HomeMy WebLinkAbout031693 CC Agenda
I
1
<
/ p
/
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - 29915 MIRA LOMA DRIVE
MARCH 16, 1993 - 7:00 PM
, At approximately 9:45 .PM, the City CounCil will
determine which of the rElmaining 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
.... ."'. . ....
....... ..... .......
iEX~QQm-(yg$g$$'QN.f.'.~~~~Q.PM~.~itt.:M'IO~t..:.g~riJI!O~'.Bp'qm~:':.~J~::':H.J"::#r~'p..~~::
Iliaiiill,aW._l1iilifIII
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-08
Resolution: No. 93-22
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor J. Sal Munoz presiding
Invocation
Pastor. Gary Ruly, HIS Church Christian Center
Flag Salute
Councilmember Roberts
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone, Munoz
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 1 5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the' Council
on 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
!lQ1listed 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.
Agend-.'031883
03111/83
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.
~
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1 Coooerative Aareement with the City of Murrieta '
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
This report will be forwarded under separate cover.
2 Reauest to the Governor's Office of Plannina and Research for an Extension of Time
to Comolete the Preoaration and Adootion of the Citv General Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Authorize City Staff to request a 90-day Extension of Time to complete
the General Plan;
2.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
~
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
,A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING A 90-DA Y SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO
ADOPT A CITY GENERAL PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 65361 OF THE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
PUBLIC HEARING
3 City of Temecula General Plan.lmolementation Proaram. Environmentallmoact Reoort
and Mitiaation Monitorina Proaram
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 'Review the Circulation, Economic Development, Public Safety, Noise,
Air Quality, Housing, Community Design, and Open Space/Conservation
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.
-.
Agend-.'031883
2
03111/83
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: March 23, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 2881,6
Pujol Street, 'Temecula, California
Agend-.'0318lJ3
3
03/11/83
ITEM NO. 1
,
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Council
. FROM:
David F. Dixon
City Manager
DATE:
March 16, 1993
SUBJECT:
Item No. 1 - Cooperative Agreement with the City of Murrieta
PREPARED BY:
City Clerk June 5. Greek
BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize a staff report on this item and forward
it to you under separate cover.
~
J5G
ITEM NO.2
APPROV
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~r
DATE:
March 16, 1993
SUBJECT:
Request to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for an Extension of
Time to complete the Preparation and Adoption of the City General Plan.
PREPARED BY:
John Meyer
RECOMMENDATION:
It is requested that the City Council do the following:
1 . AUTHORIZE City Staff to request a 90 day Extension of
Time to complete the General Plan; and,
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING A 90-DA Y SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO
ADOPT A CITY GENERAL PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 65361 OF THE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. '
BACKGROUND
In May of 1992, the City received approval of a conditional one-year time extension from the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research to complete our General Plan. As work continues
on the completion of the General Plan, we move closer to the May 26. 1993 deadline.
Although the meeting schedule recently reviewed by the Council provides for meeting the
deadline, it may be prudent to ask for a second time extension.
The primary benefit to the City of Temecula from obtaining a second time extension to
complete the General Plan is that the extension temporarily wa'ives state laws requiring
consistency between local decisions and the general plan. The extension allows local officials
to continue acting on zoning, subdivisions, and related matters in the absence of an adopted
SIGENPlANIGPEXTEN2.Ml C vgw
1
general plan. It is the opinion of City Staff that it is in the best interests of the City of
Temecula to obtain a second time extension.for the completion of the City's first General Plan.
The reasons to support the required findings are summarized below and contained in the
R,esolution No. 92- :
--.
1. The City of Temecula has a draft General Plan in circulation to provide guidance on
discretionary approvals.
. -
2. The draft General Plan and EIR has been recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission. '. ,
" ,
'3. Public Hearings have begun before the City Council on the General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should we not require an extension and we do not meet the extension deadline, processing
development proposals maybe delayed and this would result in lost or deferred revenue to the
City. . ,
Attachment
1. Resolution No. 93-_ - page 3
---
SIGENPlAN\GPEXTEN2.M1 C vgw
2'
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-_
--
,-
3'
SIGENPlANIGPEXTEN2.Ml C VlIW
RESOLUTION NO. 93- _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
A 9O-DAY SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO ADOPT
A CITY GENERAL PLAN, PURSUANT TO"SECTI9N
65361 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula was incorporated as a general law city in the State
of California on December 1, 1989.
WHEREAS, Section 65360 of the California Government Code allows newly
incorporated cities thirty (30) months to prepare and adopt a General Plan.
WHEREAS, The City has previously received a one year Extension of Time.
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula has hired a consultant and is proceeding in a timely
manner with the development of the General.Plan.
WHEREAS, The City and its general plan consultants have determined that it is not
possible to adopt the General Plan within the thirty (30) month period allowed by State law.
WHEREAS, The one year Extension of Time for the City's adoption of the General Plan
will end 'on May 26, 1993.
WHEREAS, Section 65361 of the California Government Code allows a city or county
to request, and the Director the Office of Planning and Research to grant an extension of time,
to complete the preparation and adoption of a General Plan.
WHEREAS, Qn,March 16, 1993, the City Council for the City of Temecula conducted
a duly noticed public hearing with respect to this request for an extension of time to prepare and
adopt the General Plan.. .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCn... OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVES THE FOLLOWING:
Section 1. Findin~s. The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby makes the
following fmdingsin support of the City's request for a 90-day Extension Of Time to complete
the preparation and adoption of the General Plan.
A. In accordance with the provisions of Section 65361 (a)(4) of the Government Code,
the City Council finds that the extended public review process needed to assure ample
RelOs 302
opportunity for public review and comment will delay completion and adoption of the General
Plan. .
-.
B. The City of Temecula has a draft General Plan in circulation to provide guidance
on discretionary approvals.
C. The draft General Plan and EIR has been recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission. -
D. Public Hearings have begun before the City Council on the General Plan.
Section 2. Req}Jest. Based upon the forementioned information, the City Council for
the City of Temecula hereby approves the request to the Director of the Office of Planning and
Research for a 9o-day Extension Of Time to ~opt the City General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental COl1lPliance. The City of Temecula City Council hereby
fmds that the request for a time extension to adopt a General Plan is exempt from environmental
review pursuant to Section 65351(f) of the California Government Code and Section 15266 of
the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 16th day of March, 1993.
--
J. Sal Munoz, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
.-.
RelOs 302
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 93-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Co,uncil of the City of
Temecula at a regular "meeting thereof held on the 16th day of , March, 1993~ by the following
vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
-
RelOs 302
ITEM' 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Council/City Manager
, ~?
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
March 16, 1993
SUBJECT:
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 Circulation,
Economic Development Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality,
Housing, Community Design, and Open Space/Conservation
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 ado'ption at the conclusion of the
Public Hearings.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process on the Draft City
General Plan. At that meeting, portions of the Circulation Element were reviewed by the
Council. The consensus of the Council was to eliminate a portion of North General Kearney
from the circulation plan and downgrade Calle Medusa to a local road on the circulation plan.
At the March 16, '1993, meeting, the Council will continue its review of the Circulation
Element, and review as may 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 mu~t address land use,
housing, traffic circulation, resource consetvation, 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.
-
SIGENPlANIGP.CC2
1
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.
'-.
The City's approach to preparing the General Plan involved substantial._guidance by the
Planning 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, e.ssentially 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 land 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 compon~nts
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. This report is intended for the general public, who mayor may not,be familiar
with the General Plan process and work program. 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. Only the Circulation Element will be discussed at th,e February 16.
1993 meeting. This ~Iem.ent created the most controversy during the Planning Commission's
Public Hearings.
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 9tril(e el::lt. 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 comments by the public. Additions and
revisions directed by the Planning ComlTlission are present~d in the same manner, but noted
in the margins.
--. .
SIGENPlAN\GP.CC2
2
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 frameworlc and requirements, of- the Element. The
Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues. Th~ 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.
1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of a circulation element is to address streets, highways, airports,: public transit
routes and terminals, trails, and other local public transportation facilities and issues. A
circulation element is expected to: (1) describe the existing transportation system; and (2)
identify transportation needs within the community; and (3) identify the future public
circulation system.
Discussion
The City received a number of comments and concerns on the Circulation Element at the
February 1 6 public hearing. As a result, the Council directed staff to eliminate a section of
North General Kearney east of La Colima and south of Calle Madera. Staff was also directed
to downgrade Calle Medusa to a local road which also results in its removal from the
Circulation Plan.
Planning Commission Hearings
Thesi~ing of Santiago, Jedediah Smith, and Ynez in the Los Ran'chitos/Santiago Estates areas
was also raised as a concern during the Commission's public hearings. The Circulation Plan
shows these roadways as 4 lane secondary arterials. The City's traffic consultant indicated
that the sizing of these roadways was necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service on
Rancho California and 79 South. It was pointed out that Jedediah Smith, between Cabrillo
and Margarita was already improved to full width, but currently operated as a two lane road.
The consensus of the Commission was to leave Santiago, Jedediah Smith, and Ynez on the
Circulation Plan as proposed.
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Background
~
The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to achieve a balance of land uses which
promote fiscal viability and economic growth.
SIGENPl.ANIGP.CC2
3
Discussion
This Element has strong links to Land Use and Housing Elements. Balanced land use is
f""ndamental to economic growth and fiscal well being. The City should strive to provide a
, range of housing and employment opportunities that meet the needs of both residents and
workers. In addition, the Economic DeveloPl11ent Element provides guidance for achieving a
diversified employment base of retail, manufacturing, service activities and tourism.
--.
The key aspects of the Economic Development Element include:
· Recruit new businesses and sustain existing busi,nesses that gener~te local tax
revenues and provide local employment opportunities.
· Promote retail businesses and, services that provide a broad selection of high quality
goods and services to meet the shopping needs of the community and surrounding
area.
· Promote Temecula as a tourist destination area.
· Revitalize the Old Town to expand its role in local tourism and improve its long term
economic stability.
The City has received few comments regarding the Economic Development Element. As a
result, only minor modifications have been made to the final draft element.
Planning Commission Hearings
-.
The Plar:'lning C.ommission received limited public testimony and no major issues were
identified. As a result only minor changes were made to the draft of this element.
3. PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT.
Background
The purpose 'of a public safety element is to protect the community from the risks associated
with geOlogic and man-made hazards. A public safety element is expected to: (1) assess the
potential impacts and risks to the community from earthquakes, dam failure, landslides,
mudslides, floods, fires, and other hazards; and (2) identify how the City will reduce the
impacts of these hazards on the community. Public safety elements are classified to be one
of the "technical" elements of a general plan.
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Public Safety Element that affect the City of Temecula
include the following: surface rupture and groundshaking; liquefaction; subsidence; slope
instability; urban and wildland fires; floods; dam failure; hazardous wastes; transportation
system hazards; and emergency preparedness.
.-. '.
SIGENPlAN\GP.CC2
4
The Draft Public Safety Element has been circulated to the Division of Mines and Geology,
State Department of Conservation, as required by Sate Law. The Division of Mines and
Geology reviewed the Draft and provided a number of comments which have been addressed
in the Draft and Addendum to the General Plan.
The key aspects of the Public Safety Element are.:
· To protect the community from geologic hazards;
· ' To protect the publi~ from exposure to hazardous materiats and wastes; and,'
· To maintain a safe and secure community and ensure effective emergency services.
The City has received few comments regarding the Public Safety Element. As a result, only
minor modifications have been made to the final draft element.
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.
4. .NOISE ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of a noise element is to address the issue of community noise levels from streets,
airports, railroads and industrial activities. A noise element is expected to: (1) identify
community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) 'from existing and future sources; and (2) identify
sensitive land uses within the community; and. (3) identify how the City will reduce noise
impacts on the community.
Discussion
The primary ,issues. addressed in the Noise Element include the following: land use
compatibility criteria; existing noise levels; significant noise sources; sensitive land uses
(receptors); and future noise levels.
The key aspects of the Noise Element are:
· To consider noise issues in the planning process; and,
· To minimize noise impacts from transportation sources.
The City received few comments regarding the Noise Element. Caltrans requested a policy
be added that requires development along major highways to provide any necessary
attenuation measures as mitigation for noise impacts. This issue is already addressed under
Goal 3 in the draft General Plan.
S\GENPlAN\GP.CC2
5
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.
5. AIR QUALITY ELEMENT
Background
The South Coast Air Quality Management District requires that each City adopt an air qI,Jality
element. . The purpose of an air quality element is to address regional and local air quality
issues as they relate to local government programs and land use planning. The air quality
element is expected to: (1) assess local air quality conditions and sources; and (2) identify
how the City can support regional efforts to maintain the quality of life by improving air
quality.
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Air Quality Element include the following: regional and
local air Quality; and maintaining a high quality of life. The Air Quality Element addresses
primary issues contained in the Air Quality Management Plan and is consistent with the Air
Quality Element guidelines of the Western Riverside Council of Governments, (WRCOG).
WRCOG and SCAG have reviewed the Draft and provided a number of comments which have
been addressed in the Draft Element and Addendum to the General Plan.
The key aspects of the Air Quality Element are:
--
· To improve local and regional air quality through proper land use planning;
· To maintain mobility while reducing air pollutant emissions; and,
· To maintain a role in regional air quality improvement programs.
The City received few comments regarding the Air Quality Element. The South Coast Air
Quality District commented on the Environmental Impact Report. The general plan analysis
recommended in their letter is already included in the air quality element. No modifications
were made to the air quality element.
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission received no public testimony and as a result no changes were made
to the draft of this element.
