 3(e) of S.B. 1287) and does it include legislative
actions with regard to .development projects" (See Section
4(a) of S.B. '1287)?
· When adequacy of 'school facilities is the only
insignificance, by Y P d 65995 3
Government Code 83080°,n%8998 (Section 4 of S.B. 1287) an EI~]
(Section 5 of S.B. 1287), is an Environmental Impact Report [
(Public Resources Code §21061) required even though the city,
county or city and county is/are prohibited by §65996(b) (Section
7(b) of S.B. 1287) from denying approval of a .project" because of
inadequate school facilities or -'imposing conditions on the
approval of a projec~ for the purpose of providing school
facilities that exceed the amounts authorized" by Chapter 1354
(S .B. 1287) ?
In order to assist' you in preparing your opinion, we are
enclosing copies of the following items:
1. Memorandum'dated October 7, 1992 from RiVerside County
Counsel to Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors re:
S.B. 1287 and Riverside County Resolution 92-164;
2. Memorandum dated December 11, 1992 from Riverside County
Counsel to Members of the Board of Supervisors re: S.B. 1287;
3. Memorandum dated August 29, 1992 from Jack O, Connell,
Speaker pro-Tempore, and others, to Members of the Senate;
4. Senate Third Reading Staff Report for S.B. 1287, dated
August 25, 1992;
5. Assembly Unfinished Business Staff Report re: S.B-.1287,
dated August 24, 1992;
6. Memorandum dated' September 3.~, 1992 from Governor .Pete
Wilson to the Members of the California Senate re: S.B. 1287;.
7. Legislative Counsel's Digest re: S.B. 1287;
8. Letter dated December 4, 1992 from Bion M. Gregory,
Legisl. ative Counsel of California, to the Honorable Willie L.
Brown, Jr., re: S.B. 1287;
9. Undated October, 1992 memorandum prepared by Bowie,
Ameson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone re: S.B. 1287, entitled "No, Mira
Didn't Go!"
10. Memorandum dated October 5, 1992 prepared by Bowi e,
Ameson, Kake, Wiles & Gionnone re: S.B. 1287;
43
000478
Page four
11. Memorandum dated October .13, 1992 prepared by Lozano,
Smith, Smith, Woliver &Ahrens re: .B. 1287;
12. Memorandum dated October 15, 1992 prepared by Schools
Legal Services re: S.B. 1287; W4 28 ~ I f 13. Memorandum dated October 20, 1992 from Robert Ryan,
Supervising Deputy County Counsel, acramento County, to Chairman
and Members of the Board of Supervisors re: General Plan Update ~
Mitigation of School Impacts; '
14. Letter dated November 4, 1992 from Kronick, Moskoritz,.
TredemanPm & Girard to Robert A. Ryan, Deputy County Counsel,
Sacrament~ County, re: Impact~ of S.B. I 7;
15. Memorandum dated October 22, 1992 from Don V. Collin
(California.Building Industry ASsociation) to David L. Colgan re:
S.B. 1287; ·
16. Memorandum dated October 14, 1992 prepared by Kronick,
Moskoritz, Tredemann & Girard re: Analysis and Implementation o
S.B. 1287; .
17. .Letter'dated November 2, 1992 from Rutan and Tucker to
Tom Tooker, Murrieta Valley Unified School District re: Impact of
S.B. 1287; "' '
18.. Letter dated December 18, 1992 from Lawrence M.
Lunardini, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield, to Barbara Den
Carols. .' '
19. School Legal Defense Association, SLDA Bulletin No. 141
'date December 21, 1992. ' "
We do not believe that the items attached are exhaustive of all of
the opinions which have been issued on this matter. We are
enclosing only those items which we have managed to secure copies
of or have authorizedi~ . '
We appreciat'e your assistance on this matter and will assist you in
this matter should you have any questions, need additional
background, thoughts or suggestions. · Please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned or Jay G. vickers .of our Office.
Ve truly~ou '~$~,1~
County Counsel
WCK:kc\letters.93
44
000479
I
DANIEL E. LUNGREN
Attorney General
$tate of California ~
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ll0V,/F. STA~.SUr'F]~TG0
~ DIF. J30, CA 92101
SAN DIEGO, CA 911~-Y2~
.__ (6x9) z~Jssx
~,^cs~m~(619) 238-3313
DIRECT DIAL: ( 619 ) 237-~182
March 1, 1993
Joanne Speers
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, S=e. 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
REx Opinion No. 93-301
;il Y OF TRACy
MAR 11 1993
Dear Ms. Speersx
We have received a request from Riverside County Counsel
William KaCzenstein, copy enclosed, for an opinion of the
Attorney General concerning ~he imposition of school facilities
fees.
IC is the policy of our office to solicit the views of all
interested' par~ies prior to issuing an opinion. If you would
like Co submit comments, a response by May 3, 1993, would be most
helpful; materials received after such dace will nonetheless be
considered. Views submitted will be treated by our office as
public records under the Public Records Act. Please address your
views to: Deputy Attorney General Gregory Gonot, Post Office Box
944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550~ telephone (916) 324-7860.
