80.1%-100%
R IECAP
School Proficiency Index
0-10
® 10.1 -20
' 20.1 - 30
. 30.1 - 40
■ 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
' 70.1 - 80
' 80.1 - 90
' 90.1 -100
This version of Map 9 displays where households with children are located within the City. The shading indicates the performance of 4' graders on State exams in 2012.
The darker shading represents higher performance. While there are families living in the low proficiency areas, there is not a high concentration of families living there.
The City's scores on standardized tests are substantially better than the region as a whole and almost all schools perform better than the national average.
Appendix A 21
Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Family Status) School Proficiency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and RfECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidictlon CBSA
GRANTEES
% of Househ old that are Families with Children
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
• 40.1%-50%
60.1%-80%
80.1%-100%
RIECAP
School Proficiency Index
h 0-10
' 10.1-20
. 20.1 - 30
' 30.1-40
' 40.1 - 50
. 50.1 - 60
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-80
' 80.1-90
. 90.1 -100
Because of the scale of Map 9, regional details are difficult to analyze without referring to the previous map. Coupled with other maps and tables in the Assessment of Fair Housing, families in Temecula have access to higher proficiency schools than much of the region.
Appendix A 22
Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity) Jabs Pro KIn iiy IndeK for Jurisdiction and Region wi€h racelethnicity, nai origin, fawly staiius and RIECAPS %mecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiclicn
GRANTEES
Remographms 2010
1 Dot=75
White. Non -Hispanic
Elack. Non -Hispanic
Native American, Non -Hispanic
AsianlPacifc Islander, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
�, Other, Non -Hispanic
RIE`CAP
C�)
Johs Pr-imrty Index
0-10
10.1-20
® 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 - 40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1-60
' 601-70
' 70.1 - 90
' so -00
' 90.1 - 100
There are two versions for Map 10 for job proximity. The map above demonstrates a geographic overlay of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010, coupled with an index for the distance residents have between home and work. In this case, the darker shading represents better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
There are no patterns of racial/ethnic concentrations with respect to job proximity in Temecula. The disadvantaged areas have the greatest proximity to jobs. The rest of the community has variable patterns in access, with the corridors along 1-15, west of I-15, and commercial arteries along Temecula Parkway having the greatest proximity to jobs. The lower density residential areas have the least proximity to jobs, which may indicate a higher concentration of commuters.
Appendix A 23
Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and PJECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidictlon -
_ •
COSA
-
d^. -::
GRANTEES
^ ,,. ' •
�y,'`.• ° ,`r'��'
' ; : • :
•..�
Demographics 2010
n-
•�
1 Dot=75
White, Non -Hispanic
-
i,.
81ack, Non -Hispanic
,���.^ =
•
_
, -s.',
*
(•m Native American, Non -Hispanic
•.•^ ?,' }_ '
�,
-
����.
r AsianiPacitc Islander, Mon -Hispanic
t17. - ...'
++,r• .�'
�% Hispanic
•.e -C - _ i
•��,_. � "!s J -
S4 .
1 Other, Non -Hispanic
RJECAP
k
i •
,y� •TT� ,��r , '
Jobs Proximity Index
0.1 -
_ '3a
^ r. a•
.20.1-30
.30.1-40
•:
J-s
.40.1-50
50.1-60
'
. 70.1 -80
' 80.1 -90
4 '
-• _
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, 11SGS, NPS I United States Census Bureau
90.1-100
The scale of the map above displays the enormous land area of the Riverside -San Bernardino MSA, while also demonstrating an overlay of racial and ethnic groups over a
measurement of job proximity. There is wide variation in this factor throughout the region. The darker shading represents access to closer job opportunities. Generally the City's diverse neighborhood scores are representative of the region. More detail can be found in the following map.
Appendix A 24
Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and National Origin) Jobs Proximity index Tor Jurisdiction and Region with race.�ethnicity, national origin. family status antl RECAPS Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Ordery
1 Dot= 75 People
gMexico
Philippines
UN.- Korea
El Salvador
India
R)ECAP
Jobs Proximity Index
0-10
10.1-20
` 20.1 - 30
' 30.1-d0
' d0.1-50
' 50.1-60
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-80
' 80.1-90
. 9o.1-100
This version of Map 10 shows geographic patterns based on the top 5 national origin concentrations in Temecula in 2010 and provides an index for physical distances between home and work. In this case, the darker shading represents better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. There are no concentrations based on national origin in Temecula. Access is equal for all groups.
Appendix A 25
Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and National Origin) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with race.+ethnicity, national origin, famiry status and RfECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, GA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA
N
GRANTEES
National origin ;Top 5 in Descending order)
1 Dot =75 People
R�
Mexico
Philippines
Korea
El Salvador
r India
RECAP
Jobs Proximity Index
0-10
' 101-20
' 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' so - 90
' 90.1 -100
This regional version of Map 10 shows that much greater job proximity within the population centers to the north where there are extensive industrial complexes, and in the desert communities in the east, where many residents are retired or working in agriculture.
Appendix A 26
Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Family Status) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with race%ethnicity, national origin. family status and RVECAPs Temecula, CA (063712 j Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
% of Households that are Earn flies with Children
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
. 40.1%-60%
. 60.1%-80%
. 30.1%-100%
RIECAP
Jobs Proximity Index
0-10
10.1-20
20.1 - 30
Ih 30.1-40
' 40.1-50
' 50.1-60
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-80
' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
This version of Map 10 displays the geographic patterns based an overlay of families with children in 2010 with an indicator of the physical distances between home and work for households with children. In the case the darker shading represents better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Families are scattered throughout the City and not necessarily concentrated in areas with close proximity to jobs.
Appendix A 27
Map 10 - Demographics and Job Proximity (Job Proximity and Family Status) Jobs Proximity Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisldiction CBSA
GRANTEES
% of Households that are Families with Children
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
• 40.1%-60%
. 601%-80%
*80.1%-100%
RECAP
Jobs Proximity Index
0-10
10.1 -20
' 20.1-30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1-60
. 60.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
This version of Map 10 shows the relationship of families with job proximity in the region. Because of the scale of the map, patterns are difficult to identify, however Temecula does have a high concentration of households with children.
Appendix A 28
Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity) Labor Engagement Index with racelethn[city, national origin, 1arri status and RIECAPs Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
De
mopraphics 2010
1 Cot=75
White, Non -Hispanic
L6 Black, Non -Hispanic
Native American, Non -Hispanic
�i.
r.. S AsiaWlFacitic Islander, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Other, Non -Hispanic
r. a
RIECAP
Ll
Labor Market Index
o--10-
10.1-20
20.1-30
' 30.1-40
' 40A -50
' 50.1-60
` 60.1 -70
' 70.1-30
' 80.1-90
` 90.1 -100
There are three versions for Map 11 for labor market. The map above shows geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010 and provides an index on unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The darker shading represents greater labor engagement. Higher income areas have the greatest job readiness in the City. The lowest labor market index is in the southern portion of the City near the Pechanga Resort and Casino. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. There is no significant concentration of racial/ethnic groups in the City, based on labor market readiness.
Appendix A 29
Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity) Labor Engagement Index with racefethril national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction . .. •. `� .. CBSA
•'t t - - !, 7 GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
•.{�^ _''�-.'S� . 1f, . :_- r •f 1 Dot =75
�-• ,a '.. •__'y4'.�k . - r. , t White, Non -Hispanic
Black, Non -Hispanic
• �� "�� E 1 - 3 - `f y Native American, Non -Hispanic
T S { + p2r. Er �'+� AsianlPacific Islander, Non -Hispanic Hispanic
Other
Y.11+Fi"�' �• •'A - • Other, Non -Hispanic
Fill
Labor Market Index
0-10
10.1-20
74 . ' 20.1-30
401-50
501-60
hill
hill
0.1 • S. ' 70.1-80
•. i
•• ;r r
Map 11 shows that much of the region is lacking in labor engagement. Although some classes are available locally, the lack of community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas have notably higher ratings such in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west.
Appendix A 30
Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and National Origin) Labor Engagement Index with racefethnicity, national origin_ family status and RfECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidicticn
GRANTEES
Nation l Origin ffop 5 in Descending Order)
1 ❑ot=75 People
VMexico
W, Philippines
Korea
El Salvador
India
RfECAP
Labor Market Index
0-10
IJ 101-20
hk 20.1-30
30.1 -40
' 40.1-50
' 50.1 - 60
` 50.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 30.1-90
' 90.1-100
This version shows geographic patterns based on national origin in 2010 and measures unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The darker the shading represents greater labor market engagement. All groups have relatively equal labor engagement opportunities.
Appendix A 31
Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and National Origin) Labor Engagement Index with racelethnicily, national origin, family status and RlECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CRSA
-
GRANTEES
r r r•
'
National Origin ;Top 5 in Descending Order}
1 Dot =75 People
_
;,
-- Mexico
ti
.r•�
_-
Philippines
Korea
, `
' r
Salratlor in
•
fps ;: • -+. , —
Labor Market Index
�i►
0-70
•• _
' 10.1-20
•
-
' 20.1-30
' 40.1-50
.•
' 50.1 - 60
!.60.1-70
-
' 70.1-80
•-
- - -- ' 80.1 - 90
-IL
901-100
Vow
Esri: HERE, DeLorme, NGA, 115G5, NIPS I United States Census Bureau This version of Map 11 shows the low labor force readiness throughout the region in 2010.
The Temecula area has better scores than the region, but lags behind Orange County to the west. It is important to consider the number of local college campuses that have added Temecula locations in the past several years. It is important to note that a mountain range separates Orange County from Temecula.
Appendix A 32
Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Family Status) Labor Engagement Index wtth race/ethnicity, national origin, family status and PJECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
0 GRANTEES
% of HDn3ehold5 that are Families with ChUmn
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
40.1%-60%
60 1%-sons
801%-100%
RIECAP
Labor Market Index
0-10
10.1 -20
' 20.1-30
` 30.1 -40
■ 40.1 - 50
' 50.1-50
` 50.1 -70
` 70.1-80
■ 0o.1-90
' 9o.1-100
This version shows geographic patterns based households with families in 2010 and provides and index regarding unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The darker the shading represents greater labor market engagement. Families are spread throughout the City, although there is a concentration of families in areas with greater labor market engagement. The area with the lowest labor market index had the least concentration of families.
Appendix A 33
Map 11 - Demographics and Labor Market (Labor Market and Family Status) Labor Engagement Index with racelethniclty, national origin, family status and RIECAPS Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidlctlon • CE SA
• • GRANTEES
.� •• • �� %of Households that are Families with Children • • • • � • 20.1%-40%
,`..,; ��5'• • 40.1%-60%
• • • •
• •
• � • . • • 0
80.1%-100%
• • ••
•
• RfECAP
• • • • • • Labor Marketlndex
• • • •
O 1 • �.�• • • •• p^ 0-10
• • • • • • 1 10.1-20
' 20.1-40
.M.• • • • % • ' 40.1 - 50
•
• ' 50.1-60
•
3 • • • ' 601-70
• • • ' 70.1-80
• • • • - ' 80.1-90
• • • ' a0.1-100
Esrf HERE, DeLorme.. NGA, USGS, NIPS i United States Cerrsus Bureau This version of Map 11 shows familial status in relationship with the labor market in the region. The map clearly demonstrates the familial centric area of the Temecula Valley. More detailed data for Temecula can be found in the previous versions of Map 11.
Appendix A 34
Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Regan with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiclicn
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
Dot = 75
.� White, Non -Hispanic
A,P Black, Non -Hispanic
'IL
& Native American, Non -Hispanic
AsiamPacific Islander. Non -Hispanic
,SHispanic
Other, Non -Hispanic
. RIELAP
Transit Trips Index
0-10
10.1-20
20.1-30
30.1-40
. 40.1 - 50
. 50.1 -60
' S0.1-70
■ 70.1-80
. 80.1 -90
` 90.1 -100
There are three versions to Map 12, which provides and index on the number of transit trips a neighborhood uses public transportation, with an overlay of the top five race and ethnicity groups in the City. The darker the shading, the greater the transportation access at the neighborhood level. There is one area in the north that has a low use of public transportation. This is Census Tract 432.17, which includes the Meadowview neighborhood. It is not an eligible CDBG area, because its median income is too high. (See map of CDBG-eligible areas in Appendix G.) It is also an area, as shown in Map 11, with a higher than average market engagement. This would indicate that there is not a great of a need for public transportation in that particular area. Racial/ethnicity is not a factor since they are spread evenly throughout the City.
Appendix A 35
Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RfECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction • ]. •'r.
... • .n ��nwrra�il.f. • •i �• 'nf...�
CBSA
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
1r�.Do�tt = 75
White, Non -Hispanic
Black, Non -Hispanic
Native American, Non -Hispanic
AsianFacifc Islander, Non -Hispanic
iHispanic
Other, Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
❑
Transit Trips Index
L -10
' 10.1 -20
' 20.1-30
' 30 1 -40
' 40.1-50
' 50.1-60
' 60.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 80 1 -90
901-ion
Map 12 shows that access to public transportation is a challenge to the scattered population centers in this large region. Compare this map with the following version of the same map.
Appendix A 36
Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and National Origin) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity. national origin. family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
National Origin {fag S in Descendirrg Order}
1 l People
0;, Mexico
Philippines
Korea
El selvatlor
India
RfECAP
Transit Trips Index
0-10
L_1 10.1 -20
20 1 - 30
. 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
' 70.1 - 30
' 90.1 - 90
. 90.1 -100
This version of Map 12 provides an index on the number of transit trips in a particular neighborhood, with an overlay of residents by national origin. The darker shading represents a greater public transportation usage at the neighborhood level. There is one area known as the Meadowview neighborhood in the northern portion of the City with a low transportation index; however, there are few immigrants in that particular census tract. There are no concentrations of groups that have significantly lower access to public transportation than other groups.
Appendix A 37
Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and National Origin) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidictior CBSA
GRANTEES
National Origin {Top 5 in Descending Order}
1 Dot=75 People
Mexico
Philippines
Korea
..�° El Salvador
�' India
ri..
RIECAP
Transit Trips Index
0-10
' 10.1 -20
' 20 1 -30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1-50
' 50.1-60
' 60.1 -70
' 70 1 -80
' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
This regional version of Map 12 demonstrates the challenges of providing public transportation. Temecula's access to public transportation is above average in the region; however, it is still a local challenge that can be improved upon.
Appendix A 38
Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Family Status) Transit Trips Index for Jurisd Ect€on and Region wdh racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPS Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
% of Households that are Families with Chiidren
• 0%-20%
amw® 20.1%-40%
• 40.1%-60%
�I
w • 60.1%-80%
® ® ® RIECAP
. ® Transit Trips index
0-10
® � 1o1-z0
• !• ' 20.1-30
- ' 30.1-40
® hill 40.1-50
' 50.1-50
• ® ® ' 60.1 -70
• ® ® ' 70.1-90
® ' 80.1-90
`90.1-100
ChlyofPivemkie, County of Riverside, SanGIS, Esri, HERE, DeLarme, NGA, fiS GS This version of Map 12, demonstrates how often families with children in a particular census tract use public transportation. The darker shading indicates greater usage at the neighborhood level. In the lightly shaded census tract in the northern portion of the City, there are fewer families that reside in that area.
Appendix A 39
CESA
GRANTEES
%❑of Households that are Families with Children
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
. 40.1%-60%
60.1%-90%
�80.1%-100%
RJECAP
TransitTrips Index
u 0-10
' 10.1-20
' 20.1 - 30
' 30.1-40
' 40.1 - 50
• ' 50.1-60
•
. . • S V .. . ' 60.1-70
. • • • •• 4W ' 70.1-30
O
• • ' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
• O •
Esri, HERE, UeLorme, NGATUSGS, NPS I United States Census Bureau This version of Map 12 provided by HUD shows regional that there are high concentrations of families with children in the regional population centers.
Map 12 - Demographics and Transit Trips (Transit Trips and Family Status) Transit Trips Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racefethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction + • � •ram ��
0.0 SL
• ••
Sob
Appendix A 40
Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and Race/Ethnicity) Low Transportation Cost Index with €acelethi city, natlonai origin, family status and RfECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
. ••' GRANTEES
• _ Demographics 2010
1 Dot -75
• _ - =tJJ:� White, Non -Hispanic
- IeF Black, Non -Hispanic
• Native American. Non -Hispanic
• . e ' Asial-Facific Islander, Non -Hispanic
• _ ., .. ' Hispanic
s1
1FR Other, Non -Hispanic
• R;ECAP
Low Traits portation Cost Index
., 0-10
• ., bake. 10.1-20
r - ' 20.1 -30
2• _ �r . 30.1 -40
• J •r .. .40.1-50
• • . • .. ■ 50.1 - 60
t _ .
.80.] -90
• ram' ' 90.1-100
• ! City of Riverside. County of Riverside, SanGIS. Esri, HERE. DeLorme• I USGS l U There are three versions to Map 13, which provides an index on the cost of transportation by census tract. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. The lower income census tracts have lower transportation costs due to usage of public transportation. All races and ethnicities are equally affected by the cost of transportation.
Appendix A 41
Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and National Origin) Low Transportation Cost with race ethnicity, national origin_ family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisdiction
1 0
erside. County of Riverside. Sari Esri. HERE. DeLorme. NGA, USGS W"M
GRANTEES
National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order)
1 Dot = 75 People
Mexico
�? s
Philippines
Cif= Korea
W61EI Salvador
V India
RECAP
Low Transportation Cost Index
0-10
10.1 -20
20.1 - 30
301-40
' 40.1-50
' 501-60
' 50.1-70
' 70 1 -80
' 80.1-90
' 90.1 - 100
This version of Map 13 measures cost of transportation by neighborhood by national origin. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. The lower income census tracts have lower transportation costs due to usage of public transportation. Racial and ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City, but the map above shows that most have lower than average costs for transportation.
Appendix A 42
Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and National Origin) Low Transportation Cost with raceleth in icily, national org in, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction ping iL
• �,. . may, _
s
CB SA
GRANTEES
National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order)
1 Dot =75 People
Mexico
�Wsr Philippines
s7
Korea
LmaEl Salvador
y,
tog India
RIECA P
Law Transportation Cast Index
u 0-10
. 10.1 -20
. 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
. 50.1 - 60
. 60.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 80.1 - 90
. 90.1 -100
Esri, HF;iF-BeLo e, NGA, USGS, NPS i United States CPS=••, Rua , lam] � ■ This version of Map 13 shows more clearly that transportation costs are lower along freeway arteries in the northern portion of the region and in Temecula. However, it is still a major challenge to provide low cost transportation in the entire region.
Appendix A 43
Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and Family Status) Low Transportation Cost Index with racefethmmly, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
s � p
• %of Households that are Fami€ieswith Children
• 0%-20%
20-1 % - 40%
® • 40-1%-60%
.60-1%-80%
® ® .80-1%-100%
RIECAP
Low Transportation Cost Index
0-10
10.1-20
• 20.1-30
• ' 30.1-40
OWL ` 40.1 - 50
- . 50.1 - 60
. ' 60.1-70
EW
--- - .70.1-80
® ® 4 ' 80.1-90
` 90.1 -100
i
of Riverside, County of Riverside. SanGIS, Esn, HERE. UeLorme. NGA. USGS This version of Map 13 provides an index for the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood by families with children. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. Families are spread throughout the City, but areas with the highest cost for transportation tend to have fewer families.
Appendix A 44
Map 13 - Demographics and Low Transportation Cost (Low Transportation Cost and Family Status) Low Transportation Cost Index with racelethnicity, national origin, famiry status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, GA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction • • • • - • 3..- -,a • • CBSA
• • • • .._.
• • . J • • • GRANTEES
•• •• • •
%of Households that are Families with Children
n� •.•• •
• • • • - • 40.1%-60%
• • • • • • • • • • . 60.1%-80%
• • •
.80.1%-100%
• • RIECAP
• • • - N • • •• • • Low Transportation Cost Index
• •• 0-10
10.1-20
• •p• • • • • ' 20.1-30
' 40.1 - 50
• ' 60.1 -70
• • ' 70.1 -80
• • r • • 80.1-90
90.1-100
Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, USGS. NI' I United States Census Bureau This version of Map 13 demonstrates the households with families and low transportation cost for the entire region. The families with children tend to be clustered around the regional population centers. While Temecula fares better than many other communities in the region for transportation costs, public transportation is a challenge for the entire region.
Appendix A 45
Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Race/Ethnicity) Low Poverty Index with racelethniclty, nationaf origin, family status and PJECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
1 Dot =75
, White, Non -Hispanic
ice! Black, Non -Hispanic
.51 Native American, Non -Hispanic
}�
�a Asia ViPacihc Islander, Non -Hispanic
4 ^y�* Hispanic
' w+; Other Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
Low Poverty Index
0-10
10.1 - 20
V 20.1 - 30
' 30.1-40
. 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 - 70
' 70.1 - 30
. 80.1 - 90
' 90.1 - 100
There are three versions of Map 14, which provides an index regarding exposure to poverty by census tract, with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The darker shading represents less exposure to poverty. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006- 2010). The north central part of the City has the greatest exposure to poverty. Many commercial shopping centers are located in this census tract, along with a mix of affordable housing units, and market -rate apartments. This census tract also contains Temecula Elementary, the City's only Title I School. When compared to data in Table 12 in the Assessment, Temecula fares better than the national average for exposure to poverty with all race and ethnicities.
Appendix A 46
Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Race/Ethnicity) Low Poverty Index with racelethnicity, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, GA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction CRSA
t I
-y y GRANTEES
. •}_-, . - f Demographics 2010
+' •r1r•:• ti 1 :' ~• 1 Dot-75
w• !�'rc _ -Z. White, Non -Hispanic
G - Black, Non -Hispanic
'� � ` � • • � Native American, Non -Hispanic
_ F ,�+ ^ , •.i �••' _:•,• , 0 2. '„ ,�+, AsianlPaciSc Islander, Non -Hispanic '_ f�' � F .���;Y; • � _ '���.'� Hispanic
i •-x Ci �i, i +'" •- - -»-I Other, Non -Hispanic
Y i • r �Q y�r RIECAP
c46%.,
'�, •� • r-a"" •s'. - Low Poverty Index
0-10
-4 ten!'. ,. ';i �•'�•" i - .10.1-20
20.1 - 30
30.1-40
hill40.1-50
r3 . 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
' 70 1 -80
-- c ' 80.1 -90^
Y
Fcn HFRF Dal nrma NFA 114fzR NPR I f initad Rtatac f:ann is Riuraau —�7 n r The regional Map 14 provides a low poverty index with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The exposure to poverty varies widely throughout the region, as to be expected with a large area.
Appendix A 47
Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and National Origin) Low Poverty Index with racelethnictty, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
National Origin{Top 5 in Be sc on ding Order]
1� �Lot =75 People
YTe Mexico
Philippines
M. Korea
El Salvador
R India
RIECAP
Low Poverty Index
0-10
10.1 -20
■ 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
` 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 - 70
. 70.1 - 80
' 80.1 - 90
. 90.1 -100
This version of Map 14 measures exposure to poverty by census tract by national origin. The darker shading represents less exposure to poverty. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). While persons from other nations live in the area with the highest exposure to poverty, populations based on national origin are spread evenly throughout the City. This census tract also contains Temecula Elementary, the City's only Title I School. When compared to data in Table 12 in the Assessment, Temecula fares better than the national average for exposure to poverty with all race and ethnicities.
Appendix A 48
Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and National Origin) Low Poverty Index with racelethniclty, national origin, family status and PJECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA
GRANTEES
11)
National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Cii
1 Dot=75 People
S �s` Mexico
Philippines
Ili: Korea
EI Salvador
India
R)ECAP
11)
Low Poverty Index
0-10
10.1 -20
' 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
■ 50.1 - 60
' 50.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 80.1 - 90
' 90.1 -100
This version of Map 14 demonstrates that the region has large variations in exposure to poverty, as seen in the checkboard pattern. It is greater in the northern portions of the region and the agricultural areas to the east than in Temecula.
Appendix A 49
Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Family Status) Low Poverty Index with racefethnicity. national origin, family status and PIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
% of Nouseh Dids that a m Families with C h ildre n
• 0%-20%
. 40.1%-60%
. 50.1%-80%
80.1%-100%
RIECAP
N
Low Poverty Index
0-10
i0.1-20
20.1 - 30
30.1-40
` 40.1 - 50
' 50.1-60
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-80
' 80.1-90
■ 90.1-100
This version of Map 14 provides an index on the exposure to poverty by for families with children, broken down by census tract. The darker the shading represents less exposure to poverty at the neighborhood level. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There is not a concentration of families in the census tracts with the greatest exposure to poverty in the City.
Appendix A 50
Map 14 - Demographics and Poverty (Poverty and Family Status) Low Poverty Index with race/ethnicity, national origin, famiry status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, GA (063712) Jurisidiction Ci
GRANTEES
% of Households that are Families with Children
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
• 40.1%-60%
. 60.1%-80%
*80.1%-100%
RIECAP
Low Poverty Index
u 0-10
' 10.1 -20
' 20.1-30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1-60
' 60.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 90.1-90
' 90.1-100
WE —0i M United States Census Bureau I Es d, HERE CeLoime. NGA, USGS, Ni ']I� The regional version of Map 14 demonstrations high variation rates in exposure to poverty for families with children throughout the region. As demonstrated by the previous map, there is less variation in exposure to poverty in Temecula than the region as a whole.
Appendix A 51
Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity) Environmentat Health Index with racelethr ity, national ergin, family status and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidicticn
GRANTEES
Demographics 2019
1 Dot-75
White, Non -Hispanic
yBlack, Non -Hispanic
Native American, Non -Hispanic
a 1'l
"AsianlPacific Islander. Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Other, Non -Hispanic
f VIA
RIECAP
Ll
Environmental Health Index
0-10
Li 10.1 -20
® 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
` 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
` 70.1 - 90
. 80.1 -90
' 90.1-100
There are three versions of Map 15, which provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract, with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns are located along the freeway. Temecula's exposure to environmental health issues is lower than the region's average.