-,
SIGENPlAN\GP.CC2
6
6. HOUSING ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of a 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 housing; and (4) provide a five-year master plan to meet the City's
share of regional housing needs. '
. Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Housing Element that affect the City of Temecula include
the following: ~ommunity population trends and demographic information; inventory the
existing housing stock; assess special community housing needs; identify the City's regional
housing allocation; and a address constraints to providing adequate housing.
The Draft Housing Element has been circulated to ~he Department of Housing and Community
Development as required by Sate Law. The Department of Housing and Community
Development has reviewed the Draft and provided a number of comments which have been
addressed in the Draft General Plan and the Addendum Report.
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 ~qual access to local housing opportunities and prohibit discrimination.
The,City has received few comments regarding the Housing Element.' As a res4.lt, only minor
modifications have been made to the final draft element.
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commi~sion received limited public testimony and no major issues were
identified. As a result only minor changes were made to the draft of this element.
7. 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.
~
SIGENPlANIGP.CC2
7
Discussion
The City of Temecula has a rich tradition and an outstanding natural environmental setting.
New development can enhance and strengthen the community'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.
.-,
I
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.
The City has received few comments regarding the Community Design Element. As a result,
only minor modifications have been made to the final draft element.
~
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the protection 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. They cited the potential for controversy of
these programs for its removal.
8. 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 is to 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. Open space and conservation
elements also address park and recreation issues.
---, '
S\GENPlAN\GP.CC2
8
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 Elemel)t are: .
· To provide a high quality 'parks and recreation system to meet local recreation'al 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 protect 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.
· Participation in regional water resource management.
· Preservation 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 have
been added to the Open Space and Conservation Element.
S\GENPlAN\GP.CC2
9
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 exhibit
from the General Plan and differ it to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 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, as well as local horse. organizatio~s.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to modify the discussion regarding resource
conservation to approach it in ,a more balanced measure. 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.
-
I
CONCLUSION
The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Circulation Element has
been adequately revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups and other
agencies. Comments on the draft General Plan document that enhanced and strengthened
the General Plan were incorporated into the General Plan.
'-.
Attact)ments:
1 . General Plan Comment Letters - Page 11
~ .
S\GENPIAN\GP.CC2
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS
S\GENPlAN\GP.CC2
11
STATE OF CAUFORNIA-8USINESS. TRANSI'ORTAIION AND HOUSING AGENCY
PETE WILSON. w-.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Disarict 8, P.O. 801231
San Bernardino, CA 92<<J2
TOO (714) 383-4609
@
---
September 23, 1992
08-Riv-is-3.4
RECEIVED
- Sr:'~ ~ 9 1992
Ans'd' '
. ........--
Mr. John Meyer
senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Draft Environmental Impact Report
for General Plan UDdate
We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
. It is recognized that there is considerable public
concern about noise levels adjacent, to heavily traveled
highways. certain types of land use may not be
appropriate near a major highway and/or may require
special noise attenuation measures. The General Plan
should include a policy that requires development to
pr9vide any necessary attenuation measures as
mitigation fo~ noise impacts.
When available, 'we would like to receive the Notice of
Determination, Final Environmental Impact Report, and the date of
any public hearing on this project. Please send this information
to:
Al Muller
Transportation Planning, CEQA/IGR
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box'231
San Bernardino, CA 92402
---
Mr.. John Meyer
September 23, 1992
Page Two
,~
,~
If you have any questions, please contact Al ~uller at
(714) 383-4550 or FAX (714) 383-5936.
Sincerely,
-
-
I \
'. I
JOtRI... cau,oea.a
IUraClIIIIOI Of eon...1III'
P"'q West Seventh Street, 12th Floor. Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 0 (213) 236-1800 . FAX (213) 236-1825
EXECt.'11VE COMMJ1TEE
Presodcac
Rep.. Cilics of s.n 8cnW'dino
Coumv
......: L.rtue. MIlYO'
RiallO .
Fim Vice President
Rep.. Imperial C~
Abe s.1IOIt.._
Second Vice PraiclClll
Cities of Riven. COI/aIy
Judy Nleburwer. CDlMfCibrwlrlN,
Moreno Valley
Pw Praidem
Rep.. Venwra County
JoIuI FlyllD, S~rvlSor
Los Anples-County
Mike A~S~rviMIr
DaM Dua,~_
Oranr County
Harriett Wieder. SlIfMrvuo,
Rivcnicle County
Nonoo Y~e. ~"'"c"
San Be"..,.no Coulli)'
JOD MIMII. S~_
CilleS of Los An,cles County
Robe" ButIecI; MaYD'
. Monro".a
Cities of Impenal Co..nn
-,. MeadoM. COIIIICil_""",
. wley
Ciues ot Oran,e County
I~ Fried. MtIYO'
'(. Uncia
~_ of Venrun Counl\'
JoIuI MehGa, COIIM.iN....,
SUIl& Paula
City of Los An,cles
Toai BndIey. MaYD'
Mali< 1UdJey.1"boaa.u.
C OIIIICrI_....'
Ha18e-. COUN:.ImI_,
CIty of Lon, Beach
Clareoce SlIIith. COIIM/~'
POUCYCOMMnTEE CHADtS
Hal Cr..l_ .'.I..WJr. Pi&) T,tr:
Lomlta; (-Iv",: TfVlS~"on
and Communae-.llons
Diaaa JUac. "'"..." P", T,,,,
Claremont; Chi..,. EnefJ~
and EnVIronment
Scon C.noea. V,er "'a...,r
Hcmet; Cilia", CommUftlf).
Econonuc. and Human
Development
AT-LARGE DELEGATES
Robe" I.AwiI. MtIYO,
Thousand 0aIu
Frad A...... M,,_
Cluno
RIeaard KaIIy. M"..."
Palm Daat
September 23, 1992
RECEIVED
SE? 2 5 1992
Ans'd' '
..~.. ..
Mr. John Meyer
City of Temecula .
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Temecula Draft General Plan
SCAG Clearinghouse # 19200089
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for SUbmitting .the City of Temecula's Draft General Plan and DEIR
to SCAG for review and comment. As Areawide Clearinghouse for regionally
significant proj~ts, SCAG assists cities, counties, arid other agencies in
reviewing projects and plans for consistency with the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP),' the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), and conformity with the Air Quality M~agementPlan
(AQMP), all of which are included in the State Implementation-Plan.
SCAGcomments 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-Goyemmental Review
process, there' are requirements in state and' .federaI laws for consistency and
conformity with regional goais and pians. '.
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
.TEIlNAn:s
IIllIlIQaI COUlIty 0 SuI SlIarp, ~_, . Los ADpIa c-y 0 Ed ~ ~ &lid ~ ....... s.,,,"-, . 0.-.. c~ 0 GadlII v....... ~"'_ . Ri..-
5,('1111I)' 0 Melllao.lall.s.,_ . Su......,c-y 0 IAn7W.....s.,""-' . v_c-y 0 v..,.........~ . C..ofI8lpcnalC~ 0 VkIer
So.. A. Jr_ frI""", P'" T-. w~ . C.. of... AlIp)aI c-y 0 A.......... C~" W_ Hall"""" . C... of Onap c-y 0 ~.......... C~.
--'. Newpon Beach . C"-s 01 RJ___ c-y 0 (V....I . C.. of s.. ..~ c-y 0 ~ ---. M~'", T-. ~ UlIda . C... of V_ CouIIly 0 J..,
MiMII. C.-c"""",,-, Su.. Valley . City of... ADpIa 0 IUcIIu'lI AIIMrft. c-w.-...... 0 .... W..... c-~ 0 MIdMI W_ C~, . I.oat 8eadJ 2Dd ~
sllion 0 0...... Dna........ COII~d.'rrtH' . AI Lar._ 0 Geertc N.u.., COIIIIed--w" Torrucc 0 c..Ian H........ C""~il.'rrtH', SaD Cle_ate 0 J.d, Wripl, .
COIIM~'. CIamnonI . &.otficJo 0 JlIlIIIIl J___W-. Loa ADpIa; o.u. RqaoaaI AdviImy eo.-il
~-.
. ..
Page 2 ,'"'
SCAG COMMENTS ON
THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN AND EIR
~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This.is Temecula's first General Plan since incoxporationin 1989. The Temecula Study Area
is located in the southwestern comer of Riverside County and consists of thiee distinct areas:
the inCOlpOrated City ofT~ the adopted Sphere of Influence for the City; and' an adjacent
area west of Wmchester Road within the County of Riverside. (for General Plan purposes, this
tIiird area is called the Area of Interest). Temecula is 8S miles southeast of Los Angeles; 60
miles north of San Dieao and 40 miles south of Riverside.
The City encompasses approximately 26.square miles while the Study Area totals approximately
60 square miles. Temecu1a 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 Centtal Business District
(
A convenient and effective transportation system whicn 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. Among the
Land Use' Element goals are: .
A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and
public land uses.
A Plan for Old Town Temecula that enhances economic viability, preserves historic
structures, addresses parking in~ public improvement needs,...
Orderly annexation anddev.elopment of unincorporated 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 ~f policies ~pressed .in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) which are
).
Page 3
relevant to this project. Amoq them.are pnlicies which Would:
Promote futIR patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs of
infrastructure construction and make better use of eUstiQl f'acJ1ities, and to achieve a
good match between future growth and the phui1\1 of new facilities or expansion of
existing ones.
Encourqe powth to occur in and IIOUDcI:
activity centers
tnmsportatiOn node corridors
- undcrutilized infrastructure systems
- areas needing recycling and redevelOpment
Encourage mixed-use developments and other planning techniques to make employment
centers easy to walk to or .reach by ~L
~
Achieve better jobslhousing balance at the subregional level through:
- encouragement and provision of mcentives 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 hsalSlnce, by subregion of the type of jobs with the price
of housing.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT .
Temecula 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 joblhousing
balance ratio of .45 in 1984 imp~ to .70 in the year 2010. The joblhousing 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 circulation trips and avoid sprawling of commercial development.
Statements in the implementation program which support the goals stated in the Air Quality
Element include:
Establish l~.perfonnance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VM1j reduction which are
Page 4
consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan recolDJllel1ded standUds for Western
Riverside County subxeaion.
Improve' jobslhousina balance by t:DCOUrIIinI the deve1opmC2lt and expansion of
bllsin~ses, while alJopromoting housina, affordable to all seplC2lts of the population,
near these job opportuDities~
Develop air quality mitigation measures to be used in considering future development.
Approve deve1opmC2lt that could sipificantly impact air quality, ei~ individually or
cumulatively, 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 10 that both jobs and housing grow in a
complementary manner.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT rm~
The General Plan contains several goals, policies, implementation programs and mitigation
strategies rdated to TOM. 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 (TRP).
However t to be adequate for the purposes intended by the SIP, the TOM program should
specifically address the followirig elemC2lts:
I) An adequately detailed description .of TOM measures incorporated into the plan as
mitigation measures or features of the plan.
. 2). Expected effect .and VM:r1VT reduction. targets for, each component of the TOM
program. .
3) Funding sources for eaCh program component.
4) Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the
TOM program.
5) An implementation schedule for each TDM program component.
Recommendations,
The TOM policies and programs of the General Plan should be designed to include commitments
to specific TOM programs with clear delineation of responsibilities, trip reduction targets,
financial arrangements and specific schedules for action on each' specific measure.
""" .
Page 5
,-
SIP CO~ORMITY
A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has
satisfied the fonowing ~ criteria:
1) It improves the subregion's jobslhousing hsa1t1ftce performance ratio or is contributing to
attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target.. ' -
2) It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled to the maximum extent feasible by
implementing transportation demand IJWlIICIDCIlt stratc:gics. . .
3) 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 term.
All mitigation measures associated 'with the General Plan should be monitored in accordance
with AB 3180 requirements and reported to ~CAG .through the Reasonable Further Progress
Reports.
..-
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
-.......
-"
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
GENERAL POLICIES
1 . " Public services and facilities, including'schools, must be available to serve the
needs created by present and future development when it 'o~curs in the City.
2. Approval of subdivisions, rezones,' development plalisand 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.
3. The ~bjective 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
1.
New development in the plan area must, along with the State of California,
c.ontinue 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 th~. cost of school
facilities. .
,-
2. Adequate school facifities must be shown to be available in a timely manner
before approval will be granted to new residential development including
supdivisions, rezones and General Plan Amendments.
3 Joint use of school/City facilities should be planned and financed wh~rever
possible. This should include ,joint use of school, grounds/buildings and City
parks. libraries, multipurpose buildings, swimming pools, etc.
4. 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.
6. Approved but undeveloped lots/projects (infill) which will create a futu~e impact
upon the school districts must provide up to 100% of the cost of school
facilities.
06/05/92
W!
Dangermond & Associates
Comp,.n.n..". S.rvIC.SIO,: Parlls ana RecreOlion . Land Conservation . Wlldllfe.Pre..ryotlon . Land Plonnlng . loneUcop. A,crllt.CluJ.
September 25, 1992
RECE'VED
SEP 26 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
--.
CityCounci1
. City ofTemecu1a
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Draft General Plan and FlR
Dear Council Members:
Dangermond & Associates was recently retained by URGE (Union for a River Greenbelt
Environment), Preserve Our Plateau (POP), and Friends of the Santa Marprita River (Friends) to
review the City's draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report and to p.(ep.u~ comments on
their behalf. URGE is a citizens group formed far the pmpose of protecting the ecological integrity
of the area, with special c:oncem for Murrieta Creek and the larger Santi Marprita River system of
which it is a part. pop is alsO oonc:aned with pro~ng the overall ecological integrity of the area.,
and has a special concern for the Santa Rosa Plateau 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 PIan 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 letter is to point out __
what URGE, POP, and the Friends believe are the strengths and weaknesses ofboth the draft .
