Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-9 Redhawk Specific PlanCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning Department Aleta J. Laurence Director of Planning RE-CIRCULATED Agency Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report DATE: September 11, 2001 TO: City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PROJECT CASE NO./TITLE: Plot Plan No. -16535 (Redhawk Towne Center) PROJECT LOCATION: South of Highway 79, east of Redhawk Parkway, north of Temecula Creek and west of Apis Road, in the Rancho Califomia, within the County of Riverside, State of Califomia. ._ RE-CIRCULATION ORNOP: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) is being re-circulated. A previous NOP, dated July 16, 2001, was previously circulated, which indicated the current altemative as the preferred project. This NOP shall serve to clarify that the previously approved Plot Plan that was set aside by Judge Dallas Holmes shall be the preferred project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Plot Plan No. 16535 is a proposal to design, construct and operate a regional retail center comprised of multiple structures with a combined total of up to 427,685 square feet of gross floor area, including a major discount department store, a movie theater, retail stores, service station and several pads for restaurants (includingdrive-through facilities) or freestanding retail or service establishments on approximately 43.4 acres. The project will be western themed and compliment or incorporate the existing historical site. An alternative that will be analyzed within the SEIR includes ~ r4 proposal to design, construct and operate an approximately 430,000 squaze foot regional retail center, which contains retail stores, a service station with up to 16 pumps, and several pads for restaurants (includin ~ facilities or ~ '~~ ~~~ 1~1'~ SEP 1 3 2001 ~~ ~~~ ,~ 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor•Riverside, California 92501(909) 955-3200 ~~~__ P. O. Box 1409•Riverside, California 92502-1409•FAX (909) 955-3157 6 Agency Notice of Prepazation of Draft Subsequent EIR Plot Plan 16535 September 8, 2001 age 2 freestanding retail or service establishments on approximately 43.4 acres. The project will also be western themed and compliment or incorporate the existing historical site. This alternative is slightly modified from the previous Plot PIan..The movie theater use has been replaced with additional retail space, a use studied and considered in the earlier EIR for the project: The retail space will be within a similaz development footprint as the theater, will be slightly higher than the theater, and will have slightly more square footage than the theater. Pad "G" -has been eliminated and Buildings "B", "C" and "E" have been reduced in size. The County certification. of the Addendum to EIR for the Plot Plan was set aside by a decision of Judge Dallas Holmes on May 29, 2001, as to two issues only: studies of traffic and seismic impacts from the project. The Subsequent EIR will address will address only those two, and any directly related, issues. LEAD AGENCY: PROJECT SPONSOR: Riverside County Planning Department Excel Legacy Corporation 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Excel Centre ~P.O. Box 1409 17140 Bernardo .Center Drive #300 verside, CA 92502-1409 San Diego, CA 92128 Attn: Tracie Ruiz-Hollis, Project Planner Pursuant to Riverside County Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act notice is given to responsible and interested agencies, that the Riverside County Planning Department plans to oversee the prepazation on a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the above described project. The purpose of this notice is to solicit guidance from your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. Informalion in that regard should be submitted to this office as soon as possible, but not later than thirty(30) davs after receiving this notice. Attached is a copy of the issues to be included in the draft EIR. If you have any questions please contact Tracie Ruiz-Hollis, Project Planner at (909) 955-9075. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aleta J. Laurence, AICP, Planning Director Ofracie Ruiz-Hollis, Project Planner ``" ~ ~V~o ~ ~ ~• ~~~JI`~~~Y ®IF I1~~~IEI~~~Il~IE '~ ®~ ~< TKANSI'®IZTATI®N AND o LAND 1VIANAGE111ENT AGENCI' - ~'"duxoMp~'~ ]~ll~>m>muun~ ~D~~~>r>t>r>rnar>m~ RE-CIRCULATED Applicant's Notice of Preparation of A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report DATE: September 11, 2001 TO: Excel Legacy Corporation Excel Centre 17140 Bernardo Center Drive #300 San Diego, CA 92128 PROJECT CASE NO./TITLE: Plot Plan No. 16535 (Redhawk Towne Center) Akta J. Laurence Director of Planning PROJECT LOCATION: South of Highway 79, east of Redhawk Parkway,- north of Temecula ~O Creek and west of Apis Road, in the Rancho California Area, within the ,_ County of Riverside, State of California. RE-CIRCULATION OF NOP: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) is being re-circulated. A previous NOP, dated July 16, 2001, was previously circulated, which indicated the current alternative as the preferred project. This NOP shall serve to clarify that the previously approved Plot Plan that was set aside by Judge Dallas Holmes shall be the preferred project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Plot Plan No. 16535 is a proposal to design, construct and operate a regional retail center comprised of multiple structures with a combined total of up to 427,685 squaze feet of gross floor area, including a major discount department stole, a movie theater, retail stores, service station and several pads for restaurants (including drive-through facilities) or freestanding retail or service establishments on approximately43.4 acres. The project will be western themed and compliment or incorporate the existing historical site. An alternative that will be analyzed within the SEIR includes a proposal to design, construct and operate an approximately 430,000 squaze foot regional retail center, which contains retail stores, a service station with up to 16 pumps, O and several pads for restaurants (includingdrive-through facilities or freestanding { retail or service establishments on approximately 43.4 acres. The project will 4080 Lemon S[reet, 9th Floor•Riverside, California 92501•(909) 955-3200 P. O. Box 1409•Riverside, California 92502-1409•FAX (909) 955-3157 Applicant's Notice of Prepazation of Draft Subsequent EIR Plot Plan 16535 September 8; 2001 Page 2 ~_ also be western Chemed and compliment or incorporate the existing historical site. This alternative is slightly modified from the previous Plot Plan. The movie theater use has been replaced with additional retail space, a use studied and considered in the earlier E]R for the project. The retail space will be within a similar development footprint as the theater, will be slightly higher than the theater, and will have slightly more squaze footage than the theater. Pad "G" has been eliminated and Buildings "B", "C" and "E" have been reduced in size. The County certification of the Addendum to EIR for the Plot Plan was set aside by a decision of Judge Dallas Holmes on May 29, 2001, as to two issues only: studies of traffic and seismic impacts from the project. The Subsequent EIR will address will address only those two, and any directly related, issues. LEAD AGENCY: Riverside County Planning Departrnent 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor P.O. Box 1409 Riverside, CA 92502-1409 Attn: Tracie Ruiz-Hollis, Project Planner ~~ PROJECT SPONSOR: Excel Legacy Corporation Excel Centre 17140 Bernazdo Center Drive #300 San Diego, CA 92128 Pursuant to the Riverside County Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, it has been determined that the above referenced project may have a significant effect on the environment and a Subsequent.Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) is required. APPEAL: The staff requirement to prepare this SEIIZ may be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. The appeal must be made in writing and contain brief discussion of how-the project will avoid the environmental effects listed on the attachment. The appeal must be accompanied by: (1) adhesive labels containing the names and addresses of all property owners within a minimum of 600 feet of the project boundaries that total at least 25 differenC property owners; and (2) the appropriate filing fee. (Refer to the Current Riverside County Planning Department Fee Schedule). PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT SEIR: It has been determined that the project sponsor is responsible for the prepazation of the Draft SEIR, and should seek the services of an environmental consulting firm to prepare the draft document. The Draft SEIR must meet the form and content requirements of the Planning Department (see attached sheet for required topics). The sponsor should advise the consultant to meet with the staff on a regular basis to insure an adequate document is prepared in a timely fashion. A preliminary draft shall be submitted for review and if determined acceptable, the consultant will be notified of the appropriate number of final draft copies to be ~rovided for distribution to state and local agencies, and interested parties. The Draft SEIR must be submitted within 120 days of this Notice unless an extension of not more than thirty Applicant's Notice of Preparation of Draft Subsequent EIR Plot Plan 16535 September 8, 2001 age 3 (30) days is received and granted by the Department. FEES: The appropriate fee (Refer to the Current Riverside County Planning Department Fee Schedule) must be submitted to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of this notice. PROJECT PRESUMED ABANDONED: Unless the fee and the Draft SEIR are submitted within the time periods specified above, the. project will be presumed abandoned, and there will be no further processing of the applications by the County of Riverside. Only those unexpended portions, of previously paid filing fees, which aze deposit based will be refunded. If you have any questions, please contact Tracie Ruiz-Hollis, Project Planner at (909) 955-9075. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aleta J. Laurence, AICP, Planning Director ~0 ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~'~~` Tracie Ruiz-Hollis, Project Tanner cc: Tom Dodson, Tom Dodson and Associates Matthew Fagan, Matthew Fagan Consulting Services Cyril Dantchev, Alhadeff & Solar rO ®~l V ~ J.L ®11' ~~~LJ~1y~~1L' $' TIlANSI'®RTATION AND LAND Ii~YANAOENIENT AGENCY 0 BLAND MPa' ~~al]CIlIlIlIIIlIlg ~~]~D`c>llr>t)tlC1t~1Cll~ Aleta J. Laurence Director of Planning September 11, 2001 Eastern Municipal Water District Attn: Warren A. Back, P.E. P. O. Box 8300 San Jacinto, CA 92581-8300 RE: Plot Plan No. 16535 (Redhawk Towne Center) Re-Circulated Notice of Prepazation -Requirements of SB 901 Please find enclosed a Notice of Preparation (re-circulated) for a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Plot Plan No. 16535 (Redhawk Towne Center). In accordance with the provisions of Part 2.10 of Division 6 of the California Water Code (commencing with Section 10910) [Senate Bi11901], the Planning Department is required to request specific information from you as part of the Notice of Preparation process. This law places certain requirements upon water districts and the County as lead agency on EIR projects.. Water agencies are required to assess supplies for the proposed development fora 20 yeaz period for the ~~'ollowing: "normal year", "single-dry year", and "multiple-dry years". If the water agency concludes that -' supplies aze insufficient, then plans for future supplies must be provided. Additionally, the County is required to include the water agency assessment in the EIR. When. you review the Notice of Preparation please include in your evaluation the requirements of SB 901 and provide me-with your comments and any information that is to be included within the EIR. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please feel free to telephone me at (909) 955-9075. Very ttuly yours, ~D(Gcc, Q=6~~- Tracie Ruiz-Hollis roject Planner Enclosure ~~~ 4080 Lemon Street, 9th F1ooroRiverside, California 92501 x(909) 9553200 P. O. Box 1409oRiverside, California 92502-1409<FA3C (909) 955-3157 PLOT PLAN 1V0.16535 (REDHAWK ~'OWNE CENTER) ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR The draft subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) shall address all topics required by Sections 15120 through 15132, inclusive, of the State CEQA Guidelines. More specifically, this SEIR will address the issue areas mandated by the Statement of Decision from Judge Dallas Holmes, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, dated May 29, 2001. In the Statement of Decision, Judge Holmes indicated: prior to any reconsideration or re-approval of the project (Plot Plan No. 16535), a subsequent or a supplemental EIR hall be prepazed pursuant to CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines addressing at least the newly identified and more severe traffic impacts, and legally mitigating the newly identified seismic impacts. Traffic/circulation and seismicity will be the primary focus of the SE1R. Noise and air quality impacts will also be reviewed for consistency with the thresholds contained in -the previously certified EII2 (EIR No. 340), based upon the information derived from the traffic impact analysis prepared for the SEIR It is not anticipated that impacts in these two issue areas will exceed the thresholds established in EIR No. 340. The conclusions from this analysis for noise and air quality will be included in the Traffic/Circulation discussion. The complete analysis for noise and air quality will be provided in the appendix to the SEIR. Should the analysis indicate that the impacts for noise and air quality exceed thresholds contained in the previously certified EIR, theri they will be analyzed in the same manner as the other O two focused issue areas (traffic/circulation and seismicity)' within-the SEIR. (`_~ The decision to prepare a Subsequent EIR in lieu of a Supplemental EIR was based upon the criteria contained in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The concerns listed below shall be thoroughly addressed in the report. Any additional concerns raised in the responses to the notice of preparation shall also be addressed. A. Environmental Hazards and Resources: Geology and Seismicity Provide an updated summary of the on-site geologic, soil and geotechnical conditions, including hazards.- Review and update the hazards known to affect the project site using current hazard evaluation methodologies, including seismic groundshaking risks at the project site. Discuss the potentially significant geotechnical hazards that will affect the project site and develop specific engineering measures available to reduce these potential significant hazazds to a nonsignificant level Describe, in summary form, existing conditions, known fault zones, slopes, and erosion. A geotechnical report, subject to the County Geologist's specifications, shall be submitted. Mitigation measures will be included, based upon the potential impacts and recommendations of the County Geologist. B. Public Facilities and Services: (O Identif existin infrastructure and otential im acts to existin Y g p p g public services. The discussion Plot Plan No. 16535 ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAFT SE]R September 11, 2001 Page 2 should include the possible extension and upgrading of public facilities to service the project site. The following topics should be addressed by subject: Circulation and Traffic A traffic study subject to the County's Transportation Department Guidelines shall be performed, along with concurrence from the City of Temecula and Caltrans..The study shall address available circulation to the site and identify potential impacts (short and long-term), and possible extension and upgrading of existing roads with respect to major access corridors. Also, the study shall address secondary access to the site with respect to the circulation plan, and must provide an analysis of safety issues with respect to the project's interior circulation linkage with the azea circulation network. Mitigation measures and timing for implementation of these measures will be established. Air Quality Potential air quality impacts will be reviewed for consistency with the thresholds established in the previously certified EIR (EIR No. 340), based upon the information derived from the traffic impact \O analysis.prepazed for the SEIR. Noise Potential noise impacts will be reviewed for consistency with the thresholds established in the previously certified EIR (EIR No. 340), based upon the information derived from the traffic impact analysis prepared for the SE1R. Review mitigation .measures contained in EIR No. 340 and recommend and any other necessary mitigation measures. C. Regional Element: Address the project's conformity with Regional Growth (SCAG) forecasts. Discuss regional jobs to housing ratio goals, and the ability of the proposed project to achieve these goals, both on a project specific basis and on an azea-wide basis. Discuss the azea-wide cumulative impact upon the' regional growth forecasts and jobs to housing ratios. D. Mitigation Monitoring: The SEIR should detail mitigation measures and a monitoring program throughout the life of the project for those issue azeas discussed in the SEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program should identify the mitigation measure, when it will be implemented, whose responsibility implementation O is and how mitigation will be overseen. Coordinate all monitoring programs with the Planning ~ Department. Plot Plan No. 16535 ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAFT SEIR September 11, 2001 Page 3 E. Mandatory CEQA Topics (For more detail see Sections 15120 through 15131, inclusive, of the State CEQA Guidelines) 1. Cumulative Impacts. Address the cumulative effects of this project and other approved projects in the area as well as the regional impact they will have for those issue azeas discussed in the SEIR. Cumulative impacts should be addressed by subjecUimpact rather than in a narrative form. 2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. List all impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance for those issue azeas discussed in the SEIR. 3. Project Alternatives. 1O Describe a range of viable project altematives, focusing on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant environmental effects. Each alternative discussion shall include a conceptual land use exhibit and shall list in detail how each impact of the project as proposed is reduced or eliminated under the alternative. Coordinate the choice of altematives with the Planning Department. 4. Growth Inducing Impacts. Address the project's growth inducing potential, including both beneficial and adverse impacts for those issue areas discussed in the SE1R. Address the growth inducing impact of the extension of water and sewer lines into the area. Outline possible mitigation measures and discuss project alternatives. 5. Project Correspondence. 6. Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted. 7. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. 8. Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the ~O Proposed Action Should it be Implemented. Plot P1an.No. 16535 1 ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAFT SEIR September 11, 2001 Page 4 Address the irreversible/irretrievable commitment of energy supplies and other natural resources within this section. F. Technical Appendices. The Technical Appendices, as applicable, should be bound separately from the screen check EIIt and should be included in the following order: 1. Geotechnical Report. 2. Traffic Study. 3. Air Quality Analysis. 4. Acoustical Analysis. ~O O 1S5SSSf55S5~ ~`~E~~R~aa. ~SfR i iSFn ••.rr i i3fSSrtrre e n ro m r a o `1 H w s ro x ~ z 0 o m :t tc oii4 ii~~ 1`,.....---' ~~[;i~iS~~; 1t~ F3; iS111f3f~~1~~{((' ! 1 it° t ~i 11~l1~1i {}I. ,i ~.~.. ~IIgiE ~~s n r m m N Z~d eI9tL0 IO ZI daS = i $~ o. ~~ a a c y y d S M ~ C 7 4 7y e G l ~ ~ 0 f ;~ s 33 e3A~ e33 °~ ~ a o °- -'_ o e e- ~ LL u O ____ _ 0 > 9 O I~_°~ e e 3 .n 3 n 9 v s Riverside Conty Board of Supervisors ILird Supervisorial District 4t /m~Jatmp\/pes Venable, Supervisor ito`~ 3 3iverside Conty Flood Control District 4ttn: Dusty Williams, Senior Civil Engineer itop # 2990 tiv. Co. Local Agency Formation Convnission 4ttn: George J. Spiliofis, Executive Director imp # 1030 Riverside County Planning Depamnent 4tm: Senior Engineering Geologist itop # 1070 Riverside County Transportation Department tn: Russ Garrett itop # 2016 ita~~annghouse )Ffice of Planning and Research ktts Russ Colliaq Planner 1400 Tendt Street, Room 121 iaerarnenm, CA 95814 iouth Coal[ Air Quality Management District )f6ce of Planning and Rules 4tm: Come Day, Sup., Loc. Gov[. -CEQA ?. O. Box 4939 )iamond Baz, CA 41765-0939 Temecula Valley Unified School District ~tm: Direcor of Faalides 51350 Rancho Vista Rd femecula, CA 92592 7. S. Soil Conservation Service 3lsinore-Murrieta-Anna Resource Cons. Dist. \tm: Bob Wheeler, District Conservationist !9090 Camino Alba vlurrieta, CA 92563-5650 for alifomia Gas Company ioi d Transmission Division ltmi ike Edson. Reeinn Planner '. O. Box 2008 3eaumont, CA 92223 Riverside Co. Economic Development Agency Attn: Brad Hudson, EDA Director Stop # 1330 Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Atm: Brian Lcew, RCHCA Director Stop # 1020 Riverside County Planning Department Atm: Aleta J. Laurence, AICP, Planning Duecmr Stop # 1070 Riverside County Sheriff Depamnent An: Larry Smith, Sheriff Stop # 1450 Riverside County Waste Resources Management District An: Robert Nelson, Chief Executive Officer Stop # 2950 CALTRANS District #8 CALTRANS Planning 464 W. Fourth Street San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 So. California Association of Governments Atm: Eric H. Rom, Manager, ]ntergovernmenml Review 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Ploor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 - City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Southern California Edison 2244 W alnut Grove Avenue, Room 312 P. O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770-0800 Sierra Club 4709 Mission Inn Ave. Riverside, CA 92501-3204 Riverside Counry Fue Departrnent Attn: D. Andrew Avila, Captain Srop # 2240 Riverside Counry Health Department Environmental Planning and Review Branch Attn: Ioha Silva, Senior Public Health Engineer Stop # 2611 Riverside County Planning Department Atm: Ron Goldman, Agency Program Administramr ' Stop # 1070 Riverside Counry Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Building and Safety -Grading Secfion Atm: Tony Harmon Slop # 1070 Regional Water Quality Control Board #9 San Diego Basin Region An: Art Cce, Executive Drector 9771 Clairmont Mesa Boulevard, Suite B San Diego, CA 92124-1331 Western Riverside Council of Governments An: Steve Ruddick, Director of Planing 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 300 Riverside. CA 92501 County Service Area No.143 Atm: Mel Bohlken, County Service Area Administrator Stop #1020 Southern California Gas Company Atm: Ken Soverns, Technical Supervisor 1981 Lugonia Avenue P. O. Box 3003 Redlands, CA 92373-0306 Endangered Habitats League Attn: Dan Silver 8424-A Santa Monica Blvd., #592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267 7nion for a River Greenbelt Environment Eastern Municipal Waer District Rancho California Water District to Raymond W. Johnson Atm: Warren A. Back, P.E. 42135 Winchester Road ?6765 Camino Seco P. O. Box 8300 P. O. Box 9017 Ce~`~ CA 92590 l~~ San Jacinto, CA 92581-8300 Temecula, CA 92589-9017 ~alifomia Institute of Technology Pechanga Indian Reservation California Indian Legal Services )Ff ce of We Director Palomar Observatory Atm: Pechanga Cultural Resources Commihee 609 S. Escondido Blvd. 105-24 P. O. Box 1477 Escondido, CA 92025 ?asadena, CA 92390 ~ Temecula, CA 92593 Sill Stone Jerry ]olliffe Dave Mares ?xcel Legacy Corporation Riverside County Planning Departrnent Riverside County Planning Department ?xcel Centre 4060 Lemon Street, 9'" Floor 39493 Los Alamos Road, Suite A 17140 Bernardo Center Drive #300 Riverside, CA 92501 Murrieta, CA 92563 ian Diego, CA 92128 - ,. Kristi Lovelady Richard Lashbrook Tom Dodson frensportation and Land Management Agency Transporta6oq and Land Management Agency Tom Dodson and Associates 3060 Lemon Street, 8° Floor 4080 Lemon Street, 8i° Floor 2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside; CA 92501 San Bernardino, CA 92405 Matthew Fagan ~ Cytil Dantchev Pame]a Miod Matthew Fagan Consulting Services AWadeff & Solar, LLP - 31995 Via Saltio 52011 Avenida Vista Ladem 550 West "C" Street, 19i°Floor -Temecula, CA 92592 Cemecula, CA 92591 San Diego, CA 92101-3540 O foh Sedlack Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP - 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 O ~ity of Riverside ~%lain Library 4ttn. Helene Luley, Chief Librarian 35 sion Inn Avenue 8i , CA 92501 Cemecula County Library 4ttn. Rofie Vanderhaak 11000 County Center Drive Cemecula, CA 92591 ,~ University of California Library Attn. lames Thompson, University Librarian P. O. Box 5900 Riverside, CA 92517-5900 Murrieta City Library A[m. Diane Alder 39589 Los Alamos Murrieta, CA 92563 ~.~ SPECfFIC PLAN 211 '~ Coun y of Riverside C SPECIFIC PLAN 217 Redhawk 1. Adopted Board of Supervisors Resolution 2. Adopted Conditions of Approval 3. Resolution No. 2001-74 4. Specific Plan Zone Ordinance (348.3984) 5. Specific Plan 6. EIR/Final EIR f~ 1 i oard of Su ervisors Count~RiVerside v ~ RESOLUTIOq b0. 88-473 2 ADOPTYMG ~ _J SPECIFIC PLAN Po0. Z17 3 (Redhawk) "` 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 5 t se ., a public hearing was held before th Ri e verside County Board of 6 upervisors in Riverside, California on September 6, 1988, to consider Specific 7 lan No. 217 (Redhawk); and, _ 8 WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act 9 nd the Riverside County .Rules to Implement the Act have been.:-met and 10 nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 226, prepared in connection with the 11 pecific plan, is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant 12 ffects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or ~ 13 ubstantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the I T4 hove-referenced Act and Rules; and, ~ 15 WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation ~ 16 resented by the public and affected government agencies; now, therefore,., 17 BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors 18 f the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on October 6, -1988, 19 hat the following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 217 20 re potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by 21 he identified mitigation measures: 22 Geolouv and Seismicity . 23 1. Impart: The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone runs 2~ through the southwest section of the, project . 25 site. The Elsinore Fault System, located ~ w oe 26 ~ m ~~ •~~ op X27 ~~ 28 '' ~ ¢~ LL ° } ~ ~ U _ n p' ! = v 1 2 3 SI '6 7 81 91 11 12 13 1~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21- 22 23 2~ 23 26 B. 271 281 2. Mitiaation• Slopes and Erosion 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: 1.75 miles to the crest, could potentially subject the area to groundshaking. The sit is also located in an area which is subject- ~~ to dam inundation in the event of a Vail Lake Dam failure. All structures sill conform to the stability standards established for groundshaking by the Uniform Building Code. Planning areas within the dam inundation limits will be required to have building pads constructed above the 100 year flood plain. Existing natural slopes in some portions of the property exceed twenty-five percent, which is the maximum buildable slope per/ County standards. The site may be subject toy moderate erosion. Most areas in excess of twenty-five percent slope will remain as open space. A -soils report determined that manufactured cut and fill slopes will be stable and that the erosion during and after construction can be controlled to acceptable levels .through compliance with County Grading Standards. Grading occurring during the rainy season sill include mitigation measures such as sand 2 d 0 6 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 C. la 12 13 14 15 16 19 18 19 20 21 2z 23 a~ 25 as a~ RO za bagging and desiltation basins as directed by the County Department of Building and Safety. Graded slopes will be landscaped in accordance with County Grading Standards. Hatering trucks will be used to control dust and temporary earthen dikes will be used along the perimeter of drainage courses in accordance with the directives of the County Department of Building and Safety. Flooding 1. Im act: A portion of the site is traversed by the 100-year flood plains of Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek. A broad north-south wash passes through the site subjecting the golf course area of the property to some flooding. Access could be cut off by the lack. of "all weather" creek and drainage course crossings. Development will increase surface runoff. Structures in the flood plain would be subject to flooding damage. 2. Mitigation: Areas subject to the 100-year flood-plain of Temecula Creek and the broad north-south wash will remain in open space. Improvements will consist of the installation of soft ,bottom channels, rip-rap where needed, some construction of storm drains and the 3 1 2 3 5: 6 71 8I 10 it 12 13 1~ 15 16 17 18 19 D. Noise: 1. Impact: 2. 'Mitiyation• 21 22 a3 a~ 25 26 27 28 elevation of all building pads above the flood plain level. Atl flood control improvements- will be constructed i m accordance with Flood Control and dater Conservation District recommendations. Construction of "alt weather" access structures will be required across Temecula Creek at Margarita Road, Butterfield Stage Road and Pala Road, and across the broad wash drainage course at E1 Chamisal and Macho Roads. Noise levels along State Highway 79 will be approximately 65 dBA and greater at 155 feet from the centerline of the highway. Nois levels along Pala Road and Margarita Road northerly of E1 Chamisal Road will typically be 65 dBA at 155 feet from the centerline of the roads. Exterior noise levels will be reduced, where necessary by the utilization of walls, berms, and ,landscaping, or a combination thereof. Interior noise levels will be reduced by the utilization of site orientation, insulation, double pane windows and other construction- methods as necessary. Specific mitigation 4 1 measures sill be determined after acoustical ~~ 2 studies are performed by a certified 3 acoustical engineer and all such measures 4 identified as a result of those studies will ~ ~ be incorporated into future development ;} 6 approvals. ~ E. Water Quality g 1. Impact: Grading and construction operations will 9 result in erosion and siltation. Upon 10 completion of construction, urban runoff will 11 result in the introduction of some oils and 12 pollutants into the groundwater. 13 2• Plitigation: Erosion will be minimized by utilizing the 14 measures outlined herein under the topic of 15 slopes and erosion. Retention of a natural 16 filtering system will occur by the 17 preservation of open space and "soft bottoms" 18 in all streams and drainage channels. The 19 project also includes several groundwater 20 recharge areas that will contribute to 21 improvement of groundwater. Water for the 22 project will be provided by the Rancho 23 California Water District and no private 26 wells will be utilized. 