HomeMy WebLinkAbout042093 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 PUJOL STREET
APRIL 20, 1993 - 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will
determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00
PM and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-11
Resolution: No. 93-32
Mayor J. Sal MuftoZ presiding
Pastor Ron Bolt, Peoples Church of the Valley
Councilmember Stone
Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone, Mur~oz
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 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
n(~t listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak' form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a 'Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
Agende/042093 -1 - 04112193
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing
or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the
project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
City of Temecula General Plan. Imolementstion Procaram. Environmental Impact Reoort
and Mitigation Monitorino Program
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Review the Community Design, Open Space/Conservation, Growth
Management/Public Facilities and Land Use Elements, take public
testimony, and direct staff to incorporate the elements as presented,
into the final General Plan which will be presented for City Council
adoption at the conclusion of the Public Hearings;
1.2
Continue the Public Hearing to May 4, 1993.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: April 27, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Next General Plan Public Hearing: May 4, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Agende/O42093 -2- 04112/83
ITEM
NO.
1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning/~' ~ '
April 20, 1993
City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation Program, Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
PREPARED BY:
John Meyer and David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION:
It is requested that the City Council review the Community
Design, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public
Facilities and Land Use Elements, take public testimony, and
direct staff to incorporate the element as presented into the final
General Plan which will be presented for City Council adoption at
the conclusion of the Public Hearings.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, March 16, and April 6, 1993, the City Council held public hearings on the
Draft City General Plan. To date the Circulation, Economic Development, Public Safety, Noise
and Air Quality Elements have been reviewed by the Council.
At the April 20, 1993, meeting, the Council will review as many of the above listed elements
as time permits. Those elements not covered at this meeting will be continued to the May
11, 1993 City Council meeting.
INTRODUCTION
On July 9, 1991, the City Council approved a contract with the Planning Center to assist the
City in preparing its first General Plan. State Law requires that the General Plan be
comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-term. The General Plan must address land use,
housing, traffic circulation, resource conservation, open space, noise and public safety. The
City Council has elected to include chapters on growth management, air quality, public
facilities, economic development, and community design.
According to State Law, the General Plan is the primary document required of a City as a
basis for regulating land use. Consequently, the Development Code, future Specific Plans, the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and other development projects in the City must be
consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Standards contained in the Temecula General Plan.
In addition, all City capital improvements and public works projects must be consistent with
the General Plan.
S%GENPLAN~GP. CC4
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, essentially functioned as a general plan advisory
committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for clear direction on the Goals
and Policies of the elements, so they related to 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 components
of the General Plan through a series of newsletters, press releases, newspaper articles, and
radio announcements.
REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
This report is intended to provide a brief introduction and background .into Temecula's Draft
General Plan. The Public Hearing for the draft General Plan will be considered over several
City Council meetings to provide ample opportunity for public input and comment.
REVISED GENERAL PLAN EDITION
A Revised General Plan Edition, dated February 16,1993, has been produced for the Council's
consideration. This revised edition contains all of the changes and additions that were
presented to the Planning Commission. Additions to the text are shown in bold italics and
deletions are show with a strikc out. The recommended changes are the result of input
received during Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshops, Technical Subcommittee
Meetings and staff review, and from written comments by the public. Additions and
revisions directed by the Planning Commission are presented in the same manner, but noted
in the margins.
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
Individual Elements of the Draft General Plan contain:
An Introduction
A Summary of Issues
Goals and Policies
Implementation Programs
The Introduction provides the legal framework and requirements of the Element. The
Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues. The Goals and
Policies demonstrate how those issues will be addressed. The Implementation Programs
describe how the Goals and Policies are intended to be implemented. Individual elements
contain additional sections.
S~eENP~N~eP. CC~ 2
1. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of the Community Design Element is to improve the quality of site, architectural
and landscape design for new development and major modifications to existing development.
Discussion
The City of Temecula has a rich tradition and an outstanding natural environmental setting.
New development can enhance and strengthen the 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.
The key aspects of the Community Design Element include:
· Encouraging project design that provides visual interest and human scale.
· Implementing a citywide network of trails, bikeways and walkways
· Establishing landscaped corridors and gateways.
Promoting Design excellence in planning landscape architecture and architectural
design by establishing design guidelines and performance standards.
Reinforcing Temecula's "Sense of Place" by encouraging the development of
distinctive Village Centers with mixtures of land uses.
· Preserving areas of rural character by minimizing development intensity.
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the protection of existing
neighborhoods. As a result, the Commission directed staff to strengthen language addressing
the transition between different land uses. In addition, the Commission removed the Art in
Public Places from the implementation program. The Commission reasoned that there was
too much potential for controversy associated with this kind of program.
2. OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of an open space°element is to address the preservation and maintenance,
management, and use of open space. In addition, a conservation element should address the
conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. A combined open space and
conservation element is expected to: (1) address open space needs and opportunities to
protect natural resources, agricultural and mineral production, ground water recharge,
recreation, and to protect the public health and safety; (2) address the conservation of water,
soil, agricultural, fish and wildlife, forest, mineral, and other resources; and, (3) identify how
the City will address these conservation and resource issues.
$~GENPt, AN~GP. CC4 3
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Element include the
following: existing park and recreational facilities; riding, hiking and bicycle trails; biologic
resources; surface and ground waters; agricultural lands and resources; historic and cultural
resources; archaeologic and paleontologic resources; and, dark-sky resources for the Hale
Observatory on Palomar Mountain.
The key aspects of the Open Space and Conservation Element are:
· To provide a high quality parks and recreation system to meet local recreational needs;
· To conserve and protect local water resources;
· To conserve important biological resources (habitats, plants and animals);
To conserve energy through the use of available technology and conservation
practices;
To conserve open space areas to 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 pro:tect 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 cohcerns 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 were
added to the draft Open Space and Conservation Element.
$~G~N~GP. CC4 4
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 defer it to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which will follow
the General Plan process. During the processing of the Master Plan the exhibit was modified
and has been recommended for approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission. The master plan has also been endorsed by the Meadowview
Homeowners Association Board of Directors, and the Rancho California Horsemen
Association.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to modify the discussion regarding resource
conservation to approach it in a more balanced manner. In addition staff was directed to
remove policies and implementation measures addressing the preparation of a Comprehensive
Open Space Plan and consideration of establishing a mitigation bank.
3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of this element is to address regional infrastructure issues. The growth
management/public facilities element is expected to: (1) identify local and regional
infrastructure needs; and (2) promote orderly growth development that addresses market
needs while maintaining a high quality of life.
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element includes
the following: growth management strategies; public services, facilities, and utility
infrastructure and standards.
The Growth Management/Public Facilities Element addresses primary issues contained in the
growth management programs of Riverside County and Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG).
The key aspects of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element are:
· To work cooperatively with other local governments;
· To ensure an orderly and efficient pattern of growth; and,
· To ensure adequate public services, utilities, and facilities.
The City did receive comments from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). SCAG's recommendation is to
promote phased development so that jobs and housing grow in a complementary manner.
This issue is already addressed under Goal I in the draft General Plan. Modifications to the
Goals and Policies were made in response to some of the District's concerns.
mGENPLAI~GP, CCA 5
Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission's discussion focused on the language contained in the policies
regarding school facilities (Policies 4.1 through 4.5}. Based on testimony given by the
Temecula Valley unified School District representative, the Commission, on a 3-2 vote,
directed staff to explore revising the policies such that the School District would be treated
like other utility districts. The resulting effort would then require a developer to receive a
"sign-off" or "will serve letter from the School District.
The City Attorney's office at the request of staff, prepared a legal opinion regarding the legal
issues as they related to this matter. The opinion recommended revised language to the
policies. The opinion also stated the City should avoid any policy requiring a developer to
demonstrate that adequate school facilities exist or will be provided to serve their project.
Such a requirement, would in the Attorney's opinion, be considered irapermissible under SB
1287.
On a 3-2 vote the consensus of the Commission was to recommend the policy language as
revised by the attorney. The City Attorney's opinion and an opinion from the School District's
legal counsel have been attached for the Council's review. The City Attorney further advises
that the impact of SB 1287 on general plans and school facilities continues to be a major
issue across the state. In particular, the County is now grappling with this same issue. In
.response, the Riverside County Legal Counsel has requested an opinion of the Attorney
General to resolve the issue. It is anticipated the opinion will be issued within the year.
The Commission heard testimony regarding adequacy of sheriff and fire services. The policies
relating to sheriff and fire services were then modified per Planning Commission direction.
4. LAND USE ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of the land use element is to address the issue of the distribution and location
of land for housing, business, industry, open space, public, and agricultural uses. The land
use element is expected to: (1) identify the intensity of land use; and (2) to specify how
private land may be used and developed.
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Land Use Element include the following: the existing land
use pattern; special land use areas (such as rural and estate scale housing or Old Town
Temecula); land use compatibility; community facilities; and the need to provide pedestrian
and human scale amenities.
The key aspects of the Land Use Element are:
To provide an integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and
public land uses;
· To ensure compatibility between different land uses and areas;
$~GENPLAN~GP. CC4 6
· To protect and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods;
· To preserve and enhance environmental resources;
· To provide a land use pattern which encourages alternative modes of transportation;
· To improve, enhance, and maintain the character of Old Town Temecula;
To ensure the orderly annexation and development of the City's Sphere of Influence;
and,
To develop in a manner which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use
patterns.
The City has received numerous comments on the draft Land Use Element. The majority of
these comments relate to the designations on the Land Use Map. Some modifications have
been made to the text of the element in response to these comments. In response to
direction given at a joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting, staff established a
Special Study Overlay. This is intended for those areas in the community that require' a
comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and constraints.
Planning Commission Hearings
The majority of the testimony received by Commission involved parcel specific requests to
modify the draft Land Use Plan. Aside from the draft Land Use Plan only minor modifications
were made to the Land Use Element.
DRAFT LAND USE PLAN
As mentioned above, staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend
the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff
has developed a Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix will be forwarded to
Council prior to the May 11, 1993 meeting. This will allow the Council to focus on these
requests at a single public hearing.
CONCLUSION
The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Community Design, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements have been adequately
revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups, and other agencies.
Attachments:
General Plan Comment Letters- Page 10
Attorney Opinions on SB 1287 - Page 11
S~GENP,.AN~GP. CC4 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS
S%GENR,AN%GP, CC3 10
818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor · Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 [] (213) 236-1800 · FAX (213) 236-1825
EX~L"~'H~, CO~u z'l
P~s:dem
~.. Cmes of S~ B~
C~nh
Fire Vi~ ~t
Rep.. lm '/Cl~
~ Vice ~s~n
Cities o[ ~ C~
M~no V~y
Put ~m
Rep,, Venmn C~n~
~ Ange~ C~my
~ke A~ 3~r
~vmi~ C~n~
Se Be~
Ciu~ of ~ Angeles C~n~
R~ ~ Mayor
M~mv~l
Cites of Im ~ C~nh
wley
Cides of ~Je C~n~
I~ F~ M~or
Y~ La~
Ciu~ of Ven~ CNn~
Ji Md~ Co~r
S~ huta
Ci~ of ~s AnJeles
C~ o( ~nS B~
C~ Se~
~u; C~er. T~s~e
~ C~umcau~s
~ ~ Ma~r P~ Trm
and Env~mnNnt
~ GI~ Vwr Mawr
He~u C~ar, C~m~,
~ac, ~ HumM
~ve~nz
AT*~RGE D~GA~
FM A~,
~m ~
September 23, 1992
Mr. John Meyer
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RECEIVED
SEP 2 5 1992
Ans'd .......