Sincerely,.
ROLxgs
Enclosure
DANIEL E. LUNGREN
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Opinion Unit
40
000475
VE:NTURA COUNTY OFFICE;
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAMARILL0. CALIFORNIA
(SOS) 987-3488
TELECOPlER: (SOSI 482-S834
LAW OFFICES
BURKIE, WZLLZAMS 8c SORIENSIEN
SUITE 640
CO.'~.TA HESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
COPY
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUfTE Z500
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213} 236-0600
TELECOPIER: (213) 236-2700
August 8, 1993
RECEIVED
AUG 10 1993
VIA FACSINIT.R ~ND U.S. ~ATT.
Allied,-.._......, ..
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re:
Riverside County Resolution No. 92-164,
SB 1287 (School Impact Fees) and General
Plan Policies
Dear John:
The purpose of this letter is to supplement our August 2,
1993 letter to you on the above referenced subject. As you will
recall, in that letter, we discussed the Attorney General's
decision to not issue an opinion on this subject due to pending
litigation involving the City of Santa Maria. We have 'since
learned there has been a court decision in that action and wanted
to advise you accordingly.
Attached for your information is a copy of the court's order
in Santa Maria-Bonita School District vs. The Planning Commission
of the City of Santa Maria. et al, Superior Court Case No. SM
78558, entitled "Order Sustaining Demurrers to Petition without
Leave to Amend and Dismissing Action." In that case, the court
decided that in the exercise of its 1.egislative authority to
adopt general plans, zoning laws, and other land use legislation,
a public agency is prohibited by SB 1287 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 limited school facilitles fees
provided in Government Code Sections 65995 and 65995.3. on the
approval of a project for the purpose of providing school
facilities.
Mr. John Meyer
August 8, 1993
Page 2
The court also held that the restrictions contained in the
School Facilities Act (Government Code Section 65970 et seq) on
the mitigation of environmental effects under CEQA apply to any
and all administrative and legislative actions taken by a public
agency under CEQA. As a result, the court found that the city
was without authority to do any of the following:
(1)
Enact, impose or require payment of a school
mitigation fee, as a condition of approval of a
legislative land use approval, which exceeds the
maximum amount authorized by Government Code
Section 65995 and 65995.3;
(2)
Require as a condition of approval of a
legislative land use approval that a developer
participate in a "mitigation agreement" whereby
the developer provides financial mitigations to
school impacts which exceed the maximum amount
authorized by Government Code Sections 65995 and
65995.3;
(3)
Require as a condition of approval of a
legislative land use approval that a developer
participate in a financial mechanism such as a
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to
mitigate school impacts which exceed the maximum
amount authorized by Government Code Sections
65995 and 65995.3;
(4)
Deny approval of a legislative land use
application based upon the adequacy of school
facilities.
While this court decision is not binding at this time except
on the parties involved, we thought the court's opinion was
significant since it seems to provide answers to some of those
questions currently surrounding SB 1287 about which interested
parties still disagree. Since the court's opinion supports our
understanding of the law on'this issue, we see no reason at this
time for altering our previous recommendations to the City as
expressed in our prior letters. However, as we have previously
stated, should further judicial or legislative developments occur
which alter our views on this subject, we will so advise you.
Mr. John Meyer
August 8, 1993
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding the above information,
please do not hesitate tO contact us.
very truly yours,
attach.
cc:
Scott F. Field, City Attorn
John E. Cavanaugh, Asst. City Attorney
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
sb1287.3. LTR
Craig A. Smith
State Bar No. 6758~
CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES
305 last Plaza Drive, Suite 4
Post Offi~ Box 1P44
Santa Maria, California 93456-1944
(805) 9287773
e JOHNSON PROPBRTIES, a CaliforniaP~Z~er~P~~
Arthe~ R. Montandon, City Attorney
Bar No. 089793
8 StateWsnd~Ba~ No. I~'001DI~uty City Attorney
CITY OF SANTA MARIA
204 Bast Cook Strut
Sanm Ma~ CA 93454
(805) 925-0951, F, xL 310
Attorneys fur THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA,
A Municilm{ Corporation; TIlE
COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALH:ORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
' 18
19
2O
21
22
23
SANTA MARIA-BONITA SCHOOL)
DIgI'RICT. a political subdivision of thc)
8tat~ of C,~forni~, )
)
Peatloner, )
)
)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE)
CITY OF SANTA MARIA; CITY)
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA)
MARIA, THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA)
and DOES 2 through 25, induslve, )
24 Rl~mondem$.
25
26
27
2S
KELLY/JOHNSON LTD.. a
partnership; IOHNSON PROPERTIF. S,
California general partnership,
Real Parties in Interest.