Appendix A 52
Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity) Environmental Health Index with racelethnicdy, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
1 Dot=75
- White, Non -Hispanic
ri Black, Non -Hispanic
VNative American, Non -Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
�.1 Other, Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
Environmental Health Index
u 0-10
' 10.1-20
' 20.1-30
' 30.1-40
' 401-50
IN 501-60
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-80
' 80.1-90
Regional Map 15 demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region.
Appendix A 53
Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and National Origin) Environmental Health Index with race.'ethnicity- national origin. family status and PfECAPs Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
National Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order)
1 Cot =75 People
a
Mexico
irC�S:F�
P,IC�I� Philippines
�prcr Korea
Yrs4
El Salvador
tir� India
RECAP
Environmental Health Index
0-10
10.1 -20
20.1-30
' 30.1-40
' 40.1-50
' 50.1-50
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-30
' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
This version of Map 15 provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract, with an overlay of households by the top five national origins. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality and toxicity issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the highest exposure are closest to the freeway.
Appendix A 54
Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and National Origin) Environmental Health Index with racelethmcity, national origin, family status and WECAPS Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA
GRANTEES
National Origin ITop 5 in Descending On
1 Dot=75 Poop
�? Mexico
9:
Philippines
(� Korea
El Salvador
India
RIECAP
Environmental Health Index
U 0-10
' 10.1 -20
' 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
. 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
. 70.1 -80
' 80.1 - 90
' 90.1-100
Regional Map 15, with an overlay of top five national origins, demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region.
Appendix A 55
Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Family Status) Environmental Health Index with racelethrnc4, national origin, fawlly status and €2 ECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
% of House holds that are Families with Childre r
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
. 40.1%-60%
60.1%-SODA
80.1%-100%
RIECAP
Environmental Health Irdem
0-10
' 10.1-20
' 20.1-30
' 30.1-40
' 40.1-50
' 50.1-60
i 50.1-70
` 70.1 - 80
' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
This version of Map 15 provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract, with an overlay of households with families. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality and toxicity issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the highest exposure are closest to the freeway.
Appendix A 56
Map 15 - Demographics and Environmental Health (Environmental Health and Family Status) Environmental Health Index with racelethnicRy, national origin, family status and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino-ontaria, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisdiction W-qV*-*.4
r
CBSA
GRANTEES
% of Households that are Families with Children
• 0%-20%
20.1%-40%
+ 40.1%-60%
. 60.1%-80%
- 80.1%-100%
RIECAP
Environmental Health Index
L -10
' 10.1 -20
' 20.1 - 30
' 30.1 -40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1 -70
' 70.1 -80
' 80.1 - 90
' 90.1 -100
This regional version of Regional Map 15, with an overlay of households with children, demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region.
Appendix A 57
Map 16 — Disability by Type — Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disabili Temecula (CDBG}
Name: Map 16-Disability by Type
Variation: Hearing. Vision and Cognitive
Disability
Description: Dot density map ofthe population
of persons with disabilities by
persons with vision. hearing.
cognitive. ambulatory. self -care.
and independent living difficulties
with RECAPS for Jurisdiction and
Legend TOG
Dot Value: 1 dot= 75
Disab[Ilty,
1 Dot = 75
�. Hearing Disability
!� Vision Disibility
W Cognitive Disability
RECAP
There are two versions of Map 16. This version depicts a dot density distribution by disability type (hearing, vision, cognition). Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012).
Appendix A 58
Map 16 - Disability by Type [Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disability] Dot density map of the population of persons with disabilities by persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self -care, and independent living difficulties with RIECAPs for Jurisdiction and Region Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction r •
+ ..
r
MA - k-i
y '' b1: • . • rt i
�` .i}. r. ''�. •tip tir ,
l
.tvJs '
NIPS I United States Census Bureau
CBSA
GRANTEES
DisabilHy
1 Dot=75
i Hearing Disability
i
} vision Disability
Cognitive Disability
RIECAP
Map 16 shows the locations where persons with hearing, vision and cognitive disabilities live throughout the region. The map demonstrates that they are concentrated in the northern urban areas of Riverside County, Hemet, and in the desert communities.
Appendix A 59
Map 16 — Disability by Type — Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability Temecula ICDBG)
Name: Map 16 - Disability by Type
Variation: Ambulatory, Self -Care and
Independent Living Disability
Description: Dot density map ofthe population
of persons with disabilities by
persons with vision, hearing,
cognitive, ambulatory. selFcare,
and independent living difficulties
with RIECAPs for Ju risd i cti on and
Legend TOC
Dot Vall1 dot= 75
Disability
1 Dot =75
Ambulatory Disability
Self -Care Disability
Via! Independent Living Disability
RIECAP
This version of Map 16 depicts a dot density distribution by disability type (ambulatory, self -care, independent living). Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012).
Appendix A 60
Map 16 - Disability by Type (Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability) Dot density map of the population of persons with disabilities by persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, se care, and independent living cUlfiiculties with RIECAPs Tor Juristliction and Region Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction • •1�
CBSA
�, +•- l.�,.•
GRANTEES
IC � ssi' + •�� '� 1' �, } -
Disability
Y.
� �- � •'•�• ,�•_ . ��}' �,• •' Y •
~!�F:•••f
.5 Ambulatory Disability
sL.S�. S ! Y' �• • • _-. �_
Self -Care Disability
s ti'_' S • �i:' � • :ya: " : a
" j
, Independent Living Disability
''�.
RIECAP
f �� • l�)'S��
L�r
- � � �a �,+• - its, r
'.
•��is�
• • 1. •'+ • y +•ice• � rS • ••
'��•'�1�Y •• •
5,4
• S
i-,
HERE, DeLorme, WGA JJS�S�IPS I Dnited States
Census Bu
Map 16 shows where persons with ambulatory, self -care and independent living disabilities are located throughout the region.
While the City has some residents with
disabilities, the greatest concentrations are in the north, closer to County services.
Appendix A 61
Map 17 — Disability by Age Group
Temecula )CDBG)
Name: Map 17-Disability by Age Group
Description: All persons with disabilities by age
range [5-17](18-64)[65+ivoith
RiECAPs
Jurisdiction: Temecula rCDBG:,.
Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario,
CA
Legend TOC
Dot Value: 1 dot= 75
❑isability
1 Dot = 75
Disabled Ages 5-17
4 Disabled Ages 18-64
Disabled Over 64
RiECAP
Map 17 shows the location of people with disabilities by age. Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012).
Appendix A 62
Map 17 - Disability by Age Group (Disability by Age Group) All persons with disabilities by age range (5-17)(18-64)(65+) with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction • , Ce SA
a� . i• f •w •qr�. • . • • . • GRANTEES
sk
l.
•iraa .i i7i::'+•i��., �'y�•�f}�x ...^ ••'. Disability
.4y x7 •. •1Ja'y�T+.4'r 1 r _y �• • • • • ' _ • 1 Dot-75 • , • r : _S~' r Pq� Disabled Ages 5-17
j •�% x e •.Sb ':•W-. f • r •} •1 �' }k •, • ilk
•*r _mil_• :� •i _ 7•, - �• ��ys• a 1•iLqq}I Disabled Ages 18-64 r�ye r I Disabled Over 64
- r.K.• •r. • r''. err •• ~ •• � _ • -
i''}'�=`ems .'. • ••t - . _ ` ' r ;�
S � Stil t• Alt
• Esd. HERE. DeLorme. NGA. USGS. NIPS I United states Census Bun:au Map 17 shows the ages of those with disabilities from a regional perspective. As common for other persons with disabilities, these persons have located near where County services can be easily accessed.
Appendix A 63
APPENDIX B
HUD -Provided Tables
APPENDIX B
HUD -Provided Tables
Table Series Title
Table 1
Demographics(2010)...................................................................................1 Table 2
Demographic Trends (1990-2010)..............................................................2 Table 3
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990-2010).........................................3 Table 4
R/ECAPs Demographics..............................................................................4 Table 5
Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category ............................ 5 Table 6
Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity ........................... 6 Table 7
R/ECAP and Non -RECAP Demographics by Publicly Supported Housing ProgramCategory ........................................................................................ 7 Table 8
Demographics of Publicly Supported Housing Development by Program Category....................................................................................................... 8 Table 9
Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs ......... 9 Table 10
Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden .............10 Table 11
Publicly Supported Housing by Program Category: Units by Number of Bedrooms and Number of Children...........................................................11 Table 12
Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity..................................................12 Table 13
Disability by Type......................................................................................13 Table 14
Disability by Age Group............................................................................ 14 Table 15
Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category ................... 15 Table 1 provides a comparison in the demographic data for the City with the region including total population, the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity, national origin (10 most populous), Limited English Proficiency populations (LEP) (10 most populous), disability by type, sex, age range (under 18, 18-64, 65+), and households with children. The City is diverse in its racial/ethnic composition, national origin, LEP, and persons with disabilities. However, the region as a whole is even more diverse than the City. The region is the largest region in the United States and is home to many immigrant households. Demographic data is based on sample questions from the 2010 Census and may not reflect official data released by the Census Bureau.
Tabl a 1- Demograph i cs
(Temecula. CAC136CalJurisdiction
jRioeraide-{an 9ernardinc-Cntaria. CA CGSAf Region
Itane jEltnICFty
#
%
#
%
White, Non -Hispanic
47,973
57.00 1,546,666
36.61 91ack, Non -Hispanic
3,265
3.2Z
301,523
7.14 Hispanic
20,991
24.94 1,996,402
47.25 Psi anorPacificlslander,Non-Hispa
nit
9,172
9.71 261,593
6.19 NativL AmL-rican, Non -Hispanic
527
0.63 19,454
0.46 Other, Non -Hispanic
143
0.17 7,737
0.19 National Origin
Country
Country
41countryoforigin
Mexico
4,702
4.EZ
Mexico
553,493
13.10 #2countryoforigin
Philippines
3,25-4
3.24 Philippines
62,019
1.47 #3countryoforigin
Korea
659
0.65 ElSalvador
30,455
0.72 #4countryoforigin
El Salvador
526
0.52 Guatemala
19,549
0.46 45countryoforigin
India
467
0.46 Vietnam
19,525
0.46 #6countryoforigin
Canada
361
0.36 Korea
13,565
0.44 #7countryoforigin
Tri n id ad &Tobago
355
0.35 India
15,522
0.37 #Scountryoforigin
Chinaexcl.Hong KGrigg &Taiwa
327
0.33 Canada
14,763
0.35 #9countryoforigin
Vietnam
309
0.31 Ch i n a excl. Hong Kong Taiw
14,055
0.33 414countryoforigin
England
259
0.26 Taiwan
9,245
0.22 Limited Englishi Proficiancy{LEPM
Language
Language
Language
#1 LEP Language
Spanish
4,209
4.44 Spanish
533,544
12.63 #2 LEP Language
Tagalog
1,304
1.33 Chinese
20,495
0.49 #3 LEP Language
Korean
422
0.45 Tagalog
16,986
0.40 #4 LEP La ngu age
Chinese
317
0.33 Vietnamese
12,570
0.30 NS LEP La ngu age
Thai
163
0.17 Korean
11,2Z3
0.23 #6 LEP La ngu age
Hindi
115
0.12 Arabic
6,335
0.16 #7 LEP Language
Other Pacific Island Language
107
0.11 OtherPacific lslan
5,360
0.13 #9LEP Language
Persian
102
0.11 Oth2rIndiclanguag
3,125
0.07 #9 LEP La ngu age
OtherIndicLanguage
100
0.11 Cambodian
3,117
0.07 #10 LEP Language
Vietnamese
97 0.10
Thai
2,576
0.06 Disability Type
Hearing difficulty
2,501
2.67 126,641
3.24 Vision difficulty
1,057
1.13 W,400
2.26 Cognitivedifficulty
3,312
3.54 170,114
4.36 Ambulatorydiffculty
3,579
3.33 241,262
6.18 Self-caredifficulty
1,973
2.00 102,941
2.63 1ndependentIivingdiffculty
2,710
2.90 170,490
4.37 Sex
Male
41,260
49.03 2,101,033
49.73 Female
42,393
50.97 2,123,76&
50.27 Age
Under 13
25,351
30.12 1,214,696
23.75 18-64
52,110
61.92 2,570,221
60.2A
65+
6,697
7.96 439,934
10.41 Family Type
miIieswith chiIdren
12,274
56.35 500,062
50.99 -Fa
Note 1: Al %represent ash a re ofth e tota I population within thejurindiction or region, except familytype, which is out oftataI families.
Note 2: 10 most popu Ious places of birth and languages atthejurisdiction Ievel may not bethesame asth a 10 most popu Ious at the Region Ieve1, and a rethusIabeledseparate
ly.
Appendix B
Table 2 shows demographic trends from 1990 through 2010. Tabular demographic trend data for the City and region, including the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity, total national origin (foreign born), total LEP, sex, age range (under 18, 18-64, 65+), and households with children. The City has experienced tremendous growth in the last twenty years. While all racial and ethnic groups except Native Americans have increased numerically, Hispanics and Asians have far exceeded other racial and ethnic groups proportionately. Whites are continuing to increase, but at a slower rate. This is true for the region as a whole. This is also reflected in the percentage of persons from other nations. However, those with limited English proficiency have not increased as dramatically. The number families with children, in proportion to the general population, (and correspondingly those under the age of 18) have decreased in the last ten years for both the City and region.
fable 2 - Demographic Trends
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region
Race/Ethnicity
1990
#
%
2000
# %
2010
# %
1990
# %
2000
# %
2010
#
%
White, Non -Hispanic
Black, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
Native American, Non -Hispanic
19,580
309
3,545
586
300
80.23 1.27
14.53 2.40
1.23 46,367 69.26
2,784 4.16
12,197 18.22
4,310 6.44
956 1.43
47,973 57.00
3,265 3.88
20,991 24.94
8,172 9.71
527 0.63
1,615,830 62.41
168,731 6.52
685,672 26.48
93,331 3.60
18,007 0.70
1,540,776 47.33
263,322 8.09
1,228,683 37.75
164,035 5.04
36,061 1.11
1,546,666
301,523
1,996,402
261,593
19,454
36.61 7.14
47.25 6.19
0.46 National Origin
Foreign -born
2,388
9.83 7,839 11.71
15,573 15.50
360,666 13.93
612,354 18.81
920,860
21.80 LEP
Limited English Proficiency
1,560
6.42 3,903 5.83
7,613 7.57
252,012 9.73
462,538 14.21
640,802
15.17 Sex
Male
Female
12,299
12,001
50.61 49.39
33,228 49.63
33,727 50.37
41,260 49.03
42,898 50.97
1,294,274 50.00
1,294,518 50.00
1,618,466 49.73
1,636,316 50.27
2,101,083
2,123,768
49.73 50.27
Age
Under 18
18-64
65+
7,614
14,935
1,751
31.33 61.46
7.21 23,494 35.09
38,770 57.90
4,690 7.00
25,351 30.12
52,110 61.92
6,697 7.96
771,845 29.81
1,539,215 59.46
277,732 10.73
1,044,686 32.10
1,869,817 57.45
340,280 10.45
1,214,696
2,570,221
439,934
28.75 60.84
10.41 Family Type
Families with children
3,592
54.09 7,042 62.40
12,274 56.35
331,552 50.68
266,840 54.97
500,062
50.99 Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region for that year, except family type, which is out of total families.
Note 2: Data Sources: Decennial Census: ACS
Appendix B 2
Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity — Tabular race/ethnicity dissimilarity index for the City and the region. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation), values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation. Despite its tremendous growth rate, the City continues to have low dissimilarity trends meaning that there is high integration for all populations. On the other hand, the region is experiencing moderate segregation of population groups.
Table 3 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario,
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
CA CBSA) Region
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index
1990 2000 2010
1990 2000 2010
Non-White/White
2.17 11.78 18.93
32.92 38.90 41.29
Black/White
6.22 15.02 23.51
43.74 45.48 47.66
Hispanic/White
1.04 14.35 19.40
35.57 42.40 43.96
Asian or Pacific Islander/White
1 5.26 11.18 26.051
33.17 37.31 43.07
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details ( www.hudexchange.info I Appendix B
Table 4 provides tabular data for the percentage of racial/ethnic groups, families with children, and national origin groups (10 most populous) for the City and region who reside in R/ECAPs (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty).
Note: The City does not have an RECAPS. As seen in many of the maps in this Assessment of Fair Housing, the region contains several RECAP areas, with the closest located approximately thirty miles away in Hemet.
Table 4 - RECAP Demographics
(Riverside -San Bernardi no -Onto rio, fro CBSA)
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
Region
R/ECAP Race/Ethnicity
#
%
#
%
Total Population in R/ECAPs
0 -
216,883
-
White, Non -Hispanic
0 31,772
14.65 Black, Non -Hispanic
0 21,220
9.78 Hispanic
0 150,371
69.33 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
0 8,676
4.00 Native American, Non -Hispanic
0 938
0.43 Other, Non -Hispanic
a
390
0.18 R/ECAP Family Type
Total Families in R/ECAPs
6 42,614
-
Families with children
a
26,863
63.04 RECAP National Origin
Country
Country
Total Population in R/ECAPs
0 -
216,883
-
#1 country of origin
Null
0 0.00
Mexico
50,507
23.29 #2 country of origin
Null
0 a.aa
El Salvador
2,563
1.18 #3 country of origin
Null
0 0.00
Guatemala
1,424
0.66 #4 country of origin
Null
0 0.00
Philippines
775
0.36 #5 country of origin
Null
0 0.06
China excl. Hong Kong & Taiw
750
0.35 #6 country of origin
Null
0 0.00
Vietnam
619
0.29 #7 country of origin
Null_
0 0.00
F.71duras
556r
0.26 #8 country of origin
Null
6 0.06
urea
384F
0.18 #9 country of origin
Null
a
0.00 Canada
239
0.11 #10 country of origin
Null
0 0.00
Taiwan
239
0.11 Note 1: 10 most populous groups at the
jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 2: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS
Note 3i Refer to the Data Documentation for details ( www.hudexchange.info) .
Appendix B 4
Table 5 provides tabular data for total units by four categories of publicly supported housing in the Jurisdiction (Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program) for the City. The chart below does not include affordable housing projects funding with former redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of redevelopment assisted units.
Table 5 - Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category (Temecula, CA CDSG)
Jurisdiction
Housing Units
# %
Total housing units
28,971 -
Public Housing
Project -based Section 8
55 0.19
Other Multifamily
HCV Program
97 0.33
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; APSH
Note 2. Refer to the Data Documentation for details
( www.hudexchan eg info).
Appendix B
Table 6 provides tabular race/ethnicity data for four categories of publicly supported housing (Public Housing, Project - Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, Tenant -Based Section 8 Vouchers (HCV)) in the City, compared to the population as a whole, and to persons earning 30% annual median income (AMI), in the City. Except for Asians, all racial/ethnic groups have similar participation rates in publicly supported housing. Hispanics and Blacks have a greater proportion of participation than Whites for project -based vouchers and Blacks have a greater proportion than the other groups for tenant - based vouchers. However, the programs do not show any patterns of segregation. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of those units.
Table 6 - Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity
(Temecula, CA CDBG)
Asian or Pacific
Jurisdiction
White
Black
Hispanic
Islander
Housing Type
# %
#
%
#
%
#
Public Housing
Project -Based Section 8
20 37.04
11 20.37
22 40.74
0 0.00
Other Multifamily
HCV Program
45 56.96
13 16.46
21 26.58
0 0.00
0-30% of AMI
1,119 53.54
120
5.74 544
26.03 145
6.94 0-50% of AMI
2,134 46.90
280
6.15 1,219
26.79 299
6.57 0-80% of AMI
4,564 51.72
409
4.63 2,504
28.37 649
7.35 (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
47,973 57.00
3,265
3.88 20,991
24.94 8,172
9.71 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; APSH; CHAS Note 2: #s presented are numbers of households not individuals.
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details { www.hudexchange.infoL Appendix B 6
Table 7 provides tabular data on publicly supported housing units and R/ECAPs for the City. It is important to note that the City does not have any RECAPS (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty). The chart below shows that HCV units mostly include elderly and households with disabilities, some which are families with children present. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of those units.
Table 7 - RECAP and Nan -RECAP Demographics by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category (Temecula, CA CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Total # units % with a % Asian or % Families
(occupied) % Elderly disability* % White % Black % Hispanic Pacific Islander with children Public Housing
R/ECAP tracts
Non R/ECAP tracts
Project -based Section S
mrml m7m
R/ECAP tracts
Non R/ECAP tracts
51 12.73 3.64 37.04 20.37 40.74 0.00 65.45
Other HUD Multifamily
R/ECAP tracts
Non R/ECAP tracts
HCV Program
R/ECAP tracts
Non R/ECAP tracts
85 58.24 39.56 56.96 16.46 26.58 0.00 14.29
Note 1: Disability information is often reported for heads of household or spouse/co-head only. Here, the data reflect information on all members of the household.
Note 2: Data Sources: APSH
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details ( www.hudexchange.infoj .
Appendix B 7
Table 8 provides development level demographics by Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, and Other Multifamily' for the City. This corresponds to the information presented in Table 6 for Project- Based Section 8 units. It should be noted that these totals do not reflect the units assisted with City redevelopment funds. Refer to Appendix J lists for redevelopment units.
Table 8 - Demographics of Publicly Supported Housing
Developments, by Program Category
Project -Based Section 8
Project -Based
(Temecula, CA Project -Based Households with
CDBG) Jurisdiction Race/Ethnicity (%) Children (%)
Developments
Rancho California White 38 55
Black 20
Hispanic 40
Asian 0
Note 1: For LIHTC properties, this information will be supplied by local knowledge.
Note 2: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding error.
Note 3: Data Sources: APSH
Note 4: Refer to the Data Documentation for details
{ www.hudexchange.info
Appendix B 8
Table 9 provides tabular data of total households in the City and region households experiencing one or more housing burdens by race/ethnicity and family size. For this table, the City's percentages mirror the region and the nation on average, for nearly all categories for households experiencing disproportionate housing needs. Whites have the lowest percentage of problems at 47% with Hispanics having the highest for the major groups at 62%. The Native American percentage may be high, because of Pechanga tribal land that is adjacent to City limits. The same conclusion holds true for those households with severe housing problems. They again reflect the region as a whole.
Table 9 - Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate Housing Needs
ir
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region
Households experiencing any of 4
housing problems'
# with problems
# households
% with problems
# with problems
# households
% with problems
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non -Hispanic
9,490
20,034
47.37 256,080
620,415
41.28 Black, Non -Hispanic
715
1,299
55.04 56,895
95,260
59.73 Hispanic
3,790
6,099
62.24 277,970
457,795
60.72 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispani
1,330
2,449
54.31 37,730
73,754
51.16 Native American, Non -Hispanic
360
445
80.90 3,154
6,294
50.11 Other, Non -Hispanic
235
575
40.87 11,725
22,795
51.44 Totgl
15,910
30,880
SL52
643,570
1,276,315
50.42 Household Type and Size
Family households, <5 people
9,755
19,795
49.28 319,120
712,850
44.77 Family households, 5+ people
2,680
4,790
55.95 163,795
245,315
66.77 Non -family households
3,485
6,290
55.41 160,655
318,160
5a.50
Households experiencing any of 4
# with severe.
%with severe
# with severe
% with severe
Severe Housing Problems"
problems
# households
problems
problems
# households
problems
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non -Hispanic
4,160
20,034
20.76 126,230
620,415
20.35 Black, Non -Hispanic
375
1,299
28.87 32,105
95,260
33.70 Hispanic
2,165
6,089
35.56 176,935
457,795
38.65 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispani
620
2,449
25.32 21,145
73,754
28.67 Native American, Non -Hispanic
150
445
33.71 1,680
6,294
26.69 Other, Non -Hispanic
10D
575
17.39 6,650
22,795
29.17 Total
7,555
30,880
24.47 364,730
1,276,315
28.58 Note 1: The four housing problems are:
incomplete kitchen
facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%. The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen
facilities, incomplete
plumbing facilities,
more than 1 person
per room, and
cost burden greater than 50%.
Note 2: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except household type and size, which is out of total households.
Note 3: Data Sources: CHAS
Note 4: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {+,v "v.hudexchange.infoj.
Appendix B 9
Table 10 provides tabular data of the total number of households in the City and region experiencing severe housing burdens by race/ethnicity. The City's percentages reflect the region but the difference is not statistically significant among races/ethnicities and household types and sizes.
Table 10 - Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden*
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA CBSA) Region
# with severe cost
% with severe
# with severe cost
% with
severe
Race/Ethnicity
burden # households
cost burden
burden
# households cost burden
White, Non -Hispanic
3,960
20,034
19.77 112,395
620,415
19.12 Black, Non -Hispanic
305
1,299
23.48 28,660
95,260
30.09 Hispanic
1,615
6,089
26.52 116,490
457,795
25.45 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
515
2,449
21.03 17,020
73,754
23.08 Native American, Non -Hispanic
125
445
28.09 1,300
6,294
20.65 Other, Non -Hispanic
85 575
14.78 5,425
22,795
23.80 Total
6,605
30,880
21.39 281,290
1,216,315
22.04 Household Type and Size
Family households, www.hudexchange.infoj .
Appendix B 10
Table 11 provides tabular data on the number of bedrooms for units of 4 categories of publicly supported housing (Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, HCV) for the City. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. The smaller units for HCV reflect that most of the units house seniors and persons with disabilities. See Appendix J for a listing of redevelopment assisted units.