Temecula Draft Genera]. Plan
SCAG Clea_H. nghouse # 192013089
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 projects, SCAG assists cities, counties, and 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 Management Plan
(AQMP), all of which are included in the State Implementation'Plan.
SCAG comments are meant to provide guidance within the context of our regional
goals and policies. These goals and policies have been adopted in the SCAG
regional plans specified above and are based, in pan, upon state and federal
mandates. Wkile the City is not required to undertake the specific actions
recommended by SCAG or other agencies through the Inter-Governmental Review
process, there are requirements in state and federal laws for consistency and
conformity with i'egional goals and 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
impend Couaey o S~m Sharp..Y~e,~ns~ , t.m Aald,, Coum,/o td Edaima~ .S~,vUe, and ICdmmab Hdm. $epee, om'· Omle Cm~ o GaddJ YamCues..Sme,~ , Ri~er-
suse Couaty o Mdk Omek~ .~eer.,ue, . S~a Bermdiao Comy o i. mT Welmr. S~Nrmaer · Veaara Comy o Vigky lkwm~ Selm-.,uer . Cme~ of lmpmal Coumy o Vlaet
Sem:ile~Jr. Maver Pm Tewt Wesuaoda~ · Cium ofLm Aalekm Coue/o AhleLaetCeanciinmmkr. WmHoiJ~ · Qum ofOnasl~Coqamll~ o Falkdy~hemmer. Ceeeed-
memUr. Newpon Beach · Cmes of Raversde Cmway o O/.,-m) · Cims of .~a Bergadmo Ceamy o EImer DIlalek M .~ fm Tern. Lmea L.m~ · Ciues of V,,m.q Coumy · Jedy
.Mlke~Co, mcet~q, ee~.Sm, Vaiky , Ci~y of l. m Aeletes o ikleN ~ Cee~a,emler o IMa Wellenk Ce,ncamember o Mleked Wee. CmmcdmemU, · I. ml Beech 2ad pe-
smoa o Demlhu DnammemL Co·ncttmember · AI Latle o Ge NekaBe. Ceeancamember. Tinnice · Cam HallaN, CeemeamemUr. Sea Clemeale o Jmly Wrillt,
Page
SCAG CO~S ON
TFiE CITY OF TEMF, CULA GENERAL PLAN AND
PROJ~-CT DP-~CI~rPTION
This is Temecula's first Genenl Plan since incorporation in 1989. The Temecula Study Area
is located in the southwestern comer of Riverside County and consists of three distinct areas:
the incorporated City of Temecula; the adopted Sphere of influence for the City; and an adjacent
area west of Winchester Road within the County of Riverside (for General Plan purposes, this
third area is called the Area of Interest). Temecula is 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles; 60
miles north of San Diego and 40 miles south of Riverside.
The City encompasses approximately 26 square miles while the Study Area totals approximately
60 square miles. Temecula curren~y 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 valuesi
- A balance of residential, commerc~ and industrial opportunities
- Retail and business development within multiple commercial centers, not necessarily
within a single Central Business District
- A convenient and effective transportation system which includes vehicular circulation,
air, rail, bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel.
The General Plan also sets forth a series of goals for each of the Plan Elements. 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 and public improvement n__~'Js,...
Orderly annexation and development of unincorporaled 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 pwper 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 impwvement efforts in the Western Riverside area.
RF-GIONAI. PI .AN POt ICI~-~
Them are a number of policies expressed in the Gwwth Management Plan (GMP) which are
Page 3
relevant to this project. Among them-are palicies which would:
- Promote future patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs of
infrastructure constngdon and mak~ be__-~ us~ of existing facilities, and to achieve a
good match between futuz growth and the phasing of new facilities or expansion of
existing ones.
areas needing recycling and redevelopment
Encourage mixed-use developments and other planning techniques to make employment
centers easy to walk to or reach by Wansit.
Achieve better jobs/housing balance at the subregional level through:
- encouragement and pwvision of incentives to attract housing growth in job-rich
subregions
- encouragement and provision of incentives to attract job growth in housing-rich
subregions
To the degree possible, achieve a bnlnnce, by subregion of the type of jobs with the price
of housing.
GROWTH MANAGI=.M'F-NT
Temecula is located in the urbanizing, housing-rich Central Riverside Subregion. SCAG's
Regional Gwwth Management Plan states the 2010 housing forecast for this subregion is
258,800 units; which is an addition d 168,800 units over the 1984 level. The employment
forecast of 179,500 represents 139;700 added jobs between 1984 and 2010. The job/housing
balance ratio of .45 in 1984 improves to .70 in the year 2010. The job/housing b~lnnce
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 l-~rld Use Element discusses developing Village Centers
throughout the area, the concept being to develop mixtures of commercial and residential uses
that will minimize vehicular circt~ation trips and avoid sprawling of commercial development.
Statements in the implementation program which support the goals suued in the Air Quality
Element include:
- EstabLish loc~.-performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction which are
Page 4
consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan recommended standards for Western
Riverside County subregion.
Improve. jobs/housing b~hnce by encouraging the development and expansion of
businesses, while also promoting housing, affordable to all segments of the population,
near these job opportunities:
Develop air quality mitigation measures to be used in considering future development.
Approve development that could signi~nfly impact air quality, either individually or
cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid,
minimize or offset the impact.
R~ommendmfions
SCAG recommends that the City phase development so that both jobs and housing grow in a
complementary manna. ..
TRANSPORTATION D~.MANn MANAG~'M~-NT (T~IVD
The General Plan contains several goals, policies, implementation programs and mitigation
strategies r~lated to TDM. The General Plan stat~ 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 Managent Associations (TMAs), and to require
operators of major outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction Plan CrRP).
However, to be adequate for the purposes intended by the SIP, the TDM pwgrarn should
specifically address the following elements:
1) An adequately detailed description of TDM measures incorporated into the plan as
mitigation measures or features of the plan.
2) Expected effect .and VMT/VT reduction targets for each component of the TDM
3) Funding sources for e~ch program component.
4) Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the
TDM pwgrarn.
5) An implementation schedule for each TDM program component.
Recommendations
The TDM policies and programs of the General Plan should be designed to include commitments
to specific TDM programs with clear delineation of responsibilities, trip reduction targets,
financial arrangements and specific schedules for action on each specific measure.
SIP CONFORMITY
A project is found to be in cor. formance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has
satisfied the following three cr'.t~ria:
1)
2)
3)
· It improves ti~ subregkm's jobs/housing bnlnnc~ performance ratio or is contributing to
attainment of the apprcrpriaZ subr~gional VMT target.
It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles tntvelled to the maximum exlznt feasible by
implementing UansporU~on demand management m'at~gies.
Its environmental docur'aent includes an air quality analysis which demonstraws 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 shotrid be monitored in accordance
with AB 3180 requirements ar d reported to SCAG through the Rea.~nable Further Progress
Reports.
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
GENERAL POLICIES
Public services and facilities, including schools, must be available to serve the
needs created by present and future development when it occurs in the City.
Approval of subdivisions, rezones, development plans and General Plan
Amendments for new commercial and residential development should be done
only where all public services and facilities, including schools, can be provided
in an adequate and timely manner.
The objective of the plan is to insure that development be coordinated with the
provision of adequate public service facilities, including schools, and
infrastructure.
SPECIFIC POLICIES - Relating to Schools Section
New development in the plan area must, along with the State of California,
continue to provide the funding necessary to meet the demand for new school
facilities in a timely manner. If State monies are not available in a .timely
manner, new development must. provide up to 100% of the-cost of school
facilities.
AdeQuate school facilities must be shown to be available in a timely manner
before approval .will be granted to new residential development including
subdivisions, rezones and General Plan Amendments.
3
Joint use of school/City facilities should be planned and financed wherever
possible. This should include joint use of school grounds/buildings and City
parks, libraries, multipurpose buildings, swimming pools, etc.-
Develop criteria for designation of school sites, setting underlying zoning and
provisions for granting density bonuses for school property in exchange for land
dedication. If dedication of land is not feasible, the City shall assist the district
in obtaining school land at the best possible prices.
5. Provisions for including school's funding in future development projects.
e
Approved but undeveloped lots/projects (infiil) which will create a future impact
upon the school districts must provide up to 100% of the cost of school
facilities.
06/05/92
· '~ Dangermond 8~ A~ ociates
Comprehensive Services lot: Porlcs and I}ecreat~on · Land Conservot,on · Wilelife Preservation · Land Plonnl~g · LongscoDe Arcmtecture
September 25, 1992
· Cit7 of Temect~
43174 Business Park Drive
Temec-l-. CA 92590
RECEIVED
8EP 2 6 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
Re: Draft General Plan and
Dear Council Members:
Dangermond & Assodates was recently retained by URGE (Union for a River Greenbelt
Environment), Preserve Our Plateau (POP), and Friends of the Santa Marrarita River (Friends) to
review the City's draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Repert and to prepare comments on
their behalf. URGE is a citizens group formed for the purpose of protecting the ecological integrity
of the area, with spcc~ concern for Murricta Creek and thc larger Santa Margarita River system of
which it is a pan. POP is also concerned with promctin~ the overall ecological integrity of the area,
and has a special concan for the Santa Rom 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 Plan is an important document which will guide the City's future, and crucial decisions
with major ramifications for whether or not we ad_t~?,-tely 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 messes of both the draft
General Plan and the DEIR, and to offer constructive recommendations for remedying deficiencies.
The first pordon of our comments will address the draft General Plan, and the second portion the
DEIR.
GENERAL PLAN COMMF. NTS
In reviewing the General Plan for URGE, POP, and the Friends, our overall conclusion is that the
desire to protect sensitive resources is clearly evident, but the means to achieve the goal are not '
always adequately delineated. This is perhaps not surprising since protection of ecosystems and
their biological resources has become ever more difficult and complex as growth and development
have placed increased pressures on naUnl systems. Impacts are somelimes direct and obvious; yet
o~cn they aze subde and insufficiently unclerstood, as are the ecosystem themselves. Thus, cities
and counties everywhere stn~gle to articulate policies, plans, and stnXegies adeqtmte to protect
ecosystems. Temecula has made a good beginning, and URGE, POP, and the Friends look forwazd
to working cooperadveJy with the city to enhance the GeneraJ Phn's resource larrotecdon policies to
ensure they acJz~liy achieve the ~,te~l
URGE, POP, and the Friends ~elieve that the single most important policy is to be pwactive. The
promction of open space and natural resources cannot be accomplished reactively and piecemeal.
Rather it should be approached as a fox xii of infraslructure planning. Just as effective, adequate
circulation, water distribution, and sewer systems must be hid out prior to development, so a
coherent, adequate open space system should be hid out in advance of development to ensure that
sensitive resources and habitats are protected in an integmmd, connected network. And just as the
City recognizes the need for a CApital Improvement Plan (CIP) to fund and implement needed
Main Office * 1721 2nd Street Suite 203 · Sacramento · California · 95814 * Tel: (916) 447-5022 · Fax: (916) 447-5099
380 N San JoeInto Street Suite 204 * Hemet * Colifornio · 92543 · Tel: (714) 765-6250 * Fox: (714) 765-6251
development infrastructure, so the City needs a CIP to fund and implement the needed open space '-
infrastructure. Our commems will focus on these two key areas: (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 restoration, resource management, and "preventive
care" through careful planning and buffering. We believe tha~ taking a more proactive appwach will
ensure more effective resource protection and avoid major future lm3blerns such as would
accompany the listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act.