25 26 2~ P 5 ~ ~ 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 la 13 1,} 15, 16 17 as 19 ao al 22 23 a5 as 27I 28 IF. Agriculture 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: 6. tiildlife and Vegetation 1. Impact: Currently, limited cattle and sheep grazing is the only agricultural activity occurring on the subject site. Site development may indirectly and incrementally result in the transition of the nearby sod farm to urban uses. However, the sod farm and Bail Ranch ,. are currently being proposed as specific plan areas. The subject site does not meet the Riverside County General Plan criteria with respect to agricultural preservation. Continued agricultural activity on the subject site is not cost effective or practical due to rising land values, cost of irrigation and the limited natural agricultural potential of they. subject site. A land use buffer will be constructed between Planning Areas 1, 2, 6 and 18 adjacent to the sod farm and citrus grove to provide an appropriate land use transition. Site development will eliminate most. of the existing vegetation. Some animal- species sill leave or be eliminated from the site and. others will remain on the property but at a reduced population. 6 Y 6 7 ell 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~~ 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 z2 23 2~ as 2s P~ a8 II 2. Mitigation: The subject site is dominated by non-native grassland, coastal sage scrub and riparian areas. The riparian habitat is limited to the Temecula Creek wash. No rare and/or endangered plant or plant communities were found on the subject site. The subject property is located within the historic habitat range of the threatened, Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Live trappings did not- reveal .the presence of this species. The site has limited areas of raptor foraging and perching, in addition to potential habitat for the San Diego Horned Lizard. The San Diego Horned Lizard is listed as sensitive per the Natural Diversity Data Base. The natural bottom of Temecula Creek will be retained, thereby preserving San Diego ,Horned Lizard habitat. Raptor habitat will be enhanced through the preservation of several existing oak trees, the planting of specimen trees within the buffer areas, and through participation in the biological enhancement program. All anticipated impacts .can be :mitigated to a level of insignificance, through the preservation of open space, landscape treatments and biological enhancement areas. 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 -9 to 11 la 33 1~ 15 16 17 18 19 ao as az 23 2~ 25 26 a7 ze H. Energy 1. Impact: I. 2. Mitigation• Energy resources will be consumed in two stages, short term .and long term. Short ten. consumption will be limited to construction related activity. Long tern consumption will result at project build-out from the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and other ; domestic uses. The above-referenced consumption will cause ' no undue or unanticipated demands- on local utility purveyors. Energy conservation measures will be achieved through shorter trip lengths, as a result of multiple land uses, Class II bike paths, and through compliance with Title 24 standards for all l buildings and improvements. Historic and Prehistoric Resources 1. Impact: Archaeological/historical site RIV - 364 will be impacted by construction operations. Proposed site construction could impact potential paleontological resources associated with the Pauba formation. 2. Mitigation: Archaeological resources associated with RIV - 364 will De identified and salvaged by an archaeologist prior to construction, operations, and grading operations will be monitored, thereby fully mitigating potential a 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 8 9 l0 11 12 13 19 rf 15 16 17 18 as 20 `al 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pb archaeological/historical impacts. The paleontological impact will be mitigated through observation and monitoring by a paleontologist during all grading operations. J. Mount Palomar Special Lighting District 1. Im act: The project site falls within the Piount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting area. Glare and sky glow impacts may. occur at the observatory from street lighting and parking lot lighting treatments. 2. Mitigation: To mitigate potential glare and sky glow impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, the project is required to utilize . low pressure sodium vapor lighting in addition to various shielding requirements. K. Circulation 1. Impact: A total of 33,688 average daily trips (ADT) and 242,555 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be generated Dy the project. 2. Mitigation: On and off-site mitigation measures will include street widenings, construction of turn lanes and pockets, installation of traffic signals and stop signs and other measures as required to facilitate a smooth flow of traffic. The Rancho dillages Assessment District will provide a financing mechanism for regional transportation 9 1 2 3 S 6 7 8 9' 10 al 12 13 1~ 1S 16 17 as as 20 al. as 23 2~ 25 26 27 28 IL. Hater and .Sewer 1. Imaact: 2. Mitigation• facilities and will facilitate the orderly construction of backbone circulation infrastructure. Trip and mileage genera tioi will also be minimized through the mixed uses ~..... and on-site trip destinations provided by the I" , project. ~` . The project will require approximately 2.76 million gallons of water daily and generate 1.32 million gallons of wastewater daily. Additionally the project may utilize approximately 1,000,000 gallons of reclaimed water for golf course purposes daily. Necessary facilities including transmission lines and a storage tank for the higher elevations sill be constructed by the Ranchd\ Villages Assessment District and the Rancho California Hater District. Expansion of the Eastern .Municipal Hater District sewage treatment plant to 6.25 million gallons per day capacity is currently taking place in accordance with the requirements of the San Diego Regional Hater Quality Control Board. The use of reclaimed water in the golf course will also mitigate water supply impacts as it, will help to recharge the groundwater and conserve water resources. 10 r ~~ ;~- ~b ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 IM. Fire L .Imaact: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 N. 2~ 25 2s 27 28 2. Mitigation:; Schools 1. Imaact: The Redhawk Specific Plan site receives fire protection from the Temecula Fire station operated jointly by the California Division of Forestry and the Riverside County Fire Department. The project, in conjunction with cumulative impacts, will result in a demand .for approximately two additional engine companies. The project. is adjacent to a Hazardous Fire Area.. Payment of fire mitigation fees on a per lot basis will finance additional land, equipment, personnel and fire stations or any combination thereof, as deemed appropriate by the County Fire Department. A minimum of a 1.25 acre site fora .fire station facility shall be dedicated within Planning Area No. 20 per the County Fire Department's recommendation. Fuel modification buffers and fire resistant landscaping requirements incorporated into the project will further mitigate fire hazard impacts. The project will generate approximately 2,015. elementary and middle school students, and 733 high school students. 11 a 2 3 S 6 7 8 9i 10 as as 13 fl3 as a~ as 19 20 21 as 23 23 26 27 2. Mitiaation: The project site is located in the Temecula -~ Union School District. Said district' expansion program will enable the Temecu Valley High School facility to absorb the increased student load. Three potential elementary school sites are included in the ;. land use development plan of the specific plan. School fees will be paid as required, by State law. 0. Parks ' 1. Impact: 2. Mitiaation• P. U4ilities 1. Impact: The subject specific plan, at full build-out, is anticipated to generate a population of approximately 8,795 individuals. Said population increase will contribute to the present demand placed upon original and loca~ recreational resources. ~- Facilities provided in the development plan include 27.1 acres of park land, a 17.6 acre regional park, a 182.7 acre golf course, bicycle and equestrian trails, and approximately 150 acres of open space. The utility purveyors have demonstrated an ability to provide the specific plan development with an adequate supply of electricity, telephone service and natural gas to meet the anticipated demand. 28 II 12 1 2. Pitigation: No mitigation required. ~~~ 2 Q. Disaster Preparedness 3 1. Impact: The proposed project will be adequately "~~ .~ accessible to all emergency vehicles and will 5 not hamper the implementation of the 6 Riverside County Disaster Preparedness Plan. 7 Redhawk's participation in the Rancho e Villages Assessmen"t District- (RVAD) will 9' provide improvements to the area's 10 circulation network through road and bridge "~ I1 construction and improvements. Said 12 improvements will translate to a positive ;~ 13 impact to the area. 1~ 2. Flitigation: No mitigation required. 15' R• Health Services 16 1. Im act: The Redhawk Specific Plan will not cause 17 undue or unanticipated increases in the need 18 for hospital care or emergency care 19 facilities in the area. Local health care 20 facilities are expected to meet any increased 21 demand in the area. 22 2. Nitigation: No mitigation required. i 23 5. Airports 2g 1. Impact: The Redhawk Specific Plan may result in an 25 incremental demand for additional airport 26 services. 27 PO 28 13 f. 1 2. Mitigation: A replacement site for the Rancho California 2 Airport is currently under construction. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the adverse .! ~ egional air quality impact associated with Specific Plan No. 217, which is 5 re particularly described in EIR No. 226, cannot be fully mitigated despite 6 he inclusion of all available mitigation measures into the project, and a 7 tatement of overriding findings is therefore included herein. The mitigation ~I 8 asures, which will partially avoid or lessen the air quality impact, include 9 ut are not limited to, on-site trip destinations, bicycle trails, trip length l0 eductions, park and ride spaces, and the payment of air quality enhancement 11 ees.. 12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLYED by the Board of Supervisors that it has considered 13 nd rejected as infeasible. the following alternatives identified in EIR No. 226 14 elative to cumulative impacts on air quality which cannot be fully mitigated: ~ I 15 No Project Alternative of °Site developed under current approvals"c Th~~j 16 No Project Alternative was considered relative to .cumulative effects on 'I, 17 air quality and has been rejected as infeasible for the following 18 reasons: 19 1. The No Project/Current Approvals Alternative would allow the 20 previously approved .specific plan project consisting of 1370 dwelling 21 units to be constructed. 22 2. The No, Project/Current Approvals Alternative could not provide-active 23 recreational amenities. 2~ 3. The No Project/Current Approvals Alternative would not provide for ~ 25 community oriented commercial uses. 26 4. The No Project/Current Approvals Alternative would allow the 27 construction of a septic tank and leach system on individual lots, 28 14 '/~ 2I i v-~ { 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a2 13 1~ 15 16 19 la as 2c 21 C- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 creating potential leach field problems and possible groundwater contamination. No Project Alternative of "Entire site remains in present use": The No Project/Existing Use Alternative was considered relative to cumulative effects on air quality and has been rejected as infeasible for the following reasons: 1. The No Project/Existing Use Alternative would not produce the fees and taxes projected to result from Specific Plan No. 217 and would not, therefore,. provide an economic benefit to the County... 2. The No Project/Existing Use Alternative would not make a -meaningful contribution to the County employment base. 3. The No Project/Existing. Use Alternative could result in the piecemeal development of the site, potentially exacerbating impacts to the adjacent Indian Reservation and agricultural uses. 4. The No Project/Existing Use Alternative would not allow for the completion of a full spectrum of infrastructure improvements such as ,those associated with Specific Plan No. 217 through its participation in the Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD). 5. The No Project/Existing Use Alternative would not reduce the already existing housing need created by rapid area population growth. Previous Design Alternative: The Previous Design Alternative was considered relative to cumulative effects on air quality and has been rejected as infeasible for the following reasons: 1. The Previous Design Alternative provides less acreage for parks, schools, and commercial development than the proposed Specific Plan No. 217. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 h 17 n 18 a ig en 20 A 21 22 B 23 24 25 26 27 281 2. The Previous Design Alternative does not include the integration of I' major recreational facilities, such as a golf course included in the proposed specific plan design. 3. The Previous Design Alternative includes a septic tank/leach system with more potential impacts than the sewer system proposed in Specific Plan No. 217. ,~ Mixed Use Alternative: The Mixed Use Alternative was considered relative to cumulative effects on air quality and has been rejected as infeasible for the following reasons: 1. The -Mixed Use Alternative aould have more impacts than the other alternatives because of more intense residential, commercial and industrial development. 2. The Mixed Use Alternative could oversaturate the market area with ! commercial and industrial development. ~I BE IT FURTHER RESOLdED by the Board of Supervisors that it has balanced benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse` .~~ ronmental effects thereof, to wit: the cumulative air quality impact, and determined that the following benefits outweigh and render acceptable those I ronmental effects: i The projected revenue from the project provides an economic benefit to the County in the amount of $4,259,208 at project build-out. Social benefits attributable to the' project include social access opportunities resulting from the planned improvement of public infrastructure related to water and sewer service, circulation facilities, fire protection, flood control, educational facilities, recreation facilities and open space. , 16 i I (I~ R~ 1 2 3 4 5 s 7' ~$ 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 2s 27 28 C. Economic benefits attributable to the project include positive economic impacts to the Rancho California area, resulting from an increase in construction jobs, and tax and employment opportunity related to industrial and commercial-growth which will be induced by the project. D. .The Specific Plan proposes the creation of a Biological Enhancement program and is also providing 45.9 acres of park sites for the project residents. The amount of park sites is in excess of that which would be required under the Quimby Act ,end can also be u ilized by residen~~ .already in the, community. E. The project proponent has also agreed to sign a Development Agreement which will generate revenue in the amount of $17,912,076 for Public Facilities, Regional Parks, Habitat/Open. Space and for Service Offset. F. The project provides three school sites which will benefit area-wide educational facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Specific Plan No. 211 will implement, applicable elements of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element: The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan ' recognizes the project.area as transitioning from agricultural land uses to urban land uses and an urban economic base and that this area can be expected to experience increased urbanization. The Redhawk Specific Plan project is located in .the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. This area is characterized by urban land uses and corridors along Interstate 15, specifically in the Rancho California-Temecula area.. Adopted Specific Plans in the area include .Wolf Valley Specific Plan and Pala Villages Specific Plan. The project is adjacent to the Rancho Villages Community Policy Area. Densities and land uses proposed by i 1T 1 2 3 4 5 s 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2s 27 28 !~: Specific Plan No. 217 are similar to those already permitted and proposed.'. by other specific plans in the area. The applicant is also participati in the Rancho Villages Assessment District for infrastructure improvement and for its financing mechanism. In terms of available 'and proposed 'I^ infrastructure and the existing pattern of -urban development, the subject; site meets the qualifications for Category II (urban) land userpolicies at this time. B: Administrative Element: The project provides a fiscal impact report and :.l ;. time frames for development, pursuant to the land use polices of the`I Administrative Element. The fiscal impact analysis projects a positive. impact on County services at project build-out. Further, the project will i pay Countywide mitigation and impact fees through a development agreement with the County and will make substantial contributions to the County's ' facilities and service accounts. .I C. Regional Element: This project represents approximately 6.2 percent of t growth expected in the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area (RSA-4<_.,. for the year 2010. Specsfic Plan No. 217 alone'aill not exceed the SCA6 growth forecasts. The project provides for commercial and residential land I. uses within its boundary. D. Publfic Facilities and Services Element: The project contains a comprehensive public services and facilities program for circulation, f water, sewer, fire protection and other services.' An urban level of infrastructure is presently within reach of the subject site and will be provided per the Rancho Villages Assessment District. E. Housing Element: The proposed Specific Plan will provide approximately 4,188 residential units with a variety of product types. The project also l includes about 45.9 acres of parks, 182.7 acres of golf course, 28.0 acres 18 ~ ,`. 1 ~I ) 2 3 ~o 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ..O 27 28 of commercial land uses, 32.2 acres of school sites, and about 150 acres of open space. F. Environmental Hazards and Resources Element: EIR No. 226 assessed the full range of concerns associated with this project and proposed mitigation for each of the identified impacts. Overriding findings are required for air quality, and are included herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has reviewed and considered EIR No. 226 in evaluating Specific Plan No. 217, that EIR No. 226 is an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, that EIR No. 226 is certified, and that EIR No. 226 is hereby incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Specific Plan No. 217, on file with the Clerk of the Board, including the final conditions of approval and exhibits, is hereby adopted as the Specific Plan of Land Use for the real property shown on the plan, and said real property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the specific plan, unless the plan is repealed or amended by the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that copies of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Director of Building and Safety, and that no applications for subdivision maps, conditional use permits or other development approvals shalt be accepted for the real property shown on Specific Plan No. 217, unless such applications are substantially in accordance therewith. Roll Call resulted as follows: Ayes: Ceniceros, Larson, Younglove and Abraham Noes: None Absent: Dunlap RG:US:CO:mcb:mp Date: October 6, 1988 - Thursday TAa ~ Is ceRNi2d to E2 a true ~ M o roso~mon dory sdWted id B•iard of supor- 19 vleors tMe Oste Cher north. G . ~ L Y. Ct~ Boord ~ ~ ! $zati4' TRANSPORTATIONAND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1Q Richard K Lashbrook Agency Director March 16. 2001 ]Pll~>m>mn>mg ~De)~~>rg>mn~><n>t TO: Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. 2900 Adams Street, Suite A-15 Riverside, CA 92504 AletaJ Laurence,A.LCP. Planning Director RE: Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1 /Change of Zone No. 6493 /Tentative Tract f1Aap No. 29203 /Tentative Tract Aliap No. 29432 and Plot Plan No. 16554 Environmental Assessment No. 37825 Regional Team No. 2 On December 19, 2000, the Riverside County ® Board of Supervisors ^ Planning Director took the following action on the above referenced parcel map: ® APPROVED specific plan, change of zone, tentative tract maps and plot plan subject to the conditions located in the LMS (Sierra System), no waiver request submitted. ^ DENIED tentative map based on the attached findings. ^ APPROVED tentative map subject to attached conditions and DENIED request for waiver of the final map. The action on the above mentioned cases are considered final. Conditions for the above mentioned cases are available in the Land Management System. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aleta J. Laurence, .P., Planning Director /~ ~ ~~ v Keith E. Gardner. Senior Planner KGJnm Y:\TeYl~rynks~5P31]01 C28/9]TR3938JTR39I32 PP1888~EA]]838 BDDI De,wDe lO Riverside Office • 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Indio Office • 82-675 Hwy I I I, 2nd Floor Murrieta Office •39493 Los Alamos Road P. O. Box 1409 • Riverside, Califomia 92502-1409 Rm 209, Indio, Califomia 92201 Murrieta, Califomia 92563 (909) 955-3200 • FAX (909) 955-3157 (760) 863-7055 • FAX (760) 863-7015 (909) 600-6170 • FAX (909) 600-6145 03/19/01 ~~~~~ 08:52 GENERAL CONDITIONS ~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 10 EVERY DEPARTMENT 10. EVERY. 1 The applicant or any successor-in-interest shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside (COUNTY), its agents, officers, or employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the COUNTY, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the COUNTY, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 217, AMENDMENT NO. 1. The COUNTY will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the COUNTY and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the COUNTY fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the COUNTY. O 10. EVERY. 2 Riverside County LMS CONDITIONS OF APPRO APPROVED el: 952-230-0( DEC 1 9 2000 Page: 1 BY BOARD OF SUPERVIS'JRS SP - HOLD HARMLESS SP - SP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1, shall consist of the following: a. Exhibit "A": Specific Plan Text. b. Exhibit "B": Specific Plan Conditions of Approval. c. Exhibit "C": Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 236. d. Exhibit "D": Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 236. If any specific plan conditions of approval differ from the specific plan text or exhibits, the specific plan conditions of approval shall take precedence. 10. EVERY. 3 SP - DEFINITIONS The words identified in the following list that appear in all capitals in the attached conditions of Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1 shall be henceforth defined as follows: ~~ SPECIFIC PLAN = Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1. CHANGE OF ZONE = Change of Zone No. 6493 INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 2 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL _ ~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 10. GENERAL CONDITIONS 10. EVERY. 4 SP - ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS INEFFEC? The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory requirements of all Riverside County ordinances including Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460 and state laws; and shall conform substantially with the adopted' SPECIFIC PLAN as filed in the office of the Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amended. 10. EVERY. 5 SP - LIMITS OF SP DOCUMENT INEFFECT No portion of the SPECIFIC PLAN which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify any ordinance or other legal requirement for the development shall be considered to be part.of the adopted specific plan. 10. EVERY. 6 SP - COMPLY WITH AGENCIES INEFFECT No portion of the SPECIFIC PLAN which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify any ordinance or other legal Q requirement for the development shall be considered to be part of the adopted specific plan. 10. EVERY. 7 SPA - Amendment Description INEFFECT This Specific Plan Amendment alters Specific Plan No. 217 by amending the development standards of Planning Areas 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 21 to allow 5,000 square foot minimum lot size single family detached subdivisions of patio homes, zero lot line and z-lot configurations, and/or residential planned developments and multiple family residential developments. In addition, this Specific Plan Amendment alters the Land Use Map of Specific Plan No. 217 by: 1. Enlarging Planning Area (PA) 20 from 41.5 acres to 53.3 acres by changing the land use designation for the 5.2-acre Commercial Site "C" (PA 27) and 6.6 acres of School Site "B" (PA 23 consisting of 9.6 acres) to Medium High Density Residential (MH, 8-14 DU/AC) and incorporating these planning areas into a reconfigured and expanded PA 20. 2. Enlarging Planning Area 33 (Park Site "E") from 12.0 acres to 15.0 acres by changing the land use designation for 3.0 acres of School Site "B" (PA 23) to Park Site "E" and adding these 3.0 acres into a reconfigured and expanded ~~ PA 33. 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS -Page: 3 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 10. GENERAL CONDITIONS 10. EVERY. 7 SPA - Amendment Description (cont.) 3. Changing the land use designation of School Site "C" (PA 24) to Medium Low Density (2 .0-5.0 DU/AC) Residential, and changing the location of 11..0-acre School Site "C" (PA 24) from the south side of Camino San Dimas to a new PA 24 location consisting of 9.5-acres on the north side of Camino San Dimas in Planning Area 2 which will result in a reconfigured PA 2 that expands from 129.1 acres to 131.5 acres. (Amended by Planning Commission on August 23, 2000.) 10. EVERY. 8 SPA.- Replace all previous This Specific Plan Amendment is intended to replace the original SPECIFIC PLAN, and all amendments and substantial conformances to the SPECIFIC PLAN. All future developments within the SPECIFIC PLAN, whether or not they have a direct correlation to this Amendment, will inherit these O conditions. The original SPECIFIC PLAN and all previous ~ amendments and substantial conformances to the SPECIFIC PLAN will be electronically "locked" so that all future land development applications comply with the conditions of Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1. BS GRADE DEPARTMENT l0.BS GRADE. 1 SP - GIN INTRODUCTION Improvements such as grading, filling, over excavation and recompaction, and base and paving which require a grading permit are subject to the included Building and Safety Department Grading Divisioh conditions of approval. l0.BS GRADE. 2 SP*GSP-1 ORD. NOT SUPERSEDED Anything to the contrary, proposed by this Specific Plan, shall not supersede the following: All grading shall conform to the Uniform Building code, County General Plan, Ordinance 457 and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing grading in Riverside County: l0.BS GRADE. 3 SP*GSP-2 GEO/SOIL TO BE OBEYED O All grading shall be performed in accordance with the { recommendations of the included -County approved- geotechnical/soils reports for this Specific Plan. INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 4 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 10 GENERAL CONDITIONS l0.BS GRADE. 4 SP- MASS GRADING Parcel: 952-230-008 If mass grading of the entire Specific Plan site is proposed - usually under a parcel map for the entire site at the same time that application for further subdivisions are being made, an exception to Ordinance 460, Section 4.5b shall be obtained from the Planning Director - Ord. 460 Section 3.1 - prior to issuance of the mass grading permit. l0.BS GRADE y-ALL CLEARNC'S REQ'D B-4 PMT Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all certifications affecting grading. shall have written clearances. This includes, but is not limited to, additional environmental assessments, erosion control plans, geotechnical/soils reports, and departmental clearances. O E HEALTH DEPARTMENT 10.E HEALTH. 1 SP - COMMENTS This Department has received and reviewed the request for Amendment 1 to amend planning areas 12,13,15,20,21,23,24and 27 to allow single-family detached subdivisions of patio homes. This amendment also proposes to change the land use for TR 230676-1 from comercial to medium-high density and incorporate it into TR 29203 and TR 29432. 10.E HEALTH. 2 SP - Al COMMENTS Department of Environmental Health has received SP00217A1 and have no objections. The Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District will be required to provide will service letters at time of issuance for a Sanitation Form 53 for the respective tracts. The requested Amended Planning areas 12,13,15,16,20-24 and 27 will allow SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING subdivisions of patio homes, with zero lot line and 2 lot configurations. This will also propose to change the land use for PA27 (Recorded as TR 23067-1) from commercial to medium-high density and incorporate it into PA20. INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 0 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 5 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 10. GENERAL CONDITIONS PARKS DEPARTMENT l0.PARKS. 1 SP - TRAIL CORRIDOR Parcel: 952-230-008 All projects in planning areas 19 and 20 that abut the watercourse along the north side of the specific plan shall provide for a trails corridor easement within that watercourse area. PLANNING DEPARTMENT l0.PLANNING. 1 SP - REQUIRED FOR AMENDMENTS Any amendment to the SPECIFIC PLAN, even though it may affect only one portion of the specific plan, shall be accompanied by a complete specific plan document, in both paper and electronic formats, which includes the entire specific plan, including both changed and unchanged parts. ~U l0.PLANNING. 2 SP -'MAINTAIN AREAS & PHASES All planning area and phase numbers shall be maintained throughout the life of the SPECIFIC PLAN, unless changed through the approval of a specific plan amendment accompanied by a revision to the complete specific plan document. l0.PLANNING. 3 SP - NON-IMPLEMENTING MAPS A land division filed for the purposes of phasing or financing shall not be considered an implementing development application for the purposes of the Planning Department's conditions of approval. l0.PLANNING. 4 SP - DUAL WATER SYSTEM Dual water systems shall be provided in common open space areas for the use of reclaimed water when made available by the water district. AS OF 03/07/01, THIS CONDITION IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. O l0:PLANNING. 5 SP - 90 DAYS TO PROTEST The project applicant has 90 days from the date of approval of these conditions to protest, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020, the imposition of any and all fees, dedications, reservations INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 ~, 10. GENERAL CONDITIONS l0.PLANNING. 5 SP - 90 DAYS TO PROTEST (cont.) and/or other exactions imposed on this project as a result of the approval or conditional approval of this project. AS OF 03/07/01, THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT l0.PLANNING. 6 SP - RECYCLING PROGRAM All implementing development proposals shall be reviewed by the Riverside County Waste esources Management District for compliance with Riverside County recycling requirements. AS OF 03/07/01, THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. <O l0.PLANNING. 7 SP - NO P.A. DENSITY TRANSFERS Density transfers between Planning Areas within the SPECIFIC PLAN shall not be permitted, except through the Specific Plan Amendment process. AS OF 3/12/01, THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. TRANS DEPARTMENT l0.TRANS. 