Table 11 - Publicly Supported Housing by Program Category: Units by Number of Bedrooms and Number of Children
(Temecula, CA COBG) Jurisdiction
Households in 0. Households in 2 Households in
1 Bedroom Bedroom 3+ Bedroom Households
Units Units Units with Children
Housing Type
# % # % # % #
Public Housing
Project -Based Section 8
0 0.00 23 41.82 31 56.36 36 65.45
Other Multifamily
HCV Program
1 53 58.24 25 27.47 5 5.49 13 14.29
Note 1: Data Sources: APSH
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details ( www.hudexchange.info� Appendix B 11
Table 12 provides tabular data of opportunity indices for school proficiency, jobs proximity, labor -market engagement, transit trips, low transportation costs, low poverty, and environmental health for the City and region by race/ethnicity and among households below the Federal poverty line. In the following table, the higher scores reflect better standards for the City residents compared to the nation. In all of these indices, there is no significant difference among races and ethnicities in the City.
In comparison to the national average (50%), the poverty and school proficiency indices are substantially higher, meaning the City has less poverty and better performing schools. This is especially true when compared to the region, which has scores substantially lower than the City. The labor market index is average compared to the nation, but much higher than the region. The transit and transportation indices are below the average, partly due to California's dependency on the automobile. Temecula's indices reflect the regional indices. Auto -dependency is also reflected with the average scores in the Jobs Proximity Index. There is little difference between the region and the City in its transit and jobs proximity scores.
The same is true with the environmental health index, which is slightly below the national average and slightly above the regional average.
Table 12- Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity
School
Low
Low Poverty
Proficiency
Labor Market
Transit
Transportation
Jobs
Environmental
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
Index
Index
Index
Index
Cost Index
Proximity Index
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non -Hispanic
71.23 82.20
49.79 37.43
19.98 43.84
40.42 Black, Non -Hispanic
67.12 80.36
47.83 39.46
23.98 43.39
39.99 Hispanic
65.42 79.0D
47.44 39.41
25.05 44.36
40.10 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispani
67.93 81.58
48.20 39.94
22.70 43.37
40.01 Native American, Mon -Hispanic
68.80 80.86
46.38 38.79
18.10 44.07
40.04 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non -Hispanic
65.41 79.54
48.79 39.95
24.93 49.41
39.77 Black, Non -Hispanic
54.98 80.53
51.31 41.84
29.89 56.55
38.58 Hispanic
58.03 78.90
49.50 43.87
28.51 45.26
39.43 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
46.21 73.28
44.15 43.00
35.10 57.42
38.06 Native American, Mon -Hispanic
67.95 86.26
46.72 39.52
15.77 39.32
40.93 School
Low
(Riverside,San Bernardino -Ontario,
Low Poverty
Proficiency
Labor Market
Transit
Transportation
Jobs
Environmental
CA CBSA) Region
Index
Index
Index
Index
Cost Index
Proximity Index
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non -Hispanic
52.61 53.19
34.50 37.96
25.75 49.40
38.01 Black, Non -Hispanic
42.80 44.09
27.18 42.55
31.82 48.67
29.31 Hispanic
37.51 40.97
24.20 43.12
32.68 47.41
29.22 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
60.42 58.09
43.02 41.92
29.18 48.60
26.57 Native American, Non -Hispanic
41.19 45.70
25.06 36.84
26.34 49.72
41.33 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non -Hispanic
38.39 44.64
25.55 38.74
29.20 50.12
40.58 Black, Non -Hispanic
27.15 35.02
17.39 43.48
34.78 49.72
30.90 Hispanic
23.78 34.72
16.42 44.76
36.54 49.77
30.32 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic42.30
44.87 30.51
45.00 37.05
51.79 24.89
Native American, Mon -Hispanic
30.24 39.35
20.61 39.17
32.05 52.12
38.58 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details {tiwvtiv.hudexchange.infol.
Appendix B 12
Table 13 provides tabular data of persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self -care, and independent living disabilities for the City and region. Persons may have more than one disability represented in the following table. The percentages for the City are less in all categories compared to the region. This could reflect that more services are available in the County Seats of both counties compared to the Temecula Valley. This sentiment has been echoed in community meetings and consultations.
Table 13 - Disability by Type
(Temecula, CA CDBG)
(Riverside -San Bernardino -
Jurisdiction
Ontario, CA CBSA) Region
Disability Type
# %
#
%
Hearing difficulty
2,501
2.67 126,641
3.24 Vision difficulty
1,057
1.13 88,400
2.26 Cognitive difficulty
3,312
3.54 170,114
4.36 Ambulatory difficulty
3,579
3.83 241,262
6.18 Self -care difficulty
1,873
2.00 102,841
2.63 Independent living difficulty
2,710
2.90 170,490
4.37 Note 1: All % represent a share of
the total population within the jurisdiction or region.
Note 2: Data Sources: ACS
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details ( www.hudexchange.infol Appendix B 13
Table 14 provides data of persons with disabilities by age range (5-17, 18-64, and 65+) for the City and region. The table reflects the greatest numbers of those with disabilities are adults between ages 18 and 64 followed by the elderly. To draw a conclusion of need, this data is skewed due to the age span of categories. Proportionately, the City has fewer persons with disabilities, except for children. This sentiment was also echoed in the community meetings.
Table 14 - Disability by Age Group
(Temecula, CA CDBG)
(Riverside -San Bernardino -
Jurisdiction
Ontario, CA CBSA) Region
Age of People with Disabilities
# %
# %
age 5-17 with Disabilities
1,097 1.17
37,092 0.95
age 18-64 with Disabilities
4,114 4.40
241,640 6.19
age 65+with Disabilities
2,823 3.02
174,002 4.46
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region.
Note 2: Data Sources: ACS
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details ( www.hudexchange.info Appendix B 14
Table 15 provides tabular data on disability and publicly supported housing for the City and region. The chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of affordable housing projects funded by redevelopment.
Table 15 - Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category
People with a
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
Disability*
# �o
Public Housing
Project -Based Section 8
2 3.64
Other Multifamily
HCV Program
36 39.56
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario,
CA CBSA) Region
Public Housing
189 11.67
Project -Based Section 8
630 10.36
Other Multifamily
98 4.80
HCV Program
4,478 27.11
Note 1: The definition of "disability" used by the Census Bureau may not be comparable to reporting requirements
under HUD programs.
Note 2: Data Sources: ACS
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details
( www.hudexchange . info).
Appendix B 15
APPENDIX C
City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing
Resident Surveys
APPENDIX D
City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing
Stakeholder Survey
Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
iGracias por participar en esta
encuesta!
El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula esta preparando el Plan Consolidado 2017-2021 y una Evaluacion de Vivienda Justa tal y como to requiere el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los Estados Unidos (HUD, por sus siglas en ingles). Esta Encuesta de Residentes proporcionara aportaciones por parte de los residentes de la comunidad con respecto a la vivienda justa, vivienda asequible, desarrollo comunitario, desarrollo economico y otras necesidades de los residentes de la ciudad. El Plan Consolidado le permite al Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula utilizar los fondos de Subsidios Globales para el Desarrollo Comunitario (CDBG) para mejorar la calidad de vida de sus residentes.
Esta encuesta debe tomar alrededor de 5-7 minutos para completarla. Sus respuestas seran confidenciales y unicamente utilizadas junto con todas las respuestas. El resultado de la encuesta sera incorporado al reporte del Plan Consolidad y Evaluacion de Vivienda Justa del Ayuntamiento.
Las respuestas a las preguntas de esta encuesta son un componente esencial para el proceso de planificacion de Temecula. Si necesita asistencia o tiene preguntas con respecto a la encuesta, por favor comuniquese con Dean Huseby, Consultante de CDBG, al correo electronico: [email protected]
* 1. �Actualmente usted vive en la Ciudad de Temecula?
O Si
0 No
Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
pl; A
JAM dM 0 40
.1
Satisfaccion de la
Vivienda
* 2. En general, �que tan satisfecho o insatisfecho esta usted con su casa o apartamento? Seleccione uno, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica "Extremadamente Insatisfecho" y 4 indica "Extremadamente Satisfecho"? Extremadamente Extremadamente No aplica, no vivo
Insatisfecho Insatisfecho Satisfecho Satisfecho en Temecula O O
Si selecciono extremadamente insatisfecho o insatisfecho, enumere hasta 3 razones por las cuales usted no esta satisfecho con su casa o apartamento:
2 3. Si usted pudiera cambiar algo acerca de su situacion actual de vivienda. �cua seria?
L Yo no cambiaria nada acerca de mi situacion actual de vivienda. n Yo actualmente rento, pero me gustaria comprar/ser dueno de mi casa.
U Yo viviria en una parte diferente de Temecula.
Yo soy dueno de una casa, y me gustaria venderla.
[-I Me gustaria vivir en otra comunidad diferente en vez de Temecula.
Otro (por favor especifique)
I
3 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
do 0 a
Insatisfaccion de la
Vivienda
4. Si esta insatisfecho, enumere por to menos 3 razones por las cuales usted esta insatisfecho con su casa o apartamento:
1. 2.
3. 0
Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Satisfaccion de la
Vivienda
* 5. �Actualmente usted renta o es propietario?
U Rento
O Propietario
n Otro (por favor especifique)
5 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
AM dM
0 Preguntas a
Arrendatarios
* 8. �Que tal facil o dificil fue para usted encontrar una unidad de arrendamiento que estuviera a su alcance financiero en Temecula, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica "Extremadamente Dificil" y 9 "Extremadamente Facil"?
Extremadamente Dificil Dificil Facil Extremadamente Facil O O O
7 9. Si usted quiere comprar una casa en Temecula, �por que no to ha hecho? (Seleccione todos los que apliquen).
O No tengo suficiente dinero para el enganche.
O No puedo sostener un prestamo hipotecario.
O No puedo sostener el costo de mantenimiento asociado con la propiedad de vivienda.
O Tengo mal credito.
O No puedo encontrar la casa que quiero comprar.
O Planteo mudarme a otra ciudad.
O No aplica; no deseo comprar una casa.
O Otro (por favor especifique)
F
Alk
j IT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
10%
Necesidades de Vivienda y Desarrollo
Comunitario
Considere las necesidades en Temecula. Seleccione tres necesidades principales dentro de cada categoria de actividades admisibles.
* 10. Instalaciones Comunitaria (puede seleccionar hasta 3) F--I Centros para Personas de la
❑
Parques e Instalaciones de
Estaciones de Bomberos y
3ra. Edad
Recreacion
Equipo
LJ Centros para Jovenes
L
Instalaciones para el Cuidado
Bibliotecas
❑ Guarderias Infantiles
de la Salud
❑ No hay necesidad bajo esta
❑
Centros Comunitarios
categoria
* 11. Infraestructura (puede seleccionar hasta 3)
LJ Mejoras de Drenaje
Mejoras de
Agua/Alcantarillados
I I Mejoras de Calles/Callejones
❑ Alumbrado Publico
❑ Mejoras de Banquetas
Mejoras segun la Ley de
Americanos Discapacitados
(ADA) (banquetas, rampas,
espacios accesibles de
estacionamiento, etc.)
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoria
9 12. Necesidades Especiales (puede seleccionar hasta tres) ❑ Centros/Servicios para ❑ Servicios para Abuso de ❑ Centros para Ninos Discapacitados Drogas Desamparados/Abusados y
.qarvirinc
I I Mejoras de Accesibilidad
u Servicios para Violencia
Domestica
❑ Albergues para Personas sin
Hogar/Servicios
Centros para Tratamiento de
HV/AIDS & Servicios
* 13. Servicios Comunitarios (puede seleccionar hasta tres) Actividades para Personas de
la 3ra. Edad
L Actividades para Jovenes
n Servicios de Guarderias
Infantiles
Servicios de Transportacion
LJ Programas Contra el Crimen
❑ Servicios para la Salud
Servicios para la
Autosuficiencia de la Familia
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoria
Servicios para la Salud Mental
❑ Servicios de Asesoria Legal
❑ No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoria
* 14. Servicios para Vecindarios (puede seleccionar hasta tres) [J Plantacion de Arboles
n Limpieza de Basura y
Escombros
L, Limpieza de Grafito
Imposicion de Codigos de
Orden Publico
❑ Instalaciones para
Estacionamientos
[ Limpieza de Lotes Baldios y
Edificios Abandonados
* 15. Negocios y Empleos (puede seleccionar hasta tres) Asistencia para el Inicio de un
Negocio
L Prestamos para Empresas
Pequenas
n Creacion/Retencion de
Empleos
Capacitacion de Empleos
❑ Mejoras de Fachadas
❑ Asesoramiento Empresarial
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoria
Rehabilitacion
Comercial/Industrial
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoria
10 * 16. Vivienda (puede seleccionar hasta tres)
❑ Mejoras de Accesibilidad ❑ Viviendas para Discapacitados (rampas, levantamientos de
❑Viviendas para Personas de la
sillas de ruedas, barras de
sostenimiento, barandales, 3ra. Edad
timbres de puertas visuales y Viviendas para Familias
alarmas de humo/mon6xido de Grandes (mas de 5 personas) carbon)
F—I Mejoras/Rehabilitacion de
Viviendas Ocupadas por sus
Propietarios
Mejoras/Rehabilitacion de
Viviendas de Arrendamiento
n Asistencia para Comprar Casa
I Vivienda de Arrendamiento
Asequible
Servicios para Vivienda Justa
Eliminaci6n y Prueba de
Pintura con Base de Plomo
Mejoras de Eficiencia
Energ6tica
Vivienda Primordialmente para
J6venes Acogidos
Temporalmente
Vivienda para la Unificaci6n de
Familias
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoria
11 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
AM dM 0 40
Eleccion de Vivienda
Justa
La vivienda justa es una condicion en la cual los individuos de niveles de ingresos similares en el mismo mercado de vivienda tienen variedades de eleccion disponibles para ellos in depend ientemente de raza, color, ascendencia, origen de nacionalidad, religion, sexo, discapacidad, estado civil, estado familiar, o cualquier otro factor arbitrario.
Como parte del proceso de planificacion, el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula debe analizar los factores asociados con la eleccion de vivienda y discriminacion. Por favor responda a las siguientes preguntas:
* 17. �,Cree usted que exista discriminacion de vivienda en su vecindario? Si
O No
* 18. �Alguna vez usted ha experimentado discriminacion para obtener o mantener vivienda?
O Si
O No
12 Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Discriminacion de
Vivienda
Si usted siente que pudo haber sido discriminado, comuniquese con la oficina del Concejo de Vivienda Justa del Municipio de Riverside al (951) 371-6518. Los servicios proporcionados por el Concejo de Vivienda Justa del Municipio de Riverside son gratuitos y estan disponibles para todos los residents.
* 19. �Quien cree que to ha discriminado?
0 Propietario/Administrador de la Propiedad
0 Agente de Bienes Raices
0 Prestamista Hipotecario
0 Asegurador Hipotecario
0 Otro (por favor especifique)
13 * 20. �En que se basa a que usted pudo haber sido discriminado? O Raza
O Color
O Origen de Nacionalidad
O Genero
O Edad
O Religion
O Estado Familiar (padre soltero/madre soltera, divorciado(a)) O Discapacidad
C) Otro (por favor especifique)
21. �Si usted cree que ha experimentado discriminacion?, Flo denuncio? O Si
O No
14 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Discriminacion de
Vivienda
22. �Por que usted decidio no denunciar la discriminacion de vivienda? No se a donde puedo denunciarlo
0 Demasiados problemas
0 Miedo a represalias
0 No creo que vaya a crear alguna diferencia
0 Otro (por favor especifique)
15 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Empleo
23. �Actualmente esta empleado el individuo quien tipicamente sirve como la fuente principal de ingresos de su hogar?
O Si, tiene empleo
O No, desempleado y actualmente buscando empleo
O No, desempleado y no esta buscando empleo
0 Jubilado
16 Alk
j IT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
10%
Informacion
Demografica
24. Onicamente para el proposito de clasificacion, �cual categoria describe el total del ingreso anual de su hogar?
0 Menos de $10,000
0 $10,000 a $25,000
0 $25,001 a $35,000
(_ $35,001 a $50,000
0 $50,001 a $75,000
0 $75,001 a $100,000
25. �Cual es su origen etnico?
0 Hispano
0 No Soy Hispano
C $100,001 a $125,000
C Ws de $125,000
17 26. �Cual es su raza? (marque todos los que apliquen) 0 Indio Americano/Nativo Alaskeno
0 Asiatico
0 Negro/Afroamericano
0 Isleno del Pacrfico
0 Blanco
0 Multi -Racial
0 Otro (por favor especifique)
F
27. jiene ninos menores de 18 anos viviendo en su casa? 0 Si
0 No
28. Incluyendose usted, �cuantas personas viven en su hogar? 0 1 persona U 4 personas 7 personas
0 2 personas 0 5 personas 8 o mas personas
C) 3 personas 0 6 personas
IN
Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
AM dM 0 40
Necesidades Especiales
29. �AlgOn miembro de su hogar tiene alguna discapacidad mental o fisica? O Si, discapacidad mental
O Si, discapacidad fisica
O Si, ambas discapacidades fisica y mental
O No
19 Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
AM do
30. �Actualmente su casa satisface las necesidades del miembro(s) discapacitado(s) de su hogar?
O si
O No
(por favor describa que es to que necesita para proporcionar las necesidades al/los miembro(s) discapacitado(os) de su hogar en la siguiente seccion para comentarios.
Otro (por favor especifique)
20 Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Amldm
AM do
'46P 0
Area de
Residencia
* 31. Por favor indique el codigo postal o el area de Temecula en la cual usted vive:
21 Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
do
de Temecula
Gracias
iLe agradecemos su participacion en esta encuesta/ Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca de esta encuesta, la evaluacion de vivienda justa o del Plan Consolidad, por favor comuniquese con Dean Huseby al correo electronico: [email protected]
22 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Thank you for taking part in this
survey!
The City of Temecula is preparing the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan and an Assessment of Fair Housing as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This Resident Survey will be provide input from the community regarding fair housing, affordable housing, community development, economic development and other needs of its residents. The Consolidated Plan allows Temecula to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to enhance the quality of life of its residents.
This survey should take about 5-7 minutes to complete. Your responses will be confidential and only used together with all of the responses. The survey result will be incorporated in the City's Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing report.
Your responses to these questions are an essential component of Temecula's planning process.
Should you need assistance or have questions regarding the survey, please contact Dean Huseby, CDBG Consultant at dhuseby(&mdg-Idm.com.
* 1. Do you currently live in the City of Temecula?
O Yes
0 No
IT
s
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula Fair Housing • Consolidated Plan Survey Housing Satisfaction
* 2. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your home or apartment, on a scale from 1-4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Dissatisfied" and 4 indicates "Extremely Satisfied"?
N/A - I do not live in
1. Extremely Dissatisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Extremely Satisfied Temecula ►f extremely dissatisfied or dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are not satisfied with your home or apartment:
2 * 3. If you could change one thing about your current living situation, what would it be? ❑ I wouldn't change anything about my current living situation. ❑ I currently rent, but would like to buy/own my home.
❑ I would live in a different part of Temecula.
❑ 1 own a home, and would like to sell.
❑ I would like to live in a different community other than Temecula. ❑ Other (please specify)
F
3 Ak
s
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
M
Housing Dissatisfaction
4. If dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are dissatisfied with your home or apartment:
0 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
M
Housing Satisfaction
* 5. Do you currently rent or own your home?
0 Rent
0 Own
0 Other (please specify)
5 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
some All MAL
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Surveydo e
Homeowner
Questions
* 6. Do you currently owe more money on your home than it is worth? U Yes
0 No
O 1 don't know
* 7. How concerned are you about your home going into foreclosure on a scale from "1" to "4," where 1 indicates "Not at all concerned" and 4 indicates "Extremely Concerned?"
1. Not at all Concerned 2. Somewhat Concerned 3. Concerned 4. Extremely Concerned O O
J
Ak
s
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
r
City of Temecula Fair Housing
• Consolidated Plan Survey
Renter
Questions
* 8. How difficult or easy was it for you to find a rental unit you could afford in Temecula on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Difficult" and 9 indicates "Extremely Easy"?
1. Extremely Difficult 2. Difficult 3. Easy 4. Extremely Easy * 9. If you want to buy a home in Temecula, why haven't you? (Select all that apply.) 0 1 do not have enough money for a down payment.
0 1 cannot afford a mortgage.
0 1 cannot afford the maintenance costs associated with homeownership. 0 1 have poor credit.
0 1 cannot find a home I want to buy.
0 1 plan to move to another city.
0 Not applicable; I do not want to buy a home.
0 Other (please specify)
F
7 Alk
j IT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Housing and Community Development
Needs
Consider the needs in Temecula. Select the top three needs within each category of eligible activities. Do not choose more than three per category. * 10. Community Facilities (Choose up to three)
❑
Senior Centers
[J
Park & Recreational Facilities
❑
Fire Stations & Equipment
❑
Youth Centers
❑
Health Care Facilities
❑
Libraries
❑
Child Care Centers
❑
Community Centers
❑
No need in this category
* 11. Infrastructure (Choose up to three)
❑ Drainage Improvement ❑ Street Lighting [ No need in this category [� Water/Sewer Improvement ❑ Sidewalk Improvements
L Street/Alley Improvement [ ADA Improvements (sidewalk ramps, accessible parking
spaces, etc.)
.01
* 12. Special Needs (Choose up to three)
Centers/Services for Disabled Substance Abuse Services
Accessibility Improvements Homeless Shelters/Services
Domestic Violence Services HIV/AIDS Centers & Services
* 13. Community Services (Choose up to three)
Senior Activities Transportation Services
Youth Activities Anti -Crime Programs
Child Care Services Health Services
* 14. Neighborhood Services (Choose up to three)
Tree Planting Code Enforcement
Trash & Debris Removal Parking Facilities
Graffiti Removal
Cleanup of Abandoned Lots
and Buildings
* 15. Businesses and Jobs (Choose up to three)
Start-up Business Assistance Employment Training
Small Business Loans Facade Improvements
Job Creation/Retention Business Mentoring
Neglected/Abused Children
Center and Services
Family Self -Sufficiency
Services
No need in this category
Mental Health Services
Legal Services
No need in this category
No need in this category
Commercial/Industrial
Rehabilitation
No need in this category
Z
* 16. Housing (Choose up to three)
❑ Accessibility Improvements
(ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab
bars, handrails, visual door
bells and smoke/carbon
monoxide alarms)
❑ Owner -Occupied Housing
Improvements / Rehabilitation
❑ Rental Housing Improvements
/ Rehabilitation
❑ Homeownership Purchase
Assistance
❑ Affordable Rental Housing
❑ Housing for Disabled
❑ Senior Housing
Housing for Large Families (5+
people)
Fair Housing Services
Lead -Based Paint Testing and
Abatement
Energy Efficiency
Improvements
Housing for Former Foster
Youth
Housing for Family Unification
No need in this category
10 Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
A
0 4F
some
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Surve AIM
Fair Housing
Choice
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
As part of the planning process, the City of Temecula must analyze the factors associated with housing choice and discrimination. Please respond to the following questions:
* 17. Do you believe housing discrimination exists in your neighborhood? U Yes
U No
* 18. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing? U Yes
U No
11 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
4w
Housing Discrimination
If you feel you may have been discriminated against, please contact the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County at (951) 371-6518. The services provided by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County are free of charge and are available to all residents. * 19. Who do you believe discriminated against you?
O Landlord/Property Manager
O Real Estate Agent
O Mortgage Lender
O Mortgage Insurer
O Other (please specify)
L
12 * 20. On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against? 0 Race
0 Color
0 National Origin
0 Gender
0 Age
0 Religion
0 Familial Status (ex. single -parent)
0 Disability
0 Other (please specify)
E
21. If you believe you have experienced housing discrimination, did you report it? 0 Yes
0 No
13 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
M
Housing Discrimination
22. Why did you decide not to report the housing discrimination? 0 Don't know where to report
0 Too much trouble
0 Afraid of retailiation
0 Don't believe it makes any difference
0 Other (please specify)
C
14 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
0 4F
some
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey AIM
Employment
23. Is the individual who typically serves as the primary source of income for your household currently employed?
0 Yes, employed
0 No, unemployed and currently seeking employment
0 No, unemployed and not seeking employment
Retired
15 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Z11
Demographic
Information
N
24. Just for classification purposes, which category best describes your total annual household income?
0 Less than $10,000
0 $10,000 to $25,000
0 $25,001 to $35,000
25. What is your ethnicity?
(J Hispanic
0 Non -Hispanic
(, $35,001 to $50,000
0 $50,001 to $75,000
0 $75,001 to $100,000
C $100,001 to $125,000
C More than $125,000
16 26. What is your race? (Mark all that apply)
0 American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Asian
0 Black / African American
0 Pacific Islander
0 White
0 Multi -Racial
0 Other (please specify)
F
27. Are there children living in your home that are younger than 18 years of age? 0 Yes
0 No
28. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? 0 1 people 0 4 people 7 people
0 2 people 0 5 people 8 or more people
C, 3 people 0 6 people
17 Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
M
Special Needs
29. Do any members of your household have a mental or physical disability? 0 Yes, mental disability
0 Yes, physical disability
0 Yes, both mental and physical disability
0 No
In
Adk
ADT
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
;Qpr!
do some
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan SurveA Special Needs
30. Does your current home meet the needs of the disabled members of your household?
O Yes
O No
(Please describe what is needed to meet the needs of the disabled household member(s) in the comment box below)
Other (please specify)
19 NX
Adk
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
Thank
You
M
Thank you for participating in this survey! If you have any questions about the survey, the Assessment of Fair Housing or the Consolidated Plan, please contact Dean Huseby at [email protected].
