True cost of annexation

I appreciate Peter Surowski’s February 21st article that outlines what is currently taking place between Granite Construction and the City of Temecula. However, the claims of the opposition continue to cloud the facts about this much needed project. I would like to take a moment to address a number of statements that need correction or clarification so that the residents of Temecula and Riverside County can have a clear understanding of the real impacts caused by Temecula’s proposed annexation.

Let me be clear, Granite Construction and the City of Temecula are not in a race to secure the rights to this land, as Granite owns or controls all 414 acres of land for the Liberty Quarry. Most of this land has been in our control since 2001. What the City is proposing is akin to deciding they want your house and trying to take it without your consent. Temecula did not express any interest in annexing this property until well after Granite began the process to locate a quarry on the site. In fact, this annexation contradicts Temecula’s own general plan, recently updated in 2005, which clearly shows the proposed annexation area as neither a future growth area nor a planning area. Thus, the annexation fulfills no identified land use planning purpose and instead is a blatant attempt by the City to prevent a local aggregate source from benefiting our region.

I caution readers to more thoroughly investigate Temecula’s claims that this annexation will protect the hills Southwest of Interstate 15, supposedly providing a nature preserve and protecting the only link that connects two habitat corridors. Currently, almost 90% of the land Temecula is trying to “protect” is already protected by the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) and several studies have shown that activities associated with construction and operation at Liberty Quarry will not cause a significant negative impact on the SMER. The development of this project is proposed to disturb only 164 acres of land and will not be seen from Temecula. Ironically, hills due west of Temecula have been developed within view of the City but there is no attempt by the City to annex these lands. It is ironic that some of the SOS Hills leaders live in this area. Additionally, the article fails to mention that the plans for the quarry include over 250 acres of buffer and additional preserved open space.

As for the linkage of habitats along the Pechanga Corridor, species movement along this corridor is already significantly impacted by Interstate 15 and development within the Temecula Valley. An existing Interstate highway that has over 150,000 vehicles per day on it obviously cannot be moved, but the report analyzing the effects of the quarry project on the habitat linkage has recommended a number of mitigation measures designed to enhance the linkage over time.

I encourage readers to examine the facts about the Liberty Quarry project and Temecula’s intentions for annexing this land – all of the studies referenced can be found on our website at http://www.libertyquarryfacts.com Liberty Quarry will provide a significant benefit to the region through traffic reduction, air quality protection and increased aggregate availability. Should Temecula annex the land and deny the Liberty Quarry project, Temecula taxpayers will be responsible for the cost of overextended police and fire services while continuing to pay more for building materials imported from distant sources to the north, while a high quality local source of aggregate sits untouched.

Gary W. Johnson

Aggregate Resource Development Manager,

Granite Construction