HomeMy WebLinkAbout040693 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - 29915 MIRA LOMA DRIVE
APRIL 6, 1993 - 7:00 PM
At .approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will
determine which 'of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00
PM and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
Mayor J. Sal Mu~oz presiding
Pastor Erik Krag, Temecula Evangelical
Councilmember Birdsall
Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone, Mu~oz
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-08
Resolution: No. 93-29
PUBLIC COMMENTS
.A total' of 15 minutes is provided so members of the pul~l!c can address the Council' '
0n items that are not listed on the Agenda'or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are
limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item
not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak" form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
Agenda/040693
04/01/93
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Consideration of Allocation of Funds for Temecula Vallev Film Commission
Placed on the Agenda at the 'request' of Mayor Mufloz
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the. allocation of $12,000..to the· Temecula..Valley Film
Commission for preparatioil of a Production Guide, to. be funded from
the City's ·Promotional Program. · ..... ', ..
2 Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project: Section 404(b)1 Alternative Analysis
Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Parks
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Review the attached excerpt from the 404 Permit Applica~i'on submitted
to the Army Corps of Engineers by the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District describing the analysis of alternatives.
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing
or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the
project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
or in written correspondences delivered to the City. Clerk at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation ProQram, Environmental linDact Report
and MitiQation Monitorinc~ ProQram
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Review the Housing, Community Design, Open Space/Conservation,
Growth Management/Public Facilities and Land Use Elements, take
public testimony, and direct staff to incorporate the elements as
presented, into the final General Plan which will be presented for City
Council adoption at the conclusion of the Public Hearings;
3.2
Continue the Public Hearing to April 20, 1993.
Agenda/040693
-2- 04/01/93
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: April 13, 1993, .7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California '
Next General Plan Public Hearing: April 20, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula; California
?"' Agenda/040693
-3-
0410 1/93
ITEM
NO.
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:.
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
Mayor J.' Sal Mu~oz
April 6, 1993
Item No. 1 - Temecula Valley Film Commission
City Clerk June S. Greek
Consider the allocation of $12,000 to the Temecula Valley
Film Commission for preparation of a Production Guide, to be funded from the City's
Promotional Program.
BACKGROUND:
This will be an oral presentation.
JSG
ITEM
'NO.
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
~FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. 'Serlet, Director .of Public Works/City Engineer
April 6, 1993
Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project; Section 404(b)1
Analysis
Alternative
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council review the attached excerpt from the 404 Permit Application submitted
to the Army Corps of Engineers by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District describing the analysis of alternatives.
BACKGROUND:
Attached for your review is an excerpt from the section of Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District's Application for a 404 Permit that describes the analysis of the
various alternatives that led to the selection of the preferred project.
Pw01~egdrpfi93~,O406\murrcrk.anl 0331m
ITEM
NO.
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPR~
CITY ATTORNEY DV~-~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City. Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
April 6, 1993
City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation Program, Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
PREPARED BY:
John Meyer and David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION:
It is requested that the City Council review the Housing,
Community Design, Open Space/Conservation, Growth
Management/Public Facilities and Land Use Elements, take public
testimony, and direct staff to incorporate the element as
presented into the final General Plan which will be presented for
City Council adoption at the cohclusion of the Public Hearings.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, and March 16 1993, the City Council held public hearings on the Draft City
General Plan. To date the Circulation, Economic Development, Public Safety, Noise and Air
Quality Elements have been reviewed by the Council.
At the April 6, 1993, meeting, the Council will review as many of the above listed elements
as time permits. Those elements not covered at this meeting will be continued to the April
6, 1993 City' Council meeting.
.INTRODUCTION '
On July 9, 1991, the City Council approved a contract with the Planning Center to assist the
City in preparing its first General Plan. State Law requires that the General Plan be
comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-term. The General Plan must address land use,
housing, traffic circulation, resource conservation, open space, noise and public safety. The
City COuncil has elected to include chapters on growth management; air quality, public
facilities, economic development, and community design.
According to State Law, the General Plan is the primary document required of a City as a
basis for regulating land use. Consequently, the Development Code, future Specific Plans, the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and other development projects in the City must be
consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Standards contained in the Temecula General Plan.
In addition, all City capital improvements and public works projects must be consistent with
the General Plan.
S%GENPLAN%GP. CC3
The City's approach to preparing the General Plan involved substantial guidance by the
Planni.ng Commission and City Council, a Community Participation Program, and technical
review and. guidance by City staff and Technical Subcommittees. The Planning Commission
and City Council, through joint workshops, essentially functioned as a general plan advisory
committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for clear direction on the Goals
and Policies of the elements, so they related to lan'd use, circulation, open Space/conservation,
and other issues.
The Citizen Participation Program was designed to provide a high level of communication
between City officialS., citizens, landowners, and the consultant team. The Program Offered
.numerous opportunities for' the public to attend workshops at key milestones during the
formulation of the Plan. The community outreach meetings included a series of four
Neighborhood Meetings and two Town Hall Meetings. In addition, staff met individually with
concerned citizens and landowners throughout the process. Five Technical Subcommittees
met on two occasions during the process to provide a more detailed and technical review of
the General Plan elements. The City also disseminated information on the draft components
of the General Plan through a series of newsletters, press releases, newspaper articles, and
radio announcements.
REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
This report is intended to provide a brief. introduction and background into Temecula's Draft
General Plan. The Public Hearing for the draft General Plan will be considered over several
City CounCil meetings to provide ample opportunity for public input and comment.
REVISED GENERAL PLAN EDITION
A Revised General Plan Edition, dated February 16,1993, has been produced for the Council's
consideration. This revised edition contains all of the changes and additions that were
presented to the Planning Commission. Additions to the text are shown in bold italics and
deletions are show with a strike out. The recommended changes are the result of input
received during Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshops, Technical Subcommittee
Meetings and staff review, and from written co. mments by the public. .Additions and
revisions directed by. the. Planning Commission are presented. in the same manner, but noted
in the margins.
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
Individual Elements of the Draft General Plan contain:
An Introduction
A Summary of Issues
Goals and Policies
Implementation Programs
The Introduction provides the legal framework and requirements of the Element. The
Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues. The Goals and
Policies demonstrate how those issues will be addressed. The Implementation Programs
describe how the Goals and Policies are intended to be implemented. Individual elements
contain additional sections.
S%GENPLAN\GP.CC3 2
1. HOUSING ELEMENT
Background.
The purpose of e housing element is to address local and regional housing needs. A housing
element is expected to: (1) assess local housing needs, resources, and constraints; (2)
identify sites to meet future housing needs; (3) provide goals and objectives to maintain,
improve and develop local hous'ing; and (4) provide a five-year master plan to meet the City's
share of. regional housing needs.
Discussion
The primary items addressed in the Housing .Element that affect the City of Temecula include
the following: compile community population trends and demographic information; inventory .
the existing housing stock; assess special community housing needs; identify the City's
regional housing allocation; and address constraints to providing. adequate housing.
The key aspects of the Housing Element are:
· To provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of existing and future residents;
· To provide affordable housing;
· To remove governmental constraints in maintaining and developing housing;
· To conserve the existing housing stock; and,
· To provide equal access to local housing opportunities and prohibit discrimination.
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission received limited public testimony and no major issues were
identified. As a result only minor changes were made .to the draft of this element.
Comments from State Department of Housing and Community Development
The Draft Housing Element has been circulated to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) as required by Sate Law. HCD reviewed the Draft and in July of 1992,
provided a number of comments regarding consistency with State Law. The City's response
to HCD's comments were incorporated into the Draft General Plan recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission. The most significant revision was the removal of target
densities from the Medium and High Residential Land Use Designations. 'Because the City's
highest density is only 20 dwelling units per acre, HCD believed any conditions on realizing
that density would be a undue hardship or government constraint, in providing affordable
housing.
S%GENR, AN~GP.CC3 3
After the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Element, staff sent a copy
of the updated version to HCD for additional comments. Since the March 16, 1993 City
Council me.eting, staff has received comments on the updated Housing Element from the State
Department'of Housing and Community Development. Staff and consultants will need some
policy direction from the Council regarding the location of emergency and transitional housing,
and the selection of programs to assist the development of affordable housing.
However, because the comments were received so late, staff and the consultants were unable
to prepare a discussion of the issues in time for this April 6, staff report. Staff therefore
recommends 'that the Council take public testimony on the Housing Element, discuss any
aspect of the element' as necessary, and t.hen continue the element to the next meeting.
2. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of the Community Design Element is to improve the quality of site, architectural
and landscape design for new development and major modifications to existing development.
Discussion
The City of Temecula has a rich tradition and an outstanding natural environmental setting.
New development can enhance and strengthen the communit. y's character or diminish it. The
image and character of the community is shaped by the features of design that can provide
a distinctive and attractive setting.
The key aspects of the Community Design Element include:
· Encouraging project design that provides visual interest and human scale.
· Implementing a citywide network of trails, bikeways and walkways
Establishing. landscaped corridors and gateways.
Promoting Design excellence in planning landscape. architecture and architectural
design by establishing design guidelines and performance standards.
Reinforcing Temecula's "Sense of Place" by encouraging the development of
distinctive Village Centers with mixtures of land uses.
· Preserving areas of rural character by minimizing development intensity.
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the protection of existing
neighborhoods. As a result, the Commission directed staff to strengthen language addressing
the transition between different land uses. In addition, the Commission removed the Art in
Public Places from the implementation program. The Commission reasoned that there was
too much potential for controversy associated with' this kind of program.
S~GENPLAN~GP.CC3 4
3. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of an open space element is to address the preservation and maintenance,
management, and use of open space. In addition, a conservation element should address the
conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. A combined open space and
conservation element'is expected to: (1) address open space needs and opportunities to
protect natural resources, .agricultural and mineral production, ground water recharge,
recreation, and to protect the public health and safety; (2) address the conservation of water,
soil, agricultural, fish and wildlife, forest, mineral, and other .resources; and, (3) identify how
the City will address these conservation and resource issues.
Discussion
The primary issues 'addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Element include the
following: existing park and recreational facilities; riding, hiking and bicycle trails; biologic
resources; surface and ground waters; agricultural lands and resources; historic and cultural
resources; archaeologic and paleontologic resources; and, dark-sky resources for the Hale
Observatory on Palomar Mountain.
The key aspects of the Open Space and Conservation Element are:
· To provide a high quality parks and recreation system to meet local recreational needs;
· To conserve and protect local water resources;
· To conserve important biological resources (habitats, plants and animals);
To conserve energy through the use of available technology and conservation
practices;
To conserve open space areas to protec:~ natural resources, and provide opportunities
for recreation and. scenic enjoyment;
· To preserve significant historic and cultural resources;
· To protect prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urban uses; and,
· To protect local dark skies from intrusive light which may impact the Hale Observatory.
The Open Space and Conservation Element addresses the issues and concerns required by
State Law. In addition, the Element will provide a foundation for future park, trail, and open
space acquisition and planning.
The City has received a number of comments and concerns on the Open Space and
Conservation Element. The most significant concerns include the following:
· Conservation of resources.
S\GENPLAN\GP. CC3 5
· Participation in regional water resource management.
Pres.ervation of historic, structures, landscape features, and roads associated with their
Los Alamos Road.
· Participation in open space resource management.
To address these issues, new and revised goals, policies and implementation measures were
added to the draft Open Space and' Conservation Element.
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission received lengthy public testimony regarding the location of trails on
the draft Recreational Trails exhibit. The majority of the testimony centered on a trails shown
through the Meadowview open space. The Commission directed staff to remove the exhibi~
from the General Plan and defer it to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which will follow
the General Plan process. During the processing of the Master Plan the exhibit was modified
and has been recommended for approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission. The master plan has also been endorsed by the Meadowview
Homeowners Association Board of Directors, and the Rancho California Horsemen
Association.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to modify the discussion regarding resource
conservation to approach it in a more balanced manner. In addition staff was directed to
remove policies and implementation measures addressing the preparation of a Comprehensive
Open Space Plan and consideration of establishing a mitigation bank.
4. DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of this element is to address regional infrastructure issues. The growth
management/public facilities element is expected to: (1) identify local and regional
infrastructure needs; and (2) promote Orderly gr(~wth developm. ent .that addresses market
needs while maintaining a high quality of life.
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element includes
the following: growth management strategies; public services, facilities, and utility
infrastructure and standards.
The Growth Management/Public Facilities Element addresses primary issues contained in the
growth management programs of Riverside County and Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG).
The key aspects of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element are:
· To work cooperatively with other local governments;
S%GENPLAN~,GP.CC3 6
· To ensure an orderly and efficient pattern of growth; and,
· To e. nsure adequate public services, utilities, and facilities.
The City did receive comments from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
and the Temecula Valley Unified School District '(TVUSD). SCAG's recommendation is to
promote phased development so that jobs and housing grow in a complementary manner.
This issue is already addressed ~jnder Goal I in the draft General Plan. Modifications to the
Goals and Policies were made in response to some of the District's Concerns..
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission's discussion focused on the language contained in the policies
regarding school facilities (Policies 4.1 through 4o5). Based on testimony given by the
Temecula Valley unified School District representative, the Commission, on a 3-2 vote,
directed staff to explore revising the policies such that the School District would be treated
like other utility districts. The resulting effort would then require a developer to receive a
"sign-off" or "will serve letter from the School District.