6 SP - SP217A1/IMPROVEMENTS All road improvements within the project boundaries shall be constructed to ultimate County standards in accordance with Ordinance No. 460 and 461 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, subject to approval of the Director of Transportation. l0.TRANS. 7 SP - SP217A1/T.S.M The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of Supervisors. l0.TRANS. 8 SP - SP217A1/LANDSCAPING Any landscaping within public road rights-of-way will O require approval by the Director of Transportation and assurance of continuing maintenance through the Page: 6 INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 7 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL _ ~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 10. GENERAL CONDITIONS l0.TRANS. 8 SP - SP217A1/LANDSCAPING (cont.) INEFFECT establishment of a landscape maintenance district or similar mechanism as approved by the Director of Transportation. l0.TRANS. 13 SP - SP217A1/BIKE LANES While the current General Plan designates Class II bike lanes on Highway 79, the projected traffic volumes clearly indicate that bike lanes are no longer approproate for this facility. It is recommended that this facility be redesignated as a Class I bikeway located on a separate right-of-way adjacent to the highway. O 20 The Class II bike lanes suggested within the specific plan are not adequate or acceptable as a bike lane plan. However, the developer may submit a cohesive plan of Class II bike lanes to the Traffic Engineering Section of the Transportation Department for review and approval. Any portions of the proposed bike lane network that are approved or required, whether on existing roads or roads to be constructed, shall be created or implemented by the developer at no expense to the County. PRZOR TO A CERTAIN DATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 20.PLANNING. 1 SP - SUBMIT FINAL SP DOCUMENT Within sixty (60) days of the adoption of the final Board of Supervisors resolution, or prior to the submittal of any applications or the issuance of any permits, whichever comes first, fifteen (15) copies of the final specific plan document shall be submitted to the Planning Department for distribution. The documents shall include the final Board of Supervisors resolution, the final specific plan conditions of approval and zoning ordinance, all changes required by these conditions of approval or made during the public hearings on the project, if any, and the Final EIR. A detailed list of required items and their order .can be obtained from the Planning Department. 20.PLANNING. 2 SP - DURATION OF SP VALIDITY INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT (O The SPECIFIC PLAN shall remain valid for 15 years from date of Board of Supervisiors adoption of a resolution approving 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 8 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - '~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 ~~-20. PRIOR TO A CERTAIN DATE 20.PLANNING. 2 SP - DURATION OF SP VALIDITY (cont.) Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1. Should the entire project not be substantially built out in that period of time, the project proponent shall file an application for a specific plan amendment to extend the maximum life of the specific plan. For the purpose of this condition of approval, substantial buildout shall be defined as the issuance of the 3,750th building permit. The specific plan amendment shall update the entire specific plan document to reflect current development requirements. Should this time period lapse without substantial build out or without the approval of an amendment extending this time period, the SPECIFIC PLAN shall become null and void 15 years from the date of Board adtoption of a resolution approving Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1. 20.PLANNING. 3 SP - PARK SITE "E" REQUIREMEN The design of Park Site "E" shall be reviewed by the o Planning Department for consistency with Specific Plan 217 (SP217) and the active park site shall be in accordance with CSA 143 Park Standards and approved by CSA 143. The total area of Park Site "E" shall be Fifteen (15) acres in size and shall consist of active and passive recreational areas. Twelve (12) acres were originally included in SP217. Park Site "E" was augmented by an additional three (3) acres, due to an admendment to SP217 to adjust densities and uses as a result of revised land uses. Within ninety (90) days of the Park Site "E" concept 'approval by the Board of Supervisors, permit drawings shall be completed and grading permits obtained. Fifteen (15) copies of the final Park Site "E" plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and CSA 143 for approval prior to submittal of plans for a grading permit. Within six (6) months of the Park Site "E" concept approval by the Board of Supervisors, an agreement shall be completed detailing the responsibilities of each entity that will have maintenance responsibilities for any active, passive or natural areas. Any additonal maintenance costs for the area identified as the River Walk shall be incurred by the adjacent planning areas not yet developed as of O January 1, 2001, or other means acceptable to the County of ~ Riverside. Within one year of the Park Site "E" concept approval by the Board of Supervisors, all construction, INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 9 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 20. PRIOR TO A CERTAIN DATE 20.PLANNING. 3 SP - PARK SITE "E" REQUIREMEN (cont.) INEFFECT subject to CSA 143 acceptance, shall be completed with final dedication to CSA 143. The Park Site "E" shall include the following. elements: a twenty-four (24') foot wide .access road from Channel Street leading down the hill to a parking lot that will accommodate a minimum of seven (7) automobiles, one of which shall be handicapped accessible; a two (2) acre active park that will include picnic tables, benches, lighting, water fountains, and a tot lot that includes equipment acceptable to CSA 143; a 2.5 acre grass play .area that will be leveled, landscaped and irrigated for use as an active play field; and a three (3) acre, fifty (50) foot wide minimum, River Walk, which shall include a jogging path bordered by landscaped (trees, shrubs and turf) and irrigated areas on either side. The River Walk area shall run parallel to the 100 year O flood plain between the sloped areas and the natural areas from Butterfield Stage Road to the Park Site "E" play ~' areas. An equestrian trail shall be located outside the River Walk area and shall follow the natural area around the play fields in Park Site "E" and continue in a southernly direction beyond Park Site "E". The projected groundbreaking date for Park Site "E" shall be April 1, 2001 and the projected completion date for the park shall be January 1, 2002. TRANS DEPARTMENT 20.TRANS. 1 SP - SP217A1/EASEMENT/GP ROAD INEFFECT Within 180 days of the Board of Supervisors' adoption of Specific Plan 217A1, the project proponent shall provide assistance in the procurement of a Grant of Easement for the extention of Butterfield Stage Road through the intersection of Nighthawk Pass southerly to the Specific Plan boundary, to be in compliance with the current Public Facilities Services Element of the General Plan. All exhibits within the Specific Plan shall be revised to delineate this roadway. 'O 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 10 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 30 PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Parcel: 952-230-008 30.PLANNING. 1 SP - COMPLETE CASE APPROVALS Prior to approval of any entative subdivision or parcel map or approval of any plot plan or use permit, the SPECIFIC PLAN, the COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, the CHANGE OF ZONE, and the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. ~~ 30.PLANNING. 2 SP - PARK AGENCY REQUIRED Prior to the submittal of any subdivision map, or other residential development application, all portions of the SPECIFIC PLAN not currently within the boundaries of County Service Area No. 143 or a similar entity such as a County Service Area/District that has been designated by the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Section 10.35 (G) of Ordinance No. 460, to receive park dedications and fees. Documentation of said annexation shall accompany all implementing residential development applications. 30.PLANNING. 7 SP - COMMON AREA PLANS Design plans for the common areas specifying the location and extent of landscaping and irrigation systems as specified in Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and Sections 19.300 through 19.304, and circulation (vehicular, pedestrian, equestrian and/or bicycle) shall be submitted during the review process for development applications, which incorporate common areas. Additionally, all proposed structures shall be shown on said plans. Aland division filed for the purposes of phasing or financing shall not be considered an implementing development application. (~ 30.PLANNING. 9 SP - EA REQUIRED An environment assessment shall be conducted to determine potential environmental impacts resulting from each tract, change of zone,-plot plan, specific plan amendment, or any other discretionary permit required to implement the SPECIFIC PLAN, unless said proposal is determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental. assessments shall be prepared as part of the review process for these implementing projects. At a minimum, the environmental assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 11 :08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL %'`~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 9 SP - EA REQUIRED (cont.) (O addressed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the SPECIFIC PLAN. 30.PLANNING. 10 SP - SPECIAL STUDIES REQUIRED The following special studies/reports shall accompany implementing development applications in the planning areas listed below: Study / Report Planning Area a. Liquefaction and subsidence 9, 12, 15 & 16 b. Fault evaluation-study 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 & 17 j. Other (as determined by subsequent All Planning Areas environmental assessments) 30.PLANNING. 11 SP - MITIGATION MONITORING EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING An amendment to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), codified as Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, required the preparation of a program to ensure that all mitigation measures are fully and completely implemented. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the SPECIFIC PLAN, imposes certain mitigation measures on the project. Certain conditions of approval for the SPECIFIC PLAN constitute self contained reporting / monitoring programs for certain mitigation measures. At the time of approval of subsequent development applications, further environmental reporting / monitoring programs will be established to ensure that all mitigation measures are appropriately implemented. 30.PLANNING. 12 SP - COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Prior to the approval of any land division or development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.) containing any common areas identified in the specific plan, a condition of approval shall be applied to the land division or development permit to ensure that they are owned and maintained as follows: INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~ ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 \~,. J 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL Parcel: 952-230-008 30.PLANNING. 12 SP - COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE (cont.) a. A permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for the specific plan area, to assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for all common recreation, open space, circulation systems and landscaped areas. The organization may be public or private. Merger with an area-wide or regional organization shall satisfy this .condition provided that such organization is legally and financially capable of assuming the responsibilities for .ownership and maintenance. If the organization is a private association then neighborhood associations shall be established for each residential development, where required, and such associations may assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for neighborhood common areas. b. Unless otherwise provided for in these conditions of approval, common open areas shall be conveyed to the maintenance organization as implementing development is approved or any subdivision as recorded. 0 c. The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the first land division, or issuance of any building permit for any approved development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.). 30.PLANNING. 13 SP - GNATCATCHER CLEARANCE Prior to the approval of any land division or development permit within the specific plan which will disturb habitat occupied by the California Gnatcatcher, the land division and/or the development permit shall have conditions applied to them which require the following: O Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or recordation of any final map the applicant shall obtain written approval from the United States Fish and Wildlife. Service to "take" habitat occupied by the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Said approval shall be obtained through the initiation of a consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973; approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a 10 (a) Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973; or participation in the Natural Community Conservation Planning program established by the State of California. ' Page: 12 INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~IFIC PLAN Case#: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 \, i 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 14 SP - PARK & RECREATION FEES Prior to the approval of any residential land division or residential development application (e.g. use permit, plot plan, etc.) within any Planning Area, a condition of approval .shall be applied to the implementing project requiring that prior to any building permit final inspection the developer shall present certification to the County Planning Department that dedication and acceptance of improved land for park use to Riverside County Administrative Office for CSA No. 143 or similar entity authorized to accept park land. (Amended by Planning Commission on August 9, 2000.) 30.PLANNING. 15 SP - MEET PHASE CONDITIONS Prior to the approval of any implementing land division or development application, a condition shall be placed on that project requiring that, prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the construction of any use i_ contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the Riverside County Planning Department that all pertinent conditions of approval have -been satisfied for the specific plan for the phase of development in question. 30.PLANNING. 16 SP - PLANNING AREA LEGAL Prior to the approval of any land division or development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.) within the SPECIFIC PLAN, a condition of approval shall be applied requiring that, prior to the recordation of any final map or issuance of any building permit within a Planning Area of said specific plan, the first applicant, or their successor-in-interest, for a final map or building permit within each Planning Area shall submit to the Planning Department correct legal descriptions for the Planning Area(s) within which the proposed project is located. 30.PLANNING. 17 SP - SCHOOL MITIGATION Prior to the approval of any implementing development permit (use permit, plot plan, condition of approval shall be applied to development requiring that impacts to the (O Unified School District will be mitigated with California State law and the existing land division or etc.), a said implementing Temecula Valley in accordance school Page: 13 INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 14 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL _ 1 1cIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 17 SP - SCHOOL MITIGATION (cont.) mitigation agreement between the Temecula Valley Unified School District and Redhawk Communities, Inca All school sites shall meet the requirements of the requirements of the district. in terms of size, location, access, and absence from environmental constraint. (Amended by Planning Commission on August 7, 2000.) 30.PLANNING. 20 SP - SKR FEE CONDITION ~~ The SPECIFIC PLAN is located partially within the Riverside County Ordinance No. 663 fee area boundary. Prior to the approval of any implementing land division or development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.) which is within the Riverside County Ordinance No. 663 fee area boundary, the implementing project shall be conditioned to require that prior to the issuance of any grading permit, certificate of occupancy, or upon building permit final inspection, whichever comes first, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 663, which generally requires he payment of the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. The amount of the fee required to be paid may vary depending upon a variety of factors, including type of development application submitted and the applicability of any fee reduction or exemption provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance No. 663. In the event Riverside County Ordinance No. 663 is rescinded, this condition will no longer be applicable. However, should Riverside County Ordinance No. 663 be rescinded and superseded by a subsequent mitigation fee ordinance, payment of he appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance shall be required. 30.PLANNING. 26 SP - CC&R RES PUB COMMON AREA ( O Prior to the approval of any land division or development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.) containing any common areas identified in the specific plan, the following condition shall be applied to the land division or development permit if the permanent master maintenance organization referenced in the condition entitled "SP - COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE" is a public organization. The condition shall be .implemented prior to the recordation of any final subdivision map, or prior to the issuance of building permits in the case of development permits and shall read as follows: INEFFECT INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 15 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 26 SP - CC&R RES PUB COMMON AREA (cont.) INEFFECT The applicant shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all common open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessments, leases (recorded or unrecorded) and easement, except those easements which in the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As a condition precedent to the County accepting title to such areas, the applicant shall notify the Planning Department that the following documents shall be submitted to the Office of the County Counsel and submit said documents for review along with the current fee, which shall be subject to County Counsel approval: 1. A cover letter identifying the project for which approval is sought; 2. A signed and notarized declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; 0 3. A sample document, conveying title to the purchaser, of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference; and, 4. A deposit equaling three (3) hours of the current hourly fee for Review of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions established pursuant to County Ordinance No. 671 at the time the above referenced documents are submitted for County Counsel review. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common, and c) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall, if dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally ~~ accept from the County of Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of the 'common area', 03/19/01 08:52 Riverside County LMS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~CIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 Page: 16 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 26 SP - CC&R RES PUB COMMON AREA (cont.) (cont.)INEFFEC7 more particularly. described on Exhibit ' attached hereto. Such acceptance shall be through the president of the property owner's association, who shall be authorized to execute any documents required to facilitate transfer of the 'common area'. The decision to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. In the event that the 'common area', or any part thereof, is conveyed to the property owners' association, the association, thereafter, shall own such 'common area', shall manage and continuously maintain such 'common area', and shall not sell or transfer such 'common area' or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owners' O association shall have the right to assess the owner of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of - maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. This declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended, or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area' established pursuant to this Declaration. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and-the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved by the Office of County Counsel, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded by the Planning Department with one copy ~~ retained for the case file, and one copy provided to the County Transportation Department - Survey Division. 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 17 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL nCIFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 \~/~ 30, PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 27 SP - CC&R RES PRI COMMON AREA Prior to the approval of any land division or development permit (use permit, plot plan, etc.) containing any common areas identified in the specific plan, the following condition shall be applied to the land division or development permit if the permanent master maintenance organization referenced in the condition entitled "SP - COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE" is a private organization. The condition shall be applied prior to the recordation of any final map in the case of the land division, or prior to the issuance of building permits in the case of development permits and shall read as follows: The applicant shall notify the Planning Department that the following documents shall be submitted to the Office of County Counsel and submit said documents for review along with the current fee, which shall be subject to County Counsel approval: 1. A cover letter identifying the project for which approval is sought; 2. A signed and notarized declaration of covenants; conditions and restrictions; 3. A sample document, conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit, which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference; and, 4. A deposit equaling three (3) hours of the current hourly fee for Review if Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions established pursuant to County Ordinance No. 671 at the time the above referenced documents are submitted for County Counsel review. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common, c) provide for ownership of the common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common, and (d) contain the following provisions O verbatim: "Notwithstanding, any provision in this Declaration to INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 w3/0. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLRNNING. 27 SP - CC&R RES PRI COMMON AREA (cont.) ~O the contrary, the following provisions.shall apply: Page: 16 INEFFECT The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area' more particularly described on Exhibit ', attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area' or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. notice or The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the of assessment other document creating the assessment lien. This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended, or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area' established pursuant to this Declaration. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved by the Office of County Counsel, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded the Planning Department with one copy retained for-the case file, and one copy provided to the County Transportation Department - Survey Division. 30.PLANNING. 28 SP - PARK SITE "C" Park site "C" (Planning Area 31) shall include barbeque facilities, picnic facilities, or other amendities as shown O on specific plan park site exhibits. Park site "C" shall be offered for dedication and improved prior to 75th occupancy of the dwelling units in Planning Area INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 19 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ~ i~IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 30. PRIOR TO ANY PROJECT APPROVAL 30.PLANNING. 28 SP - PARK SITE "C" (cont.) 17. 30.PLANNING. 29 SP - PARK SITE "D" Park site "D" (Planning Area 32) shall include paseo buffer or other park and greenbelt area amenities as shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits. Park site "D" shall be fully developed prior to recordation of any final map in Master Phase III (Planning Areas 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and part of 2). ~/ TRANS DEPARTMENT 30.TRANS. 1 SP - SP217A1/ASSESSMENT DIST The Rancho Villages assessment is an integral component of the planning for this area. Prior to recordation of tract maps within this specific plan or any other project located within the assessment district, the final actions necessary for formation of he district must be completed. Should the assessment district fail for any reason, the project proponent shall be responsible for all of the road improvements to State Route 79 as well as the on-site improvements proposed by the district. 30.TRANS. 5 SP - SP217A1/TS/TS REQUIRED Site specific traffic studies will be required for all subsequent implementing projects within the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 217, Amendment No. 1, in accordance with Traffic Study Guidelines. Subsequent traffic studies shall monitor development within the specific plan and its associated trip generation. 100 O PRIOR TO ISSUE GIVEN BLDG PRMT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100.PLANNING. 3 SP - COUNT RES BUILD PERMITS This condition is applied to assist the Planning Department with tracking the build-out of the SPECIFIC PLAN by automatically counting all the issuance of all new residential building permits on the County's Land Management System which are electronically associated with the Specific Plan. INEFFECT INEFFECT MET INEFFECT INEFFECT 03/19/01 Riverside County LMS Page: 20 08:52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ~ IFIC PLAN Case #: SP00217A1 Parcel: 952-230-008 ~. 100. PRIOR TO ISSUE GIVEN BLDG PRMT 100.PLANNING. 4 SF -'PARK SITE "E" PARK PLANS O PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE 3,650th building permit within any planning area of the SPECIFIC PLAN, detailed park plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department and the County Service Area No. 143, or other entity set forth in the Planning Department's condition entitled "SP - Common Area Maintenance"-for the park site designated as Planning Area 33 (Park Site "E"). The detailed park plans shall conform with the design criteria in the specific plan document for Planning Area 33 and with the requirements of County Service Area No. 143, or other entity set forth in the Planning Department entitled "SP - Common Area Maintenance". The park plans need not be working drawings, but shall include landscape and irrigation plans, descriptions and placement of recreational facilities and documentation evidencing a permanent maintenance mechanism for the park and its facilities. 100.PLANNING. 5 SP-PARK SITE "E" CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE 3,750th building permit in any planning area of the SPECIFIC PLAN, the park designated as Planning Area 33 (Park Site "E") shall be constructed and fully operable. INEFFEC'f INEFFECT O ~!~ ~ ~o g d °o °o d o O~ z f- z W g O Z W P H N O Z g d V w LL r U W d N O a~ ar.::ua:a ,~ es:a~s:.ssa ° :piceeiiia5 ~L ~~~:~;GLA:: ~i "^•"•cssai :s 39 •a~ :~® ~ a 8 ~a~ ~ ~ 8 s~~~ N a ~ d ~°~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ g~~ ~~ ~~~ o Gi ~ ®. VAC VAC VAC VAC VAC V L V Y i V i f 6 1 I f1 M Y y 1 TR2920J TR294J2 TR291J4 PP16554 LAND USE E~.1 15 T8SR2W °®, 952-23 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ~ 1st a7°a' 979 N-8 0, A7/11/AO L°" CC ' e 120' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARIHENT VAC VAC GROVES ®. A-1-10 SP ZONE A-1-10 ~~ ;f 1° ~ 920' PROPOSED ZONING E_~~ 15 TRSR2W ~, 952-23 RANCHO CAL I~FORN I A ~ 1st 979 H-8 ~ 07/11/00 °~~" CC RIdERSfDE COUbTY PIARblb6 DEPARTdEaT ~~ ®. NOT COMM 2-4 a 1R2920J TR29432 TR297J4' PP15554 COMMUN I TY PLAN Ex.S 15 T>3SR2W ,~„ 952-23 ~, RANCHO CAL I FORK I A ~ ~sT s"®' 9y9 H-2 ~ 01/11/00 °°" CC p 9qa~ RIVERSIDE CDURTI' PIAkNIaG DEPARTNEbT SP 217 AG (10 AC MIN) l~ a~ ~ ~ •u ~~8 @~~ ~O ~g 2, q~l J~ J, ~;,fq~q a ,~ t i ~~~1t r ~s~~~~°8 o t 4 g 8 B U B B o '' ~ t 8,j ~ q 9°~ e ! !0 q q Ee t~ 1,'i(li Iq~ •Rpl ~Er! Q+I B ~ ! ~!! ['! 4 ~ ~ i gti~B, i'11 ~ !~ +le itiel iP°I. I ! E ~Bef ,° if ! e qq t e t ~if£ii~ f~et:lt s'~i tli~~ ~ ~l+E~j ~I ~ "~ti;l~ ~ f:ii g lil~ ~ tc~t ~ Lit ~,iP ' '' I E' E'i !,. ~ ~if { ~ ~ ~ it + Ef 't ~ .. ' ~( ~~ • c o ~ i`( E I {t ! o ~4~ ~'~ °I eltifff}~It ~ ij~~ " j ! ~+~! , i fit(, i~ll~~i ~ E,i~li~ttl~~"(+61~ e ~,lt t' tf !6 t life,+ll~eilull.e,t e '.tO ........., w ................ «t:et [nau, AA. blI'H71f . e ::> ~,~.1;r' ,~i_r:;;j 9'i d~ia: 6i ~ ~u~ i':rii iua i~;i! I-~9~~ ~ f _ `i Rj ~r.J f. j~. I x r.. ~~,~ al`. .. : Apr •a: Tq. aIi!~ ~'11~ j ~¢' , ~,-$~~ i 1~ • M1. S~` ~ t I• ra a%+ Ij I ,..rf ~•'~ na. 6i. ~ t ~'' a .Y•_..I ! 11L+/~ky~~;r . O ~(t u- ~ .~•, k. r fa \ a.~.. r I ( ''[ C 2a~;~t III a'.'-1y~ ~N W~0 `~AJ.Y'~ I, I.'.}1'i. ~.l ~~ •~I. li4lfJ~yi I~:~ •L •1'~~• `~ 0^ ~ ~ }[~,'i`_NfJLrl~]'}p, ~~ ~p ••~r~ CCi .. ~,:I IM^I .j~'4 t ,~ d~y ~, 'nits ~. .~ ~7S $~AA,. •j'J~nN ' :/~. itil Ili~l. j'* . I•~tl i~~\ j tt~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..1^ h y. • ~}~°~ _ c~ .~ t.~ . ; ~ ~ `~~r ~y~ : ~ 1 'f ~,: i,.+ l' ~ ii 11 111 din ~ ¢ a e~'. r 1 1 w a~e G4. L• I 1~~ }"t l ... S. I ~'f A•~,' IIl!1 ~~ fll~r I ~~ '+' •. : 5. ~~~'a' I::<!.. , • f) d "I III .i~'_'~• _..~ g .~ ,.~~. r ; ~i.. ,c,.r,y.: ,.~ a 'r rf:'.~i~ a ~'~:' .I~~Il~xr~llll SSA p~~j9 r.~'!`-•li` •'y'ji A t 9N .a \ ~nr .r. earl ~'r~ ..~F3 n+ R'~ .•I r. .~I `.:. .r IBIa 0 7'z j',•..l ili/. a >:., t N! ' I ' Hfll ~r _'~~q~'~ F 1..,~-N~~~'!_ a ~ ~c ~f '~~f'~.~'~ r ,: iii I~y~ pJ~. I ~~ r ! I fl ~ .6 1 f 41~r~,~~~~! '1`~d I ~jlK~ ./ .~ '.' jXI•Ai '~t1~~Vl •:1 `~l:r a1n ~.. • r r !'i. /,V`Ki.4: r r r y ~,,., I r.v„ - ~ ~+ ~ 11~a1~~;! ~. i~ ~~. IPA ~.. 16 I 1~~ i ..n \ ~•~r, ~/ 14 :\t` r'•1 ~r~t _~ Z ~vi- .~~•ii. ~`..~t ~/ ~~~ _ • r.i Ala .it .. tN~ y 1 \': i1' ~ Pa~ ,~ ~\. \}~~~~ ':rtj~ j~ '`..tjt rl ;art 1" ` i ~ IA' .. _ ': ,t ~~~~ .. J ~ ! ey! I P A fo ! i1~; ;1 \ ~ !ia jl .!„ ~ ~t t; M ~!A ~ ~ H 0 Z Ca z q Ws IF~I V ~ rT~ U_ k~i ~ 0. '~ i1 ~„ ~I i jig a - :~~~ -- !, ~; _ ~~ ~ :~~ N ~ ~. .'. ,~ ~ u ~' ~ cs ~ ~.. ~ .. -- --- '.._ i6 _ I ` ! ~ ,..) ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ ,.. ~. ~ ; ~ g ~ ~ Y _ ~ ~: -- ~ ^\~ - - --- ---------- --- ~~8 ~ ~~ -~~I ~ y NyM . Z ~ i V a ~:Q.P P ry f <~J.¢ 6 ~~LL <Z~< ~ s« 1 - / ~!