DOCSLIB.ORG

CITY of TEMECULA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX (To the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CITY of TEMECULA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX (To the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan) 2017 CITY OF TEMECULA LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX (to the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan) Prepared by: Roberto Cardenas, Fiscal Services Manager 6/1/2017 CONTACT INFORMATION CITY OF TEMECULA Name: Roberto Cardenas Title: Fiscal Services Manager Address: 41000 Main St. City, State and Zip: Temecula, CA 92590 Direct Contact: Roberto Cardenas Phone 951-693-3944 Fax: 951-302-4159 Email: [email protected] 1 PLAN ADOPTION/RESOLUTION The City of Temecula (City) will submit the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (LHMP Annex) to the Riverside County Emergency Management Department (EMD) for review and approval. EMD will, in turn, forward the LHMP Annex to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for review and approval. Cal OES will, in turn, submit the LHMP Annex to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and approval. The City will wait to receive an “Approval Pending Adoption” letter from FEMA before taking the plan to the City’s local governing body Temecula City Council for adoption. Upon approval, the City will insert the signed resolution into the LHMP Annex. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Disaster Mitigation and Cost Recovery Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by placing a new emphasis on hazard mitigation planning, primarily moving from post-disaster mitigation to pre-disaster mitigation. As part of DMA 2000, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is now responsible for coordinating the implementation of the act requiring local government, state, and special jurisdictions to develop and maintain hazard mitigation plans. In order to qualify for future hazard mitigation grants, each jurisdiction must prepare, and have approved by the Federal Government a local hazard mitigation plan. A local hazard mitigation plan must be approved every five years per DMA 2000. While the County of Riverside is responsible for adopting the 2017 Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City of Temecula is responsible for adopting the annex to the County’s plan – more specifically, the 2017 City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex. The City of Temecula’s efforts to update the 2017 Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan began in 2016. The goal was to bring all members of the Riverside County Operational Area (county, cities, special district, and tribes), along with local businesses and interested members of the public, together to create a multi-jurisdictional plan that identifies and assesses the various hazards in the entire County of Riverside. The desire was to have the County, along with the cities, special districts, and tribes develop an all-inclusive plan, rather than have each city, special district, and tribe develop their own plan. The City’s current planning process evaluated the potential impact of each identified hazard on the county, cities, special districts, and tribes. All participating jurisdictions helped establish a list of potential mitigation efforts (via their LHMP Annex) and prioritized those efforts based on the needs of their jurisdiction. In addition, each participating jurisdiction developed a specific hazard mitigation strategy based on information from 2012 through 2017. Final approval from FEMA requires a formal resolution from the City adopting the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex as a part of the City's hazard planning process. The plan will be implemented upon FEMA approval. 3 TABLE OF CONTENT Table of Contents CONTACT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................... 1 PLAN ADOPTION/RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 1.0 - COMMUNITY PROFILE ................................................................................................... 5 1.1 CITY MAP ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE DESCRIPTION........................................................................ 6 1.3 BRIEF HISTORY ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 ECONOMY DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 6 1.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 8 1.6 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND LAND USE ........................................................................... 9 SECTION 2.0 - PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................... 10 2.1 LOCAL PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................. 10 2.2 PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL (OA) PLANNING PROCESS .............................................. 11 2.3 DATES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ..................................................................... 11 2.4 PLANS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION ................................................................................... 11 SECTION 3.0 – MITIGATION ACTIONS/UPDATES ............................................................................... 11 3.1 UPDATES FROM 2012 PLAN ............................................................................................... 11 3.2 LIST OF COUNTY AND CITY HAZARDS .............................................................................. 11 3.3 NEW HAZARDS OR CHANGES FROM 2012 ....................................................................... 11 3.4 BRIEF STATEMENT OF UNIQUE HAZARDS ....................................................................... 12 3.5 MITIGATION PROJECT UPDATES ...................................................................................... 12 SECTION 4.0 - HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................. 12 4.1 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURES .............................................................. 12 4.2 ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSS.......................................................................................... 12 4.3 TABLE REPLACEMENT VALUES......................................................................................... 12 4.4 IDENTIFICATION OF RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES ........................................................ 13 SECTION 5.0 – COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM ................................................................................... 19 5.1 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES ....................................................................................... 19 5.2 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROPERTIES .................................................................. 19 SECTION 6.0 - CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 20 6.1 REGULATORY MITIGATION CAPABILITIES ....................................................................... 20 Reviewed Annually .................................................................................................................................. 21 6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE/TECHNICAL MITIGATION CAPABILITIES ............................................. 21 6.3 FISCAL MITIGATION CAPABILITIES ................................................................................... 22 SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION STRATEGIES ........................................................................................... 