DOCSLIB.ORG

Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Prepared for: Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Prepared by: 1650 Spruce Street Suite 240 Riverside, California 92507 Contact: Wayne Fowler DRAFT – MARCH 2009 City of Temecula Municipal Services Review TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Statutory Requirements ...........................................................................................1 1.3 Service Review Process & Methodology………………………………………....2 1.4 Determinations from Prior MSR…………………………………………….…….3 2.0 CITY OF TEMECULA.....................................................................................................4 2.1 Overview................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Planning Boundaries and Growth ........................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Sphere of Influence……………………………………..…………………6 2.2.2 Planning Boundaries................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Growth Projections..................................................................................... 8 2.3 Administration and Operations............................................................................. 12 2.3.1 City Governance....................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 City Infrastructure..................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Municipal Services.................................................................................... 13 2.3.4 Finances .................................................................................................... 14 2.3.5 Capital Improvement Plans....................................................................... 18 2.4 Municipal Services................................................................................................ 19 2.4.1 Public Safety Services............................................................................... 19 2.4.2 Community Development Services .......................................................... 25 2.4.3 Public Works and Transportation Services............................................... 25 2.5 Temecula Community Services District ............................................................... 28 2.6 Redevelopment Agency.................................................................................. …..29 2.7 Park, Recreation and Library Services…………………………………………29 2.7.1 Parks and Recreation…..…………………………………………………29 2.7.2 Library Services. ...………………………………………………………34 2.8 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services ………………………………… 35 2.9 Other Services……………………………………………………………………36 2.9.1 Animal Control…………………………………………………….. ...…36 2.9.2 Information Technology........................................................................... 36 3.0 OTHER AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY OR WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND PLANNING AREA.......................................37 3.1 Services Provided by County Agencies................................................................ 37 1648 i March 2009 City of Temecula Municipal Services Review 3.1.1 Sherriff Services........................................................................................37 3.1.2 Fire Protection Services ............................................................................ 38 3.1.3 Library....................................................................................................... 38 3.1.4 County Service Areas ............................................................................... 38 3.1.5 PublicTransitServices ............................................................................... 41 3.1.6 Regional Park and Open Space District……………………………….…42 3.1.7 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District……...42 3.2 Special Districts………………………………………………………………….44 3.2.1 Eastern Municipal Water District ......................................................................... 44 3.2.2 Western Municipal Water District........................................................................ 45 3.2.3 Rancho California Water District………………………………………………..47 3.2.4 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California……………………………..49 3.2.5 Valley Wide Recreation And Parks District ......................................................... 49 3.2.6 Du Luz Community Services District................................................................... 51 3.2.7 North County Fire Protection District……………………………………………52 4.0 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS..................................................................54 4.1 Growth and Population ......................................................................................... 54 4.2 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, etc......................................... 54 4.3 Financial Ability of the City to Provide Services ................................................. 56 4.4 Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities...................................................... 57 4.5 Accountability for Community Service Needs..................................................... 58 4.6 Other Matters........................................................................................................ 60 10.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................61 MAPS 2-1 Vicintiy Map........................................................................................................... 5 2-2 Temecula, SOI & Planning Area Boundaries .........................................................7 2-3 Municipal Services Locations…………..…………………………..…………....22 3-1.4 County Service Areas……………………………………………………………40 3-2.1 Eastern Municipal Water District ………………………………………………..45 3-2.2 Western Municipal Water District ……………………………………….………46 3-2.3 Rancho California Water District ………………………………………………..48 3-2.5 Valley Wide Recreation & Park District …………………………………….…..50 3-2.6 DeLuz Community Services District …………………………………….………52 3-2.7 North County Fire Protection District ……………………………………………53 1648 ii March 2009 City of Temecula Municipal Services Review FIGURES 2.2-1 Taxable Sales........................................................................................................ 11 2.3-1 General Funds ………..…………………………………………………………14 2.3-2 General Fund Revenues ........................................................................................ 15 2.3-3 General Fund Expenses ........................................................................................ 16 2.3 -4 RDA & TCSD …………………………………………………………………...17 TABLES 2.1-1 City of Temecula Statistics ..................................................................................... 5 2.2-1 Demographics ........................................................................................................8 2.2.2 Housing Projections................................................................................................ 9 2.2-3 Employment Projections....................................................................................... 