~ N 3=` ~ ~$I _~ F= zdi ry k~ v ~ I ~~ I ~I< a ~~ O :' _ a ~~ ! ~~u ~ ~ ~tg~ ~~ ~ !ii ~! ,a„ t~ ~~ ,~O ,~ '°1 1 ~~ ~ o x a~ ~~ f.. e A~ m~ FrrT~T~~ U°< k~ ~ 6 M ~ 1 141 ® ~ ~' (~ ~. r- -/ n n J{ ~~ jJ~~ ~l.",'~ 1 j;,', .,.,1I i r--- '4 4 {L LL' y~N NN Ni Z°^'_~' rpa~ e~ _ n F <<<~ JJy~ . J~V'JLL dim K V' J: j<I42¢p<I iF iO ~6O ~JZ~h O n/~mq m~~ ~.O $m E~ m! a~ 3° ~ ~~ =a z= a V< n. g~ ~~n ~:;;! ~~„ ~i ,, O 1 O ,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ `~' o p ~, o~° p n S O i ~ r~ 7 kr7 F ~ k3{ 'L J A {~y it fi V ~ ,_` U ~~/{1 [i. ~{` d 1' i ~s ~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~n ~I ~I . j~ PNN n O. J~J H H~ ~O~ 8py yger m/fF C~ yd~/~~J ~v. dy/?¢J ~~py Qom!-~ Vd a ~~ ~~ o.~-d Q..~~ iO O a~ ~a F- Z~ ~: U< v v. ~< o. ~~ i~ ~• ~ STAT'c OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSP(. ~ .,ON qNp I{p~ISiNG AGENCY ~ GRAY OAVIg, Gpwrtenr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOW STRICT 8 W Fourth Street, 8~ Floor MS 728 rHONE (9091) 383-6327 01-1400 FAX (909) 383-8890 January 18, 2000 08-Riv-79-17.400 Mr. David Clayton Riverside County Planning Department 39493 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, CA 92563 Dear Mr. Clayton: SPECIFIC PLAN 217 Amendment 1 8~ TTM 29203 Thank you for sending us the Land Development Committee Meeting Agenda dated December 21, 1999 for the-above referenced project. We request consideration of the following comments: O 1. To implement efficient transportation planning, early coordination and consultation with Caltrans is recommended. The Planning Department should ensure that 'the proposed development complies with the County of Riverside Congestion Management Program currently in place. 2. Please. send a copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis to this office when ft becomes available. If you have any questions, please contact Romy Balanza, Development Reviewer, at (909) 383-6212 or FAX (909) 383-5936. Sincerely, `~Z~~~'<~`'urrcb~ LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Forecasting/ IGR/CEQA Review ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ 21 1000 =~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEpgpTMENT MU~?RIETA OFFICE iO ~" DEPARTMENT OF FISH AN' EastemSieaa-Inland Deserts Region 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 ngBeach, Califomia 90802 62)590-5113 .~~ 'W Ja 0 3 2D00 December30,1999 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MURRIETA OFFICE Mr. David Clayton, Project Planner Riverside County Planning Department Land Development Committee 39493 Los Alamos Road Murrieta, Califomia 82563 DearMr. Clayton: ~ Specific Plan 217 Amendment 9 Tentative Tract 29204 - EA 37826 Riverside County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunityto comment onthesbove-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the environmental document prepared forthese projects: 1. Acompleteassessmentofthefloraandfaunawithinandadjacenttotheprojedarea,with ~. ~ particularemphasisnpon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. Athoroughassessmentofrareplantsandrarenaturalcommunities,followingthe Department's May 1984 GuidelinesforAssessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. Acompleteassessmentofsensitivefish,wildlife, reptile, and amphibianspecies. Seasonalvariationsinuseoftheprojectareashouldalsobeaddressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day whenthe sensitive species are active orotherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meetthe Califomia Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). d. The Department's Califomia Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 327-5960to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant NaturalAreas identified under Chapter 12 ofthe Fish and Game Code. 2. Athoroughdiscussionofdirect,indirect,andcumulativeimpactsexpededtoadversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. (O a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge ofthe regional setting is critical to an assessmentofenvironmentalimpacts andthatspecialemphasisshould be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. f 9 Mr. David Clayton December30,1999 ~j Page Two `_ ' b. ~ Projectimpactsshouldbeanalyzedrelativetotheireffectsonoff-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance ofwildlife corridorlmovementsreas, including accessto undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. e. Thezoningofareasfordevelopmentprojectsorotherusesthatarenearbyor adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute towildlife-human interactions. Adiscussion ofpossible conflicts and mitigation measurestoreduce these conflicts should be included inthe environmental document. d. Acumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEDA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipatedfutureprojeas, should be analyzed relative totheirimpacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. e. The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completionand implementation ofregionaland/orsubregionalconservation programs. Under§2800-§2840oftheFish and GameCode,theDepartment, through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, is coordinating with localjurisdictions,landowners, and the Federal Govemmentto preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub isthe first natural communityto be planned for underthe NCCP program. The Department recommendsthatthelesd agency ensure thatthe developmentofthis and other proposed projects does not preclude long-term preserve planning options and that proiectsconformwithotherrequirementsoftheNCCPprogram. Junsdictions ~ participating inthe NCCPshould assess specificprojects forconsistencywiththe NCCP Conservation Guidelines. 3. A range of altematives should be analyzed to ensure that altematives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid orothenMSe minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative Locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivitywhere appropriate. a. Mitigation measuresforprojectimpactstosensitiveplants,animals,andhabitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of altemativeswhich avoid orotherwise minimize projectimpacts. Off-site compensationforunavoidable impactsthrough acquisition and protection ofhigh-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regionaland local significance. Thus,these communitiesshould be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts (Attachment a>. c. The Departmentgenerallydoesnotsupporttheuseofrelocation,salvage,and/or transplantation as mitigationtor impactstorare, threatened, orendangered species. - Departmentstudieshaveshownthattheseeffortsareexperimentalinnatureand largely unsuccessful. 4. ACalifomiaEndangered5peciesAct(CESA)Permitmustbeobtainediftheprojecthasthe iO potential toresultin"take"of species of plantsoranimalslistedunderCESA,eitherduring constructionoroverthelifeofiheproject. CESAPermitsareissuedtoconserve,protect, enhance, and restore State-listedthreatened orendangered species andtheirhabrtats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modificationto the proposed project and mitigation measures may be required in ordertoobtainaCESAPerrnit. RevisionstotheFish • and Game Code, effective January 1998, require thatthe Department issue a separate • f Mr. David Clayton December30,1999 ' Page Three CErT°`documentfortheissuanceofaCESAPermitunlesstheprojectCEQAdocument addresses all project impacts to listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting programthatwill meetthe requirements ofa CESA Permit. Forthese reasons, the following information is requested: a. Biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit. b. ADepartment-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan arerequiredfor plants listed as rare underthe Native Plant ProtectionAct 5. The Department opposes the elimination ofwatercoursesand/ortheirchannelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain theirvalue to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. a. The Department hasdirectauthorityunderFishandGameCode§1600etseq.in regardto any proposed activitywhichwould divert, obstruct, oraffectthe naturalflow orchangethebed,channel,orbankofanyriver,stream,orlake. Earlyconsultation is recommended since modification ofthe proposed project may be requiredto avoid orreduce impacts tofish andwildlife resources. b. Adiscussionofpotentialadverseimpactsfromanyincreasedrunoff,sedimentation, soil erosion, and/orurban pollutants on streams andwatercourses onornearthe projectsite, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts, must be O included. c. Agreements under Fish and Game Code § 1600, ffneeded, are required to be processed pursuantto CEQA, andthe Department recommends thatthedocument identify potential streambed/biological impacts, ifany, and provide adequate mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments sothata subsequentCEQA document does not have to be prepared forthe Department's issuance ofthe Streambed AlterationAgreement. The Department holds regularly scheduled pre-project planning/early consultation meetings. To make an appointment, please call ourregional office at (562) 590-5137. Thank youforthis opportunityto comment. Questions regarding this letter andfurther coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Raul Rodriguez, Fishery Biologist, at (909) 393-3965. Sincerely, ~ i~~ CurtTaucher ~ Regional Manager Attachments O cc: See attached list (, ~. -. Mr. David Clayton December30,1999 Page Four O cc: Mr.RaulRodriguez Department of Fish and Game Chino Hills, Califomia Mr. Jeff Newman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, Califomia Mr. Eric Stein U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LosAngeles, Califomia `O ~ O ~. ATTACHMEMT9 State of CaGfomia THE RESOURCES AGENCY Departrnent of Fish and Game May 4, 9984 , GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review envlronmenta[ documents determir y~Qe a botanical surveys needed, ~, o should be considered qua(Ified to conduct such surveys, j~{v field surreys shoe be conducted and ~a information should be contained in the survey report 9. t3otanica! surveys that are conducted fo determine the environmental effects of a proposed development shouic directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and endangered plants are not recess; linked to those spedes which have been °listed° by state and federal agendas but should include any spedes ti based an ail available data, can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions. A spedes, subspedes or variety of plant fs °endangered" when the prospects of ks survival and reproduction are immediate jeopardy form one or more causes, including loss of habkat, change In habitat, over~xplokafion, spedes, subspedesoor variety Is foundltnnsuch small numbers th9oughout ks range that k mayy be endangered H} environment worsens. Rare plant communriies are those communities that are of highly Ilmked distribution. These communkies mayor may not contain rare or erdangered spedes. The most current version bf the Calrfomia Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communkies 1n Cafrfomla may be used as a guide to the names of cammuNties. k ES appropriate to conduct a botaNcal field survey,to determine K, or the e~dertt that rare piarrts wQ! be affected tr proposedproJedwhen: ~ .. ... . • a Based on an Wtial biological assessment, k appeals fhaf rite proJed may tlatiiage poten9ai rare plant habkat; , b. Rare plants have historically. been kientified on the proJed ske; but adequate Information of impact assessment is lacking; or o. No)nitial biological assessment has been.conduded and k Is unknown whetfier or not rare plants ortheir habkat exist on the ske. 3. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of possession of the following quaffigtions (n order of importance): a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience In field sampling design and field methods; b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology, c. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare spedes; and d. .Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. 4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that maybe present Spedfically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be: O e• Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered spedes are both °evident" and identifiable Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coindde with known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods C~-~ 5. O oo'` - V - phenotogicaldevelopment that ere necessary to identify the plant spades of concern. b• Floristic fn nature. °Predidive surveys° (which predic! the occurence of rare spades based on the occurrence of habitat or other physical features rathef than actual field Inspection) should be reserved foF ecological studies, not for impact assessment. Everyspedes noted in the field should be Identified to the extent necessary to detertnlne whether K ES rare or endangered. c• Conducted N a mannerthat Is consistent with conservation ethics. Collection of rare or suspected rare ' e~stencevof the popu anon and in alxordanceewith appllpbje stateoand federal permft regulations. Voucher spedmens should tie deposited at recogn(zed public herbaria for future reference, pho~nrenued should be usedto document plant identification and habftat whenever possibie, but espedaii g phY - populationgnnotwithstandcoiledtonofvoucherapedmens. Ywhenthe d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in ail habitats of the site to ensure'e reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas. 8• Well documented. •When a rare or endangered plant (or rare plant community) is lopted, a Cafdomla Native Spades (or Community) Feid Survey Forth or equNafent written fomt should be completed and submitted to the yatural Dlversfty Data Base. • Reports of botanical field surveys should be Included in or with environmental assessments, negative declarations, EiR's and E1S's; should'contain the following information: e• Protect description, including a detailed map of the proJedJogtion and study area. - b• A written description of bloiogicai setting referendng the communfty nomenclature used and a vegetation map. •c• Detalleddescrtptienofsurveymethodology. d. Dates of fieldsurveys.•' '• •- - ~ .. - .. ®• Results of survey Qirdudtng detail-ed maps). • • - • . L. t: An assessment of potentiallmpacis 8• Discussion of the Mpartance of rare plant populaions with consideration of nearby populations and total spades distribution. . _ _ . • h• Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid.impacts. L List of all spades identified. 1• Copies of all California Nafive Spades Field Survey Fortes or Natural Cominuntty Feld Survey Fortes. ~- Name of field investigator(s). I• References dted, persons contacted, herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher spedmens. ~~ i ` arracHMENTa SENSi1MTy OF TOP PRlOF2fTY RARE NATURAL COMMUNfRES W SOUTHERN CALIFORNW° l dumber of known oxurtencas ~~ensttivtty rankings ere detemilne ~byoth' an~o~emourtt o hrat~tat rema~(ning (aereagea Th Data Base and based on ®thhet e nahrraf communities are as fo9ow~ klrtgs used for these to P prk S7. - Lass than 6 totown bcationa and/or on less than 2,000 saes of habtat remaWng. ~' Oxurs H 8-20 known bcaHons andlor2,006.40,000 saes of habitat remaining. S3. - Occurs In 21-400 latown bcaBons and/or 40,006,50,000 saes of habitat remaining. The number to the right of the dedmal point after the ranking refers to the degree of threat posed 4o the natural communfty regarcQ~s the ranking. For example: S1S ~ yervthreatened S2$ ~ re S3.~ ~ no curtent threats known • SensltlvltvRanklnas(February1992) Rank Community Name S1.4 Mojave Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Mesquite Bosque FJephant Trea Woodland • Crucifcdon Thom Woodland Alttttom Woodland • . Arizonan Woodland Southern Cafdomia Walnut Forest MainlartC Cherry Forest ' ~O Soutttem Blsltop pine Forest ~ Torrey Fine Forest• ' .Desert Mourttalrt White Fir Forest: - S4.a Southern Foredunsmn . • . Mono Pumice Fiat . Southern irttertor Basalt F4. Vernal Pod ~ 52.9 Venturan doastal Saga Scrub Diegan Coastal Saga Scrub Rlverstdi S band Coastal Sage Rtversldian Desert Sage Scrub Sagebrush Steppe Desert S1nk Scrub Mafic Soutttem Maed Chapartal San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. San Diego Mesa Gaypan Vernal P. Alkafi Meadow Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh Transmontane A1kaG Marsh S22 Active Coastal Dunes Active pesert Dunes Stab, end Part Stab. Desert Dunes Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Sandfield Mojave M&ed Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh S23 1 O CouHer Pine Forest S. CaGfomia FeQfield Southern Dune Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Seruli Hiaritime Succulent Saub Riversldean AOuvlal Fan Sage Scrub Southern MartSme Chaparta! Valiey Needlegrass Grassland Great Basin Grassland Mojave Desert Grassfattd • Pebble Ftahss _ So'uthem Sedge Bog . Ctsmontane /16o3fiMarsh Coastal and Valiey Freshvter Marsh . . S: Arroyti Wffiow Rlpadan Forest Southern 1NIDaw Scrub Modoo•G. Bas Caffom+'ood WIDoW RIp, Modoc-Great Basin Riparian Snub MoJave Desert Wash Suub Engelmann Oak Woodland Open Engelmann Oak Woodland Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland Island Iromvood Forest Island Cheny Forest S. Interior Cypress Forest Bigcone Spruce-Canyon Oak Forest White Mountains FeUfield Bristlecone Pine Forest Umber Pine Forest ELEiblg7dT RANKING ,~ ` . ......»» ................ GL013A1. RANKING ...»»..........................»...........»...........---- ».. tie global~ank (G•rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of en element throughout its global range. . ~ OR NATURAL COMMUNITY LEVEL . 1\m Lass than 6 viable EOa OR less 4han 9000 ir~vlduala OR less than 2000 acres. 2 Q 6-20 EOa OR 9000.3000 i~viduels OR 2000.90,000 ecrea. • 9 0 21-100 EOs OR 3000.10,000 Irsdvidusis OR 10,000.50,000 ecrea. 4 @ ApparanUy aecura; this tank is dearly lower than G3 but 4actors exist to cause same concern; i.e. there is sottte threat, or somewhat narrow habitat. 5 m Population or stand demonstrably Decors to ineradicable due to being commonly fovhd in tha'wotid. JBSAECIES LEVEL. _ ibspados receive a TKank attached to the G•raNt. With the subspecies, the G•rattk raflaeta the eo~tion of the entire ~acies. whereas the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies or wade it exempts: Chorizanthe robtrsta var, hertwegA. ~ - tis plant is ranked G2T1. Tha G-rank tefan to the whole species range i.e. Chorizantha robusta. Tha T rank refers only go a global condition of var. tiartivegiir: . ... ............................... ' STATE RANKING ...•......»..•».•«: to stale rank is assigned much the same.way as the global tank, except state ranks in CaGfomie ohan also contain a threat signaticn attached to the S-rank. • a Lass than 6 EOs OR lass than 1000 individuals OR less than 2000 acres • 51.1 s vary threatened 51.2 s threatened • 51.3 o no curcant threats known ~'~ ~20 EOs OR 1000-3000 individuals OR 2000-90;OOO.aciea' .• ~, J 52.1 .o vary threatened `:"cax.•• .~.~.: . 52..2 es threatened .. J,;n.t: ta;~•r;• ~~ ~. iY ~• ~ • p•...r; 29-900 S2~;~atoswrieritthieetufcnoYrri;~;~,,,~:.}'.:, _::..: _,:••;..: '. -~•.. ° EOs or 8000.90;000 i~vidt~aia'•OR'YO;dOG=50 000'.®cteit' ~ "~'i':~•` , 'i;:w~=x::R ~'- 53.1 ~~ vary threatened •' ; : ~- '. S3.2 a threatened - ~ ~ ' ' • • 53:3 a no currant threats knoam ~ ~ , APparanUy aecura within CaLfornla; thin rank t9 dearly lower than 53'but faetoro exist 4o cause some eonearn; i.e. there is soma threat, or somewhat narrow habitat NO 7}IAEAT RANK. . - Damonsvabiy aecura to Inoradieable in t:aGfomia. NO THREAT RANK. - ' .. . toe :..............«....»...... ......».« ~ .......«. ..........: ............._.... Other considerations used when ranking o 3.. Other symbols species or natural community include the pattern of distribution of the element on tho landscape, GH All atlas ere historical; the element has not bean fragmentation of the populationlsianda, end seen for at least 20 yearn but suitable habitat historical extent as contparad to its modern still exists (SH o All California piles ere range. It is important to take a bird's eye or historieall. aerial view when ranking sensitive elemonts GX All sites ere axtirpatod; this element Is extinct in rather than simply counting EOs. the wild (SX m All California sites are extirpated). Uncertainty about the rank of an element is oxpressod GXC Extinct in tho wild; exists in cultivation. major ways: G1 O The olement is ve rare, but there is a r~ ry taxonomic question essoeleted with It. BY expressing the rank es a range of values: ex. S253 means the rank is somewhere between 52 end 53. By adding n ~ to the rank: -~ NDDB rare communities R-5 Feb. 9892 Page 9 ~O ~O ToP Fdorily Rere Natural Communities From Regton FNe Code Number Location Few Records Name S1.1 Renk 21330 31200 Cts Southern Dune Scrub 32400 ~ Cis Cia Southern Coastal Scrub 32720 Cis Maritime Suaulent Scrub 37030 CI Riversldean Wluvlal pan Sage Scrub 42190 s y Southern Maritime Chaparral 43000 Cls D Vatley Nee~e9m~ Grassland 43777 es pes Y Y Great Basin Grassland 47000 ~ MoJaveDesertGrassland 51177 Cis Y Pebble Plains Southern Sedge Bog 52310 61700 ~ Ctg CismontaneAlkaGMarsh 61810 p~ p Mo ave Rt I parlan Forest 61820 ay Sonoran CoComvood Willow Riparian 75100 ~ Dey Des _ Y Mesquke Bosque 75200 Des ~' Elephant Tree Woodland " 7r~~ ~ Y Cruc ~on Thom Woo~and 75400 D~ Y AQdrom Woodland 81600 ~ Artzonan Woodland • 81820 .~ ~'• Southern Cadomia Walnut Forest . • ' '83122 - ~ Y R1er rfandCherryForest ' 83940 ~ ~ Southern B shap Pine Forest 85330 ®~ 1''; ~ Torrey Pine Forest DesettMountalnWhtteFirForesi S1.2 Rank 21230 ' 35410 C~ " ' Southern Foredunes _ 44310 pe, Cb Mono Pumice Flat Southern IntedorBasalt FL Vernal Pod S21 Rank • 32300 32500 Cis Y Venturan Coastal Saga Saub Cis Diegan Coastal Sage Saub 32730 Crs Y Riversidan Upland Coastal Sage Scr. 35300 Crs Y Riversidan Desert Sage Scrub 35120 Des Y Sagebrush Steppe 37122 pes Y Desert Sink Scrub 44321 Crs Y _ Mafic Southern Mixed Chaparral 44322 - Crs San Oiego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. 45310 Ce San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. 52120 D s A1kaG Meadow 52320 Crs Southern Coastal Satt Marsh 52470 Crs Coastal Brackish Marsh pes Transmontane A1kaG Marsh ~aaeo as either as (for asrnontane) or des (for desert) /- ~ -' s NDDB rare communities R-5 Feb. 9892 page 2 Coda Number Loea6on FewRecorda Name 61320 ~ Coastal end VaDey Freshwater Marsh • 63320 ~ S. Arroyo YVIDow Riparian Forest 61610 ' ~ Des SouthemlN~owSaub 63600 Des ModocG Bas Cotlomvood WIDowRip. 63700 Y Modoc•Great Basin Rlpadan Snub • ~ 71180 Oes Y MoJave Desert Wash Snub 71189 Cis Y Engeimann Oak Wood 71182 Gs Y Open Engelmann Oak Wood 71190 Cb Y Gosed Engelmann Oak Woodland 71210 (~ y bland Oak Woodland 81700 C}s CaGfomia Walnut Woodland 81810 C~ Y ~ island Ironwood Forest 83230 Cts island Cherry Forest 84150 Cis ~ S.IntedorCypressForest -Cis Y Sigcone Spruce-Canyon OaKForest S22 Rank 21100 22100 Cis .' Y Active Caastai Dunes 22200 peq. - Active Desert Dunes 22300 p~ Stab. andPart Stab. Desert Dunes . 34220 Des y Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Sand6eld • ~ ~ Oes Den Y R7oJave Mhed Steppe _. ~ 8 414D . s • Y .. - Trartsmarrtane.FtesfrxaterMarsh • 81930 - ~ , Y Coutf&PlneFaresx 81940 ~ Y - S. Cafdomla Fe95ek! . Qaa Y - Whose MountaGrs Fe86eid .~Ld ftenlC .; 86400 86700 Des Brfstiecane Plne Forest Des Y _ _ . Umber Pine Forest iO Dapa~r, January 4, 2000 6ii~~~' . David Clayton, Project Planner B,,,d,~~,91 County of Riverside ~,,,bawn, Planning Department- South County *~ 39493 Los Alamos Road ~^~~ Murrieta, CA 92563 ~.~ Lm D. Baemos SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY cee~p ~ 6eottaBirlel,~o . - -.~ PLANNING AREAS 9Z, 93, 95, 96, Zt), Z9, Z3, Z4 AND Zy ,arra~L,mw~er OF SPECIFIC Pl~4N a99 GeerQe L1. Waado - om~on: Dear Mr. Clayton: .Iehn s. 6amlQOr Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within GemlNaeenr the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water ~D :~ service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial I"°°°°"' artangements between RCWD and 4he property owner. E P.'eo!•Loaem OEenm dEo~aeaeinQ ~ma„GD,,,, If fire protection is required, the customer wi(f need to contact RCWD for °"aord0pintme D Matatmeam fees and requirements. Pam & l.eurh ~°°°~ Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing "°"°"•''°Qm° Di i 9 ~ an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, ff any, 40 N n ~enuM asuw 8n++a tl.ee,.. RCWD. ... ~ ABeLaa1 Csovtt Bast Beet D BrleQer LLP - G^°°'~°' If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. ' Development Engineering Manager oo~se:~eoonFO~ 2-Ct v'cF ~~~°°° ~ AN Q 6 2000 RIVERSIDE COUt~ PIAPAUFRIE'fP OpFICEM ~,~TD IC~~ ;~I]EI.®Pli/1~N7[' C®~I~1~I'~"~'IE]E . (~IlVITIAL CASE ACCEPTANCE) MEETING AGENDA (~~IERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIlVG DEPARTME ~ v Y 39493 Los Alamos Rood JAId 0 7 200~~ o =~ DATE: December 21, 1999 TO: Transportation (3) Environmental Health Flood Control District Fire Department (2) Building & Safety -Grading Regional Pazks & Open Space County Geologist Sheriff s Department Waste Mgmt Murrieta, CA 92563 Supervisor Buster Commissioner Roth Eastern Municipal WD Rancho Califomia WD Southern Califomia Edison Southern Califomia Gas General Telephone Temecula Valley Unified City of Temecula Valley-Wide Rec. and Pazk District RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MURRIETA OFFICE Califomia Dept. Of Fish and Game Caltrans #8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Postal Service/S.B. EIC (Attachment "A'~ . Elsinore-Murrieta-Anu Res.Con.Dist Redhawk Homeowners Assoc. Vail Ranch Homeowners Assoc. Joseph Toreno Specific Plan 297 Amendmen4 9, - EA 37826 - Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. -Rancho Califomia District - First Supervisorial District -Generally South of Highway 79, east of Butterfield Stage Road - 61.79 -Specific Plan (SP) MH density, Commercial, Open Space, Park °E° and School Site °B° Zone -REQUEST: Amend Planning .areas 12, 13, 95, 16, 20,21, 23, 24 and 27 of the Redhawk Specific Plan 217 to allow single-family detached divisions of patio homes, zeio-lot line ans Z-lot configurations. The amendment also proposes to change the { use for PA27, (recorded under TR23067-1) from commercial to amedium-high density and incorporate it into -A20. - APN: 952-230-008, -012 and -013 (Related Case(s): CZ6493, TR29203 and TR29432) Please review the case described above, along with the attached tentative map/exhibit. This item will be discussed onl/6/00, by the Land Development Committee. All County LDC Agencies and Departments, please have draft conditions in the Land Management System by the LDC date. if the exhibit cannot be cleared, please have LDC corrections in the System and DENY the routing. Once the route is complete, and the approval screen is approved with or without corrections, the case can be scheduled for a public hearing. Atl other agencies, please have your comments/conditions to the Planning Departmcnt as soon as possible, but no later than 14 days after the LDC date. Your comments/recommendations/conditions are requested so they may be incorporated in the staff report for this particulaz case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact David Clayton, Project Planner; at 909-600-6174. COMIvvIEN'fS: This property is not within our district boundaries. The development, however, should be conditioned to pay park fees to the appropriate agency providing park and recreation services in this area and set up a Landscape Maintenance District to maintain park areas and streetscapes. f~ DATE: 1- 6 - 00 SIGNATURE: PLEASEPRIIVTNAMEANDTTI-LE: Samue W. oepp, General Manager TELEPHONE: 909-654-1505 If you do not use this Letter for your response, please indicate the project planner's name. Thank you. ® 'A~1~' ,,1 y y~y~, y~~y~ ,9VT A~ \ ~L Dl V lti' ~~~~~®!L ~~Jl' V ~ ~®dv~ 911 ll ~ ~~ . •a;~`I'idITIAL CASE ACCEPTANCE) MEETIlVG AGEIVI~A . ~tI~1ERSIDE COUNTY PLANIVIlVG I~EPARTIV[ENT-SOUTH COUI~ITY ' 39493 Los Alamos Roadl Harriers, CA 92563 DATE: December 21,1999 TO: Transportation (3) Environmental Health Flood Control District Fire Department (2) Building & Safety -Grading Regional Pazks & Open Space County Geologist Sheriff s Department Waste Mgmt Supervisor Buster Commissioner Roth Eastern Municipal WD Rancho Califomia WD Southern Califomia Edison Southern Califomia Gas General Telephone Temecula Valley Unified City of Temecula Valley-Wide Rec. and Pazk District Califomia Dept. Of Fish and Garr Caltrans #8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Postal Service/S.B. EIC (Attachment "A") Elsinore-Harriers-Anna Res.Con.Dist Redhawk Homeowners Assoc. Vail Ranch Homeowners Assoc. Joseph Torano Speclflc Plan 217 Amendmen4 9, - EA 37826 - Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. -Rancho Califomia District - Flrst $upervisorial District -Generally South of Highway 79, east of Butterfield Stage Road - 61.79 -Specific Plan (SP) MH density, Commercial, Open Space, Park °E° and School Site °B° Zone -REQUEST: Amend Planning areas 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 of the Redhawk Specific Plan 217 to allow single-family detached roisions of patio homes, zero-lot line axis Z-lot configurations. The amendment also proposes to change the ~~use for PA27, (recorded under TR23067-1) from commercial to amedium-high density and incorporate ft into PA20. - APN: 952-230-008, -012 and -013 (Related Case(s): CZ6493, TR29203 and TR29432) Please review the case described above, along with the attached tentative map/exhibit. This item will be discussed onl/ti/00, by the Land Development Committee. All County LDC Agencies and Departments, please have draft conditions in the Land Management System by the LDC date. If the exhibit cannot be cleared, please have LDC correcdons in the System and DENY the routing. Once the route is complete, and the approval screen is approved with or without corrections, the case can be scheduled for a public hearing. All other agencies, please have your corriments/conditions to the Planning Department as soon as possible, but no later than 14 days after the LDC date. Your comments/recommendadons/conditions are requested so they maybe incorporated in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regazding this item, please do not hesitate to contact David Clayton, Project Planner, at 909-600-6174. COMMENTS: Jvo Co,,.,~.,.,~y,~ ~-~ -64:s ~:w.e . \O DATE: r- ~h/- 00 SIGNATURE: ~~ fit- PLEASE PRINT NAME AND TTk-I-E: ~.G:CScI.~., ~ CNrws=+- "gC 'J ~~ ~'. I' TELEPHONE: ~.ge>2) 533- e[3 ®'? ,. (*IIV;TIAL CASE ACCEPTANCE) MEET'IlVG AGENDA ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT-SOUTH COUNTY • 39493-Los Alamos Road MulTieta, CA 92563 DAIS: December 21, 1999 TO: Transportation (3) Env'uonmental Health flood Control District Fue Department (2) Building & Safety -Grading Regional Pazks & Open Space County Geologist Sheriff's Department Waste Mgmt Supervisor Buster ~ Conunissioner Roth Eastern Municipal WD Rancho California WD Southern CalifomiaEdison Southern California Gas General Telephone Temecula Valley Unified City of Temecula Valley-Wide Rec. and Park District California Dept. Of Fish and Game Caltrans #8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Postal Service/S.B. EIC (Attachment "A'~ Elsinore-Murrieta-Anna Res.Con.Dist Redhawk Homeowners Assoc. Vail Ranch Homeowners Assoc. Joseph Torano Specific Plan 217 Amendment 9, - EA 37826 - Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. -Rancho California District - First Supervisorial District -Generally South. of Highway 79, east of Butterfield Stage Road - 61.79 -Specific Plan (SP) MH density, Commercial, Open Space, Park °E° and School Site °B° Zone -REQUEST: Amend Planning areas 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 oi.the Redhawk Specific Plan 217 to allow single-family detached bdivisions of patio homes,~zero-lot line ans Z-lot configurations. The amendment also proposes to change the ~d use for PA27, (recorded under TR23067-1) from commercial to amedium-high density and incorporate k into `~rA20. - APN: 952-230-008, -012 and -013 (Related Case(s): CZ6493, TR29203 and TR29432) Please review the case described above, along with the attached tentative map/exhibit. This item will be discussed onl/6/00, by the Land Development Committee. All County LDC Agencies and Departments, please have draft conditions in the Land Management System by the LDC date. If the exhibit cannot be cleared, please have LDC corrections in the System and DENY the routing. Once the route is complete, and the approval screen is approved with or without corrections, the case can be scheduled for a public hearing. All other agencies, please have your comments/conditions to the Planning Departrnent as soon as possible, but no later than 14 days after the LDC date. Your comments/recortunendations/conditions are requested so they maybe incorporated in the staff report for this particulaz case. Should you have any questions regazding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Davld Clayton, Project Planner, at 909-600-6174. COMIvIENTS: ° ~o-T ,~i~S ~~~ ~ ~~ - ~,v~€R ~:D~roF- {~r~2 ¢,~Aj cs•Fjss6ec/~L TA ~ ~D•-hf/ ~/~'~f•~9`L . ~?