23 7.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................... 23 7.2 MITIGATION ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 24 7.3 ON-GOING MITIGATION STRATEGY PROGRAMS ............................................................. 25 7.4 FUTURE MITIGATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................... 26 SECTION 8.0 - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS ........................................ 26 SECTION 9.0 - INCORPORATION INTO EXISTING PLANNING MECHANISMS .................................. 26 SECTION 10.0 - CONTINUED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................ 27 APPENDIX A – PUBLIC NOTICES AND MAPS .................................................................................... 307 APPENDIX B - ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 SECTION 1.0 - COMMUNITY PROFILE 1.1 CITY MAP Figure 1-1: City of Temecula Map 5 1.2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE DESCRIPTION The City of Temecula (City) is an incorporated city in the southwestern portion of Riverside County. The City is 30.17 square miles and is 30 miles south of the county seat, the City of Riverside. The City sits north of (and adjacent to) San Diego County. The City’s eastern and western boundaries are Riverside County jurisdictions. To the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007
    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Watershed Annual Watermaster Report for the 2013-14 Water Year
    SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED ANNUAL WATERMASTER REPORT WATER YEAR 2013-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, ET AL. CIVIL NO. 51-CV-1247-GPC-RBB CHARLES W. BINDER WATERMASTER P. 0. BOX 631 FALLBROOK, CA 92088 (760) 728-1028 FAX (760) 728-1990 August 2015 WATERMASTER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION 1 - SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Authority .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Scope .................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3 - SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ......................................... 7 3.1 Surface Flow ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Surface Water Diversions .................................................................................. 13 3.3 Water Storage ................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 4- SUBSURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY ................................................. 19 4.1 General .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SETTLEMENT and RELEASE AGREEMENT This Settlement And
    SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT This Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on October ___,26 2020 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Temecula and City of Temecula City Council (the “City”); Ambient Communities, LLC and Temecula West Village, LLC (together referred to as “TWV”); Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Mountain Lion Foundation, and The Cougar Connection (collectively referred to as “CBD”); and Endangered Habitats League (“EHL”) (all referred to collectively as the “Parties” and, individually, a “Party”). RECITALS This Agreement is made with reference to, and in consideration of, the following facts and representations, which the Parties agree are true and correct: A. On December 12, 2017, the City Council of the City certified a final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approved other project entitlements (the “Approvals”) for the Altair Specific Plan (the “Project”). A map depicting the Project as approved is attached for reference purposes as Exhibit A. B. On January 11, 2018, CBD filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief alleging that Respondent City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and California planning and zoning laws in approving the EIR and the Approvals for the Project (the “CBD Petition”) in the action styled Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. City of Temecula, et al. (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC1800858) (the “CBD Action”). On January 10, 2019, CBD filed a First Amended and Supplemental Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief (the “Amended CBD Petition”), which added a claim alleging that the City had violated its duty to retain certain records.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed Water Quality Workplan
    Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed Water Quality Workplan UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY WORKPLAN for the Santa Margarita Region of Riverside County Revised: October 2015 i Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed Water Quality Workplan UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY WORKPLAN FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA REGION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY In compliance with Order No. R9‐2010‐0016, this Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed Water Quality Workplan has been developed and is currently being implemented by the Co‐Permittees in the Santa Margarita Region: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District http://www.rcflood.org County of Riverside http://www.countyofriverside.us/ City of Murrieta http://www.murrieta.org/ City of Temecula http://www.cityoftemecula.org/ City of Wildomar http://www.cityofwildomar.org/ ii Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed Water Quality Workplan Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY WORKPLAN ....... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Watershed Water Quality Workplan for the Upper Santa Margarita River......... 1 1.2 Watershed Workplan Development ............................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Public Participation .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Governance and Public Participation ............................................................................................ 2 1.4
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Margarita River Wma Monitoring Station Descriptions
    APPENDIX C Santa Margarita River WMA TMAR – FINAL January 2019 APPENDIX C – SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WMA MONITORING STATION DESCRIPTIONS Santa Margarita River WMA Transitional January 2019 Monitoring and Assessment Report - Final APPENDIX C Station Name: Temecula Creek below Pala Road (Lower Temecula Creek) Hydstra1 Reference #: 902LTC777 Location: Latitude 33° 28 '28.14" N Longitude 117° 8' 19.84" W Elevation 1,008 feet Thomas Bros Pg 979B3 Classification: Receiving Water - Mass Loading Station & Stream Assessment Type of Channel: Natural River Receiving Water: Santa Margarita River Directions to the site: Drive south on the I-215 freeway and exit at SR 79 South/Old Town Front Street. Go west of the freeway and turn left at the first stoplight. Turn left about 100 feet past the stop light onto a gravel/dirt road. Turn right, before the yellow EMWD gate. Drive to the dirt road that goes left and up. Go about 100 feet and turn right onto the dirt road. Go about 1,700 feet and drive to where the dirt road meets up with the gravel road. Follow the gravel road to the L3437 Pala II Pump Station. Park just past the pump station. Walk to the east and sample water from the stream flow just under the bridge. Temecula Creek at Pala Road is a Receiving Water Station. The Temecula Creek site, at an elevation of 968 feet, is located just east of the I-15 Freeway overpass, upstream of its confluence with Murrieta Creek. Creek flows are subsurface approximately 200 yards upstream (east) of the I-15 Freeway.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Riverside Santa Margarita Region Stormwater Management Plan
    COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SANTA MARGARITA REGION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN JULY 2005 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SWMP TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN............................ 2 2.1 Program Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Description of MS4 ...................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 County Departmental Responsibilities......................................................................................... 4 3.2 Watershed and County Cooperative Activities ............................................................................ 4 3.3 Fiscal Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Legal Authority ............................................................................................................................ 9 3.5 Enforcement ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 ELIMINATION OF ILLICIT CONNECTIONS AND ILLEGAL
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report 2018
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Monitoring Program 2018 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey and Nest Monitoring Report California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) nestlings begging for food in 2018. 16 April 2019 2018 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey and Nest Monitoring Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 2 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 2 SURVEY DESIGN ................................................................................................................................ 2 FIELD METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 2 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 3 TRAINING ........................................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 4 NEST SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Steelhead Passage Assessment Lower Santa
    Southern California Steelhead Passage Assessment, Lower Santa Margarita River, California and CUP Surface Water Availability Analysis (TM 1.1) April 27, 2012 Prepared for: United States Bureau of Reclamation Fallbrook Public Utilities District United States Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Prepared by: Stetson Engineers, Inc. San Rafael, CA with fish biology support from: Cardno ENTRIX Sacramento, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... I LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... VI ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST ........................................................................................... VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. IX 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 STUDY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE .........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 REPORT CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................1-1
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment D Monitoring Station Descriptions
    Attachment D Attachment D Monitoring Station Descriptions Attachment D – Description of Monitoring Stations Below is the legend for the maps within this section. Attachment D-1 Attachment D – Description of Monitoring Stations Station Name: Temecula Creek below Pala Road (Lower Temecula Creek) Hydstra1 Reference #: 902LTC777 Location: Latitude 33° 28 '28.14” N Longitude 117° 8' 19.84" W Elevation 1,008 ft Thomas Bros Pg 979B3 Classification: Receiving Water - Mass Loading Station & Stream Assessment Type of Channel: Natural River Receiving Water: Santa Margarita River Directions to the site: Drive south on the I-215 freeway and exit at SR 79 South/Old Town Front Street. Go west of the freeway and turn left at the first stoplight. Turn left about 100 feet past the stop light onto a gravel/dirt road. Turn right, before the yellow EMWD gate. Drive to the dirt road that goes left and up. Go about 100 feet and turn right onto the dirt road. Go about 1,700 feet and drive to where the dirt road meets up with the gravel road. Follow the gravel road to the L3437 Pala II Pump Station. Park just past the pump station. Walk to the east and sample water from the stream flow just under the bridge. Temecula Creek at Pala Road is a Receiving Water Station. The Temecula Creek site, at an elevation of 968 feet, is located just east of the I-15 Freeway overpass, upstream of its confluence with Murrieta Creek. Creek flows are subsurface approximately 200 yards upstream (east) of the I-15 Freeway.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Area Plan
    Southwest Area Plan Revised: April 16, 2019 This page intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS VISION SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................4 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ................................................................................................5 LOCATION...........................................................................................................................................................6 FEATURES ..........................................................................................................................................................6 SETTING ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 UNIQUE FEATURES .......................................................................................................................................... 11 The Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve .......................................................................................... 11 Vail Lake ................................................................................................................................................... 12 The Cleveland National Forest ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2011–2012 Budget
    OPERATING & NON-OPERATING BUDGETS Rancho California Water District 2011–2012 July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012 UDGET B 42135 Winchester Rd./Box 9017 Temecula, CA 92590 OPERATING & NON-OPERATING BUDGETS FISCAL YEAR 2011 ~ 2012 ADOPTED JUNE 9, 2011 Board of Directors Lawrence M. Libeu, President John E. Hoagland, Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corona Bennett R. Drake Lisa D. Herman William E. Plummer Roland C. Skumawitz Executive Management Matthew G. Stone, General Manager Richard S. Williamson, Assistant General Manager Jeffrey D. Armstrong, Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer Andrew L. Webster, Chief Engineer RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 ADOPTED BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Distinguished Budget Presentation Award ....................................................................................... 1 General Manager’s Budget Message .............................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION About the District ................................................................................................................. 6 Government ......................................................................................................................... 7 Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................... 8 Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................... 9 BUDGET PROCESS ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]