- For convenience, we have generally followed the f,:n-u~ of quoting and discussing relevant General
Plan goals and recommending policy revisions and new policies which we believe will better achieve
the goals. In some instances we have suggested revision of the goal language itseft, or have added
new goals where needed to flesh out the General Plan's protection of local ecosystems. In some
instances we discuss other aspects of the General Plan than goals and policies. Proposed new
language is shown in bold italics.
LAND USE EI.EMENT GOAL 1: A COMPLETE AND INTEGRATI~J~ MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND PUBLIC
LAND USES. .-
Discussion
I -~nd use planing should be comprehensive and seek a well-balanced community as the goal
suggests. Resource conservation should be an integral pan of that bahn~e, 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. commeicLal, residential, industrial, etc.
Recommendations
1. Revise the goal statement to read as follows:
A complete and in~ mix ~f residential, commewial, industrial, recreational,
conservation, and public land uses. [Also reflect this change in the discussion text which
follows the goal statement in the General Han.]
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 FJ-EMENT GOAL 4: A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT
PRESERVES AND ENHANCES THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF THE
STUDY AREA.
Discussion
This is clearly an appropriate goal for the General Plan; the discussion ~at 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 ptanned, coherent open space system.
-2-
Recommenthtioog
1. Strengthen the ctm'ent discussion in the General Plan by revising the last sentence to read:
Although the majority of the area is anfidpa~ m Ulthanm~ly be ttr'oani~n], it is important that the
City seek to r~tain a weB-planned, coherent and connected system of open space that
is of value for its biologicaL, recreational, visual or aesthetic characteristics, and which
functions as part of a larger self-sustaining ecosystem.
· 2. Revise Policy 43 to state:
Cooperate with other agencies, and conduct city-iniaated planning area studies as
neede. d, to develop Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans in wesum't Riverside and
northern San Diego Counties, in which the City will participate by conserving those
lands within its jurisdiaion necessary to implement an overall Multi-species
Habitat Conservation Plan..
3. Revise Poli~j 4.5 to read:
Work with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and other
responsible agencies on the design of the flood control project for Murrieta Creek to develop a
system which protects .the public against flooding while maintaining the
biological resource values of the MUrrieta Creek riparian areas as well as down
stream habitat along the Santa Margarita River.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, INTRODUCTION
Discussion
The Introduction to the Open Space/Conservation Element states a number of Iiurposes for the
Element, including the conservation of nantral r'-~,otnr, e areas. We a~in feel it would be
to more clearly specify the need for a proactively planned, cohererat, and connected system of open
space to protect wildlife habitat and movement corridors as part of a larger, self-sustaining
ecosystem. (Recommended wording is contained in the Recommendations sections below.) The
Introduction usefully describes a number of related planning 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's Advanced Identification Study
of the Santa Margarita watershed. (A brief description is provided in the Recommendations
section.)
Recommenemrions
1. On page5-1 of the OpenSpace/Conservation Element, rewrite the fom'th purpose "bullet" to
To maintain and enhance the City's valuable natural resource areas necessary for the
establishment of a proactively planned, coherent, and connected system of open
space to protect wildlife habitat and movement corridors as part of a larger,
self-sustaining ecosystem.
2. On page 5-5 add a new nmber '7" (and renumber the existing number "7" to be number "8"
as follows:
7. EPA Advanced Identification Study o~ the Santa Margarita River
Watershed
-3-
As part of an effort to protect and manage wetlands, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX has initialed the
Advanced Identification (ADID) process in the Santa Margarita River
wcaershed. This-process fosters cooperation among EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers (COE), and other federal, state, and local agencies to collect
information, identify and evaluate loca~ons, natural functions, and
potential values of waters of the United States, including their wetlands
and associated riparian areas. This ADID project will identify waters of
the U.S. in the Santa Margarita River watershed, emphasizing their
wetlands and associated riparian areas. The relative functional importance
of these areas will be evaluated, and those most threatened by human
activities in the watershed will be identified. Results will assist region IX
in developing and implementing useful indicators of wetlands conditions,
and aid planning and permL_~_'ng activities within thjs watershed. These
results also should help to minimize the loss of important wetlands and
point to opportunities to enhance valuable wetlands functions. The ADID
study will also provide valuable background and analytical information for
use in the proposed Santa Margarita River Watershed management Study
described below.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SUMMARY of OPEN
SPACE/CONSERVATION ISSUES
Discussion
While the Conservation of Resources portion of the Summary references and summarizes the more
detailed information about biological resources found in the ~ the City's overall ecological
context is not described, and we believe that, largely as a result of this de~ciertey, 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 General Plan.
Recomrnenehtlon
On page 5-14, add the following text as additional paragraphs commencing at~ the 4th senten~ of
the 1 st paragraph:
To fully understand and appreciate the significance of the natural resource areas
in the Study Area it is necessary to understand the ecological context within
which Temecula and tile larger study area are located. Temecula sits astride the
confiuence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, downstream of which is the Santa
Margarita River. This riparian system is of tremendous importance to a much
larger area, not only because of its-intrinsic habitat values, including habitat
for the endangered least Bell's vireo and many candidate and sensitive species
such as the willow flycatcher and the southwestern pond turtle, but also
because of its function as a wildlife movement corridor connecting such major
bioregional areas as the Cleveland National Forest, Santa Rosa Plateau, Camp
Pendleton Marine Base, and the Palemar Mountains. With the loss of this
wildlife corridor along the'Santa Margarita River, Temecula Creek, and
Pechanga Creek, the bioregional areas would be fragmented and their habitat
values adversely impacted.
-4-
The fate of the Santa Margarita River, in turn, is linked to future land use and
management pracaces in its watershed. General Plan policies can have a
significant impact on the river system in terms of how .they control erosion and
sedimentation, increased flows from impervious surfaces, and non-point source
pollution. Both general development and flood control policies will therefore
be of great importance for the long term viability of the Santa Margarita River
as habitat and bioregionally critical wildlife movement corridor. Thus,
proaaive planning, including effective watershed management policies, will be
needed to protea the Santa Margarita River system and to provide a coherent
open ~.pace system for the protection of other sensitive species and biodiversity
in general. Other sensitive and significant habitats, such as coastal sage scrub,
vernal pools, and grasslands, are also found in the study area. In general, the
resources identified below are either threatened, deteriorated or damaged due to
the effeas of urbanization and an expanding population base.
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ~T,~Mk~TT GOAL 2: '-CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER AND IMPORTED
WATER RESOURCES.
Discussion
This is an important goal the implementation of which would benefit from certain additional policy
statements which we have recommended below. Additionally, the second sentence in the discussion
following the goal stat~raent in the C-eneral Plan is syntactica!ly incorrect; a revision is recommende<l
below.
Recornrnend:~fions
1. Revi se 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
Muftieta 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 improvements should include the earliest possible
consultation with the California Deportment of Fish & Game, the U.S. Fish and
l~71dlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to maximize
the integration of resource conservation with flood control objectives.
Consideration shall be given to alternative drainage systems, including
detention basins, which help achieve conservation objectives.
3. Revise Policy 2_5 to add the following to the existing language:
At a minimum, the following requirements shall apply to new devdopment:
(1)
The density and design of new development shall be planned to be
consistent with the characteristics and constraints of the site, including
slope, streams, and drainage courses.
-5-
(3)'
Prior to issuance of a building perm~ development permit or land
division, an erosion control plan indicating proposed methods for the
control of runoff, erosion, and sediment movement shall be submitted and
approved. The erosion eonwol plan may be incorporated into other
required plans, provided it is identtyied as such.
Runoff from activities subjea to a building permit, development permit, or
land division, shall be properly controlled to prevent erosion.
(4)
Land clearing shall be kept to a minimum. Vegetation removal shall be
limited to that amount necessary. for building, access, and construction as
shown on the approved erosion control plan.
(5) Any grading, grubbing, or clearing of vegetation in undeveloped areas
shall require a City permit, with appropriate penalties for violations.
In addition to adding this language to the General Plan, the City should, if it does not ctn'rently
have one, develop an adopt an Erosion Control Ordinance to elaborate and implement titis
policy.
4. Add a new Policy 2.7 (and renumber the existing 2.7 accordingly) as follows:
Review aH development projects for potential impacts to riparian areas and
wetlands with respect to how the project might affect groundwater recharge and
discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment stabilization, toxicant retention and
degradation, nutrient removal and transformation, and habitat for terrestrial
wildlife and aquatic species. The value of the benefits that the development
activity might produce should be weighed relative to the loss in services
provided by the wetlands. Projeas shall be designed and conditioned to avoid
adverse impacts to the maximum-extent feasible and to mitigate impacts where
they are unavoidable.
5. Add a new Policy 2.8 (and renumber the existing 2.7 accordingly) as follows:
Ensure that project runoff and'flood control project design do not increase
natural stream flows and velocities or affect water quality in a manner which
would adversely affect. riiparian 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 cerutinly an important goal, and addresses the reqttixements of the government code sections
which clelineate the content of the open space and conservation element. While the EIR notes the
importance of protecting wildlife corridors, the General Plan goal doesn't reference the importance of
this; it would be an appropriate addition to the goal s,~,t~-n~enL Also because loss of biodiversity
eventually lea& to species being listed as threaUmed or endangered, it would be alJpt op, iate to
include protection of biodiversity in the goal. 1 ~nguage 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 especialiy irnlxwtant to have adequate policies to ensure that a
-6-
proactively planned, coherent, and c. onnect~ open space system is established. To this end, we
recommend adding several policy slatements to amplify and complete the existing statements.
RecorarrlerlcL~t~ort~
1. Revise the goal st~temen~ as follows:
Conservation of important biological l~bitats and protection of plant and animal Species of
concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity.
2. Add a new Policy 3.1 (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
Prepare a Comprehensive Open Space Plan for the Study Area to identify
significant habitats, buffers, and wildlife movement corridors which comprise a
coherent and connected open space system in the context of the larger
bioregional ecosystem. Habitats containing threatened or endangered species,
or likely to be listed species should be given special emphasis. These would
include coastal sage scrub, grasslauds, vernal pools, and riparian habitat. The
Plan should be developed in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildh~e Service, aud the Riverside County
Habitat Conservation Agency, and should include an implementation section
which sets forth specific strategies and actions'to protect those lands identt~ed
in the Plan for inclusion in the open space system. Protection strategies may
include zoning, land dedication, density transfer, mitigation banking,
acquisition, land exchange, and cooperation with other government agencies
and non-profit conservation organizations.
Add a new PoLicy 3.2 (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
Protect existing natural waterways in their natural state, aud, where feasible,
restore channels which have already been modified. ..
4. Add a new Policy 3.3 (and renumber existing poLicies accordingly) as follows:
Designate all perennial and intermittent waterways as Stream Conservation
Areas (SCA) within which new uses, except those specifically intended to
improve fish and wildh:fe habitat and enhance streamside vegetation, aesthetic,
scenic, environmental, and passive recreational benefits, are prohibited unless
because of special circumstances applicable to a subject property, including
parcel size, shape, tt~pography, aud the location of streams, the stria
application of this policy is fouud to deprive the subject property of privaeges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. An SCA shall consist of the water
course and a strip of land extending laterally outward 100 feet as measured
along the surface of the ground from the shoreline or top of bani~
5. Add a new Policy 3A (and renumber existing policies accordingly) as follows:
Protect wildlife movement corridors, including Pechanga Creek and others as
may be identtyied in 'the Comprehensive Open Space Plan, by requiring
adequate setbacks as delineated in consultation with the California Department
of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dedication of land,
or the acquisition of sensitive lands as necessary. Require a finding with
adequate documentation that wildlife movement corridors will not be disrupted
or negatively impacted before approving development projects in or adjacent to
wildlife movement corridors.