~ ~~.sr~~~,4/:fC P~i.LiJL>~s 1.1~G9~L ~M~y~'z~ oPPc,~a ~rvii ids: i0 DATE: SIGNATURE: PLEASE PRINT NAME AND T1TL.E: TELEPHONE: If you do not use this letter for vour response, please indicate the project planner's name. Thank you. Januarys, 2000 ~~ U i~~~l~J~~LiI l7 ~LS L'~IS ll ilni9ied ~cP-ooB ®isfielc4 SUPERINTENDENT Dodd B. Aarten Mr. Steve Ford wce president Operations The Garrett Group, B.LC 43529 Ridge Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ~O fO Re: Schoo/SlteB Specifrc Plan 819 Dear Mr. Ford: ---~ --- S W WD OF EtwU170N Pool SmJN t~ Rieiwd Shafer Ed Ella Jorryllobbr Hama Bartw¢ Tooho Nan4~ This letter confirms our recent discussions regazding a futttre elementary school site south of Highway 79 near Butterfield Stage Road. As you ]mow from our disetusions, our District's FacIlities Master Plan includes an elementary school south of Highway 79 near Butterfield Stage Road (referred to for several yeas is our Master PLw as Redhawk III Elementary). This school nn'll be needed to serve the dwelling units at the eastern end of We south of Highway 79 region of our District Other existing elementary schools south of Highway 79 (Redhawk, Pauba Valley, and Helen Hunt Jackson- located is the western and central portions of the region) have sufficient capacity for the existing numbs of south of Highway 79 dwelling uniu, but as addition dwelling units are comtructed oven the next few ycan, the eastern cad school wID be needed to prevent school overcrowding and long distance tnasportation of students. On December 22, 1999, you and I toured various sites is as effort to identify viable sites for this future easttrn elementary school The sites that seemed most worthy of further study were the fotlowiag: 0 5peeifie Plan 2l7 (Redhawk), Planning Area 21 (Redhawk Pazkwayfl'ehaehapi Pass) o • proposed Specific Plan 313 (Morgan HilUFlighpointe), Planning Area 7 (elementary school site, if Specific Plan nppmved) Because there are at least two potential sites that can be studied further, our District wall not seek to acquire a school site within Tentative Tract Map No. 29203. However, we request that in any future reallocation of special tan obligations, such as the County Assessment District, the ability to retain a future elementary school site free and eleaz~f the Assessment District obligation is ptYServed Dave Gallaher Duector of Facilities Services cc: David Allmea David Jenkins David Clayton, Projett Planner, Riverside County Planning Dept. t- ~ n1 IC.~T~ IC~a:~IIE]L®PIV~]EI~T'~' ~®fi/alo~~7["~IEIE (*IIVITIAY. CASE ACCEP'TAIVCE) M[EETIlVG AGENDA • - ~~I~IERSIDE COUNT'' PLANNIl~IG DEPARTIVlEN'T-SOUTH COUNTY . 39493 I,os Alamos Road ~~,~~~~® Murrieta, CA 92563 c~ ~• ~`~~'~'` DATE: December 21, 1999 ~2°~~° ~~ ~ TO: . Transportation (3) Environmental Health Flood Control District Fire Department (2) Building & Safety -Grading Regional Pazks & Open Space County Geologist Sheriff s Department Waste Mgmt Supervisor Buster Commissioner Roth Eastern Municipal WD Rancho (-alifomia WD Southern Califomia Edison Southern Califomia Gas General Telephone Temecula Valley Unified City of Temecula Valley-Wide Rec. and Pazk District California Dept. Of Fish and Gatae Calttans #8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Postal Service/S.B. EIC (Attachment "A'7 Elsinore-Murrieta-Anna Aes.Con.Dist. Redhawk Homeowner Assoc. Veil Ranch Homeowners Assoc. Joseph Torano Specific Plan 217 Amendmen4l, - EA 37826 - Hunsaker 8 Associates Irvine, Inc. -Rancho Califomia District - First Supervisorial District -Generally South of Highway 79, east of Butterfield Stage Road - 61.79 -Specific Plan (SP) MH density, Coriimercial, Open Space, Park °E° and School Site °B° Zone -REQUEST: Amend Planning s 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 of the Redhawk Specific Pian 217 to allow single-family detached 1 iv~sions of patio homes, aero-lot line ans Z-lot configurations. The amendment also proposes to change the `, d use for PA27, (recorded under TR23067-1) from commercial to amedium-high density and incorporate R in4o PA20. - APN: 952-230-008, -012 and -013 (Related Case(s): CZ6493, TR29203 and TR29432) Please review the case described above, along with the attached tentative map/exhibit. This item will be discussed onU6/00, by the Land Development Committee. All County LDC Agencies and Departments, please have draft conditions in the Land Management System by the LDC date. ff the exhibit cannot be cleared, please have LDC corrections in the System and DENY the routing. Once the route is complete, and the approval screen is approved with or without corrections, the case can be scheduled for a public hearing. All other agencies, please have your comments/conditions to the Planning Department as soon as possible, but no later than 14 days after the LDC date. Your comments/recommendations/conditions are requested so they maybe incorporated in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact David Clayton, Project Planner, at 909-600-6174. COM~N'IS: (O DATE: SIGNATURE: PLEASE PRINT NAME AND TITLE: TFt Fvunt~tt=~ BERT ®Y~UCR +- 5-AO :1A~35AM ARCH RESEARCM~"1T~ 8A9 8AA 614A:a 4 ~'b~Ll(~~RRiYrea f a(SY®RiC~,~ ~1f=EDU~~g~ a~~~i~l~~,~la~ ~V~gi:R/i c~°~,'~C1IJ~11L IE8]E~®1[T1f8~+ ~+~+'~ DA'V'E: January 3, 2W0 Qmtem Intonnatlott t~sster 9opo+~nerx of Anavo®ett>eY dMroraay of Cefdornd Rkorside, Ca 82621~9A ''none (sosl yata',cs F~ g'C9) 7n-faos &tE: Case Transtaittal Vtefereace Design8lion;~ SP 217A1~TR 24203•-gA 39t126 Accords at the Eastern Yafortnetioa Center of the California historical Resources Vnformation System have been reviewed to determine if this'project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resotucea: _ The prepaaed prof ect area bas sot been surveyed for cultural reaourcea and eontaim or ie adjatent ro known cultural reaoutce(s). A Phase I study ), reeotamended. Based upon wcieting data the proposed project area has the poreariel for containing cultural reeouxea, A Fhese Y amdy;e xcrmemended d A Fhaae I cultural reaonree amdy (1vfF G ) identlRed one or more cultural xsouxeo. lO the projett ores eoataine, or hna the pocsibiliry of containing, cultural reaooreea. Yiowever, due m the name . of see project or prior data recovery studies, as adverse effect on CceltuN tesoaree6 is sot aatieipared Farther study is rat reeotnmeaded. A Y'hase Y cultaral rosouree study (~ Sk231 and hIF N479 [part of larger projecu]) idet+tified so cultneal xaoureea. Further study !a sot mcommended. ._ 17tatn to a low probability of eciltnral xsotstea, Further amdy is sot reeommsndnd. ~ If, during eonattucdon, cultaral ecaouxes are enconniered, work should be halted or diverted fa the immediate axe while a quali£efl'ruchaeologiat evaluates the finds and makes nacommendatlotts. _ Dne to the archaeological aeanitivtry of the axe, earthmoving during eonstttutios ahonld be mopitered by a professional atehaeologiat. _ the aubiafaaion of a cultural xaource manegcment report is recommended 4ollowirg gufdeliaea for Atehieologiea! Resource Managemeac Reports prepared by the California l)ffiee of liiatoric presavetion, Pressrvcr[on PiannDtg BuiiarLt 4(0), December 1989. F!•roo 8 $esoida oeorch and Sold aua`ey ' Paesa II Teadaa (Erduete emourea d6atftcma: yroporc mldgndoa moaww for °dgaeeanP ohaa.l - . s POmo ~ tAdgadoo IDam recovery ar uea.udon, proeorvadua !a pfae4 or o eombtaaaoa of !5a eva.) w a9cw IV tataeaor oormmovtnp mtlvmoe COI-~1V'IS: ( O If you have any questions, please eoatace us. P~atern Iaformadoa Center M ~~ ~~ SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM County Counsel {Sow, W~ ~~~ ~~ S S 0 0 < < m m < < v 1TI O O 0 a m U 0 I Y 0 m W a o° a° Executive Office SUBJECT Resolution 2001-74 and Ordinance No. 348.3984 RECOMMENDED MOTION That the Boazd of Supervisors adopt Resolution 2001-74 and Ordinance No. 348.3984. BACKGROUND Change of Zone Case No. 6493 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December .19, 2000 which amended the zoning ordinance text for Specific Plan No. 217 Amendment No. 1. The attached resolution incorporates Amendment No. I in Specific Plan No. 217 and the specific plan zoning ordinance is amended by 348.3984 for Specific Plan No. 217 Amendment No. I, as approved by the Boazd of Supervisors, which is also attached. KWB:Itb cc: Aleta Laurence, Planning Director C.E.O, RECOMMENDATION: ~~~~Od~ SUBMITTAL DATE February 21, 2001 Deputy County Counsel MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion of Supervisor Wilson, seconded by Supervisor Tavaglione and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above matter is approved as recommended. Ayes: Buster, Tavaglione, Venable, Wilson and Mullen Noes: None Gerald A. M on y Absent None Clerk o t e o d Date: February 27, 2001 By: xc: Planning, Appli~ant, COB, Co.Co., BPC Deputy Prev. Agn, ref. 3.78 (12/19/00); 3.31 (11/7!00) FORM 1tA (Rev. 7193) Dist. 1 ~ AGENDA NO. e' ~ ~4,~ ~ e ~~,11/I 8 1 ~_ 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 `QS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 0 LL Board of Supervisors County of Riverside RESOLUTION N0.2001-74 ADOPTING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SPECIFIC PLAN N0.217 (REDHAWIt7 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 6S4S0 et seg•, a public hearing was held before the Riverside County Boazd of Supervisors in Riverside, California on November 7, 2000, December 12, 2000, and December 19, 2000 and before the Riverside County Planning Commission in Marietta, California on August 9, 2000, August 23, 2000 and September 13, 2000, to consider Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 217 (Redhawk), which specific plan was adopted by the Boazd of Supervisors pursuant to Resolution No. 88-473 (dated October 6, 1988); and, WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County Rules to Implement the Act have been met, and Environmental Assessment No. 37825, prepared in connection with Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 217 and related cases (referred to alternatively herein as "the proposed amendment" or "the project"), is, when considered in conjunction with previously prepazed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 226 and the Addendum thereto, sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above-referenced Act and Rules; and, WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public and affected government agencies; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Boazd of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on February 27, 2001, that: 1. The proposed amendment would enlazge Planning Area 20 from 41.5 to 53.3 acres by - expanding its boundaries to include the S.2-acre Commercial Site "C" (Planning Area 27) and 6.6 acres of School Site "B" (Planning Area 23) and by redesignating that acreage accordingly. 2. The proposed amendment would enlazge Park Site "E" (Planning Area 33) from 12.0 acres 1' t m ~ ~y 1 n2 ~-!l3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~~5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ^ 7 { 8 to 15.0 acres by expanding its boundaries to include the remaining 3.0-acres of School Site "B" (Planning Area 23) and by redesignating that acreage accordingly. 3. The proposed amendment would change the location of and reduce the size of existing School Site "C" (Planning Area 24) by incorporating it into Planning Area 2 and designating the 9.5-acre Jackson Helen Hunt Elementary School that was constructed in Planning Area 2 as the new School Site "C". 4. The proposed amendment is associated with Change of Zone Case No. 6493, Tentative Tract Map No. 29203, Tentative Tract Map No. 29432, and Plot Plan No. 16554 which were considered concurrently at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Change of Zone Case No. 6493 proposes to amend the development standazds for Planning Areas 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 21 to allow the types of residential development proposed by Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 217. Tentative Tract Map No. 29203 is a request to divide 31.8 acres into 137 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of.5,000 square feet. Tentative Tract Map No. 29203 includes the southern portion of reconfigured Planning Area 20. Tentative Tract Map No. 29432 is a request to divide 39.3 acres into a 22-lot planned residential development subdivision of 180 condominium units. Tentative Tract Map No. 29432 includes the northern portion of reconfigured Planning Area 20 and the western portion of reconfigured Planning Area 33 (Pazk Site "E"). Plot Plan No. 16554 would implement Tentative Tract Map No. 29432 and proposes a site plan, floor plans and elevations for the 180 residential condominium units (60 triplex buildings) and would also include one common recreation azea, private streets, and 22.6 acres of open space in the Temecula Creek portion of the tract map boundaries. 5. The proposed amendment would be consistent and compatible with the existing adjacent land uses within the specific plan. _ 6. Environmental Assessment No. 37825 concluded that the proposed amendment would necessitate some changes in or additions to EIR No. 226, but none sufficient to necessitate the preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement thereto. Accordingly, an Addendum to EIR No. 226 was prepared. 2 I ~2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~~15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~7 ~ 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Boazd of Supervisors that: 1. The proposed amendment would be consistent with the intent, design and mitigation approved for Specific Plan No. 217. 2. The proposed amendment would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Southwest Area Community Plan. 3. The proposed amendment would not have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has reviewed and considered EIR No. 226 and the Addendum thereto, in evaluating Amendment No. I to Specific Plan No. 217, that the EIR and Addendum aze accurate and objective statements that comply with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and reflect the County's independent judgment, and that the EIR and Addendum are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it CERTIFIES the Addendum I to EIR No. 226. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 217, on file with the Clerk of the Board, including the final conditions of approval and exhibits, is hereby adopted as the Amended Specific Plan of Land Use for the real property described and shown in the plan, and said real property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plan, as amended, unless the plan is repealed or further amended by the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that copies of Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 217 shall be placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Boazd, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Building and Safety Director, and that no applications for subdivision maps, conditional use permits or other development approvals shall be accepted for the real property described and shown in the plan, as amended, unless such applications are substantially in accordance therewith. _ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the custodians of the documents upon which this decision is based aze the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Department and that such documents are located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, Califomia. \ ro c T6= t~repolrp b eer4fled to 6e n hve g: p p rtyUlbU;al\sp raolutionsl2001-74 sp217al.bos resotutlon d rf o Roll Call: vtw;~,l:-,;. Ayes: Buser, Tavaglione, Venable, Wilson and Q7ulle _ Noes: None 3 L, ____ ~ ~~ y 2-27-01 Absent: None f~ 1 2 J 3 4 {~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE N0.348.3984 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0.348 RELATING TO ZONING The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows: Section I . Section 17.45 of Ordinance No. 348 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 17.45 SP ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN II N0.217 a. Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18 and 19. . (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,14, 17, 18 and 19 of Specific PIanNo.217 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. (2) The development standards for Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18 and 19 ofSpecific PIanNo.217 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the development standards set forth in Article VI, Section 6.2.a., b., c., d., e.(1), e.(4) and g. shall be deleted and replaced by the following: A. Building height shall not exceed hvo stories with a maximum height of thirty-two feet (32'). B. Lot area shall be not less than four thousand five hundred (4,500) squaze feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. C. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a building site shall be forty feet (40') with a minimum average depth of eighty-five feet (85'). That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20'). D. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be forty feet (40~ except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of twenty feet `~O ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (20')- E. The front yazd shall be not less than eighteen feet (18') measured from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure. F. Fireplaces and roof eaves may encroach two feet (2') into side yazd setbacks. No other structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, rear or side year except as provided for in Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the following standazds shall also apply: AA. Where a zero-lot line design is utilized, the alternate side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10'). BB. The minimum building sepazation, excluding permitted encroachments into required setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet (] 0'). (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348. b. Planning Areas 6, 9 and 11. (I) The uses permitted in Planning Areas 6, 9 and 11 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. (2) The development standazds for Planning Areas 6, 9 and 11 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the same as those standazds identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the development standards set forth in Article VI, Section 6.2.a., b., c., d., e.(1), e.(4) and g. shall be deleted and replaced by the following: A. Building height shall not exceed two stories, with a maximum height of thirty-two feet (32'). B, Lot azea shall be not less than three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet. The minimum lot azea shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. C. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a 2 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~O 28 building site shall be forty feet (40') with a minimum average depth of eighty-five feet (85'). That portion of a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20'). D. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be forty feet (40') except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of twenty feet (20'). E. The front yard shall be not less than eighteen feet (18~ measured from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is neazer the proposed structure. F. Fireplaces and roof eaves may encroach two feet (2') into side yard setbacks. No other structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, rear or side year except as provided for in Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the following standards shall also apply: AA. Where azero-lot line design is utilized, the alternate side yazd shall be not less than ten feet (10'). BB. The minimum building separation, excluding permitted encroachments into required setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet (10'). (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as those requirements identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348. c. Planning Areas 12, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 21. (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas 12, 13, I5, 16, 20 and 21 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VIII, Section 8.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 8.1.a. shall also include noncommercial community association recreation and assembly buildings and facilities. (2) The development standards for Planning Areas 12, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 21 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the same as those standazds identified in Article VIII, Sections 3 ~~ 4O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the development standards set forth in Article VIII, Section 8.2.a., b., and c. shall be deleted and replaced by the following: A. The development standazds for attached and detached single family dwellings shall include the following standazds: 1. The minimum lot azea shall be four thousand five hundred (4,500) squaze feet. The minimum lot azea shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site. 2. The minimum width of a lot shall be thirty-five feet (35') with a minimum depth of seventy-five feet (75'). 3. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be thirty-five feet (35'), except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage oftwenty-five feet (25'). Lot frontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone development standards. 4. The front yazd shat l be not less than ten feet (] 0'), measured from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any specific plan of highways, whichever is neazer the proposed structure. 5. The rear yard shall be not less than ten feet (] 0'). 6. Side yards shall be not less than five feet (5') in width. 7. Where a zero lot line design is utilized, the alternate side yazd shall not be less than ten feet (] 0') in width. 8. Chimneys and fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into side yards a maximum of two feet (2'). No other structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, rear or side yazd, except as provided for in Section 18.19 of Ordinance No. 348. B. The development standards for multiple family dwellings shall include the following standards: The minimum lot area shall be seven thousand, two hundred (7,200) square feet with a minimum average width of sixty feet (60') and a minimum average depth of one 4 1 hundred feet (100'), unless different minimums aze specifically required in a particulaz area. 2 2. The minimum front yazd shall be five feet (5') measured from any existing or 3 future street line as shown existing or future street line as shown on any specific street plan 4 of the County. 5 3. The minimum reaz yard shall be not less than ten feet (10') measured from the 6 existing reaz lot line. If the reaz lot line adjoins a street, the reaz yazd shall be measured from - 7 any existing or future street line as shown on any specific street plan of the County. 8 4. The minimum side yard shall be ten feet (10'). 9 5. Building separation shall be not less than ten feet (10'). 10 6. No structural encroachments shall be pemutted in the front, rear or side yazd 11 except as provided in Section 18.19 or Ordinance No. 348. 12 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 13 those requirements identified in Article VIII of Ordinance No. 348. 14 d. Planning Areas 22 and 24. lO IS (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas 22 and 24 of Specific Plan No. 217 16 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348. In 17 addition, the permitted uses specified in Section 6.1.a. shall also include public schools. 18 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas 22 and 24 of Specific Plan No. 19 217 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VI, Section 6.2 of Ordinance 20 No_ 348, except that the development standard set forth in Section 6.2.g. shall be deleted. 21 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 22 those requirements identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348. 23 e. Planning Areas 25 and 26. 24 (I) The uses permitted in Planning Areas 25 and 26 of Specific Plan No. 217 25 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article IXb, Section 9.50 of Ordinance No. 348. 26 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas 25 and 26 of Specific Plan No. O 27 217 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article IXb, Section 9.53 of Ordinance 28 5 1 No. 348. 2 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 3 those requirements identified in Article IXb or Ordinance No. 348. 4 f. Planning Area 28. 5 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 28 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the 6 same as those uses permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance No. 348. In 7 addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 8.1 OO.a. shall also include undeveloped 8 open space, bike trails, equestrian trails, and retail nurseries and wholesale nurseries. 9 (2) The development standazds for Planning Area 28 of Specific Plan No. 217 10 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VIIIe, Section 8.101 of Ordinance 11 No. 348. 12 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 13 those requirements identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348. 14 g. Planning Areas 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. QO 15 d i i 1 Th i Pl A 29 30 1 if e uses perm tte ann ng reas ic ( ) n , , 3 , 32, 33, 34 and 35 of Spec 16 Plan No. 217 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of d7 Ordinance No. 348. In addition; the permitted uses identified under Section 8.100.a. shall 18 also include public pazks. 19 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 20 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VIIIe, 21 Section 8.101 of Ordinance No. 348. 22 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 23 those requirements identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348. 24 h. Planning Area 36. 25 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 36 of Specific Plan No. 217 shall be the 26 same as those uses permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance No. 348. 27 (2) The development standards for Planning Area 36 of Specific Plan No. 217 4 28 6 ] shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VIIIe, Section 8.101 of Ordinance n 2 No. 348. ~J 3 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 4 those requirements identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348. 5 Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. 6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TIC COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 By 9 azrman, Board o Supervisors 10 ATTEST: ~ James A. Venable 11 GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board 12 13 BY epu 14 O 15 16 17 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT 18 COUNTY COUNSEL February 21, 2001 19 21 Karin Watts-Bazan _ ,~ Deputy County Counsel 22 23 24 25 26 p~op4eUcwb~ipzoninglcp 2I'/ 082900 O 27 ~.- 28 7 ree s r zam ~.to`~ (~ REDHAWK (FORARERLY WOLF vAH,LEY) AT RANCHO CA&%FORNIA SPECYFYC PY.AN NO. 217 AND FYNAY. ENVIR0N11RENTAY. HARPACT REPORT NO. 226 SCH. N0. 87031614 Presented to: RIVERSIDE COUATTY PI.AlUNING DEPARTHdENT County Administrative Center, Ninth Floor 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, California 92501 Prepared for: GREAT AH~iERYCAN DEVEY.OPHdEN2~ COHHPANY 28910 Rancho California Road Temecula, California 92390 ~O Prepared by: RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION 27780 Front Street, Suite 9 Temecula, California 92390 and THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite R-1 Costa AResa, California 92626 July, 1988 Revised by: IiUNSAI{ER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. 2900 Adams Street, Suite A-15 Riverside, CA 92504 O February 27, 2001 P~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page. I. SUMMARY 1 A. Project Summary 1 1. Location and Description 1 2. Market Objectives 3 B. EIR Summary 5 1. Environmental Setting 5 2. Impact and Mitigation Matrix 7 II. SPECIFIC PLAN 22 A. Specific Land Use Plan Components 23 1. Residential 24 2. Commercial 25 3. Open Space 27 4. Golf Course 28 5. Circulation 29 6. O Public Facilities 30 ~ B. Development Plans and Standards 31 1. Community Level 31 a. Residential Land Use Standards 32 o Overall Residential Standards 32 o Medium-low and Medium Residential Standards 34 o Medium-High Density Residential Standards 35 b. Commercial Standards 37 c. Open Space and Recreation Standards 37 d. Circulation Standards 41 e. Drainage Plan 43 f. Water and Sewer Plan 45 g. Phasing Plan 47 h. Grading Concept Plan 49 i. Landscaping Plan 51 j. Lighting 54 2. Planning Areas 55 r~ ~, ~O ~O 3. Architectural Design Manual and Landscape Guidelines a. Architectual Design Manual b. Landscape Guidelines C. Implementation Program 1. Administrative Districts a. RVAD b. CSA 143 2. Administrative Standards a. Project History b. Legal Restrictions c. Density Transfer and Intensification d. Administrative Plan Review III. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS A. General Plan Land Use Determination 1. Site Identification Within Open Space and Conservation Map Inventory 2. Project Identification Within Composite Hazards/Resource .Map Inventory 3. Land Use Area Profile and Community Policy Area Identification For Project Site 4. Summary of Project Proposal/ Site Comparison with Applicable Land Use Category Policies B. Land Use Element 1. Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis Community Policy Land Use Categor Community Policy 2. 3. 4. C. Environmental Hazards and Resources Element 1. Seismic Safety 2. Slopes and Erosion 3. Wind Erosion and Blowsand 4. Flooding 5.. Noise 6. Air Quality 7. Water Quality Area Analysis y Policy Analysis Area Page 97 97 105 121 121 122 123 124 124 125 126 128 130 131 131 131 132 133 134 134 135 136 137 137 138 143 147 147 150 154 162 ice` ~'~/ .O Pa e 8. Toxic Substances 165. 9. Open Space and Conservation 166 10. Agriculture 169 li. Wildlife/Vegetation 173 12. Mineral Resources 180 13. Energy Resources 181 14. Scenic Highways 183 15. Historic and Prehistoric Resources 184 D. Public Facilities and Services Element 186 1. Circulation 186 2. Water and Sewer 194 3. Fire Service 198 4. Sheriff 199 5. Schools 201 6. Parks and Recreation 204 7. Utilities 208 8. Solid Waste 211 9. Libraries 212 10. Health Services 213 il. Airports 215 12. Disaster Preparedness 216 E. Housing Element 218 1. Applicable Housing Programs/ General Plan Policies 218 2. Project Housing Inventory/ Relationship To General Plan Policies 219 3. Project Compatibility With Existing Inventory/ Relationship To General Plan Policies 219 4. Project Design Mitigation/ Relationship To General Plan Policies 221 F. Regional Element 221 1. Regional Growth SCAG Forecasts 221 a. Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts for Project Site 221 .