21 APPENDIX E
City of Temecula Stakeholder Consultation List
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency
Type
Acacia Park Apartments
Affordable Housing
Affirmed Housing
Affordable Housing
AMCAL Multi -Housing
Affordable Housing
Assistance League of Temecula Valley
Youth
Atria Senior Living
Senior
Autism Society Inland Empire
Health
Better Days ARF
Seniors
Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County
Youth Services
Bridge Housing
Affordable Housing
Building Industry Association
Housing
California Apartment Association Inland Empire
Rental Property
California State University San Marcos, Temecula
Education
Cameron Historical Building
Affordable Housing
Canine Support Teams
Persons with Disabilities
Catholic Charities
Social Services
Circle of Care Ministries
Food Bank
City of Murrieta
Adjacent City
City of Temecula
Various departments
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
Affordable Housing
Community Access Center
Disabled
Community Mission of Hope
Homeless provider
Comprehensive Autism Center
Health Services
County of Riverside Department of Social Services
Social Services
County of Riverside Economic Development Agency
Local Government
County of Riverside Health Department
Health Services
Appendix E
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency
Type
Riverside University Health System — Behavioral Health, Homeless Housing Opportunities, Partnerships & Education Program
Mental Health
Court Appointed Special Advocate of Riverside County
Youth Services
Creekside Senior Apartments
Senior Housing
Desert AIDS
AIDS Service Provider
Economic Development of Southwest California
Economic Development
Fair Housing Counsel of Riverside County, Inc.
Fair Housing
Foothill AIDS
AIDS
Fountain Glen at Temecula
Senior Housing
Front Street Plaza
Affordable Housing
Go Banana
Special Needs
GRID Alternatives
Affordable Housing
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley
Affordable Housing
Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Affordable Housing
Hitzke Consulting
Affordable Housing
Hospice of the Valleys
Healthcare
Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
Public Housing Authority
Hugs Foster Family Agency
Developmental disabilities
Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula
Faith Based
Inland Regional Center
Developmental disabilities
Jamboree Housing
Affordable Housing
Jesus Love Church
Faith based
John Stewart Company
Affordable Housing
Ken Follis
Realtor, developer
League of Women Voters
Non profit
Legacy Ridge
Developmental disabilities
Love of Christ Fellowship Church
Faith based
Madera Vista Apartments
Affordable Housing
Appendix E
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency
Type
Margarita Summit Apartments
Affordable Housing
Michelle's Place
Healthcare
Mission Village Apartments
Affordable Housing
Morning Ridge Apartments
Affordable Housing
Mt San Jacinto College
Education
NAACP
Protected Class
Nu -Way International Christian Ministries
Faith based
Oak Tree Apartments
Affordable Housing
Our Nicholas Foundation
Autism
Palomar Heritage
Affordable Housing
Pechanga Casino and Resort
Employer
Path of Life Ministries
Homeless provider
Portola Terrace Apartments
Affordable Housing
Project Touch
Homeless provider
Rancho California Apartments
Affordable housing
Rancho Community Church
Faith based
Rancho Creek Apartments
Affordable Housing
Rancho en Espanol
Faith based
Rancho West Apartments
Affordable Housing
Renee Jennex Small Family
Health care
Riverbank Village Apartments
Affordable Housing
Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center
Domestic Violence
Riverside City and County Continuum of Care
Homeless provider
Riverside County Office on Aging
Senior Services
Riverside County Veterans Services
Veterans
Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Crime protection
Riverside Transit Agency
Transportation
Rochelle Sherman Small Family
Affordable Housing
Appendix E
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency
Type
SAFE Alternatives for Everyone
Domestic Violence
Safety Research Associates, Inc.
Special Needs and Senior Housing
Senior Care Referral Specialists
Senior Services
Senior Citizens Service Center Food Bank
Food Bank
Single Mothers in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF)
Youth Services
Solari Enterprises
Affordable Property Management
Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors
Housing
St. Catherine's Catholic Church
Faith based
State Council on Developmental Disabilities
Developmental Disabilities
TEAM Evangelical Assistance Ministries
Food Bank
Temecula City Planning Commission
City Commission
Temecula City Community Services Commission
City Commission
Temecula City Public Safety Commission
City Commission
Temecula Convention and Visitors Bureau
Business Community
Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission
Homeless Services Provider
Temecula Reflection Townhouses
Affordable Housing
Temecula Homeless Coalition
Homeless provider
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Business Community
Temecula Valley Historical Society
Non Profit Organization
Temecula Valley Hospital
Health Services
Temecula Valley Therapy
Disabled
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Education
Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association
Employer
The Center for Life Change
Drug Treatment
U.S. Vets Initiative
Veterans
VA Loma Linda Healthcare
Veterans
Vintage View Apartments
Affordable housing
Voice of Children
Youth Services
Appendix E
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency
Type
Warehouse at Creekside Apartments
Affordable Housing
Wells Fargo
Business Community
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Regional Government
Note: For some agencies, there are multiple stakeholders, but the agency is only listed once.
Appendix E
■ :>\- k� §*
AL
�� ■ � �
ME�1. ��
g f a MIN ¥
Agin
� ■��� _■�'� .
APPENDIX G
City of Temecula Map of Eligible CDBG Areas
MuMf. Nm SPd"91 Rd
505.D0 432.44
C
4 2
432.47
M
505.00 0 432.44
A
ro0
496.00 N,..�T�
L.a 432.18 432.18
2 496.00
0 3 '
432.17 as
' pN
a
432.16 432.67
2 801.E 41 32.11
`s
4kRtl 432.1 432.67
a�� 1 2
ope 512.00 432.16 432.66 432.6
432.62
2 2 �
32.20 432.20 43211 .62
i .Iq w 2
432.64 432.46
R.nenoc�ae�v 432 22
3 32.6 2
432.64
2 512.00 �,��° g
432.65
1 �
�+,�
432.65
h• 432.22
�i 2
3 e
432.57
C.PnR°� -1
432.56
2 �� 2
3 32.5
432. 2
T go `
32.57 4 .54 A3
4 432.48 1
1 1
432.54 432.50
„�+J p
432.52
432.54
1 41
2 -/432.52
432.54
R�' 2
City of Temecula
NORTH
om osmu.
CDBG - LOW AND MODERATE INCOME AREA MAP
2010 CENSUS AREAS (As Of JUIy 1. 2014)
LEGEND.
• • CITY BOUNDARY
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME BLOCK GROUPS
CENSUSTRACK
BLOCK GROUP
APPENDIX H
Public Transportation Maps
Proximity to Major Employers
scale. ��
AFA
IlJ/i6r: Hr„r ol 5ov�lr ~l
TRANSIT LINES AND EMPLOYERS
Murtigte Hot Spd nga Rd
F d
�
Ns�utae
I
b
to"
0 x 50 �� c
� y
.......... M$
se
i
m �o
TRANSPORTATION -RIVERSIDE TRANSIT
Temecula-Murrieta-W ildomar
County Center W Pechanga
ResonfTemecula Valley Hospllal
0 Promenade Mall-Harveston
m Hemet -Winchester -Temecula
Murrieta-Temecula-Oceanside Transit Center
Temecula-Murrieta-Sun City -Perris
Moreno Vallay-Riverside Downtown Terminal
Temecula-Murriela-Lake Elsinore
Corona Transit Center
fDD San Jacinto-Hemet-Temecula-Escondidc
EMPLOYERS
1 Temecula Valley Unified School district
2 Abbott Laboratories
3 Pmfessional Hospital Supply
4 Inlemational Rectifier
5 Ccstco Wholesale Corporation
6 Macy's
7 EMD Millipore
8 Norm Reeves Auto Group
9 Milgard Manufacturing
10 Southwest Traders
Appendix H 1
Public Transportation Maps
Proximity to Public Facilities
rs P scale: o�
the Hear of Sou!he rn CeGf
wine ��un, rr
TRANSIT LINES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Murtl u., w..r c.... __- ...
ykPky I
pa �
iO
PUBLIC FACILITIES
t Bahia Vsla Park
2 Butterfield Stage Park
J
3 Calle Aragon Park
e_
1 4 Community Recreation Center
J
5 Crowne Hill Park
6 Hanreston Community Park
7 Hal Stan Lake Park
...J
a John Magee Park
9 Kent Huntergardl Park
10 Loma Linda Park
11 Long Canyon Creek Park
12 Margarita Community Pal
13 Meadows Park
14 Nakayama Park
15 Nicolas Road Park
16 Old Town Parking Garage
17 Pahlo Apls Park
18 Pala Community Park
19 Pall del Sal Park
20 Paseo Gallante Park
21 Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park
22 P b R'Id P It
TRANSPORTATION-RIVERSIDE TRANSIT
au a ge ar
23 Redhawk Community Park
Tementi cula-Mueta-Wiidomar
24 Riverton Park
25 Ronald Reagan Sports Park
0 County Center to Pechanga
26 Rotary Park
ResorifTemecula Valley Hospital
27 Sam Hicks Monument Park
Promenade Mall-Harveslon
29 Serena Hills Park
29 Stephen Linen Jr. Park
Q Hemet -Winchester -Temecula
30 Sunset Park
31 Temecula Creek Trail Park
Murrieta-Temecula-Oceanside Transit Center
32 Temecula Duck Pond
33 Temeku Hills Park
Q Temecula-Murrieta-Sun City -Perris
34 Temecula Skate Pars
Moreno Valley -Riverside Downtown Terminal
35 City Hall
Temecula-Murrieta-Lake Elsinore
36 Vail Ranch Park
37 Veteran's Park
Corona Transit Center
38 Voorburg Park
fi San Jacinto-Hemel-Temecula-Escondidc
39 Winchester Creak Park
Appendix H 2
Public Transportation Maps
Proximity to Publicly Assisted Housing
MIMMI Hot SPH ng5 Rd
TRANSPORTATION -RIVERSIDE TRANSIT
-.
Temecula-Murrieta-Wildomar
County Center to Pechanga
ResorifTemecula Valley Hospital
w
Promenade Mall-Harveslon
IQ
Hemet -Winchester -Temecula
��-
�
Murrieta-Temecula-Oceanside Transit Center
Temecula-Marrieta-Sun City -Perris
Moreno Valley -Riverside Downtown Terminal
the Haen of soutll
v✓ins ^�uncrr
(V
Temecula-Murrieta-Lake Elsinore
Corona Transit Center
TRANSIT LINES AND HOUSING PROJECTS
fiD
San Jacinto-Hemet-Temecula-Escondidc
- HOUSING PROJECTS
RDAFUNDED
1 Rancho Wesl
2 Mission Village
3 Rancho Creek
4 Riverbank
5 Camaron Historical Building (Dalton 11)
6 Palomar Building (Dalton III(
7 Temecula Reflections
8 Warehouse at Creekside
9 Madera Vista
10 Podola Terrace
11 Front Street Plaza
NON-ROA FUNDED
12 Oak Tree Apartments
13 Rancho Calirornia Apartments
14 Creekside Apartments
Appendix H
APPENDIX I
List of Public Service Agencies Served
by the CDBG Program and General Fund
2015-2016
Public Service Program
Amount
Source
Funded
All From the Heart - Wheels For Warriors
$ 5,000
General Fund
Assistance League of Temecula Valley (ALTV) - Building and $ 5,000
General Fund
Grounds Improvements and Maintenance
Assistance League of Temecula Valley (ALTV) — Operation $ 7,892
CDBG Funds
School Bell Program
Birth Choice of Temecula — Pregnancy resource materials/services $ 5,000
General Fund
— Update material
Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County — Before and After $ 7,892
CDBG Funds
School Care for Kids Program
California VFW Motorcycle Club Empire — Food boxes for
$ 1,500
General Fund
veterans /families in Temecula —Food boxes and emergency funds Community Mission of Hope — Inclement Weather Shelter
$ 7,892
CDBG Funds
Program
Fair Housing Council of Riverside County — Fair Housing $ 10,000
CDBG Funds
Program
GRID Alternatives — Solar Affordable Housing Program
$ 12,000
CDBG Funds
God's Fan Club dba Project T.O.U.C.H. — Shared and Homeless $ 500
General Fund
Prevention Program — basic necessities for homeless
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley - A Brush with Kindness - offset home improvement costs to seniors, disabled and low- $ 1,500
General Fund
income homeowners
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley — Critical Home Maintenance $ 26,223
CDBG Funds
and Repair Program
Hospice of the Valleys - Senior Assistance Program -end of life $ 5,000
General Fund
services
Just Add One — Job Training Program
$ 7,892
CDBG Funds
Michelle's Place Breast Cancer Resource Center - Breast Health $ 5,000
General Fund
Assistance
Our Nicholas Foundation - Peace of Mind (safety kits for autistic $ 5,000
General Fund
families)
Thessalonika Family Services dba Rancho Damacitas —
Independent Living Program for 14-18 year olds on Rancho $ 1,000
General Fund
Damacitas Campus
Appendix I
Rose Again Foundation — The Kids of Summer
$ 2,000
General Fund
Rotary Club of Temecula Foundation - Holiday Food Baskets $ 5,000
General Fund
SAFE Alternatives for Everyone — SAFE Domestic Violence $ 7,892
CDBG Funds
Services
Senior Citizens Service Center of the Temecula Rancho Area, Inc. $ 5,000
General Fund
- Food Distribution
Senior Citizens Service Center — Emergency Food Assistance $ 7,892
CDBG Funds
Program
Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) — $ 7,892
CDBG Funds
SMURF Assistance Program
Special Olympics Temecula Valley — Training Programs
$ 2,500
General Fund
T.E.A.M. Evangelical Assistance Ministries — Food Distribution $ 5,000
General Fund
T.E.A.M. Evangelical Assistance Ministries — Temecula
$ 7,892
CDBG Funds
Community Food Pantry
VNW Circle of Care — Emergency Food/Temporary Shelter
$ 7,892
CDBG Funds
Assistance to Needy People
Waves Project Inc. — Waves Project
$ 5,000
General Fund
Total
$ 178,251
Appendix I
APPENDIX J
List of RDA Funded Affordable Housing Projects
INCOME LEVEL UNITS
RDA -FUNDED
Ext.
Very
Total
DEVELOPMENTS
Address
Property Owner
Low
low
Low
Mod.
Assisted
Units
Rancho West
42200 Main
Coachella Valley
2 43
105
0 150
Street
Housing Coalition
Mission Village
2849St. jol
Affirmed Housing
0 16
60 0
76 Rancho Creek
28464 Felix
Ken Follis
0 8
22 0
30 Valdez
Riverbank (Senior)
28500 Pujol
Corporation for
0 13
53 0
66 St.
Better Housing
Cameron Historical
41925 Fifth
Cameron
0 0
0 24
24 Building (Dalton II)
St.
Properties
Palomar Building (Dalton
41955 Fifth
Palomar Heritage
0 0
12 10
22 111)
St.
Building
Temecula Reflections
31111 Black
Jamboree Housing
0 11
0 0
11 (Temecula Lane)
Maple Dr.
Warehouse at Creekside
42081 3rd St.
Warehouse at
0 0
20 12
32 Creekside
Madera Vista
44155
(Summerhouse)
Margarita
BRIDGE Housing
38 70
0 2
110
Road
Portola Terrace
28673 Pujol
AMCAL
0 5
39 0
44 Street
28693 Old
Front Street Plaza
Front Street Plaza
Town Front
partners
0 0
8 15
23 Street
Cottages of Old Town
Varies
Owner Occupied
0 0
0 17
17 Habitat for Humanity
Varies
Owner Occupied
0 5
2 0
7 Total
40 171
321
80 612
Note: Projects funded prior to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency.
Appendix J
APPENDIX K
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
Home Loan Applications by Type of Financing
Type of Loan
Number of
Loans
Share of
Loans
Number
approved
Approval
Rate
Home Purchase
Conventional
1,702
50.0%
1,301
76.4%
FHA - Insured
692
20.3%
542
78.3%
VA - Guaranteed
1,005
29.5%
795
79.1%
FSA/RHS Guarantee
5 0.1%
4 80.0%
Total
3,404
100.0%
2,642
77.6%
Refinancing
Conventional
3,013
67.4%
1,827
60.6%
FHA - Insured
296
6.6%
180
60.8%
VA - Guaranteed
1,161
26.0%
754
64.9%
FSA/RHS Guarantee
3 0.1%
0 0.0%
Total
4,473
100.0%
2,761
61.7%
Source: 2014 HMDA data
Appendix K
Home Loan Approval Rates by Race / Ethnicity
Type of Loan by Race /
Ethnicity
Loan
Applications
Loans
Approved
Percent
Approved
Home Purchase
Hispanic
413
319
77.2%
White
1,807
1,398
77.4%
Asian
199
137
68.8%
African American
126
94 74.6%
All others
45 34
75.6%
Decline or N/A
814
660
81.1%
Total
3,404
2,642
77.6%
Home Refinance
Hispanic
564
320
56.7%
White
2,970
1,600
53.9%
Asian
294
174
59.2%
African American
181
100
55.2%
All others
112
49 43.8%
Decline or N/A
704
518
73.5%
Total
4,649
2,761
59.4%
Source: 2014 HMDA data
Appendix K
APPENDIX L
Fair Housing Council Data
FHIP Testing Results 2010-2015
Testing
Testing Type of
Referred to
Type of
Resolution
Basis
Issue
Results
Method
Date Testing
Whom
Resolution
rge 'Cl;
Race
Visit
Terms and
5/15/2615 Lending
Support
HUD
Forward
HUD
National Origin
Visit
Terms and
5/8/2015 Lending
Support
Pending
Re -test
Pending
National Origin
Visit
Terms and
5/8/2615 Lending
Inconclusive
Pending
Re -test
Pending
Race
Visit
Terms and
3/5/2615 Lending
Inconclusive
Pending
Re -test
Pending
Mental
Phone
Terms and
2/25/2015 Rental
Support
Pending
Re -test
Pending
Mental
Phone
Terms and
2/25/2615 Rental
Inconclusive
Pending
Re -test
Pending
National Origin
Visit
Terms and
6/3/2614 Lending
Does not support
Not
Closed
Pending
Conditions
allegations
Referred
Race
Visit
Terms and
4/29/2614 Lending
Inconclusive
Not
Closed
Pending
Conditions
Referred
National Origin
Visit
Discriminatory
2/25/2614 Rental
Does not support
Not
Closed
Pending
Advertisement
allegations
Referred
Mental
Visit
Discriminatory
1/21/2614 Rental
Support
Pending
Pending
Pending
Disability
Advertisement
allegations
Mental
Visit
Discriminatory
7/31/2613 Rental
Support
Pending
Re -test
HUD
Disability
Advertisement
allegations
Race
Visit
Terms and
2/22/2613 Rental
Support
Pending
Re -test
Pending
National Origin
Visit
Terms and
2�11f 2613 Rental
Does not support
Not
Closed
Fair
Conditions
allegations
Referred
Housing
National Origin
Visit
Refuse Reasonable
2/11/2013 Rental
Does not support
Not
Closed
Fair
Accommodation
allegations
Referred
Housing
National Origin
Visit
Terms and
2/11/2013 Rental
Does not support
Not
Closed
Fair
Conditions
allegations
Referred
Housing
Appendix L 1
Appendix M
Survey Results
Stakeholders Survey Responses
1. Do you believe that housing discrimination exists in Temecula? Response: 78% did not know or did not believe that it existed.
Comments:
• I have no experience in this, but I do believe that it is difficult for landlords to provide at - risk families the same consideration as more stable and less risky families. • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Disabled individuals with legitimate Service Dogs have difficulty with HOAs and landlords.
• Only against low to moderate income people - and it's not so much discrimination but just a lack of available workforce housing to accommodate them. I deal with hundreds or Realtors on a daily basis and I do not believe there is any other form of discrimination going on here.
• People with disabilities do not have access to live in this community because of lack of group homes. They have to go to riverside or San Bernardino • I don't know if there is discrimination but I do see there is limited accessibility for those with disabilities or limited incomes.
• But I do think we have a homeless problem that is not being addressed as well as it could be.
• Possibly... some residents in HOAs do not want group home, residential facilities, housing programs in their communities.
• I personally have not witnessed housing discrimination nor been given examples. • In a sense yes, due to the lack of affordable housing
2. Are you aware of discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing? Response: 83% did not know or did not believe that there was discrimination.
Comments:
Towards low-income families
In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • CST has written letters on several occasions to landlords and HOAs in support of clients that were harassed or denied housing based on "No Pet Policies". Service Dogs are NOT pets and ADA law protecting Service Dogs supersede these rules.
Appendix M
• Again, we are seeing an increase in the number of homeless families seeking assistance because rents are climbing faster than their income so they can no longer maintain their existing household. Similarly, while not discriminatory in the usual sense of the word, lower income folks simply cannot obtain a home as a result of increased prices and artificially low conforming loan limits imposed by FHA, Fannie & Freddie. It's not discrimination, they're simply being priced out of the housing market. • Study should be ongoing for this issue. There are pockets of aging housing stock that is now or will soon be in need of considerable rehab. Home insurance costs and/or rehab construction costs are rising and may be out of the financial reach for younger home buyers or elderly home owners.
3. If you believe that there is housing discrimination, who do you believe is discriminating?
Response: 33% thought that it would be or is landlords/property managers, 11% real estate agents; 11 % mortgage lenders; 4% mortgage insurers and 18% others.
Fifty-six percent did not know.
Comments:
• City in general, Temecula is not affordable for low-income families • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Other: neighbors will complain to Landlord/Management about violation of the "No Pet Policy". Ignorance and abuse of ADA laws are the basic problem. • Nobody, to my knowledge, is discriminating in Temecula - it's strictly an economic reality.
Some simply can't afford to purchase or even rent a home in our market. That's in a market where the median price last month was $460,000. It's even worse in coastal areas and San Francisco, with a median price of $1.6 million. I truly do not believe there is any form of racial or other discrimination present in our market other than economic factors. • Other: Home Owners Associations
• It's a multi -tiered cycle which may encompass industry practices and financial institutions.
However, my personal feeling is local housing discrimination is mostly a nimby issue.
4. On what basis, is discrimination occurring?
Response: 29% thought that discrimination was occurring against the disabled.
Between 10-15% thought that discrimination was occurring based on race, color, national origin and familial status. 3% thought that it might be based on religion. 54% did not know.
Comments:
• Other: Lack of Income (although not covered under fair housing law) Appendix M 2
• In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Other: Income. No other. If you can't afford a house, you can't buy one. • Opening up group homes, residential facilities or housing programs within communities is generally undesirable to the general population regardless of race, age, gender, religion, etc... Some people have misconceptions of the negatives of having affordable housing programs in their community
• Extremely limited housing options for low or no income residents • Discrimination can be for any perceived bias, the most often cited is a lowering of property value.
5. What factors have or might become contributing factors for housing discrimination in the future in the City?
Response:
Community opposition
40.6%
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
53.1%
Lack of community revitalization strategies
25.0%
Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
15.6%
Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
28 1 %
Lack of regional cooperation
12.5%
Land use and zoning laws
18.8%
Lending discrimination
12.5%
Location and type of affordable housing
65.6%
Occupancy codes and restrictions
15.60Y(
Private discrimination
37.5%
Comments:
• Most of City of Temecula's affordable housing is located in the Old Town area. • In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Ignorance of ADA law and abuse/fraud are the primary reasons our clients face housing (and other) problems.
• NIMBY opposition to multi -family and mixed -use housing; residents displaced due to housing crisis and have not recovered; end of community redevelopment funds which had provided land and assistance for Habitat and other low-income opportunities in the past; land use and zoning laws combined with regulatory hurdles and compliance fees slowing private development.
• Universal design must be kept in mind for senior housing. By not offering this type of housing, it does show discrimination against the senior population.
Appendix M
• People are concerned about having low income developments near their home. Engaging with reputable developers could enhance neighborhoods and lessen community concerns.
6. How frequently do you believe discrimination is occurring? Resbonse:
Rampant within the housing industry
5.4%
Often in some aspects of the housing market
13.5%
Occasionally
10.8%
Never
8.1 %
Don't know
64.9%
Comments:
• In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County. • Again in our local market I do not believe we are experiencing discrimination in the standard sense of lenders red -lining, agents steering or other tactics. It's simply an issue of availability and affordability.
• Housing industry has not kept up with the changes families are facing. Generations of families are now living in substandard housing. Careful thought needs to go into creating housing for seniors, singles, families, and generations of families needing to live together.
• No knowledge of direct discrimination but indirectly through a lack of low and no income housing opportunities
• The outcome of this survey and the resulting report should shed more precise information on this question.
Appendix M 4
Resident Survey Results
1. When asked what are the three greatest housing needs, this was the response:
Answer Options
Accessibility Improvements (ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab bars, handrails, visual door bells and smoke/carbon monoxide alarms) Owner -Occupied Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation
Rental Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation
Homeownership Purchase Assistance
Affordable Rental Housing
Housing for Disabled
Senior Housing
Housing for Large Families (5+ people)
Fair Housing Services
Lead -Based Paint Testing and Abatement
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Housing for Former Foster Youth
Housing for Family Unification
No need in this category
Response Percent
15.2%
30.3%
3.0%
36.4%
21.2%
9.1%
27.3%
12.1%
12.1%
3.0%
21.2%
6.1%
3.0%
15.2%
2. When asked what are the three greatest community service needs, this was the response:
Answer Options Response Percent
Senior Activities
18.2%
Youth Activities
27.3%
Child Care Services
9.1%
Transportation Services
30.3%
Anti -Crime Programs
33.3%
Health Services
18.2%
Mental Health Services
24.2%
Legal Services
3.0%
No need in this category
24.2%
Appendix M 5
3. When asked what are the three greatest special needs, this was the response:
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Centers/Services for Disabled
21.2%
Accessibility Improvements
6.1%
Domestic Violence Services
9.1%
Substance Abuse Services
21.2%
Homeless Shelters/Services
45.5%
HIV/AIDS Centers & Services
9.1%
Neglected/Abused Children Center and Services
12.1%
Family Self -Sufficiency Services
21.2%
No need in this category
30.3%
4. When asked whether discrimination exists in their neighborhood, this was the response?
• 82% no
• 18% yes
5. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining your housing?