-7-
OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELF_bfFNT, IMPLF-M~'~NTATION PROGRAMS
Discussion
Delineation of implementation programs is an impornmt component of the ~ Plan as these
programs identify how the City intends to accomplish the goals and implement the policies set forth
in the General Plan. If the goals and policies are the "what', the implementation programs axe the
crucial *how'. The City is to be commended, thea'efow,, for including specific implementation
programs in the Open Space/Consegva~on ElemenL We would like to recommend several additional
-programs to assist with the implementation of the General Plan's Conservation and open space
goals.
1. On page 5-33 of the General Phn, add a new implementation program as follows:
Establish an Open Space Commission to oversee the development of a
Comprehensive Open Space Plan and the continued development and revision of
Open Space and Conservation policies; to monitor implementation of Open
Space policies; to set and review guidelines for. specific project review of open
space; and to recommend priorities for open space acquisition, use, restoration,
and maintenance programs, on at least an annual basis.
2. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Develop ordinances to define and protea environmentally. sensitive and
constrained lands, including an Erosion Control Ordinance, a Riparian Corridor
and Wetlands Protection Ordinance, and a Watershed Management Ordinance.
3. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Develop a public participation process to aid in designing, ~eveloping, and
managing a Murrieta Creek Green way to include habitat protection and
recreational trails, and connections with greenways along other area creeks and
streams.
4.. On page 5-34 of the General Plan, add a new implementation program as follows:
Explore the potential to e~tablish a mitigation bank with the California.
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other
appropriate agencies. Development within the city which impacts sensitive
open space resources could then, if onsite preservation through dedication in
perpetuity is not the biologically superior approach, acquire land within the
mitigation bank area or purchase credits from the mitigation bank to mitigate
the impacts of the development.
5. Revise existing implementation program #6 by adding a third sentence as follows:
Explore potential funding sources for the acquisition of open space, including
general obligation bonds, assessment districts, state and federal grants, and
impact fees.
-8-
Revise existing implementation program #8 as follows:
Participate in multi-species habitat conservation and ~ate~hed management plannin~
efforts.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I~EPORT COIVI1M'F, NTS
-Generafly, the description of biological resources and their significance is quite good in the DFJR.
An important exception, however, is the desc~tion of the regional setting. There should be greater
speci~ciW as to the study area's mla~on.~p to the biwegion with special emphasis on Ternecula and
environs' lm'oximity to a key wildlife movement corridor which links the Cleveland National Forest,
Santa Rosa p!=t~.; Santa ~ta Rive, and Oamp Pendie, ton Marine Corps Base habitat areas
with the Palomar Mountains and other areas east of there. A 'bioregional' map showing these areas
and the connection among them would be especially useful. Unforumamly, also, Figure 15, the
S.ensitive Habitats map, is missing ~'om the document.
While the DEIR disaksses the ~gn~t~c~ce of the'corridor for mountain lions and the potential for
adverse impacts to this species, it fails to note the more general impu larace of the corridor for a great
many plant and animal species. The corridor 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 species.
A useful discussion of the County of RiVerside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan occurs
on page 135, and concludes with the recommendations that:
"The potential boundaries should be noted on ~e Genen'al Plan maps and specific requirements
should be developed requiring defiled 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 ca~ of the poUmt~al habitat reserves within the City and ~/review of other areas,
such as Pechanga Creek, requiring protection should be developed."
These recommendations, however, were not incorporated inW the General Plan, and should be.
The most significant deficiency, and one which URGE, POP, and the Friends must conclude renders
the I=]R legally inadequate without vzvisien and recircula~on, is the lack of analysis of poteW~nl
impacts of the General Plan on the Santa Margarita River downsreturn of the confiuence of Murriem
and Ternecula Creeks. The DEIR fails to provide adequate description of the Santa Margarita River
which is a regionally significant resource containing the San Diego State University Ecological
Reserve, as well as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Nann'e Conservancy lands. The
BLM, in its South Coast Planning Area Draft Resource Management Plan and Env;a'onmental Impact
Statement, proposes designating 1,260 acres along the ,~anta Margarita River as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern and a Research Natural Area mid also identified a portion of the river as
eligible for W'xld and Scenic River designation. The BLM's Plan also identifies Santa ~ta
River as containing outstanding .representative examples of the rare riparian plant communities
Southern Willow Scrub and South Coast Ijve Oak Riparian; also found is the ~ax-~ Diegan Sage
Scrub community. The endangered least Belrs vireo nests along the river and the candidate species
southwestern pond turtle and willow flycatcher also have habitat along the river. Many other
sensitive species are also found along the river.
The level of development allowed under the General Plan could have significant impacts on the Santa
Margarita River as a result of changes in the hydralogical r~ime resulting from increased flows and
conveyed downstream by way of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, scouring and erosion from
increased velocities, sedimentation, and increased nutrient londing and toxicants from runoff. The
-9-
DEIR made no attempt to assess the potential of these impacts and the resulting effects on the
resource values of the Santa Margarita River.
The DF/R provides an in~ project alternative in the form of Alternative Three, the
Conservation Alternative. While the discussion is sketchy, it is clear that the concept has
considerable merit The DEIR concludes that "This Alternative results in fewer environmental
impacts resulting from its implemen~on, as well as meets the pmject's objectives outlined in the
General Plan Vision Statement". The Consentation Alternative is therefore identified as the
· environmenV~,y superior alterretire. The DEIR, then, leads logically to the conclusion that the
Conservation Alternative, rather than the draft ~ Plan should be adopted as the City's General
Plan. Indeed, the DEIR does not expl~in why the agency chooses to reject the Conservation
Alternative in favor of the drat General Plan. This constitutes a failure to comply with CEQA
Guidelines section 15 126, subd. (d) (4), res-lting in the DRIR's beln~ legally inadequate.
SUMAMARY
URGE, POP, and the Friends would like tD s~ a much more in depth consideration of the
Conservation Alternative outlined in the DEIR. As descn'bed, it is an innovative concept which
meets the objectives of the General Plan and yet conserves critical environmental resources. That is a
powerful commendation of that Alternnfive, and it should certainly be explored further. We
recommend that a map and text be prepared to as pan of a revised and recizculated Dh'3R to assess the
Conservation Alternative in greater depth as a realistic and superior alternative to the current draft
General Plan. Ftmher, the revised DEER should include a more complete description of the regional
environmental setting for the project and a specific description of the Santa Margrim River and an
assessment of potenti:~l project impacts on it as well as proposed mitigation measures.
As the City develops, considers, adopts, and implements its General Plan, URGE, POP, and the
Friends would like to phy a constructive, parmership role with the City, panic,,lm.ly in the critical
tasks of developing a Comprehensive Open Space Plan which protects a coherent, connected open
space system, and in the development of a system of greenbelts with both habitat and recreational
wails along the streams, creeks, and rivers in the study area.
Bill Haven
Associate
- 10-
September 28, 1992
Friends of the Santa Margarita River
P.O. Box 923
Fallbrook, CA
RECEIVED
8EP ,98/99,9
ctrv OF TEMECULA
John Me.ver
Planning Department
City of Temeeula
Re: City of Tcmecula Draft General Plan and EIR.
The Friends of the Santa Marga~ in conjunction with P.O.P. and U.R.G.E. submitted comments
regarding the above documents trader separate cover. However, due to our somewhat different
areas of concern the Friends of the Santa Margazita 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 of the United States", and
particularly the wetlands. Since the City of Temecuin will likely be required to follow the
guidelines senled upon at the conclusion of this study, it seems reasonable to assume it would be
simpler for you in the long nm to incorporate these concerns into your EIR and General Plan.
Very truly yours,
Nancv~Backstrand
PresiXent
John Meyer, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Sept. 15, 1992-
RECEIVED
SEP 17 B92
bs'd, ......,., ......
RE: Draft Temecula General Plan and EIR
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Temecula's draft General Plan
and EIR. Our grassroots citizens group of several hundred members is dedicated to
the preservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau and its surrounding ecosystem.
We are extraordinarily disappointed to find that watershed issues have been
given such insufficient treatment in the draft plan and EIR. Our previously submitted
comments have clearly not been given sedous consideration. It would be tragic if this
historic opportunity to put in place modern watershed management policies was lost.
Failure to take steps proactively may lead to costly measures later.
The EIR gives little or no attention to adverse impacts on the Santli 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 EIR 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 plan; is illegal under CEQA.
Given the deficiencies in the EIR, it is not surprising that General Plan policies
for watershed management are also cursory and inadequate. Besides a vague
statement on water "quality and quantity", these issues are almost entirely neglected.
What is required are specific policies and goals which will lead to implementation
of modern, responsible flood control.
Specific policies and goals which need inclusion in the General Plan include,
but are not limited to:
1 ). maintenance of natural stream flows and velocities, including a
comprehensive system of detention or retention basins for all past, current and future
development, measures to control impervious surface run-off, and prohibition of
channelization;
2) control of point and non-point source pollution;
3) erosion control;
4) groundwater recharge;
5) retention and restoration of riparian habitat and adequate riparian buffer
zones.
The General Plan should also integrate these policies into a system of
greenways and trails along the creeks which run through town. These greenways
constitute a great yet u~realized asset for the community.
The treatment of wildlife corddor issues is better, and serious impacts are
identified in the EIR. Unfortunately, the draft General Plan again does not give
sufficiently specific policies for meaningful avoidance or mitigation.
We urge you to prepare an improved EIR and draft plan and resubmit it for ·
review and comment. We request written notification for all documents and hearings
pertaining to these matters at the address below.
Thank you foryour consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver, MD
President
Mailing address:
1422 N. Sweetzer Ave., #401
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1528
Enclosure: Excerpts from City of Cadsbad General Plan
cc: City Council
b'IHENDS OF THE ALAMOS DISTRICT "-
September 30, 1992 R E C E I V Eb
Temecula City Council
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SEP 0 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
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
former historic Alamos School District as an enduring open ~ resource for
Temecula and Murrieta. The District takes in the northern part of the Study Area of
the Project extending from 1 .~lc~ 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. Palornar, the Tucalota
Hills, and the Temecula wine country, the District helps to form 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 eood beginning in their assessment of
the District. We Fred especially interesting and valuable the Community .Design
Element and believe that it will contribute greatly to making Temecnln a distinctive
City. We would like to mlte 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 the overview affirms securing open
spaces, the conservation of neighborhoods, multi-modal transportation, and the
preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources. The plan does not
specifically develop goals,~policies to achieve these concepts in our neighborhood. We
hope our recommendations will make the concepts a reality for our neighborhood and
its resources. Without specific policies in the General Plan, the City and the
community will be forced to confront resource and community issues piecemeal for
every development proposal submitted for the District.