~ Page b. Refer To RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile 222 c. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast 222 2. Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies 226 ~~ G. Administrative Element 227 1. Phasing Policy 227 2. Project Time Frames For Development 228 3. Development Monitoring 229 4. Fiscal Impacts 231 5. Development Agreements 231 6. Vesting Tentative Maps 232 IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS 233 A. Cumulative Impact Analysis 234 B. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 239 C. Alternatives To The Proposed Project 239 D. Growth Inducing Impact Of The Proposed Action 240 E. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment And Maintenance/Enhancement of Long Term Productivity 241. F. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Natural Resources Should The Project Be Implemented 242 Implemented ~O Page V. RES PONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION COMMENTS 243 A. Department of Food and Agriculture 244 B. Department of Conservation 246 C. Department of Transportation 254 b. Sierra Club 259 E. Department of Fish and Game 265 F. Southern California Association of Governments 270 G. Pechanga Indian Reservation 276 H. Eastern Municipal Water District 288 I. Riverside County Sheriff Department 290 ~~ J. Native American Observer 291 K. County of Riverside, Department of Health 297 L. Valley-Wide Recreation and Parks Department 301 M. Department of Water Resources 307 VI. TECHNICAL APPENDICES A. Geology Reports and Paleontology Analysis B. C. D. E. F. G. Biological Assessments Archeological Reports Traffic Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis Notice of Preparation Comments and Notice of Completion Comments Persons and Agencies Consulted ,~ LIST OF EXHIBITS ~O I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 II-1 II-2 II-2A II-2B II-3 II-4 II-5 II-6 II-7 II-8 II-SA II-9 II-10 ZI-11 II-12 II-13 II-14 IZ-15 II-16 II-17A II-17B II-18A II-18B II-19 II-20 II-21 II-22 II-23 II-24 II-25 II-26 II-27 II-28 II-29 Regional Location Vicinity Map Topographic Map Slope Analysis Hydrology Map Environmental Constraints Specific Land Use Plan Recreation/Open Space Class II Bike Trails Equestrian Trail Golf Course Circulation Map Housing Types, Low and Medium-Low Housing Types, Medium High Park Site "A" Park Site "B" Park Site "C" Water and Sewer Plan Phasing Plan Land Use Summary/Phasing Grading Concept Landscape Concept Identity Node Typical Plan Identity Node Section A Identity Node Section B Neighborhood Entry Neighborhood Entry, Section C Typical Parkway for Margarita Loop, Butterfield Stage Road Typical Parkway for Fairview Road, Wolf Valley and Pala Road Avenue E1 Chamisal Road, Wolf Valley Road, Macho and Wolf Valley Connector. Typical Landscape Buffers Typical walls and Fences Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Planning Area 3 Planning Area 4 Planning Area 5 Planning Area 6 Planning Area 7 Planning Area 8 Planning Area 9 Road ~ O s, List of Exhibits (continued) ~O II-30 Planning Area 10 II-31 Planning Area 11 II-32 Planning Area 12 II-33 Planning Area 13 II-34 Planning Area 14 II-35 Planning Area 15 II-36 Planning Area 16 II-37 Planning Area 17 II-38 Planning Area 18 II-39 Planning Area 19 II-40 Planning Area 20 II-41 Planning Area 21 II-42 Redhawk Fuel Modification Buffer II-43A Cross-Section Fuel Modification Buffer II-43B Cross-Section Fuel Modification Buffer/ Manufactured Cut Slopes II-43C Cross-Section Fuel Modification Buffer/ Fill Slopes II-43D Cross-Section Fuel Modification Buffer/ Natural Slopes III-1 Environmental Constraints III-2 Soils Map III-3 Regional Air Quality III-4 Existing Area Wide Water and Sewer System VI-1 Area Wide Development Potential and Present Land Uses '~J a ,,(~ LIST OF TABLES ~~ fO I-1 Market Objectives II-1 Land Use Summary II-2 Park Table II-3 Open Space and Recreation Area II-4 Roadway Types II-5 Target Units per Phase III-1 Seismic Parameters III-2 100 Year Flood Event Maximum Discharges for- Redhawk III-3 Expected Noise Contours III-4 Riverside County Non-compliant Pollutant Types III-5 1985 Air Quality Summary III-6 1982 Air Quality Summary 111-7 Motor Vehicle Emissions - Redhawk 111-8 Power Plant Emissions III-9 Domestic Natural Gas Emissions III-10 Agricultural Areas Affected by Road Improvements III-11 Sensitive Species for Redhawk Specific Plan III-12 Impacted Sensitive Species from the Proposed Project III-13 Existing Traffic Volumes III-14 Redhawk Comparison to Cumulative Traffic Volumes III-15 Effluent Volume Comparison III-16 Elsinore Union High School District School Capacity III-17 Park and Recreation Facilities, Rancho California Area III-18 Medical Facilities III-19 Population Projections III-20 1995 Population Projections IV-1 I-15/I-215 Corridor IV-2 Highway 79 Corridor IV-3 Cumulative Project Summary IV-4 Comparative Unavoidable Impacts IV-5 Redhawk Unavoidance Impacts IV-6 Commparative Matrix of Alternatives a0 I. SUMMARY ~O ~O a~~ I. SUMMARY A. PROJECT SUMMARY Redhawk is a master planned community utilizing an eighteen hole golf course as its focal point and designed to create maximum long-term value and amenity for project residents. The project site is located in the immediate path of urban development between two growth corridors in Rancho California; the Pala Road corridor and the State Highway 79 corridor. The site has been previously approved for development of 1,370 dwelling units on 1,275 acres. This specific plan will redesign the project to accommo- date 4,188 residential dwelling units in conjunction With community open space and recreation uses. The project has been engineered for a sewage system to mitigate environmental problems of the original plan caused by the proposed use of septic tanks in poor soils. The current plan is designed to be both functional and flexible. The project is also designed to mitigate project related and ~~ cumulative environmental impacts or reduce them to acceptable or insignificant levels. 1. Location and Description The Redhawk project is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County (refer to Exhibit I-1). This area is called Rancho California or the Temecula Valley. The Interstate 15 (I-15) corridor directly connects the metropolitan San Diego area to the south and Orange County to the north via Corona. Riverside and San Bernardino can be reached via Moreno Valley by following Interstate 215 (I-215) from Rancho California. The Rancho California area is currently experiencing rapid urbanization in terms of residential, commercial and industrial development. Several factors are responsible for this rapid growth, including the availability of land for development, the lower price of housing, quality lifestyles, abundant recreation facilities, jobs provided by the local industries and major agricultural operations such as avocado production and wineries. The area also has significant environmental advantages of clean air and open space. ~O - 1 - I 4bO --------------- I I LOS ANGELES ~ 5 COUNTY ~ I 1 1 of ~ SANTA \~ LOS ~, MONICA ANGLES P ~ 1 ~..~ 395 a0 A9 -- - r ~,,~~c ~_ VICTOR VILLE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAN BERNAR[HNO /E~soe -~ RIVERSIDE 10 COUNTY PALM SPRINGS RANCHO CALIFORNIA ESCON[bD0 0 m ~z SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAN DIEGO BAJA ALIFORNI'_ _ ~~ SCALE 0 10 20 30 40 ARILE Ex~ie I-1 0 The 1,275-acre project site is located south of State Highway 79, two miles northeast of i-15, adjacent to Temecula Creek between State Highway 79 and Pala Road (refer to Exhibit I-2). The Redhawk project is but one of a dozen major developments being planned in the greater Temecula Valley along I-15 and State Highway 79 (refer to exhibit I-3). These are planned for the southeastern core area of the 97,000-acre Rancho California planned community. The project site, although currently vacant, has been approved for 1,370 estate lots in the previous Specific Plan 171. The Redhawk site has been planned and engineered for development several times prior to the current project design. Each time the site has been master planned to focus on natural resources while mitigating environmental considerations. Following the approval of Specific Plan 171, the site was engineered for tentative tract maps but the project was abandoned due to geotechnical limitations on the use of septic tanks. The property was then planned for single- family, multi-family and commercial uses; however, this plan was redesigned to include a golf course, a loop road and additional amenities when purchased by Great American L Development Company in the Spring of 1987. The current 1,275.6-acre project includes twenty-one residential planning areas. in addition to planned residential areas, land uses include two commercial areas of 8.5 and 14.3 acres respectively, a 182.7 acre eighteen hole golf course, two elementary school sites totaling 20.2 acres, seven park sites totaling 48.9 acres and 149.3 acres of open apace. Development of the project is scheduled for five master phases over a time period of approximately ten (10) years. Residential product types include estate homes, single-family detached homes, single-family attached homes, condominiums, townhouses and apartments for a target density total of 4,188 dwelling units. Each planning area has been designed to emphasize flexibility in both housing stock and residential densities in order to provide the capability of responding to the market conditions prevalent at the time of construction. - 2 - ~~ G o c~ ~_ O~ g^~ G -0 s~ zaA9~g~C7RRR~~' ~~~7~3~'..9a77°s ~~~n~~.ee~e.. v<~7 7t4AGAF.:,~~ 3 ec~i2 ° `~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ eE .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yLMI ~ v ~ Q ~ ~ 6 0 4 1tC C dd U QaQ ci ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ c O ~ ~^p~M u. O~ I~ b ~~~p~ C-] 2~Jn, V p~ e Y E o V RIVERSIDE LAKE MATHEWS LAKE VERRIS PERRIS :ORONA ALBERHILL J^JO CANYON / ( LAKE d SUN O clTr 74 LAKE ELSINORE IS yG9 9, ~7 ~\ ~O CAMPPENDLETON 1~_.r. ~Q~ ~./~ ~~ ~.. ~ s / u FALLBROOK (/~f O"NEILL IAKE i V ~5) r1/ ~o ~G ~ s ~l 9 ~~_ PAUMA VALLEY nl 76 9 \ SAN DIEGO I `.~~^ scaLE --~ ~oc~awo~~ 6~ld1aD ~ ~ 3/4 1.S SAN JACINTO HEMET WINCHESTER LA~K/E S~K_IN/N~bE~'R~ V ~"`~ o~ 3 J~ '. ::.. ;,,o~... . ~y ~v m,~ '~ ~ ~. ~~3~ c T .~ `, , i~ jJ ~I ~.. ~® •~ , ^ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ _o !~.~~ I<U 1)I1 1U`~ \ /~ 2. Market Objectives The nature of the Redhawk project is not oriented to one particular market segment or product type, but instead is intended as a broad range mixed residential development. Conversely, Redhawk is not, nor intended to be, a self contained community. The nature of the land use development plan is a product of several parameters including the site's location and size, environmental and development constraints, surrounding land uses and regional economic context. Premised on the information in the previous paragraph, the primary emphasis of the marketing program for Redhawk is flexibility. This flexibility is a result not only of the desire to serve a very wide range of market segments from first time homebuyers to retired and estate homes, but is also a product of the time frame of development. With a time frame of approximately ten (10) years or more for project development, it becomes a necessity to have a built-in flexibility because of the fluctuating nature of the housing industry. O The current market data in the Rancho California area indicates that the strongest markets are for single-family detached homes. This market emphasis is reflected by the plan for the first master phase which includes a combination of product types focused on single-family detached homes. Apartments are currently facing a weak market in the Rancho California area due to the current supply which is adequate for existing demand. Condominiums and townhouses are in a slightly different situation with the current supply being minimal, virtually no construction of new units underway and no evidence of any substantial increase in demand. .The condominium market is at a comparative disadvantage at this time in the Rancho California area in comparison to detached single- family homes. This situation is due to the minimal price differential between detached single-family residences and condominiums in combination with the single-family residence. However, as previously mentioned, economic conditions, consumer preference O - 3 - Q~ and other factors are subject to dramatic changes in a relatively short period of time. Thus, the flexibility built into this specific plan will allow the developer to maintain a viable project through the changes which are inevitable over a ten (10) to fifteen (15) year buildout period. Specific market objectives for the Redhawk project TABLE I-1 REDHAWK MARKET OBJECTIVES o Design the project in a manner sensitive to and compatible .with existing and planned surrounding land uses. o Have the capability of responding to changing market conditions with a broad spectrum of housing styles and product types. o Establish a sense of identity through coordinated O systems of signage, fencing, architecture, ~ landscaping and circulation as well as the ~/ provision of identity nodes and neighborhood and community entries. o Provide a diversified social environment in the community by the inclusion of housing types and price ranges which will appeal to a variety of socioeconomic groups. o Provide move-up homes, retirement homes and first time homes for local residents and people moving into the area. o Create an environment and promote lifestyle opportunities which contribute to the establishment and protection of long-term value within individual neighborhoods and the Redhawk community. o Attract a mix of commercial uses that will serve the needs of both project and neighboring residents. o Contribute to the scenic and recreational amenities by providing a recreation and open space system which is both aesthetically pleasing and functional. O - 4 - ~~ B. EIR SUMMARY The Redhawk site has a number of environmental constraints including: o Topography o Drainage o Historical Resources o Biological Resources o Geology These constraints have been addressed and mitigated to insignificant levels through careful design of the project. The steepest slopes and major flood plains on site are planned for open space and recreation use. The major historical site located on the property (RIV-364) will be excavated early in 1988 as part of lO the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Excavation ~' will be done by professionals and artifacts recovered and turned over to recognized agencies. Regional biological impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance by inclusion of habitat enhancement areas and the maintenance of significant open space areas. 1. Environmental Setting The prominant topographic feature of the Redhawk site is the valley formed by the broad north-south drainage channel which roughly bisects the site. This valley will be utilized as the primary site area for the eighteen hole golf course. Another predominant topographic feature of the property is rolling hills which are common throughout the great majority of Rancho California. Some areas of the property are essentially devoid of topographic relief, specifically the southwestern area of the property and portions of the northern acreage bordering Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road. O Elevations on the property vary moderately with a ~ high elevation of approximately 1,340 to a low - 5 - P P Ei'I ~ ~ ® p Eil nOp V :.. .. ~® ~ ~d ~ e~ oQ }g~ ~" p ~ ~rS l ~~q(~ ~ W ~MV~ -O k' ~I ~~ J oo~ ~a ~° ~~ ~. e e~ IV 5 g ` ~ ,~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ®® o~ b® e~ b P ~ ® ~ 8 1 ti ~. ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ e~~ @ ~ o ~~ ~ $ 0 o g o g~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ g 'O b ~~ e ~~ ~~ ~~ C C c 1 ~qq M a a a a ~~ elevation approximately 1,050. Level areas within the northern and central portions of the project are roughly defined by the flood plains of Temecula Creek and the broad north-south wash.. General topographic features on site and surrounding the project are depicted by Exhibit I-3. As shown on the attached slope analysis, Exhibit I-4, there is a great diversity of slopes on some areas of the Redhawk site with some areas being essentially level, most with less than 25 percent slope. A small area of steep slopes exist throughout the southeastern portion of the site along the project boundary. In general, the areas of steep slopes in the western portion of the property bordering both sides of the north-south wash are topped by plateaus which have very gentle slopes. Redhawk is located within the watershed of .the Santa Margarita River. Drainage from the project flows into two tributaries of the Santa Margarita ~ River; Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek. Portions of the property westerly of a broad north-south wash which traverses the property generally drain in a southwesterly direction towards Pechanga Creek. Pechanga Creek flows in a northwesterly direction with a small area of flood plain traversing the southwesterly tip of the site. Pechanga Creek joins Temecula Creek approximately one mile westerly of the project boundaries. The project area easterly of the broad north-south wash generally drains in a northwesterly direction into Temecula Creek. The 100-year flood volume for Pechanga Creek is approximately 7,000 cubic feet per second. The loo year flood volume is approximately 36,000 cubic feet per second for Temecula Creek. Site hydrology is summarized on Exhibit I-5. One known archaeological/historical site is located on the project site. The archaeological/historical site, the Old Temecula Townsite (RIV-364), is located on both sides of the right-of-way of Margarita Road on a bluff immediately southwest of Temecula Creek. An - 6 - C7 O ® ~ 00 v P~A- 0 ~~ ~ ~ o~~ 0 ® q (~ o u ~ t7 ~ o a `~ ~ ~ g ~ ' ao ® ~' ~ ~ o ° ~ n ~' °~ ° ~ f '•. gb b ao ~® ~ •~ : ~ ®~ @ ~ ,~ o ~~ ~' ~ s W ~ x O ~ o ~~~~ O ~' i ~1 ~. ~ ~ a a a ~a archaeological report, which is included in the Appendix, has indicated that this site may contain some possible artifacts and provide knowledge of the previous occupation of the site by the Luiseno Native Americans and early settlers of European descent. Biological resources of the project site include foraging habitat and a minimal number of nesting sites for raptors. In addition, the site was historically the location of a small isolated population of rare Stephens Kangaroo Rats, although a July 1987 biological survey concluded that the species apparently no longer inhabits the project area. 9~ D- Project related environmental constraints are summarized on Exhibit I-6. It should be noted that the Wildomar Fault has not been found within the Redhawk site. Trenching performed in October, 1987, indicates that no fault exists, as shown on the Environmental Constraints Exhibit. Further exploratory work will be done to ensure either a location of the fault or that no fault exists. 2. Impact and Mitigation Matrix More than two dozen potential impacts were examined for which mitigation measures can be provided. In all cases, the potential impacts can be mitigated to levels of insignificance. bO Seismic Safet Potential Impacts: The Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone runs through a section of the project site. The Elsinore Fault System, located 1.75 miles to the west, could potentially subject the area to groundshaking. The site is also located in an area which is potentially subject to liquefaction. Mitigation Measures: All structures will conform to the stability standards established for - 7 - ~~ Seismic Safety(continued) groundshaking by the Uniform Build- ing Code. A geotechnical evaluation concluded that the site was subject to an extremely low probability of liquefaction. Level of Significance: Groundshaking hazards are mitigated to an acceptable level by confor- mance with the standards of the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation and preliminary soils report. Slopes and Erosion Potential Impacts: Existing natural slopes in some portions of the property exceed twenty-five (25) percent, which is the maximum buildable slope per County standards. The site may be & subject to moderate erosion. ~~ Mitigation Measures: Most areas in excess of twenty-five (25) percent slope will remain as open space. A soils report has determined that manufactured cut and fill slopes will be stable and that the erosion during and after construction can be controlled to acceptable levels through compliance with County Grading Standards. Grading occurring during the rainy season will include mitigation measures such as sand bagging and desiltation basins as directed by the County Department of Building and Safety. Graded slopes will be landscaped in accordance with County Grading Standards. Water trucks will be used to control dust and temporary earthen dikes will be used along the perimeter of drainage courses in accordance with the .directives of the Department of O Building and Safety. - 8 - Slopes and Erosion (continued) Level of Significance: Minor impacts will occur that can be controlled and mitigated to minimal levels. Wind Erosion and Blowsand Potential Impacts: None, the site is not subject to these hazards. Mitigation Measures: None required. Level of Significance: No significance. Flooding Potential Impacts: A portion of the site is traversed by the 100-year flood plains of Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek. O A broad north-south wash passes ~ through the site subjecting the -! golf course area of the property to some flooding. Access could be cut off by the lack of all weather creek and drainage course crossings. Development will increase surface runoff. Structures in the flood plain would be subject to flooding damage. Mitigation Measures: Areas subject to the 100-year flood plain of Temecula Creek and the broad north-south wash will remain in open space. Improvements will consist of the installation of soft bottom channels, rip-rap where needed, some construction of storm drains and the elevation of all building pads above the flood plain level. All flood control improvements will be constructed in accordance with Flood Control and Water Conservation District recommendations. Construction of all C>O - 9 - Flooding (continued) weather access will be required across Temecula Creek at Margarita Road, Butterfield Stage Road and Pala Road and across the broad wash drainage course at E1 Chamisal and Macho Roads. Level of Significance: Undeveloped portions of the property will be subject to flooding although this will be confined to the open space areas. Developed portions of the property will be subject to runoff but this will be controlled to acceptable minimal levels by County approved erosion control plans and conformance to Flood Control and Water Conservation District directives. Noise ~.- Potential Impacts: Noise levels along State Highway 79 will be approximately 60dBA 400 feet from the centerline and 55 dBA 800 feet from the centerline of the highway. Noise levels along Pala Road and Margarita Road northerly of E1 Chamisal Road will typically be 65 dBA 155 feet from centerline and 60 dBA 645 feet from the centerline of the roads. Mitigation Measures: Exterior noise levels will be reduced where necessary by the utilization or combination thereof of walls, berms and landscaping. Interior noise levels will be reduced with the utilization of site orientation, insulation, double pane windows and other construction methods as necessary. These specific mitigation. measures will be determined by acoustical studies to be completed with the design of ~O - 10 - Noise (continued) dwelling units within the project as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Level of Significance: Noise will be mitigated to acceptable levels in accordance with the County General Plan standards for exterior and interior noise levels. Air Quality Potential Impacts: A total of 6,655 pounds per day of additional pollutants will be generated from automobile and truck traffic. Approximately four million cumulative vehicle miles travelled (~/MT) will occur in Rancho California by 1997 thereby degrading existing standards in some localized areas. State and Federal standards will not generally be exceeded. ~~ Mitigation Measures: The length of trips will be reduced by the inclusion of on site trip destinations. The use of al- ternative -non-polluting modes of transportation will be facilitated by the inclusion of bicycle trails, commercial facilities, and the encouragement of regional park and ride facilities in accordance with • CalTrans recommendations. Additional cumulative mitigation will be provided by payment of a $25.30 per unit fee thereby generating approximately $105,956.00 for regional impacts. Level of Significance: Project VMT and resultant pollution represent approximately 2.2 percent of the expected cumulative impacts in Rancho California. Regional impacts, as related to the project, are insignificant based on basin-wide projects. ~O - 11 - l Water 4ualit Potential Impacts: Grading and construction operations will result in erosion and siltation. Upon completion of construction, urban runoff will result in the introduction of some oils and pollutants into the groundwater. Mitigation Measures: Erosion will be minimized by utilizing the measures outlined under the topic of slopes and erosion. Retention of a natural filtering system will occur by the preservation of open space and "soft bottoms" in all streams and drainage channels. Level of Significance: Toxic Substances ~~ Potential Impacts: Mitigation Measures: Level of Significance: Open Space and Conservation Impacts will be reduced to acceptable minimal levels. None are anticipated. None required or proposed. No significance. Potential Impacts: The project is designated as Specific Plan 171 on the County Open Space and Conservation map. Increased open space areas will occur as delineated„on Exhibit II-2. Mitigation Measures: Open space has been identified on . the land use development plan of the specific plan and will be ,incorporated into the project as development occurs. Level of Significance: Positive impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. oO - 12 - ~Q Agriculture Potential Impacts: Site development may indirectly and incrementally contribute to trans- ition of the nearby sod farm to convert to urban uses. However, the sod farm and Vail Ranch are currently being proposed as specific plan areas. Mitigation Measures: A land use buffer will be constructed between Planning Areas 1, 2, 6 and 18 adjacent to the sod farm and citrus grove to provide an appropriate land use transition. Level of Significance: Insignificance can be obtained through measures outlined above. Wildlife and Vegetation O Potential Impacts: Site development will eliminate most of the existing vegetation. / Some animal species will leave or be eliminated from the site and others will remain on the property but at a reduced population. Mitigation Measures: Approximately twenty-seven (27) percent of the project property will be retained as open space. Approximately seven (7) percent will be retained as natural open space and approximately twenty (20) percent will be active open space uses. Habitat at the nearby Pechanga Indian Reservation will provide area for wildlife migration. Off road vehicular use of natural open space areas will be prohibited. Trees providing nesting and perching habitat will be preserved when feasible and additional trees will be planted in the open space and buffer area to provide nesting, roosting and perching areas for ~O - 13 o, d. Wildlife and Vegetation (continued) raptors. Natural wash areas will remain in permanent open space as shown by the development plan. Areas within the Temecula Creek flood plain upstream of Butterfield Stage Road are proposed to be reserved for regional biological resource enhancement area. Level of Significance: Regional raptor ha; acceptable vegetation natural previously livestock. cumulative ~itat areas levels. is not vegetation degraded impacts to are reduced to Loss of significant as has been by grazing of Mineral Resources Potential Impacts: None anticipated. A,O Mitigation Measures: ~ None proposed or required. Level of Significance: None. Energy Resources Potential Impacts: The project will generate an annual electrical usage of approximately 27,640,800 kilowatt hours of electricity and approximately 4,585,860 therms of natural gas. Mitigation Measures: The use of fossil fuels will be reduced through minimized automobile usage with on site trip destinations and the provision of alternative modes of transportation. Compliance with Title 24 standards will conserve electricity and natural gas. Level of Significance: All resources are available and will be conserved to the greatest extent O feasible. ~~ - 14 - Scenic Hiahwavs Potential Impacts: The project site is partially visible from State Highway 79, which is an eligible County scenic highway. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures include the distance from the highway, inclusion of open space between Commercial Area "B" and Planning Area 14, entry landscape treatment along Margarita Road, project landscaping and the inclusion of street trees and planned streetscape treatments along Wolf Valley Loop and other major project roads. Level of Significance: Potential impacts are mitigated to insignificant levels. O Historic and Prehistoric Resources ~ Potential Impacts: Archaeological/historical site RIV - 364 will be impacted by construction operations. Proposed site construction could impact potential paleontological resources associated with the Pauba formation. Mitigation Measures: Archaeological resources associated with RIV - 364 will be identified and salvaged by an archaeologist prior to construction operations thereby fully mitigating potential archaeological/ historical impacts. Paleontological impacts will be mitigated by observation during grading operations by a paleontologist. Level of Significance: Potential impacts will be reduced to minimal levels. aO - 15 - Circulation Potential Impacts: A total of 33,688 average daily trips (ADT) and 242,555 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be generated by the project. Mitigation Measures: On and off site mitigation measures will include street widenings, construction of turn lanes and pockets, installation of traffic signals and stop signs and other measures as required to facilitate a smooth flow of traffic. The Rancho Villages Assessment District will provide a financing mechanism for regional transportation facilities and will facilitate the orderly construction of backbone circulation infrastructure. Level of Significance: ~~ Water and Sewer Cumulative impacts in the project area artd on site impacts -will be addressed in conformance with County Road Department requirements, by mitigation measures included in the project and by the construction of improvements associated with the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Potential Impacts: The project will require approximately 2.76 million gallons of water daily and generate 1.32 million gallons of wastewater daily. Additionally the project may utilize approximately 1,000,000 gallons of reclaimed water for golf course purposes daily. Mitigation Measures: Necessary facilities including transmission line and storage tank for the higher elevations (PZ 1380) will be constructed by the Rancho Villages Assessment District and the l~iO - 16 - Water and Sewer (continued) Level of Significance: Fire Potential Impacts: ~O Mitigation Measures: Level of Significance: Sheriff ~O Potential Impacts: Mitigation Measures: Rancho California Water District. Expansion of the EMWD sewage treatment plant to 6.25 million gallons per day capacity is currently taking place in accordance with the requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Potential impacts are mitigated by facilities planned for the Rancho Villages Assessment District, Rancho California Water District and by expansion plans for the EMWD sewage treatment plant. The project will result in a demand for approximately two additional engine companies. Payment of fire mitigation fees on a per lot basis will finance additional land, equipment, person- nel and fire stations or any combination thereof, as deemed appropriate by the County Fire Department. Impacts will be reduced to minimal levels in accordance with County General Plan and Fire Department requirements. The project will generate a need for approximately two additional Sheriffs officers. Crime preventive design measures will be incorporated into the project design pursuant to the - 17 - ~o Sheriff (continued) Level of Significance: review comments of the County Sheriffs Department. Project residents will proportionately contribute to government revenues and thereby the funding of additional manpower and equipment. The residents of this project will contribute their proportionate share to government revenues which will be utilized by the Sheriffs Department thereby reducing potential impacts to acceptable levels. Schools Potential Impacts: The project will generate approxi- mately 2,015 elementary and middle school students and 733 high school students. O Mitigation Measures: Three potential elementary school ~__~ sites are included in the land use development plan of the specific plan. School fees will be paid as required by State law. Level of Significance: Impacts are reduced to acceptable levels through the project miti- gation measures. Parks and Recreation Potential Impacts: IItilizing the standards of the Quimby Act, the project will generate a demand for approximately 26 acres of park land. Mitigation Measures: Facilities provided in the develop- ment plan include 45.9 acres of park land, a 182.7 acre golf course, bicycle and equestrian trails and approximately 149.3 acres of open .space. ~O 18 - ~., Parks and Recreation (continued) Level of Significance: The project site will create positive impact to the overall recreational amenities of the area and will mitigate impacts created by project residents. Utilities Potential Impacts: Construction impacts will include noise, dust and soil erosion. Mitigation Measures: Noise will be minimized by the restriction of construction to daylight hours. Dust and erosion will be controlled by the use of watering trucks and conformance with County Grading Standards. Level of Significance: insignificant Solid Waste Potential. Impacts: The project will generate approximately 99,030 pounds of solid waste daily. Mitigation Measures: The County Solid Waste Master Plan for additional waste disposal facilities will provide new waste disposal sites as needed. Level of Significance: Potential impacts are mitigated to an acceptable level. Libraries Potential Impacts: The project will proportionally contribute to the demand for additional library services. Mitigation Measures: A $100.00 per lot fee will be paid 'for the construction of a new i `~J C> - 19 - Libraries (continued) Level of Significance: Health Services Potential Impacts: Mitigation Measures: ~O Level of Significance: Airports City/County library in Rancho California per County requirements. The potential impact is reduced to a level of insignificance. The project will generate a demand for approximately twenty-seven (27) additional hospital beds. Existing area facilities are sufficient to meet demand. It is anticipated that the private sector will expand services as necessary to meet any additional regional cumulative demand for medical health care services. Impacts are not considered significant. Potential Impacts: The project will not have any direct impacts to aviation facilities. A slight increase in the number of takeoffs and landings at the area airports may occur. Mitigation Measures: No project specific measures are proposed. Long term regional concerns will be resolved with the relocation of the Rancho California Airport to the northeast corner of Winchester and Borel Roads in French Valley. Level of Significance: Potential impacts are not significant. iO Cam' - 20 - C~ ~~ i O C~ Disaster Preparedness Potential Impacts: Mitigation Measures: Level of Significance: A portion of the project site is impacted by flooding and seismic hazards. The project design accommodates the presence of the potential flood zone and earthquake fault hazards. Potential impacts are mitigated by project design features. - 21 - II. SPECIFIC PLAN ~J O - 22 - 0 ~, II. SPECIFIC PLAN The Specific Plan Section consists of a description of land use and plan components and a detailed program of development standards. Standards are identified at the community level and individual planning area level. Specific guidelines -for architectural and landscaping elements of the plan are also included within the subsection on project implementation. A. Specific Land Use Plan Components The land use plan can be broken down into six major components, including: ' o Residential o Commercial 0 open Space and Recreation O o Golf Course ~~ o Circulation o Public Facilities Residential uses comprise 60.7 percent or 774.1 acres of the total project area of 1,275.6 acres. Commercial uses combine to account for approximately 2.2 percent of the project area with a total of twenty-eight (28) acres. Open space and recreation uses account for 195.2 acres, or 15.2 percent of the project total. The golf course takes up 182.7 acres, or 14.3 percent, of the total acreage. Major roadways account for approximately 63.4 acres or 5.o percent of the total acreage while public facilities, in this case schools, account for 32.2 acres or 2.5 percent of the project total. iO ~~ - 23 - TABLE II-1 REDHAWK LAND USE SUMMARY Use Acreage Percentage Residential 788.3 Commercial 22.6 1.8 Open Space 6 Recreation 198.2 15.5 Golf Course 182.7 14.3 Circulation 63.4 5.0 Public Facilities 20.2 1.6 TOTAL ~ 1,275.6 100.0 ~O 1. Residential ~i The residential components of the specific plan include a total of 4,188 dwelling units dispersed throughout the 1,275 acres of the project site in twenty-one different planning areas (Refer to Exhibit II-1). Residential product types will be diverse in response to the marketing factors, which are prevalent at the construction stage of each area. The broad spectrum of product types includes custom homes on estate lots, detached single-family dwellings, attached single-family dwellings, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Dwellings within the Redhawk project will be diverse in density as well as product type with four different density ranges proposed in three (3) major land use categories. Medium-low density residential development will range from two and one-half (2-1/2) through five (5) units per acre and include 2,222 homes or 53.1 percent of the total of the project. The medium-low density category O - 24 - I ~~ will include 667 homes at a density of five (5) to eight units per acre. This represents 15.9 percent of the total project dwelling units. Town homes, condominiums and apartments will be included in the medium-high density category of eight (8) to twelve (12) units per acre. Approximately thirty-one (31) percent of the total number of units, a total of 1,200, is included in the Medium-high density category. In addition to a diversity of product types and densities, the residential component is oriented towards meeting one of the major goals of this project which is to develop a community of social and economic diversity. The Redhawk project includes an array of amenities which will appeal to recreation oriented single people, young families, as well as mature couples and the retired segment of the population. The provision of recreational amenities such as bicycle trails, equestrian trails and the eighteen (18) hole golf course will attract the recreation oriented population. By Q the same token, the townhouse and condominium ~~ products will appeal to mature couples that no longer require larger single-family homes and no longer desire the maintenance responsibilities of a conventional residence. The added security features and social/recreational attributes inherent in condominiums and townhouses will also be desirable features to this segment of the population. Senior citizens will be another important component of the Redhawk project as well, with approximately 524 of the dwelling units being specifically oriented towards the retirement population. Senior citizen portions of the project are centrally located in Planning Areas 4, 8, and a portion of Planning Area 6. A prime feature of the senior citizen component of the project is the proximity to the golf course and clubhouse. 2. Commercial The commercial component of the specific plan includes the development of three separate commercial areas. Two of the three commercial O b - 25 - areas, Commercial Areas "A" and "B", are designed to serve the general population of the area as well as the residents of Redhawk. Commercial Area A", consisting of B.5 acres, will provide a needed commercial focus for the rapidly developing Pala Road corridor. This development will also draw from the southern portions of the Redhawk project along Fairview Avenue and Pechanga Road. Assuming this location would draw customers from Planning Areas 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17, the on-site market area alone for this commercial area would include approximately 3,727 people. Commercial Area "B" will serve as the primary market entry to the Redhawk project because of its prominent location as the closest and most visible portion of the project to State Highway 79. In correlation with it's prominence and relationship to the outside community, Commercial Area "B" will be the largest of the two (2) commercial developments with 14.3 acres. The design and focal statement of Commercial Area "B" ~ J will be established by the inclusion of an entry statement identity node and a landscaped buffer along the northern edge of the commercial center, which faces State Highway 79 and Margarita Road. The scope of retail and/or office services provided in Commercial Area "B" will be commensurate with its larger scale and clientele base. Although no .specific site plan for Commercial Area "B has yet been developed, it is very probable that the scope of retail outlets in this development will be far more diverse and comprehensive than in the other two centers. Non-retail users, such as offices, might also be a major component of the overall commercial development. O - 26 - 3. Open Space and Recreation .J The primary focus of the open space component of the specific plan is the eighteen-hole golf course located in the central portion of the project site. (See Exhibit ZI-2, Recreation/Open Space.) The land use development plan emphasizes the aesthetic and economic values of the open space by orientating the residential development around the golf course. This provides a pleasant living environment for the project residents as well as direct access to a recreational amenity. The golf course creates a strong selling feature, which also increases the long-term value of the adjacent dwelling units. Other open space and recreation features of the development plan include 149.3 acres of natural open space and 98.9 acres of parkland. These open space areas are dispersed throughout the project so that residents of any one planning area will be in close proximity to an open space area. Proportionately, the provision of open space will ~ _~ be quite generous with a total of 15.3 percent of the project acreage being devoted to open space uses, excluding the school sites and golf course. The golf course will contribute an additional 14.3 percent of the project total to open space. including the parks, golf course, schools, and natural open space, approximately 31.9 percent of the project site is dedicated to open space and recreational use. - 27 - (~ IL ~ o qq'' ~-' ~, t7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ^° ~® ~ o ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ - „- 0 ¢~ - ® oc o,` ~, ~ o ;, P ~ '.» d ~ ~ ~ ~- ' v° ~ •~ ~ ~ ~~ a 00 ~ l.- iq :4. ^V ~ /g~~.' ~ v !~ A~: ; ' ; ~ o ~ . ~a„ . P o ~ ~ o q rY C.~ ~ F•i ~-- ~ g ~ ~~ ~~,.//JJ C~/~ I I1 OHO ~ ~ ~ ! (1 '.:. (Y~~ , /1 . 9l, 4p~ i ~ f~~ ~' d ,rC ~ 1 r3• ,, r ~ ~?~`. 0 ~ . ~ ~ O ~~ , --~;t.> .~ tee' f.,~ •. _yF ~;a ~ ~ a a v o ~ ~ ~. ~ 0 0 _. 0 ~ /~ 00 ~ A ~ o c q pp,~ p C7 ~ cp ~ P ° ~ o !~ ~ d~ 9 O oG ~ - a o~' ~ ~~ 00 g ~op~ 6 ~I ~~ ~ ~ ~® O O ~ ~. 0 0 a+ 0 P °~ d a oq0q o ~~- ~~ ~® I - ,~ ' ~.5 p~ .. ,.~ ~,r~ °~~~>.. ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' I- N d R~ u ~ I-~ ~ .~ ~ ~ - p s X ~ u~ ~a ~ W ~M~~ o ~ Q p~ I"yl ~. 00 o ° ~ . ® A s ~ o o °o~ ~ ~~ oq0 `~-- O ®~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d t, if f.'1~ ~, i /; ~~ . Class II bike trails and equestrian trails will be provided as illustrated on the previous exhibit. Said trails will conform to County standards by providing adequate width and height requirements (see Exhibits II-2A and II-2B). 4. Golf Course As briefly described in the previous section, the eighteen hole golf course is centrally located within the Redhawk project. Most of the golf course will be located within the broad wash area located southwesterly of E1 Chamisal Road. The golf course will be a major amenity for the entire project but will specifically be associated with the adjacent senior citizen portions of the project located in P1'anning Areas 4, 6, and 8, and other planning areas abutting the golf course. The golf course will be located northerly of Fairview Avenue with the exception of the 13th, 14th, and 15th holes. Development of the golf course will be accomplished with minimal disruption to the natural environment. Some mass grading will be required for construction of the golf course, although limited mass grading will be required to accommodate the clubhouse area and to "fine tune" the fairways, lakes, green and toes to conform to the requirements of the golf course master plan. Utilization of the broad wash area for the bulk of the golf course is beneficial in several respects. This permits construction of the golf course within a specific gradable area as previously mentioned, minimizes the pollution of the groundwater table by retaining the advantages of the natural filtering system, allows for a natural approach to flood control, and results in aesthetic and economic benefits to project residents. In addition to aesthetic, economic, recreational, marketing and pollution benefits provided by the golf course, there will also be distinct land use planning benefits accruing from this aspect of the project. The golf course will visually be the focus of the entire project, especially in terms of the entry to the project. From the major - 28 - ~~a~~~ DD ~o~~ ~°~a~o~~ ~~PUQ~~ ~~~o 990' SS' S5' 92' 32' 32' 92' ' G; 92' 2' 99' 12' 92' 92' tl T edi 0'Y n - n4i g ~sx x 9/2 dVid4h 4o be 9/2 d+/bd4h 4® b e~__. _~___~ ~_ e. u.~cv~cl VpncY u' 6Je v1C0 u~l~u Uq ®4hers dV®16 F/a~8ey ~~/QDUcC~~ S ~Q~~®lill 4' D.andscape AAain4enance I:asemen8 5' Meandeeing -Sideeval& L~~~~PU(CQ(~Qfl ~~P~SU~O~ ~~/6Do Q~~~ ~~~~n~uu~~ ~p~~~ ~®~ 0®c~~~o®~n ®ff ~u~scEa ~'rr~u0~ ~~DD f~J~~/~C ~~~c~~ C~~DD~®~~o~ ~~~~Q. ~~a~a~,~ '~'~n~ ~8a~ueeeoen~~gs®~u~4~s 3151 Alrwny . SuHe R-1 cue rte. ce. ~ nla; 5se•s~o [~m~aac~~~~aa~~ ~°~~o~ ~®° ~o~o ~--~Gp~~Dc~~l ~~~uer~ 4 puu~ ~®° fyiluo~o a~~~u~~n4 ~4° fyilo~no L~L~ DDi~~~~ C~~D°a~®~~o~ ~~Q I~QUI~PD~~1Qll ~~(~j DQUU~'JDQ (~®~QD~UD~Y ~6u~ POai~eunuua~ss®~u~4~s 3151 Alrvvay Suite R-1 cam ~. ce. 9262e n1a ssb•s~oo ~~~~~~ --~ ENGINEERING CORPORATION r_ I' ' _r r ® ~ ~S ~ I c. ~ ~ ~H ~ ~ O q~ - •e~ y ` Z C ~ II6fFCC77_lll C~_7 ~ ® ` / O M ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ , ~ .. ......., .>._ . b o ~ ~~ If. .. ~,. O u U-/ z ~ ~ ~"O--l r ~ p `•' -- 4!Y•~r~iKL'r7~),O QD p,OQ~,,~, ~,i f"~ e•~~ ,.,.f, ... ..... , _- i.' ): Q ~_ (. ,~ r \i... ,;. .;, ~~e ~~. \;. , ~' it l~ r~ a~ ~/ '~ x.sr ~ .. f ... O • O) ~ ~~ O O r~ G OyAO`A V ~~ ~Yl g ~_ + g Q d ~ ~ ` 1"' ~< v ~t ., ~,. , ~ ~ a .' : Y Y C~ , f'..} ~• s M Y \ /~~~ , y vGM 'qN 1' 1 ~~i , ~. g W m ~YY ~q'N S"~ fv ~~.W NN m ~ N ~ ~® o~ ^ •®~ C ~ IA o ~ ~ ki dd A, ~U~ {~ ~' O • q~ ~ Q O ~ b ~Q N~ M ~ W ~ ~ W ~ ` ` 1" p~ i ~S ~ g~ g i r ®u _. ~ ~ (p; VY1 O C Y ~O ~' w <A< ~6W N a v ri m c g N /l ~aJ Q aka C r' RJI p v `"J w F~ c~ ~1 ~~ project entry along Margarita Road, persons entering Redhawk would be at a high point in elevation near Planning Area to looking down at the greenery and lakes of the golf course. This view will be accented by entry statement figures, a landscaped parkway and landscaped slopes. The design features associated with this entry area will include pedestrian amenities, will provide the project with a strong identity and will create a sense of arrival for those entering Redhawk from Margarita Road. The golf course also will provide a visual relief from urban development in the central portion of the project and provide a social focus for the entire community. Most of the senior citizen segments of the project will have direct access to the clubhouse, driving range and golf course by foot or golf cart. From an operational standpoint, the Redhawk Golf Course will initially be semi-private but open to the general public. This will be a marketing incentive which will be particularly attractive to avid golfers, but the mere presence of the golf course will be an attraction for non-golfing residents that simply enjoy the aesthetic benefits of the green open space. The semi-private golf course is expected to provide recreational benefits to areas outside of Redhawk while providing some special priorities of use by project residents. 5. Circulation The circulation system for the Redhawk project will utilize several existing right-of-ways, most of which are already established by dirt roads traversing the property. There are currently no paved roads on the project site other than Pala Road and Pechanga Road. The two primary access roads project will be State Highway 79 The primary access directly to be from State Highway 79 along Internal circulation- will focus Valley Loop which will partially within the Vail Ranch property Villages Assessment District. Ot i~ for the Redhawk and Pala Road. the project will Margarita Road. on the Wolf be constructed by the Rancho her major roads - 29 - within the project which will be constructed by the Assessment District include Wolf Valley Road, Wolf Valley Connector, Fairview Avenue,- E1 Chamisal Road, Macho Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The circulation system is designed to disperse the traffic throughout the project site in order to avoid congested situations. Two access points will be available to Pala Road from Fairview Avenue and Wolf Valley Road. The same situation also holds true with State Highway 79 with access available from both Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The internal circulation system focused on Wolf Valley Loop also accomplishes the same purpose by dispersing the traffic throughout the project. All weather access across Temecula Creek will be constructed by the Rancho Villages Assessment District for Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road in accordance with County Road Department requirements. Two alternatives are proposed for Pechanga -Road. The preferred alternative is to leave Pechanga Road in its existing location with no improvements. This alternative would minimize psycological impacts related to lifestyle changes to some members of the Pechanga Reservation should the roadway be improved to County standards. The second alternative is to improve Pechanga Road in accordance with County standards if, at a future date, the realignment and improvements are deemed appropriate by the County. 6. Public Facilities Public facilities provided within the Redhawk project include three proposed elementary school sites and seven (7) neighborhood park sites. Proposed School Site "A", consisting of 10.7 acres for a proposed elementary school, is located in the northwestern portion of the project westerly of Wolf Valley Loop and northerly of Wolf Valley Road. Proposed School Site "B", consisting of a 9.6 acre proposed elementary school site located in the northeasterly portion of the project northerly of Macho Road and easterly of Butterfield Stage Road. - 30 - Proposed School Site "C" mill be located adjacent to 'O Planning Area 2 and consist of 11.9 acres. Utilization will be dictated by State funding programs unless otherwise provided by Temecula Union School District (TUSD) Should the TUSD or State decide not to utilize any of the proposed school sites, school site A" will be vested with the right to develop in accordance with the medium-low density development standards; School Site "C" will be entitled to develop in accordance with medium-high density development standards. The developer will negotiate with the T.U.S.D. for their purchase of the sites. The future location for the school sites can vary within the specific plan area. For example, if School Site "C" were to be located in Planning Area 21 , the former school site would then be entitled to develop in accordance with the Medium-High density development standards. The total number of dwelling units of 4,188 for the specific plan may be exceeded if the school district elects not to develop one or more of the school sites or if the school district chooses to develop in a non-designated school site planning area with a lower density than the underlying entitlement density for the designated school site which has been O relocated. B. Development Plans and Standards The following section consists of a discussion of community level development standards, planning area standards, the architectural design manual and landscape guidelines. The section also sets forth the implementation program for the Redhawk Specific Plan. 1. Community Level Development Standards Community Level developed to coordination of Redhawk Specific focus on specifi plan, including: Department Standards have been implement overall design development areas within the Plan. These plans and standards c design elements of the overall o Residential Areas o Commercial Areas O - 31 - o Open Space and Recreation Areas o Circulation Standards o Drainage Plan o Water and Sewer Plan o Phasing o Grading o Landscaping The community level development standards will be applied to all land use areas within the Redhawk Specific Plan including the twenty-one residential planning areas which are designed to create individual neighborhood areas with design features tied to the larger context of the Redhawk community. The development standards will further be supported through the inclusion of an Architectural Design Manual, Landscape Guidelines and an Implementation Program which is discussed in the following subsections. ..~( J1 a. Residential Land Use Standards Residential land use standards consist of overall standards which apply to all planning areas, and standards which apply to each of the major residential land use categories. o Overall Residential Standards - Redhawk shall develop to a maximum of 4,188 dwelling units on approximately 1,275 acres. - The maximum specific plan density may only be exceeded if the TUSD chooses not to procure and develop a school site or if it elects to construct a school in a non-designated school site planning area with a lower density than permitted by the underlying entitlement density for the designated school site that has been eliminated or relocated. - 32 - - Housing tracts and multi-family plot plans will be marketed to merchant builders under strict design review provisions contained herein. - Great American Development Company shall retain design review control over builder product. Great American Development Company shall also act as the master developer for implementing subdivisions. - The total number of dwelling units permitted in each planning area shall be determined through' a review of specific plan requirements and through a review of tract map, plot plan or conditional use permit applications up to the maximum permitted density based on the following factors: * Adequate availability of services * Adequate provision of recreation and open space space areas in accordance with the Specific Plan development standards. * Adequate design of lot and street layout in accordance with the Specific Plan development standards. * Sensitivity to neighborhood design in accordance with the Specific Plan development standards. - Target density subtotals for any major land use category designation shall not be exceeded individually or cumulatively for the medium-low, medium and medium-high major land use categories except as noted for school sites. Refer to the Implementation Program and Administrative Standards subsection for a more detailed discussion of planning area density requirements. The following development standards are keyed to the major land use categories of the Redhawk Specific Plan. The standards will be implemented through the S-P (Specific Plan) zoning designation. ~~ - 33 - o Medium-low and medium Residential Standards Medium-low and medium residential standards shal] apply to Planning Areas 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, B, 7 8, 8, 14, ].4, ~ 18 and 18. Des;cripiion: The fourteen residential planning areas within the low and medium-low land use categories are distributed throughout the Redhawk project with the primary focus surrounding the golf course. The permitted densities range from two to five (2.5 to 5.0) units per acre in the medium-low density areas and from five to eight (5.0 to 8.0) units per acre in the medium areas. The planning area target densities range from 2.8 to 4.9 units per acre in the medium-low density areas and from 5.5 to 5.6 units per acre in the medium areas. Standards: * Medium-low and medium density residential uses ,~J-~J1 shall be developed in accordance with Exhibit II-1. * Flag lots shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the County Fire Department. * Minimum yard requirements shall be as follows: - Recriprocal easements shall be permitted as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. - Buildings shall be set back from the tops and toes of slopes in accordance with County Grading Standards. - 34 - _ , pace~adang f~-...s a~ ~ee€ fps ~._._.Ta~ds €s~ dc~•ae~e d-~°°°ds--vn tcri or and +Ea;°etse,~ }e$ ~C88 ~a3 aba ~ n ••} o s e~3a~~ }1... a ~a1. _- r-~~__ .~-rri-m~nn on~~ _ _i_~ _ __ __i~~Ta S' ess t ~eEt. .ter-eaF~R a €-~ ve~t3ral f nat.., h a a~ t ee . o Medium-high Residential Standards Medium-high Residential Standards shall apply to Planning Areas 11, 12, 13, 15,~~20 and 21. - 35 - e s ~ ~- ~a:'BiFI tti` nv' t • ~ ~}~. ..a~~.-,,.,o~ s, n r__a t~._ -~J Description: The seven medium-high planning areas are located near the major project intersections or adjacent to commercial areas. The permitted density range is from eight to seventeen dwelling units per acre.- Planning area target densities range from ten to fifteen units per acre. Standards: Medium-high density uses shall be developed in accordance with Exhibit II-1. * The following special design features shall be required for multi-family products: - Neighborhood entries shall be provided at all entrances. - one access point to a collector or larger roadway shall be provided for each 100 dwelling units or fraction thereof within a planning area. - A minimum of two access points shall be provided for each multi-family planning area. - -ma - .:,.~e +he +~ nm hu1.1d1nQ Seths~. .-~ - ons o 6-~et ~ i rap nnr - 36 - b. Commercial Standards Commercial Standards shall apply to Commercial Areas "A" and "B" (Planning Areas 25 and 26). o See Ordinance 348.3984 for permitted uses and development standards. o Description: The two commercial sites planned for development within the Redhawk Community are located near the community entry points. The project total of 22.8 acres of commercial consists of parcels of 8.5 and 14.3-acre neighborhood centers. o Standards: * Commercial uses shall be developed in accordance with Exhibits II-1. * Building elevations shall include full roof ,/~ treatments and all mechanical roof-mounted v equipment shall be shielded from view. * The rear and side yards of commercial buildings shall be amply landscaped so as to shield them from adjoining residential areas and adjacent streets. * Storage areas and trash receptacles shall be located so as not to impose adverse health, or noise impacts upon adjoining areas. Visual treatment is important so that they are shielded from roadway views. c. Open Space and Recreation Standards Open space and recreation areas may include the golf course, neighborhood park sites, regional parkland, - 37 - ~~f~®®D ~~ 0 ~~ .,~ ~' , - 0~~ ~ ®~~I ~ ~ LI LJ 0 1~ V U ~~Q~ Ca~~of~®~~o~ cGr~~ A~u~~u O~u~u~n4 c~®u~u~n~~uq ~ 50 100 U~~ ~O~eeau6Ass®CS~4~s 3151 Airway .Suite R-1 Costa Mesa. Ca. 92626 pla~~ ssb~-sT~o ENGINEERING CORPORATION ~~lp~ ~~~C~ °a~vv ~o~ A(~o 1T®~ Q.®4 ~p~~-- ~ ~d~~ aJ i'1 i ~~1~~ ~0~~ vc~ov ~o® ~(Co _ ~• .• ~a~PCS _. ~ vm ~ •• • • •• 00 .. .. . ,.... , . i~ •/,l, --v~ . ~~~C~~ ~ ~ , ~ ~cC[l~o®®D ~, A~c~~ ~ . ~~ 1 lnS~.lUl1CCl~ ~.~1~UU®C[~10~1 c~o~~ A~u~u ®~p~QUU~uQ cC®mrn~~~u~ so goo ~Uue PO~~eaai~n~ss®~u~$~s 3151 Airway . SuNe R-1 Costa Mesa, Ce. 92626 h1a~; 556.5200 ~1Ji~1~ ~~1~ -~ ENGINEERING CORPORATION ~'lal~!/ ~c~1P~ ~~ @ ca ~o~ AcCo .: ', / ~- (~®~~ (C®ao~~~ • ° •~ :: • • ®~n~uu ~0 ~~ • j ~~ . ~ -~ ,, .-' ._ ,: e ~ • ~ ~~a 3 • :' \A\~~~ ~5' ~ o~~~~ ~o .\ ~' ~ ~\ ~~~~~~ G~~r~c(}~ C~~~of~®r~~~~ cG~~ ~um~u~n ~~~n~u~nu~ ~®~u~n~~u~v .~ ~oo . ~'Ua~ ~U~~nuAss®~uaQa:s 3151 Airway Suite R-1 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 1714; 556.5200 ~1'1~1 ~7 ~~1~ . FNGINF.ERING CORPORATION ~a a 00 e• ~` o. ®; v 0 v g c~`~ 00 k!N 0 0 4 P 0 ® ~ ® ' D! A o~ P N ,~ Z m ~ r ~' ~ ~ ~ QF ~ B~ '~ g F-1 :; U d ~ l~ ~ • '' Z C ~<~~ ~~ ~4 Z ~ ~ ~ I a ~~~~ 'nUn® I^~_JG~ IJ 0 0 :~ v ® o® o pq !iN o ~~p G J ~I a ~ d ~ ~ g E~,.o ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~~ ~ ~ !~ Oq \~" ~r~ CPl L~ ~~~qq M u7 t7 00 g 10.6 oe a~ ~ q4 W J 0 ~. ~~ w ~. 0 ~~ A ~ p~~ ~! ' A ~p e~I 1 G a~ ~~ VN 1~ ~~ ~ ~ t0 ® N N ~ C d U c 111~~~--~~~ "s V iJ •~ o ~a 4 Z ~M~~ ~ ~ b ~' NCI ~~ ® ~ ~J a ~ ~ a h N~ e .~ ~ v '.l i ~1 ® . °a ~J e ~\ J' r b ~ ~ ~~ ~~ }-ir ~~ ,. ~i b e P ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ a ~ '~ ~ ~ _ b .@. \ , . o N e: _ W d~ ~ ~ .C ® ~W ~~~ ~ P o m `~' Q 04a~ c1 ~ ~ `~i N ~ C ~Tj i~ z t W N C6 n ~ Q ~N ;? "' ~ ~MU15~ ~ ~ e o V~ ~ oP ~`~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ a 2 0 ~ . ~ p G d e P ~ p ' `•D. •. ':~ o oc~ b f~A fi~ 1 ~~ ~'' •~ \ ~ ~. ~.. 1 ~~ ' ~ i. ~ ~f ~ ,rte ,, w ~~~ ' V s ! ® o ' ~ I i ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ® g ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ 1 ~ :~ 6 n' . .~.. ~z r~ C~ Z 4 v m w ® d ~ ~~~ ~ ~ g a p > ~~gq 00~ c~$ ~ A I~ i o u , . . C _'. C C~_ ~ Z a L x w ~ qqC 4 qyj( ~ u"S Z _ Y'17 V U Z W S . 1 b i -~--9 ~~ ~~ b ~~ Q~ \J •~ ~ ~ __ 0 ~® 0 o ~y O N o. P ~_ b ®A o ~ c~ o ~ ~~ o0 ~ ~ ~ b ~, ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ' y ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ b ~ d c, ~, n y ~ ~~ ~ b: v o e OO ~ cO ~ ~ ~ P ~ X11 ~I I I I1~ ' ®~ / ~~ o~ ~~~d~ . / ,. b ~; 00 6 ,~ .~., ~ ~ ® ~, y~~ @ g O T ~~ ~ ~ e O ~ ~ ~ F_77 ~ 2 V/z/ 1 .c~ A~ N ~1'7 ~ ~ 1--~i W . ~ o ~' v u O ~. ., ~ .... ' .. O O 1 1 o ~~ i ~~ °o , ,Y ~.// ~ ~ ~® ~. ^d .:. ~~ ~;. ~~ ~ ~~ ~~''.. ~ ~ -~ ~ ~-~ ~ . :` ~. ~. ~~ od ~~ ®~ ~~ r~ Pte! b ~~~qc~ M \:. Y t,,.~PA..1 p C~ . ~ t~ ~_ V • • • •• • • • • • ~ • ,•~• .. .• .. ~ ~ ~ IL • ~ . ~. ~ m \4\ / [[[~ • • ~ • ~~//~ /`\/V\/ ~ ~ • / ~ • •y• • . _Q @~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ „~ ,. I. \/ ,~ /~ ~~ __~ .-~ ~._ ~.. _~ • ~ ~ ~ ~® .; 0 ~,.pp o ca c® / o ...~ . ~ /' A ~ ~" ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ :. ,.. ~... ~~ ~ °~ ~~ a l ~1, . ~' ~~~~ .~ ~ a - ;- 1 ® .. ~~ ~ ~ (~. ..~. o .~ , ~ ; . ~ ~~ .~~----` ~~ A ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~. Ea ~ ~~ 0 o~ a .~~ ., ® ~ 1`.-~ .~ -.~ a ~ ~ :.• ~ I; ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ . 11 ~ a ~',~ d ' .~ i~ -~ ~ ", ~ ~- -!