10 2.3-1 CIP Budgeted Projects .......................................................................................... 18 2.4-1 Police Stations....................................................................................................... 19 2.4-2 Police - Average Response Times ........................................................................ 21 2.4-3 FBI Part One Crime Statistics............................................................................... 21 2.4-4 Fire Stations.......................................................................................................... 24 26-1 Significant CIP Funded Road Improvement Projects .......................................... 26 2.5-1 TCSD Zones of Benefit ...…………………………….…………………..……..28 2.7-1 Parks ……………………………………………………………………………..30 2.7-2 Joint Use School Sites……………………………………………………………32 2.7-3 Recreation Facilities ............................................................................................. 33 2.7-4 Library Facilities…………………………………………………………………35 3.1.6 Bus Routes……………………………………………………………………….41 1648 iii March 2009 City of Temecula Municipal Services Review 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background This Municipal Service Review (MSR) focuses on the City of Temecula and has been prepared to assist the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in meeting the requirements contained within the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH2000). CKH 2000 requires LAFCO to review and update as necessary the spheres of influence (SOI) for all applicable agencies within each County not less than once every five years. A sphere of influence is defined by Government Code 56076 as “…a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as defined by the Commission …” This MSR is intended to assist Riverside LAFCO, affected agencies and the public in evaluating municipal services provided by the City of Temecula and identifying possible future constraints or challenges that may impact service
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1917 Gossip Column & News Articles
    TEMECULA VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1917 Gossip Column & News Articles January 5, 1917 After spending a few days in Los Angeles, Paul Clark of the Pauba Ranch returned home the first of the week. Eila Kolb, who is attending the Riverside business college, spent the holidays at home. After spending a very pleasant visit with his parents Frank Ramos returned to Riverside last Saturday to continue his studies. Dr. L. L. Roripaugh of Auld was in town the other day treating his friends to cigars. The doctor being newly wed his many friends wish him and his bride a very happy future. Curtis Stevenson and wife of Pechanga were first of the week visitors at the Ventura Arviso home. Francis McCarrell drove over here after freight for the Aguanga store. E. C. Tripp of Aguanga was in town the last of the week hauling lumber. Mrs. John B. Kelly returned home Saturday from Los Angeles where she had a pleasant two weeks' visit with her sister, Mrs. John N. Carr. Charles Swain and Juan Munoa have moved to the Harvey place, where they will plant barley this winter. The dance given at the Bank hall Saturday night was attended by several from the surrounding country. D. S. Woosley of Escondido was in town the first of the week doing some missionary work. A large number of the young people from town attended the dance at the Murrieta Hot Springs. George Studley has succeeded J. S. Felix as foreman of the cowboys at the Pauba Ranch. Mr. Studley has been a steady hand at the ranch for four years.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs
    Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2Seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs Angela Fan Claire Gardent Chloe´ Braud Antoine Bordes FAIR / LORIA CNRS / LORIA CNRS / LORIA FAIR angelafan,[email protected] claire.gardent,[email protected] Abstract Query-based open-domain NLP tasks require information synthesis from long and diverse web results. Current approaches extrac- tively select portions of web text as input to Sequence-to-Sequence models using meth- ods such as TF-IDF ranking. We propose constructing a local graph structured knowl- edge base for each query, which compresses the web search information and reduces re- dundancy. We show that by linearizing the graph into a structured input sequence, models can encode the graph representations within a standard Sequence-to-Sequence setting. For two generative tasks with very long text in- put, long-form question answering and multi- document summarization, feeding graph rep- resentations as input can achieve better perfor- mance than using retrieved text portions. 1 Introduction Effective information synthesis is at the core of many Natural Language Processing applica- Figure 1: Multi-Document Input to Linearized Graph tions, such as open-domain question answering Multi-document input resulting from web search queries are converted to a graph structured knowledge base using coref- and multi-document summarization. In such tasks, erence resolution and information extraction, then linearized a fundamental challenge is the ability to distill rel- into a sequence for Seq2Seq models. Color indicates coref- evant knowledge from hundreds of thousands of erence resolution. Node weight is indicated by circle radius and edge weight by line thickness.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study from the Temecula Area, Southwestern Riverside County, California
    Land Subsidence (Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Land Subsidence, May 1991). IAHS Publ. no. 200,1991. Earth Fissures, Urbanization and Litigation: A Case Study from the Temecula Area, Southwestern Riverside County, California E. J. CORWIN, S. C. ALHADEFF, S. P. OGGEL Lorenz Alhadeff Lundin & Oggel, 101 West Broadway, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, USA R. J. SHLEMON P.O. Box 3066, Newport Beach, CA 92659 , USA ABSTRACT Ground fissures occurring in 1987 extended discontinuously along a 12-km long zone in the rapidly-urbanizing Temecula-Wolf Valley area of southwestern Riverside County, California. Impacted were new residential and industrial buildings. Litigation has ensued, and damage is now alleged to exceed about 50 million dollars. Defendants include County government, a local Water District, developers, and consulting engineers and geologists. INTRODUCTION In the mid-1980s, urbanization dramatically increased in the Temecula area of southwestern Riverside County, California. From a population of 8,324 in 1980, the previously serene town, about 41 km north of San Diego and 53 km southeast of Los Angeles, jumped to a population of over 29,000 in 1988 (Fig. 1). Developers seized on the increasing popularity of southern California as a desirable place to live, and vast new residential and light industrial complexes ("Business Parks") were built. The rapid urbanization produced the usual plethora of environmental constraints for both the developers and residents of Temecula. The most unexpected problem was the mid-1987 occurrence of earth fissures, the resulting allegations of property damage and general loss of value, and the perhaps inevitable litigation that has since followed.