• 87% no
• 13% yes
6. Who do you believe discriminated against you and why? Half (50%) said that they had been discriminated against by landlords/property managers and the rest by realtors and lenders.
Note: They cited discrimination because of race, national origin, gender, religion and disability. Almost all did not report it because they did not know where to go or that it was too much trouble.
Appendix M 6
Appendix N
Eagle Soar Program
s i r
i°L 4
-1 f -1 M
:1 ig
_ -cc
Appendix O
Public Hearing Notices
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above -
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
THE don �! TCALI FORN IAN
Aa GGAfNA
A newspaper of general circulation, published
DAILY in the City of Temecula, California, 92590,
County of Riverside, Three Lake Judicial District,
and which newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of Riverside, State of California,
under the date of February 26, 1991, Case Number
209105; that the notice, cf which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof, on the Following dates, to wit:
May 27T", 2016
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the Foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at TEMECULA, California, this
27'm of May, 2016
Cathy Viars
(Legal Advertising
The CailforWan
rVl f�horl oFMle Sir degv Lux4vn-iYrbFme
Proof of Publication of
Noslid GT Publli Haaeln6 a[Yd
R,nn+.1 Fo, con.l.i„nity F.riEdF.ATlaa1
THE [FTT OF TEMECLPLR
4 7000 main Steal, T9mp,7lrl, CA 92590
In t[[9NJ.[e'•illi ale rcJn21 myltr.nm. [!x Gry � Srmeale wehes 10 iM1lGfal FeslaeMs rna aT mrr,nlep pa Ne> d Ihr Idrvwny [wa w4k[ nea�iM1gr; 11 a-- PPLY[[P ImL�%the dlan{IlianPrlAKpuan Pbn (vrnwMn9[4 purl[ In the tlM IGPrem and I.plemmla lm Pr Xlr f115'i SnlMunty li ,mkn rl 91Pd4-ML{#Mk6rtnararmand era Ihr UXern
4xm[1ralhn PI[n.
PI krGehrt pPNk-0M-e M50.,In,dau Ip—nrM sMWh.Anga--.LlPl Ihr{liy_
A rums[ HEARING h—b— -h d,l,d h F t" INTYCOUNCL
io aana:d,r Yh.r m�lprl Fl da4011Aad bW —
RFrp11cr1N: Coe [tmttun
Ln[alion: €i15•rJr
148pof■L' "L'e pu GP[ iV+Imrnban me blrn {,.aR Pani[p nI of Phry ed P'il Ci Mra P.Lli+pll:wi phM1 aIa +#Glee pAk NlrratYi -011 sn! tll4Cbpmem of a ha n W Gna aNrlP. eat hrlhr {XY.
Emrly—alnaR! Elnrlpt lmn,M11" EIITIr[,meral PlAq Mt WEPAI W i a CTR' MSka1(rF MCok-1. _i-n imdw sfn dw LWnwnl or yla,s and w mg- end ras lip[ (rcm theta r"E Errmimr• 4AI Parlily All JOE04I&'� C[QY GIIEdira[ ianka]M0I r}li) br Mf Moaoa ulPob"Nl Pro"( reeking PMskrl rd-Q wN WntM.ed..MPr NEPAP (EQa as Ile f•riom,rc:Il�diod,ne dew".
"pr A My i�eml.41MA earn s m dlr Clry {arwtll hebrr Px aPatlllP v '^oF appmr and hr Yeild Inappon A u =L'ion La b iPPlp.il M ILt CilialM1 Pimtlp5ll]n Piaat Iho su Nh�dn}Pvsomm ayM slbmn urtle,tormm IbIfu€IlySand beFme the hesl+q W rt411hXG)M1FnI d d
drd he 1nnl:bmn. Tiles Ara AoI I or 1490 MItl 1nr APn.RmHrfnPe15[lt to W.
dr Far fin) M1[I, antl the NdilLxeual fian C4n Ad in ill +sue li b Sn la7u?r mk 4-0,K n dM1 XIfY.ible @ema, Ins Clry wm —1, na—ble eHwls m _r rnadior your re91lru.TIT.Mphe.Jlmbilly-1eMIO aYb#IdIM1l.5li01 m alGins or pertrlpale In n ""'L1} N mlelkq, n[Fadky nuMny old[ nr seM[tl. pk—[mean r .. Lily LI., a[ I— ys hwa psX Iu ., +M[Gny al 051 ir04F{4i. AF Sees 10—d mr P101. i_ _'C"§hl 1G InGphi5A.11y nualm. Futr06F17F10 tir)[1d[
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
County of Riverside
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above -
entitled matter, I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
THE CALIFORN'IAN
Jilt Edt?vn of ♦ bE Sffn CfeW Unwn-FI7bufxe
A newspaper of general circulation, published
DAILY in the City of Temecula, California, 92590,
County of Riverside, Three Lake ]udidal Gistrict,
and which newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of Riverside, State of California,
under the date of February 26, 1991, Case Number
209105; that the notice, of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof, an the following dates, to wit:
August 27r"r 2016
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and Correct.
Dated at TEMECULA, California, this
29T" of August 2016
Cathy Uiars
Legal Advertising
The Californian
An &90, eN Me Se- Diego W uw,-rf &h v
Proof of Publication of
H9n[q 4F P11x4p[ldEARIxGANG REYIEW
OW2-1 1 11TC9F56Fr n4PUFkA
a>'�-aVs7I,� UPAlExr OPElklq _'51NG
So1T-ie21 {ONSOLl41{TEP TLA[�/PRa[Eg5
A QOylcf IS HEgEfy G11ry1{j .Ix !ay n In• hu by Pep urd tl. tlrXl An.yrmmellp,Fhykrg {tlf lR lnawmNrrR+yerly ll.S Ae P.lu.n�or Nw._d•tl Vltun R4elPn•a..,. {x VVy'mr Iw. u W rt of Ilr Qann duirw Plprru Ihll rill �uMlhrn In 1 IIK n•iur.°un.d lAr3Vrl-[oPl fi.r Y..i gPrarlNleV•w. r,r pukka llm oflM1R xgpr�Fs h°rhYs knn: f36dq µwe ina•x P nJ tr 1he NN aoanlul the pMIA rc.ka ]I•me.. ,sr, 311fi, Pmld bgNs Salvdq,, l,iquu L, t91fiaW ium.Iray� hewn C"y ks NEIa®.!F411r11o1 SIkRhImr mr AaRSfx,..1 hr v.w�netlwIr» c�7 [alav3 kr fptl„Ion hYa.,ipmle
We Slll[n6er]T. iO�fi
Du lhau p.n.
kourwh: by [au.:lCnlmkerz
pYPV Wm511re[. Ieme�VAfrI Vl59V
Ide lanx Wlg.a SwsN�hlol..l PNknmlNre wrlo- revealwdlr wrrrimlm P.nNSHili.rPPralimnla mmA..nrsn Ac da+.lw'W i rtsHean antl mIw nMrflrG xwcloGRau.lp
IM Mx tiPRro X+sr plrr.l.q tloiarinrl lRlllvx`nylics hn�l°P a[d dhl.ae'aPhk 41.M WnkL—d + 1 14 d, eew hwermrr° drpr�lalll l aM a51)GIiYgW N IW wnnla,r dw IP Idr.fP, -15 liwrnnngg nsrn tt91[S wnnike fPtl PS31' d�p'gwn�mxe hPlNlq nePgs. flu alN6a usp.11ee n uq.,l w aVhrwnq•, ref x.'•!„• SnIw1.LcRrl Plte xhkx wlulRs� nlr[d mb�,I nprpwgall 'd tits foi �irnp eamuun.l'Vrl llen[el.tlhf ew�IfLaswOdlGs1971",.l twur3 w:ll dw�wl.. pwxr m�°r.e.n,u e, rw r�W �+qs Aom xw, meoy cnn�glueell ode ud•�w xlnrg *e tlrraupmrnl vqe
rueuc wnwleAlr
[uursdmetlrahAMnrlHakn In ay.II1.H.fy Pdtll�rMry weu� Il R9MFlpry�brtW-0�g. �aV Mr.rr..cxk esnmunNy C.r.l�rr...re o�lprl'Eawr[
a10VA halo yrcn, i! neap, [w 4ZSS4
RanaM .I, RobEnP 7«nrK.lti ; � rmyd qir am.11un Mlle $.b�INs A,1 [qlq d IhU rnq IfkMA ilrMfivrof k101 T]PA. IAe V�hxaknlnP 1[4 a.p[he A„hrrnu' 4 Sq x(W Iln .�A rapnl; I!lvu rggya! p+u�[ tlnuarpnly Ina MRasWP rurm.r, Ix nNe aNdnntk eAPh p Miu WlMr� M M1rrgqN[�l. Ilw q fCW xe a AXgpllq•Ir1RN •*no.rrAMrAtn N iMeMa umev ol4gareali6iuws<v �hr wA.e.p�195�IrPs1� Pk.trroxgrnh. my Mna »r.nd Oerx wkluPA+1%. ]orfi ur
loox
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or Interested in the above-
enbtled matter. I am the prindpal derk of the
printer of
THE CALIFORNIAN
.4n Edr� of The San orego unrwrrr bane
A newspaper of general circulation, published
DAILY In the City of Temecula, California, 92590,
County of Riverside, Three Lake Judicial District,
and which newspaper has been adjudicated a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Cou rt of the County of Riverside, State of California, under the date of February 26, 1991, Case Number
209105; that the notice, of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof, on the following dates, to wit:
August 27rK, 2016
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated atTEMECULA, California, this
297K of August, 2016
�" Y- ,
Cathy Viars
Legal Advertising
The Californian
Ain E&= wme sm okgo av -rename
Proof of Publication of
URA iLYni� NrARuili'eLiio vi�in c Ur>Ao QN oeil y
u. W_8- VIVYAKGA JUSiA ].'I— S
_• PS-5o DLL PLAN C—LIn 002017q-I
poa �ivly ve LR pRLscran�srns reon[n[n ae��k�n•��i oqqw• x • `re Iw ^vu.:,��r'• v:riwMrv.aad p aa.. mel..yI--. At
mannnxr��mrnru����n�un.,raan[r, cw,enurw lxw. wr
10i1•�asKI In[!MI n�• uln4n[ra mi, YIeSeI ,Nb/ d �Maa whin Nppfrrl.Iaemrc.�a[r Arxe•rnnadospe•r HeW rpalem,sml�kr �e
y.o In�e[f NH.,M i�eyJuaIr N.a•ro rerc `h• J•
10 ern e. ra .I b.e.r•, u:"r.�,m;i . a: or=
�c:ea+r"�-•+a•Z.,rrr ��Ic... r•.I�a�:.amr, ;w.,I., . Oe awno IPA a,: `.wrm �wlhl ar wn.[ica[nr [w.[roaPiA�am rod..
O[I.Mrrlw ,rnk.Ml,r.Yn axon•-IeelrL[na oo p.•.nxra
' m, e�er� e.•a, v. Ihewnirar wm.•I.,.n w euirta refers..,.srn~.. ���. m.�ic rw hl p�xa.. .u„uo. a L,nn rNlr,•rn e d. �:o�rLd ar .onR,Ir, wx Iw,«e da IIr, .«n�pl�^•I.ei�•.r rnasioa:, 5e,n ply,.m,.1a.p.. e,,,o ro ,veo y �c[a do m;•,v..l".:`noi
='—hgMgfoerle bdio Nrrenrirk pva do �vuu,•w w<an vuuee
rtq`iR .[.a�adr elp.(r1 leWea [ afp[ea � x�irednl IrIa esalll n I onwm del S.Yp.i.i�wilepel prrWb==1alwnare=esd�I.ji��I�aif9sil�CaMln I` r oar. r.rramn. nn.Iqul rwl.dde.ay.w w,e.nnrxe
Appendix P
Summary of Public Comments at
Public Hearings and Community Meetings
Public Hearing
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
No comments.
Workshop
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4 p.m.
Infrastructure:
• Lack of sidewalks makes it difficult for those with disabilities • Some streets are not lit well
• Old Town Sidewalks are a problem
Community Facilities:
• Need more community centers and aquatic centers. Community centers are book solid a year in advance.
• There is a lack of meeting space for groups.
• Need more space for active adults
• There is only one dedicated senior center
• Margarita corridor is the neediest section of town for community facilities where there is a concentration of apartments
• Eagle Soar Playground great improvement to the Margarita area but over impacted. Serves at -risk youth and the disabled.
Transportation:
• Lack of transportation for the seniors and the disabled. • Limited Riverside Transportation Agency's bus services • Funding cuts at senior center caused the City to not provide the same level of services. • Mental health issues at the high schools and older young adults not addressed adequately Special Needs:
• There are incredible needs of the homeless
• Mental health needs are the centerpiece of a lot of problems (homeless, persons with disabilities)
• Need more veterans outreach as well as for active military. • There is a lot of veteran support in Temecula
• Caregivers need mental health services as well
• Services tend to end at age 21 — no mental services, no availability of jobs, limited work programs
• Lack of housing solutions for those with special needs. Stress on family as well. • Similar patterns with the caregivers of the elderly.
• Support groups for caregivers needed.
• Support groups need to be professional and meet regularly
• Disabled population is going to increase
• Central location needed to get information on special needs and homelessness Affordable Housing:
• Shortage of affordable senior housing and affordable assisted living facilities • Those with disabilities are going to be on fixed incomes. Can't live independently. • Housing is the foundation of the community.
Business and Jobs:
• Need more parking in Old Town
• Job training needed
Neighborhood Needs:
• Some non-HOA residential areas are in desperate need of code enforcement Education:
• Believes that schools with higher percentage of lower socio-economic classes have lower resources
• Temecula Valley Unified School District struggles with special needs education • Special needs are only partially funded by the federal government. • The City has not done well with post -secondary transition such as meaningful employment and college.
Fair Housing:
• Those with special needs and have English as a second language are at a greater disadvantage
• Sellers are now only talking to buyers with all -cash offers. Not discriminatory but could lead to that.
Workshop
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Infrastructure:
• Lack of sidewalks in Old Town (Pujol and First)
• Other sidewalks are deteriorating
• Considerable challenges where infrastructure is old
Community Facilities:
• Need places for teenagers to gather
• Partner with the schools to open up libraries to public • At -risk youth is a critical issue that the City faces • Need health care centers for kids and those addicted to drugs • Need health care centers for baby boomers
Community Services
• Need more senior services
• Increased mental health need for young people
• Partner more with the County for resources
• Anti -crime programs
• Need to clean up creek beds
Affordable Housing:
• Lack of homeless shelter
• Like to see more non-residential historic preservation • The average age in the community is increasing and maintenance of their homes is a need • Some seniors cannot afford to maintain their homes
• CDBG funds can be used to connect volunteer groups
• Need for affordable housing is going to continue to increase • Homeowners assistance programs need for repairs
• Down payment assistance programs needed.
Business and Jobs
• Temecula needs business start-up assistance and small business loans • Need to match skills and jobs
Workshop
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
Infrastructure:
• Via Montezuma bridge is need to connect Diaz and Jefferson Community facilities:
• Teen Center needed
• Mobile library
• Childcare needed
Community services:
• Need more local emergent mental health facilities
• Mental health is a problem among high school teens. Services only available in Riverside and San Diego - over an hour away
• More neighborhood watch programs
• Greater partnering among service organizations
• Police and fire need mental health services
• Anti -crime programs in lower income areas to reduce the effect of AB 109 and be more proactive than reactive.
Special needs:
• Accessible improvements is the biggest challenge for residents with special needs • Need more handicapped accessible doors
Affordable housing:
• Need more homeless shelters in this region
• More solutions needed on how to house the homeless
• Consider efficiency units, tiny houses
• Workforce housing is limited.
• More programs and housing needed for single parents
Neighborhood Services
• Temecula Elementary is a Title 1 School
Fair Housing:
• FHA limits for Temecula are too low.
• Need more housing for disabled adults transitioning out of the school district — no housing available to them.
• Families are flocking to Temecula because of their effective special needs services • Currently there are about 1,000 individual with special needs that are between childhood and adulthood.
Public Hearing
Tuesday, September 29, 2016
No comments.
Appendix Q
City Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 16-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT OF
FAIR HOUSING, WITH THE ADDITION OF PUBLIC
COMMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT
THE ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING TO THE US
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. The City of Temecula has participated directly within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement jurisdiction for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds since July 1, 2012; B. The City of Temecula has prepared all documents, notices, and forms required by HUD for participation in the CDBG Program by entitlement jurisdictions; C. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-42 on June 14, 2011 initiating the City to obtain entitlement community status from HUD, and authorized the Director of Community Development to prepare and return for City Council approval all documents required for the designation as an Entitlement City, including the Five -Year Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, the Citizen Participation Plan, and the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing;
D. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-78 on November 1, 2011, approving the Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five -Year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, Annual Performance Reports, and any substantial amendments deemed necessary for direct administration of federal CDBG funds; E. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-30 on April 10, 2012, approving the 2012-16 Five -Year Consolidated Plan, that contains a housing community development needs assessment, a survey of available resources, and a five-year strategy for achieving housing and community development goals, as well as the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing which outlines the City of Temecula's strategy to affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity and remove impediments to fair housing choice;
F. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-43 on June 28, 2016, approving the updated Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five -Year Consolidated Resos 16-57
Plan, Assessment of Fair Housing, Annual Action Plans, Annual Performance Reports, and any substantial amendments deemed necessary for direct administration of federal CDBG funds;
G. The proposed Assessment of Fair Housing was available for comment between August 27, 2016 and September 27, 2016;
H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares:
A. Pursuant to Title 24, Housing and Urban Development, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Part 5 General HUD Program Requirements; Waivers, Section
91.105 Assessment of Fair Housing (24 CFR Part 5, Section 5.154), each entitlement jurisdiction must develop an affirmatively furthering fair housing strategy and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing to HUD;
B. On June 28, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing introducing the Assessment of Fair Housing process and to obtain the views of the community on affirmatively furthering fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs.
C. On September 27, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Assessment of Fair Housing and considered all of the comments made on the proposed Assessment of Fair Housing.
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The proposed action on the Annual Action Plan (2016-2017) is exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and specifically 24 CFR 58.34(a)(1) because the Citizen Participation Plan is a resource identification study and the development of plans and strategies for the prioritization and funding of proposed programs through CDBG and the proposed action involves the feasibility and planning studies to determine prioritization and CDBG funding to begin the development of certain projects. The potential projects discussed in the proposed actions that might involve physical activity will be reviewed under NEPA or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the development of those projects. The proposed action is also exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 and 15378(b)(4).
Section 4. The City Council hereby approves the Assessment of Fair Housing and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute and the City Cleric to attest to the execution of these documents.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Resos 16-57 2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27t" day of September, 2016.
Michael S. Naggar, Mayor
ATTE T:
Rani y Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 16-57
This page intentionally left blank.
2021-01 Addendum to the
City of Temecula General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
January 2022
Prepared for:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92589
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
180 E. Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1-0
1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 1-0
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................................ 1-0
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 ADDENDUM FINDING............................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION ANDSETTING................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS/ADDITIONS........................................................................ 3-3
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 AESTHETICS............................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES....................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................. 4-11
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.6 ENERGY.................................................................................................................................................. 4-20
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................................................. 4-22
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS..................................................................................................................... 4-26
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................................................................................ 4-28
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................................................................... 4-32
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................................................................... 4-37
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................ 4-41
4.13 NOISE.....................................................................................................................................................4-42
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................................................................ 4-45
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES....................................................................................................................................... 4-47
4.16 RECREATION............................................................................................................................................ 4-50
4.17 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................................... 4-52
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................... 4-57
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................................. 4-59
4.20 WILDFIRE................................................................................................................................................ 4-63
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................................... 4-66
Tables and Figures
TABLE 1: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN EXPECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY......................................................... 3-3 TABLE 2: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RHNA...................................................................................................................3-5 TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF RHNA CANDIDATE SITES REALISTIC CAPACITY AND RHNA.......................................................... 3-7 FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP......................................................................................................................... 3-11 FIGURE 2: GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA.................................................................................................................. 3-12
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
The Temecula Housing Element was first adopted in 1993 and was updated in 2003 as part of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Adoption of the Housing Element and a Negative Declaration preceded adoption of the Comprehensive General Plan Update. On April 12, 2005, the City Council adopted the Temecula General Plan, referencing the Housing Element, and certified the Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041).
The Housing Element was updated again in 2010 for the 41" cycle. Most recently, in 2013, the City Council adopted the City of Temecula General Plan Housing Element (2014-2021 Housing Element) and Negative Declaration for the 5t" Cycle. Additionally, since adoption of the General Plan Update, the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment, Altair Specific Plan, and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan have been adopted. Environmental review was completed for each of these specific projects; refer to Section 1.4, Incorporation by Reference.
The City now proposes the current 2021-2029 Housing Element for the 61" cycle and Public Safety Element Update (referenced herein as "Modified Project" or "Project"). The Modified Project involves minor changes/additions to the Housing Element in compliance with State Housing Element Law Government Code Sections 65580-65590.1 and minor changes/additions to the Public Safety Element to meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302(g).
Following preliminary review of the proposed Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update, the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed Project is subject to CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000-21177). This Addendum to the FEIR has been prepared by the City to demonstrate that the proposed Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update do not meet the conditions warranting preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, as the potential environmental impacts associated with the Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, as described further.
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified in the FEIR and those that would be associated with the proposed Project. Pursuant to provisions of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the Project. As part of its decision -making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the proposed Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan FEIR.
Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the Project created new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in the FEIR used to approve the Temecula General Plan. To use an Addendum as the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, the City must find that major revisions to the FEIR are not necessary and that none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of additional CEQA documentation has occurred.
Introduction 1-0
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, prior to approving further discretionary action and depending upon the situation, the lead agency must generally either: (1) prepare a Subsequent EIR; (2) prepare a Supplemental EIR; (3) prepare a Subsequent Negative Declaration; (4) prepare an Addendum to the EIR or Negative Declaration; or (5) prepare no further documentation (see State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162 - 15164). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states:
When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains when an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate.
Per this section, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified EIR, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR (as described above) have occurred, then the lead agency is directed to prepare an Addendum to the certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164). Further, the Addendum should include a "brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162," and that "explanation must be supported by substantial evidence" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 Introduction 1-1
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
[e]). The Addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 [c]).
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Temecula General Plan
The City Council comprehensively adopted the Update to the City of Temecula General Plan on April 12, 2005. The General Plan is a comprehensive legal document that identifies a community vision for the future and establishes a framework to guide future decisions regarding development, resource management, public safety, public services, and the overall quality of the community.
The General Plan contains goals, policies, and programs to guide land use and development, and is organized to include the following mandatory "elements" in accordance with California Government Code Section 65302: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation, Public Safety, and Noise. In addition to the required elements, the Temecula General Plan includes the following optional elements: Growth Management/Public Facilities, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development. The 6t" Cycle Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update are the subject of this Addendum.
Temecula General Plan Final EIR
The City Council certified the General Plan FEIR on April 12, 2005. The General Plan FEIR provides a program -level analysis of the general environmental impacts resulting from the development of land uses and implementation of policies established within the Temecula General Plan update.
The General Plan FEIR's analysis is based on the change between development under existing conditions (at the time of document preparation) and those projected for likely development in accordance with the General Plan by theoretical expected development capacity. Based on General Plan FEIR Table 3-1, the General Plan FEIR assumed and analyzed the environmental impacts resulting from the following': approximately 25,005 additional dwelling units and approximately
36.2 million additional square feet of non-residential land uses. The General Plan FEIR concluded that full implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Section 5.3 Air Quality (Violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant; and Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations) and Section 5.13, Transportation (Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F [peak hour ICU greater than 0.90] and Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F [peak hour V/C greater than
1.00]), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR
The Harveston General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) - Planning Area 12 (Project) proposed changing the existing General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial (SC) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) and a SPA that would include a residential overlay to the Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12. The remaining Harveston ' These numbers represent the expected net change by land use category from existing 2002 (baseline) to expected development capacity, as calculated in the Temecula General Plan.
Introduction 1-2
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Specific Plan Area was developed. The residential overlay designation would overlay the existing SC designation for the site within the existing Specific Plan. The GPA from SC to SPI would maintain the Specific Plan's consistency with the existing General Plan Land Use Element but would provide flexibility for the Specific Plan, including the proposed residential overlay, to function as the General Plan land use designation. The residential overlay would allow the future development of a maximum of 1,000 residential units. The Harveston Specific Plan Amendment FEIR assumed 1,000 small lot detached single family homes would be developed. The Harveston Specific Plan Amendment FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality Impact 3.1-2: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, which was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Altair Specific Plan Final EIR
The Altair Specific Plan is primarily a residential mixed -use development with supporting civic uses and open space. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups and household sizes. Altair proposed a type of form -based code using building types clustered in villages as the organizing principle. These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood "villages" which, in turn, are overlaid with one of three proposed residential zones (Residential Zone [SP-R], Mixed-Use/Residential [SP-MR], or Mixed -Use [SP-M]), in combination with an active open space zone (SP-AO). The non-residential uses include an elementary school and a civic use area ("South Parcel") which are covered by the Educational (SP-E) zone and Institutional (SP-I) zone, respectively, and natural open space (SP-NO). Based on the proposed residential zone and associated densities and intensities by village area, Altair Specific Plan would allow for up to 1,750 dwelling units.