)
)
)
limited)
a)
)
)
Case No.: SM 78558
ORDER SUSTAINING DBMURRBI~ TO
PETITION WITHOUT 1-F-4,VB TO
AMEND AND DISMISSING ACTION
' PJJO-eLS-199~
16:e~ FROM CRRIG R, SHITH RS,.gOC 17147555648 P,IEI3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
9
10
11
The Demurrots of Rc, spondcnu Planning Commission of ~¢ City of Santa Maria, City
Council of the City of Santa Maria, thc City of Santo Mafia and Real Parties in Interest,
KeI]yrJohnson, LId., Johnson Properties to the First Amended Petition herein came on regularly
for hearing on by the COurt, Department 1, on June 1, 1993. William J. Kadi appeazed as counsel
fox' P~tion~ Santa Maria.,Bonim FJemenlmry School DisUic[; Craig A. Smith appeaxed as couusel
for Real Parties in Interest, Kelly/Johnson, I~., and JohnSon Pxvl~erfies; Ar~er R. Monlandon
apimr~ as counsel for Respondents Planning 'Commimsion of the City of Sanui Maria, the City
C. oun~ of the City of Santa Maria and the City of Santo Ma/ia. After hearing, the matter was
'submitted to the Court for a ruling.
The Court, having read and considered the supporting and opposing points and authutiti~
and having heard and considcrcd the argumenU of all o:mnsel, and good mule apthating the,
IT IS ORDERBD that the Demurmrs be, and hereby are, sustained without leav~ m amend
as to all ~aum=s of ac~on on the following grounds:
· 1. The First Cause of Action, 'General
sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that:
a. Whether the provisions of Senate Bill 1287, Adam:l Slats 1992 ~h 1354 of
the Government Cede, hereinafter Senate Bfil 1287, modifying the School Facilities Act apply to
the within a~on is a question of taw for the Court, and the Court concludes that maid provimions
apply to the within aution as the law in eff~t at the time the matter is d=~ided by this Cxnn't is
the appropriate law to apply;
b. Sexrote Bill 1287 prohibits a public agency, in the exemx~ime of its legj-~lnfive
authority to adopt general plus, zoning laws, and other land use legislation. from ei~nr denying
approval of a proj~t on the basis of the adequaoy of school facilities or imposing fe~s, charges,
dedi~tions or other r~luinments, other than the requirement to Iny the limited school f'aciliti~
fees provided in Government Code §§65995 and 65995.3, on the approval of a project for
purpose of pruviding school facilities;
c. The wJief requested in the Petition constitutes the exaction of a f~e,
Plan Inconsistency' does not state fac~
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
11
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
dedication or other rcquirement in excess of that authorized by Government ~ §65995Co)..
2. The Second Cause o~r Action, alleging violations of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CF..QA) (Public Rcsourcu Code § 21000, et seq.), does not state facts sufficient to
amstiu3z a cause of action in that;
a. Government Codc §6599~o), as modified by Senate Bill 1287, deleted thc
referrace to the Subdivision Map Act, 'Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code"
and added the 3z~P. renn~e to the Planning and'~Zoning Law, 'Tide 7 (commencing with Section
65000'. As s. r~su]t the restrictions contained in the Schoo.] l= .acilities Act upon the mitigation of
· environmental effects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) apply to any and
all adrninistrazive and legislative action takP. n by a public agency under CEQA;
b. Respondeats are without authority to:
l. Enact, impose or require payment of a r. hoo/mitigation fee, as a
condition of approval of a legislative land use approval. which exceeds the maximum amount
authorizat by Government Code §§ 65995 and 65995,3, as that would impos2 a fee~ charge,
dalication or other requirement in excr,~ of that authorized by Government Code §65995(b).
2. P, cquirg as a condition of approval of a legislative land u2 appzoral
that a devclopa participate in a "mitigation agreement" whereby the developer provides financial
mitigations ~o school impacts which exceed the maximum amount authorized by Government Code
§§ 65995 and 65995.3, as that would impose a fee, charge, dedication or other requirement in
excess of that authorized by Government Code §65995(b).
3. Require as a condition of approval of a legislative land use appzovl
that a developer participate in a financial mechanism such a~ a Mcllo-Roos Community Pacilities
District (Government Code §§ 53311, et seq.) to mitigatc school impacts which eg__,~_ the
maximum amount authoriz2d by Government Code §§65995 and 65995.3, as that would impose
a fee, charge, dedication or other requircment in excess of that authorized by Government Code
§65995(b).
4, Deny approval of a legislative land use application based upon the
adequacy of school facilities.
-3-
16:88
CRRIG R. F:~I]~TH RSSOC
17147555648 P. e5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
17
18
19
20
22
24
25
26
27
28
Th{ rcmajning c~use~ of action are mnderexl moot by the precedin8 grounds for this
The Motion to Slrikc is rendered moot by the P-~--~in8 decision.
::.7,: ' ' '
no viable caus~ of acu
nS, the s distressed.
HONO ~Fr~
- /U OR COURT
-4-