I. Land Use Element
(1) II. Summary of Land Use Issues. Our area is discussed in Section D, but the
existing rural residenri~l and agricultural land uses are. ignored. We recommend the
revision of Part D to read:
With the l,Talta Rosa Ph, tp~u. the footlmills of Mt. Pnlomar. the Tuckiota Hills.
and the wine country. the Al~rnos DiStriCt ~ tO form a rim of o_~n ~ around the
Temecula Vnlley.- The DistriCt' s historic !~nd, k"'~ and structurnl features held impart
to the City its di~6nc~ve cb~'~eter ~ southern C~lifornin Rural residential
densities and land use con-ibute to the ~ diversity. The DistriCt ~ the City
from the neighboring cities of M,,rrietn nnd HemeL Agric-lturnl operntions have
provided ~ of the economic ~ for the commnnity and the ~ at ~ and offer
long-term economic potentinl. The DistriCt' s rural roads offer recreational
opporw-ifies to resitt~.ntn and visitors alike. r)evelopment ~thin this area will have a
direct impact on the surro:,naln~ comm,nity and its resources and on the incorporated
.Dart of the City in terms of traffic noise, congestion. gita~ the demand for community
facilities, the demand for employment'and commercial activities and other impacts.
Th~r~ is a need to insure that as development ill the area occm the role of the existing
District in the City and the ~ is preserved and enhn-ced. ! ,.~pfro~ development
needs to be avoided. Policies for land use. roads. site design. recr,.~tion. historic
features. water resources, wildlife. and scenic resources Beed to be set in a Rural
District Plan ~ bX a Di-,m'ict Plnnning Task Force in cooperntion wi~'the
residents of the existing commn-ity. comm,nity interest rro~lps. the City_. the County,
th~ Cities of MulTieta and HemeL the state Del~nrnent of Fish and Game. U. S. Fish
~nd Wildlife service. UC Cooperative l=.xtension. l:~tern Munictlb~l Wa~r District.
and Men-opolitnn Wamr District.
(2) Goal 1. We recommend the addition of the ~TiCUlWml afler "recreational."
(3) Goal 1. We recommend the addition of the following policy to those under Goal 1:
Policy 1.11 i::.ncour4ge the development of :~griculmrni operntlons on ~
impornnt, snt~wide impornnt. unique. and ~ fnrrnlnnd, innovntive m:~rketing of
agriculturnl products. and the development of ~griculture related businesses Eilhin the
Ci_ty.
(4) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following wording to the discussion:
The historical resources in the community including Old Town, the historic
structures and lnndscape futures in the Alnmos District, and the Butmrfield Stage Stop
(5) Goal 2. We would like to see the following policies added to those under Goal 2:
Policy 2.5 ~stnblish rural and historic road stnntlnrcls for all roads within rural
and historic areas.
Policy_ 2.6 Encourage the recrentlonnl use of rural and historic areas within the
PrOject ~ Area bX establishing bicycle. ~ and equestrian wails and the use of
historic structures and sites as commnnity centers. ~ and _open _space preserves.
(6) Goal 7. We recommend the following:
Goal 7' A Rural District Plan for the l-li~'toric A!nrnos nistrict that pwtects the
existing mrnl residential communiW. promotes nfriculturnl vitnliW. conserves historic.
cultural. biologit~l. ~ and water resources. nddressses regiOpai recreational needs.
and provides for orderly ~ snne:ratlon and development.
Discussion The long-time existing ntml comm,,nity and ngric-l.,rnl land use in
~h¢ City.' s northern 5p. ht~ of Influence is thn-~t~ned hit BIbIR ~ in the area. The
City has the opportunity to influence land use, phasing of development, project design,
and infrasn'ucture improvements in the area and to Stnhilb,~ the existing community.
enhance the District's and the Ci_ty's _open .spaces. economy. and ~ of life and
avoid conflict between J and urban uses b.~ cooperating ~ other jurisdictions,
agencies. ~md community interest ~ in supporting the Alamos Rural District Plan.
POli~ 7, 1 Actively pnrticipate in the preparntion of the A!nmos Ru/'al District
Plan as .Dart of n District Planning Task Force and use this plan in reviewini,
development proposals and ~ mitigations in order to ensure the protection of the
District's neighborhoods and resources.
Policy 7.2 Establish genernl low land use densi_ty areas of .2 to .4 dwelling
units per acre and areas of .1 dwelling units per acre ~ creekbeds north of Borel
and Hun~¢r Roads within the Alamos District.
Policy 7,9 Establish procedurnl guidelines to facilitate the transfer of
development ~ CrDRtO from ~ important farmlnnd within the District.
including the identi~tion of ~ areas to receive TDRs within the Ci_ty and the
purchase of development ~ fPDRs). including the identification of purchn.~- areas
within ~h¢ District. as initiation for the loss of ~ importnnt. sta~ important.
unique. and prime farmlands within the Pro_iect area.
Policy 7.4 Identify a water harvesting and recycling system that benefits
agricultural i_alia use in the District in cooperation with the ~(ppropriate ngencies and
community interest groups.
Policy 7,5 Encourage the development of iWricultural operntions on locally
important fanviand. smm iw. imnnt. unique. and mime farrnl-',nd ~ the Pro_iect
area. innovative marketing of aSriculturnl products. and the development of
agriculturnlLv 'Illilia businesses ~thin the Ci_ty.
Policy. 7.6 SRpport an integrated historic preservation ~(pproach for the District
that identifies significant hL, etofic structures and lsndscape elements including roads.
'trails. ccremoninl sites. settlement sites. t~nlpsite~ wa~r fn,n,res. trees. ~roves. and
topotraphic f,*'2tures and thgiI sening$ and that seeh to esmhli~ linlcages between
historic features ~thin the lMsh-iet including the historic and rm'ai secfi~ of Los
Alamos Road from the Menifee Road to the si~e of the former Alamos School at the
corner of Benton and Pourroy Roads.. See Attachments.
Policy_ 7.7 Help develop a set of procedures and guidelines for the acquisition
and development of historic sites ~thin the District as commupity centers and I~
includinr the C~rringer Place on Blilrdli Road. the sites of the former Ainmos District
School below Schoolhouse Hill. the Adobe Springs Re~ ~ the Native Amerie~. site
of Toatwi. and the F-migrnnt ~nd Sonornn Trail Route.
Policy 7.8 Partici~te wiffi community interest gl3Zg~ including land tTUStS. the
California Del~rtrnent of Fish and Game and other ~encies in the designation and
acquisition of a Warm Springs Preserve as a mitiintion bank for the loss of Mbimt
within the Study Area.
Policy_ 7,9 F-ncour4ge the mnnagement of ~ricultur~l ~ for the/',onservation
o___f wildlife habitats.
The new policies will necessitate the renumbering of the existing policies under
Goal Z
We also recommend that references to the Alamos District be added to the
existing policies as follows:
Policy 7.1 as Policy 7. I0. After "General Plan" add Alamos Rural District
Plan.
Policy 7.2 as Policy 7.1 I. After "using" add Alamos Rural District Plan.
Policy 7.3 as Policy 7.12. In 3 after "City" add and the Ahnlos 13isrrict.
(7) Goal 8. We recommend rewriting Policy 2.1 by adding the A!nmos District, after
"the City of Murrieta."
(8) IV. Land Use Plan. In the tint paragraph, we would like to see the addition of the
Alamos Rural DiStrict Plan after "Land Use Element' in the third sentence.
(9) Draft Preferred Land Use Plan Map. The preferr~ map allows for leapfrog
development and urban intrusi~ in the .aimrnos District. We recommend that general
low density areas of .2 to .4 dwelling units per acres and areas of .1 dwelling units per
acre along creeks bed be established in the area north of Borel and Hunter Roads along
with a density transfer program.
(10) Figure 2. Village Centre' Overhy. In order to avoid growth inducing
impacts on the existing rural residential neighborhood, biological, agricultural, and
water resources, and nearby historic sites including historic Los Alamos Road, we
would litre to see the Village Center Overhy removed from the west side of Highway
79 northerly between Briggs and Thompson Roads.
H. Circmhtion Element
The Circulation Element ignores existing circulation paRems in the Area of Interest.
Following the County Plan, roadways mapped in the Area of Interest give priority to
commuter and commercial vehicles and are at odds with the General Plan Concept of
preserving neighborhoods. The planned roads will create conflicts between commuter
and commercial vehicles and local motorists at driveways and lanes who have no other
access and between commuter and commercial vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists,
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 property. The changes will also destroy the Los Alamos I-Iistbric
Roadway..
( 1 ) Summary of Circulation Issues. We recommend the addition of the following
opposite an additional bullet on page 3-7.
* The development of .roads within the SOhere of Influence and the Area of
Interest have the potential to create conflicts with the rural residenrinl and agricultural
community as motorists at driveways and lanes lig;t'bicyclists. equestrians. and school
children confront commuter and commercial vehicles. to incr~- congestion within the
City 9_f Murrieta. to force residents from the Area of Interest from their homes. and to
destroy historic Los AlamoSRoad.
(2) Goal 3. We recommend the following rewriting. A regiorml. multimodal
transportation system that rninimiz~s navel b3: liBgig occup~ny vehicles and provides
fQr community ~ lgfglX~ and welfare inside and outside the Study Area.
Discussion Current traffic levels within and outside the City_ are straining
existing facilities. air q3,~li~,. community ~ and economic resources. Future
approved and pending development thr~tens to des~uhlillv~- the existing ~
community within the Sphere of Influence. the Area of Interest. and surrounding areas.
Under current trends travel will continue to increase between Temecula and other
population and employment centers within the region. Special efforts will be needed to
adequately and efficiently provide for regional travel demand and to reduce and avoid
existing and incr,-~.~vi conflicts and high levels of service.
Policy_ 3.1 Support the development of il regional multi-moan| transportation
system that establishes ~ I~L telecommuting, van. shuttle. bus. and Class lbicycle
'commuting fn~iiti*.s nnd minimi?~_~ ~ OCCtl~rly vehicles f~cdlities.
~ 3.8 F,.~tnhlish a priority ~ schedule for lighl rail. telecommuting.
van.. shuttle,, bus. and Class 1 bicycle facilities.
Policy. 3.9 Divert commuter and commerci:~l vehiculnr trn_ffic from rural
residentinl commnniti*.s and the Albinos r)isrrict b.~ limiting ntral road widths.
establishing vehicle w_f, ighl ~ and limiting access into rural areas from lllfsjDX
hii, hways and ~ development projects.
Policy_ 3.10 Provide for off-road commuter bicycle BIitai illflag Fli~hway 79
nonhefty and HiShw'4y 74 between Tomecub and Hemel. ~ Murriem Hot Springs
Road between Temecula and Murrietn- ~ Jefferson Road between Temecula and
Mumeta. and ~ l~ninbow Road-former I4~,hw~ 395-Mission between Temecula
and FaJlbrook.
Policy_ 3.11 P~rticipate in the cr*~tion of a vigorous area-wide bicycle
commuting proffarn in cor~junction wit1 other jurisdictions and local businesses.
POliCy 3.12 Provide for an off-road multi-purpose trail system from Temecula
to regional recreational areas including the Cleveland National Forest. Mr. Palow:~r.
Lake Skinner Regional P_.trk- the ~ Domenigoni area. the Santo Rosa
Preserve. the Temecula Wine County. and the Alamos District.
~ ' (3) Goal 4. We recommend the addition of the following Policy.
~ -
Policy 4.12 Require urban development projects in rural residentin!'areas to
divert construction. commercial. and commuter vehic-l~r traffic from the e~ristinl/rural
road network whenever possible.
(4) Circulation Plan Figure 3-1. We recommend the following alterations:
(A) Pla~e the access-~stricted 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 Aiamos.-
(B) Eliminate the 4-lane road joining Brigs and Auld Roads within the Area of
Interest.
(C) Preserve and enhance the Los Alamos Historic Roadway (taking in Los
Alamos,Thornpson, and Pourroy Roads from Menifce Road to the site of the former
Alamos School at the intersection of Benton and Pourroy Road) and its contributing
historic and nn'al features. (See Attachments).
(D) Designate Highway 79 northerly as a scenic highway and develop
appropriate design guidelines to retain the viewshed and contributing futures.
CE) Designate the rural and historic roads within the Alamos District as scenic to
preserve and enhance their current rural and recreational uses and their contributing
rural and historic features.
(5) Implementation Programs. A. Roadway Functional Design Guidelines. We
recommend the following:
10. Rural and Historic Roads: Scenic Roads
This desii, nntion should be used for exi~n~, road. f~eiliries ~thin ~ areas or
that have histori~qy been ~sociar~l wi~ rural areas. Sce~c roads are intended to
function as local roads ~ levels of service of A or B. Whenever ~ conditions
allow. they are to ~tsin their existinff route. ffeometrics. shoulders. and ~-~sochted
rural and historic features which toi;ether can be taken to form each road' s unique
standard.
Commuter and commercial waffic should be divene~i from Scenic Roads
through comprehensive p!:~nr~ir~.
Recreations] mulfi-p, tI~ose wails should be established when possibie ~thin
the roads' riffhts-of-way.
R~tional. ngricultur~l. and educatiovnl businesses should be encourn~ed
Scenic Roads within the Sohere of Influence an~t Area of Interest.
The desigrsntion of I1 network of Scenic Roads should be encourai, ed within
~h~ Alamos District.
III. Open Space/Conservation Element
This element presents .many valuable goals and policies. We believe, however,
that it needs to acknowledge the Alamos District, its existing rural community and
agricultural land use, and its resoumes. We recommend the following revisions:
( 1 ) Introduction. Third paragraph, fourth sentence:
The City has a much greater opportunity to shape the open space of the Alamos
District in the 5.uhra of Influence and Area of Interest through l~rficipation in the
creation of an Alnmos Rth-al r~isuict Plan and the use of the ~ in the review of
development projects as lh~ are nnnexed to the f, ily..,. The challenge facing Temecula
is to create a multipurpose open space system that does not solely consist of unusable
spaces leftover from development, but revitnli~'~s and restores ngriculturnl lands.
preserves wildlife hnbitnt~- mn~timi~s wa~ resources. and secures recre~rioval.
historic. and cultm-nl resources.
Next to the first bullet add nnd ngriculturnl after 'for conserving natural."
Next to the last bullet add historic after *promote the" and of the Alamos
District after "of the City.'
(2) Summary of Open Space/Conservation Issues. A. Provision of Parks and
Recreation Facilities. Figure S-1. The proposed parks in the Sphere of Influence and
the Area of Interest appear not to be related to any significant existing community area
or resources. We recommend the following:
(A) The creation of a park and community/interpretive center at the hisWric
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
former Adobe Springs Rest Stop.
(D) The creation of a park and interpretive center at the site of the former
Native American settlement of Toatwi near the Warm Springs Tributary and the
intersection of Benton and Highway 79 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 1
bicycle path and a multi-purpose trail within the right-of-way of Los Alamos-Thompson
Road from Menifee Road to the Benton and Pourroy intersection and multi-purpose off-
road trails along Benton Road, Auld Road, Pourroy Road, and Leon Road.
(4) C. Conservation of Resources. On page 5-14 in the f-fist paragraph of the
discussion after the first sentence we recommend the addition of the following reference
to the Ahmos DiStrict.
The riparian areas. alrricultural fields. hill sides. and xjllgr, a of the Alamos
District are home to il number of endangered. sensitive. and candidate _species and
.species of ~ concern.
added:
a~n~"n3.1nnds
wine country offer il potential area for qin'icultural innovation. impwvement of the
local quali_ty of life. and stimulus to business development ~thin the Ci_ty
8. We recommend the addition of the following after "aesthetic character of the
Ont~ winery is found in the Area of Interest. The following would also best be
1
The kllll~' of the Alnmos District and the Temecula/~
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 p, opca iies listed on the C~lifomia
State Historic Resources Inventory available at the I-li-~toly Division of the Riverside
County Parks and Ope_n $J3t~ District or the Stare Historic Preservation Office
including Vail Ranch. the Litfie Temecula Rancho Adobe and fnrmsteads within the
Alamos District; sims identified as existing or poteutini Riverside County Landmark,~
and State Points of Historic Interest including Tomecula's First Post Of~c~ fRIV 0371.
the Temecula Quarries (RIV 0381. and Los Alamos Historic Roadway: the Murricta
Creek Archaeological Site listed on the National Register of HIstoric Plus. and
several historic resources of local, stare and national importance not yet list&d with
county. state. or nadonal programs. including the Butterfield Overland Stage Route, the
route of the Sonoran and Emigrant ~ the site of the Temeeula Mn.~saere. and the
Adobe Springs Rest Stop. Listing on the State Historic Resources Inventory indicates
that the site has community historic significance. Properties become ~ of the
Inventory after an areawide survey. in this ea~ conducted under a state giiaI to
Riverside County in 1981. a subsequent review and determination of local historic
significance 12X the Riverside County Historios,! Commission, and final renew and
determination of ~ significance bX the State Historic Commission. Sites on the
Inventory are often those most important to a local community. Sites like the Mission
Inn have national and state historic irrtportance and are listed on the Ns, tional Register
of Historic Places or as a State I andmark, whereas sites on the Inventory that reflect
~h¢ past way of life of a community axe often overlooked since local ~ is often not
.recognized ad~uately. The current State Historic Resources Inventory is not complete.
sinee the 1981 survey foeuessed on residenti,,i structures and ignored commercial
buildings and landscape features ..... Temeeula and the Alamos District contain
many older structures, historic sites and distrim, lnndst'qI~ features. roads. trails. and
ceremonial sites, and archaeological evidence which may be threatened with demolition
or removal as urbanization continues.
(5) Goal 1. We recommend the addition of historic strums and landscape features
after "significant" in Policy 1.6.
(6) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following policy.
Policy_ 2.8 Promote the use of r~ycled water and wa~r hsrvesting techniques
for s~icultural areas '~thin the ~ Area.
('7) 'Goal 3. We recommend the following:
Policy 3.8 P~rticilnte wilh communi~y interest ~ including land trust. the
California DeI~rtment of Fish and Game. and other agencies in the desl, inafion and
acquisition of a Warm Springs Preserve as a mitigation bank for the loss of habitat
within the ~ Area.
POlicy_ 3.9 Rstablish low land use !Jensity_ areas of .2 to ,_4. dwellin~ units per
acre in genernl. and .1 dwellir~g units per acre in areas i~9.ll creektn~s north of Borel
and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
POliCy 3.10 Eneour4ge the m~nagement of agricultural luds for wildlife
conservation.
(8) Goal 5. We recommend the following:
Add agricultural uses after "scenic enjoyment,
Within the Discussion after the second sentence add: Existing and former
agricultural ~ within the Alnmos Disn'ict should be revimlivsl and restored through
active conservation measures
Policy 5.14 Actlviely i~rticil~te in the pre~mtion of an A!,-nos Rural District
Plan ~ that .open ~ area to an .open ~ system throughout the City_ and use
the plan to review development .oropo. sals and set mitigations to ensure the protection of
the District's open space resources,
Policy 5.15 !'}esignnte historic sims. Native Amerit'~n sites. wet!~nds. scenic
road corridors. and wildlife preserves as ~ [ linkages ~thin the Ainrnos
District.
(9) Open Space Conservatiorr 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 road
coredors, and wildlife preserves as open space. These include:
10
(A) The northern tributary of Warm Springs on the east side of Highway 79
northerly should be extended to join the more southerly tributary on the west of
Highway 79.
(B) Sites to be designated include the Garringer Place along Briggs Road, the
Pourroy Places along Pourroy Road, the Cummins' Places along Pourroy and Benton
Roads, the. Thompson Farm site along Thompson Road (See State Historic Resources
'Inventory). the Adobe Springs Rest Stop, and the site of the former Alamos School
(C) Weftands 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 Los Alamos Road from
Menifee to the intersection of Benton and Pourroy, Pourroy and Benton Roads.
(G) The plan should also include significant areas of extremely low density
within the District along the creeks and their tributaries.
(10) Goal 6. We recommend the foRowing revisions.
DisCussion Cultural and historical resources are defined as buildings,
structures, land.~-~,pe f,'mures. roads. trnils. objects, and sites. Ternecula's herit~i,e lies
in the unique complex of landscape features in the Alamos District and other mini g
of the Gi_ty as much as from its historic structures. There is I1 need to preserve these
futures with an integrnted hi-,ztoric preservntion %~;mn~h that recoi, piT~s the
significance of the f,'~tures and see~ to estnhlish linkg, l, es between them via other
historic landscape features ~/uch as wads. wails. ~ and ~-n.~m.ql waterWays. The
intent is to...
Policy. 6.10 Conduct i survey of historic sites including structures. roads.
trails. ceremoninl sites. settlement sites. ~mpsites. and inndscape f,'~tures throuffhout
the Project Area.
Policy 6.11 Pnrticil~te in county. state. and f~eml historic preservation
programs ~ applyinl, for recognition of local sites in the Smm Historic Resources
Inventory. as Riverside County I mglmnrh. as State Points of Historic Interest. as State
Landmark.~. and as sites on the Na~onnl Register of Historic Sites.
11
Policy 6.12 Support the designation and acquisition of Blrki and community
centers within the Ahmos District at the fo!iowin~ historic sites: the Garrir~er Place at
36131 ]tl:igga Road. the Adobe Springs peg 5.ttgk the site of Tmtwi gl,O. llg the tributary
of Warm ,~prings ~ and the former Alanlos Sch~l site at the intersection of
Benton and Pourroy Road.
Policy_ 6.13 l:,ncourafe the ln'egrvafion nnd muse of the su'uctures. landscape
features. roads. landm~rit trees. fields. and trails ~sociat,-tl with and ~iakiag the major
sites of the A!arnos District mentioned above,
Policy 6.14 Develop guidelines for future development W~thin the Alamos
District that incorporate the historic reh6onshi~s between structures. ~ and
landscape features.
Policy_ 6.15 l=.stahlish a Historical Commission assisted h.~ a historic
preservation planner.
( 11 ) Goal 7.' We recommend the following revisions:
Goal 7_ Establishment and revi~llvation of ~:ricultural operations on locally
important. state irttportant. unique. and prime ~,ricult-~! land.
Discussion A vigorous agricultural progrnm in the Alamos DisU'ict and the
wine country can provide jobs to residents. encour-~ tourism. ¢onwibute to t h,-:,lthful
quality of life for Ci_ty residents. and help wnin~in and develqp an economib base for
businesses wi~i. the City, Growth pressures are...
POlicy 7, 1 Actively prticipate in the prel~ration of an Alamos Rural District
P!itn as .Dart of il District Task Force and use this ~ in reviewing development
propo~!s and rdliilg mitigations in order to conserve ni, riculturnl land uses.
Policy 7,2 Establish g low latld use densi,ty areas.of,2 to ,4 dwelling units
.oer acre.. and areas for .1 dive!lini, ullila .Be' acre in areas ~ creekbeds north of
BOrel and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
Policy 7,3 Establish procedure! guidelines to facilitate the transfer of
development ~ CrDRt) from ~ irnVonnnt, sta~ important. unique, and prime
farm land within the Pro_iect area. including the identifierion of ~ areas to receive
TDRs within the City_. and I1~ purcba-~'- of development ~ (PDRs). including the
identification of ~ purehn~ areas. as mitig,qtions for the loss of ~ important.
state imporrnnt. unique. and p~me farmland ~ the Project area.
Policy 7.4 Identify a wamr barvesting and reqycling system that benefits
agriculture in the nis-'ict and ~ Bltlt areas in coltjunction wi~ the a~vrop~iate
agencies and commtmity interest grollps.
12
Policy_ 7.5 l:;.ncourage the development of agriculmrnl operations on ~
important. state impor, nnL ~ and ~ fnrmhnd in the Project area. innovative
marketing of agricultural products. and the development of agriculturally related
businesses ~thjn the City_.
(12) Goal 9. We recommend the following revisions:
Goal 9 Protection of Right skies from intrusive light sources which may impact -
the Palomar Observatory, wildlife. and crea~ glalt ~thin rural areas of the Study
Area.
Discussion. We recommend adding wildlife and for rural residents after
'Observatory."
Policy 9_3. Limit !light lighting in rural areas through guidelines developed in
~ra~on _with communiW residents.
IV. Growth Management/Public Fadlifies Element
(1) II. Growth Management Strategy. 6. Conserve Resources, P. 6-8.
We recommend the addition of the following"
Within the first sentence of the discussion after "comprehensive open space
system," add Alamos Rtn-al District Phn. -
(2) Goal 2. We recommend the addition of the following:
Discussion After the second sentence add: It should ~so recogniz~ the existing
communities and resources of Tem~,,!a~ the Sphere of Influence and the Area of
Interest.
Policy_ 2.9 Conrdinnt- the Growth Mnn~i, ement Program with the Old Town
Plan and the Alarnos Rural District Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Like the General Plan, the Draft EIR ignores impormt pans of the existing
community, circulation 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 impact.~,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 mitigations for historic sites of
13
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
section to be evaluated as mitigations for impacts within the FIR. We believe that they
may help reduce the ~-"h sir impted above to insi$nificance. 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 FIR. The City would best contact 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 aUached Detailed Review of the Draft FIR our specific
comments and mitigations for eagh area of impact. They vzpeat our recommendations
for the General Plan.
Finally, we would like to urge that the City elaborate the discussion of
Alternative 3 in the FIR. In view of the significant and serious impacts of the
preferred General Plan identified in the FIR, this alternative might best be chosen as
Temecula's General Plan. We understand that CEQA mandates a thorough discussion
in the FIR indicating why the enviwnmentally preferred alternative is not being
adopted as the project. We believe such a discussion should be undertaken for
Alternative 3. Moreover, we suggest that the goals and policies we identified be
included as mitigations, goals, and policies with Alternative 3.
'MAPS AND FIGURES
A fundamental omission in the Draft General Plan and the FIR can be found on
most of the maps within the documents. Instead of depicting existing roads in the Area
of Interest, the maps depict planned road introduced in the Riverside County General
Plan and in this plan. These include the extension of Clinton Keith Road, a new
connecting route for Briggs and Auld Roads along Liberty Lane, the western extension
of Hunter Road, and the development of Menifee Road. As noted in our discussion of
the Circulation Element, these projects threaten to destwy the rural neighborhood along
these roads and will certainly destroy the Los Alamos Hiswric 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 roads in the
minds of those who use the Drift General Plan and evaluate the FIR. Ideally. these
roads should be deleted in General Plan and EIR maps of existing conditions and the
existing routes be added. These include in the General Plan Figures 1-2, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7,
5-8, 5-9, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5 and in the FIR Figures 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28,
29, 30, 41, 44, 46, 51, 52, 54, 55, and 56. The mutes probably would also best be
omitted on the maps where the planned circulation system is not the issue including in
/£
14
the General Plan Figures 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-10, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 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 ~IR were not avnil~hle 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 Department'kindly granl~l 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,
Rita Gentry
37100 Los Alamos Road
Mumeta, CA 92563
(714) 677-6552
Cecelia Webster
30255 Los AlamOs Road
Murrieta, CA 92563
(714) 926-4337
Attach merits:
Map of the Alamos District -.
Riverside County Historical Commission Transmittal to the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors on the Los Alamos Historic Roadway
Riverside County Historical Commission Minutes for March 18, 1992
Riverside County Historical Commission Contributing Features to
Los Alamos Historic Roadway, March 18, 1992
Press Enterprise, "A Journey Down Los Alamos Road,'May 24, 1992.
15
DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR
CIRCULATION
The project' s changes in circ,_,!afion within the Area of Interest will have the
following impacts which have not been noted in the EIR:
(1) Increased conflicts along existing local nu-al roads. between resident
motorists and commuter and commercial vehicles at driveways and lanes and between
pedestrians, school children, bicyclists, and equestrians and commuters and commercial
vehicles along the roads.
(2) Destruction of rttral neighborhoods along Los Alamos Road, Liberty Lane,
Menifee Road, Willie Road, and Somerville Road as Clinton Keith and Hunter Roada
are extended, Brigs and Auld Rends 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 biological and water resources along Warm Springs
Creek and its tributaries.
All of these impacts counter goals and policies of the General Plan.
The unmitigated levels of service at E and F reported along Winchester Road
(Highway 79 northe~y) 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 addresss~ with through a vigorous
mitigation program and new goals and policies in the General Plan.
We suggest the following goals and policies that we have recommended for the
General Plan be evaluated ~s mitigations for these impacts:
( 1 ) Goal 3. Establish a regional, multimodal transportation system that
minimizes travel by single occupancy vehicles and provides for community health,
safety, and welfare inside and outside the Study A~L
(2) Policy 3.1 Suplxm the development of a regional multi-modal
transportation system that establishes light rail, telecommuting, van, shuttle, bus, and
bicycle facilities and minimizes single occupany vehicle facilities.
(3) Policy 3.8 Establish a priority project schedule for telecommuting, light rail,
van, shuttle, bus, and bicycle facilities.
(4) Policy 3.9 Divert commuter and commercial vehicular traffic from rural
residential communities and the Alamos District by limiting rural mad 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 Temecuh and Murrieta, along Jefferson Road between Temecula and
Murrieta, and along Rainbow Road-former Highway 39S-Mission between Temecula
and Fallbrook.
(6) Policy 3.11 Participate in the c~tion of a vigorous area-wide bicycle
commuting program in cnjun~tion with other jurisdictions, community interest groups,
and local businesses.
(7) Policy 3.12 Provide for an off-road multi-purpose trail system from
Temecula to regionnl recreational areas including the Cleveland National Forest, Mt.
Palomar, Lake Skinner Regional Park, the Lake Domedgod area, the Santa Rosa
Ecological Preserve, the Temecula Wine Country, and the Alarnos District.
Our proposed revisions to Cim~tion Plan Figure 3-1should also be evaluated
as mitigations for the impacts noted above:
(A) Place the ~ss-restrieted 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 also believe the goals and policies we recommend for the Open
Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan should be evaluated within the EIR as
mitigations for impacts on circulation. These include:
(1) Goal: 7.. Establishment and revit~li-~tion of agricultural operations on
locally important, state important, unique, and prime farmland.
(2) Policy 7.1 Actively participate in the preparation of the Alamos Rural
District Plan as pan of a District Planning Task Forge 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 Borei and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
(4) Policy 7.3 Establish procedural guidelines for the transfer of development
rights (TDRs) from locally imlxn'mnt, state important, unique, and prime farmlands
within the Project .area, including the identification of target areas to receive TDRs
within the City, and for the purchase of development rights (PDRs), including the
17
iden~cation of purchase areas, as mitigations for the loss of farmlamd within the
Project area.
~QUAL1TY
We are concerned that the project does not mitigate its adverse impacts on air
quality. We believe this failure will have major impacts on the area's quality of life.
Many of the current residents have come to the area because of the clear air. We
believe the deterioration in air quality could impact lon~-term residential property
values and would appreciate an evaluation of this in the EIR.
We believe that the circulation mitigations we proposed above should also be
evaluated as mitigations for the regional impacts on air quality.
· BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
We would like the goals and policies we propose in the Conservation/Open
Space Element to be evaluated as mitigations 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 Crame 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 per acre and areas of . 1 dwelling units per acre along creekbeds north of Borel
and Hunter Roads in the Alamos District.
(3) Policy 3.10 Encourage the management of agricultural land for wildlife
conservation.
AGRICULTURE
The EIR notes that do land in the Sphere of Influence and 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 Ahmos Rural
District Plan as pan of a District Planning Task Force and use this plan in reviewing
development proposals and setting mitigations.
(2) Policy 7.2 Establish general low land use density areas of .2 to .4 dwelling
units per acre and areas of. 1 dwelling units per acre along creekbeds north of Hunter
and Borel Roads.
(3). Policy, 7.3 Establish procedural guidelines for the transfer of development
'rights CrDRs) from locally important, state important, unique and prime farmland
within the Project area, including the identification of target areas to receive TDRs
within the City, and for the purchase of development rights (PDRs), including the
identification of target purchase areas within farmland arP.~, as mitigation for the loss
of farmland within the Project area.
(4) Policy 7.4 Identify a water harvesting and recycling system that benefits
agricultural land 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 mitigalions forthe Pr0ject'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 Plus.
(3) Support the designation and acquisition of parks and 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 Tnatwi, and the former Alamos
School Site.
(4) Encourage the preservation and reuse of the structures, landscape futures,
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
incos sx,,ates the historic relationships between structures, roads, and landscape
features.
19
TEMECULA VALLEY COUNCIL OF PTA
29615 VALLE OLVERA
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591
(714) 676-0451
INVOLVEMENT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE
November 16, 1992
RECEIVED
Planning Commission
City Of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
N n v f .Q 1992
Ans'd ............
Dear Commissioners:
It is my understanding that the Planning Commission is preparing to adopt the General Plan for the
City of Temecula. The Temecula Valley Unified School District has worked with the City to provide
strong supportive language in the General Plan which would enable the City to coordinate new
development with school facilities infrastructure. Recently, one of you asked that the language be
revised. It is my opinion that the revisions weaken the City position and take away much of the
power the City would have othenvise had to require this coordination.
I am asking you, on behalf of all PTA members in the Temecula Valley Unified School district, to
return to the previous language in the General Plan. A return to the previous language would ensure
that new development would not occur without coordination of when schools to service the new
resulting students, would be available. One of the reasons I voted to become a city was to ensure
coordination of infrastructure with growth. To adopt the revised language could seriously
jeopardized the opportunity our children need to receive the excellent education they deserve, and
the Temecula Valley Unified School District is willing to provide.
Please put the needs of our children first, and adopt the original language in the General Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Leslie Woods
President
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTORNEY OPINIONS ON SB 1287
s~eENP~.~aP. cca 11
VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CAMAFIILLO. CAI, IFOF~NIA g3OIO
(805) g87-3488
TEL[COPIER: (805) 482-g834
LAW OFIrlCF"S
3200 BRISTOL STRrET
SUITE 640
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
(714) $45-SSSg
FACSIMILE (714) 755-5648
LOS ANGELES 0rFICE
611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2500
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA gOOI/
(El3) 236-0800
TEL[COPIER: (213) 236-2100
January 15, 1993
VIA FACSIMTTM AND O,8, M'TL
Mr. John Meyer
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Re: SB 1287 and General Plan Policies
RECEIVED
.! A N f 9 993
Ans'd ............