The Altair Specific Plan FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violation; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-1:
Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels; Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-2: Construction activities in the project area may expose their respective onsite and/or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance; Traffic and Transportation Impact TRA-7: Development of the Specific Plan would cause the level of service at the existing I-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #25) to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours; and Traffic and Transportation Impact TRA-11: Development of the Specific Plan would cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) level of service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour, and would cause the average delay to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance, which were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Introduction 1-3
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final EIR
The Uptown Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts - Uptown Center District (UC); Upton Hotel/Tourism District (UHT); Uptown Sports/Transit District (US); Uptown Arts District (UA); Creekside Village District (CV); and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR-OS) and two overlay zones - Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zones (CV -CO) and Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO). East district defines the allowable building types, frontage types, land uses, building placement, parking placement, and building heights within the specific plan area. The Uptown Specific Plan would allow for 3,726 dwelling units and 1.9 million square feet of commercial uses for a total of 5.5 million square feet of total development potential on approximately 560 acres. The new development is assumed to replace all existing development (approximately 3.8 million square feet) in the specific plan area.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality - Violation of Air Quality Standards (Construction and Operation) and Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality; Cultural Resources - Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) and Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic); and Noise and Vibration (Construction), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Temecula Municipal Code
The City of Temecula Municipal Code consists of the City's regulatory and penal ordinances, and certain administrative ordinances. The City of Temecula Development Code (Development Code) is codified into Title 17, Zoning. The purpose of the Development Code is to: implement the goals, and policies and programs of the Temecula General Plan, and to manage future growth and change in accordance with that plan; promote health, safety, welfare and general prosperity with the aim of preserving a wholesome, serviceable and attractive community in accordance with the General Plan for the City; attain the physical, social and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning; encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of buildings, structures and land; limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter designed, erected or altered; regulate and determine the setbacks and other open spaces; regulate and limit the density of population; and facilitate adequate provisions for community facilities, such as transportation, water, sewage, and parks.
Introduction 1-4
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
2 ADDENDUM FINDING
Pursuant to CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the FEIR for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element and Public Safety Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required.
On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted the Addendum in connection with the adoption of the draft Housing Element and Public Safety Element. After adoption of the draft Housing Element, the City received comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD's comments.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD's comments, does not create any new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on the Addendum. It was further determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Addendum Finding 2-1
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.1 BACKGROUND
3.1.1 HOUSING ELEMENTS AND REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION The Housing Element is a State -mandated element of the General Plan. The City of Temecula must update its Housing Element every eight years. Updates to the Housing Element must meet the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65580-65589. The purposes of the Housing Element are to identify the community's housing needs; to state the community's goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs; and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.
State law requires that the City accommodate its "fair share" of regional housing needs, which are assigned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for all jurisdictions in the SCAG region. SCAG established the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) to assign each city and the unincorporated county in the region its fair share of the regional housing need based on a number of factors established by State law (Government Code Section 65584) and regional housing burdens and needs. The objectives of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are:
• Increase housing supply and the mix of housing types; • Promote infill, equity, and environment;
• Ensure jobs housing balance and fit;
• Promote regional income equity; and
• Affirmatively further fair housing.
Beyond the income -based housing needs established by the RHNA, the Housing Element must also address special needs groups; such as seniors, persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities, single female parents, large families, farm workers, and homeless persons.
3.1.2 SAFETY ELEMENTS
The Safety Element is a State -mandated element of the General Plan. Updates to the Safety Element will meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302(g) (Section 65302) as updated by Senate Bills 1241, 379, 99, and 1035 and will incorporate policies from the Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (pursuant to SB 379). The Public Safety Element addresses potential and existing hazards in the City, which are outlined in the following categories:
Seismically Induced Hazards; Slope Instability; Geologic Hazards; Flood Hazards; Fire Hazards; Evacuation Routes; Criminal Activities; Hazardous Materials; Nuclear Hazards; and Climate Adaptation. Updates to the Public Safety Element are largely focused on the topics of Fire Hazards, Evacuation Routes, and Climate Adaption.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Nestled in Temecula Valley in southwestern Riverside County, just north of the San Diego County line, sits the City of Temecula, which was incorporated in 1989. Having grown from a modest initial Description of the Proposed Project 3-1
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
incorporated population of 27,099, the City of Temecula is currently home to approximately 112,000 residents in an area of roughly 30 square miles. The City is bounded by the City of Murrieta to the north, unincorporated areas within the County of Riverside to the east, west, and south, and unincorporated areas within the County of San Diego to the south. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 15, a north/south freeway that connects the Inland Empire region of Riverside and San Bernardino counties to San Diego County, and State Route 79, a primarily east/west highway (although it runs concurrent with I-15 through the City of Temecula) that links Interstate 10 with Interstate 15, and links Temecula to communities further east in unincorporated Riverside and San Diego counties.
The General Plan identifies the most prevalent land uses in Temecula as residential, consisting of approximately 51 percent of the Planning Area; Public/Institutional and Open Space consisting of approximately 37 percent of the Planning Area; Commercial and Office consisting of approximately 6 percent of the Planning Area; and Industrial Park approximately 5% of the Planning Area. The Land Use Element identifies the distribution, location, and intensity of all land use types throughout the City. To fully reflect the range of physical attributes that are important for Temecula's success, the Element also contains goals and policies to guide community form and design, and the provision of community facilities and urban services. The Land Use Element is primarily implemented by the City's Zoning Ordinance, which specifies districts and performance standards for various types of land uses described in the General Plan. Each General Plan land use designation has a corresponding zone or zones that implement and regulate the intent of the land use. The zone districts specify the permitted uses for each category and applicable development standards.
The General Plan identifies the expected development capacity associated with the distribution of planned land uses specified in the Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-3 of the Land Use Element).
Table 1, Temecula General Plan Expected Residential Development Capacity, summarizes the expected development capacity for residential uses within Temecula based on reasonable density assumptions for the City and SOI.
Description of the Proposed Project 3-2
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Table 1: Temecula General Plan Expected Residential Development Capacity Residential Land Use Designation Density Range Existing Hillside 0 — 0.1 du/ac
Expected
Acreage Development
(Dwelling
1,023
Capacity
Units)
102
Rural 0.1 — 0.2 du/ac
2,528
506
Very Low 0.2 — 0.4 du/ac
2,962
1,021
Low 0.5 — 2.9 du/ac
593
889
Low Medium 3.0 — 6.9 du/ac
7,593
34,504
Medium 7.0 — 12.9 du/ac
759
7,591
High 13.0 — 20.0 du/ac
432
7,143
Vineyards/Agriculture 0 — 0.2 du/ac
2,219
222
Mixed Use Overlay Varies
210
1,760
Total
53,7371
Source: City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element, Table LU-3.
1. City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Table LU-3 lists the total expected development capacity (in dwelling units) at 53,737 units. However, the total based on the sum of the capacity of each land use designation is actually 53,738 units.
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
The project analyzed in this Addendum involves the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update. The proposed amendment would not modify the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the General Plan Land Use Element. No changes to the maximum development potential approved for the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and subsequent General Plan Amendments would occur with the proposed amendment.
3.3.1 HOUSING ELEMENT
In compliance with State Housing Element Law requirements, the City of Temecula has prepared the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project) to:
• Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs to preserve, improve and develop housing
• Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community
• Identify adequate sites that are zoned and available within the 8-year housing cycle to meet the City's fair share of regional housing needs at all income levels • Affirmatively further fair housing
• Be certified (approved) by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as complying with State law
• Be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan Description of the Proposed Project 3-3
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Housing Element Organization
The proposed Housing Element Update covers the October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029 planning period and is comprised of the following components:
Part 1: Housing Plan
Part 1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City's "Housing Plan", which includes the goals, policies, and programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. The City's overall strategy for addressing its housing needs has been defined according to the six goals:
1. Providing adequate housing sites;
2. Assisting in development of affordable and special needs housing;
3. Removing constraints to housing production;
4. Conserving and improving existing housing stock;
5. Affirmatively furthering fair housing; and
6. Promoting public participation.
The Housing Plan includes only minor modifications to the City's current Housing Element Goals and Policies. The Housing Plan includes a number of new programs to address State housing law including future required updates to the Temecula Municipal Code, new programs to support affirmatively furthering fair housing, and tracking and reporting requirements for Housing Sites.
Part 2: Background Report
Part 2 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the "Background Report" which identifies the nature and extent of Temecula's housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. The Background Report comprehensively updates the background context and conditions identified in the City's current Housing Element.
Appendix A: Housing Sites Inventory
The Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the City's regional housing need by income level. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires that the Housing Sites Inventory be prepared using a State -approved format, included as Appendix A. No land use changes are proposed to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); future residential development is expected to occur in those areas already identified for residential uses including land within approved Specific Plans. All sites identified in the City's Housing Sites Inventory are currently identified for new development consistent with the potential development capacities identified in Appendix A.
Appendix B: Glossary
The Housing Element includes, as Appendix B, a glossary of key terms and phrases.
Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary
As part of the Housing Element Update the process, the City hosted numerous opportunities for the community and key stakeholders to provide feedback on existing housing conditions, housing Description of the Proposed Project 3-4
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
priorities, priority areas for new residential growth, and topics related to fair housing. Public engagement was facilitated in both English and Spanish to further engage the Temecula community. Public participation played an important role in the refinement of the City's housing goals and policies and in the development of new housing programs, as included in Part 1: Housing Plan. The public's input also helped to validate and expand upon the contextual information included in Part 2: Background Report. The City's efforts to engage the community in a meaningful and comprehensive way are summarized in Appendix C.
Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing
In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides the foundation and context for the City's Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as included in Part 2 of the Housing Element.
Capacity to Meet Regional Housing Needs
As determined by SCAG, the City of Temecula's fair share allocation (RHNA) is 4,193 new housing units during this planning cycle. This includes: 1,359 units affordable to extremely/very low income households; 801 units affordable to low income households; 778 units affordable to moderate income households; and 1,255 units affordable to above moderate income households. State Income Limits which are used to determine affordability levels are set annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Progress Towards the RHNA
RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Jurisdictions may count toward the RHNA housing units that have been developed, are under construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30, 2021. Since this time, 27 housing units have been developed, are under construction, or have received their building permits in Temecula. Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but not yet built or under construction; 132 units, all affordable to lower -income households, have been approved/entitled and are expected to be developed within the planning period. With these units taken into account, has a remaining RHNA of 4,034 units (1,327 extremely low/very low income units, 702 low income units, 757 moderate income units, and 1,249 above -moderate income units.
Table 2: Progress Towards the RHNA
Extremely
Low
ModerateStatus
..TOTAL
RHNA Allocation
Low/Very Low
1,359
801
778
Moderate
1,255
4,193
Constructed, Under
0 0
21 6
27 Construction/Permi
is Issued (Since
6/30/2021
Units
32 99
0 0
132
Approved/Entitled
Remaining
1,327
702
757
1,249
4,034
Allocation
Source: City of Temecula, 2021, Southern California Association of Governments, 2021 Description of the Proposed Project 3-5
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Residential Sites Inventory to Accommodate Remaining RHNA The City has sufficient land appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout the community to accommodate its remaining RHNA (4,034 units) for the 2021-2029 planning period. The City of Temecula's 6th Cycle residential sites fall into four categories:
1) Accessory dwelling units. ADUs are allowed on any lot that is zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use, including lots that are zoned for such use within a SPA. In 2020 the City updated its ADU ordinance to encourage the production of ADUs throughout the community, and in 2020, 18 ADUs were approved. The City continues to promote ADUs as a way to expand the City's housing stock and anticipates production to continue at or above 2020 levels for the duration of the planning period.
The City has assumed production of ADUs at a rate of 18 units per year for the 8 year planning period, resulting in an assumed production of 144 ADUs from 2021-2029. 2) Residentially zoned vacant land exclusive of Specific Plan areas. As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel -by -parcel analysis of vacant residential sites for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data obtained from the City's geographic information system (GIS). The inventory of vacant residential land between
0.50 acres and 10 acres in size (exclusive of those in specific plan areas) in Temecula totals 643 acres. These vacant properties have the potential to yield 3,430 units, assuming each parcel is developed at 75% of its maximum capacity. All affordability levels are accommodated at vacant residential parcels outside of Specific Plan areas. 3) Vacant Residential Sites within Specific Plans. The City conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial photos and site visits to estimate the remaining residential development capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific plans. The City has 15 approved Specific Plan; nine have vacant land with residential development capacity remaining. Five of the nine Specific Plans with remaining residential capacity (Old Town, Wolf Creek, Harveston, Uptown, and Altair) allow for development at densities of at least 30 du/ac, which is appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size within approved Specific Plans in Temecula totals 784 acres. It should be noted that some of these sites are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels.
In Temecula, Specific Plan areas have historically developed to at least 95% of their total entitlement. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA, the City has assumed that Specific Plan areas will develop at 85% of their capacity. Given that Specific Plans inherently include programs to develop sites effectively and efficiently at the densities and intensities identified within the Plan, and given the City's history of successful Specific Plan development at levels consistent with nearly the maximum allowable development levels, this is a reasonable expectation for the City's remaining vacant land in Specific Plan areas. Based on this methodology, vacant residential sites in Specific Plans have the potential to yield 5,773 units.
Description of the Proposed Project 3-6
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Table 3: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA Extremely
Low
ModerateStatus
..TOTAL
Remaining 6th
Low
1,327
702
757
ModerateLow/Very
1,249
4,034
Cycle RHNA
ADLls
34 50
50 11
144
Vacant Residential
807
660
1,600
363
3,430
Land (exclusive of
SPAs
Vacant Residential
624
624
2,787
1,724
5,773
Land in Specific
Plans
Total
+137 (surplus)
+632 (surplus)
+3,680 (surplus)
+849 (surplus)
+5,313 (surplus)
Note: The realistic capacity analysis of vacant land outside of Specific Plan areas assumes that only 75°70 of the maximum capacity would be realized and for vacant land inside of Specific Plan areas assumes that only 85% of the maximum capacity would be realized. If the sites develop closer to their full capacity, which has been realized as part of past projects, the City's surplus of units at all income levels would be significantly higher.
Summary of Housing Element Modifications
As previously noted, State law requires that the Housing Element be reviewed and updated not less than every eight years, in order to remain relevant and useful, and reflect a community's changing housing needs. The proposed Housing Element Update involves minor changes/additions to the Housing Element and environmental conditions under which it would be implemented. The following summarizes the modifications to the Housing Element, as compared to the 2013-2021 Housing Element:
Goals, Policies, and Programs (Part 1: Housing Plan)
The City made minor modifications to the Goals and Policies included in the Housing Element to reflect the City's current housing needs and State mandates.
The Housing Plan revises existing goals and policies to better reflect state law regarding the provision of special needs housing, removing governmental and nongovernmental constraints, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Revised goals and policies include:
• Goal 2: Assist in Development of Affordable and Special Needs Housing • Goal 3: Remove Constraints to Housing Production
• Goal 4: Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock
• Goal 5: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
• Policy 1.2: Variety of Housing Options
• Policy 5.2: Support for Fair Housing Efforts
• Policy 5.5: Prohibition of Discrimination
• Policy 5.6: Equitable Spatial Distribution of Affordable Housing The Housing Plan includes new policy direction, consistent with state law, related to maintaining adequate capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the planning period, the reuse of sites identified in prior Housing Elements, and reducing impacts associated with nongovernmental constraints. New policies include:
Description of the Proposed Project 3-7
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• Policy 1.9: Maintain Adequate Capacity
• Policy 1.10: By -Right Approval for Qualified Sites Identified in Past Inventories • Policy 3.4: Monitor State Regulations
• Policy 3.5: Evaluate Non -Governmental Constraints
• Policy 5.8: Support Fair Housing Providers
• Policy 5.9: Reasonable Accommodation Requests
The Housing Plan includes numerous revisions to existing programs to better reflect the community's housing needs. Revised programs include:
• Program 1: Land Use Policy and Development Capacity
• Program 6: Density Bonus Ordinance
• Program 11: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency • Program 12: Development Fees
• Program 22: Equal Housing Opportunity
The Housing Plan includes new programs consistent with state law and the goals and policies included in the City's Housing Element. New programs include:
• Program 2: Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period • Program 3: Public Property Conversion to Housing Program • Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units
• Program 5: Accessory Dwelling Units
• Program 9: Special Needs Housing Construction
• Program 16: Zoning Code Amendments — Housing Constraints • Program 24: Economic Displacement Risk Analysis
All other Goals, Policies and Programs are reflective of the City's current Housing Element with limited or no modifications to reflect current conditions.
Background Information (Part 2: Background Report)
The Background Report of the Housing Element has been comprehensively updated to include current information. This section of the Housing Element includes: Introduction, Accomplishments Under 5th Cycle Housing Element, Housing Needs Assessment, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis, Constraints, Housing Resources, Other Requirements, and References.
Appendix A: Housings Sites Inventory
The City has updated its Housing Sites Inventory to demonstrate capacity to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA. The Housing Sites Inventory includes a list of sites appropriate to accommodate the RHNA at the appropriate densities and income levels and includes sites identified in the Current Housing Element and other sites designated for residential development consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plans. No land use changes are proposed as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Appendix B: Glossary
The City has updated the Glossary section of its Housing Element and included new terms and references as appropriate.
Description of the Proposed Project 3-8
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary
The public engagement program conducted as part of the Housing Element Update project is summarized in Appendix C.
Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing
In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides the foundation and context for the City's Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as included in Part 2 of the Housing Element.
3.3.2 SAFETY ELEMENT
In compliance with State Law, the City of Temecula has prepared an update to its Safety Element to further address fire hazards, emergency preparedness, and climate adaptation. Natural and human -caused events have the ability to impact productivity by causing substantial damage to life, property, and economic prosperity. The Safety Element addresses these potential issues with goals, policies, and actions to continue to serve and protect Temecula and its residents.
Safety Element Organization
The Safety Element includes an Introduction to the Element, the Element's goals and policies, and Implementation Programs.
Summary of Safety Element Modifications
Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic.
Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County's CAP are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background report available on the City's website and the results of the analysis, which found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies.
No goals, policies or programs from the current Safety Element were eliminated as part of this update. The following modifications or additions were made:
Description of the Proposed Project 3-9
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Natural Hazards
• Policy 1.8: Future development in SRAs or VHFHSZs
• Policy 1.9: Reduce risk of wildfire hazards
Emergency Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation
• Goal 4 (Modification): Effective response of emergency services • Policy 4.5 (Modification): Location of new essential facilities • Policy 4.7: Coordination with agencies on evacuation routes • Goal 5: Resilient sustainable community
• Policy 5.1: Climate resiliency and adaptation
• Policy 5.2: Monitor climate change -related effects
Implementation
• PS-1 Natural Hazards Risk Reduction (Modification)
• PS-8 Promote Fire Prevention (Modification)
• PS-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Modification)
Description of the Proposed Project 3-10
Figure 1
Regional Location Map
Legend
• — Temecula City Boundary
—• Sphere of Influence Boundary
Planning Area
Sources: Temecula GIs and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
City of
Sphere of
I
cos
5AN 6EImhROiN]
couralr
I
Mda
AM1LELES
a
�i•�•�flr8• •'
1 '`
_r [�'[
ppA�u.
•W:pSYOf
wErtRSGE CY]li�n
'
trt
T
�
Sa
mO —1—
y
arov mrrn .jS.
CO4FR1'
Pechang
Entertainm
Center
c
Temecula
1 1
1 1
1 000 10,000
�l%Feet
4 �����
S ali Rd
3 Jean Nicholas Rd
County of
Riverside
Lan C/
Skinner
C
r tr•x frn a r nr o x r
2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Impact Report 3-2
Figure 2
General Plan Planning Area
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Legend
Temecula City Boundary
—. Sphere of Influence Boundary S City
Pin
Planning Area {
Source: Temecula and Riverside County GIs, 2001
I
County oV
Riverside
lake
slm�e,
Ir
of gpdngs Rd Buh Rd
�• N, oas d ...........
p
Center
N 0 5,000 10,000
WE Feet - ----
Miles
S 0 1 2
De K.I.Rd
2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The scope of the City's review of the proposed Project is limited by provisions set forth in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the proposed Project to the General Plan Project as set forth in the General Plan FEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the General Plan FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes proposed by the Project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact.
The section is patterned after the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and provides a summary of impacts associated with the proposed actions, as described in the General Plan FEIR, and includes an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update. This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan FEIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.
Environmental Analysis 4-1
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.1 AESTHETICS
Substantial Information
Changein Changein Showing
ImpactSubstantial
No Less Than No
AdditionalSignificant
Project Circumstance Greater
Requiring Significant
EIR Major EIR effects
Significant Impact/No
Impact/Requiring
than Less Than Information
Thresholds: Revisions Revisions Previous
EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
..
With an MND
Application
of
Except as proviged in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
X
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
X
accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
X
day or nighttime views in the area?
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• The natural features of the Temecula Planning Area provide a scenic setting for the community. The goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are intended to conserve open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. The Land Use Element contains Rural Preservation Areas to preserve the rural nature of specific areas, including viticulture within the Planning Area.
The Community Design Element preserves the natural and historical aspects of the community's rural character and viewsheds through goals and policies.
To preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private development projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of scenic resources, such as the hillsides, scenic roads, or significant open space areas. During the review of individual projects, the Community Development Department may require site redesign or place height limits on projects that have the potential to block views. New projects will also be reviewed to ensure that the proposed landscaping and tree planting will not obstruct views of significant natural resources. Implementation of the identified policies through this review process will ensure that impact will be less than significant on a project -by -project basis.
Environmental Analysis 4-2
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new housing units and commercial, industrial, and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. In addition, new development in previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas, particularly within the sphere of influence, has the potential to create new lighting impacts associated with the introduction of vehicle headlights and nighttime lighting. New structures could create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials.
Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact to surrounding uses could be significant. New development pursuant to the General Plan may increase the amount of light and glare within the Planning Area with a potential to influence light levels affecting the Palomar Observatory. The General Plan includes policies that continue the City's participation in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. Additionally, Mitigation Measure A-1 would ensure that new development projects comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance, reducing potential light and glare impacts to less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
There are no designated State scenic highways within the General Plan Planning Area (Planning Area); therefore, as concluded in the General Plan FEIR, impacts would be less than significant.
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the City.
However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to visual resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting aesthetic and visual resources. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to scenic vista resources and to reduce impacts associated with light and glare as a result of new development. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure A-1 requires new development projects to comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance to reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new aesthetic impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to aesthetics as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
A-1 The City will ensure that new development projects comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance when building plans are submitted for permits and when projects are field - inspected (General Plan Implementation Program OS-31).
Environmental Analysis 4-3
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Substantial
ImpactSubstantial
Information No Less Than No
Changein Changein
Showing AdditionalSignificant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
Greater Significant ImpactiNo
Impact/Requiring
Significant
EIR Major EIR
Thresholds: Revisions Revisions
effects than Less Than Information
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
,.. .
With an MND
Application
of
Would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
X
contract?
c. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
X
use?
d. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest
use?
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Future development within the Planning Area pursuant to the land use policies of the updated General Plan may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of State and Local Importance to non-agricultural use. Implementation of the General Plan would potentially result in conversion of four acres of areas currently identified as Vineyard/Agriculture (0.01 percent of the land currently in agricultural use) to non-agricultural use. Mitigation Measure AG-1 would preserve agricultural lands through land use controls and preservation contracts for prime agriculture land, reducing potential impacts to less than significant.
• Implementation of the Temecula General Plan would not result in significant impacts related to conflict with agricultural zoning and there are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded no impacts would result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses. Further, the Environmental Analysis 4-4
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to agricultural resources.
Subsequent to adoption of the General Plan FEIR, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines resulted in the addition of forestry resources as a topical area to be addressed within CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. There are no forest lands located within the General Plan study area. Additionally, the General Plan area is not designated or zoned as forest land. No impacts related to this environmental topic were anticipated as a result of implementation of the General Plan, and no mitigation measures were required.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new agricultural or forestry resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to agriculture and forestry resources as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
AG-1 The City will preserve agricultural lands by:
• Developing effective zoning regulations or other land use mechanisms that control the expansion of intensive non-agricultural development onto productive or potentially productive agricultural lands.
• Recognizing existing agriculture preserve contracts and promoting additional preservation contracts for prime agriculture land.
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-28)
Environmental Analysis 4-5
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.3 AIR QUALITY
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• Construction -related air quality impacts will occur periodically throughout implementation of the General Plan as individual development projects are constructed. While individual development projects will be required to employ construction approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, tuning of equipment and limiting truck traffic to non -peak hours), on a cumulative basis over the next 20 years, the General Plan FEIR concluded pollutant emissions associated with construction activity will be significant, and mitigation is required.
• Development consistent with proposed General Plan land use policies will generate additional emissions from both stationary sources and vehicle trips. For all pollutant categories except PMio, long-term pollutant emissions in year 2025 are projected to decrease relative to 2002. Levels of PMio have exceeded State standards regularly in the past and are expected to continue exceeding these standards in the future. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined long-term air quality impacts resulting from adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan will be significant, and mitigation measures are required.
• Intersections within the Planning Area projected to experience the worst level of service (LOS) conditions, in combination with proximity to sensitive receptors were selected for CO hot spot analysis. The analysis shows that while all study intersections will experience some level of CO concentration, ranging from 0.1 ppm to 1.5 ppm during the 1-hour period, no intersections are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for 1-hour standard. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will not result in a significant impact with regard to CO hot spots.