    [Show full text]
  • Activities of the Water Resources Division, California District, Fiscal Year 1993 U
    ACTIVITIES OF THE WATER RESOURCES DIVISION CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, FISCAL YEAR 1993 Compiled by Myrna L. DeBortoli U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 94-67 Sacramento, California 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Robert M. Hirsch, Acting Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For sale by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center Open-File Reports Section Box 25286, MS 517 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building, Room W-2233 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 MESSAGE FROM THE DISTRICT CHIEF The U.S. Geological Survey has been describing the water resources of California for more than 100 years. The California District consists of 250 staff members at nine locations, all of whom have contributed in some way to the studies described in this report. To accomplish the mission of describing the water resources of the State, the Survey staff works with more than 130 cooperating local, State, and Federal agencies with common interests in this most valuable resource. Climate extremes, such as the recent drought which is still fresh in people's minds, serve to focus our attention on the need for timely, high-quality water information. The flooding that occurred in southern California during the winter of 1992-93 is a reminder that climate extremes can change quickly. The studies described in this report cover a wide range of water issues in California that are important to water managers and scientists.
    [Show full text]
  • 9.3 PISGAH 1 2 3 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 4 5 6 9.3
    1 9.3 PISGAH 2 3 4 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 9.3.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Pisgah SEZ has a total area of 23,950 acres (97 km2) and is located in 10 San Bernardino County in southeastern California, about 100 mi (160 km) northeast of Los 11 Angeles (Figure 9.3.1.1-1). In 2008, the county population was 2,086,465. The nearest 12 population center to the SEZ is the City of Barstow, which is located about 25 mi (40 km) to 13 the west of the SEZ and had a 2008 population of 24,596. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs east–west 14 through the proposed Pisgah SEZ, bisecting it into a northern portion that contains about two- 15 thirds of the SEZ acreage and a southern portion with the remainder of the acreage. Access to the 16 SEZ from I-40 is available from exits at Fort Cady Road (to the west of the SEZ), Hector Road 17 (midway through the SEZ), and Pisgah Crater Road (at the eastern end of the SEZ). Hector Road 18 runs north–south through the middle of the SEZ, and a number of other local dirt roads cross the 19 SEZ. The National Trails Highway (historic U.S. 66) also passes through the SEZ as it runs 20 south of and parallel to I-40. The BNSF Railroad serves the area and traverses the SEZ from the 21 northwest to the southeast, running approximately parallel to and about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north of 22 I-40.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States
    Jump to Navigation Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States As of January 12, 2017, the USGS maintains a limited number of metadata fields that characterize the Quaternary faults and folds of the United States. For the most up-to-date information, please refer to the interactive fault map. Elsinore fault zone, Temecula section (Class A) No. 126d Last Review Date: 1998-12-01 citation for this record: Treiman, J.A., compiler, 1998, Fault number 126d, Elsinore fault zone, Temecula section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 12/14/2020 02:16 PM. Synopsis General: A major dextral strike-slip fault zone that is part of the San Andreas fault system. Research studies have been done to assess faulting on most of the sections, and have documented Holocene activity for the length of the fault zone with a slip rate around 4–5 mm/yr. Multiple events have only been dated on the Whittier fault and Glen Ivy North fault strand, so interaction between faults and adjacent sections is not well-known. Multiple strands within several sections mean that the studies are not always fully representative of the whole section. Numerous consulting reports (not summarized herein) that have addressed location and recency of faulting are on file with the State of California, California Geological Survey, as part of the records of their Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program. Sections: This fault has 7 sections. Sections are selected following
    [Show full text]
  • Explanitory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California
    An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D. STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2010 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any given purpose. An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 Compilation and Interpretation by CHARLES W. JENNINGS and WILLIAM A. BRYANT Digital Preparation by Milind Patel, Ellen Sander, Jim Thompson, Barbra Wanish, and Milton Fonseca 2010 Suggested citation: Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California INTRODUCTION data for states adjacent to California (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/). The The 2010 edition of the FAULT ACTIVTY MAP aligned seismicity and locations of Quaternary OF CALIFORNIA was prepared in recognition of the th volcanoes are not shown on the 2010 Fault Activity 150 Anniversary of the California Geological Map.