General Plan and the DFlR, and to offer constructive recommendations for remedying deficiencies.
The first portion of our comments will address the draft General PIan, and the second portion the
DEIR. '
. GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS
In reviewing the General Plan for UR.GE, POP, and the Friends, our ovezal1 conclusion is that the
desire to protect sensitive resouI'QeS is clearly evident, but the means to achieve the goal are not . .
always adequately delineated. This is perhaps not surpri$ing Since ~tcction of ecosystems and
their biological resources has become ever more difficult and complex as growth and development
have placed increased pressures on natural systems. Impacts are sometimes direct and obvious; yet
often they are subtle and insufficiently understood, as are the ecosystems themselves. Thus, cities
and counties everywhere struggle to 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 cooperatively with the city to enhance the Genciral Plan's resource protection policies to
ensure they actually achieve the stated 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 form of infrastructure 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 ensme that
sensitive resources BDd.habitats are protected in an integrated, connected network. And just as the
City recognizes the need for a Capital Improvement Plan (OP) to ftmd and implement needed
-~
Main Office · 1721 2nd Street Suite 203 · Sacramento. California. 95814 . Tel: (916) 447-5022. Fax: (916) 447-5099
380 N San Jacinto Street Suite 204. Hemet. CalifOrnia. 92543 . Tel: (714) 765-6250. Fax: (714) 765-6251
development infrastructure, so the City needs a CIP to fund and implement the needed open space , '.....
infrastructUIe. Our comments will focus on these two key aR:aS: (1) proactive identification of the
needed open space system, and (2) development of a clear implementation plan for the establishment
of that system, including. land acquisition, habitat MStoI2tion, resource tnmUlgement, and "preventive
care" through careful plS11nni1'lg and buffering. We believe that takiDg a more proactive approach will
ensure more effective resource protection and avoid major future problems such as would
accompany the listing of additional species undec the Endangered Species Act.
. -
. For convenience, we have genemlly followed the format of quoting and discussing relevant General
. Plan goals and recommending policy revisions and new policies which we believe will better achieve
thf! goals. In some~ces we have suggested revision of.the goal language itself, or have added
new goalS where need4!ld to flesh ouUhe General Plan's protection of local ecosyStems. 'In some. .
instances, we discuss other aspects of the General PJan than goals and policies. ~ new
language is shown in bold italics. . . . .
LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL 1: A COMPLETE AND INTEGRATED MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND PUBLIC
LAND USES.
Discussion
Land use planing should be oomprehensive and seek a well-balaJ'lCed community as the goal
suggests. . Resource conservation should be an integral part of that hsllS11~~ 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
1 . Revise the goal statement to read as follows:
. .
A complete and integrated mix of residential, oommercial, industrial, recreational,
conservation, and public land uses. [Also reflect this change in the discUssion 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.
LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL 4: A DEVEWPMENT PATTERN THAT
PRESERVES AND ENHANCES THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE
STUDY AREA.
Discussion ,
This is clearly an apPlopriate 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, ooherent open space system.
---
-2-
Recommf'NiArinn~ ,
1. Strengthen the current discussion in the General Plan by revising the last sentence to read:
Although the ~ority of theans is anticipated to 1I1rim!ltll!ly be um..;~ it is important that the -
City seek to retain IJ wd-pltmlUtl, cOMmit tuUl conucte4 system 01 open space that
is of value for its biological, mcreatioaal, visual or aesthetic characteristics, tuUl which
functions lIS ]HUt 01 G larger sell-sruttlining ecosystelll.
,2. Revise Policy 43 to state:
Cooperate With other agencies, IIIUl coft4lU:t dty-inititlted plllftnini tueG 118dies lIS
MedIil, to develop Multi-species Jlabitat Conservation Plans in westall RiVerside and
northern San Diego Counties, in wlUch the City -will ptUtidpilte by cOlUervillg' those
lands within its jurisdittion neceSSIlT] to implement IUI o'Pertdl. MIllti-species
Habitllt Conservtztion PIGn.. - .
3. Revise Policy 4.5 to mad:
Work with the Rivcnide CoUJ1ty Flood Control tuUl Wllter Conservation District and other
responsible agencies on the des1gn of the flood control project for Mutrieta Creek to develop G
system which protects ,the public Ggllinst flooding whUe 1IUIintllining the
biologicG1 'resource vllllUS 01 the MlUTietll Creek riJIGriIln tuellS as weU as down
strelUll habitllt 1Il0ng the SGlItIl MargGrita River.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, INTRODUCTION
Discussion -
The Introduction to the Open Space/Conservation Bement states a Dumber of purposes for the,
Element, including theamservation of natut'3l J"eSOUl'a: areas. We again feel it would be apPIOpr iate
to mare clearly specify the need'for a proactively planned, coherent, and connected system of open
space to protect wildlife habitat and movement corridors as part of a larger, self-sustaining
ecosystem. (Recom'mended wording is contained in the Recommendations sections below.) The
Introduction usefully desaibes a Dumber of related plannirig efforts which Should be considered in
. Temecula's resource conservation planning efforts. . One study which was not mentioned, and which
could be quite useful, is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'$ Advanced Identification Study
of the Santa Margarita watershed; (A brief description is provided in the Recommendations .
section.)
Recommf"'..ftlbllrions .'
I . On page 5-1 of the Open SpacelConsenration Bement, rewrite the fourth purpose "bullet'" to
state:
To maintain and enhance the City's valuable natural resource areas necessary fm' the
estlJbli.hmenl ola proGCtively planed, coherent, Gnd cormected system 01 open
space to protect wildlife lulbitllt Gnd movement corridors GS part. of a luger,
self-sustaining ecosystem.
2. On page 5-5 add a new number "7" (and renumber the existing Dumber "7" to be number "8"
as follows: .'
7. EPA AJI'Panced Identifictltion Study 01 the SGnta MargGrita Ri~er
JVGtershed .
- .'
-3-
As part of an effort to protect and IIUllUlge w,tlIuuls, the U.S.
Environmelltlll Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX Iuu initiated the
Ailvanced IdentijiClltion (ADID) process ill the Santil Muglll'ittz River
wlltershed. .This process josters coopertltion ll1IIong EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE), II1Id other fedeml, stIIte, and loclll agencies to coUect
infor1lUltion, ident;ih a. evllllUlte 10Clltionl, naturtll functions, and
potentUzl vlllues of wllten of the United Stilt", including their wetlandl
II1Id IlIlocillted rifHIrilln 1UIlU. Thil ADIDproject wiU identih wllters of
the U.S. in th, Santll Mugtuita River wlltenlutl, emphasizing' their
wetltznds and IlII0cillted riptlrian III'IIU. TIu nltzti" /rInctional impoTtllnce
of these uea wiU be "lIlutlted, and those mOlt threlllened by humllli
actiriaes in the wllUnhed wiU be identified. R,sults wUIllSlist region IX
in developing and implementing use/ul indictlton 0/ wetlands conditions,
and aid planning and permitting activities within this wotenhed. These
results also should help to minimize the loss of important wetlands and
point to opportunities to enhance vtlllUlble wetlands junctions. ,The ADID
study wiU also provide vallUJble background II1Id II1IlIlyticlll information for
JUe in the proposed Santa Mugarlta River Wtltenhed 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 infonnation about biological resources found in the EIR, the City's overall ecological
con text is not described, and we believe that, 'largely as a result of this deficieru;y, the Element does
not take a sufficiently proactive approach to habitat conservation and fails to describe what a coherent
and connected system of open 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
City's ecological context could then guide the City's resource conservation planning and suggest
more carefully delineated gOals and policies in the Genenl Plan.
Recommencbrion
On. page 5,,; 14, add,the following text as additional paragraphs commencing after the 4th sentence of
ttle Jsfparagraph: .
To fully understand. and appreciate the significance of the nlltural resource areas
in the Study Area it, is necessary to undenttmd the ecological context within
which Temecula and tire larger study area are loctlted. Temecula sits astride the
confluence 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 BellIs vireo and many candidtlte 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 sucn major
bioregional areas as the Cleveland Nationtll Forest,Stlntil Rosa Ploteau, Camp
Pendleton Marine Base, and the Palomar Mountains. With the loss of this
K'ildlife 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 fflle of the SIUIttl Mtzrgtuita Ri,.r, in tllm,. is linlced to future ltmd use and
manag'lIIent prtldices in its wllt.rslla Gen.ral Pltua poUd.s can have a
signijicant im~t on tile river S]st'lII in t.17IU olllow .th.] control erosion and ,--.,
s.dim.1Ittltion, increu.d flows jrom imp.nious sur/ac.s, Gn4 :non-point source
pollution. Both ,.n.TIIl d.,.lopm.1ItaM flood control poUci.s will therelore
be of grellt illlportll1lee jor the long una riability 01 the SIUIttl MargaritIJ Riv.r
ashabitllt lUId bior.giolUlll, critical wildUje mo..m.nt corridor. Thus,
, proactive pllmnin" iraelruling ./f.cti,e wlltershed .uJIUlg.m.nt policies, . wiU be
need.d to protect the SIUIttl MtlTgarltlJ Riv.r syst.m ad to provide a coh.rent
open ,pace S]st'lII lor tIN prot.ctio" 01 otlNr s.nsiti" sIM.ci,s ad biodiversity
in gen.raL , OtlNr s.",/tive lUId rigniJiCtlllt lulbittlts, such ."s coastal sage scrub,
vemal pools, and grtISsltlllds, tIN also jolllUl in the study tlTtul. In general,' the
resources id,ntijied b"ow tIN .ither thr,lIt,n,d, deteriorllt,4 or damaged due to
the el/.ets oj urbllllimtion IJIUl a uparuling poprdlltion bIU,.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT GOAL 2: CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATElt, GROUNDWATER AND IMPORTED
WATER RESOURCES.
Discussion
This is an i~ tant goal the implementation of which would benefit from cer1ain additional policy
statements which we have recommended below. Addi~ona11y, the second sentence in the discussion:
following the goal statement in the General Plan is syntactically incorrect; a revision is recommended
below.
'Recommentbations
. I . 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
Murrieta Creeks, and the Santa Margarita River, not only provides 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 improvemeilts should include the ',earliest possible
consultotion with the Calilornia Department of Fish'& Game, the U.S. Fish aM
Wil4lif, Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to maximize
the integration of resource conservlltion with flood control objectives.
Considerotion shall be given to alte17Ultive drainage systems, including
detention basins, which help achieve conseTVlltion objectiv.s.
3 . Revise Policy 2.5 to add the following to the existing language:
At a minimum, the following requirements shall apply to n.w development:
( J ) The density and design of new developm.nt shall be planed to be
consist.nt with the cluuacteristics "nd co"'traints 01 the site,' including
slope, streams, and drainage counes. '. ,
--., .
-5-
(2)
Prior to isslUlnce of a building permit, del'aopment permit or land
division, an erosion control plan indicating pro pOled methods for the
ctmlrol of runoff, erorion, andlediment mOl'ement shall be ,ubmitted and
approved. The erosion control plan nulY be incorporated into other
required plans, prol'ided it il identified as lach.
(3) Rllnoff from actil'itiel lubject to a building JMrmit, dnelopment permit, or
land dil'ision, Ihall 1M properly controUed to prnent erosion.
....
(4)LtuuJ cutuillg IIuIU 1M bpt to a. minimum. VegGlltiOll removal shall be
limited to thot amount necessary ./or building, access, aiul construction as
Ihown on the appTOl'ed eroDon .control pl!m-
(5 J Any grading, grubbing, or clearing o/l'egetation in Ilndneloped areas
shall require a. City permit, with appropriate penalties lor violtztionl.
In addition to aM11"1g this language to the General Plan, the City should, if it does not currently
have one, develop an adopt an Erosion Control Ordinance to elaborate and implement this
policy. .
4. Add a new Policy 2.7 (and renumber the existing 2.7 accordingly) as fonows:
Review all development projecu lor potential impacu to riparllJll areas and
wetlands with r"peet to how the project might allect groundwater recharge and
discharge, flood flow alteration, lediment stabiliZJltion, toxicant retention and
degradation, nutrient removal and tranI/ormation, IJIId habitat lor ten-enrlal
wildlife and aquatic speci". The vallle 0/ the benefits that the development
activity might produce should be weighed relative to the loss in services
provided by the wetlandl.. Projectl Ihall be designed and conditioned to avoid
adverse impacts to the maximum . extent feanble and to mmgdle impacts where
they are unavoidable.
5. Add a new Policy 2.8 (and renumber the existing 2.7 accordingly) as fonows:
Ensure that project r"'no/f IJIId 'flood control project delign do not increase
natural stream flows and velocities or a/feet wllter quality in a manner which
would adversely affect, rlparian and other natural resource values downstream.
'. .
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT GOAL 2: CONSERVATION OF
IMPORTANT BIOLOGICAL HABITATS AND PROTECTION OF PLANT AND
ANIMAL SPECIES OF CONCERN.
Discussion
This is certain]y,an important goal, and addresses the requirements of the government code sections
which delineate the content of the open space and,conservation element. While the ElR 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 statement. Also because loss of biodiversity
eventually leads to species being listed as threatened or endangered"it would be ap})lopriate 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-
proactive1y p1aDned,~herent, aI,Id c:oanect'ed open space system is established. To this end, we
recommend adding several policy S1atemeDtS to amplify and complete the existing statements.