Environmental Analysis 4-6
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• The Air Quality Element of the General Plan addresses compliance with the current Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Quality Element is designed to ensure City land use decisions work to implement and comply with federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to air quality. The General Plan FEIR determined no conflict with the regional air quality plan will result, and no adverse impact will occur. • Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the General Plan will be predominantly residential and commercial uses consisting of retail stores, offices and business parks. Each new development will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's guidelines regarding odor control. Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure that impact will be less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce impacts to air quality as a result of new development and would be required to implement General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures to reduce potential impacts to air quality due to construction -related emissions and operational activities by reviewing future development proposals for potential regional and local air quality impacts per CEQA and, if identified, require mitigation to reduce the impact to a level less than significant, where feasible; continue to update the Building Code and to enforce the City Trip Reduction Ordinance; partner with private industry to incorporate high - efficiency design and renewable energy features in commercial, business park, and industrial developments; and implement the AQMP. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-6 also ensures sensitive receptors are located away from air pollution sources and requires buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources reduce potential impacts to air quality.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new air quality impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to air quality as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 The City will support regional transit initiatives and promote development of high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los Angeles; actively participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the region; and attend meetings with the County of Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and other agencies as required to support these objectives and fulfill Temecula's requirements and obligations under the AQMP and Sub- Regional Air Quality Implementation Program (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-1).
Environmental Analysis 4-7
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
AQ-2 The City will continue to involve the general public, environmental groups, the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and implementation of air quality programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with the City Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-2).
AQ-3 The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element, including development of mixed -use projects where designated and feasible (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-3).
AQ-4 The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and promote development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-4).
AQ-5 The City will continue to implement a site development permit process and use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed development projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply with the following measures to minimize short-term, construction -related PMio and NOX emissions, and to minimize off -site impacts:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway.
• Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
• Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. • Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. • Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site.
• Wash or sweep away access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU-4 and AQ-5).
AQ-6 The City will ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources through the use of Environmental Analysis 4-8
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
landscaping, open space, and other separation techniques (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-6).
AQ-7 The City will incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and development standards that promote a pedestrian -scale environment, encourage use of mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-7).
AQ-8 The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and work -at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-8).
AQ-9 The City will require employee rideshare and transit incentives for large employers, consistent with the requirements of the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, and continue to encourage voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-9).
AQ-10 The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course of the event, and encourage special event operators to advertise and offer discount parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on -site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-10).
AQ-11 The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan recommended standards for the Western Riverside County sub -region, and enforce requirements and options within the Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-11).
AQ-12 The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles and consider the adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities, and mixed -use developments (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-12).
AQ-13 The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative to single -occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails and bikeways specified in the Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update the Master Plan as needed to meet resident needs and City objectives (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-13).
AQ-14 The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City, and to prioritize development of such facilities in corridors served by more than one mode of planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or high-speed rail) (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-14).
AQ-15 The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in residential, commercial, light industrial and mixed -use development projects. Examples may include (but are not limited to) the following.
Environmental Analysis 4-9
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil fueled consumption for heating and cooling.
• Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and specific high -efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-15).
AQ-16 The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on -street parking, improving signal timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other transportation systems management measures (General Plan Implementation Program C-3).
AQ-17 The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities, and encourage preferred parking for ride -sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18).
AQ-18 The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to orient trucks to truck routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to reduce congestion and diesel emissions (General Plan Implementation Program C-19).
Environmental Analysis 4-10
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Substantial
ImpactSubstantial
Information No Less Than No
„Additional Significant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
Greater Significant ImpactiNo
Impact/Requiring
Significant
Thresholds:
EIR Major EIR
Revisions Revisions
effects than Less Than Information
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
,.. .
With an MND
Application
of
Would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a.
Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
X
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
X
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c.
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
X
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d.
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
X
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e.
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
X
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f.
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Development pursuant to implementation of the General Plan will result in adverse significant impacts if such development results in the modification or removal of regional sensitive habitats within the Planning Area, including: Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub; Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond; Coast Live Oak Woodland, and; Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat.
Environmental Analysis 4-11
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be significant if the habitat is determined to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support federally or State listed, endangered or threatened species. The General Plan FEIR includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. • The Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly, as determined by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Critical habitat is primarily located in the northern portion of the Planning Area in French Valley where low -medium residential development is proposed.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will result in significant impacts to designated critical habitat. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.
• The Planning Area encompasses four Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas and core linkages. Portions of MSHCP conservation areas will incur permanent, indirect impacts from development -associated increases in the amount of fragmented habitat, artificial nighttime illumination, and human intrusion into natural habitats. In addition, impacts to chaparral will be significant if the habitat is located within a MSHCP conservation, core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley or Temecula Valley). The General Plan provides for development in these areas; at a Plan level, impact may be significant and mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant.
• Development associated with implementation of the General Plan will result in permanent indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the Planning Area where development encroaches into habitat or directly affects specific species. Impacts to federally and State -listed, rare, endangered and threatened species will be significant and adverse. Mitigation measures are required to reduce adverse impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts to lower sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined that the proposed future development will substantially reduce the species' population stability or conflict with the MSCHP conditions of coverage. Mitigation measures are required to provide further environmental review of individual future development projects.
Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
• All new development will comply with City policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation policies. The updated General Plan provides policies and implementation programs that fully support adopted habitat conservation plans. The General Plan FEIR concluded no impact will result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to biological resources and General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-11 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. More specifically, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 contain provisions to conserve and Environmental Analysis 4-12
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
protect sensitive and unique habitat, and require biological assessment in sensitive and regulated habitat areas; Mitigation Measure B-6 promotes regional cooperation on conservation, watershed management, and water resource management planning efforts; Mitigation Measure B-7 requires developers to retain coast live oak woodland and to postpone construction activities until the end of the fledgling season if active raptor nests are found; Mitigation Measures B-8, B-9, and B-10 requires developers to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to biological resources consistent with the MSHCP; and Mitigation Measure B-11 requires work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce impacts to biological resources and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered, or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting biological resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new biological resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to biological resources as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
B-1 The City shall require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSCHP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 9).
B-2 The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP (General Plan Implementation Program OS-10).
B-3 The City shall require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats (General Plan Implementation Program OS-11).
B-4 The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement Environmental Analysis 4-13
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
or gift; dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan Implementation Program OS-12).
B-5 The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors (General Plan Implementation Program OS-13).
B-6 The City shall continue to participate in multi -species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts (General Plan Implementation Program OS-14).
B-7 The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and shall require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines:
• Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone (e.g., encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line of an oak tree • Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root zone • Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will be avoided • Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone • Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root zone for an extended period of time will be avoided
• Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation and siltation control
• Dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to pose a health or safety hazard
• Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation
• Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees and woodland (General Plan Implementation Program OS-32).
B-8 The City will require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on -site preservation, off - site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33).
B-9 The City shall require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible.
Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves Environmental Analysis 4-14
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values (General Plan Implementation Program OS-34).
B-10 The City shall review development -associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines:
• Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. • Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.
• Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase.
• Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
• Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area.
• Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area.
Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
Environmental Analysis 4-15
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area (General Plan Implementation Program OS-35).
B-11 The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of MBTA covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36).
Environmental Analysis 4-16
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• Development pursuant to the General Plan will occur mostly on vacant sites within the Planning Area that do not contain existing structures, as well as within currently urbanized Mixed -Use Overlay Areas and Village Centers identified in the Land Use Element. The General Plan strives to preserve existing historic resources through the maintenance of a historic properties inventory, assistance to property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets, and acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when possible. The General Plan also calls for an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Nevertheless, Small urban infill development or redevelopment projects that are not subject to discretionary review by the City may also occur that could involve the removal or alteration of existing structures with historical value or significance elsewhere within City limits. The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of mitigation measures would minimize impacts to historic resources from adoption and implementation of the General Plan.
• Portions of the Planning Area contain known archaeological and paleontological resources Implementation of the General Plan is expected to result in new development in vacant areas where no structures currently exist, as well as infill development within focus areas located throughout the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes, as well as maintain Environmental Analysis 4-17
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. However, unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for specific projects. Mitigation measures are required, which would reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to historic and archeological resources and human remains. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires appropriate surveying and documentation of findings prior to ground -disturbing activities; effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources; monitoring by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist where the probable presence of resources is identified; implementation of measures for preservation or salvage of resources; and reporting to the City to avoid or minimize impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-2 calls on the City to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-3 calls on the City to continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area and General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-4 seeks to increase protections for historically significant sites. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR.
The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting cultural resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new cultural resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to cultural resources as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to:
a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval.
b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources.
Environmental Analysis 4-18
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
c. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified.
d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 26).
CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37).
CR-3 The City shall continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings, sites, roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their re -use, where appropriate. Preservation of other historic resources will also be considered (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27).
CR-4 The City will encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27).
Environmental Analysis 4-19
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.6 ENERGY
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been revised to include a discreet category for Energy impacts. The topic of energy is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Utilities and Service Systems section. • Southern California Edison (SCE) will construct additional electricity facilities as necessary to meet increased demand. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to assess project impacts during the environmental review process to ensure that SCE has sufficient electricity supplies to meet demand. Additionally, new developments will be required to comply with the current energy performance standards of the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24).
The Gas Company will work with the community as new developments are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as necessary to meet demand. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to assess project impacts during the environmental review process to ensure that the Gas Company has sufficient natural gas supplies to meet demand.
Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact of new development to energy services. The General Plan emphasizes the efficient development and use of modern technologies that can minimize energy demand and consumption. To ensure that future energy supplies are available to support additional development pursuant to the General Plan, mitigation measures are required. With implementation of mitigation, the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts on energy supplies will be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis 4-20
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to energy resources. In addition, the Housing Element includes Program 11: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency, which calls on the City to review the General Plan to determine if updates are needed to support and encourage energy efficiency in existing and new housing. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to energy resources. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures USS-6 through USS-9 ensure regional coordination with energy facilities, compliance with California State Energy Regulation requirements, and encourage the conservation of energy resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies addressing energy resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new energy resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to energy resources as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
USS-6 The City shall coordinate with Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, and other responsible companies to provide for the continued maintenance, development, and expansion of electricity and natural gas systems (General Plan Implementation Program GM-11).
USS-7 The City shall participate in the formation of regional siting plans and policies for energy facilities (General Plan Implementation Program OS-15).
USS-8 The City shall implement land use and building controls that require new development to comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements (General Plan Implementation Program OS-17).
USS-9 The City shall 1) enforce all current residential and commercial California Energy Commission energy conservation standards, 2) encourage public institutions to use high -efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and passive solar systems to reduce energy use; and 3) adopt project -related energy conservation guidelines that are incorporated within the development approval process to promote and require conservation strategies as development occurs (General Plan Implementation Program OS-18).
Environmental Analysis 4-21
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Substantial
ImpactSubstantial
Information No Less Than No
„Additional Significant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
Greater Significant ImpactiNo
Impact/Requiring
Significant
Thresholds:
EIR Major EIR
Revisions Revisions
effects than Less Than Information
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
,.. .
With an IVIND
Application
of
Would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a.
Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
X
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic -related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Landslides?
b.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the
X
loss of topsoil?
c.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
X
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d.
Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
X
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
e.
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
X
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
X
unique geologic feature?
Environmental Analysis 4-22
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• Temecula is located in a seismically active area. Projects developed pursuant to General Plan land use policies will expose additional people and structures to groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes. Any groundshaking that will occur will be similar throughout the City and is not considered an unusual or unique risk. Per City and State building codes, all new development will be required to incorporate appropriate design and construction measures to guard against groundshaking hazards. All projects and structures will be constructed in compliance with existing seismic safety regulations of the California Uniform Building Code, which requires the use of site -specific engineering and construction standards identified for each class of seismic hazard. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of ground surface rupture at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, and to monitor the potential for seismic events. The General Plan FEIR determined impacts will be less than significant with implementation of these policies and mitigation measures. • Seismic activity along regional faults create the potential for groundshaking impacts within the Planning Area. Portions of the Planning Area are underlain with weak, semi -consolidated bedrock and loose, unconsolidated and often saturated alluvial sediments. These soil types have the potential to liquefy or collapse in the event of a major groundshaking event. The fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially expansive. The weak soil, combined with steep slopes and saturated drainage channels, make areas of Temecula susceptible to landslides and mudflows. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts of liquefaction and landslides at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, to work with property owners to remediate hazardous buildings, and to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern. Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to liquefaction. According to the General Plan FEIR, compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued standard permit review and building practices.
During the construction phase of development projects consistent with General Plan policies, grading could temporarily expose soil surfaces to erosion through stormwater runoff and wind. Long-term soil loss could also occur from the increased peak flows and total runoff produced by paved or landscaped surfaces in the Planning Area. Uncontrolled flows could result in scouring or down -cutting of stream channels in sections where runoff velocities and volumes are high. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies, and programs that direct the City to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. Development activities may lead to increased erosion or loss of top soil and the General Plan FEIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level below significance.
Environmental Analysis 4-23
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils, including preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. The Public Safety Element Update would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR.
The proposed Public Safety Element would continue to provide policies specific to reducing potential risks associated with geologic hazards within the City. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures GS-1 and GS-2 ensure the City would continue to monitor fault information and categorize according to risk. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure GS-3 requires hillside development standards and the use of property soil management and grading techniques in accordance with geotechnical engineering standards. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies regarding geology and soils.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that considers natural and human -induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula's residents.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new impacts to geology and soils beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to geology and soils as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
GS-1 The City shall work with the County of Riverside and California Geological Survey to monitor and compile information on faults located within the Planning Area (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4).
GS-2 The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability Matrix for Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and County Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will categorize land uses according to risk and develop restrictions for these uses within the Zones (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4).
Environmental Analysis 4-24
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
GS-3 The City shall: 1) prepare and adopt hillside development standards for site development and drainage that work to control runoff for erosion control and water quality purposes; 2) implement a Hillside Grading Ordinance; 3) require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and other soil -related problems; and 4) implement a grading ordinance to ensure that grading associated with new development projects is conducted in accordance with appropriate geotechnical engineering standards (General Plan Implementation Programs OS-21, PS-5 and PS-16).
Environmental Analysis 4-25
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
General Plan FOR Conclusions
The Final EIR does not include a stand-alone Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis section.
Analysis of Modified Project
In March 2010, the Natural Resources Agency revised Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to include a checklist item relating to a project's impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In particular, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines now includes a checklist item that provides:
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City certified the General Plan Final EIR in 2005, several years before the above checklist item was added to the State CEQA Guidelines. California courts have held that where a new guideline or threshold is adopted after the certification of an EIR, an Addendum to the EIR need not include additional environmental analysis relating to that guideline or threshold where the potential environmental impact at issue in the new guideline or threshold was known or could have been known at the time the EIR was certified. (See Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 806 [even though State CEQA Guidelines were amended on March 18, 2010 to address greenhouse gas emissions, lead agency's 2010 Addendum to a 1997 EIR did not require analysis of greenhouse gas emissions because 'information about the potential environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions was known or could have been know at the time the 1997 EIR and the 2003 SEIR for the [project] were certified"]; Concerned Dublin Citizens Environmental Analysis 4-26
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1319-1320 ["the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information if the underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was certified"]; see also Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 532.). Because potential impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions were known or could have been known when the General Plan FEIR was certified in 2005, California law does not require these impacts to be analyzed in this Addendum.
It is noted that the Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce GHG emission impacts as a result of new development and construction -related emissions and operational activities. More specifically: the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance allows the City to receive revenues from vehicle registration fees and mandates the provision Trip Reduction Plans for certain employers; the General Plan Air Quality Element, Program AQ-12 promotes alternative fuel vehicles and Programs AQ-7, AQ-9, AQ-11, AQ-13, and AQ-14 promote multi -modal transportation and carpooling to reduce VMT; and the General Plan Circulation Element Programs C-12, C-15, C-16, and C-18 promote multi -modal transportation to reduce VMT.
These measures, in addition to compliance with the AQMP, would contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions. Further the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR.
Environmental Analysis 4-27
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Substantial
ImpactSubstantial
Information No Less Than No
„Additional Significant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
Greater Significant ImpactiNo
Impact/Requiring
Significant
Thresholds:
EIR Major EIR
Revisions Revisions
effects than Less Than Information
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
,.. .
With an MND
Application
of
Would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a.
Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
X
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b.
Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
X
one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d.
Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e.
For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
X
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f.
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
X
response plan or emergency evacuation
Ian?
g.
Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
X
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• In accordance with City, State, and federal requirements, any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at such locations until a "no further action" or similar determination is issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Environmental Analysis 4-28
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a level of safety to current standards, and the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant.
New development could result in the increased use, transport, and disposal volumes of hazardous materials within the Planning Area. However, the current regulatory environment provides a high level of protection from the hazardous materials manufactured within, transported to and stored in industrial and educational facilities within the Planning Area. The City will continue to enforce disclosure laws that require all users, producers and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, county, State and federal agencies in the event of a violation. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a less than significant impact.
• The General Plan FEIR did not identify any sites in Temecula included on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List) and impacts were determined to be less than significant.
• Temecula has adopted a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan 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 that 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 following potential hazards: earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flooding, dam failure, major fire/wildfire, nuclear incident, and transportation incident. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan includes the goal of "an effective response of emergency services following a disaster" (Goal 4, Public Safety Element).
Implementation of the General Plan policies, along with the continued implementation of the City's Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact with regard to emergency preparedness.
• The General Plan proposes new development within the French Valley Airport area of influence through creation of the Airport Overlay Ordinance. By establishing an overlay area, the City will be able to more strictly control development in the French Valley Airport area of influence. All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must be approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; must be consistent with the French Valley Airport County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; must ensure continued orderly use of the Airport; and must prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Compliance with the existing ALUCP, which is supported by numerous policies within the proposed General Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact.
• Undeveloped areas, such as in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Planning Area, have greater fire danger due to expansive areas of vegetation to fuel a fire.
Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how limited, will expose additional people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance requires every property owner to remove all hazardous or flammable vegetation on the property constituting a fire hazard that may endanger or damage neighboring property. In addition, the Temecula Fire Department and the County of Riverside Fire Department Environmental Analysis 4-29
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
sponsor outreach and awareness programs to educate residents about fire dangers and whey they can do to protect themselves and their homes. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought -resistant, fire -retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the City Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. The General Plan FEIR concluded that stringent application of these policies will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials. Additionally, the City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance and regional cooperation with the County of Riverside Fire Department reduce potential impacts due to wildland fires.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County's CAP are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background report available on the City's website and the results of the analysis, which found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies.
No goals, policies or programs from the current Public Safety Element were eliminated as part of this update. Modifications or additions related to natural hazards were made to Polices 1.8 and 1.9 to further support the goal to minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from Environmental Analysis 4-30
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
structural or wildland fire hazards. More specifically, Policy 1.8 supports programs and plans consistent with state law and related to new development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) and Policy 1.9 directs the City to reduce the risk of wildfire hazards by working with partners and other agencies on projects and programs like community fire breaks; Policy 4.5 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of the VHFHSZ; Policy 4.7 requires the City to coordinate with local, state and federal agency to evaluate and plan for emergency scenarios; Goal 5 states that the City will be a resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risk resulting from things like climate change will be minimized; Policy 5.1 requires coordination with outside agencies on climate resiliency and adaption strategies; and Policy 5.2 requires the City to monitor climate change - related effects and respond appropriately at the local level.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new hazards and hazardous materials impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of the proposed Project.
Environmental Analysis 4-31
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Substantial
ImpactSubstantial
Information No Less Than No
Changein Changein
Showing AdditionalSignificant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
Greater Significant ImpactiNo
Significant
Impact/Requiring
Thresholds:
EIR Major EIR
Revisions Revisions
effects than Less Than Information
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
,.. .
With an MND
Application
of
Would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a.
Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
X
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
b.
Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
X
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c.
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
• result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off -site;
• substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
X
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
• create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
• impede or redirect flood flows?
d.
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
X
project inundation?
e.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
X
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Environmental Analysis 4-32
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• All new development will be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region. The General Plan FEIR concluded water quality impacts will be less than significant.
• To avoid groundwater depletion, a conjunctive use program has been negotiated among Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and Western Municipal Water District to recharge the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and other groundwater basins serving the City. A conjunctive use program was developed to manage the basin, which refers to the planned use of groundwater in conjunction with surface and/or imported water to optimize total water resources and improve water supply reliability. This program allows imported water to be injected into the basin to ensure maintenance of a minimum level of groundwater within the basin and adequate supplies of available water without depleting the wells. The water master determines the safe annual yield based on annual audits of the groundwater basin, including how much water was withdrawn from and recharged to the aquifer. Water service providers must purchase imported water or utilize recycled water supplies based on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing agreements will ensure a less than significant impact on groundwater resources. To further ensure that groundwater supplies will not be impacted by future development pursuant to implementation of the General Plan, the General Plan FEIR recommends mitigation measures, that although not required, would have the City work with RCWD and EMWD to investigate additional measures to maintain supply and prevent groundwater depletion.
To maintain the maximum level of water available for use and to ensure the quality of its potable water supply, RCWD protects its groundwater sources from two primary sources of contamination: septic tanks and underground storage tanks. Mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan FEIR that require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells. • Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will affect drainage systems throughout the Planning Area. Increased runoff volumes and speeds may create nuisance flooding in areas lacking adequate drainage facilities. To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control District. New development projects are required to provide on -site drainage and to pay area drainage fees. Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system. Temecula is a member of the District's Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program and therefore requires all development project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur during construction. In addition, all development proposals must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project operation. Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant Environmental Analysis 4-33
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
impact on surface water. The General Plan FEIR also recommends mitigation measures, although not required, to maintain adequate stormwater drainage. • Each new development will be required to comply with stormwater regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, including NPDES regulations.
According to the General Plan FEIR, compliance with existing regulations on a project - by -project basis will reduce potential impact to a less than significant level. • Temecula contains several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These areas, corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause streams to overflow. Therefore, specific building standards apply to flood prone areas, including anchoring, building with flood resistant materials, providing adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structure to or above the base flood elevation.
The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood insurance available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. The City also reviews development plans for projects within the floodplain to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. No development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. The General Plan FEIR determined implementation of these measures will reduce the risk from flooding to a less than significant level.
Portions of Temecula are subject to flood inundation from dam failure. The City maintains a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan as part of the Multi -Hazard Functional Plan and coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. In addition, the General Plan Public Safety Element includes a policy to "provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas" (Policy 1.6, Public Safety Element). Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined impacts will be less than significant.
• The Planning Area is not subject to tsunamis due to its inland location and seiches have not historically occurred within the Planning Area; impacts are determined to be less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with hydrology and drainage, including preparation of site -specific analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, General Environmental Analysis 4-34
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW-7 outline strategies to increase water supply, decrease pollutants, and increase groundwater quality to reduce potential impacts.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new hydrology and water quality impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to hydrology and water as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
HW-1 The City will work with the water districts to promote water conservation and ultimately reduce the demand for peak -hour water supply wastewater capacity, review the adopted Uniform Building Code, and require water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of plumbing fixtures that reduce water use, low -flow toilets, drip irrigation systems, and xeriscape landscaping that maximizes the use of drought -tolerant plant species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4).
HW-2 The City shall review individual development projects to ensure that adequate stormwater detention facilities are provided to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the project, and where needed, incorporate detention of stormwater runoff at the point of origin (General Plan Implementation Program OS-6).
HW-3 The City will require drought -tolerant landscaping in new development and where feasible, will require incorporation of reclaimed water systems within landscape irrigation plans (General Plan Implementation Program OS-7).
HW-4 The City will implement, where appropriate, Water Resource Management Guidelines drafted by the subcommittee comprised of Eastern Municipal Water District and local jurisdictions (General Plan Implementation Program OS-8).
HW-5 The City shall prohibit the use of underground storage tanks and conventional septic tanks/subsurface disposal systems in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13).
HW-6 The City shall require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations in accordance with the EPA's Design Manual for On -site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13).
HW-7 Proposed developments shall incorporate measures, including measures required by the City pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements. This can be Environmental Analysis 4-35
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping or treatment devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems (General Plan Implementation Program OS-5).
Environmental Analysis 4-36
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• The majority of undeveloped land in the Planning Area is located north of Temecula in the sphere of influence and no physical division would result from development pursuant to the General Plan; no impact will occur.
• Implementation of the General Plan may conflict with other land use plans and policies that apply within the Planning Area. The updated Southwest Area Plan envisions substantial amounts of new development surrounding Temecula. The City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map incorporates the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) recommended uses for unincorporated areas, and no direct conflicts result. However, development in unincorporated areas pursuant to the SWAP, particularly within the French Valley area, will result in significant impacts on traffic, air quality, and resources that are beyond the City's ability to control. Without annexation, projects would continue to be approved by the County, and may not adequately reduce impacts to the City's roadway infrastructure and natural resources to the extent that they would if under the City's jurisdiction, fully subject to policies and implementation programs within the General Plan. Thus, the City has developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area, and has designated this area as a Future Growth Area. This part of the land use plan is substantially similar to the County General Plan in this area. The General Plan FEIR includes mitigation that describes annexation requirements for surrounding areas.
The General Plan may conflict with provisions of the City Development Code and Riverside County Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard to land use designation/zoning consistency. Mitigation measures are included in the General Plan FEIR that require the City to review and update the Development Code to be consistent with the updated General Plan. Also, whenever the City annexes lands rezoning will occur to achieve General Plan/zoning consistency. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with these actions.
Environmental Analysis 4-37
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
The ALUCP for French Valley Airport establishes an area of influence surrounding the Airport. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document's Compatibility Criteria for Land Use Actions section delineates the criteria for assessing whether a land use plan, ordinance, or development proposal is to be judged compatible with a nearby airport. Accordingly, the General Plan includes Goal 8, and related policy 8.3 and implementation program LU-24 to assure that implementation of the Plan will not adversely impact French Valley airport operations. Implementation of the General Plan policies and programs will ensure that development pursuant to the General Plan within the French Valley Airport area of influence does not conflict with the current County ALUCP for French Valley Airport. Implementation Program LU-24 is required as a mitigation measure to ensure consistency between the General Plan and ALUCP. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of this measure.
The SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains policies applicable to the General Plan. The General Plan is consistent with the applicable SCAG RCPG policies.