The City Attorney's office at the request of staff, prepared a legal opinion regarding the legal
issues as they related to this matter. The opinion recommended revised language to the
policies. The opinion also stated the City should avoid any policy requiring a developer to
demonstrate that adequate school facilities exist or will be provided to serve their project.
Such a requirement, would in the Attorney's opinion, be considered irapermissible under' SB
1287.
On a 3-2 vote the consensus of the Commission was to recommend the policy language as
revised by the attorney. The City Attcrney's opinion and an opinion from the School District's
legal counsel have been attached for the Council's review. The City Attorney further advises
that the impact of SB 1287 on general plans and school facilities continues to be a major
issue across the state. In particular, the County is now grappling with this same issue. In
response, the Riverside County Legal Counsel has requested an opinion of the Attorney
General to resolve the issue. It is anticipated the opinion will be issued within the year.
The Commission heard testimony regarding adequacy of sheriff and fire services. The policies
relating to sheriff and fire services were then modified per Planning Commission direction.
5. DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of the land use element is to address the issue of the distribution and location
of land for housing, business, industry, open space, public, and agricultural uses. The land
use element is expected to: (1) identify the intensity of land use; and (2) to specify how
private land may be used and developed.
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Land Use Element include the following: the existing land
use pattern; special land use areas (such as rural and estate scale housing or Old Town
S\GENPLAN\GP,CC3 7
Temecula); land use compatibility;' community facilities; and the need to provide pedestrian
and human scale amenities.
The key aspects of the Land Use Element are:
To provide an integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and
public land uses;
· To ens.ure compatibility between different land uses and areas;
· To protect and 'enhance the character of residential neighborhoods; ·
· To preserve and enhance environmental resources;
· To provide a land use pattern which encourages alternative modes of transportation;
· To improve, enhance, and maintain the character of Old Town Temecula;
To ensure the orderly annexation and development of the City's Sphere of Influence;
and,
To develop in.a manner which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use
patterns.
The City has received numerous comments on the draft Land Use Element. The majority of
these comments relate to the designations on the Land Use Map. Some modifications have
been made to the .text of the element in response to these comments. In response to
direction given at a joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting, staff established a
Special Study Overlay. This is intended for those areas in the community that require a
comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and constraints.
Planning Commission Hearings
The majority 'of the testimony received by Commission involved parcel specific request. s to
modify the draft Land Use Plan. Aside from the draft Land Use Plan only minor modifications
were made to the Land Use Element.
DRAFT LAND USE PLAN
As mentioned above, staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend
the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff
has developed a Parce~ Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix will be forwarded to
Council prior to the April 20, 1993 meeting'. This will allow the Council to focus on these
requests at a single public hearing,
CONCLUSION
The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Community Design, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements have been adequately
revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups, and other agencies.
S%GENPLAN%GP. CC3 8
Attachments:
1. -General Plan Comment Letters - Page 10
Attorney Opinions on SB 1287 - Page 11
S%GENPLAN%GP, CC3 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS
S%GENPLAN\GP.CC3 10
~e,18 West Seventh Street,12th Floor · Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 D (213) 236-1800 · FAX (213) 236-1825
EXECU'~ COM~,U
Rk"p.. CitieS Of San Bentar~no
County
· Jetm t,onlvtBe, M,,yor
First Vice Pt~ident
Second Vice Pm.tid~t
Ciues of Rivehide Cmmty
Judy Niebm~r, Counct/memUr
Mor~no ~/alley
Past Pr~sidem
Rip.. Venturn
Jolm Flynn,
Los Angeles. County
.Mike Antono,~:h. 5upervuor
Dean~ Dana. 5upe rv uo r
Orange Count
Harnett W~r, .$upen, utor
Rsvensd~ Count~ *
Norton Ymanllove. 5.,m, rvuor
San Bemlrdano County
Jtm Mikeis,
Csues of Los Angeles County
Robert Bartlett Mayor
MOl~Fovla
C~ues of Im naJ
wte),
Cmes ofOv-d~;e Counr~
~ Lmaa
· of Ven~rd
Jolm Mdtou,
Santa Pau|a
Cn~ of Los Angcict
Tom Bradley, Ma~or
Mark R.idley-'Tbotna~
CIty of Long Be~:~
CLtrernet StmUk C o..nc , ,m..,wN r
POLICY COM.VU t It.E CI'LAIRS
[hlJID Ril~p MaYor p,,n Tern
Cla, r~mont, C,~n, Encra**,,
S. cml Garr~tt V~ce Mayo,
Hernet. Cnatr Comd'nun,~
Develogment
AT-LARGE DELEGATES
Ro~rt Lewx%.
Fred Al~uar, Mavo~
Chmo
Padre Desert
September 23, 1992
Mr. John Meyer
City of Temecula
. Temecula Plantring DeparUnent
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
SEP 2 5 1992
hr,'d.:. ......
Tcmecula Draft General Plan
SCAG Clearinghouse # 19200089
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for submitting the City of Temecula's Draft General Plan and DEFR
to SCAG for review and comment. As Areawide Clearinghouse for regionally
significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties, and other agencies in
reviewing projects and plans for consistency with the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (P, HNA), the Regional Mobility Plan (R.MP), the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), and conformity with the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), all of which are included in the State Implementation'Plan.
SCAG comments are meant to provide guidance within the context of our regional
goals and policies. These goals and policies have been adopted in the SCAG
regional plans specified above and are based, in part, upon state and federal
mandates. While the City is not required to undertake the specific actions
recommended by SCAG or other agencies through the Inter-Governmental Review
process, there are requirements in state and federal laws .for consistency'and
conformity with i'egional goals and plans.'
If you have any questions about the attached comments, please contact Barbara
Dove at (213) 236-1861. She will be happy to assist you.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD I. SHERWOOD, Ph.D.
Director, Forecasting, Analysis & Monitoring
Page 2
SCAG CO1VI1W~-NTS ON
TH~ CITY OF ~ULA GE~rBRAL PLAN AND FIR
'PROI~-CT r~-~crRrFrION
This is Temecula's first General Plan since incorporation in 1989. The Temecula Study Area
is located in the southwestern comer of Riverside County and consists of three distinct .areas:'
the incorporated City of Terneeula; the adopted Sphere of Influence for the City'; and an adjacent
area west of Winchester Road within the County of Riverside (for General Plan purposes, this
third area is called the Area of Interest). Temecula is 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles; 60
miles north of San Diego and 40 miles south of Riverside.
The City encompasses approximately 26 square miles while the Study Area totals approximately
60 square miles. Temecuh currently has about 30,000 acres of undeveloped land. Buildout is
anticipated to take forty or more years.
The General Plan offers a Vision Statement which includes the following concepts and values:
A balance of residential, commercial and industrial opportunities
Retail and business development within multiple commercial centers, not necessarily
within a single Central Business District
- A convenient and effective transportation system which includes vehicular circulation,
air, rail, bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel.
The General Plan also sets forth a series of goals for each of the Plan Elements.
I -and Use. Element goals are:
Among the
A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and
public land uses.
A Plan for Old Town Temecula that enhances economic viabLlity, preserves historic
Structures, addresses parking and public improvement needs,...
Orderly annexation and development Of unine0rporated. areas within Temecula's Sphere
of Influence.
A' City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns.
The Air Quality Element goals include:
- Improvement of air quality through proper land use planning in Temecula.
- Enhanced mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions.
- Incorporate energy conservation practices and recycling to reduce emissions.
Effective coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area.
REGIONAL PLAN POLICIES
There are a number of policies expressed in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) which are
Page 3
relevant to this project. Among them.am policies which would:
- Promote future patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs of
infra~macm~ ~:mstt~fion and ~ betu:r use of existing ~-iliti~, and to a~hi~e a
good match between futm~ growth and th= pbn~ing of new faciliti~ or expansion of
P, xisting ones.
EncoUrage growth to occur in and around:
- activity cenun
· transporUttion nocl~ corridon
underutilized infrastmctmz systnns.
areas needing recycling and redevelopment
Encourage mixed-use developments and other planning t~chniques to malz employment
centers easy to walk to or reach by transit.
Achieve better jobs/housing balnnee at the subregional level through:
encouragement and provision of incentives to attract housing growth in job-rich
subregions
encouragement and provision of incentives to attract job growth in housing-rich
subregions
To the degree possible, achieve a balance, by subregion of the type of jobs with the price
of housing.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Tcmecula is located in the urbanizing, housing-rich Central Riverside Subregion. SCAG's
Regional Growth Management' Plan states the 2010 housing forecast for this subregion is
258,800 units, which is an addition of 168,800 units over the 1984 level. The employment
forecast of 179,500 represents 139,700 added jobs between 1984 and 2010. The job/housing
balance ratio of .45..in 1984 imp.rOves to .70 in 'the year 2010.- The job/housing balance
performance ratio computed by dividing added jobs by added dwelling units from '1984 to 2010
'is .83.
The Study Area is predominately a residential community with large areas of undeveloped land.
A mix of employment and housing opportunities is a major focus of the proposed General Plan
and the policies contained in the Land Use, Economic Development, Housing, and Air Quality
Elements reflect this focus. The land Use Element discusses developing Village Centers
throughout the area, the concept being to develop mixtures of commercial and residential uses
that will minimize vehicular ciI'ettlation trips and avoid sprawling of commercial development.
Statements in the implementation program which support ~he goals stated in the Air Quality
Element include:
- Establish local-performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction which are
Page 4
consistcnt with SCAG's GrOwth Management Plan recommended standards for Westan
Rivexsidc County subregion.
Imp~3~e. jobs/housing balance by encouraging the development and expansion of
businesses, while also promoting housing, affordable to all segments of the population,
near these job oppo~~
Develop air quality mitigation measures to be used in considering future development.
Approve development that could signHk~nfly impa~t air quality, either individually or
cumulafively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid,
minimize or offset the impact.'
Recommendations
· SCAG recommends that the City phase development. so that both jobs and housing grow in a
complementary manner.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT CrDIVD
The General Plan contains several goals, policies, implementation programs and mitigation
strategies related to TDM. The General Plan states that the City plans to adopt a Trip Reduction
Ordinance, to promote the use of alternative work weeks and flextime among employers,
encourage the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), and to require
operators of major outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction Plan CFRP).
'However,' to be adequate for the purposes intended by the SIP, the TDM program should
specifically address the following element.s:
1) An adequately detailed de~_~cription of TDM measur~ incorponted into the plan as
mitigation me2sures or futures of the plan.
2) Expected effect and VMT/VT reduction targets for .each component of the ..TDM
program.
3) Funding sources ~or each program component.
4) Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the
TDM program.
5) An implementation schedule for each TDM program component.
Recommendations
The TDM policies and programs of the General Plan should be designed to include commifments
to specific TOM programs with clear delineation of responsibilities, trip reduction targets,
financial arrangements and specific schedules for action on each specific measure.
SIP CONFORMITY
A pwject is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has
satisfied the following three a'iteth:
1)
2)
3)
It improves the subregion's j.obs/housing b~h, nco performance ratio or is contributing to
attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target.
It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled to. the maximum extent feasible by
implementing ~rtation demand management strategies.
Its environmental document includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the
project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long tern',.
All mitigation measures associated with the General Plan should be monitored in accordance
with AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Reasonable Further Progress
Reports.
.>
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
GENERAL POLICIES
Public services and facilities, including schools, must be available to serve the
needs created. by present and future development when it occurs in the City.
Approval-of subdivisions, rezones,' development plans and General .Plan
Amendments for new commercial and residential. development should be done
only where all public services and facilities, including schools, can be provided
in an adequate and timely manner.
The objective of the plan is to insure that development be coordinated with the
provision of adequate public service facilities, including schools, and
infrastructure.
SPECIFIC POLICIES - Relating to Schools Section
New development in the plan area must, along with the State of California,
continue to provide the funding necessary to meet the demand for new school
facilities in a timely manner. If State monies are not available in a timely
manner, new development must provide up to 100% of the-cost of school
facilities.
Adequate school facilities must be shown to be available in a timely manner
before approval will be granted to new residential development including
subdivisions, rezones and General Plan Amendments.
Joint use of school/City faciiities sliould be planned and financed wherever
possible. This should include joint use of school grounds/buildings and City.
Parks, libraries, multipurpose buildings, swimming pools, etc.
Develop criteria for designation of school sites, setting underlying zoning and
provisions for granting density bonuses for school property in exchange for land
dedication. If dedication of land is not feasible, the City shall assist the district
in obtaining school land at the best possible prices.
5. Provisions for including school's funding in future development projects.
Approved but undeveloped lots/projects (infill) which will create a future impact
upon the school districts must provide up to 100% of the cost of school
facilities.
06/05/92
j~ Dangermond &' Associates
ComDrerslnsevt Services for: ParKs anti I~ecreotlo~ · Land Conservation · Wildlife Preservation · LOna Plonn,ng · LOnOICODe ArChiteCture
September 25, 1992
· City of Temeada
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecnla, CA 92590
Re: Dra.R General Plan and EHR
RECEIVED
SEP 2 6 1992
CITY 0F TEMECULA
Dear Council Members:
Dang~ond & Assochtes was recently remlned by URGE (Union for a River Greenbelt
Environment), Preserve Our Plateau (POP), and Friends of the Santa Margarita River (Friends) to
review the City's draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report and to prepare comments on
their behalf. URGE is a citizens group formed for the purpose of protecting the ecological integrity
of the area, with special concern for Murrieta Creek and the larger Santa Margarita River system of
which it is a pan. POP is also concerned with protecting the overall ecological integrity of the area,
and has a speciaJ concern for the Santa Rosa Phteau and its connections with the Santa Margarita
River and other significant habitat areas in the region. The Friends was formed in 1983 as an
organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Santa Margarita River and its resources.
The General Plan is an important document which will guide the City's future, and crucial decisions
with major ramifications for whether or not we adequately protect biological resources and provide
for residents' enjoyment of them will be based on the Plan. The purpose of this leUer is to point out
what URGE, POP, and the Friends believe are the strengths and weaknesses of'both the draft
General Plan and the DEIK, and to offer constructive recommendations for remedying de~dencies.
The fn-st portion of our comments will address the draft General Plan, and the second portion the
DEIR.
GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS
In .reviewing the General Plan for URGE, POP, and the Friends, our overall conclusion is that the.
desire to 'protect sensitive resources is clearly evident, but the means to achieve the goal are not
always adequately delineated. This is perhaps not surprising Since protection of ecosystems and
their biological resources has become ever more difficult and complex as growth and development
have placed increased pressures on nattrial systems. Impacts are sometimes direct and obvious; yet
often they are subtle and insufficiently underst. txxt, as are the ecosystem themselves. Thus, cities
and counties everywhere struggle m articulate policies, plans, and strategies adequate to protect
ecosystems. Temecula has made a good beginning, and URGE, POP, and the Friends look forward
to working coopera~vely with the city to enhance the General Plan's resource protection policies to
ensure they actually achieve the ~e,,t,-d goals.
URGE. POP, and the Friends believe that the single most important policy is to be proactive. The
protection of open space and natural resources cannot be accomplished reactively and piecemeal.
Rather it should be approached as a fu.. of infraslructum planning. Just as effective, adequate
circulation, water distribution, and sewer systems must be laid out prior to development, so a
coherent, adequate open space system should be laid out in advance of development to ensure that
sensitive resources and habitats are protected in an integrated, connected network. And just as the
City recognizes the need for a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to fund and implement needed
Main Offtce· 1721 2nO Street Suite 203 · Sacramento · California · 95814., Tel: (916) 447-5022 · Fax: (916) 447-5099
380 N San Jactnto Street Suite 2[~ · Hemet · California · 92543 * Tel: (714) 7656250 · Fax: (714) 76,.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.~6251
development infrastru~, so the City needs a CIP to fund and implement the needed open space -
infraslrucnL,~ Our comments will focus on these two key areas: (1) proactive identification of the
neexlexi open space system, and (2) development of a clear implementation plan for the establishment
of that system, including land acquisition, habitat restoralion, resource nunagement, and *preventive
care" through careful planning and buffering. We believe that taking a more proactive ach will
ensure more effective resource protection and avoid major future problems such as wod~
accompany the listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act.
For convenience, we have generally followed the formai of quoting and discussing relevant General
Hart goals and recommending policy revisions and new policies which we believe will better achieve
the goals. In some instances we have suggested revision of the goal language itseft, or have added
new goals where needed to flesh out the Geru~ Plan's protection of local ecosystems. In some
instances we discuss other aspects of the General Plan than goals and. policies. Proposed new
language is shown in bold italics.
LAND USE EI o_EMENT GOAL 1: A COMPLETE AND INTEGRATED MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL, COM38F-RCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND PUBLIC
LAND USES.
Discussion
! -~nd use planing should be comprehensive and seek a well-balanced community as the goal
suggests. Resource conservation should be an integral pan of that balance, and good planning
should seek to be proactive in identifying areas to be conserved in a coherent system, just as it seeks
to locate and balance various types of developed uses; i.e. commercial, residential, industrial, etc.
Recommendations
l. Revise the goal statement to read as follows:
A complete and integrated mix i~f residential, commercial, industrial, recreational,
conservation, and public land uses. [Also reflect this change in the dis~fussion text which
follows the goal statement in the General Plan.]
2. Add a policy which states:
Identify a coherent open space system for the protection of natural resources;
use this system as a guide in reviewing development proposals; and proactively
seek to ensure the permanent protection of the open system system.
!,AND USE ELEi~IENT GOAL .4: A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT
PRESERVES AND ENHANCES THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE
STUDY AREA.
Discussion
This is.clearly an appropriate goal for the General Plan; the discussion that follows in the General
Plan does not, however, clearly articulate that preservation and enhancement of these resources must
occur in the context of a well planned, coherent open space system.
-2-
Recommendations
1. Strengthen the current discussion in the General Plan by revising the last sentence to read:
Although the majority of the area is anticipated to ultiw:~..ly be m'banized, it is important that the
City. seek to retain a well-planned, coherent and connected system of open space that
is of value for its biological, recreational, visual or aesthetic characteristics, and wk/ch
functions as part of a larger self-sustaining ecosystem.
.2. Revise Po~icy 4.3 to stnz:
Cooperate With other agencies, and condua city-initiated planning area studies as
needed, to develop. Multi-species Habitat Conservation Hans in western Riverside and .'
northern San Diego Counties, in which the City will partialpate by conserving those
lands' within its jarisdiction necessary to implement an overall Mula-species
Habitat Conservation Plan..
3. Revise Policy 4..5 to read:
Work with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and other
responsible agencies on the design of the flood control projea for Mumeta Creek to develop a
system which protects the public against flooding while maintaining the
biological resource values of the Murrieta Creek riparian areas as well as down
stream habitat along the Santa Margarita River.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, INTRODUCTION
'Discussion
The Introduction to the Open Space/Conservation Element states a number of Iittrposes for the
Element, including the conservation of natural resource areas. We aLZairt feel it would be appropriate
to more clearly specify the need for a proactively planned, coherent, and connected system of open .
space' to protect wildlife habitat and movement corridors as pan of a larger, self-sustaining
ecosystem. (Recommended wording is contained in the Recommendations sections below.) The
Introduction usefully describes a number of relate~l planning efforts which should be considered in
Temecula's resource conservation planning efforts. One study which was not menhoned, and which
could be quite useful, is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Advanced Identification Study
of the Santa Margarita watershed. (A brief description is prodded in the Recommen~rions
section.)
Recommendations
1. On page 5-1 of the Open Space/Conservation Element, rewrite the fourth purpose ~buIlet' to
To maintain and enhance the City's valuable natural resource areas necessary for the
establishment of a proactively planned, coherent, and connected system of open
space to protect wildlife habitat and movement corridors as parr of a larger,
self-sustaining ecosystem.
2. On page 5-5 add a new number '7' (and renumber the.existing number "7' to be number
a,s follows:
7. EPA Advanced Identification Study of the Santa Margarita River
Watershed
3
As part of an effort to protect and manage wetlands, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX has'iniaated the
Advanced Identification (ADID) process in the Santa Margarita River
watershed. This. process fosters cooperation among EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE), and other federal, state, and local agencies to collect
information, identify and evaluate locations, natural functions, and
potential values of waters of the United States, including their wetlands
and associated riparian areas. This ADID project will identify waters of
the U.S. in the Santa Margarita River watershed, emphasizing their
wetlands and associated riparian areas. The relative functional importance
of these areas will be evaluated, and those most ti~reatened by human
activiaes in the watershed will be identified. Results will assist region IX
in developing and implementing useful indicators of wetlands conditions,
and aid planning and permiLr_n.'ng aclivities within this watershed. These
results also should help to minimize the loss of important wetlands and
point to opportunities to enhance valuable wetlands functions. The ADID
study will also provide valuable background and analytical information for
use in the proposed Santa Margarita River Watershed management Study
described below.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SUMMARY of OPEN
SPACE/CONSERVATION ISSUES
Discussion
While the Conservation of Resources portion of the Summary references and summarizes the more
detailed information about biological resources found in the F-/K the City's overall ecological
context is not described, and we believe that, largely as a result of this deficiertey, the Element does
not take a sufficiently proactive approach to habitat conservation and fails to describe what a coherent
and connected system of crpen space should generally consist of. What would be most helpful in the
General Plan is a characterization of the main ecological features of the area, This articulation of the
Cirv's ecological context could then guide the City's resource conservation planning and suggest
more carefully dell.heated goals and policies in the General Plan.
Recommendation'
On page 5-14, add the following text as additional paragraphs commencing after the 4th sentence o~'
the I st paragraph:
To full)' understand and appreciate the significance of the natural resource areas
in the Stud)' Area it is necessary to understand the ecological context within
which Temecula and ttte larger study area are located. Temecula sits astride the
con~uence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, downstream of which is the Santa
Margarita River. This riparian system is of tremendous importance to a much
larger area, not only because of its intrinsic habitat values, including habitat
for the endangered least Bell's vireo and many candidate and sensitive species
such as the willow flycatcher and the southwestern pond turtle, but also
because of its function as a wildlife movement corridor connecting such major
bioregional areas as the Cleveland National Forest, Santa Rosa Plateau, Camp
Pendleton Marine Base, and the Palomar Mountains. 'With the loss of this
wildlife corridor along the Santa Margarita River, Temecula Creek, and
Pechanga Creek, the bioregional areas would be fragmented and their habitat
values adversely impacted.
-4-
The fate of the Santa Margarita River, in turn, is linked to future land use and
management practices in its watershed. General Plan policies can have a
significant impact on the river system in terms of how .they control erosion and
sedimentation, increased flows from impervious surfaces, and non-point source
pollution. Both general development and flood control policies will therefore
be of great importance .for the long term viability of the Santa Margarita River
as habitat and bioregionaliy critical wildlife movement corridor. Thus,
proaaive planning, including effective watershed management policies, will be
needed to protea the Santa Margarita River system and to provide a coherent
open Space system for .the protection of other sensiave species and biodiversity
in general. Other sensitive and significant habitats, such as coastal sage scrub,
vernal pools, and ~grasslands, are also found in the study area. In general, the
resources identified below are either threatened, deteriorated or damaged due to
the effeas of urbanization and an expanding population base.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION FLEMRNT GOAL 2: CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER AND IMPORTED
~,:ATER RESOURCES.
Discussion
This is an important goal the implementation of which would benefit from cerlain additional policy
statements which we have recommend~ below. Additionally, the second sentence in the discussion
following the goal statement in the General Plan is syntactically incorrect; a revision is recommended
below.
Recommendations
1. Revise the second sentence of the 'Discussion' following Goal 2 in the General Plan as
follows:
The protection of waterways within the community, particularly the Temecula, Pechanga and
Mumeta Creeks, and the Santa Margarim River, not only provi~ for recreation and scenic
enjoyment, but also conserves sensitive plant and animal species.
2. Revise Policy 2.1 to add the following to the existing language:
The design of flood control' impro.i~ements should include the earliest possible
consultation with the California Department of Fish & Game, the U.S. Fish.. and
'Wildlife Service,' and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to maximize
the integration of resource conservation with flood control objectives.
Consideration shall be given to alternative drainage systems, including
detention basins, which help achieve conservation objectives.
3. Revise Policy 2.5 to add the following to the existing lang,mge:
At a minimum, the following requirements shall apply to new development:
(1)
The density and design of new development shall be planned to be
consistent with the characteristics and constraints of the site, including
slope, streams, and drainage courses.
(2)
Prior to issuance of a building permit, development permit or land
division, an erosion coturol plan indicating proposed methods for the
control of runoff, erosion, and sediment movement shall be subm~Ued and
approved, The erosion control plan may be incorporated into other
required plans, provided it is identified as such.
(3)' Runoff from activities subjea to a building permit, development permit, or
land division, shall IR properly controlled to prevent erosion.
(4)
(5)
Land clearing shall be kept W a minimulti Vegetation removal shall be
limited to that amount necessary.for buildin. g, access, and construction as
shown on the approved erosion ;control p..lai , ' , '
Any grading, grubbinS or clearing of vegetation in unileveloped areas'
shall require a City permit, with appropriate penalties for violations.
In addition to adding this language to the General Plan, the City should, if it does not currently
have one, develop an adopt an Fxosion Control Ordinane~ to elaborate and implement this
policy.
4. Add a new Policy 2.7 (and renumber the existing 2.7 accordingly) as follows:
Review all development projects for potential impacts to riparian areas and
wetlands with respect to how the project might affect groundwater recharge and
discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment stabilization, toxicant retention and
degradation, nutrient removal and transformation, and habitat for terrestrial
Wildlife and aquatic species. The value of the benefits that the development
activity might produce should be weighed relative to the loss 'in services
provided by the wetlands. Projects shall be designed and conditioned to avoid
adverse impacts to the maximum extent feasible and to mitigate impacts where
they are unavoidable.
Add a new Policy 2.8 (and renumber the existing 2.7 accordingly) as follows:
Ensure that project runoff and'flood control project design do not increase
natural stream flows and velocities or affect water quality in a manner which
would adversely affect riparian and other natural resource values downstream.
()PEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT GOAL 2: CONSERVATION OF
IMPORTANT BIOLOGICAL HABITATS AND PROTECTION OF PLANT AND
AN!.MAI, SPECIES OF CONCERN.
Discussion
This is certainly an imlxrrtant goal, and addresses the requirements of the government code sections
which delineate the content of the open space and eonservalion element While the EIR notes the
importance of protecting wildlife corridors, the General Plan goal doesn't reference the importance of
this; it would be an appropriate addition to the goal st=tement, Also because loss of biodiversiry
eventually leads to species being listed as threatenett or endangered, it would be appropriate to
include protection of biodiversity in the goal. Language to this effect is included in the
Recommendations Section below. Further, because this goal is the primary goal in the General Plan
that addresses habitat protection, it is especially important to have adequate policies to ensure that a
-6-
proactively planned, ~oherent, and connected open spact system is established. To this end, we
recommend adding several policy statements to amplify and complete lfie existing statements.
Recommendations
1. Revise the goal statement as follows:
Conservation of imtxrant biological habit~t-~ and proU~:tion of plant and animal Species of
concem,wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity.
2. Add 'a new Policy 3.1 (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
Prepare a Comprehensive Open Space Plan for the' StUdy Area to identify
significant habitats, buffers, and wildlife movement corridors which comprise-a
coherent and connected open space system in the context of the larger
bioregional ecosystem, Habitats containing threatened or endangered species,
or likely to be listed species should be given special emphasis. These would
include coastal sage scrub, grasslands, vernal pools, and riiparian habitat. The
Plan should be developed in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Riverside County
Habitat Conservation Agency, and should include an implementation section
which sets forth specific strategies and actions to protect those lands identt~lied
in the Plan for inclusion in the open space system. Protection strategies may
include zoning, land dedication, density transfer, mitigation banking,
acquisition, .land exchange, and cooperation with other government agencies
and non-profit conservation organizations.
3. Add a new Policy 3.2 (and renumber existing policies accx~dingly) as follows:
Protect existing natural waterways in their natural state, and, where feasible,
restore channels which have already been modified.
4. Add a new Policy 3.3 (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
Designate all perennial and intermittent waterways as Stream Conservation
Areas (SCA) within which new uses, except those specifically intended to
improve fish and wildlife habitat and enhance streamside vegetation, aesthetic,
scenic, environmental, and passive recreational benefits, are prohibited unless
because of special circumstances applicable to a subject property,' including
'parcel size, shape, topography, and the location of streams, the' stria'
application of this policy is found to deprive the subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. An SCA shall consist of the water
course and a strip of land extending laterally outward 100 feet as measured
along the surface of the ground from the shoreline or top of bank,
5. Add a new Policy 3.4 (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
'Protect wildlife movement corridors, including Pechanga Creek and others as
may be identified in the Comprehensive Open Space Plan, by requiring
adequate setbacks as delineated in consultation with the California Department
of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dedication of land,
or the acquisition of sensitive lands as necessary. Require a finding with
adequate documentation that wildlife movement corridors will not be disrupted
or negatively impacted before approving development projects in or adjacent to
wildlife movement corridors.
-7-
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMFNT, IMPLF~MF~NTATION PROGRAMS
Discussion
Delineation of implementation programs is an important component of the General Plan as these
programsidentify how the City intends w accomplish the goals and implement the policies set forth
in the Genexa] Plan. If the goals and policies are the "what', the implernenta~on programs are the
crucial *how'. The City is to be commmd~i, th~'efor~ for including specific implementation
programs in the Open Space/CoosHw~o Element. We would like to recommend several additional
-programs to assist with the implementation of the General Plan's ConservatiOn and open space
goals.
1. On page 5-33 of the General Plan, add a new' implementation program as follows:
Establish an Open Space Commission to oversee the devdopment of a
Comprehensive Open Space Plan and the continued development and revision of
Open Space and Conservation policies; to monitor implementation of Open
Space policies; to set and review guidelines for. specific project review of open
space; and to recommend prioaaes for open space. acquisition, use, restoration,
and maintenance programs, on at least an annual basis.
2. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Develop ordinances to define and protect environmentally sensitive and
constrained lands, including an Erosion Control Ordinance, a Riparian Corridor
and. Wetlands Protection Ordinance, and a Watershed Management Ordinance.
3. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Develop a public participation process to aid in designing, ~eveloping, and
managing a Murrieta Creek Green way to include habitat protection and
recreational trails, and connections with green ways along other area creeks and'
streams.
4. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Explore the potential 'to extablish a mitigation bank with the California
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other
appropriate agencies. Development within the city which impacts sensitive
open space resources could then, if onsite preservation through dedication in
perpetuity is not the biologically superior approach, acquire land within the
mitigation bank area or purchase credits from the mitigation bank to mitigate
the impacts of the development.
5. Revise existing implementation program #6 by adding a third sentence as follows:
Explore potential funding sources for the acquisition of open space, including
general obligation bonds, assessment districts, state and federal grants, and
impact fees.
-8-
6.' Revise existing implementation program #8 as follows:
Participate in multi-species habitat conservation and ~,atershed management plannin~
eftore.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMbflauNTS
· 'Generally, the description of biological resources and their significance is qUite good in the DF. rR.
An hnpoi -taut exception, h~, is the description of the regional setting. There should be greater
,speci~ci~ as to the stndy area's relationship to the bioregion with special empba~s on Ternecula and
environs* proximity to a kL-y wildlife movement coffidor .which links the Cleveland National Forest,
Santa Rosa Plateau, Santa Margarita Rivff, and Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base habitat areas
with the Palomar Mountains and other are~ east of there. A "bioregional" map showing these areas
and the connection among them would be ~y useful. UnforUmately, also, Figure 15, the
Sensitive Habitats map, is missing from the document.
While the DEIR discusses the signi~c~ce of the corridor for mountain lions and the potential for
adverse impacts to this species, it fails to note the more general i~ce of the corridor for a great
many plant and animal species. The corridor should more ~.,curamly be described as a link between
ecosystems and thereby of general ecological value and significance rather than of value only to a
single species.
A useful discussion of the County of Riversid~ Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan occurs
on page 135, and concludes with the recommendations that:
"The potential boundaries should be noted on the General Plan maps and specific requirements
should be developed requiring detailed biological surveys for any areas within these propose.~i '
reserve areas or within 1,000 feet of the proposed reserve boundaries. These proposed reserves
should form the core of the potemtial habitat resewes within the City and ~f review of other. areas,
such as Pechanga Creek, requiring protection should be developed."
These recommendations, however, weTe not incorpor'amd into the 'General Plan, and should be.
The most significant deficiency, and one which URGE, POP, and the Friends must conclude renders
the FIR legally inadequate without.revision and recirculaxion, is the lack of analysis of potential
impacts of the General Plan on the Santa Margarim. River downstream of the confiuence of Mumeta
and Temecula Creeks. The DEIR'fails to provide adequate description of the Santa Margarita River
which is a regionally significant r~source containing the San Diego State University Ecological
ReServe. as well as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Nature Conservancy lands. The
BLM, in its South Coast Planning Area Draft Resource ~ement Plan and Environmenm3 Impact
Statement, proposes designating 1260 acres along the Santa Margarita River as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern and a Research Natural Area mad also identified a portion of the river as
eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. The BLM's Plan also identifies Santa Margarita
River as containing outstanding ~tative examples of the rare riparian plant communities
Southern Willow Scrub and South Coast Live Oak Riparian; also found is the rare Diegan Sage
Scrub community. The endangered least Belrs vireo nests along the river and the candidate species
southwestern pond turtle and willow flycatcher also have habitat along the river. Many other
sensitive species are also found along the river.
The level of development allowed under the General Plan ¢X~uld have significant impacts on the Santa
Margarita River as a result of changes in the hydrological regime resulting from increased flows and
conveyed downstream by way of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, scouring and erosion from
increased velocities, sedimentation, and increased nutrient loading and toxicants from runoff. The
-9-
DEIR made no attempt to assess th~ po~n~ of these impacts and th~ resulting effects on the
resom'ce values of the Santa Margarita River.
The DEIR pwvides an interesflnE l:ffoject alternative in the form of Alternative Three, the
ConServation Alternative. While the disatssion is sketchy, it is clear that the concept has
'considerable merit. The DEIR concludes that *This Alternative results in fewer environmental
impacts resulting from its implementation, as well as meets the project's objectives outlined in the
General Plan Vision Statement'. The Conservation Alternative is therefore identified as the
-enviroramera~liy superior alternative. The DE/R, then, leads logically to the conclusion that the
Consercation Alternative, rather tim the draft General Plan should be adopted as the City's General
Plan. Indeed, the DEIR does not explain why the agency chooses to reject the Conservation
Alternative in favor of the dmf~ General Plato This constimtes a failure to comply with CEQA
Guidelines section 15126, subd. (d) (4), resulting in .the DEIR's being legally ina~.uate.
SUMMARY
URGE, POP, and the Friends would like to see a much more in depth consideration of the
Conservation Alternative outlined in the DEIR. As described, it is an innovative concept which
meets the objectives of the General Plan and ye~ conserves critical environmental resources. That is a
powerrid commendation of that Alternative, and it should certainly be explored further. We
recommend that a map and text be prepared to as part of a revised and recirculated DEIR to assess the
Conservation Alternative in greater depth as a realistic and superi~' alternative to the current 'draft
General Plan. Fttnher, the revised DE[R should include a more complete description of the regional
environmental setting for the project and a specific description of the Santa Margarita River and an
assessment of potential project impacts on it as well as proposed mitigation measures.
As the City develops, considen, adopts, and implements its General Plan, URGE, POP, and the
Friends would like to play a constructive, partnership role with the City, particularly in the critical
tasks of developing a Comprehensive Open Space Ban which prom a coherent, connected open
space system. and in the development of a system of greenbelts with both habitat and recreational
trails aJ. ong the streams, creek.~, and rivers in the study area.
Sincerely,
Bill Haven
Associate
- 10-
Friends of the Santa Margarita River
P.O. Box 923
Fallbrook, CA
RECEIVED
CITY OF TEMECULA
September 28, 1992
John Meyer
Planning Department
City. of Temecula
Re: City, ofTemecula Drat~ General Plan and ELR_
The Friends of the Santa lviargaz~ta in conjunction with P.O.P. and U.P,.G.E. submitted comments
regarding the above documents under separate cover. However, due to our somewhat different
areas of concern the Friends of the Santa Marganta feel that we should also bring the '
accompanying document to your attention and feel that pages 1 through 4 bc included in your
planning document. Since iris the intention to protect all the "waters of the Urnted States", and
panacularty the wetlands. Since the City of Temecula will likely be required to follow the
guldcllncs senled upon at the conclusion of this study, it seems reasonable to assume it would be
sm~plcr for you in the long run to incorporate these concerns into your EIR and General Plan.
\"cr~ truly yours,
/
Nancy Backstrand
President
Sept. 15, 1992-
RECEIVED
S EP f 7 1992
' s'd ......:...,...
John Meyer, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr. '
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Draft Temecula General Plan and EIR
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Temecula's draft General Plan
and EIR. Our grassroots citizens group of several hundred members is dedicated to
'the preservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau and its surrounding ecosystem.
We are extraordinarily disappointed to find that watershed issues have been
given such insufficient treatment in the draft plan and EIR. Our previously submitted
comments have clearly not been given serious consideration. It would be tragic if this
historic opportunity to put in place modern watershed management policies was lost.
Failure to take steps proactively may lead to costly measures later.
The EIR gives little or no attention to adverse impacts on the Sant~ Margarita
River downstream. Deficiencies include, but are not limited to, discussions of
sedimentahon, erosion, altered flows from impervious surfaces, and non-point source
polluhon. There is little or no discussion of the regional significance of the watershed
and of the importance to wildlife of retaining natural flows. Groundwater management
issues are s~milarly neglected. The EIR is grossly inadequate for decision-makers who
· neea clear and accurate information about the.impacts of development .upon natural
resources. To defer analysis to a'later date, as in the mentioning possible participation
~n a regional watershed plan,-is illegal under CEQA.
Given the deficiencies in the EIR, it is not surprising that General Plan policies
for watershed management are also cursory and inadequate. Besides a vague
statement on water "quality and quantity", these issues are almost entirely neglected.
What is required are specific policies and goals which will lead to implementation
of modern. responsible flood control.
Specific policies and goals which need inclusion in the General Plan include,
but are not limited to:
1 ) maintenance of natural stream flows and velocities, including a
comprehensive system of detention or retention basins for all past, current and future
development, measures to control impervious surface run-off, and prohibition of
channelization;
2) control of point and non-point source pollution;
3) erosion comml;
4) groundwater recharge;
5) retention and restoration of riparian habitat and adequate riparian buffer
zones.
,..
The General Plan should also integrate ·these policies into a system of
greenways and trails along the creeks which run through town. These greenways
constitute a great yet u~realized asset for the community.
The treatment of wildlife corridor issues is better, and serious impacts are
identified in the EIR. Unfortunately, the draft General Plan again does not give
sufficiently specific policies for meaningful avoidance .or mitigation.
We urge you to prepare an improved EIR and 'draft plan and resUbmit it for ·
review and comment. We request written notification for all documents and hearings
pertaining to these matters at the address below.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver, MD
President
Mailing address:
1422 N. Sweetzer Ave., #401
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528
Enclosure: Excerpts from City of Cadsbad General Plan
cc: City Council
FRIENDS OF THE ALAMOS DISTRICT
September 30, 1992
RECEIVEb
Temecula City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SEP 5 0 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
Subject: Temecula Draft General Plan and" EIR -
Dear Members of the Council,
The Friends of the Alnrnos District is a group of citizens from the Temecula and
Murrieta areas who wish to stabilize and enhance the rural community within the
former historic Alamos School District as an enduring open space resource for
Temecula and Murrieta. The District m~ps in the northern part of the Study Area of
the Project extending from T ~ Skinner on the east to the Antelope Hills on the west
and from Scott Road on the north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the South (see
attachment). With the Santa Rosa Plateau, the foothills of Mt. Palomar, the Tucalota
Hills. and the Temecula wine country, the District helps to form a rim of open space
around the Temecula Valley and imp.n to the new cities of. Temecula and Mumeta
much of their special character.
The Draft General Plan and ELR make a ~ood beginning in their assessment of
the District. We' fred especially interesting and valual:fie the Community Design
Element and believe that it will contribute greafiy to making Temecula a distinctive
City.. We would like to take this opportunity to make recommendations that we believe
will enhance the resources of the District for the benefit of both rural and urban
residents and businesses. Our recommendations will follow the order established in the
Genera/Plan and the EIR. Underlining indicates our recommended text additions.,
GENERAL PLAN'
We note that the "Vision of Temecula" in the overview affirms securing open
spaces, the conservation of neighborhoods, multi-modal transportation, and the
preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources. The plan does not
specifically develop goalst,policies to achieve these concepts in our neighborhood. We
hope our recommendations will make the concepts a reality for our neighborhood and
its resources. Without specific policies in 'the General Plan, the City and the
community will be forced to confront resource and community issues piecemeal for
every development proposal submitted for the District.
I. Land Use Element
(1) H. Summary of Land Use Issues. Our area is discussed in Section D, but the
existing rural residential and agricultural land uses arc ignored. We recommend the
revision of Part D to read:
D. Ah~mos Distri~-
With the S~ta Rosa Plm, uu. the foothills of Mt. Pnlomnr. the Tucalota Hills.
'and the wine counwy. the Alnmos. District helps to form a rim of _open _s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s~e around the
Temecula .Vnlley.. The District's historic l~ndr'~a~ and structurnl features help impart
to the City_ its distinctive ch~rn,,.rter ~thin southern C'-nlifornin Rural residential
densities and land use contribute to the ~ ,liverslay. The District buffers the Ci_ty
from the neighboring cities of Murrietn and Hemet. Agriculturnl operations have
provided .Dart of the economic base for the comm-ni~y and the Ci_ty at ~ and offer
long-term economic potentinl. The District' s rural roads offer recreationn~
oppornmities to residents and visitors alike. Development within this area wig have a
direct impact on the surrounding cornretrain'and its resources and on the incorporated
part of the City in terms of traffic noise, congestion, glaz~ the demand for community.
facilities, the demand for employment and commercial activities and other impacts.
Them is a need to insure that as devel~ment in the area occurs the role of the existing
District in t,.h~ City and the I3gi.Q.n is preserved and enhanced. l ,'a~frog development
need~ to be avoided. Policies for land ~se. roads. site ~ recreation. historic
· features. water resources. wildlife. and scenic resources need to be set in a Rural
District Plan shaded b.~ a District Plnnning Tn6c Fon:e in cooperation with-'the
residents of the existing community. comm|,ni~y interest groups. the City. the County.
the Cities of Mumeta and Hemet. the sta~ Department of Fish and Game. U. S. Fish
and Wildlife service. UC Cooperative Extension. F~tern Municipai Water District.
and Metropolitan Water District.
(2) Goal 1.
(3) Goal 1.
We recommend the addition of the agriculturnl after "recreational."
We recommend the addition of the following policy to those under Goal
Policy 1.11 Encoural, e ~ development of agricultural operations on locally
important. statewide important. unique. and prime f~rmlnnd. innovative marketing of
nl, ncuitural products. and the development of :~riculture related businesses within the
Ci_ty.
(4) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following wording to the discussion:
The historical resources in the community including Old Town, the historic
structures im~t landscape features in the Alamos District, and the Butlerfield Stage Stop
Goal 2. We would like to see the following policies added to those under Goal 2:
Policy 2.5 Establish rural and historic road stonelards for all roads within rural
and historic areas~
policy 2.6 F. neourage the recreational use of rural and historic m within the
Project ~ Area l~ establishing bicycle. hildnl,. and equestrian trails and the use of
historic structures and sims as community centers, gat]~ and_open .space preserves.
(6) Goal 7. We recommend th~ following:
Goal 7' A Rural District Plan for the Historic Alamos District that protects the
existing rural residential commtmity. promotes ~Ficttlmral vitality. conserves historic.
cultural. biological. scenic. and wamr r~sourees, addt~$s~s l~[iOl~ai recreational needs.
and provides fOr orde~y phased ann~atlon and development.
Discussion The long-time existing rural community and agricultural ~ use in
'the City_' s northern Sphere of Influence is thr~-~tened ];!.Y u~an ~ in the area. The
City has the opportunity to influence land use, phasing of development, project design,
and infrastructure improvements in the area and to stabilize the existing communky.
enhance the District' s and the Citv's o~n .spaces. economy. and quality_ of life and
avoid conflict between rural and urban uses I~Y coopera~jng with other jurisdictions.
agencies. and community i'ntere~t gX_Q_U~ in supporting the Alamos Rural District Plan.
Policy 7.1 Actively participate in the preparation of the Alamos Rtff'al District
Plan as part of a District Planning ~ Force and use this plan in reviewing
development proposals and ~jng mitigations in order to ensure the protection of the
Disrnct's neighborhoods and resources..
Policy 7,2 Establish general low lanO use density areas of ~ to ._4 dwelling
units per acre and. areas of .1 dwelling units per acre along creekbeds north of BOr~l
and Hunter ROads within the Alamos District.
POliCy 7,3 Establish procedural guidelines to facilitate the transfer of
development ~ CTDRs) from locally important farmland within the District.
including the identification of target axeas to receive TDR$ within the City_ ~x~l
purchase of development [igh~ (PDRs). including the' identification of purchase areas
~. the District. as mitigation for the loss of locally important. state important.
unique. an(S prime farmlands within the Pro_iect area.
Policy 7.a, Identify a water harvesting and recycling system that benefits
agricultural land use in the District in cooperation with the appropriate agencies and
community interest groups.
Policy. 7,5 Encourage the development of ~Wricultur~l operations on locally
important fnrmlnnd. sta~ irrlImrtnnt. unique. and prime fsrmland ~ the Project
area. innovative w:~rketing of nericulmral producE. and the development of
agriculrarn!Lv~hted businesses ~thin the City_.
Policy. 7,6
that identifies signi~t'-qnt historic sinmutes tggl landscape. elements including roads.
'trail~ ceremoni,,! sites. settlement sites. ,'~,rngaites. wamr f,-3,tures. trees. tn'oves. and
topogr~bic ft.~mres and the~ sdVini, s and that seeh to establish lin]t~es between
historic features stithin the District including the historic' 'and rttml section of Los
Alamos Road from the Menifee Road to the site of the f0rm0r Ahmos Scho01 at .the
comer of Benton and Pourroy Roads. · See Amwhments.
SRpport an integrated historic preservation ,~proach for the Dish'let
Policy 7,7 Help develop a set of procedures and guidelines for the acquisition
and development of historic sites ~thin the District as community centers and ~
includinlr the C_~rrin~,er Place on ~ Road. the sites of the former A!nmos District
Sch091 below Schoolhouse Hill. the Adobe Springs Rest Stop.. the Native American site
of Toatwi. and the Emigrant and Sonoran Trail Route.
POliCy 7, 8 Participate with community interest
California Department of Fish and Game and other agencies in the designation and
acquisition of i! Warm Springs Preserve as g mitigation bank fgr the loss of habi~t
within the Study
Policy 7,9 Encourage the management of agricultural lands for the ~:onservation
o__f wildlife habitats.
The new policies will necessitate the renumbering of the existing policies under
Goal 7.
We also recommend that references tO. the Alamos District be added to the
existing policies as follows: ,, ·
Policy 7.1 as Policy 7.10. After "General Plan' add Alamos Rural District
Plan.
Policy 7.2 as Policy 7.11. After "using' add Alamos Rural District Plan.
Policy 7.3 as Policy 7.12. In 3 after 'City' add and the Alamos District.
(7) Goal 8. We recommend rewriting Policy 2.1 by adding the Alamos District, after
'the City of Mumeta.'
(8) IV. Land Use Plan. In the first paragraph, we would like to see the addition of the
Alamos Rural District Plan after 'Land Use Element' in the third sentence.
(9) Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Map. The preferred map allows for leapfrog
development and urban intrusions in the Alamos District. We recommend that general
low density areas of .2 to .4 dwelling units per acres and areas of . 1 dwelling units per
acre along creeks bed be established in the area north of Borel and Hunter Roads along
with a density trnn-.zfer program.
(10) Figure 2. Village Center Overlay. In order to avoid growth inducing
impacts on the existing rural residential neighborhood, biological, agricultural, and
water resotm:es, and nearby historic sites including historic Los AlatnoS Road, we
would lik~ to see the Village Center Overlay removed from the West side of Highway
79 northerly between Briggs and Thompson Roads.
H. Circulation Element
The Circulation Element ignores existing cin:ulation patterns in the Area of Interest.
Following the County Plan, roadways mapped in the Area of Interest give priority to
commuter and commercial vehicles and are at odds with the General Plan Concept of
preserving neighborhoods. The planned roads will create conflicts between commuter
and commercial vehicles and local motorists at driveways and lanes who have no other
access and between commuter and commercial vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists,
~uestrians, and school children along the roads.. The extension of Clinton Keith Road
and Hunter Road, the Auld Rd.-Briggs Rd link and the development of Menifee Road
will actually force community residents from their homes since roads are planned
through their property. The changes will also destroy the Los Alamos Hist6ric
Roadway.
(1) Summary. of Circulation Issues. We recommend the addition of the following
opposite an additional bullet on page 3-7.
' Th~ development of roads within th~ Spher~ of Influence ~d the Area of
Interest haV~ the potential to create conflicts with the rural 'residen_fia_l and agricultural
community as motorists at driveways and !an;~ ~t~i'bicy~listsL"equestrians. and ~chool
children confront commuter and commercial vehi"~l'es. to increase congestion within th~
City of Mum eta. to fon;e residents from the Area of Interest from their home~, and to
destroy historic Los Alamos Road.
(2) Goal 3. We recommend the following rewriting. A regional. multimodal
transportation system that minimizes travel h2t ~ occupany vehicles and provides
for community health. safety_. and welfare inside and outside the Study Area.
Discussion Current traffic levels within and outside the City. an straining
existing facilities. air qualify,. community safety. and economic resources. Future
approved and pending development threatens to destablilize the existing rural
community within the Sphere 9_f Influence. the Area of Interest. and surrounding areas.
5
Under CUrrent trends travel will continue to increase between Temecula and other
population and employment centers within the region. Special efforts will be needed to
adequately and efficien~y provide for regional travel demand and to redu~ and avoid
existinl/and iner,.~,~vl conflicts and high levels of service.
Policy_ 3.1 Support the development of a rel, ion-',l multi-mod:~i transportation
system that estmhlishes ~ rail. telecommutln$. van. shutfie, bus. and Class lbicycle
commuting f-a~lities and minimi-~.S ~ ~tly Vehicles faeilitles.
POlicy_ 3.8 F. stabllsh a priori~ ~ schedule for lighl ~ telecommUtine.
van. shuttle. bus. and Class 1 biey_ele b~ilities.
Policy 3.9 Divert commuter and commercial vehicular traffic from rural
residential communities and the Aiamos District b..X limiting rural road widths,
establishing vehicle w_lighl limits. and limitinl/access ~to rural axeas from ma_ior
highways and urban development projects.
Policy_ 3.10 Provide for off-road commuter bicycle routs ~ I-Iit, hway 79
northerly and Highway 74 between Temecula and Hemet. alg. ng Murrieta Hot Springs
Road between Temecula and Mumeta, aig. ng Jefferson Road between Temecula and
Mum eta. and aLo. n.g l~.inbow Road-former Hit, hway 395-Mission between Temecula
and Fallbrook.
Policy 3, 11 Participate in the creation of a vigorous area-wide bicycle
commuting program in conjunction with other jurisdictions an~l local businesses.
Policy 3.12 Provide for an off-road 'multi-purpose trail system from Temecula
to regional recreational areas including the Cleveland National Forest. M~, Palomar.
Lake Skinner Regional Park. the Lake Domenigoni area. the Santa Rosa Ecological
Preserve. th__e Temecula Wine County. and the Alamos District.
(3) Goal 4. We recommend the addition of the. following Policy.
Policy 4, 12 Require urban development projects in rural residential areas to
divert construction. commercial. and commuter vehicular traffic from the existing rural
rOad network whenever possible.
(4) CirculaUon Plan Figure 3-I. We recommend the following alterations:
(A) Place the access-restricted ttrbin arterial transit corridor in the Area of
Interest (Clinton Kcith Rd.) north of historic Los Alamos Road and the existing rural
residential area along Los Alamos..
(B) Eliminate the 4-lane road joining Briggs and Auld Roads within the Area of
Interest.
6
(C) Preserve and enhance 'the Los Alamos Historic Roadway (tniclng in Los
Alam. os,Thompson, and Pourroy Roads from Menflee Road to the.site of the former
Alamos School at the intersection of Benton and Pourroy ~ad) and its contributing
historic and rural features. (See Attachments).
(D) Designate Highway 79- northerly as a Scenic kighw~y and develop
'appropriate design guidelines to retain the viewshed and contributing features.
(E) Designate. the rural and historic macIs within the -A!-',mOs District as s~enic to
preserve and enhance their current rural and.recreational uses and their conwibtrdng
rural and historic features.
(5) Implementation 'Programs. A. Roadway Functional Design Guidelines. We
recommend the following:
10. Rural and Historic Roads: Scenic Roads
This designation shoul~l be used for existing rtncl facilities ~thin mml axeas or ·
that have historically been associated with rural ~eas. Scenic roads are intended to
function as local roads with levels of sen'ice of A or B. Whenever safety_ conditions
allow, they are to retain their existing route. geometries, shoulders, and associated
rural and historic features which together can be taken to form each road' s unique
standard.
Commuter and commercial traffic should be diverted from Scenic Roads
through comprehensive planning.
Recreational multi-purpose trails should be established when possibie wi~lin
the rOaCls' rights. of-way.
Recreational, 'agricultural. and educational businesSes should be encouraged'
aLO. gg Scenic Roads within the Sphere of Influence and Ar~ of Interest.
* The designation/:}f a network of Scenic Roads should be encouraged within
th__ee Alamos District.
III. Open Space/Conservation Element
This element presents many valuable goals and policies. We believe, however,
that it needs to acknowledge the Alamos District, its existing rural community and
agricultural land use, and its resourceS. We recommend the following revisions:
(1) Introduction. Third paragraph, fourth sentence:
The City has a much greater oppornmity to shape the open space of the Alamos
District in the ~l)keal of Influence and Am of Interest throurh participation in the
creation of an Albinos Rural District Plan and the use of the lllall in the review of
development prQjects as ~ are annexed to the ~ The challenge facing Temecula
is to create a multipurpose open space system that does not solely consist of unusable
spaces leftover from development, but revitnli-,'-s and restores ~[,ricttltur~! lands.
pregrv~ wildlife h~hitnt-t mnxirnb,~-.~ ~ re~o~ and se~ares l,~-~-~tion~l.
historic. and eulturnl t~soureea.
Next to tile first b~llet add and agricultural after." for conserving 'nann'al:"
Next to the last bullet add hi.,c~ric after 'promote the' and of the Alamos
District after *of the City, '
(2) Summary of Open Space/Conservation Iasues. A. Provision of Parks and
Recreation Facilities. Figure 5-1. The proposed parks in the Sphere of Influence and
the Area of Interest appear not to be related to any significant existing community area
or resources. We recommend the following:
(A) The creation of a park and community/interpretive center at the historic
Gamnger Place on Bfiggs Road, south of Los Alamos Road.
(B) The creation Of a park and community center at the site of the former
Alamos School below Schoolhouse Hill at the intersections of Benton and Pourroy
Road accompanied by the relocation of the school house to the site from its 'current
location in the Lake Skinner Regional park_
(C) The creation of a park and community/interpretive center at the site of the
former Adobe Sp.rings Rest Stop.
(D) The Creation of a park and interpreti~e center at the site of the former
Native American Settlement of Toatwi near the Wann Springs Tributary and the
intersection of Benton and Highway 79 northerly.
(E) The creation of a 'park preserve along the Warm Springs Creel
(3) B. Establishment of Riding, Hiking, and Bicycle Trails. Figures 5-2 and 5-3.
In addition, to the proposed trails we would recommend the addition of a Class 1
bicycle path and a multi-purpose trail within the right-of-way of Los Alamos-Thompson
Road from Menifee Road to the Benton and Pourroy intersection and multi-purpose off-
road trails along Benton Road, Auld Road, Pourroy Road, and Leon Road.
(4) C. Conservation of Resources. On page 5-14 in the first paragraph of the
discussion after the fast sentence we recommend the addition of the following reference
to the Alamos DiStrict.
The riparian areas. aZTicultur~l ~ hill sides. and ~ of the Alamos
District are home to a number of endangered, sensitive, and ~'=~ndidate .species and
_species of~ concern.
8. We recommend the addition of the following after "aesthetic character of the
area": One 3dacd;Z is f~nd in the Axea of Interest. The following would also best be
Tl~e ~ importanCe_lands of the A!.rnos Dislvict and the TemecUla/.
wine country offer a potential area for ~ricultur~l innovation. improvement of the ~ c~ e.
local quality of life, and stimulus to business development ~thin the Ci_nt
9. Our understanding indicates that some of the information in this paragraph is
incon'ect. We recommend the following changes:
After "23 recorded archaeological sites"; 47 properties listed on the California
State Historic Resources Inventory available at the History Division of the Riverside
County Park~ and Ope_n S_va~ District or the State Historic Preservation Office
including Vail Ranch, .the Little Temecula Rancho Adob~ and farmsteads within the
Alamos District; sites identified as existing. or potential Riverside County l-andmarks
and State Points of Historic Interest including Temecula's First Post Of~ (RIV 037L
the Temecula Quarries fRIV 038). and Los Alamos Historic Roadway: the Mumeta
Creek Archaeological Site listed on the National Re~ster of HIstoric Places. and
several historic resources of local, state ~nd national importance not yet !ist&i with
counr~,. state. or national programs. including the Butterfield Overland Stage Route, the
route of the Sonoran and Emigrant Trail. the site of the Temecula Massacre. and the
AdObe Spnngs Re~t Stop. ~ on the State Historic Resources Inventory indicates
Ih~ the site has community historic significance. Properties become .Dart of the
Inventor' a~ter an areawide survey. in this case conducted under a state grant to
Riverside County_. in 1981. a subsequent r~view and determination of local historic
significance h.Y the Riverside County Historical Commission.. and final r~vicw and
deterrnxnation of loca~ significance _b..Y the State Historic Commission. Sites on the
Inventor3° ~:~ often thO~ mos~ important to a local community. Sites lil~ the Mission
Inn have national and state historic importance and ~x~ listed on the National Register
of Historic Plac~ or as a Sta~e Landmark. whereas sites on ~he Inventory that re~t
the I;}as~ way of life of a community are often overlooked since local history is often not
recognized adequately. The current State Historic Resources Inventory is no~ complete.
~ince the 195 1 survey focuessed on residential structures and ignored commercial
buildings and landscape features ..... Temecuh and the Alamos District contain
many older structures, historic sites and districts, landsc~ipe features. roads. wails. and
ceremonial sites, and archaeological evidence which may be threatened with demolition
or removal as urbanization continues.
(5) Goal 1. We recommend the addition of historic structures and landscape features
after "significant* in Policy 1.6.
(6) Goat 2. We recommend the addition of the following policy.
Policy. 2.8 Promote the use of recycled water and wa~r hz, rvestinf techniques
for agricultural areas '~thjn. the ~ Area.
(7) Goal 3. We recommend the' following:
Policy 3,8 Participate wi~ community interest ~ including ~ trust. the
California Del~rtment of Fish and ~ and other agencies in the desgination and
acquisition of a Warm Sprini, s Preserve as It mitit'ation bank for the loss of habitat
within the Study Area.
POlicy 3,9. Establish low land use density_ areas of ,2 to ,4 dwelling units per
acre in general, anCl ,1 dwelling units per acre in areas RI.Q.O.g creekbeds north of Bore.!
and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District,
. Policy 3-10
conservation,
Encourage the management of agricultural land~ for wildlife
(8) Goal 5. We recommend the following:
Add agricultural U~s after "scenic enjoyment,"
Within the Discussion after the second sentence add: Existing and former
agricultural areas within the Alamos District should be revitalized and restored through
active conservation measures
PoliCy ~, 14 Activiely participate in the preparation of an Alamos Rural Distact
Plan linki:ng th~.t, open .s.~a~ area to an open .s.~ace system 'throughout the City.. and tt~
t.he 'plan to review development pro.oosals and set mitigationS to ensure the protection of
th__e Distnct's open s.Dace resources.
POliCy 5, 15 Designate historic Sites. Native American sites, weftands, scenic
road coredors. and wildlife preserves as open .space linkal, es within the Alamos
District.
(9) Open Space Conservation Plan. Figure 5-10. We recommend a dramatic increase
in "open slxaec for resource conservation' within the Alamos District by designating
linked historic sites, Native American sites, weftands, streambeds, scenic road
coredors, and wildlife preserves as open space. These include:
10
(A) The northern tributary of Warm Springs on the east side of Highway 79
northerly should be extended to join the more southerly tributary on the west of
Highway 79.
;
(B) Sites to be designated include the Garringer Place along Briggs Road, the
Pourroy Places along Pourroy Road, the.Cummins' Places along Pourroy and Benton
Roads, the. Thompson Farmsite along Thompson Road (Se~ State Historic Resources
Inventory). the Adobe Springs Rest Stop, and the site of the former Alamos School
(C) Weftands would include the numerous weftands i~ the Alamos DistriCt to be.
mapped during the rainy season..
(D) Wildlife preserves would include a large Warm Springs Preserve along the
main channel of Warm Springs Creek.
(E) Native American sites would include the settlement site of Toatwi.
(F) Scenic road corridors would include historic Los Alamos Road from
Menifec to the intersection of Benton and Pourroy, Pourroy and Benton Roads.,
(G) The plan should also include significant areas of extremely low density
within the District along the creeks and their tributaries.
(I 0) Goal 6. We recommend the following revisions.
Discussion Cultural and historical resources are defined as buildings,
structures, landscape features. roads, trails. objects, and sites. Temecula's heritni;e lies
in the unique complex _O__f landscape features in the Alamos Dismet and other rurgi .mats
~ .the City as much as from its historic structures. There is a need to preserve these
features With an integrated historic preservation approach that recognizes the
significance of ~h~ features and seeks to establish linkages between them via Other
h~stonc landscape features iuch as-roads. trails. ~ and seasonal waterways. The
intent is to.. .
Policy 6.10 Conduct a survey of historic sites including structures. roads.
trails, ceremonial sites. settlement sites, campsites. and landscape features throughout
the Project Area.
Policy 6.11 Participate in county, state. and f~eral historic preservation
programs IIY applying for recoi, nition of local sites in the Sra~ Historic Resources
Inventory. as Riverside County Landmark.~. as State Points of Historic Interest. as State
Landmarks. and as sites on the National Register of Historic Sites.
11
Policy 6.12 Support the desil~nation and acquisition of garkl and community
eenmrs within the A!amos District at the following historic sites: the G~rrint, er place at
36131 l}l:igg~ the Adobe Springs Rest Stop_, the site of Toatwi ~ the. tributary
of Warni Springs ~ and Iil former a~!amos School site at the interse. etion of
Benton and Pourroy Road.
Policy 6.13 l:.neourage the Feserv'a~on and reuse of the structures. lnndscape
' features. roads. !~,ndrrmrk m~. fields. and tails n..~ntx..iatni with and linking the major
sites of the A!atnos Di.,m.iet mentioned above.
Policy 6.14 DevelOp guidelines for .future development within the Alamos
District that incorporate the historic relationships between struetu~s, roads. and
landscape features.
Policy 6.15 Establish a Historical Commission assisted l~ a historic
preservation planner.
( 11 ) Goal 7. We recommend the following revisions:
Goal 7 Establishment and revitalization of a~,'ricultural operations on locally
important. state important. unique, and prime agricultural ~
Discussion A vigorous agricultural program in the Alamos District and the
wine country Can provide jobs to residents, eneoural, e tourism. contribute to a healthful
quali~, O_f life for City residents. and help maintain and develop an economi~ base for
businesses within the City, Growth pressures are...
PoliCy 7, ! Actively participate in the preparation of an Alamos Rural District
Plan as part of a District Task Force and use this plan in reviewing development
proposals and ~elXiBg mitigations in order to conserve agricultural land uses.
Poli~y 7,2 Establish ~ low ~ use densi_ry areas~9_f..2 to .4 dwelling unit~
per acre. and.areas for .1 d~velling units per acre in areas along creekbeds north of
Borel and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
POlicy 7,3 Establish procedural guidelines to facilitate the transfer of
development $ (TDRs~ from locally important. state important. unique. and prime
farmland w~thin the Project axea. including the identification of g areas to receive
TDRS within the City_. and the purchase of development $ (PDRsL including the
identification of ~ purcha~- areas. as initiations for the loss of ~ important.
state important. unique. and prime farm land ~thin the Project area.
POlicy 7,4 Identify a water harvesting and reeyclinlf system that benefits
agriculture in the District and other rural areas in conjunction with the a~propriate
agencies and community interest groups.
12 :
Policy_ 7.5 Encour4ee the development of agricultur~! operations on ~
importnnt. stare important. ~ and prime f~rmland in the PrOject area. innovative
marketing of ~ricultur~i products. and the development of agriculturally related
businesses within the City..
(12) Goal 9. We recomm,.aid the following revisions:
Goal 9 Protection of aighl skies from intrusive light sources which may.. impact
the Palornar ObserVatory, wildlife. and crea~ ~ ~thin rural areas of the ~
Area. .. .
Discussion. We recommend adding wildlife and for ~ residents after
Observatory. '
Policy 9.3 Limit Dighi lighting in rural areas through guidelines developed in
cooperation with community residents.
IV. Growth Management/PubLic Facilities Element
(1) II. Growth Management Strategy. 6. 'Conserve Resources, P. 6-8.
We recommend the addition of the following'
Within the first sentence of the discussion after 'comprehensive open space
system.' add Alarnos Rur~ District Plan.
(2) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following:
Discussion After the second sentence'add: It should also recognize t-he existing
communities and resources of Temecula. the Sphere of Influence and the Area of
Interest.
Policy 2,9 Coordinate the Growth Management Program with the Old TOwn
Plan and the Alamos Rural District Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL I:MPACT REPORT
Like the General Plan, the Draft EIR ignores important parts of the existing
community, circulation system, and resources of the Alamos District. We are
especially concerned that the EIR indicates a number of axeas where mitigations
established as policies or goals within the General Plan for air quality, circulation,
biological resources, agriculture and noise do not reduce impact.~o levels of
insignificance. The omission of a discussion of local history and local historical sites is
also a significant omission. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
indicates that an EIR must discuss and provide mitigations for historic sites of
13
community importance'or for sites that axe impout within the major periods of
California history. Such sit~.s, as noted above and in the Attachments, do indeed exist
within Old Town and the historic Alamos District.
:
We would like the Goals and Policies we proposed above in the General Plan
section to be evaluated as mitigations for impacts within the EIR. We believe that they
may help reduce the J-"tit vf ~ above to insignificance. We also would
like to see a full discussion of area history and historic sites as is required by the
.California Environmental Quality Act. Mitigations for impacts on these sites also need
to be set in' the ErR. The. City would. best contact Diana Seider, the Riverside County.
Historian at the Riverside County Parks and Open Spago District office for assistance
with historic sites and mitigations.
We provide in the attached Detailad R~view of the Draft EIR our specific
comments and mitigations for each area of impact. They repeat our recommendations
for the General Plan.
Finally, we would like to urge that the City elaborate the discussion of
Alternative 3 in the ErR. In view of the significant and serious impacts of the
preferred General Plan identified in the ErR, this alternative might best be chosen as
Temecula's General Plan. We understand that CEQA mandates a thorough discussion
in the EIR indicating why the environmentally preferred alternative is not being
adopted as the project. We believe such a discussion should be undertaken for
Alternative 3. Moreover, we suggest that the goals and policies we identified be
included as mitigations, goals, and policies with Alternative 3.
MAPS AND FIGURES
A fundamental omission in the Draft General Plan and the EIR can be found on
most of the maps within the documents.. Instead of depicting existing roads in the Area
of Interest, the maps depict planned road introduced in the Riverside County. General
Plan and in. this plan. These include the extension of Clinton Keith Road, a new -'
connecting route for.Briggs and Auld Roads along Liberty Lane, the western extension
of Hunter Road, and the development of Menifee Road. As noted in our discussion of
the Circulation Element, these projects threaten to destroy the rural neighborhood along
these roads and will certainly destroy the Los Alamos Historic Roadway recognized by
the Riverside County Historic Commission and the Mumeta City Council. These maps
axe misleading and promote an inevitability about the creation of these roads in the
minds of those who use the Draft General Plan and evaluate the ErR. Ideally these
roads should be deleted in General Plan and EIR maps of existing conditions and the
existing routes be added. These include in the General Plan Figures 1-2, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7,
5-8.5-9, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5 and in the ErR Figures 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28,
29, 30, 41, ,,4, 46, 51, 52, 54, 55, and 56. The routes probably would also best be
omitted on the maps where the planned circulation system is not the issue including in
/,S
14
the General Plan Figures 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-10, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 64,
and 8--4 and in the EIR Figures 25, 27, and 45. ,
We want to note that we are turning in this letter today because copies of the
Draft ~IR were not available from the Temec-h Public Letter or from the City. 'We
were lucky to be able to borrow the document over the weekend. Mr. Meyer of the
Planning 13e~ent'~y. Branted us-an extension to complete our review.
We very much hope that we will be.able to work with the City on .developing an
Alamos Rural District Plan. -
Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
RAta Gentry
37100 Los Alamos Road
Mumeta, CA 92563
(714) 677-6552
Cecelia Webster
30255 Los Alam0s Road
Murrieta, CA 92563.
(714) 9264337
Attachments:
Map of the Alamos District
Riverside County Historical Commission Transmittal to the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on the Los Alamos Historic Roadway
Riverside County Historical Commission Minutes for March 18, 1992
Riverside County Historical Commission Contributing Features to
· Los Alamos Historic Roadway, March 18, 1992
Press Enterprise, *.A Journey Down Los Alamos Road,"May 24, 1992.
15
DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAPT EIR
CIRCULATION
The project' s changes in 'circulation within the Area of Interest will have the
following impacts which have not been noted in the EIR:
(1) Increased conflicts along existing local rural roads between resident
motorists and commuter and commercial'vehicleS at driveways and lanes and between
pedestrians, school children, bicyclists, and equestrians and commuters and commercial.
vehicles along the roads.
(2) Destruction of nn'al neighborhoods along Los Aiamos Road, Liberty Lane,
Menifee Road, Willie Road, and Somerville Road as Clinton Keith and Hunter Roada
are extended, Briggs and ARId Roads are rerouted, and Menifee Road developed.
(3) Major impacts on the circulation system of Murrieta including the
introduction of traffic from the Hunter Road extension onto Whitewood Road.
(4) Destruction of the Los Alamos Historic Roadway recognized by the
Riverside County Historical Commission.
(5) Negative impact on other District kistoric sites found along the proposed
roads or within their paths listed on the state Historic Resources Inventory.
(6) Negative impact on biological and water resources along Warm Springs
Creek and its tributaries.
All of these impacts counter goals and policies of the General Plan.
The unmitigated levels of service at E and F reported along Winchester Road
(Highway 79 northerly) and Mumeta Hot Springs Road are unacceptable and
inconsistent with the overall goals of the circulation element of the C-enenl Plan. We
believe that the situation is critical and needs to be addresssed with through a vigorous
mitigation program and new goals and policies in the General Plan.
We. suggest the following goals and po'li~ies that we hav. e recommended for the
General Plan be evaluated .as mitigations for these impacts: -.
( I ) Goal 3. Establish a regional, multimodal transportation system that
minimizes travel by single occupancy vehicles and provides for community health,
safety.. and welfare inside and outside the Study Area.
(2) Policy 3.1 Support the development of a regional multi-modal
transportation system that establishes light rail, telecommuting, van, shuttle, bus, and
bicycle facilities and minimizes single occupany vehicle facilities.
(3) Policy 3.8 Establish a priority project schedule for telecommuting, light rail,
van. shuttle, bus, and bicycle facilities.
(4) Policy 3.9 Divert commuter and commercial vehicular traffic from rural
residential communities and the Alamos District by limiting rural road widths,
16
establishing vehicle weight limits, and limiting access to rural areas from major
highways and urban development projects.
(5) Policy 3.10 Provide for off-road commuter bicyle routes along Highway 79
northerly-and Highway 74 between Temecula and Hemet, along Murrieta Hot Springs
Road between Temecula and Murrieut, along Jefferson Road between Temecula and
Murrieta, and along Rainbow Road-former Highway 395-Mission between Temecula
and Fatlbrook.
(6) Policy 3.11 Panic~ in the creation of a vigorous area-wide bicycle
commuting program in cnjunction with other jurisdictions, c~..mmunity interest groups,
and local businesses. .. .'
(7) Policy 3.12 Provide for an off-road multi-purpOse trail system.from ..
Temecula to regional recreational areas including the Cleveland National Forest, Mt.
Palomar, Lake Skinner Regional Park, the Lake Domenigoni area, the Santa Rosa
Ecological Prescrvc, the Tcmeeula Wine Country, and the Alnrnos District.
Ou/' proposed revisions to Circulation Plan Figure 3-1 should also be evaluated
as mitigations for the impacts noted above:
(A) Place the access-restricted urban arterial transit corridor in the Area of
Interest. (Clinton Keith Road) north of historic Los Alamos Road and the existing rural
residential area along Los Alamos.
(B) Eliminate the 4-lane road joining Briggs and Auld Roads within the Area of
Interest to preserve the existing rural residenti:~l neighborhood along Liberty. I-~ne and
Los Alamos Road and the historic sites in the area.
(C) Preserve and enhance the Los Alamos Historic Roadway.
(D) Designate and enhance the rural and historic roads within the Alamos
District as scenic roads.
We also believe the goals and policies we recommend for the Open
Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan should be evaluated within the EIR as
mitigations for impacts on circulation. These include:
( 1 ) Goal 7. Establishment and revitnli:,~tion of agricultural operations on
locally important, state importanL unique, and prime farmland.
(2) Policy 7.1 Actively participate in the preparation of the Alamos Rural
District Plan as pan of a District Planning Task Force and use this plan in reviewing
development proposals and setting mitigations in order to ensure the protection of the
Di strict' s agricultural farmland.
(3) Policy 7.2 Establish general low land use density areas of .2 to .4 per acre
dwelling units per acre and areas of. 1 dwelling units per acre in areas along creekbeds
north of Borel and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
(4) Policy 7.3 Establish procedural guidelines for the transfer of development
rights (TDRs) from locally important, state imlxn'tant, unique, and prime farmlands
within the Project area, including the identification of target areas to nc.,eive TDRs
within the City, and for the purchase of development rights (PDRs), including the
17
iden~cation of purchase areas, as mitigations for the loss of farmlamd within the
Project area.
~QUALITY
We are concerned that the project does not mitigate its adverse impacts on air
. quality. We-believe this failure will have major impacts on the area' s quality of life.
Many of the current residents have come to the area because of the clear air. We
believe. the deterioration in air quality could impact long-term residential property
values and would appreciate an evaluation of this in the-EIR.
We believe that the circulation mitigations we proposed above should also be
evaluated as mitigations for the regional impacts on air quality.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
We would like the goals and policies we ~ in the Conservation/Open
Space Element to be evaluated as mitigations for impacts of the projea on biological
resources.
(1) Policy 3.8 Participate with community interest groups including land trust,
the California Department of Fish and Game and other agenc. ies in the designation and
acquisition of a Warm Springs Preserve as a mitigation bank for the loss of habitat
within the project area.
(2) Policy 3.9 Establish general low land use density areas of .2 to.~4 dwelling
units per acre and areas of . 1 dwelling Units per acre along creekbeds north of Borel
and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
(3) Policy 3.10 Encourage the management of agricultural land for wildlife
conservation.
AGRICULTURE
The EIR.notes 'that do land in the Sphere of InflUence-and Am Of Interest is
currently devoted to agncuhure. We have noted numerous acres planted in dryland
grain this past winter and spring, produce operations. and live stock operations. Much
land in the District noted as farmland of local importance lies fallow because it has
been sold to developers. We believe the EIR should' discuss the potential of the area
for agricultural revitalization using innovative crops, marketing techniques, and water
harvesting and recycling practices.
Once the future potential for agriculture has been discussed, we would like the
following goals and policies we proposed in the Open Space/Conservation Element to
be evaluated as mitigations for the Project' s adverse impact on locally important, state
important, unique, and prime farmland within the Project area:
18
(1) Policy 7.1 Actively participate in the preparation of the Alamos Rural
District Plan as part of a DisU'ict Planning Task Force and use this plan in reviewing
development proposals and setting mitigations.
(2.) Policy 7.2 Establish general low land use density areas of .2 to .4 dwelling
units per acre and areas of. 1 dwelling units per acre along creekbeds north of Hunter
and Borel Roads.
(3). Policy. 7.3 Establish procedural guidelines for the transfer of development
rights CrDRs) from locally important, sta~ i.,~o,~-qt, unique and prime farmland
within the Project area, including the identification of target m to receive TDRs
Within the City, and for the purchase of development rights (PDRs), including the
identification of target purchase areas within farmland areas, as mitigation for the loss
of farmland within the Projec~ area.
(4) Policy 7.4 Identify a water harvesting and recycling system that benefits
agricultural land use in cooperafon with the appropriat~ agencies and community
interest groups.
(5) Policy 7.5 Encourage the development of agricultural operations on locally
important, state important, unique, and prime farmland Within the Project area,
innovative marketing of agricultural products, and the development of agriculturally
rela~cl businesses within the City.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Once area history and historic sites have been discussed, we would like the
following goals and policies we proposed for historic resources m the Open
Space/Conservation Element to be evaluated as mitigations for'the Project' i adverse
impacts on the resources:
( 1 ) Conduct a survey of historic sites within the Project area.
(2) Participate in county, state, and federal historic preservation program by
applying for recognition of local sites in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as
Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, and as sites on the
National 'Register of Historic' Places.
(3) Support the designation. and acquisition of parks'and community centers
within the Alamos Distact at the following historic sites: the Garnnger Place on
Bnggs Road. the Adobe Springs Rest Stop, the site of Toatwi, and the former Alamos
School Site.
(4) Encourage the preservation and reuse of the structures, landscape features,
roads, landmark trees, fields, and trails associated With and linking the major sites of
the Alamos Dismet mentioned above,
(5) Develop guidelines for future development Within the Alamos District that
incorporates the historic relationships between structures, roads, and landscape
futures,
19
TEMECULA VALLEY COUNCIL OF PTA
29615 VALLE OLVERA
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591
(714) 676-0451
INVOLVEMENT MAKF, S THE DIFFERENCE
· November 16, 1992
RECEIVED
Planning Commission
City Of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
N o v 1992
Ans'd ............
Dear Commissioners:
It is my understanding that the Planning Commission is preparing to adopt the General Plan for the
City of Temecula..The Temecula Valley Unified School District has worked with the City to provide
strong supportive language in the General Plan which would enable the City to coordinate new
development with school facilities infrastructure. Recently, one of you asked that the language be
revised. It is my opinion that the revisions weaken the City position and take away much of the
power the City would have otherwise had to require this coordination.
I am asking you, on behalf of all PTA members in the Temecula Valley Unified School district, to
return to the previous language in the General Plan. A return to the previous language would ensure
that new development Would not occur without coordination of when schools to service the new
resulting students, would be available. One of the reasons I voted to become a city was to ensure
coordination of infrastructure with growth. To adopt the ~evised language could seriously
jeopardizedthe opportunity our children need to receive the excellent education they deserve, and
the Temecula Valley Unified School District is willing to provide.
Please put the needs of our children first, and adopt the original language in the General plan.
Th.nic you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Leslie Woods
President
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTORNEY OPINIONS ON SB 1287
S%GENPLAN%GP.CC3 1 I
VENTURA COUNTY OlrlrlCE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAIdARli, I,O, CAI, IIrORNIA g3OIO
TEL, ECOPIER~ (SOE) 462'-~834
3ZOO eniS~O~ STRCCT
SUITE 640
611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE tSO0
LOS ANGELES, CArklIrOiiNiA
(el3) z3e-oeoo
January 15, 199.3'
vIA FACSIMILE AND O.B.p.TT.
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecu!a, California 92590
Re:
SB 1287 and General Plan Policies
RECEI'VED
.I a N 19 1993
Ans'd ............
Dear John:
As you are aware, substantial disagreement currently exists
among interested parties regarding the meaning and legal effects
of SB 1287, the recently enacted School Impact Fee Legislation.
As we noted in our December 8, 1992 letter to Gary Thornhill,
(copy attached), one of the unsettled issues regarding the
legislation relates to its impact on earlier court decisions.
The Murrieta, ~art, and~ cases, which exempted development
projects requiring legislative land use approvals from the
limitations and prohibitions. of the School Facilities Law of
1986,' permitted local agencies to 'deny'such approvals based on
inadequate school facilities.
Apparently, it is the position of some school districts that
SB 1287 did Dot overrule these cases and that local agencies are
'still obligated to require new development projects to mitigate
their school impacts when seeking legislative land use approvals.
It is their view that support for this position can be found in
the Legislative Counsel's Opinion No. 30455 (December 4 1992)
which concludes: '
"[SB 1287] does not prohibit a city. . .from considering the
adequacy of school facilities in the Course of adopting or
implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other
legislative land use policy."
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 2
Obviously, this'view is not totally consistent with our
previous recommendation to your office that legislative land use
appr0vals canDor be denied or conditioned on the grounds of
inadequate school facilities (see December S, 1992 letter).
Therefore, the purpose of this'letter is to reconcile the con-
flicting opinions and provide meaningful guidance on the appro-
priate General Plan policies that should be considered in light
of the controversy surrounding SB 1287.
Legislative Counselss OD.~nion No. 30455
In its discussion on the impact of SB 1287 on school impact
fee laws, the Legislative Counselts Opinion states that under the
· law existing prior to adoption of SB 1287:
'"- · .sectiOn 65995 precludes local agencies . · .from
adopting any legislative requirement, except to the extent
authorized by Section 53080 and Chapter'4.7, that imposes
fees as a condition to approval of a development project in
order to reduce the project,s negative impact on school
facilities. . -" (Legislative Counselss Opinion #30455, page
6) (emphasis added).
-However, the Counsel further concludes at page 6 that:
· · · [Section 65995 et seq] does not prohibit a city..
· from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the
course of adopting or implementing legislative land use
policy in the form.. .of a general plan or zoning ordi-
nance. - (emphasis added) .
ThUs, according to the Legislative Counsel, the law prior to SB
1287 permitted cities to consider the adequacy of school facili-
ties in the context of adopting or amending general land use
policies but not when considering individual development pro-
jects.
The Legislative Counsel then analyzes the effect of SB 1287
on the above stated conclusions and determines that:
"- · .[SB 1287] will expressly prohibit a city.. .from
either establishing legislative standards, or applying any
legislatively established standard, so as to require, ~S a
condition of the approval of any development project, that a
fee be paid or other requirement be met for the purpose of
funding school facilities.construction or reconstruction,
-Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 3
other than as levied pursuant to Section 53080 or Chapter
4.7." (Legislative Counsel's Opinion .#30455, page 8) (em-
phasis added). ' -
The Legislative Counsel further determined at page 11 that:
-.. .IT]he apparent effect of [SB 1287] will be to specifi-
cally prohibit the inclusion within a general plan or zoning
law of any provision that would authorize the denial of
individual development protects 'on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities.- (emphasis added).
Finally, the Legislative Counsel opined (at page 12), that SB
1287 did not address the authority of local agencies to consider
the adequacy of school facilities "in any context.other than the
aporoval of individual development proiects." (emphasis added).
As a result, the Legislative Counsel concluded that SB 1287 does
not prohibit a city from considering the adequacy of school
facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a'general
plan, zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy. The
net effect of this conclusion is that SB 1287 did not change the
law reaardina'a citv's authority to consider the adequacy of
school facilities when adoptina or implementina legislative land
~use policies! (See above discussion on law existing prior to SB
1287).
In our opinion, the Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455 is
not completely incompatible with our previous recommendations to
you regarding the denial or conditioning of legislative land use
approvals on the grounds of inadequate school facilities.
Nevertheless, the'Legislative Counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB 1287 to permit a
"loophole" in what was considered an intentional effort by the
Legislature to close a "gap" in the law created by the above
referenced court decisions. In so doing, it appears even more
likely that "clean up" legislation or further judicial interpre-
tation will occur in order to resolve this controversy.
Recommendations
In the meantime, it is our opinion that the City of Temecula
should take a prudent approach when considering land use policy
decisions such as the adoption of its General Plan until these
issues are finally settled. In our view, such an approach would
include the following actions:
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 4
1. 'Avoid the adoption of any policies within the City,s
General Plan requiring a developer to demonstrate that ade-
quate school facilities exist or will be provided' to suppor~C
their project. An example Of such a policy would be to
require a "will serve" letter from the school district prior
to the approval of a project by the C~ty. Such a require-
ment would, in all'likelihood, be considered impermissible
under SB 1287.
2. Recommend the adoption of the following language for
the City's General Plan in its GrowthManagement/Public
Facilities Element regarding Goal 4 on school'facilities:
"Discussion. Adequate school facilities and funding
are necessary to ensure that the high quality of educa-
tion is extended to-future residents of the City..
Mitigating impacts of development on the school.system
· through the imposition of development fees as permitted
by law and providing information to the School District
are the primary mechanisms to sustain quality educa-
tional services.
Policy 4.1 Provide information to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District when considering General Plan
amendments or.other legislative land use policy de'ci-
sions to allow the School District to prepare and
provide an assessment of whether adequate school facil-
ities exist in order to facilitate the making of such
decisions. ' ·
Policy 4.2 Promote and: encourage the phasing of pro-
ject development so that the School District may plan,
finance and construct school facilities intended to
serve the development.,,
3. Delete the current language in Policy 4.3 and renumber
remaining Policies 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 accordingly.
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 5
We hope this discussion sufficiently answers your questions
regarding this complicated area of the law to assist you. in your
preparation of the City~s General Plan. "If we may be of further
assistance or answer any questions you have regarding the above,
please do not hesitate to contact us. ' '
CO:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
John E. Cavanaugh
TEl4/11015(~.LTR
Bow K x, Wn,ss & GXaNNOn
A PAR~ INO, UDIN~ A !sI~:~'I~$$1ONAL
ALEXANI:~R
JOAN C. ~
-~filJ,IAMJ, KADI
W!~IDY H. IqI,~
PATRIOA B, OlANNON~
ROBI~T E, ANSI,OW
D,a, RI, B~ L KING
MARY K. DENNIS
· A PI~OPt~IONAt. C~t,sOItAT~N
Via Facsimile
January 25, 1993
Scott Field,. Esq.
City Attorney - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Re:
City of Temecula: SB 1287 and.General Plan
Policies Pertaining to School Facilities
AIer:A(:XE~?I4
Tmm~'fONB 851-1300
FAX (?14) 851-2014
18038
Dear Mr. Field:
By way of introduction, this firm represents the Temecula
Valley Unified School District (the "District-). The District
has requested that we respond to a letter from your firm sent to
John Meyer, Senior Planner, at the City of Temecula (the "City"),
dated January 15, 1993, from Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher (the
"LetterS) (~ttached). The Letter addresses the issue of the
effect which SB1287 and Legislative CoUnsel Opinion No. 30455,
dated December .4, 1992 (the "Opinion")'have on the-City's ability
to include language in its General Plan pertaining to the
provision of adequate school facilities from new residential
development. It is this firm's opinion that SB 1287 does not
limit the City's ability to require full mitigation of school
impacts from new legislative development as established by the
Mira, Hart and Murrieta decision (collectively "Mira decisions-).
SB 1287 added language to Government Code Sections 65995 and
65996 (the "School Facilities Fee Statutes-) which qualified the
term "development project- to be a "development project whether
by administrative or legislative action.- The Mira decisions
determined that "development project" only refers to
administrative approvals, such as tentative tracts, and not
legislative approvals, such as general plan amendments, specific
Bow KAD , Wn.,-,s & Gu -NoNs
Scott' Field, Esq.
City Attorney - City Of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
January 25, 1993
Page 2
plans and zone changes. The Opinion concluded that the School
Facilities Fee Statutes, as revised by SB 1287, would only
prohibit a city or county from:
either establishing legislative standards, or
applying any legislatively established standard
so as to require, as a condition of the approval
of any development project, that a fee be paid or
other requirement be met for the purpose of
funding school facilities construction in excess
[of the statutory school facilities fee]
(emphasis added).
An example of applying a legislative standard to a
"development project- would be the passage of a zoning ordinance
which required all development, whether legislative or
administrative to pay more than the statutory school facilities
fee at building permit. (The City of Fairfield has previously
adopted such an ordinance.) The'Opinion concluded that even with
the additional language "development project whether by.
administrative or legislative action,- SB 1287 did not redefine
the term "development project- as established by the Mira
decisions, and therefore the authority of a city or county to
require new legislative·development. to mitigate school impacts
still exists.' ' ' ' ·
The Letter states that:
Legislative Counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB
1287 to permit a "loophole- in what was
considered an intentional effort by the
Legislature to close a "gap" in the law created·
by the above-referenced court decisions. In so
doing, it appears even more likely that "clean-
up- legislation, or further judicial
interpretation will occur in Order to resolve
this controversy.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret legislative
intent of SB 1287 due to the fact that the bill had no author and
was heard by no committees. Therefore, it is our opinion that
Bowre, Wn..v.s &
Scott' Field, Esq.
City Attorney - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
January 25, 1993
Page 3. '.
the statement that legislative counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB 1287 is
unsupportable. It is further our opinion that the Mira decisions
are much more than a "gap" in the law. They are three Court of
Appeal decisions, which were denied review by the Supreme Court.
Finally, with respect to possible #clean-up# legislation or
further judicial interpretation, we are not aware of any
currently pending legislation or court cases pertaining to SB
1287. To not provide language requiring adequate school
facilities be available for new legislative development in
anticipation of possible future legislation or court cases would
risk that future residential development not have adequate
schools available to serve those students.
It is our understanding that the'District has provided the
'City with documentation on the inability of statutory school fees
to meet the school facilities needs of students generated from
new residential development. Prior to the effective date of SB
1287, January 1, 1993, the City, based on the Mira decisions, had'
the authority to require amounts greater than the statutory
school fees from ne~ residential development requiring
legislative approvals. Based on the changes made by SB 1287 to
the School Facilities Fee Statutes and the Opinion, the City's
authority with respect .to school facilities mitigation has not
changed. · '
It is further our understanding.that there has been a
proposal in front of the Planning Commission to include language
in the General Plan requiring a "will serve" letter from the
District prior to the approval of a legislative project by the
City. Provided that such a requirement was only placed on new
legislative development, it is our opinion that it would not
violate the School Facilities Fee Statutes, as amended by SB
1287. Such a provision would ensure that school facilities will
be available to serve new residential development to the same
extent that is currently required for water and sewer facilities.
The proposed language recommended in the Letter does nothing more
than require the City to inform the District of pending
legislative land use decisions. Absent additional language in
the City's General Plan requiring that new legislative
development fully mitigate its impact on the District, the only
Bowre, KADX, &
Scott 'Field, Esq.
City Attorney. - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen ..
January 25, 1993
Page 4
purpose that will be served by the proposed language is to inform
the District of the extent to which its facilities will be
overcrowded..
We would be pleased to provide you with any additional
information you may request.
Very truly yours,
ERD/.pks
Enclosure
cc: Planning Commissioners
Ms. Lettie Boggs
Mr. John Meyer
Ms. Mary Jo Shelton-DUtcher
Mr-Alexander Bowie
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
By
Eric R.