VllOt"ft"",,-.,tIatinn~
1. Revise the goo statement as follows:
Conservation of . rtafJt '"-t~_l habitats and pmta;tiao of plant and animal. . es of
UDpOI vavA'aa--::.u --"" -, b'-"":' spec1
con~wil4Ule. .0,e.elll COUHlOrs, ...... ;elle,... 'fHUversity. .
2. Add a uew Policy 3.1 (anchemnJ'bw eDIting policies accordingly) as f~o~
Prepllre a ComprehellSl,e Opell Space PlIm Jor' t1ae StIUly Area to, identify
significlUlt luzbitllts, bullen, ad wUdlile .o,ement corridors which comprise a
cohetelll IIIUl COIIMt:tetl Opell sJItICe 'Jlu. ill tiae co,,"zt 01 tlae large,
bioregi01llll ecosystellL Babittlts containing threlltened or. enwgered species,
or likdy to be llsted species slaou14 be given specilll emphasis. These, would
include cotUtlll sage scrub, gnullluull, Jlenud pools, tDUl. ripllrilln luzbitat. The
Pltm slaould be tlndopetl in cOllllllttJtion with tlae c.ulomill DeptUtment of
Fish aNJ Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Riverside County
Habitllt Conservation Agency, ad should include an implementation section
which sets forth specijic strtltegies tuUl IU:tiolU' to protect those lands identified
in the Plan for inclusion in the oPen sJIIU:e system. Protection strategies may
include zoning,. land dedicatio1l, dendly tranlfer, mitigation banking,
acquisition, land exchange, and cooperation with otlaer government agencies
and non-profit conservation organi%lltions.
~
3. Add a new Policy 3.2 (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
Protect existing lUltural waurways in their IUltllral state, and, where feasible,
restore clatmnels which have already been modified.
4. Add a new Policy 3.3 (and renumber existing policies aamdingly) as follows:
Designate all perennial and intermittent waterways as Stream Conservation
Areas (SCA) within which new' uses, except those specificaUy intended to
impro,e fish tmd wildlife habitat and enhance streamside vegetation, aesthetic,
scenic, en,ironmental, and, plUsive recreational benejits, are prohibited unless
because of special circumstances appUcable to a subject property, including
parcel size, shape, tppography, and the location of 'streams, the strict.
'application of this policy is found to deprive the subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other proJMrties in the vicinity. An SCA sluUl consist of the water
course and a strip of land extending ialeraUy 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 aamdingly) as follows:
Protect wildlife movement corridors, including Pechanga Creek and others as
may be identified in the Comprehensive Open Space Plan, by requiring
culequate setbac/cs as delinellted in consultlltion with the California Department
of Fish and GllIIle and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dedication of land,
or the acquisition of sensiti.e lands as necessary. Require a finding with
culequate documentation that wildlife mo,ement corridors wUl not be disrupted
or ne,atively imptu:ted before approving development projects in or adjacent to
wildlife movement corridors.
-,
-7-
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
-,
Discussion
Delineation of implementation programs is an important component of the Geneml Plan as these
programs identify how the Oty intends to accomplish the goals and implement the policies set forth
in the Genelal Plan. H the goals and policies are the "what", the implementation programs are the
crucial "how". The City is to be cxmuuended, therefore, for including specific implementation
programs in the Open SpacelConservmion Element. We would like to recommend several additional
. programs to assist with ~ implementation of the General Plan's Conservation and open space
goals. '.' ,
RPn'\mmfll'JVhtions '
1. On p3ge 5-33 of the General Plan, add a new uDplementation plO81am as folloWs: .
EstIlblish an .Open Space Co.mmission to' o.yersee the dnelopment o.f a
Co.mprehensiye Open Space Pllln au the co.ntinued develo.pmem and revisitm o.f
Open Space au Consentlllon poUcies; to' mo.llito.rilllplemelltlltio.n o.f Open
Space po.licies; to' set tIIUl review guidelines fo.r, specific pro.ject review o.f o.pen
sprue; and to' reco.llUllend prio.rities fo.r o.pen space lICquiritio.n, use, resto.ratio.n,
and 1IUlintenance programs, o.n at least an annual basis.
2. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, ~ a new implementation program as follows:
Develo.p o.rdinances to' define and protect environmentally sensitive and
co.nstrained lands, including an Ero.sio.n Co.ntro.l Ordinance, a Riparian Co.rrido.r
and Wetlands Pro.tectio.n Ordinance, and a Watershed Management Ordinance. '
3. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a ,new implementation program as follows:
-
Develo.p a public participatio.n pro.cess to' aid in designing, develo.ping, and
1,nanaging a Mumeta Creek Greenway to' include habitat pro.tectio.n and
recreatio.nal trails, and co.nnectio.ns with green ways alo.ng other area creeks and
streams. '
4. , On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Explo.re the po.tential to' establish a mitigatio.n bank with the' Califo.rnia .
Department o.f Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and o.ther
, appro.priate . agencies. Develo.pment within the city which impacts sensitive
o.pen space reso.urces co.ll.ld then, if o.nsite preservatio.n thro.ugh dedicatio.n in
perpetuity is no.t the biolo.gically superio.r appro.ach, acquire land within the
mitigatio.n bank -area Dr purchase credits from the mitigatio.n bank to' mitigate
the impacts o.f the develo.pment.
5. Revise existing implementation program #6 by adding a third sentence as follows:
Explo.re po.tential funding so.urces fo.r the acquisitio.n o.f o.pen space, including
general o.bligatio.n bo.nds, 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 wlltenhed IIUUUlgement plllllning
~mu. ~
. .
DRAFT ~ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS
, 'Generally, the description ofbiotop:a). teIOurces and their significance is quite good in theDEIR.
An important exception, howeVer, is the description of the regiorutI setting. There should be greater
specificity as to the Study area's re1ationsbip to the bimegion with special emphasis on Temecula and
environs' proximity to a key wildlife movement corridor ",hich links the Cleveland National Forest, .
Santa Rosa PJa~u, Santa Matgarita River, and Camp Pendletm Marine Corps Base habitat areas
with the Palomar Mountains and other amlS east of there. A "bicngional" map showing these areas
and the connection among them would be especially useful 'Unfortunately, also,FtgUI'e 15, the
Sensitive Habitats map, is miSsing from the document.
While the DElR discusses the ..pfi~ of the corridor fer mountain lions and the potential for'
adverse impacts to this species, it fails to note the more general hupuLtance of the corridor for a great
many plant and S1ni11Ull species. Tbe c:onidar should more accurately be described as a link between
ecosystems and thereby of general ecological value and significance rather than of value only to a
single speci~
A useful discussion of the County of Rivemde 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 proposed .
reserve areas or within 1,000 feet of the proposed reserve bOundaries. These proposed reserves
should form the core of the potential habitat reserves within the City and a review of other areas, -.
such as Pechanga Creek, requiring protection should be developed." '
These recommendations, however, were not incorpor8ted into the General Plan, and should be.
The most significant deficleOcy, and one which URGE, POP, and the Friends must Conclude renders
the EIR legally inadequate withoutrevisiOll and recirculation, is the lack of analysis of potential
impacts ~f the General Plan on the Santa Margarita River downstream of the confluence of Murrieta
and Temecula ~ The DEJR. fails to pro~de adequate description of the Santa Margarita River
which is a regionally significant resource containing the San Diego State University Ecological
Re$el'Ve. as well as Bureau of Land Management(BlM) and Nature Conservancy lands. The
BUd, in its South Coast Planning Area Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement, proposes designating 1,260 aaes along the Santa Margarita River as an Area of Critical
Environmental ~cem and a Research Natural Area 3ud also identified a portion of the river as
eligible for W"tld and Scenic River designation. The BLM's Plan also identifies Santa Margarita
River as containing outstanding representative examples of the rare riparian plant communities
Southern Willow Saub and South Coast live Oak Riparian; also found is the rare Diegan Sage
Scrub community. The endangered least Bell's vireo nests along the river and the candidate species
southwestern pond turtle and willow fly~tr.hP.r also have habitat along the river. Many other
sensitive species are alsofoWld along the river.
The level of development allowed under the General Plan could 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 ofTemecula and Murrieta Creeks, scouring and erosion from
increased velocities, Sedimentation, and increased nutrient looning and toxicants from runoff. The
-', .
-9-
DEIR made no attempt to assess the potmtial of these impacts and the resulting effects on the ......
resource values of the Santa Margarita River.
The DEIR provides an intrzesting project alternative in the Conn of Alternative ~ the
Conservation Alternative. While the discussion is sketchy, it is clear that the concept has
considerable merit. The DEIR concludes that "This Alternative IeSUlts in fewec environmental
impacts resulting from its implementation, as wen as meets the project's objectives outlined in the
General Plan Vision Statement-. The Conservation Alternative is tha'efore identified as the
'environmentally superior altcmative. The OEm, then, leads logically to the conclusion that the
Conservation Alternative, rather than the draft Genanl Plan should be ~ as the City's General
Plan. Indeed, the OEIR does not explain why the agency chooses to reject the Conservation
,Alternative in favor of the draft General Plan. This conmtutes a failure to comply with CEQA .
Guidelines sectionlS126,.subd. (d) (4), resulting in the OEIR's being legally inadequate.
SUMMARY
URGE, POP, and the Friends would like to see a much more in depth consider.ltion of the
Conservation Alternative outlined in the OEm. As described, it is an innovative concept which
meets the objectives of the General Plan and yet conserves critical environmental resources. That is a
powerful commendation oftbat Al1mlative, and it should certainly be exp1oredfurther. We
recommend that a map and text be prepued to as part of a revised and recirculated DEIR to assess the '
Conservation Alternative in greater depth as a realistic and superior alternative to the current draft
General PIan. Further, the revised DEIR 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 PI~ mitigation measures.
As the City develops, considers, adopts"and implements its General Plan, URGE, POP, and the
Friends would like to playa constructive, partnfnhip role with the City, particularly in the critical
tasks of developing a Comprehensive Open Space Plan which protects a ooherent, connected open
space system, and in the development of a system of greenbelts with both habitat and recreational
trails along the streams, creeks, and rivers in the study area.
SincerelY'1 (
~ (l ~~
1=;,
am HaVert
Associate
I
I
i
- 10-
Friends of the Santa MaIjarita River
P.O. Box 923
Fallbrook, CA
RECEIVED
SEP 2, 192
CITY' OF TEMECULA
-
September 28,1992
101m Meyer
Planning Department
City ofTcmecula
Re: City ofTemccula Draft General PlaD and EIR.
The Frie,nds of the Santa Margarita in conjunction with P.O.P. and U.R.G.E. submitted comments
regarding the above cIocunumts UDder separate cover. However, due to our somewhat different
areas of concern the Friends of the Santa Margarita feel that we should also bring the
.accompanying document to your attention and feel that pages 1 through 4 be included in your
. planning document. Since it is the intention to protect all the "waters oftbe United States", and
particularly the wetlands, Since the City ofTemecula will likely be required to follow the
guidelines settled upon at the conclusion of this study, it seems reasonable to assume it would be
, simpler for you in the long run to incorporate these concerns into your Em and Gcncral Plan.
-
"
Very truly yours,
J,- / j ,./
,"~lll:~~
Nancy,Backstran~ '
President '
-" .
i t:.~.c.K V.t:. U UK .L 1 \.1 bAU
r
.,
Sept. 15, 1992-
RECEIVED
SEP 1 71992
, AJJs'd .
. ............... ...
John Meyer, Senior Planner
City of T emec,ula
43174 Business Park Dr..
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Draft Temecula General Plan and EIA
. Dear Mr. Meyer:
r-
Thank you for this oPPOrtunity to comment on Temeculals draft General Plan
and EIA. Our grassroots citizens group of several hundred members is ded!cated to
'the preservation of the Santa Aosa 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 EIA. Our previously submitted
comments have clearly not been given serious consideration. It would be tragic if this
historic opportunity to put in place modem watershed management poliCies was lost.
Failure,to take steps proactlvely ,may lead to costly measures later.
The EIR gives little or no attention to adverse impacts on the Santa Margarita
River downstream. Deficiencies include, but are not limited to, discussions of
sedimentation, erosion, altered flows from impervious surfaces, and non-point source
pollution. 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 similarly neglected. The EIA is grossly inadequate for decision-makers who
' need 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.
in a regional watershed,p/an; is illegal wider CECA.
Given the deficiencies in the EIA, 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 control;
4) groundwater recharge; , ,
5) retention and restoration of riparian habitat and adequate riparian buffer -
zones.
The General Plan. should &Iso integrate these policies into a system of
greenways and trails along the creeks which run through town. These greenways
constitute a great yet unrealized asset for the community.
, The treatment of wildlife corridor issues is better, and serious impads 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 Carlsbad General Plan
cc: City Council
- .
~
~.
,
FRIENDS OF THE ALAMOS DISTRIcr
September 30, 1992
REeE' VEt,
SEP 3 0 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
""
Temecula City Council
City of Temecula .
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Temecula Draft General Plan and EIR .
Dear Members of the Council,
The Friends of the Alamos District is a group of citizens from the Temecula and
Murrieta areas who wish to stabilize and enhance. the rural community within the
fonner historic Alamos School DistriCt as an enduring open space resource for
Temecula and Murrieta. The District takes in the northern part of the Study Area of
the Project extending from Lake 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 fann a rim of open space
around the Temecula Valley and imparts to the new cities of Temecula and Murrieta
much of their special character.
The Draft General Plan and EIR make a good beginning in their assessment of
the District. We find especially interesting and valuable the Community Design
Element and believe that it will 'contribute greatly to making Temecu1a 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
General Plan and the EIR. Underlining ,indicates our recommended text additions.
GENERAL PLAN
, We note that the .Vision of Temecula" in th~ overview affirms securing open
spaces, the conservation of neighborhoods, multi-m:xlal transportation, and the
preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources. The plan does not
specifically develop goals,policies to achieve these concepts in our neighborhood. We ya--.J
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.
,L Land Use Element
(1) n. Summary of Land Use Issues. Our area is discussed in Section D, but the
existing rural residential and agricultural land uses are ignored. We recommend the
revision of Part D to read:
~
n.. Alamn... District.
, ~ ~ Santa loa PlSlt~u. 1K fnnthilh~ m ML. Palomar. ~ Tuea10ta ~
aDd * M& count(y. 1bA AlamM District hc1Da m form a rim m QRCD ~ around ~
Temecula Valley. ~ District's historictand~ aDd structural ftio.atUTeS 1WR inwart
10 * Cittm distinctive character within southern l".alifOmia... RIal residential,
densities aDd .1and lIB contribute m 1bA Ci~l S diversi~. :r= District buffers ~ Ci1x
fmm * neiah~ ~ gf Murrieta JDd Hemet. J\lricultural ~ons haK
provided JIIU gf ~ economic ba& 1m 1bA communi~ aDA1K Citt 11 JaJa and mtm:
Ionl-term eeonornic potential. :J:B District's mml xDada Dffm: ~riona1
o.wortunities 10 residents and viJitors alike.. Development within mil ma will have a
direct impact on the surround;"r communi~ IDd ill resources and gil1K incorporated
JliII1 m the City in tenDS of traffic noise, cOnlestion. alm,. the demand for community
facilities, . the demand for employment and commercial activities and other impacts.
Thm is a n=d 1Q iIlsm 1hat II development in 1K ama occurs 1bl mk gf 1bl existin&
. District in 1bl Ci1x and 1bl rqion is preserved and enhanced. T jIO~pfroJ develo.pment
~ 1Q ~ avoided. Policies fm: .1and ~ 1'nSld~. ~ desip. 1"PN'P.SIrion. historic
features. ~ resources. wildlife. and scenic resources ~ 1Q ~ Kt in a Rw:a1
District flail shaped ~ a District P1annin& Iaak ~ in COQperation :lli1h- ~
residents gf ~'ex.istin& communi~. community interest aroups. ~ ~ ~ COunty.
~ Cities gf Murrieta and Hemet. ~ .&We De.partment gf fish.and GSlIi1e. lL. Sa. Em
ami Wildlife service. .1lC Cooperative Extension. F.alltem Muni~ ~ District.
illi1 MetroJ)Oiitan ~ District. . .
--.
(2) Goall. We recommend the addition of the a,ricultural after "recreational."
(3) Goal 1. We recommend the additi~n .of the ,folloWi~g policy to those under Goal 1:
Policy 1...ll Encoura,e 1M develOJ)ment gf a,ricultural o.perations ml Jnr.ally
important. statewide important. uniQJle. and JD:iJB fannland. innovative marketin& gf
a,ricultural products. and 1bl development gf a,riculture related businesses within 1bl
City...
(4) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following wording to the discussion:
The historical resources in the communitY including Old Town, 1bl historic
structures amlland~pe features in 1bl Alamos District, and the Butterfield Stage Stop ,
~ .
2
(5) Goal 2. We would like to see the following policies added to those under Goal 2: '......
Poli~ U Establish nu:al JDd historic mad standards far aU ~ within nu:al
a.nQ historic ~
Polic;,)' 2.6 Encourqe ~ re.creational}lK gf mr.al and historic &mal within k
ProiectStudx Ami hi estab)imi"l bic;ycle, hilri.r and f!CVWl!4!tft0ft1mill and ~.use gf
historic structures ami _ as community centent par~r .aDd. DRml ~ preserves.
(6) Goal 7. We recommend the following:'
Goal 7' A Rw:a1 District llaB far b Historic Alamos Distrlct !bat protects b
existine nu:al residential community. promotes aaricultural Vitality. conserves historic.
. cultural. biolOJic.alr scenic. JDd ~ reso~r addreCllil_' reaional'1W7P.arional needs.
and provides far orderly phSl~ anne~and develQJ)l1leftt.
Discussion lB lonl-time exislin, mr.al community and qriculturaJ .1aDd.llK in
W ~ northern Sphe~ gf Influence .ia thTf".Sltfl!nM Dx wiwl ~wl in 1B am&.. The
City has the OPPOrtunity to influence land use, phasing of develOpment, project design,
and infrastructure improvements in the area and .1Q st3bili7~ 1B existin, community.
enhance ~ Distri~t' 5 and 1bc ~ QRCD $paCes.. econoDl)'. and qJ.l31ity gf .1.ik and
~ conflict between nu:al and m:ban lIBlDx COOj)erahQI 1!i1b. QIhc[ jurisdictions.
a2encies. and community interest Iroqp5 in sqp.portinl1bc Alamos Ruml District f1an..
.-
Policy L.1. Actively participate in 11= preparation gf 1B Ala~ Ruial Di~ct
f!an ~ an Q[ j' Di~ct PlanniQe :Iask.Ea= and JIB 1bU R1an in reviewinl
development pro,posaJs and settinl mitieations in ~ 10 ensure 1bc protection gf ~
District's neiJhborhoods and resources.
Policy Ll Establish leneral kM laml:ux density imli Q[ ~ 1Q ~ dwelline
~ m am and a.rw gf ...1 dwelline .unm _ ~ alsm& creekbeds nm1h gf lkGl
and Hunter'~'within ~ Alamos District.
Policy LJ Establish proceduralluidelines 1Q facilitate ~transfer gf
develqpment ri&bU ITDR~) Jmm locally important &nnland within 1bc District,
inc1udine ~ identification gf lalB.t amaI1Q receive m& within ~ ~ and 1bc
purchase gf develqpment ri&hts (PDR$l. includinl1bc identification gf purch=-V! amu
within ~ District. a.s miti~ation fm 1B ktu gf locally important, mtc important.
uniQue, and ~ farmlands within ~ Proiect ara...
Policy 7.4 IdentifY j ~ harvestinl and recyclinl ~stem 1bat benefits
aJriculturalland YK in W District in COOJ)et'3.tion m ~ auoropriate 81encies aDd
community interest lroups.
/""
3
Policy 1.2 Enco~e.tllt develO!'ment gf a,ncultural o.perations .QIlloca1ly
inwortant farmland. Itam important. uniQJ1e.and ~ farmland within .tG Project
amL.. innovative marlcetinl gf a,ricultura1 products. and'~ development gf
aariculturaIly. related businesses within 1hc Citx..
~
, Polic;y 1..6 S1UIJ)OIt an intepted historic p~rvation ~msll!h fgr ~ District
UJat identifies .ifit".Slnt. historic ~ and 1aNht~~. elements includinl1'Nlns.
. tmilL. ceremonia}'mca. settlement.IUIL ~n,psitl!s. DIm Mtn~. JDc.s.. poves. and
. t~hic featu~s aDd thciI ~sand mat.aD1Il establi. JinhV' between
, historic features Within 1bc District includinl1hc historic and IIIlIl secbOn:gf 1m
Alamos RQId fmm ~ Menifee RmId tQ 1B U gf ~ former Al~mM School At W
comer gf Benton and Po1lnQY Rnanc. . See~ Attachments.
Polic;y 'L1 HClI1 ~IQp a .. gf p.or-iUl't!lS and IUidelines fg[ .tG acquisition
and development gf historic Iita within 1hc District II community centers and parks.
inc1udine .the Garrin~r Ea ml Briles R~. 1bc mea gf 1bc former Alamos District
School hdD Schoolhouse HilL Ulc Adobe ~IS Bell s-.. t= Native American IiK
2f Toatwi. and 1bc E~t and Spnoran IiIil Route.
Polic;y 1..8 Parti~te m community interest poups includineland trusts. *
California ~ent gf fish and ~ and Qthc[ a,encies ill 1bc desipation and
acQuisition gf a Warm Sprinls Preserve II a mitiption .bank ~1bc laH gf habitat
within ~ smdx AI=..
~
Policy L.2 En~ 1bc ~ement gf aaricultural1aDdi fg[ ~ i:onservati9n
Q[ wildlife habitats.
The new policies will necessitate the renumbering of the existing policies, under
Goal 7.
. i
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 Bma1"District
Plan.
Policy 7.2 as Policy 7.11. After "using" add Alamos Bmal District Em..
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 1b.c Alamos District, after
"the City of Murrieta."
(8) IV. Land Use Plan. In the first paragraph, we would like to see the addition of 1b.c
Alamos RYraI District flao after "Land Use Element" in the third sentence.
~
4
(9) Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Map. The preferred map allows for leapfrog
development and urban intnlsions in the Alamos District. We recommend that general
low density areas of .2 to .4 dwelling units per aaes 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 transfer PIOsndn-
"""
(10) Figure 2., Village Center Overlay. In order to avoid growthjnducing
impacts on the existing rural residential neighborhood, biological, agricultural, ~d
water resources, and nearby historic sites in~ludii1g historic Los Alamos Road,' we
would ~ to see the Village Center Overlay mnoved from the West side of Highway
79 northerly between Briggs and Thompson Roads.
n. Circulation Element
The Circulation Element ignores existing circulation 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 Geneml 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
~ccess and between CO~uter and commercial vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists,
equestrians, 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 propeny. The changes will also destroy the Los Alamos HistOric
Roadway.
(1) Summary of Circulation l~ues. We recommend the addition of the following
opposite an additional bullet on page 3-7.
· ~ devela,pment m madI within * Sphere m Influence and the ARa m
Interest ~ ~ potentiallQ'~ conflicts Edt b DIDIl'residential and qricultural
commlJnity ~ motorists i1 drive~$ and ~ QbicYClists,-equestrians. and school
children confront commuter ami commercial veluCks. tQ int!TP.fl- conlestion within ~
Citt Q[ Murrieta. 1Q ~ residents .fmm * AD:a m Interest fmm thmI: homes, and 1Q
destroy historic .un Alamos'~
(2) Goal 3. W.e recommend the following rewriting. A re&ional, multimodal
transportation ~stem 1bal minimj7~S ~ bx Jin&k occqpally vehicles and provides
fQr community health. safety, and welfare ~ and outside ~.smdx Ami..
.~
Discussion Current.tmftik ~ within and outside ~ ~ m strainine
existin& facilities. .air Quality. community safety. and economic resources. Future
~mved and l)endine devela,ptnent threatens tg destablili7~ ~ existiDa DDJl
community within ~ Sphere m Influence. ~ Ami gf Inte~ and surm~din& arcu..
s
Under current ~ ~ MIl continue 1Q tn~V! between Temecula and other
population and employment centers within the region. Special efforts will be needed to
adequately and efficiently provide for regional travel demand an41Q reduce ami amid
existina and tn~vwi conflicts an4 hiIh 1cB1a gf servi~.
Policy 3...l Suwort ~ develqpment gf a re~onal multi-modal tran$pOl18.tion
system .tbat establishes 1iaht DiL. telNYmlmutin,. ~ shuttle. a IDd CaB 1 bicycle
. commutin, &l!ilitiM aDd minimi7H ~ occqpaqy ~hicleJ &cilities.
-.
Pofu;y 3...8 Estab1i~h a priority prqject schedule .fm: liah1.tail.. telecommutin,. .
xana.. shuttle. ImI.. aDd Caa 1 bic;yclefacilities. . .
Polic;y 3...2 Divert commuter and comm~rcial vehicular traffic fmm mm1
residential e.nmmunities aod U1c Alamos District bJ limitinl DDl mad. widtQs.
establishinl vehicle weiJht limits. andlimitina access imi2 DDl iIBU fmm maim:
hilh~s aDd JU:baD develqpm.ent prqjects.
Policy J.J.DPmvide WI off-mad commuter bicycle 1lU.UGI akm& Hilhway 1!1
northerly aDd Hilhway 14 between Temecula and Hernet. akm& Murrieta Hgt Sprin,S.
&md between Temecula aod Murrieta.. akm& Jefferson &.1 between Temecula ami
Murrieta. aDd alml& Rainbow Road-former Hipway 395-MissiOll between Temecula
and Fallbrook.
Policy J..ll Participate in ~ CWlriOD of a vi,omus area-wide bicycle
commutine ~ in coqjunction lYiIh mbGI jurimictions and kK;albusinesses.
-
.. Policy ~ Provide mr an off-mad multi-pw:pose 1Iiil system fmm Temecula
1Q relional recreational ABU includinl b Cleveland National Forest. M1.. Palomar.
yg Skinner ReJional fark.. ~ l..aK Domeniaoni m;a.. ~ SIma RDsa Ecololical
Preserve. ~ Temecula ~ County. awl ~ Alamos District.
- (3}Goa14. We recominend the addition of the follo~g Policy.
"----'" . . .
Policy!.ll Require.uman develqpment prQjects in DOl residenti3J arm 1Q
diY.cn construction. commercial. and commuter vehicular D:affik fmm ~ existinl nu:al
IQiQ network whenever possible.
(4) Circulation Plan Figure 3-1. We recommend the following alterations:
(A) Place the access-restricted urban arterial transit corridor in the Area of
Interest (Clinton Keith Rd.) north of historic Los Alamos Road and the existing rural
residential area along Los Alamos..
(B) Eliminate.the 4-lane mad joining Briggs and Auld Roads within the Area of
Interest. . .
-.
6
. ."
(C) Preserve and enh2~ the Los Alamos Historic Roadway (taking in Los
Alamos, Thompson, and Pourroy Roads from Menifee Road to the site of the former
. Alamos School at the in~oo of Benton and PourtO)' Road) and its contributing
historic and rural features. (See Attaehments). .
(D)< Designate Highway 79. northerly as a Scenic highway and develop
appropriate design guidelines to retain the viewshed and contributing f~s.
. (E) Designate the rural and -historic. roads within the }Jamos District as sCenic to
preserve and enhance their current rural and recreational uses and their con.tributi!)g
rural and historic features.
(5) Implementarloo.Programs. A. Roadway Functional Design Guidelines. We
recommend the following:
.l..O.. Rmal aDd Historic Roads: Scenic Roads
:I:lm desiJIWion should ~ llSd. mr existini mad facilities within D.1DIl mu m: .
.that bAR historically ~ associated m mral iGIL. Scenic n:adI m intenc;led 1Q
function M hgl masil !rim.knh of service gf Am: B.. Whenever afmx conditions
allow. 1hcx m 1Q .retain 1hciI existin8 mille... ieometrics. shoulders. and associated
. rw:al and historic features ~ ~ether gm he lakcn 10 fmm each mad's uniQue
standard.
. ~ Commuter and commercial ~ should ~ diverted fmm Scenic ~
throulh comprehensive planninl. - .
~ Recreational multi-pwpose.trails should he established. possibie within
W rMnc:' rilhts-of-way.
~ Recreational. liricultural. and educational businesses should he encovnied .
ahmi Scenic Road.s within.~ Sphere gfInfluence ami A1:= gf Interest.
~ ~ desiJIWion of I network of Scenic RQads should ~ encourqed within
ltl.e Alamos District.
lll. 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:
( I) Introduction. Third paragraph, fourth sentence:
7
The City has a much greater opportunity to shape the open .space m ~ Alamos
District in U1c Sphere gf Influence JIHl ABa gf Interest thmQJh participation in ~
creation of III Alamos BlItIl District E1IIl and me JIK of 1bc _ in ~ review gf -.
develo.pment prqjects 1I1bcJ am ann~xed 1Q .tK Citt.. The ch~nenge facing Temecula
is to create a multipurpose open space system that does not solely consist of unusable
sPaces leftover from development, lml revitali~ and restores apiculmra1JandL.
preserves wildlife hah1mn mAT1m1'MA ~ resources. aDd. secures ftIlJM'P.SIrional.
hi$)ric. anA cultural resources.
Next to the first bullet add IDd .n~tuml after "for conserving natural. "
Next to the last bullet add historic after "promote the" and of ~ Alamos
District after "of the City.". .
(2) Summary of Open Space/Conservation Issues. 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 existi~g community area
or resources. We recommend the following:
(A) The creation of a park and community/interpretive center at the historic
Garringer Place on Briggs 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
fonner Adobe Springs Rest Stop.
(D) The creation of a park and interpretive center at the site of the fonner
Native American settlement ofToatwi near the Warm. Spring$" Tributary and the
inte~tiori of Benton and Highway 19 northerly..
(E) The creation of a park preserve along thr. Warm Springs Creek.
(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 I
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-
mad trails along Benton Road, Auld Road, Pourmy Road, and Leon Road.
(4) C. Conservation of Resources. On page 5-14 in the first paragraph of the
discussion after the fint sentence we recommend the addition of the following reference
to the Alamos District.
-. .
8
~-
......
]k riparian maL. aerlcultural fields. hill Jide.L. and IklBa of 1bc Alamos
District ~ ~ 1Q a number of endan,ered. sensitive. and candida~ ~es and
~es of !pew concern.
8. We recommend the addition of the following after waesthetic character of the
areaw: 0Im wineQr iI fmDl ill 11m Area gf Interest. The following would also best be
added: .00. S.+C.\e. i~-t
I . J
lk )~l1y i~~ds gf1G Alam~ District.JDd 1bc Tem~ula . U"',tUeJ "V\~
E= countJy offm: a potential ama .fm .ncultural innowtiOQr improvement of 1bc yr. ~ e.
l.Qgl Quality gf 1iL aod stimulus 1Q bna~.. develqpl'llMlt within _ Citt
9. Our understanding indicates that some of the information in this paragraph is
incorrect. We recommend the following changes:
After -23 recorded archaeological sites-; 47 properties 1istal on the l".alifomia
~ Historic Resources Inventmy available .at 1bc HistoQr Division of !he. Riverside
County .ema ami 0Rm1 ~ District m: ~ ~ Historic Preservation Office
inc;:ludine Yail Ranch, ~ Link Temecula Rancho Adobe and farmUfI!SIrls within ~ .
Alamos District; ~ identified U existinl m: potential Riverside Coun'Y Landmarks
am1 ~ Emms Qf Historic Interest includinl Temecula' s Eimt fast Office {lUY mn..
~ Temecula Ouarries .!IUY .oJB1. and Las Alamns Historic R~y: ~ Murrieta
~ ArchaeoloJical ~ lWcd QIl ~ National ReJister of HIstoric Places. and
several historic re~urces of local, ~ and national importance .DQt XCi ~ mm
county. ~ QI national PrQarams. including the Butterfield Overland Stage Route, the
~ Q[ ~ Sonoran ami Emi~t IIai1.. ~ ~.of 1bc Temecula Massacre. ami ~
Adobe Sprinls &.st ~ Listine m1hc Slate Historic Resources Inventmy indi~tes
1lw W ~ has communi'Y historic sipificance. Pro.perties become JEt of 1M
Inventory iOO an areawide survey. in 11m kiK conducted lIIHkr a ~ &IiD11Q
Riverside Coun'Y in.l2il.. a sub!leQJlent review and ~termination of kgl histQJic
si~nifi6mce bx ~ Riverside Coun'Y Historical COmmtssion. and fiDal review and
detennination Qf l.acaJ. sipificance h): ~ ~. Historic Commission. . ~.ml.~
Inventory m a.&n 1hQg JllQSt important 1Q a}Qgl. community. Si1c& like 1bc Mission
Inn ~ national and ~ historic importance and m ~ on ~ National ReJister
Q[ Historic ~ or II a SWc Landmark. whereas ~ QIl ~ InventoQ' !hat reflect
~ ~ ~ gf ~ gf a communi'Y am gflen overlooked JUG kgl histoQ' iI mim1 mn .
. recolnized adequately. ~ current SWc Historic Resources Inventmy is mn complete.
~ ~ l28l survey focuessed ml residential structures and. ipored commercial
buildinls ami landscape features. . . ... Temecula and ~ Alamos District contain
many older structures, historic sites and districts, 12nd~ features. mAtt~. milL. and
ceremonial ~ and archaeological evidence which may be threatened with demolition
or removal as urbanization continues.
9
(5)' Goal 1. We recommend the .addition of historic stnlctures and land~ features
after "significant" in Policy 1.6.
~
(6) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following policy.
Policy.2..1 Promote 1bc lIK gf mc;yc1ed lDtGI aDd DIm: harvestin, techniques
. mr ~cultura1 am&I.within-1bc &wh AD:&..
(7) Goal 3. We ~mmend the following:
Policy 3.1 ~rritipatf! Mdl cormuunity interest poqps includi", laud ma&. ~
California ~t gf EiIl1 and r...~. aDd Qthc.r -aencies in _ de~on and
acquisition of a :waon Sprinp Preserve II a mitiprion bank WI _ }go of habitat
within ~ SIudx AIm..
Policy 3...2 Establish km 1aod ~ density amaa of .aZ 1Q ~ dwellinlllDi1s J!CI
~ in ienera.1. and...l dwellini lIDitI J!CI &em in amaa akm& creekbeds Dm:lh m B.m:cl
and Hunter Rmt.ds in 1M AI.mnflDistrict. .
PolicY J....1.Q Encouraae ~ ~ement gf qricultural1awb fm: wildlife
conservation.
(8) Goal 5. We recommend the following:
-.
Add iiricultural ~ after "scenic enjoyment. "
Within the Discussion after the second sentence add: Existinl and former
aericultural ar=& within tbc AlarQos District should ~ revitalized and restored throulh
~ conservation measures
Poli~y ~ Activiely parti~ in ~ pn=,paration gf an Alamos .Bmal District
fla.n linkiile 1bal.~..$JIG m=a 1Q anQRcD. ~ system thmUlhout ~ CUx ami 11& .
~nlin tQ review devel~ment JmmP..ab ami Kt mitilations tQ ensure ~. prqtection gf
~ District' s QZIl ~ resources.
Policy ~ Desianate historic IW=.L. Native American 8L. wetlands. ~
mad corridors. and wildlife preserves II gpm .$JIG linbres within ~ Alamos
Di strict.
(9) Open Space ConservatiOll Plan. Figure 5-10. We recommend a dramatic increase
in "open space for resource conservation" within the Alamos District by designating
linked historic sites. Native American sites, wetlands, streambeds, scenic mad
corridors. 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 desipatecl include the Garringer Place along Briggs Road, the
Pounoy Places along Pomroy Road, the Cummins' Places along Pounoy and Benton
Roads, the.1bompson Fannsite along Thompson.Road (See-State Historic Resources
.Inventory). the Adobe Springs Rest Stop, and the site of the former Alamos School
(C) 'Wetlands would include the numerous wetlands.in' 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 ws Alamos Road from
Menifee to the intersection of Benton and Pourroy, Pounoy and Benton Roads..
(G) The plan should.also include significant.areas of extremely low density
within the District along the creeks and their tributaries.
~
( 10) Goal 6. We recOmmend the following revisions.
.. Discussion Cultural and historical resources are defined as buildings,
structures, land~ features. road~ 1mi1L.objects, and sites. Temecula's heritaae ~
in 1b.e unique complex gf 1and~ features in ~ A1am~s District and ~ nu:al wm
9i ~ ~ as ~ as fmm .ia historic structures. lllm i& a lad lQ preserve ~
features.lrith an inteerated historic preservation ~rna~h ~ ~ni7p.s ~
si,nificance .gf ~ features aDd aUlQ eStablish lin~es between.1bm1 via mJw:
. historic l~d~ features iu&h as roads..1DIi1l.. ridles. iml Seasonal wate~s. The
intent is to . . .
Policy.6..l.Q Conduct a survey gf historic Ji1c1 includinl structures. roads.
1Iiili.. ceremonial Jila.. settlement Jila.. C81J\PSites. aDd landSCQ)e features throUihout
~ Proiect AIa..
Policy.~ Parti~t~ in county. ~ and. fedet2l historic preservation
pro~rams ~ ~lyini .fm ~ition gf lm:al JilGIin Ihc S. Historic Resources.
InventoJ)'. as Riverside County I~ndmarks. U ~ Points of Historic Interest. as Slate
Landmarks. and as . 2Il1he National Repster of Historic ~ .
11
Policy 6...l2 SQPJ)OI1 ~ desipation awl acquisitiOll gf JII[b and communitY
centers within ~ Alamos District at ~ followini historic ~ ~ Garrinler ~ at
36131 Brii~s Road.. ~ Adobe SprinIS Rest SlIm.. ~ ~ of Toatwi akmi _ tribuWy
gf Warm Spnnis Creek. and.tK former Alamos School ~ at _ intersection gf
Benton and Pourmy RgaQ..
",,,-,,\
Polic;y 6.ll En~ ~ PUaavatiOD aDd laB gf Ibc 1tructureS. landscq,e
. features. tnMC landmark =a.: fieldS. awl D1I SI~SltM MIll and 1inki"i 1G .maim
~ of ~ Alamos District mentioned above. . -
. Policy nJ.4 Develop e-uidelines fm .filtum develqpment within 1hc Alamos
District 1bat incoxporate 1hc historic relationships between structures. 1'Nlds. and
landscq)e features. .
Policy ~ Establish a Historical Commission assisted ~ a historic
preservation planner.
. (1 ]) Goal 7. We recommend the following revisions:
QQa11 Establishment and re,,;hl1i7Jltion gf apicultural o,perations gnlocally
important. Mate irrq)Ortant. unique. and ~ apicu1tura1land..
Discussion A vi,omus .ncultural ~ in ~ .Ala.mos District and ~
wine country gn provide ~ 1Q residents. encourqe tOurism. contribute 1Q a healthful
Quality gf ~ fm: ~ residents. and hcbl maintain and develop an economic ha& fm:
businesses wit,hin ~ ~ Growth pressures are . . .
Policy Ll Actively ~c\pate in _ preparation of an Alamos Rw:al District
flin ~ an of a District Iuk ~ aod lIK 1hii _ in reviewin, develo.pment
proposals ami settina mitiptions in mdcr 1Q conserve qricl1ltural1and lIa..
Policy U Establishaeneral km'.land llS.e densitY mal- of ..1 to ..J dwellinl W1ils
W WL and ar= fm: ..ldwellin, lIDiU ReI ~ in. ~ ahm& creekbeds nm1h of
~ anQ Hunter &lads in ~ Alamos District.
Policy U Establish Proceduralluidelines 1Q facilitate ~ transfer of
develo.pment ri&IUa (1DRs) fmm l~1Jy important. ~ irrq)Ortant. unique. and ~
farmland within ~ Proiect an:&.. includinllhc identification gf 1itIC1 iGU 1Q receive
I12&s within 1hc cnx.. and 1hc purchase of develo.pment Ii&lm (PDR$l. includine ~
identification of.t.llDl pt,ft!hsa-1DaL. ill mitiptiOllS fm ~ lau of lncsally important.
~ important. unique. and JZI'imc farmland within !be Project ~
Policy 7.4 Identify I ~ harvestinl and recyclinl ,,>,stem 1bat benefits
aericulture in ~ District and mhcI IJ.IlJl m:aa in coniunction lYiIh ~ .wro.priate
aiencies and community interest JroQpS.
-
12
PQJicy U. Enco~e 1B develQJ)ment gf 82ricultural Qperations gn )~11y
important. ~ important. uniQ)1C and ~ farmland in.tilt Prqject 11m.. innovative
marketini gf .ncultural products. aDd ~ develqpment of .nculturaUy ~latM
businesses within ~ .cnx..
(12) Goal 9. We recommend the following revisions:
Goal9 Protection ofDiaIU skies from intrusive light.sources which'may ~ .
the Palomar Observatory... wildlife.. and ~ aJm within nual mis gf ~. SWdx
~. ,
Discussion. We recommend adding wildlife and for nual residents after
"Observatory. ·
~olicy U Limit niIht ~tini in mm1 ~ throulh iuidelines develo.ped in
COQperation m1h communi~ residents.
IV. Growth ManagementlPuOlic Facilities Element
(1) ll. Growth Management Strategy. 6. Conserve Resources, P .6-8.
We recommend the addition of the fonowing.
Within the first sentence of the discussion after "comprehensive open space
system," add Alamos &Iral District flaD. .
(2) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following:
Discussion After the second sentence add: 11 should a1m n!.COV'17.e ~ existinl
communities and resources of T~mecllla ~ Sphere cl Influence IDd ~ Ami gf
Interest.
, PoliCy UCOordinate ~ Growth Manaaement Pm~ M1h ~ Qkl Imm
Plan md ~ Alamos &ol Districtllin..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
Like the. General Plan. the Draft EIR ignores important parts of the existing
community, ~ulatiOll system, and resources of the Alamos District. We are
especially concerned that the EIR indicates a number of areas where mitigations
established as policies or goals within the General Plan for air quality, circulation.
biological resources. agriculture and noise do not reduce im~to 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 mitigatiOllS for historic sites of
13
lor the.
froje~'t
community importance or for sites that are important within the major periods of
California history. Such sites, 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
sectiOll to be evaluated as mitigations for impacts within the EIR. We believe that they
may help. reduce the .iJ:'.oTh Tf im~ above to iDsignific:ance. 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.EIR. The City would.best c;on~Diana Seider, the Riverside.County
Historian at the Riverside County Parks and Open Space .District. offiCe for assistance
with historic sites and mitigations.
We provide in the attached Detailed Review 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 EIR. In view of the significant and serious impacts of the .
preferred General Plan identified in the EIR, 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 Altemative 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, anew
corinecting route for Briggs and Auld Roads alOllg 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 Murrieta City Council. These maps
are misleading.and promote an inevitability about the creation of these mads in the
minds of those who use the Draft General Plan and evaluate the EIR. 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, S-S, S-6, S-7,
S-8, S-9, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-S and in the EIR Figures 6, 7.,.12, 13, 14, 27, 28, .
29, 30, 41, 44, 46, SI, S2, S4, SS, and S6. The routes probably would also best be.
omitted on the maps where the planned circulation system is not the issue including in
14
-,
Is
-.
.-
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, 6-4,
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 EIR were Dot available from the Temecula Public Letter or from the City. We
were lucky to be able to borrow the document over the weekend. Mr. Meyer of the
Planning Departmenfkindly.granted 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,
R~~
Rita Gentry
37100 Los Alamos Road
Murrieta, CA 92563
(714) 677-6552
c~~
Cecelia Webster
30255 Los AlamOs Road
Munieta, CA 91563
(714) 9~337
Attachments: ~ap 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.
IS
DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFTEIR
CIRCULATION
The project's changes incircu1ation within the Area of Interest will have the
following impacts which have DOt 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 chil~, bicyclists, and equestrians and coinmuters.~ commercial
vehicles along the roads. . . . .
(2) Destruction of rural neighborhoOds along Los Alamos Road, Liberty Lane,
Menifee Road, Willie Road, and Somerville Road as Clintmi Keith, and Hunter Roada
are extended, Briggs and Auld 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 historic sites found along the proposed
roads or within their paths listed on the state Historic Resources Inventory.
(6) Negative impact on ~iologi~ and water resources along Warm Springs
Creek ~d its tributaries. .
All of these impacts counter goals and policies of the General Plan.
The unmitigated levels of service at E arid F reported along Winchester Road
(Highway 79 northerly) and Murrieta Hot Springs Road are unacceptable and
inconsistent with the overall goals of the circulation element of the General 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 sugge.st the following goals and policies that we hav~ recommended for the
General Plan be evaluated.as mitigations for these impacts:
( 1) Goal 3. Establish a regional, multimodal transpc>rtation system that
minimizes travel by single occupancy vehicles and provides for community health,
. safety. and welfare inside and outside the Study Area.
(2) Pol~cy 3.1 Support the development of a regional multi-modal
transponation 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 Murrie~ along Jefferson Road between Temecula and
Murrieta, and along Rainbow Road-former Highway 395-Mission between Temecula
and Fallbmok. .
(6) Policy 3.11 Participate 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 Preserve, the Temccula Wine Country, and the Alamos District.
oUr 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 residential neighborhood along Liberty Lane 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 alsobeljeve 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:
. ( I) Goal 7. Establishment and revitalizatiOn of i:gric::ultural operations on
locally important, state important, unique, and prime fannIand.
(2) Policy 7.1 Actively participate in the preparation of the Alamos Rural
District Plan as part 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
District'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 tran$fer of development
rights (TORs) from locally important, state important, unique, and prime farmlands
within the Project area, including the identification of target areas to receive TORs
within the City, and for the purchase of development rights (PDRs), including the
17
idenfication of purchase areas, as mitigations for the loss of fannlamd within the
Project area.
-.-,
AIR QUALITY
We lie concerned that the project does not mitigate its adverse impacts on air
quality. We. believe this failure will have major impacts aD the area's quality of life.
. Many of the cunentleSidents bawoome to the area because of the clear air. We
believe the deteri()I'ation in air quality could ~ 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.
. BIOIDGICAL RESOURCES
We would like the goals and policies we propos.e in the Conservation/Open
Space Element to be evaluated as mitigatiOllS. for impacts of the project on biological
resources.
( 1) Policy 3.8 Participate with community interest groups including land trust,
the California Department of Fish and Game and other agencies 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 J)Cr acre and areas of ~ I 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 no land in the Sphere of Influence and Area of Interest is
currently devoted to agriculture. 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 District Planning Task Force and use this plan in reviewing
development proposals and setting mitigations.
(2) Policy 7.2 Establish genera1low 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 (TDRs). from locally important, state. important, unique and prim~ fa.nnland
within the J:lroject area, including the identification of target areas to receive TORs
within the City, and for the purchase of development rights (PDRs) , including the
identification. of target purchase areas within tarmland areas, as mitigation for th~ loss
of farmland within the Project area.. .
(4) Policy 7.4 Identify a water harveSting and recycling system that benefits
agriculturaIland use in cooperation with the appropriate 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
related 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 in 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 arid community .centers
within the Alamos District at the following historic sites: the Garringer Place on
Briggs 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 District mentioned above.
(5) Develop guidelines for future development within the Alamos District that
incorporates the historic relationships between structures, roads, and landscape
features.
19
17 October 1992
From:
#VVl1/ ~ J)Rt/~ H?~~
(name and address) /
~~4\" ~~/~ flAh!!
. 7F~&U,/ /}J, 9z~~.I.
RECEIVED
OCT 23 1992
lnsld............
To TemecUla City Council
..~
I
/ L ~ u' .91 ad'-" ;
Iv'5" bf'PO:5i;' ~~ IfY~ ~=tsrL .~,,/ - ~F~/ A/&'y ~ ~"";{f.5"l'oN. &ooQ'
. ~
!l Z ~NZ: e()""~A'/."1E ~t'JmA/~ ~u 7J;AF/=/t!- ,,;:;t:J55/8/~ ,(bA'I'S".
d- #h A/~ ~OA.l"?rI'AO:~ .7HA'T. ~F ~~s- ~~ ~b?5o//Wc.vr
1:5 70 M....... ~// 7' M'7".N'.:i<I> -....",. ~W ,,",""0;" ""'''''''''<1) t/N.q,,". _
. .,......"
(signed)
-",- 'I
!
Ih 'F/?e. = c'tf<~7/!I"1J 'I' ~''U_~..:J6- ~/=NJ r#E /J'lGl'ied/"C/1/IN IJ'~ !.
I
[)/:5r~/(!:r M~cN7'::> -,0" %2Z",- /T /$ AN ~AJT /P-f;,<J. . :ZW:5 (?d"'LD
pA::;t//P~ 4'C!L!~~:r ..?;;3 ~~A/.9 /'9LcA':5 A.Af7 .JHST A1't'E'~aJU/GJ../ pi
(j/C' t:"~~ t:!LJ~ aE. ""':"'/vD$<Z9.-p L5EA'kWTPL"';:5" ~..GwA/6- ~.......,.
. /N7C>~A/A:5~E7 /P:$7CA',J:> 4'F .F7e~e.c~!. ,.
7##,A./~ TPU .~~ ,?pu,e..//A?t5 ,/ .
. ~.~-/.D~~
-,
-;. \ .
. _ R E t; t. , ~ t.)b / "'Z "/ ~ '-
~. OCT 2.11992
._--~~~ -.'
... . . . Ans'd.......:...... "
7~.:-~~- V~~ .
_U!!I.-b. //~ d..~..".-r.J;/'~~ .
.. V~. ~~4~ ~~ ........:.... ~
/ ---.---/~
.7~ ~-~~ ..a~.A--(~~_~~
./!1.t'~ ~~_____.._~.~_~.~!_>':. .G" __.~~ -L_y~~_~ .__ .__
_ tk_~/~.J._,'..I2-._~fi--._~~__~~.____.._ _,_._.__.__
- . .,,&-~3~.-.G . f1::7~-~~-~. IJ.J~.
. 7~~~ f-~~" .~J .-.~~~~
------.-----~~.-A~--~.~--P~~~~-~/.. ...... .
- -~. - .--- . -'-- ---- _t.v~ -_.-.~(r&..t. ...-~~ ~ ____~~... ..6~ ... ~/_
~--- ...-.- --- ___V~~~4~" .-. --2)4 -- r~'- .- ~ ~ ....-a-&. _... tr'-...--.--. .----
~---~~--~-~-~--~--L~n-~ __.~____. .
-.--.-----~-- -~ -R~----S..~--?-~-d.J.~~~~~.J..~~<-~. _
- ~~~~--~~~-~~i--.~--# .
------ ------d--~-~~---...j.~../~-'6--.-:.~/~~ ~~--:..---.-.
__~.___ . ~ ~/,-",~ _~_~~_a-_y .~._-au_d.-~ :J~~ ~ _
___.___..___.:._.a~d~_V~ --) '~~5-~-0._-h<04- '-._l'~l'~_.-_a-t..<.._~7' ~
_____.__~__~__d~ r7~-._~~~-=8~~7L _~~
.-!J~~_-<-p.a(.~~. . ~ //~Jf~<.~..&.-Jd_
------.----.-~~ ~ /~-.;~~dL~---.s:.~/-~-
. .t~~4.c- ;:!'.Jr;t~~~~_:j7--C-:\~.v~-n~. -/ It.. ~~_
. wdd-f. -L./. -.:r. .71l,.'. /~-
- . , ___U. .:..-:r-I~----L..ry~.. ltJ.. ~ ----, - -1- -~ -
-----...-.--.-~~A-~oI---_4-~.-/~-... ... -.----.
---- -------------CR ~__li~~~ --'O'---Zf>,{~.i~Y.::w
__u___.__~~. ~6-. :.- ~~-I./'~.d---.d~..!~_.
---------~~- CV1-~-_ 4_. ~~-+-1'-w:~';b,.L
--- --'---.-~--_<<-~j~ .-- .-L~_~ .
d~-:-4'!1 ~~~!~~.
~~J~~ 4~~~
~~~. ., /1'~ ..k_ . ~/CJ./..::Ir, _ ~ CL- . ..,
l;~":~J-"~L ,4
. f _; , . _ ..
~~ .
t. ., . . }")r. A "~/' . I
. -~' U &.+- ~=-/".
C.t~ ~- ~ ~. _.
,f~ y ~" lI. cr . ~ IN'~ ~.. .:.:" ~ d
P-M.. ~ :0 .J..r:;, "'"""- ..""7.4,,;~. n-r . "
",__._.,1 ~. ,(,......~ ~4.~ .:~~
......~=- ..~ ~ " ..-
l.t........ . -'J --A..t'-<nA'. ...
. <A.J&L..J'.' . ~ ...t'~ ~-=.'""- . /J _~~bL'.
. ." . ~-O;. 5 ..,,~~ , ~
7A.,,-t.. . h i1 .A~. .A '~
. . . j. ~ ... ~ ....... ""---..
.-M...... J: A~../~ ~ . ~-=-- _ . .e>~__.
~ ~'d~~A.Co< 7.__[7..-.:e' - -=--7;T"'''~~' __. .
' .. 1C..t!r~-~- ..c..-R.. ,,~
-/1'", -- L.;~ . '.:r...e rt..-_ I.