Additionally, SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes several policies relevant to Temecula. The proposed General Plan is consistent with and does not conflict with applicable RTP policies. The General Plan is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide administered by SCAG. Impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Development pursuant to the General Plan may result in annexations of lands, as well as additional public service needs in areas located within Temecula's sphere of influence. In addition, reorganization of service districts within the sphere of influence may be necessary to provide the required services efficiently and effectively, in keeping with General Plan policies expressed the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element. Such activities may conflict with established Riverside County LAFCO plans and priorities. This represents a significant impact, and mitigation is required. General Plan FEIR mitigation measures include: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding areas, and 2) require the City to cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant with implementation of these measures.
In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single - dry, and multiple -dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact.
Development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element could be inconsistent with some of the development standards outlined in currently adopted specific plans, particularly Environmental Analysis 4-38
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
those under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside within the City's sphere of influence.
To avoid conflict, mitigation measures are included that: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding areas, 2) require the City to periodically review and update the General Plan Land Use Policy Map, and to review and update the Development Code and Specific Plans to be consistent with the updated General Plan and 3) require the City to continue to implement the procedures, requirements, and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of these measures.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to land use and planning. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with land use policies and programs. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts resulting from new development and intensification of land uses.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new land use and planning impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to land use and planning as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
LUP-1 The City shall require preparation of an annexation plan and fiscal analysis prior to annexation of new areas to the City. Within the annexation plan, applicants must show how adequate levels of public services and facilities will be provided to serve the new development, without reducing service levels for currently urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall determine the impact that additional development will have on current Temecula neighborhoods and on the community as a whole, including any impact fees necessary to offset public costs caused by the proposed project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and service impacts of the proposed project on roads, water, sewer, storm water runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other community facilities (General Plan Implementation Program LU-15).
LUP-2 The City shall review implementation of the General Plan and Land Use Policy Map to ensure consistency is maintained between the General Plan and the Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-1).
LUP-3 The City shall review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program LU-3).
Environmental Analysis 4-39
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
LUP-4 The City shall implement and update as necessary the Redevelopment Plan to establish consistency with the General Plan and amended Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-11).
LUP-5 The City shall ensure consistency with the County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French Valley Airport through the following measures:
a. The City shall review development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence, and participate in any future updates to the ALUCP and Master Plan for the Airport, in conjunction with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. b. The City shall require project proponents to obtain avigation easements as required by the ALUCP to ensure that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft. (General Plan Implementation Program LU-24)
LUP-6 The City shall review and update the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis to achieve consistency with improvements identified within the General Plan, and to meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan Implementation Program LU-17).
LUP-7 The City shall cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation Program LU-16).
LUP-8 The City shall continue to implement the procedures, requirements and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership which are generally over 100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an implementation tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or amendment of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section 65450. Specific plans shall include the location of land uses; standards to regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for constructing proposed streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards for conservation and management of natural resources; and implementation provisions to carry out the Open Space/Conservation Element (General Plan Implementation Program LU-5).
Environmental Analysis 4-40
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in Temecula. Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. The General Plan FEIR concluded no impact will result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing and use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to mineral resources. The City reviews development proposals to ensure that mineral resources are conserved in compliance with the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element and CEQA requirements.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new mineral resources impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to mineral resources as a result of the proposed Project.
Environmental Analysis 4-41
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.13 NOISE
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• Long-term implementation of the General Plan could expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration and/or noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise -producing uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses. In addition, construction -related activities will be short-term sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of neighboring uses. These are potentially significant impacts at the project level, and the General Plan FEIR concludes mitigation is required.
• Transportation -related noise is the strongest contributor to ambient noise levels within the Temecula Planning Area. Nearly all of the roadway segments will carry additional trips in the future, which will produce additional noise. In some portions of the community, the 60 dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. In addition, new transportation facilities shown on the City's Roadway Plan will contribute new sources of noise. The General Plan EIR determined these increases in permanent ambient noise levels are considered a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
Long-term implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for additional development within the Planning Area, which could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. Although construction -related noise will be short term for each specific construction project and will cease upon completion of construction, the cumulative impact over time could be significant at specific locations.
Environmental Analysis 4-42
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Upon implementation of mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant.
• The Land Use Policy Map and implementing zoning regulations restrict development of intensive new uses within airport influence areas. Development controls within the City's Development Code include limiting development within areas subject to high noise levels and limiting the intensity and height of development within aircraft hazard zones. These controls are consistent with the ALUCP for French Valley Airport, adopted by the ALUC, which designates airport influence areas and zones for every airport in Riverside County, and provides a series of policies and compatibility criteria to ensure that both aviation uses and surrounding areas may continue. The General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies that direct the City to comply with the French Valley ALUCP. Ongoing compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of General Plan policy will ensure a less than significant impact.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with noise, including preparation of site -specific analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or modify General Plan policies or programs specific to noise. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to ambient noise levels as a result of groundborne vibration or exposure to excessive noise levels. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-5 ensure review and enforcement of noise standards on new and existing development, development of noise impact guidelines, and require construction activities to reduce potential impacts related to noise.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in noise impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to noise as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Any modifications to the original measures are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and new, inserted text is underlined.
N-1 The City will review residential and other noise -sensitive development proposals to ensure that noise standards and compatibility criteria are met, and will require incorporation of noise - mitigating features identified in acoustical studies prepared for development projects including, but not limited to, the following measures identified in the Noise Element (General Plan Implementation Programs N-1, N-3, N-5 and N-7).
Environmental Analysis 4-43
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• Use of building setbacks to increase distance between noise sources and receivers • Placing noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between noise sources and receptors.
• Orienting or clustering buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources. • Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, facing away from major roadways. • Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to shield noise - sensitive portions of homes.
• Use of additional insulation and double -pane windows when bedrooms cannot be located on the side of a house away from a major roadway.
• Avoid placement of balconies facing major travel routes.
N-2 Where architectural design treatments described in Mitigation Measure N-1 fail to adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly increase the costs of land development, the City will require the combined use of noise barriers and landscaped berms (General Plan Implementation Program N-7).
N-3 The City will require all non -emergency construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 9.20 of the Municipal Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet City noise reduction requirements (General Plan Implementation Program N-2).
N-4 During review of development applications, the City will consider the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned adjacent uses (General Plan Implementation Program N-4).
N-5 The City will 1) incorporate noise control measures, such as sound walls and berms, into roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts to adjacent development; 2) provide noise control for City streets within the Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the ultimate roadway capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise impacts; and 4) Coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles (General Plan Implementation Program N-8).
Environmental Analysis 4-44
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• General Plan land use policy establishes capacity for 25,005 net new housing units and
36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development. To accommodate the anticipated population increase, the General Plan Land Use Element directs most new development into the French Valley Future Growth Area. The Land Use Element also includes policies that encourage development of mixed -use projects within three established Mixed -Use Overlay Areas to promote infill development and redevelopment of vacant/underutilized sites and aging commercial developments. In addition, Land Use Element policies establish a number of strategies designed to preserve rural areas and protect existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Given historical growth patterns and growth management policies contained within the General Plan, implementation of the Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur within the Planning Area. Further, the General Plan is consistent with SCAG's growth management policies. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant. • The General Plan will allow the development of a variety of uses on currently undeveloped land. However, this new development will not displace substantial numbers of housing units or people and no impact will result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Additionally, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Environmental Analysis 4-45
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth and displacement.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in housing and population impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to population and housing as a result of the proposed Project.
Environmental Analysis 4-46
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in increased demand for fire and police protection services and facilities, as well as increased demand for water resources for fire protection and other emergencies. This represents a significant impact. The Fire Department conducts final construction plan check reviews and issues certificates of occupancy for all new development projects. Projects within the City limits are also required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to fund the expansion of fire protection and emergency services. General Plan FEIR mitigation measures are required to reduce impact to a level below significance. The specific environmental impacts of constructing fire and police stations in the City cannot be determined at this level of analysis because no specific projects are proposed. However, the Riverside County Fire Department and Riverside County Sheriff's Department will require project -level analysis of impacts prior to approving occupancy certificates.
• Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for new or expanded education facilities to adequately accommodate new students. Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) of providing education facilities to future students.
The environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new schools or Environmental Analysis 4-47
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
expansion of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level. • Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for library resources beyond provided by the new Temecula Public Library.
Even with the opening of the new library, the new development associated with implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new or expanded library facilities. According to the General Plan FEIR, mitigation measures would be required to reduce the impact to less than significant. The specific impacts of constructing new library facilities in the Planning Area cannot be determined at this first -tier level of analysis because no specific project is proposed. However, Riverside County Library District will be required to conduct project -level analysis of potential impacts. • Sufficient acreage to meet the needs of existing residents is anticipated by the year 2013 through the acquisition and dedication of parks and school facilities within identified specific plan areas. However, new development projects pursuant to the General Plan will result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, other recreational facilities, and trails that may cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. The General Plan EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to public services as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-1 and PSR-2 ensure acceptable service ratios and response times of police, fire, and emergency medical services. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-3 and PSR-4 ensure adequate funding and level of service for community libraries. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-5 through PSR- 7 ensures adequate parkland for residents, provides for a funding source for parks, and promotes recreational and bicycle facilities.
The Public Safety Element update includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that considers natural and human -induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula's residents, including the provision of adequate services and facilities.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in public services impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to public services as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
Environmental Analysis 4-48
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
PSR-1 The City will periodically evaluate levels of sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, based on changes in population and development, and will: 1) provide a minimum of one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a five-minute response time for 90 percent of all emergencies; and 3) implement new programs to meet the changing needs of residents (General Plan Implementation Program GM-4).
PSR-2 As part of the development review process, the City will require new development projects to address fire and police protection proactively, through all-weather access street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security features; and will require illuminated addresses on new construction (General Plan Implementation Program GM-5).
PSR-3 The City will identify and solicit funding from additional sources to supplement library facilities and services. Such funding sources may include: State and federal grants and loans, public and private donations, sponsorships by local and national corporations, and other private individuals and groups (General Plan Implementation Program GM-7).
PSR-4 The City will coordinate with the County to determine location, facilities, and services of new branch libraries needed to serve the community (General Plan Implementation Program GM- 7).
PSR-5 The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1).
PSR-6 The City shall continue to implement a local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in -lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2).
PSR-7 The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi - Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-29).
Environmental Analysis 4-49
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.16 RECREATION
General Plan FOR Conclusions
This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Public Services and Recreation section; refer to Section 4.15, Public Services, above.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Further, the Temecula Municipal Code sets parkland dedication requirements in accordance with the Quimby Act.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in parks and recreation facilities impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to recreation as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
Environmental Analysis 4-50
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
PSR-5 The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1).
PSR-6 The City shall continue to implement a local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in -lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2).
PSR-7 The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi - Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-29).
Environmental Analysis 4-51
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
General Plan FOR Conclusions
• The General Plan Circulation Element is comprised of the Roadway Plan, long-range plans for transit facilities and multi -use trails, and goals, policies, and programs to ensure that current transportation facilities will be improved and new facilities constructed that provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from future development pursuant to the Land Use Element. Improvements to current roadways and construction of future roadways have also been designed to anticipate future development in the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta. Long-range implementation of the General Plan will result in as many as 699,558 additional vehicle trips per day, for a total trip generation of approximately 1.43 million vehicle trips per day. This represents an increase of 96 percent over existing (year 2002) conditions. The General Plan FEIR concluded that even with implementation of mitigation measures, significantly impacted intersections and freeway ramps (as identified in the General Plan FEIR) cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
• The City of Temecula coordinates with RTA to develop future transit schedules and routes in Temecula, and provides important transit support facilities, including park -and -ride lots and bus shelters. These ongoing actions are supported and expanded upon within the Circulation Element by policies directing the City to coordinate with public and private transit operators to provide fixed route transit service connecting major activity centers; to coordinate with WRCOG to identify, protect, and pursue opportunities for light rail or Environmental Analysis 4-52
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
high speed regional rail transit serving Temecula; to identify and reserve necessary rights - of -way for future regional transit facilities; and to encourage development of transit support facilities, such as park -and -ride lots, near the I-15 Freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas established in the Land Use Element.
• The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence. Growth pursuant to the General Plan is not anticipated to change air traffic patterns and the General Plan EIR concluded potential impacts will be less than significant. • The Circulation Element addresses the importance of compatibility between design issues and land use compatibility. However, new development is expected to result in additional roadways. All new roadways will be built in accordance with all requisite City and County design requirements and the General Plan FEIR concluded no significant impact will result. • The City has a Multi -Hazard Functional Plan in place. In addition, the Public Safety Element calls for regular reviews by the City to assess response times and incorporate newly developed areas to ensure adequate fire and police protection, impacts will be less than significant.
• One of the key components of the Circulation Element is to promote the use of alternative transportation modes, including bicycling and walking. Public bus service is provided by RTA. The City is committed to ensuring that public transportation becomes a viable alternative to the automobile for residents. The Circulation Element also emphasizes the network of Multi -Use Trails planned for in the City's Multi -Use Trails Master Plan. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The General Plan FEIR did not address potential impacts to VMT because at the time of preparation of the General Plan FEIR, VMT was not the primary metric used as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. However, the proposed Project does not include site -specific development or result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was considered in the General Plan FEIR. Thus, the proposed Project would result in similar VMT as would occur under the existing General Plan and would not result in new impacts or substantially more significant impacts related to VMT.
It should be noted that although Level of Service (LOS) no longer serves as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, the General Plan FEIR included mitigation to address potentially significant impacts to the LOS of various intersections and to support multi -modal travel to reduce potential impacts to the City's transportation system. These Mitigation Measures are identified below.
As noted above, the Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to the circulation system, including Environmental Analysis 4-53
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
increased hazards and emergency access, as a result of new development and intensification of land uses.
The Public Safety Element update includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that considers natural and human -induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula's residents.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in transportation impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to transportation as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
T-1 The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, and build new roadways and complete roadway improvements using the established Capital Improvement Plan process to implement the circulation system shown on the proposed Roadway Plan concurrent with land development; and 2) require that new roadways meet roadway classification design specifications and performance criteria established in the proposed Circulation Element. General Plan FEIR Table 5.13-9 summarizes new roadways and arterial widening projects required to implement the proposed Roadway Plan2 (General Plan Implementation Program C-1).
T-2 The City will monitor the performance of Principal Intersections on an ongoing basis and ensure that Principal Intersections approaching Level of Service D are prioritized for improvement within the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (General Plan Implementation Program C-3).
T-3 The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital Improvement Plan on an annual basis to plan for and fund future improvements to the roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle systems; 2) identify available funding sources and establish a financing plan to guide construction and funding of transportation system improvements, and 3) require new development projects to construct and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic improvements associated with the proposed project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. Such improvements should address both automotive, as well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan Implementation Program C-5).
T-4 The City will require additional dedication of right-of-way on all approaches to Principal Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future intersection improvements that may be required at these intersections, such as full width auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual -left turn lanes (General Plan Implementation Program C-4).
T-5 The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize impacts of proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation:
Environmental Analysis 4-54
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
• Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and infrastructure system.
• Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. • Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
• Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate.
• Require new specific plans and other projects to provide an internal system of pathways and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities in residential areas.
• Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan Implementation Program C-6).
T-6 The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may benefit citywide circulation if the street was re -opened or construction of the street was completed; 2) assess the feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing construction of local connecting streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case -by -case basis, providing ample opportunity for both neighborhood residents and the community at -large to comment on such proposals, and 3) establish a review process for the future closing of any local street that requires City Council determination that the closure does not have an adverse affect on citywide circulation (General Plan Implementation Program C-7).
T-7 The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCOG, SCAG and others to advocate future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; 2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor serving Temecula is located on the west side of I-15 to reduce noise impacts on residential areas; and 3) require new commercial, industrial, or mixed use development in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit -oriented design amenities (General Plan Implementation Program C-12).
T-8 The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and work -at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program C-13).
T-9 The City will implement the adopted Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to complete design and construction of a comprehensive alternative transportation network, promote safe use of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the disabled (General Plan Implementation Program C-15).
Environmental Analysis 4-55
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
T-10 The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership through the following actions:
• Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects. • Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas. • Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional transit services.
The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit services beyond fixed -route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to:
• Subscription or dial -a -ride service for lower density residential areas • Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City's commercial/employment core
• Shuttle or trolley service between Old Town and other destinations along the I-15 commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries along Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise
• Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses.
(General Plan Implementation Program C-16).
T-11 The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in Temecula through the following measures:
• Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City. • Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18).
Environmental Analysis 4-56
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been revised to include a new category for Tribal Cultural Resources impacts. This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Cultural Resources section.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Specifically, within the Open Space/Conservation Element, Policy 6.10 requires the City to work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process, and Policy 6.11 encourages voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites Environmental Analysis 4-57
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
consistent with State requirements. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR includes Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting tribal cultural resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new tribal cultural resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to tribal cultural resources as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to:
a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval.
b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources.
c. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified.
d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 26).
CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37).
Environmental Analysis 4-58
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Substantial
ImpactSubstantial
Information No Less Than No
„Additional Significant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
Greater Significant ImpactiNo
Impact/Requiring
Significant
Thresholds:
EIR Major EIR
Revisions Revisions
effects than Less Than Information
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
ImpactMajor
,.. .
With an MND
Application
of
Would theproject:
Mitigation
from FEIR
a.
Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
X
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
b.
Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
X
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dears?
c.
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
X
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition
to theprovider's existing commitments?
d.
Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
X
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reductiongoals?
e.
Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• All new development pursuant to the General Plan will discharge wastewater to the EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The facility operates in compliance with the applicable State treatment standards. The General Plan will not result in development of any uses that could result in exceeding the established treatment standards. All new development will be required to comply with existing wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region and impact will be less than significant.
• Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds RCWD's planned future supply. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts on the RCWD's ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by agriculture and other water users within RCWD's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR includes recommended mitigation Environmental Analysis 4-59
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
measures that direct the City to assist RCWD in planning for future water supplies, to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water.
Similarly, buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds EMWD's planned future supply. Impact on EMWD's ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by other water users in the district's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended that direct the City to assist EMWD in planning for future water supplies, to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water. • EMWD's calculates a future treatment capacity of 35 mgd for the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility service area. Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support General Plan buildout is 1 mgd greater than the projected capacity of District facilities serving Temecula. Given that future demand is based upon a very long- term buildout horizon, the General Plan FEIR concluded the 1 mgd difference is not considered significant; mitigation measures are included in the FEIR to provide for continued monitoring and potentially an update of EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections.
• Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will require construction of additional stormwater drainage facilities throughout the Planning Area. To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), at the request of the City, prior to approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County. New development projects are required to provide on -site drainage connecting to the City's drainage system and to pay area drainage fees. Drainage fee revenues from the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system. In addition, all proposed development projects are reviewed by the RCFCWCD. Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact to City storm drain facilities. Implementation Program GM-9 directs the City to maintain an effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system. The General Plan FEIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations and General Plan Implementation Program GM-9 will ensure a less than significant impact.
• Solid waste generation is anticipated to increase associated with General Plan buildout. The City currently offers a residential recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the solid waste generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste Management Department expects to expand the capacity of both El Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills. The City will also continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code. The General Plan FEIR concluded that although implementation of the General Plan will result in new development and redevelopment within the Planning Area and related increases in solid waste generation, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. • Each development approved pursuant to General Plan policy will be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste; thus, the General Plan FEIR concluded no adverse impact will result.
Environmental Analysis 4-60
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Additionally, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1 and USS-5 ensures cooperation with regional water providers to plan for sufficient water and wastewater capacities; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-2 considers services that reduce water demand; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-3 reviews development and redevelopment proposals to ensure adequate water service; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-4 reduces irrigation water usage and promotes recycled water, and; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures USS-10, USS-11, and USS-12 provide measures to reduce solid waste. The Housing Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies addressing utilities and service systems The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new utilities and service systems impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to utilities and service systems as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
USS-1 The City shall assist the Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts in the process of updating their urban water management plans to be responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8).
USS-2 The City shall review the adopted Uniform Building Code and require new development projects to include water conservation features to reduce consumption, including, but not limited to: use of reduced -flow plumbing fixtures, low -flow toilets, drip irrigation systems and xeriscape landscaping (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4).
USS-3 The City shall ensure that discretionary projects implementing the General Plan (Specific Plans, land divisions, development plans and conditional use permits) comply with California Water Code Section 10910, requiring the preparation of a water supply assessment indicating that a long- term water supply for a 20-year time frame is available. Written acknowledgement that water will be provided by a community or public water system with an adopted urban water management plan that includes consideration of the project's water consumption and supply shall constitute compliance with this requirement (General Plan Implementation Program OS-38).
Environmental Analysis 4-61
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
USS-4 The City shall: 1) continue to require drought -tolerant landscaping in new development projects; 2) where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into landscape irrigation plans; 3) continue to implement a recycled water ordinance in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping Act; and 4) convert existing City of Temecula non -domestic water uses to recycled water use in accordance with Sections 13550-13556 of the State Water Code when feasible (General Plan Implementation Program OS-7).
USS-5 The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of updating its water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8).
USS-10 The City will 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Department to implement the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, and when feasible and appropriate, assist the County in locating cost effective and environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities; and 2) promote awareness of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation Program GM-10).
USS-11 The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval for all multi- family residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the private sector contractor providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate recycling containers, procedures, and education are readily available (General Plan Implementation Program GM-14).
USS-12 The City shall continue to compost green waste collected from landscape and park maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15).
Environmental Analysis 4-62
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.20 WILDFIRE
Substantial
Changein Changein
Information No Less Than No
ImpactSubstantial
Showing AdditionalSignificant
Project Circumstance
Requiring
EIR Major
Greater Significant Impact/No
Significant
Impact/Requiring
EIR effects than Less Than Information
Thresholds: Revisions Revisions
ImpactMajor
Previous EIR Significant Requiring
..
With an MND
Application
of
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very Mitigation
from FEIR
high fire hazard severity zones, would theproject:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
X
evacuation Ian?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
X
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
X
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
X
result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been revised to include a new category for Wildfire impacts. This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR's Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.
• Undeveloped areas, such as in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Planning Area, have greater fire danger due to expansive areas of vegetation to fuel a fire.
Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how limited, will expose additional people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance requires every property owner to remove all hazardous or flammable vegetation on the property constituting a fire hazard that may endanger or damage neighboring property. In addition, the Temecula Fire Department and the County of Riverside Fire Department sponsor outreach and awareness programs to educate residents about fire dangers and whey they can do to protect themselves and their homes. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the Environmental Analysis 4-63
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought -resistant, fire -retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the City Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. The FEIR concluded that stringent application of these policies will reduce impact to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site -specific development, but is rather an update to a policy document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City's RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts due to wildfires. Specifically, Policy 1.8 within the Public Safety Element reduces wildfire risk through imposition of site -specific development standards during project review and coordination with the City Fire Department and other organizations, and Implementation Program PS-8 promotes fire prevention in Temecula, including cooperation with the Fire Department, public education programs, and vegetation management efforts. Further, building codes outlined in Title 24 and the City's Municipal Code, the City's Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance, and regional cooperation with the County of Riverside Fire Department, would reduce potential impacts due to wildland fires. These impacts are considered less than significant.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County's CAP are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background report available on the City's website and the results of the analysis, which found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies.
Environmental Analysis 4-64
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
No goals, policies or programs from the current Public Safety Element were eliminated as part of this update. Modifications or additions related to natural hazards were made to Polices 1.8 and 1.9 to further support the goal to minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from structural or wildland fire hazards. More specifically, Policy 1.8 supports programs and plans consistent with state law and related to new development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) and Policy 1.9 directs the City to reduce the risk of wildfire hazards by working with partners and other agencies on projects and programs like community fire breaks; Policy 4.5 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of the VHFHSZ; Policy 4.7 requires the City to coordinate with local, state and federal agency to evaluate and plan for emergency scenarios; Goal 5 states that the City will be a resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risk resulting from things like climate change will be minimized; Policy 5.1 requires coordination with outside agencies on climate resiliency and adaption strategies; and Policy 5.2 requires the City to monitor climate change - related effects and respond appropriately at the local level.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new wildfire impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to wildfire as a result of the proposed Project.
Environmental Analysis 4-65
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
As described above, the General Plan FEIR concluded that full implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Section 5.3 Air Quality (Violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant; and Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations) and Section 5.13 Transportation (Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F [peak hour ICU greater than 0.90] and Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F [peak hour V/C greater than 1.00]), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan FEIR's background and policy information and environmental impact conclusions are cited throughout this Addendum.
Environmental Analysis 4-66
City of Temecula 1 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update 2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Analysis of Modified Project
Future housing could significantly impact, directly or through habitat modifications, sensitive vegetation communities and/or sensitive plant and wildlife species; refer to Section 4.4 above.
Additionally, ground -disturbing activities associated with future development, such as grading or excavation, could unearth undocumented archeological or disturb unknown human remains; refer to Section 4.5 above. Individual project proposals would be subject to review under CEQA, and site -specific biological and cultural surveys would be conducted, as needed, to evaluate potential impacts to such resources. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, recommended FEIR mitigation measures, and General Plan Policies, no new significant impact to biological or cultural resources or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur with implementation of the Project.
The General Plan FEIR determined that cumulative impacts would result in the following areas:
short-term and long-term cumulative air quality impacts and cumulative impact on roadways and intersections. All other cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The anticipated housing development would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Environmental Analysis 4-67
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 3, 2021
Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
Community Development Department
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Luke Watson:
RE: City of Temecula 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Temecula (City) draft housing element received for review on October 5, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on November 19, 2021 with Senior Management Analyst, Mr. Brandon Rabidou and Planning consultant Amanda Tropiano.
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
As a reminder, the City's 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City's 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower -income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government's housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager