General Plan Advisory Committee

1. May 06, 2009 General Plan Advisory Committee General Plan Amendment 2008 (960)

2. 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

3. General Plan Amendment 960 – Comments – Reinhardt Canyon

4. Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

5. 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 Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

6. Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area Eliminate Study Area

7. 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) Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

8. 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 DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

9. 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 Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

10. 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 Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

11. 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 Action Item (Last Meeting) – Draft Ag/Potential DevelopmentSpecial Study Area

12. California Environmental Quality Act - “CEQA” Disclose significant environmental effects Mitigate adverse effects Explainrationale for approving a project Method to be used for GPA 960: Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

13. 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 CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

14. 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?) CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

15. 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 CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

16. 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) CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

17. 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 CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

18. 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 Process and Environmental Issues

19. 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 CEQA Process and Environmental Issues

20. Trails Update Presentation By Mr. Jerry Jolliffe

21. Action Item – Healthy Communities Element, Dr. Eric Frykman

22. 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

23. 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. Action Item – Draft Sphere of Influence Coordination Policy

24. 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 – Draft Sphere of Influence Coordination Policy

25. Action Item – Areas Subject to Indian Jurisdiction • Reasons for Proposal • Three Types of Land Within Indian Reservation Boundaries: • Fee Lands: Properties Owned by Non-Tribal Members • Allotment Lands: Properties Owned by Tribal Members • Trust Lands: Properties Owned by the Tribe as a Unit (Tribal Council) • Additional Guidance is necessary in Land Use Element for Fee Lands

26. 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 authoritiesexcept 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. Action Item – Areas Subject to Indian Jurisdiction

27. Action Item – Areas Subject to Indian Jurisdiction • Staff Recommendation • Approval of Draft Land Use Element for Areas Subject to Indian Jurisdiction – April 08, 2009 Draft as Proposed

28. Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

29. 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. Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

30. Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

31. 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 Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

32. Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

33. 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. Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

34. Staff Recommendation Approval of Draft Mead Valley Area Plan – April 08, 2009 – MVAP 3.1 to 3.4 as proposed Action Item– Good Hope Rural Village Study Area

35. Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)

36. 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 Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)

37. Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)

38. 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 Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)

39. 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. Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)

40. Action Item – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP) Proposed Table for Appendix E (*Mixed use developments can augment this schedule)

41. 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 – Draft Northeast Agriculture Conversion Policy (LNAP)

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

43. 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” Action Item– Chiriaco Summit Rural Village Overlay (Optional Item)

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

45. Staff Recommendation Approval of Draft Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan – April 08, 2009 – as proposed Action Item– Chiriaco Summit Rural Village Overlay (Optional Item)

46. General Plan Amendment 960 Thank you