~.#...' 7~ .,~<. II. c"..,.: .Ih.,,,~--..'_
~ ::i: Ii~. '~~ ~ ~
(./ did/ ~ ~ . /e-.,...........
AJ"'Y#......' .-t / . ~ ~
' -L~
~~ ..p,
tL..~ -<"1/
d~ ~' Jk-~~
Eo/fir ~.~
-r;:~ ~<'.ltJ/~" ~A '21.f-L
..-..,
'.
:::::::- :
'-... -..
~ . "J
From: tltl (/~eDS/" ..
(name ~addreSS) /J /J
~9'!Os ~5~ I'\~
--r;m&wU- a fd.51/
cc: G. Thornhill
t.
jJ1~dot.-U C/ I'~
"'
To Temecula City Council
/!etu€J ~A/J-frM~,9I) 6f/"#- ~&<aR /~.>- .
. (co nts). . ..' .. . t1:_~
t;)"~s,'~r" --7:0 !?10{l..l +a./A'-.; f,I./,tt sef 1ft. L?/Z.~d~./ ~
/IJ-f ~;,.. ~oa.4 #,,,,,'1 ~,{'/sn1-- I?tJlld (~t::n h,~J
i9"-=s jJ/eas-G - AAV~"~ -/:~a,(!s./ ~".c / S ""--
.c~L~
(signed)
jJl/'ud& (j,o~m~/cr - aJ.(.. A~<. .b<~"," .50 A;P/f.4GcC-
. -
;;1-- . / 3 1/1-5 (' /'It;a.s-e do A,or s,~2. ~ (') U"- ~J9.s~,;j;-
PrJIN;>~ vue. w~ -f-r~~:.- tpE'C.c.. /0/ ~e~ /~. f;~
j/ $7 e It.. e cf -0 J.. t:7~ MAd, ./-c:>~ I-IOJ'h C. (:) w ;to. tA.-~. jt" S rc-;,v
)0 I uso~
- I
October 22, 1992
-....
Phone message from:
Mrs. Gloria Renneker
30325 Via Norte
Temecula, CA 92591
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1416
Temecula, CA 92593
This is. Gloria Renneker. My husband' Michael and I are residents of Meadow"
view and we are opposed to any public use of the. Meadowview area by the
public. We have paid a premium to live in this area and continue to pay a
premium in property taxes each year. .
We do not think that because Riverside County was derelict in their responsi-
bility to require developers to provide adequate parks for their residents.
. that the residents of Meadowview should have to provide public, access to
t}:leir common area for the City of Temecula. .
We are ~so opposed to the General Kearney Road extension. This increased
traffic will endanger children and pets and is totally unnecessary as
Margarita Road is being extended and will accommod~te the same areas.
Requests copies to:
City Council
Parks a Recreation Commission
Planning Director
Director of Parks and Recreation.
--
/kc
'-,
. :.,..
Shawn Nelson
Leroy O. .& Peggy J. Storaasli
40600 Carmelita Circle
Temecula, California 92591
(714) 676-0074
October 19, 1992
Temecula City Co~ncil
4~174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Members of the City Council:
The recent action of the City of Temecula Planning Commission and
City Council concerning the extension of North General Kearny Road
and Equestrian Trails in Meadowview are both adamantly opposed by.
these property owners who have lived in Meadowview for the past
five years. The reason we selected Meadowview is due to the uniqUe
characteristic of being an isolated community which would not be
.affected by the growth of tract homes in Temecula. After five
years we now find that due to inadequate planning by the County of
Riverside and the City of Temecula the very reason we selected
Meadowview is being threatened.
The extension of North General Kearny Road has a direct impact on
our way of life due to the proximity of the proposed road to
Carrnelita Circle. This extension will. contribute to noise,
lighting. pollution, congestion, traffic safety problems and crime.
The proposed 17,000 vehicles per. day will severely degrade the
ability to peacefully enjoy our neighborhood and property.
The pr9posed use of Municipal Water District easements throughout
the. Meadowview area for the purpose of. Equestrian and Hiking Trails
is considered an infringement upon property ownership rights and
privacy and' use of . their property. A comment was. made by
Councilman Sal Munoz that "the main issue facing City officials
would be convincing property owners who have easements on their
properties to allow other uses for the easements." Please note
that we are actively encouraging other Meadowview homeowners to
oppose the use of easements for uses other than prescribed. When
existing or future homeowners chose Temecula as a place of
res idence, they were well aware of the lack of recreational
facilities associated with their tract or area of development. Now
Meadowview homeowners are being asked to give up portions of the
common area which was one of the attractive features to buy in
Meadowview. .
The Meadowview area is one of the most attractive neighborhoods in
Temecula because of the privacy, openness, lack of congestion and
-common facilities for the use of' property owners. _ The two
"
.,
. -
I' .
"
proposals would severely impact the uniqueness and the
accessibility to common areas and facilities for .Meadowview
residents. The common area is held in common to all property
owners within the Meadowview. Community. Both proposals would
devalue property and a way of life which residents paid premium
prices to obtain. .If we had not desired this type of quality of
life, t.hen we would have been willing to pay considerably less and
purchase in a tract area.
-
Therefore, we are opposed to the above proposals and are requesting
that City Council deny approval for both proposals.
. Sincerely,
- yI' 'cL4..----.iV'
~ Storaasli
LOS/pjs
c; TemeculaPlanning.Commission
Temecula Parks & Recreation Commission
Meadowview Homeowners Association
v~^"~,~
peggy'J.~~~~aasli .
-..
I
-'../.
'1.
81erra Clu
SaGorgoaloCUpter
~ aMralde alii .. .,..,.. Couadn
T&b4aiu Groat, · Lot ....801 Group
Sea "'nIbao )I. Onup . Moja,. Group
- H. MouaIain View A_, Suitt 130
Su~,CA92401
(114) 31J.$OI$. .
Hr. John Meyer. Senior Planner
Planning Department I
City of Temecula
43174 BU.in... Park Drive
Temaoula, CA 92590
September 30, 1992
Re. NOC/Temeoula GP/EIB
Dear Mr. Heyer.
.r.
The Sierre Club, Sen Gcrgonio Chopter, appreoiatee the op_
portunity to cOmment on the~em.cula General Plan EIR.
We believe .trong emphaaia muet he placed on the preaaxva_
tion of the natural resource. in the Temecula are..
Ha oonour with Projeot Alternative III _ Conaervation, e.
beat for the environment. He alao oonour with other augge._
tion. end commente regarding needed proteotion of the Sent.
Morgerite eeaerve. We would like to eee .trong POlicies and
Quidalinea in the Final EIR regarding the eppropriate devel- .
opment of recreetion traile end hehitat/riparian oorridor..
We WOUld. enoourege planning for pae.ive parklande and reaerve..
The Sierra Club urge. oare .nd reetraint in Planning any dev-
elopment of current weterehed areee. We believe e neturel
weter.yetem ie beet for the environment and oPPoee eny oe-
ment Ohanneliaetion, We auggeat, where neceaaary, a eubeti-
toUon of an Armortlax type prOdUct or u.e of Water retention
basins.
There ia a poaitive oppOrtunity in the GP to plen sreenwey.
end bike 'lor equeatrian trail. elong the river. AQ effeo-
tive bUffer from eny riparian vesetation.erea ahould be 100
t.et or more.
We are encourag.d by your Oomprehenaive Circulation Element
....-.- .-- .-......
.
. . . To oxpJore. eqjCl)' &at ,..rw &be natioa'. lONna, .-rt. 1riIdHre, &lid wiJdanIee. . . .
and especially the PUblic Transit component including the
proposed transit Centers.
We would like to see (in the FIIR) an outline for. formal
City Trail. system incorporating walkways/bikeway. throughout
the city. Not only will this system provide recreation and
enjoyment for residents, it will also provide an alternative
for vehicle travel.
~
.---
It appear. that your GP i. de.igned on the premi.e of deve-
loping currently vacant land. Much of thie land i. Prime Ag.
land. or pre.erves. It one of the goal. is to pre8erv~ Ag-
ricultural and open space laneS., how will you accompli.h
the.. two very differant goall in harmony? What 18 the ju.-
t1ficationfor development ot the.e land8?
TheS1erra ClUb would like an incentives program included in
the. city's Congestion Management Plan.
In the aevelopment eSe.i9ns for the city, we encourage the use
of clu.ter development with a mixed re.idential/commercial
style. Thi. is the least detr~~ental to both Air Quality
and Transportation. .
This concludes.the Sierra Club camments. Again, thank you
for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
Anne J. Dennis
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club, San Gor9onio Chapter
---
. . . To .-.plon, aJoy ud prw..rw die _.'. forall, _..., wiJd1ife. aDd wildm.u . . .
.
-
Sierra Club.
San Gorgonio Chap~er
'8eilviac Ilivenide .d s. Bel'llU'diao Coaati..
TaIIqaiq Group . Los s........... Group
s. Benaanuao Mtu. Group. Mojave Group
MOI'eDo Valley Group
G88 N. MOIIDtaia View Ave.. Saite 130'
S. Benaanlbao, CA 92401
(714) 381-&015
RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 1992
~
Ans'd............ "
~'1r .
].:-r-;;!'''.t
~A-..__
"'.;::'1":... .
Ser~i.:lr
Pla:1ner
-- .
...... . :. 'r" ... ~ _, =-
.&. --.'!.J._l.oi::-
~':~;.:.!- -:m-=:~ 't
T~~~:~la~ _3. ';~590.
-~~~ :f Tsms:ula
~21~~ Business Fark DriVE:
=.>=~ !'~'~1:"":c.m-=::.:.1=. '~F'.:'EI.F:
..)0: ~.=,ber .15.1992
.'::.?r ~1:r" Ms',-s=-;
r_
.. ~ ~
'. .
J:'S.: : .....-=~...-=::.
g:'~ng ~hr,:u~t a ~ask~~.
j: :: "-!:'7::r-.,,:..
r: ~ ~ i e~.,::':i
~~ ~OtlS5 of rs~sn~ly comms~~s~
: r i go i:: a.l: q:::/ ':.' f : :;mrnS!~..t5 '-.. .. i-..:
EIF:2 .
r.::..~ _::..,......:.~, _ ..::......,;
--...-...-..---
-.;. ~"'::
. .
-::::::....:2.::
i't
r.2::!
j'Z,: n:
:ut
i n 'C :-..~
~;- ,-,,": e.:.
-....-,-
.,...,- ....-,.p
...._....J.Q.~ ..
:::.;::.....:;.:.=~
:!!~-i.:.
.:.n .;
/.:: -.
:.~~~-:: :.:.-=!-:....=.
~:..: t 2.-:!:. "
aEE!...!r-: \"'.:.'..1
:'~:a "t
f.:. r -= -r.h.:.-:
.:. Li ;-
':':'mn:~.:",;,,":, E
fu~u~~ ;~:.~~~ anj
~h~ ~:- ~:~g~~~: 2t5~:~~
.:=t _ '-=.-=
- :1":'"_-:':'~ _ =- .: :--:=:-= .
:1.2 ::!s~::l:" i.:-.~s!"ss~:::= ir:
~r.e
~: - :- ~. rn -= r~ :. -.- ,_.
\'-"';"-
'. - - --
t-::
::..; - - - ,. -
--..--- --
.... .... -. ....-.
~.
...........-
:.~:-.:-.:2
o
~
.: ~....:.:. :'-:!'"
. ~.':' : :.. j i ri a 1: .:: :- .
: ..: :-,.. .....':
- - -... .. -
, r-
. . . To eltplore. enjoy ad preaerve the Dation' 8 foreats, .aten, wildlife,. ad wildem... . .. e Prinled on R<<ycled Paper.
J,
P~CHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION
Temecula Band of LuiSer'io Mission Indians
Spokeswoman:
Jennie Miranda
Post Office Box 14n Temecula. CA. 92593
Telephone (714) 676-2768 FAX (714) 695-1n8
Counctl Members:
Betty Banientos
Luctlle Unker
MarkMacarro
Patricia Maldonado
Patrick Murphy. Jr.
Dons Whited
October 19, 1992
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Mr. John Meyer, AICP
Senior Planner
Dear Mr. John R. Meyer:
Re: City of Temecula's General Plan Draft and EIR
As a m~mb~r of th~ P~changa Band of Luis~no Mission Indians, and
a Tribal Council member representing the Band, I have reviewed
the City of Temecula's draft General Plan and EIR.
Th~ draft EIR G~neral Plan for th~ City of Tem~cula is d~ficient
in the following ways:
A. General Plan does not incorporate cultural resources
mitigations.
8.. During all archaeological surveys and excavations, a
Native American Monitor must b~ r~tained..
C. If retorded sites are iri.the ~i~i'nity of .trenching and
grading of any project in the Temecula General Plan, a
Native American Monitor must be retained to recover any
Cultural Materials that are expOsed so they can be
properly evaluated.
I
D. Any cultural artifacts that are encountered during
grading, trenChing, and any other construction activities
in any prOjects, and this area is an unsUrveyed sector,
the Native American Monitor will rec.ommend a cultural
resource survey to be done at the ea~liest Possible date.
If the project ~an not be redesigned to avoid the
resource, then 100y. data recovery, (excluding burials>
might be necessary.
E. Please ensure that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
receive another copy of the City of Temecula General Plan
Draft EIR and a copy of the Final EIR.
".,...-~~
----
I .am confident the Planning Commission will respond to my
comments and recommendations made in this letter.
Respectfully,
.-tt ~"(,.....
,
\. -/ :
: ~-4.,../'-'..v
Lucille Linker
Tribal Council Member
'-
--..
;,
---
.'-.......