general plan advisory committee

General Plan Amendment 2008 (960)General Plan Advisory Committee

May 06, 2009

General Plan 5-Yearly Update General Plan Advisory Committee | May 06, 2009

General Plan Amendment 2008 (960)

• Written Letters/Comments (Provided in Information Packet)

• George Hague, GPAC Member, Information Re. Greenhouse Gas Emission

• Reinhardt Canyon Land Use Reconsideration Request, Multiple Sources

• Letters received after Information Packet

• Comments about Foundation Amendment requests

General Plan Amendment 960 – Comments and Letters



General Plan Amendment 960 – Comments – Reinhardt Canyon



Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential Development Special Study Area



• San Jacinto Valley Area Plan, District 3• Policy when Agriculture Foundation

Component was subject to 5-year cycle

• Adoption of the General Plan in 2003 and Agriculture is exempt from 5-year cycle

• No need for the policy




Eliminate Study Area




• Issues of concern • Maintain balance between viability of

agriculture and need for conversion

• Agriculture conversion policies• Area plan specific change vs. General Plan

Policies (Land Use, Open Space and Administration Elements)




• Staff Recommendation• Approval of Draft San Jacinto Valley

Area Plan – January 05, 2009 – Eliminate Agriculture/Potential Development Special Study Area as proposed

• Recommend that staff develop proposal for the General Plan Land Use and Administration Elements

Action Item – Draft Ag/Potential Development Special Study Area



• Agriculture Foundation Amendment Cycle

• Allows 7% conversion in 2 ½ year cycles – administered through quarterly GPAs

• County is divided in three geographical regions• Palo Verde/Desert Center• Coachella Valleys• Western Riverside County

• In excess of 7% conversion allowed after establishing a Task Force




• Agriculture Foundation Amendment Cycle• “At the end of each 2 ½ year period, the Board of

Supervisors would consider whether or not changes to the Agriculture Foundation should be reviewed every 2 ½ years or whether a 5 year amendment cycle would be more appropriate”.

• “The Agriculture Task Force would annually review the adequacy of the 7% conversion amount”.

• Criteria used for considering applications for in excess to 7% conversion:• Business Considerations or undue hardships

• Availability of adequate infrastructure




• Implementation of Agriculture Foundation Amendment Cycle (2003-2008)

• One Task Force is established• Coachella Valley Region

• Open Space Element Policies • Williamson Act

– Applications for cancellation or disestablishment

• Inadequate Guidance in Administration Element and Appendix K – Implementation Program




California Environmental Quality Act - “CEQA”

• Disclose significant environmental effects

• Mitigate adverse effects

• Explain rationale for approving a project

Method to be used for GPA 960: Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)

CEQA Process and Environmental IssuesCEQA Process and Environmental Issues



Scope of Analysis

• EIR addresses physical impacts, with focus on:• Effects on existing physical conditions in County

• Effects on “envisioned” physical environment (buildout)

• For General Plan EIRs, focus on • Impacts resulting from policy and program

implementation

• Generally apply county-wide or regionally

• Cumulative impacts

• Site-specific impacts generally tiered to later applications




EIR Process - For each environmental issue:

• Establish baseline existing conditions

• Identify any significant impacts

• Identify mitigation measures for these• Avoidance• Reduction • Minimization

• Determine level of impact after mitigation (Is the impact still significant even with mitigation?)




EIR – Areas of Environmental Analysis

• Land use (existing uses, future patterns and intensities, balancing conservation versus development, etc.)

• Human factors (population growth, services, etc.)• Demand for schools, libraries, hospitals, police, fire, etc.• Demand for utilities – water, sewer, electricity, etc.

• Natural resources • Biological resources • Agricultural resources • Open space and natural lands • Mineral resources • Cultural resources • Aesthetic resources




EIR – Areas of Environmental Analysis, cont.

• Natural hazards • Flood zones

• Earthquake faults

• Landslides, subsidence, etc.

• Soil erosion

• Wildland fires

• Man-made hazards • Airport landing zones and flight paths

• Hazardous materials – use, transport, etc.

• Dam inundation (flooding from dam failure)




EIR – Areas of Environmental Analysis, cont.

• Circulation / Transportation • Circulation network and efficiency (traffic levels) • Non-motorized transport (bike and pedestrian trails, etc.)

• Noise• Vehicles (major source of noise) • Fixed sources (industry, mining, airports, etc.)• Compatibility issues

• Air Quality • Pollutant sources (vehicles, construction, industry, etc.)• Air quality standards • Greenhouse gases and global climate change initiatives




GPA 960 Project - CEQA Status

• County has prepared an Initial Study

• Determined that an EIR is necessary

• Issued a Notice of Preparation for EIR 521

• Conducted two Scoping Meetings for EIR

• Begun preparation of Draft EIR




CEQA Timeframes

• Draft EIR: Prepare and circulate for public comment

• Final EIR Preparation: Respond to Draft EIR comments

• Public Hearings: Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors

• Agency Actions: Certify EIR, make CEQA findings, adopt project




Trails Update Presentation By Mr. Jerry Jolliffe



Action Item – Healthy Communities Element, Dr. Eric Frykman



Action Item – Draft Sphere of Influence Coordination Policy

• Add a policy in Administration Element to address septic issues in Rural Communities

• Allows changes from Rural Community Foundation Component area characterized by lots smaller than 20,000 square feet

• Memorandum of Understanding necessary between the County and City

• A concurrent development application is necessary

• Application has to be located within two hundred (200) feet of an existing sewer line



• Draft Administration Element Policies:

• “i”. An amendment from a Rural Community Foundation Component is necessary to facilitate the extension of sewer service and to alleviate the potential for ground water pollution and other public health dangers. This amendment is only applicable to properties located within a City’s sphere of influence Area.