Dear John:
As you are aware, substantial disagreement currently exists
among interested parties regarding the meaning and legal effects
of SB 1287, the recently enacted School Impact Fee Legislation.
As we noted in our December 8, 1992 letter to Gary Thornhill,
(copy attached), one of the unsettled issues regarding the
.legislation relates to its impact on earlier court decisions.
The Murrieta, Hart, and Mira cases, which exempted development
projects requiring legislative land use approvals from the
limitations and prohibitions of the School Facilities Law of
1986, permitted local agencies to deny such approvals based on
inadequate school facilities.
Apparently, it is the position of some school districts that
SB 1287 did no~ overrule these cases and that local agencies are
still obligated to require new development projects to mitigate
their school impacts when seeking legislative land use approvals.
It is their view that support for this position can be found in
the Legislative Counsel,s Opinion No. 30455 (December 4, 1992)
which concludes:
'[SB 1287] does not prohibit a city. . .from considering the
adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or
implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other
legislative land use policy."
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 2
Obviously, this view is not totally consistent with our
previous recommendation to your office that legislative land use
approvals cannot be denied or conditioned on the grounds of
inadequate school facilities (see December S, 1992 letter).
Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to reconcile the con-
flicting opinions and provide meaningful guidance on the appro-
priate General Plan policies that should be considered in light
of the controversy surrounding SB 1287.
Legislative Courtssits Opinion No. 30455
In its discussion on the impact of SB 1287 on school impact
fee laws, the Legislative Counselts Opinion states that under the
law existing prior to adoption of SB 1287:
".. .Section 65995 precludes local agencies . . .from
adopting any legislative requirement, except to the extent
authorized by Section 53080 and Chapter 4.7, that imposes
fees as a condition to approval of a development project in
order to reduce the projectts negative impact on school
facilities. . ." (Legislative Counsel~s Opinion #30455, page
6) (emphasis added).
However, the Counsel further concludes at page 6 that:
". · .[Section 65995 et seq] does not prohibit a city..
.from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the
course of adopting or implementing legislative land use
policy in the form.. .of a general plan or zoning ordi-
nance." (emphasis added).
Thus, according to the Legislative Counsel, the law prior to SB
1287 permitted cities to consider the adequacy of school facili-
ties in the context of adopting or amending general land use
policies but not when considering individual development pro-
jects.
The Legislative Counsel then analyzes the effect of SB 1287
on the above stated conclusions and determines that:
". · .[SB 1287] will expressly prohibit a city.. .from
either establishing legislative standards, or applying any
legislatively established standard, so as to require, as a
cond.~tion of the approval of ana/development Droiect, that a
fee be paid or other requirement be met for the purpose of
funding school facilities construction or reconstruction,
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 3
other than as levied pursuant to Section 53080 or Chapter
4.7." (Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455, page S) (em-
phasis added).
The Legislative Counsel further determined at page 11 that:
".. .IT]he apparent effect of [SB 1287] will be to specifi-
cally prohibit the inclusion within a general plan or zoning
law of any provision that would authorize the denial of
.indiv.~dual development pro~ects on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities." (emphasis added).
Finally, the Legislative Counsel opined (at page 12), that SB
1287 did not address the authority of local agencies to consider
the adequacy of school facilities "in any context other than the
approval of .Individual development projects." (emphasis added).
As a result, the Legislative Counsel concluded that SB 1287 does
not prohibit a city from considering the adequacy of school
facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a general
plan, zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy. The
net effect of this conclusion is that SB 1287 did not change the
law regarding a citv's authority to consider the adequacy of
school facilities when adoptin~ or ~mplementina legislative land
use DOliCieS! (See above discussion on law existing prior to SB
1287).
In our opinion, the Legislative Counsel's Opinion #30455 is
not completely incompatible with our previous recommendations. to
you regarding the denial or conditioning of legislative land use
approvals on the grounds of inadequate school facilities.
Nevertheless, the Legislative Counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB 1287 to permit a
"loophole" in what was considered an intentional effort by the
Legislature to close a "gap" in the law created by the above
referenced court decisions. In so doing, it appears even more
likely that "clean up" legislation or further judicial interpre-
tation will occur in order to resolve this controversy.
Recommendations
In the meantime, it is our opinion that the City of Temecula
should take a prudent approach when considering land use policy
decisions such as the adoption of its General Plan until these
issues are finally settled. In our view, such an approach would
include the following actions:
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 4
1. Avoid the adoption of any policies within the City's
General Plan requiring a developor to demonstrate that ade-
quate school facilities exist or will be provided to support
their project. An example of such a policy would be to
require a "will serve- letter from the school district prior
to the approval of a project by the City. Such a require-
ment would, in all likelihood, be considered impermissible
under SB 1287.
2. Recommend the adoption of the following language for
the City~s General Plan in its Growth Management/Public
Facilities Element regarding Goal 4 on school facilities:
"Discussion. Adequate school facilities and funding
are necessary to ensure that the high quality of educa-
tion is extended to. future residents of the City.
Mitigating impacts of development on the school.system
through the imposition of development fees as permitted
by law and providing information to the School District
are the primary mechanisms to sustain quality educa-
tional services.
PolicV 4.1 Provide information to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District when considering General Plan
amendments or other legislative land use policy deci-
sions to allow the School District to prepare and
provide an assessment of whether adequate school facil-
ities exist in order to facilitate the making of such
decisions.
Policy 4.2 Promote and encourage the phasing of pro-
ject development so that the School District may plan,
finance and construct school facilities intended to
serve the development.-
3. Delete the current language in Policy 4.3 and renumber
remaining Policies 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 accordingly.
Mr. John Meyer
January 15, 1993
Page 5
We hope this discussion sufficiently answers your questions
regarding this complicated area of the law to assist you in your
preparation of the Cityes General Plan. If we may be of further
assistance or answer any questions you have regarding the above,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
CC:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
John E. Cavanaugh
TEN/1101509.LTR
A PAR~ IN(1UDINO A ~IONAL CORPORATION
ALEXANDER BO~t/IE,
JOAN C. ARNESON
~/ILLIAMJ. KAII
WENDY FL WIllS
PATRICIA B.
KOBtRT F, ANSLOW
D~ L KING
ERIC IL
I<tNNETHS. LEVY
MAKY K. DEI~IIS
Via Facsimile
,1920CAMPUS!:~IVE
NEWI~KT ~ CAI. IMDRNIA 92660
January 25, 1993
Scott Field, Esq.
City Attorney - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640
Costa Mesa, California 92626
AREA CODE 714
Tmm~-lONt851-1~00
FAX (714) 8.51-2014
18038
Re:
City of Temecula: SB 1287 and General Plan
Policies Pertaining to School Facilities
Dear Mr. Field:
By way of introduction, this firm represents the Temecula
Valley Unified School District (the "District"). The District
has requested that we respond to a letter from your firm sent to
John Meyer, Senior Planner, at the City of Temecula (the "City"),
dated January 15, 1993, from Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher (the
"Letter") (attached). The Letter addresses the issue of the
effect which SB 1287 and Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 30455,
dated December 4, 1992 (the "Opinion") have on the City's ability
to include language in its General Plan pertaining to the
provision of adequate school facilities from new residential
development. It is this firm's opinion that SB 1287 does not
limit the City's ability to require full mitigation of school
impacts from new legislative development as established by the
Mira, Hart and Murrieta decision (collectively "Mira decisions").
SB 1287 added language to Government Code Sections 65995 and
65996 (the "School Facilities Fee Statutes") which qualified the
term "development project" to be a "development project whether
by administrative or legislative action." The Mira decisions
determined that "development project" only refers to
administrative approvals, such as tentative tracts, and not
legislative approvals, such as general plan amendments, specific
Bowre, KAD , Wn. &
Scott Field, Esq.
City Attorney - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
January 25, 1993
Page 2
plans and zone changes. The Opinion concluded that the School
Facilities Fee Statutes, as revised by SB 1287, would only
prohibit a city or county from:
either establishing legislative standards, or
applying any legislatively established standard
so as to require, as a condition of the approval
of any development project, that a fee be paid or
other requirement be met for the purpose of
funding school facilities construction in excess
[of the statutory school facilities fee]
(emphasis added).
An example of applying a legislative standard to a
"development project" would be the passage of a zoning ordinance.
which required all development, whether legislative or .....
administrative to pay more than the statutory school faciliti&s="'f-~.'
fee at building permit. (The City of Fairfield has previously
adopted such an ordinance.) The Opinion concluded that even with
the additional language "development project whether by.
administrative or legislative action," SB 1287 did not redefine
the term "development project" as established by the Mira
decisions, and therefore the authority of a city or county to
require new legislative development to mitigate school impacts-.
still exists.
The Letter states that:
Legislative Counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB
1287 to permit a "loophole" in what was
considered an intentional effort by the
Legislature to close a "gap" in the law created
by the abOve-referenced court decisions. In so
doing, it appears even more likely that "clean-
up" legislation, or further judicial
interpretation will occur in order to resolve
this controversy.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret legislative
intent of SB 1287 due to the fact that the bill had no author and
was heard by no committees. Therefore, it is our opinion that
Scott Field, Esq.
City Attorney - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
January 25, 1993
Page 3
the statement that legislative counsel has taken a very narrow
interpretation of the legislative intent of SB 1287 is
unsupportable. It is further our opinion that the Mira decisions
are much more than a "gap" in the law. They are three Court of
Appeal decisions, which were denied review by the Supreme Court.
Finally,' with respect to possible "clean-up" legislation or
further judicial interpretation, we are not aware of any
currently pending legislation or court cases pertaining to SB
1287. To not provide language requiring adequate school
facilities be available for new legislative development in
anticipation of possible future legislation or court cases would
risk that future residential development not have adequate
schools available to serve those students.
It..is:.our,.understanding..that the District has pr~yided the
City With idbCumentation~'0=.~j.
to mee~-the. School facilities. needs of students generated from
new'residential development. Prior to the effective date of SB
1287, January 1, 1993, the City, based on the Mira decisions, had
the authority to require amounts greater than the statutory
school fees from new residential development requiring
legislative approvals. Based on the changes made by SB 1287 to
the School Facilities Fee Statutes and the Opinion, the City's
authority with respect to school facilities mitigation has not
changed.
It is further our understanding that there has been a
proposal in front of the Planning Commission to include language
in the General Plan requiring a "will serve" letter from the
District prior to the approval of a legislative project by the
City. Provided that such a requirement was only placed on new
legislative development, it is our opinion that it would not
violate the School Facilities Fee Statutes, as amended by SB
1287. Such a provision would ensure that school facilities will
be available to serve new residential development to the same
extent that is currently required for water and sewer facilities.
The proposed language recommended in the Letter does nothing more
than require the City to inform the District of pending
legislative land use decisions. Absent additional language in
the City's General Plan requiring that new legislative
development fully mitigate its impact on the District, the only
Bowre, ~~, K~, Wn~,s & GL~r~o~
Scott Field, Esq.
City Attorney - City of Temecula
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
January 25, 1993
Page 4
purpose that will be served by the proposed language is to inform
the District of the extent to which its facilities will be
overcrowded.
We would be pleased to provide you with any additional
information you may request.
Very truly yours,
ERD/pks
Enclosure
cc:
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI,
ByW~..&G~~
Eric R. Doering
Planning Commissioners
Ms. Lettie Boggs
Mr. John Meyer
Ms. Mary Jo Shelton-Dutcher
Mr. Alexander Bowie