    [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]
  • 2017A Fixed-Rate Revenue Bonds
    NEW ISSUES – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY Ratings: S&P: “AAA” Fitch: “AAA” See “Ratings” herein. In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, California (“Bond Counsel”), under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, and assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants and requirements described herein, the interest (and original issue discount) on the Series of 2017A Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, the interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. $41,170,000 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY $38,725,000 $2,445,000 Tax-Exempt Fixed Rate Taxable Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017A Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017B Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on the inside cover The Rancho California Water District Financing Authority (the “Authority”) is issuing its $38,725,000 Tax-Exempt Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017A (the “Series of 2017A Bonds”) and $2,445,000 Taxable Fixed Rate Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series of 2017B (the “Series of 2017B Bonds” and, together with the Series of 2017A Bonds, the “Bonds,” and individually, a “Series”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 2017 (the “Indenture”), by and between the Authority and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California
    Full Report of Findings / April 2014 Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California Prepared By James W. Borchers • Michael Carpenter With Support By Full Report of Findings / April 2014 Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California Contributing Authors • James W. Borchers • Vicki Kretsinger Grabert • Michael Carpenter • Barbara Dalgish • Debra Cannon California Water Foundation The California Water Foundation (CWF) seeks to transition California to a sustainable and resilient water future – a future in which water is managed as a natural resource, looking across all sources and uses to find the best solutions for social welfare, economic development, and environmental sustainability. CWF supports innovative projects and policies that address water challenges today, while achieving long- term, science-based solutions for the future. CWF is an initiative of Resources Legacy Fund, with primary funding from S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation and Pisces Foundation, and additional support from David and Lucile Packard Foundation and others. Learn more at: http://www.californiawaterfoundation.org. Full Report of Findings / April 2014 Land Subsidence from Groundwater Use in California Acknowledgement The California Water Foundation Subsidence Resources Group was established on April 29, 2013 to act as advisors for this report and is made up of those persons most knowledgeable on the subject of subsidence. The group has provided general input and subsequent review of reference lists, data assessments, and descriptions of monitoring and research needs. CWF appreciates the contributions of the 22 members listed below: Gerald Bawden U.S. Geological Survey Chris Bonds CA Dept. of Water Resources No. Central Region Rob Carruth U.S. Geological Survey Wes Danskin U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Age Estimates, Flooding in Arizona, 20, Aggrading
    Index [Italic page numbers indicate major references] A Castellammare Mesa, California, 66, 81 debris flows (continued) catastrophic failures, 91 northern California, 61, 62, 65 age estimates, flooding in Arizona, 20, history of slope failure, 86 Puente Hills, 77 21 Catalina Channel, California, 106 rainfall thresholds for initiation of, 62, aggrading rivers, defined, 40 Central Highlands, 14, 15, 16 64 Agoura Hills, California, 67 rainfall, 13 San Gabriel Mountains, 78 Agua Fria River, 13, 26 runoff, 17 Santa Ana Mountains, 66, 77, 78 air masses, Arizona, 3 Central Highlands Province, 4, 5, 22 Santa Monica Mountains, 66, 67,77, 78 Alameda, California, 61 winter flooding, 6 Santiago Canyon, 66, 78 Alameda County, California, 65 winter frontal events, 6 Silverado Canyon, 66 Aleutian Low, 73 channel erosion, Gila River, 2 soil-slip, 61 Anaheim Hills, California, 66 circulation, large-scale, 3 southern California, 72 aqueducts, effects of channel circulation anomaly, eastern North Topanga Canyon, 67 degradation on, 44 Pacific Ocean, 22, 23 debris slide Aravaipa Creek, Arizona, 32 City of Oceanside, California, 40, 42 Dana Point, California, 66 pipeline crossings, 32, 35 Clarkdale, Arizona, 15, 16, 17 San Clemente, California, 66 Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe hydrographs, 18 degrading rivers, defined, 40 Railroad, 99, 100, 101, 103, 111 Clarkdale gauging station, Verde River, desert areas, Basin and Range Province, atmospheric circulation anomalies 13, 17 5 Arizona, 8 Clean Water Act, 46 development eastern North Pacific Ocean, 1, 8 climate
    [Show full text]
  • Low Resolution
    This Page Intentionally Blank 43402 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 951-676-6740 FAX: 951-676-6792 Western Municipal Water District Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2008 Update May 2008 Prepared for Western Municipal Water District 450 Alessandro Blvd Riverside, CA K/J Project No. 0787128 This Project has been funded by a California Department of Water Resources Proposition 50, Integrated Regional Water Management Program Planning Grant. Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. vii List of Appendices.......................................................................................................................viii List of Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................1 Section 1: Introduction and Plan Objectives ............................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................1-1 1.1.1 The IRWMP Update.................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Plan Preparation ......................................................................1-2
    [Show full text]