• This amendment is considered only in conjunction with the following circumstances:

• 1. Area is located within an existing community that is characterized by lots smaller than 20,000 square feet in net area.

• 2. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the City that requires sewer services for the establishment of lots smaller then one acre.

• 3. A tract or parcel map is processed concurrently and approved with a condition of approval that requires the extension of a sewer line.

• 4. The proposed project is located within two hundred (200) feet of an existing sewer line.




• Staff Recommendation• Approval of Draft Policy Regarding

Foundation Component Land Use Changes in Sphere of Influence Areas – April 9, 2009 Draft as Proposed




Action Item – Areas Subject to Indian Jurisdiction

• Reasons for Proposal

• Three Types of Land Within Indian Reservation Boundaries:

1. Fee Lands: Properties Owned by Non-Tribal Members

1. Allotment Lands: Properties Owned by Tribal Members

1. Trust Lands: Properties Owned by the Tribe as a Unit (Tribal Council)

• Additional Guidance is necessary in Land Use Element for Fee Lands



• Draft Land Use Element Policies:

• LU 35.1 The County of Riverside will continue to work with Tribal authorities to forge inter‑governmental agreements in situations where such agreements would be mutually beneficial. In the absence of agreements specifying otherwise, questions regarding development within areas subject to Indian jurisdiction should be referred to the applicable Tribal authorities except in case of fee lands where the local jurisdiction and tribe share the land use authority.(AI 4).

• LU 35.2 All new development proposals within fee lands should be consistent with the land use pattern and designations of the surrounding areas of the tribal and county jurisdiction. Developments of the fee lands shall be subject to the current Riverside County development and permitting procedures.





• Staff Recommendation• Approval of Draft Land Use Element

for Areas Subject to Indian Jurisdiction – April 08, 2009 Draft as Proposed



Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area



• Mead Valley Area Plan, District 5• MSHCP Issues

• Highway/Major Road Proximity

• Land Use Compatibility

• Redevelopment Area

• Water Districts

• Floodplain

• Fire Potential

• Slope

• Sewer Capacity

• Faults/ subsidence/ liquefaction etc.




• Issues of Environmental Consideration• Close proximity to the existing cities

• Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Canyon Lakes and Perris

• Located along a major regional connector• State Hwy 74 between I-15 and I-215




• Draft Mead Valley Area Plan Policies • MVAP 3.1 Allow areas designated with the Rural Village Land Use

Overlay to develop according to the standards of this section. Otherwise, the standards of the underlying land use designation shall apply.

• MVAP3.2 Commercial uses, small-scale industrial uses (including mini-storage facilities), and residential uses at densities higher than those levels depicted on the Area Plan may be approved based on the designations identified in the land use overlay.

• MVAP 3.3 Additionally, existing commercial and industrial uses may be relocated to this overlay as necessary in conjunction with the widening of State Highway Route 74.

• MVAP 3.4 All new developments shall provide adequate and essential infrastructures such as circulation facilities, water, sewer, and electricity. Such improvements must be beneficial to the community at large.




• Staff Recommendation• Approval of Draft Mead Valley Area

Plan – April 08, 2009 – MVAP 3.1 to 3.4 as proposed




Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)



• Reasons for Proposal

• Specific Plan Applications North of Ramona Expressway

• Existing Dairies in-between two Specific Plans

• Compatibility of Uses

• Planning Commission Recommendation in July of 2007 to develop this proposal




• Issues of Environmental Consideration

• MSHCP Cells – Critical Habitat Areas

• Close proximity to the San Jacinto Wildlife Preserve

• Seismic Hazard (Fault Lines: San Jacinto and Casa Loma)

• Potential Flooding Issues





• Draft Lakeview Nuevo Area Plan Language

• LNAP 5.1 Require new developments to remain outside 100-year Flood Plain.

• LNAP 5.2 Require new developments to provide a 300 foot buffer from dairy/agricultural uses and 50 foot from the non-dairy uses until such time that the dairy/agricultural uses cease operation.

• LNAP 5.3 This policy area do not prescribe a timeline for withdrawal of existing dairy as well as agricultural uses. However, when any land within this policy area amends the General Plan, it shall subscribe to the Community Development Foundation designations as envisioned in this policy area.

• LNAP 5.4 This policy Area is divided into two distinct districts - Business District and Residential District, which are described further in Appendix E.




Proposed Table for Appendix E (*Mixed use developments can augment this schedule)



• Staff Recommendation• Approval of Draft Northeast

Agriculture Conversion Policy Area LNAP 5.1 to LNAP 5.4 – April 08, 2009 and addition of Policy Area table to Appendix E




Action Item– Chiriaco Summit Rural Village Overlay (Optional Item)



• Proposed Change to Chiriaco Summit (ECVAP)

• No text for Chiriaco Summit Rural Village Overlay

• A “Planned Community Policy Area” for Chiriaco Summit in the Area Plan (ECVAP 2.2 a, b, and c).

• Chiriaco Rural Village Overlay - A mapping error • Proposal to remove “Rural Village Overlay” of the

Chiriaco Summit and replace it with Chiriaco Summit “Planned Community Policy Area”




• Staff Recommendation• Approval of Draft Eastern Coachella

Valley Area Plan – April 08, 2009 – as proposed




Thank you

General Plan Amendment 960

general plan advisory committee

Documents

letters general plan

general plan land use

general plan policies

year amendment cycle

study areaaction item

viability of agriculture

policyaction item

agriculture task force