-~~-~~ a ~o ~, _ ~-~ O; (~' V ~ ~~~ ~ g d ~~ , c ~ ~ g ~ Z a o ~a A~ ~ a ~~~ Z ~ '~~ ~ `-~ ~ _~°~ ~ ~-~~®~ e ~°°~ _. ~ ~ g ®~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~- .` ~1 ~. ~~~ ~; i /~ W//' / l~ M i aye ~nnvo CP"~Qn n ~ as lyda~ ~ ice) eP~S• bike trails, equestrian trails and facilities, natural open space areas, nursery growing areas, retail and wholesale nurseries, utilities, parkways and biological enhancement areas. o Description: open space and recreation areas are provided throughout the Redhawk community. open space not only serves as an amenity, but also as a tool to conserve natural formations and uses. The open space areas also provide a buffer from intense uses. Recreation facilities can be divided into park sites, a golf course and driving range, bike paths and equestrian trails and facilities. Open space uses may include nursery growing areas, retail and wholesale nurseries, utilities, natural areas, manufactured slopes, parkways-and biological resource enhancement areas. o Standards: The following development standards shall apply to all open space and recreation areas: * Open space and recreation facilities shall be developed in accordance with Exhibits for Parks ~ "A" through "G". ~~,~~,,n;,~Q ~q,f at9,3D,a/,32,33,3~a.«d3 j * Park Site "A" «""sha1J~ ~ b ~ideveloped on approximately 1.6 acres adjacent to School Site "A" within Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 7. ~~Park Site "A" shall include play equipment, free play areas or other amenities as shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits.6~Park Site "A" shall be offered for dedication and improved prior to fifty (50) percent occupancy of the dwelling units in the final tract mapG~in thg~~ 34B~v Planning Area adjacent to~aiAd_pa~r3~ site. //~~~"~4g'~ 0 ~~ * Park Site "B" ~P shal be eveloped on approximately 2.0 acres adjacent to potential School Site "C" and Planning Area 2.~Park Site "B" shall include play equipment, free play area or other amenities as shown on Specific Plan - 38 - G._/ park site exhibits. Park Site "B" shall be offered for dedication and improved prior to fifty (50) percent occupancy of the dwelling units in the. final tract map the ~lannin Area adjacent to said park site.C ~ep~dAede¢ at"z~8~d"'m~r~ /~~Q~igia~ajA'C4~ 'Cf s i~/eei~ * Park Site "C"` shall be developed on approximately 1.6 acres adjace t to the golf course and Planning Area 17.~~ark Site "C" shall include B-B-Q, picnic facilities or other passive ameniti~ as shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits.~Park Site "C" shall be offered for dedication and improved prior to fifty (50) percent occupancy of the dwelling units in the final tract map in the Plannin Ar adja, t to said park site.a)SaeOed%dmn[z- 998.~.vz~s~e~/~arm.ascssu+dd~2a% (Plan ~` " a2/ sda~a.~s * Park Site "D" shall be developed on approximately 9.9 acres adjacent to the Pechanga Reservation, Planning Areas 5, 9, 16 and 17. Q~Park Site "D" shall include paseo, buffer or other park and greenbelt area amenities as shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits. 1r~Park Site "D" shall be fully developed prior to record tion of any final map in Master Phase III. e~Park Site "D" shall be approved administratively by the Planning Department in accordance with the landscaping plan review process in order to expedite construction of the rp~~a~otrk. Plot plan,,~~.ppproval of Park Sit "D" s 11 ~~14~~1"~d~~Yce O~Gno-.~u 3~~4~®~a2~9z.3„:~'~scs a.s~ * Park Site "E" C~s~hall~ be developed on approximately 12.0 aQres adjacent to Planning Areas 19 and 20.4)Park Site "E" shall include biological resource enhancement areas, equestrian trail or other passive ameniti,@s as shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits. Park Site "E" shall be fully developed prior to they j,s~~a~nc~o~ShAe~ 50 p. goc,~pu~J~ ~ r~it.a>Sa~Ora~~^s~.~.ee398.~R * Park Site "F", shall J be%~dev~e~loped on approximately 14.9 acres adjacent to Planning Area 14.Q)Park Site "F" shall include athletic fields or other active amenities as shown on - 39 - OO O ro a w~ H ~~ H ~ U H H E3a ro a ~ ,.r a +~ +• • ~ a~ ~ a b+ aoiaroia aciaroia a~aroiw +~1w~ •~ ~~ Nrou ~~ •~ .y U1a0 ~L O ~ O ~~~ ro i E RO I qo H RO N r 'dN ro O ~c1 . owaP owaP owav a~ o~ > n+~ ~ °an °an °a~°n c"ia N rip w ro~a~ ~~ a~ ~~ a ~ d ro N~' 01 , , ~ ~ + r~ . ~ arob arob arob a H ~ > ~ oi a ~~ ro ~~ ro a v m °O ~ >, ° CI a• a NW 41R a• fI1W dR m• WNW w • ~ + ~ ~ ~ v .- a w ~ •~ ro ~ •,~ a .~ •.~ ro •.~ ~ ro H a ~'3vo a•3to~o a3co~o E ro ~ ~ ~$ +0 1 • ro ~ • .a ~ ~ •.~ 0 O ~ 01 U W ,,qOq W N ' p y d a N a v ~4~ ~ro~ •° o o •~ ro b+ N ro •~ +~ q .u ~ a ro N ro b ~ •~ d U ~~ a ro • ro •.~ a a w Wy W+~ as •~a•~ ,~ .~ o ~ ~ o" ~~; $' v idix ro roU N N ~•ro o c ~y ~w w ~ UiHiA , d N b+ N ro O d ~D O ~0 01 O , U~ U ~ N • r{ 01 N ~i ~ ~ PQ U Q W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •,~ •,~ •,i „~ •ri d y N y y y ~ ~ N N ~ • ~ y W W ro R i W W ~' O ~••~ O d ~a a .'{ ~ ~ ,gip U •''~ rtl `~ U E d N N 11 H3a ob ~a U ~ ~ ro U R ~ ~ U ~ • O ~ U H [ ~ .i o ae +~ in o ~ ~ O A ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ A a ~ ~ y,, • O ~ W ~ H UO P iA~ U -r l N ~ U~ ~ro 3 ~ ro O N Ul N C a oa a ~ ~ U ~ U G ~ -I O -. N •,.i ro N •n W a~ ,., -.~ a w x~vb ae ro ro ~ i X m+ cn a~roN a ~ ~~wm ~~ •.~ -•.~ .~ •.~ ro CNyLL as ~ro•.~ a ~ a ~wa io ~ vWroa u> a~ N b+ ~~ m rn N N v r~ U' U .-i ~i W C7 N O1 1~ l~ .,~ .,.~ W to d +~ x x •.a ~, ~, N a a m ~r N b~ ro U1 H U r-1 ro 0 E ~1~J Specific lighting shall be Planning landscapi expedite Plan park site exhibits. shall be prohibited. ~ Park approved administratively Department in accordance ng plan review process in construction of the park. b~outdoor Site "F" by the with the order to Plot Plan ~e~t~i~d~an~ f _P r~k ..Baits ..~.i~`~~7``~~"'~$~r~:« ~o II . M~~.iJO O 13 Park Site "G" `~s7ia1~ be fleveloped on approxim tely 3.9 acres adjacent to Planning Area 6. ~~Park Site "G" shall include athletic facilities or other active amenit'es as shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits.~~The plot plan for Park Site "G" shall be filed concurrently with the plot plan for the adjacent park in the Vail Ranch Specific Plan. ~) Park Site "G" shall be offered for dedication and improved prior to fifty (50) percent occupancy of the dwelling units in the final tract map ??fi~nn the Planning Area adj ace~~ t~~ dc~G ate ~J ~Be~"+~h'°"``s 3~,z92~ ~,~,r ~ a Ka~an2'S. Table II-3 j'1 Redhawk r~/) Open Space and Recreation Area Use Acreage Percent Park Sites 45.9 3.6 Golf Course 182.7 14.3 Open Space 149.3 11.7 School Sites 32.2 2.6 Total: 410.1 32.2 ~ ~6/y (,~fdl"~'i~e+ C/'~62gnin~ •~~> S~tSi.Z a~Tle o/~ cetir~ s~ coas%~y e~ ~® l,,o~ S ~~~ b~ ~ o~ ~u~c s~ fie- co~~e.~ gas a B~~ o~~d~,s.~ .~z . ~cs~s ~~z~ ~ ~~~ - ~b ~S~ 6~ ®.,.~~.- .mss, ~ L i • i _..~. d. Circulation Standards The following section establishes design standards for highways, roads and streets. Most roadways within the Redhawk Specific Plan will be public streets; however, private streets will be permitted wherever. appropriate in accordance with County Road Department and Fire Department standards. o Description: The Circulation. Map, Exhibit II-4, depicted previously in the chapter, reflects six major road types as listed on the following table: TABLE II-4 REDHAWK ROADWAY TYPES Section Right-of- 134 110 100 88 66 60 ~Vay (R.O.W. ) foot foot foot foot foot foot A-A Urban Arterial Highway B-B Arterial Highway C-C Major Highway D-D Secondary Highway E-E Collector Street F-F General Local Margarita Road begins as an urban arterial highway and transitions to a major highway prior to reaching Temecula Creek. Pala Road is classified as an arterial highway between Fairview Avenue and Pechanga Road. - 41 - Wolf Valley Loop and Butterfield Stage Road are classified as major highways in terms of right-of-way; however, Wolf Valley Loop is classified as a modified secondary highway in terms of the improved section. Wolf Valley Road, Wolf Valley Connector, Fairview Avenue, E1 Chamisal Road and Macho Road between Wolf Valley Loop and Butterfield Stage Road are classified as secondary highways. Five residential collector roads are located near community entry points at the intersection on Butterfield Stage Road and Macho Road, near Planning Area 20 off of Fairview Avenue near Planning Areas 16, 12, 15 and 13, near Planning Area 11 off of Wolf Valley Loop, near Planning Area 7 and 10 off of Wolf Valley Loop and off of Wolf Valley Loop near Planning Area 21. o Standards: The following development standards shall apply to all public roadways. Exceptions to these standards shall be approved by the County Road Department. - Urban arterial highway improvements shall be based on a 134 foot R.O.W. landscaped, a curb width of 110 feet with an 18 foot median, and two 12 foot parkways. An additional 4 foot landscape maintenance easement shall be provided on each side of the parkway to accommodate a 5 foot meandering sidewalk wherever feasible. , - Arterial highway improvements shall be based on a 110 foot R.O.W., a curb to curb width of 88 feet with a 22 foot median and two 12 foot parkways. An additional 4 foot landscape maintenance easement shall be provided on each side of the parkway to accommodate a 5 foot meandering sidewalk wherever feasible. - Major highway improvements shall be based on a 100 foot R.O.W., a curb to curb width of 82 feet i - 42 - ~~ with a 14 foot landscaped median and two 9 foot parkways. An additional it foot landscape maintenance easement shall be provided to accommodate a 5 foot meandering sidewalk wherever feasible. - Secondary highway improvements shall be based on an 88 foot R.O.W., a curb to curb width of 64 feet with no median, two 12 foot parkways. An additional 4 foot landscape maintenance easement shall be provided on each side of the parkway to accommodate a 5 foot meandering sidewalk wherever feasible. - Collector roadway improvements shall be based on a 66 foot R.O.W, curb to curb width be 44 feet with no median, except at neighborhood entry areas and two 11 foot parkways with 6 foot curb sidewalks. - General local street improvements shall be based upon a 60 foot R.O.W., a curb to curb width of 40 feet for lots smaller than 7,200 square feet, .jam a curb to curb width of 36 ~~J1 square feet and larger, two 40 foot sections and two 12 foot sections and no neighborhood entry areas, sidewalks. Eoot for lots 7,200 10 foot parkways for foot parkways for 36 median, except at with 6 foot curb - Collector roads and general local roads shall be flared at neighborhood entry areas to accommodate landscaped medians in accordance with Exhibit II-17. e. Drainage Plan o Description The Redhawk drainage plan shall apply standards for the development of major drainage courses with the project in accordance with Flood Control and Water Conservation District directives. i~ - 43 - The drainage concept developed for the Redhawk .Specific Plan reflects a committment to the retention of natural drainage corridors. Flood plains that bisect the project site are either left in a natural state or designed as a public open space or recreational usage such as the golf course. Major flood plains that border the project site will be channelized as needed to control flooding. Channel design shall incorporate a "soft" bottom unless otherwise required by the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Some of the drainage improvements including Temecula Creek channel and major road crossings in the project area will be provided through the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Ten year storms will be contained within the curb areas of streets and the 100 year storms will be contained within the street right-of-way. Storm drains will be provided where either condition is exceeded. o Standards: The following standards shall apply to drainage . courses and facilities within the Redhawk project. * Major flood plains adjacent to the project shall be improved as required by the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Temecula Creek improvements shall be funded and constructed by the Rancho Villages Assessment District. * The broad wash area bisecting the project site shall be retained in an open space or recreation area, i.e., golf course. * The circulation system shall be designed to compensate for drainage impact in accordance with the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Road Department standards. * Where possible, parks and schools should be designed adjacent to floodways for open space and recreation considerations. - 44 - ~k * Where possible, the equestrian and bike trail system shall be designed along linear drainage features. * Lakes may be built in drainage courses and used for aesthetic, retention, recharge or irrigation purposes. * Lakes shall be irn golf course. f. Water and Sewer Plan The Redhawk project sanitary sewer and all planning areas. generally conform to eluded in shall domestic Backbone Exhibit the design of the be provided with water facility for facilities shall [I-9 unless otherwise approved by the water and sewer purveyors. o Description The water and sewer plan is designed primarily within the road rights-of-way within the project boundary. The major trunk line systems are • presently being planned as part of the Rancho Villages Assessment District. The Redhawk water and sewer system has been designed to coordinate with the area District Master Plans for both water and sewer. Sewer lines are designed from 8 inches to 15 inches in diameter on site. A pump station is planned adjacent to Margarita Road next to the Vail Ranch property; however, the final design may utilize gravity flow if possible. If needed, it will be funded by the Rancho Villages Assessment District for design and construction. Water lines are designed from 11 inches to 24 inches in diameter on site. A pump station and water storage tank will be developed by Rancho California Water District to service the 1,380 pressure zone which will serve approximately one-half of the project. - 45 - ~ . t5 ~ e ~ ~ ~ ® N ~ C O ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ O ~ P P P P fig ~ C ~ ~ ~ ..C ~ ~ 0 o ~ I j ~ = o i I I O H O ~ ~ a I ~ ~ ~ _ o ( I ^ ~ a, ~ (~ o ~ i o c ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 'o ~ I ~ ' I _ ~ C ~ d "~ ~° ~ 6 6-3yy qqq ~ V g O _ • ~~ ~ ~ ~¢ A ~~~~ ~ ~ f~ JO Q p~ O a o~ o Standards: The following general standards shall apply to development of water and sewer facilities. Actual sizing may vary based upon final design requirements. - 8 inch to 15 inch sewer lines shall be provided along Macho Road and Wolf Valley Connector Road and part of Margarita Road. - 10 inch to 15 inch sewer lines shall be provided along Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Road and Fairview Avenue. - 12 inch to 15 inch sewer lines shall be provided along part of Margarita Road and the Temecula Creek Channel. - 15 inch sewer lines shall be provided along Pala Road. - A pump station for sewer shall be provided, if needed adjacent to Margarita Road and the Vail Ranch property. - The Pala Lift Station and force main will be replaced by improvements planned for Phase I of the Rancho Villages Assessment District. - 12 inch water lines shall be designed along E1 Chamisal Road, Macho Road, Wolf Valley Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Margarita Road, and part of Wolf Valley Loop Road (between Margarita Road and the Wolf Valley Connector). - 16 inch water lines shall be designed along Fairview Avenue and part of Wolf Valley Loop (between the Wolf Valley Connector and E1 Chamisal Road). - 24 inch water lines shall be designed along Pala Road. - The water and sewer system shall be designed to coordinate with surrounding projects. O - 46 - :~ g. Phasing Plan The Redhawk phasing plan shall guide the timing and sequencing of development in accordance with grading and infrastructure requirements. o Description The phasing plan focuses on the phasing of residential development among the planning areas. Planning areas are grouped into five master phases which correspond to areas which will individually be balanced from the standpoint of grading quantities and which can be individually developed as infrastructure requirements permit. Each phase will be constructed as infrastructure is provided by either the developer or the Rancho Villages Assessment District. All phases of the specific plan fronting on Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Road and Margarita Road shall be permitted to develop concurrently with the construction of Phase I improvements of the Rancho Villages. t`~~J1 Assessment District. Phase I and IZI of the specific plan fronting on Wolf Valley Connector, Fairview Avenue, Macho Road and Butterfield Stage Road shall be permitted to develop concurrently with the construction of Phase II and III improvements of the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Phase I is comprised of Planning Areas 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 8 and li, plus apart of Planning Area 2. Phase II is comprised of Planning Area 4 and a part of Planning Area 2. Phase III is comprised of Planning Areas 5, 17, 9, 12, 13 and 15. Phase IV is comprised of Planning Areas 6 and 21. Phase V is comprised of Planning Areas 18, 19 and 20. - 47 - >~ - ~ ~, P ® e. ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ b P ~' `~ ~ 0 ~ „ z ^- ~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~ °® P o ~~ e ~ o P v c~ v ~ P O °; •~ ~~ ~ w G~ o oe ~ c ee o u ~ ~/ \ O ~a 7 ~Q A w e O e e ~/ e o Q1 ~'+ ^ ~l Z ~, o 0 0 ~ P u ~ ~' o ~ '= fi7 0 ~~' o ~ ~ OC ~ ~ u ~ ~I w ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~~ Q a o 0 n o~ ~~ ~ °o° Q ro u v E E 0 :J 0 r x w ~~ C'/ d 1~~? 0 0 Y M (aJ a A M q M N W £.E aN.+ Y N ~w N a M N MF.~ n r a.+M r1 N Y rJ nU.l pp~ N a S ~~,~ o m £ ~ e a o n ^, •i o ~' ~ '1 N y ~ ` I i p, N 0 .i G ~' Q 4 Y N u m „~ a S m M S u N N H O N O m O O N N wr.~ oa .a V . S S ~ ~ aM a ,~ ~:: M o .1 '1 „y a N n 00 17 r. I~ ~ P' > N m ~ W a .1 e a .qi M ~^ e A V h 76 n' SS4 .. 11 R a Orl oo W y ~ P O O m O M rl O N O O O 1~ }i k' N q .m . ~ m ry b O y . ~ v ry M a ~ m m '~ b . NMO O qM Ylq .-1 j MN ~ b ~ [. O N ~ a~ R p m O In q b o o pp F R Q N q ry ~ q rl w m a a R~ a e m a F b ei a O q pi N b M ry b N I I m M 1 N 1 A m N a q m q yl pQ N '" O n O C '~ a~ N M N N ~ ~ a ri N a Iry M~ M N M a IQ M F ~ ~ ~ m m A 0 ~ ~ ~n ~8 ~4 a~ m M £ N 0 00 o q n n n .• w a ~ .7 .7 Q a~ ..Q11 R m T. q R W +Q1 N o'^ e m o q q O m O Imll O O ID „ Ifl b V q V1 e V O V r q m a M M q N a w N N q 1~ '1 N 1 1 f~ O r a o m m n n O Im a ry O q m n N N I 1 o a `~ m T IO T h V ry m N bl a A S W o . I O N n a n .pp7 q MIC A'~q O O ry O O q O O m gib. `. a n .i N .C a C m O N e n o n u m b a N I m I 1 m 1 q , 1 b I N I w •~ I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~q ~1+1 V ~ u .I a A N m 6 7tl "~ E a o 0 aoe a .~ N ~N~ a V a a w } N ~ ~ n; a S p~ o % O N O V .I a q m N N N G 0 ^ 01 q0 U ~ it U 0 o M U 0 q j O q M a M 1~ n N M N b ~1 O N N b N N N b e e N I(1 I e i r i N a 10 N ~ b O I+1 m 1~ ry q b ry I I I H I b N H I ry b Irl O N ID a ei IG q M ~ .+ o a ry O ~ n ti N q N ry .+ n b q I N '1 ?+ A ' 0A oA A ~ E yy ~ ~ r o p GY G4 t f7 Oy m M N R U q G F q q M rl ry N a a N N O ry H M 1 a .~ u m q b b N I M I ry 1 O q [~ m q q q m N N ry MI n q N N M N O ry I N mp~ N nI N b ,I NI r q N N m N e ry N m q n r m ry m m O n .+ .I b N n N s ;~~~~~ E~amg O N q r N a n m M 1lmb 1 ry N 1 R aC .. pa~q ppp~~~~ ~ 8 I u ~ ~I ~I ~p~~1_,,1~~ ~M~~J I~ m . ry A N tl T 1 MIR ~ ~ a O q `~ V ~A~ a V o m b q N a ri q ri rl N N q a I~1 HI q ry . ~~,~ ~~~~ O~. q i MI m i i M I 1 1 a~ :~ LL ,`~J TABLE II-5 REDHAWK TARGET UNITS PER PHASE Phase I 1,109 Phase II 4'43 Phase III 1,208 Phase IV 655 Phase V 773 Total 4,188 o Standards - Grading, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities and roads shall be provided at adequate levels to accommodate development in each phase in accordance with County requirements as implemented through conditions of approval for tentative subdivision maps, plot plans and conditional use permits. - Phases shall develop in accordance with market and infrastructure timing.considerations. - Phases may be overlapped and shall not necessarily be developed sequentially. - The golf course and commercial project areas shall be phased independently of residential phases as market conditions warrant. - Equestrian trails, entry statements and landscape buffers shall be phased concurrently with individual planning areas which include those amenities and design features. O - 48 - - Bike lanes shall be developed by the County at such time as the Road Department deems appropriated. h. Grading Concept Plan The Redhawk grading concept plan shall apply to all development areas within the project. o Description Mass grading and remedial earthwork shall be required for all residential planning areas. Limited mass grading shall be utilized for the majority of the golf course and open-space areas to protect natural features. Approximately l0 million cubic yards of earth will be moved for project development in terms of "raw" earthwork quantity. o Standards The following standards shall apply to all graded areas within the Redhawk Specific Plan. - All grading -shall conform to the recommendations of the preliminary soils report filed with grading plans. - All grading shall conform to County Grading Standards as applied through directives of the Director of Building and Safety. - Grading plans shall conform to the following County Hillside Development Standards: * All cut and/or fill slopes or individual combinations thereof which exceed ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increased slope ratio (e.g. 3:1), retaining walls and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. -49- ~ .. Cl ~ ~ ~_ ® o P O O L'S C.. i O'~[D ~ A tJ ~ / a ~ .~ ~® ®~~ @ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ . $ if1 G ~ ~, V .C ~ ~~ ~. Q q ~~ ~^ ``M V ~ 1"' p~ b p}~ b C O pO !7 o~`~ O .u r~ f b L * A slope stability report shall be submitted with all subdivisions creating slopes in excess of ten (10) feet in vertical height. * All driveways shall not exceed an average grade of fifteen percent unless otherwise approved by the Building and Safety Department. - Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan or tentative subdivision map shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan or map shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans of individual phases of development and shall include the following: * Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. * Identification techniques which will be utilized in areas which may be graded during [~~ the rainy months. r * Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. - All manufactured slopes exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be graded incorporating the following techniques: * The angle of the graded slope interfacing a natural slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. * Angular forms along exterior view areas shall be discouraged. The graded form of exterior view slopes shall create the appearance of rounded terrain whenever feasible. * Where the toe of the slope exceeds 300 feet in straight horizontal length, the toe of slope shall be curved in an undulating fashion. - 50 - L~ - Natural features such as specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings shall be .shown on final grading plans. Graded but undeveloped land shall in a weed-free condition and planted with interim landscap with other erosion control approved by the Director of Safety. i. Landscaping Plan be maintained shall be ing or provided measures as Building and The Redhawk landscaping plan shall apply to all landscaped areas within public right-of-way or landscape maintenance easements. o Description Landscaping within the Redhawk project shall be designed to impart a sense of place through uniform treatment. General landscape areas include slope planting, landscape buffers, parkways, medians and project entries. o Standards: The following standards shall apply to all landscaped areas identified by Exhibit II-13 or contained within the Redhawk Specific Plan. Additional criteria are provided in the Landscaping Guidelines subsection. - Community Entities shall reflect the overall theme of the Redhawk project as set forth in the Redhawk marketing program. Community entry areas shall be custom designed to enhance natural and manufactured features in the vicinity of entry areas. - Identity nodes shall substantially conform to Exhibits II-14 through II-16. O - 51 - j. - Neighborhood entries shall substantially conform to Exhibits II-17A and II-17B. - Parkway and median landscaping shall conform to Exhibits II-18A and II-18B. - Landscape buffers shall conform to planning area exhibits and Exhibit II-19. - Walls and fences abutting collector streets and larger roadways shall conform to Exhibit II-20. - Prior to the approval of any development permit conceptual landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director and approved for the area of development in question. - All landscaping within right-of-way, fee title lots or maintenance easements shall be maintained by County Service Area 143 or other entity as approved by the County Director of Planning. - Parkway slopes outside the right of way and other landscape areas to be publicly maintained or .maintained as common area may be shown on tentative maps as private ownership easements or as lots. These areas may be changed from private ownership easements or lots to any acceptable form as deemed appropriate at the final map stage. - All landscaped planter beds in interior parking areas shall be, not less than five feet in width and bordered by a concrete curb not less than four inches in width or more than eight inches in height adjacent to the parking area. Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout all parking areas. - Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. r ~O - 52 - ~" ~J 'O ro O cC v~ oa'; b= ~ a v x V~ W L.r i °' a.+ ¢^ v O °,~ ~~ e w o .C y X yJ W N ~ ~ ~ L ~ d ...r b `~~° `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ @~ @~ ~1 ~pp CJ b ,~ ~ g ~~ ~~ d ~ °~ g~ b b ~ ~ ~~~ b ~~ . ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ b ~~~ ~~ o ~ A ~~o ~~ °~~~ ®u~ ~ d ~ `~' ~ ~{~ o o d iad ~ ~ c oA w ~ y O .~ ° ec ` - r d L W u °' ro d ~ @a ~ -' E e , ~~ ro '; ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ °C~ , ~( , 1J~ s b ® W b a vi ~~; 1 x ~ q V ~- A W s'ue` ,' U u I V 'D ~ ~ OC „ b~ ~/ L •~ x ro "' v ~a ~= T , ~ ~ b ~ a m o ;k I~ ~ ~ O r P -r = J •: ~ ~ ~ W ~-+ .n oo q O . ~t .a: ..l V o L ~ ~ i ~ ~ . f'(.' A ~ ~ o ® big ~ ~ ~~ ®~ •'a~ad ~,~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ I~~~d d®~ ~ .:, ), L X W .-, Q M e U 0 v ,~ f~ f-i o P o 0 qd ~ P t7 0~0 0 o ® oo g ~~y~~pppv © V<J ~ @a P @a o ~~o ~~ ~® ~ : ~ ~ C ® d ~o ~~ o m ~ ~. ~~ o ~~~ ~ o d ~< q ~ ~ -- ~jQ{ ~+M V ~ o ° ~ ® _ ~ / O C ~I E// Zs ~ g d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o.~° o j !fi ® ~ ~ o P O Eil' o E~9 ~ n U Q O ~ ~~ a +r 07 .C a+ W VN y .x ~ .. ~N O. O1 ao ~~ C >~ Qa x 3~ W m ~V N ~i .. ~ro ~ J t' •' b ~:~ ~ ~. ' 1 ~ ~. ~,~ /.. .. '' f. dQ~~ i j~1 s (d ~/~ I ~• a ~, .. it . A„ ~ ~ i4, .. . ~ 1~ o r ~ , pDO ~ . • /~rr ~., - ~ . . ,, ~.~a,,,;. ~.; , ~r . ~ ~: ~.~ .. FT ~~ j ~. ro J \ m T ~ a ros > " W W O O v, ~~., N v T ~ d ~ ~. v`_ N ~0 _ r' f / / 0 ~i r-cW ` ^ 1 y a ~Ca+ T ~V= UF- ~i pun IJ t X W H .~ Q .... U v N ti .O ~. .O L X W d N Q~ b v N r.1 N Y b a O N ro Y ~~ OC-® O ~ J e CJ r ~ .n Oi ~ x ro~ d M r DO ~O ,O - Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity as determined appropriate at the final design stage development. - Parkways and medians shall be landscaped in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Landscape elements shall include berms, ground cover, shrubs and trees in conjunction with hardscaping, meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities as appropriate and approved by the County Planning Director. Landscaping incorporate the Redhawk Landscaping and drought The backs sYsa~ll be structures greater than four (4) inches shall be shown on grading plans. - All existing trees with a trunk diameter greater than four (4) inches shall be preserved wherever feasible: Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced. plans along streets shall the use of materials identified in Landscape Guidelines. plans shall incorporate native tolerant plants wherever feasible. and sides of commercial buildings landscaped to visually shield the Erom adjoining residential property. All existing trees with a trunk diameter - Any trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on landscaping plans. - The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are - 53 - ~ ~ ~®7 ~ C~ o d ~ K~ o 0 O I ~ @~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ 1 ~ ~.~ @~ ~ ~ b ~ q~ Li' ~ ® i ® @ ~ mil; d ® ~,~ ~. a; ~~ ® @~ ~~ P ~. ~~ d~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ b @,! d @~ A ~ t5 0 ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ $ ~~ ® ~ .~; r~ d @~ ®. ~' b ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~~ A r~ 0 0~ C~ Q~ V 1~.~ e d ~ ~ p;: a , ~ ~ ~ ~J ' ~ ® ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ® ~ ° ~ ~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~, ® ~ d ~~ o~ ~~ ~® ~a 00 b b '~~_"~; >o g 00 . . Po CSC kLd e b a .e.. d~ e~~ `~ ~ ~ •e ~' ~a A~ ~~ ~" ~ ~ g a bUn® L~J O~ o~ O ~~ r~r A G ~I ~ ~ '-' 0 eo g ~ a m d 0 ~, 00 ;i ~~~ @~ ~ ~ 7 M ® O p /~ Cam./ d LI ® OC7 OC] G ~ r M C.'/ d ~7 d ~d ^N\-r J • M [ , ~~ ~,,, N ~~ V ~~ b Flpph! . oO b o~ 0 t ~•~ e~ .~ 0 O O ~. i e~ Ian r~~" G l ~~.., . O , D ~, d ~ ~ ~ ~o ®„.~ V1==~ b ~~ ~ S L .e ~ NJ ~ '• ~ ~ ~ W g ~~Up~l._J~~ LJ 0 o e ® ~ °o° [~~ •~ V ^(^~ b , ~~ g ® . g oo~ ~' oO ~ ~ ®~~~ ~ ~ oc b . ~ ° ®b ~:~.~ ~ ~ @J ~ t~ ~, . o0 ~~ ~ ~j~o ~ ~ ~, ~ @~ ys ~ ~.~ ~ hi ~~ ~~ o ~~ ~ ~~, ® ~ .@~ ~ol~ ~g bd moo ~<o ~® ~~ ~@a d ® ~, ~ L_ ®~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~® ~ ~ f~ ~ . goo C ~.~... ...~ ll~ _...}-....._r.. >~ ~~ ~~~ .w v v ;~ 0 _ ', ~' b E I 1 , I ~. ~. /' ~~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ "~ ~ ~3 ~ d ,,.. ~ ~ . A ~~ ~ ~ °~ ~ b` ~ i~ ~~~~ , ~®~ ~ -~ .~ q. ~. 1 l ~ ~~ a ~~~ ~ i w ~~ ~ ~ $ . n X ~ W D ~ ~~~ ~ b i~ ~.oo I~ ®' b ~I ~~n® I^~JC~ u o~ ® ~ o r~ a G ,.; b I Y 0 G 1~e-~ ~ V' g i ~' 00 ~. CJ 00 H a i •~.+ C p \ l\-JJ ~ m 1~ ® y~ ~ e ~ ~ ~~ C ~ ~c ~ ur q ~~ ~ ~ b b ~ ~. ® b cy ~ ~ ~ ~ _, ~_~_. ~ ~ . d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g b ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ® ® ~ ~ • ' ~ d ~ ~~ ~ o~ ® ® g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o0 ~ ~ ® g ~ ~ ~a b 6 00 ~^~' ®. 1~~, Y-' ~~ cg F~ b ~ b g~~. 00 r~ a 0 pp® L.=~ ..:.... .. . _ r A o~ Q~ CJ A '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ _ ~ @~ °~ ao ~ ~ o ~ `~ ~ o ,~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ °~° E/~ b f~ ~~ ®o~c o ~ ec 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ 0 ~vr' P A c~~ C Q~,, q~ 'gyp' "d'" p C `tl q~~~ ~Q hJ C7 "~'" G~ , ~ o~ a d~ e~~ ~ ~ a 8 ._ e N F ~ q ~`~~ ~ a I, ~ b ~~ ~ ~~ ® ~ Q@a ~/ ~ ll ~~ ~~. ® .,' ~I e. i P v. e~ V (~ ~j ® ~® P 00 i a P P eo e g ~ oo ~VUG ~ L=J ~~~qq . M d ~ ~ ® @~si o ~ c~ (~ g ca~ca t~ ~j. ~ `cam- ~ ~ ~ y p ~ ~ ~ ~ ° [ ~ @~ ~~~®~ ~~ ~ ~ ®~ b E~ o ~_' ~~~~~®~~ ~ ~~ ® ~ ® ®. 00 0~ ~~~ ~~~ w ~~ ~ ~. e~~ ~~ ~, : ~ ~a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~qqqq,,~ ~ ~M V~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ o~ o0 0 eo b .b q'~ P C.7 o ~ o ~~ rr~~ ~ M ~~ ®® ~~ ~~ '~' o~o ~ ~ ~~ ~' `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ d ~I o~ e U Q...' ~1 G ~i c~ ~, 00 `~ ~~ b ~I t~ b b ,~ ~~ d~ d 0 ~~ ~~ ~ . ~~ ® ® ~ P A 00 ® ~ ~~ 00 00 g~ o ~ ~~ ~ o~ ~~ ~~ ~~ d ~ Ei'I @~ `~ d .~ 0 ~_ ~~®G M ~' ~ ~~ I °n ® ® b ~~~~ I aoo~ ~ ®~~~ e~ ® ~ ~~ ~~ ~a w .~., d ~ ~ m m ~ ~~ o+ ~ u ~ ~ e 6 7rS L ~, ~°~ ~~~Q ~ w ~ uu~ii ~+j u~ b ~,°~~ ®~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~e pp® L-J ~ ~ ~ , ~,~ ~\~ ~"~ o ~ ~ ~. o 0 0 `rl a ,~ _~ _ 0 ao ~. ~~ ~g o~ moo ~~ ®~ o~ 0 ~~ ~® b~ d~ ~~ ®~ ~~ ~g a~ ®® ~~ ~~ o0 a~ 0 ~. 0 ,~ ; ; U Q :,9-,S a - a O® ~~ goo ~~ ~~ ®~ . o0 ~~ ~® ®~ ~~ 0 i d G ~ ~ ~ g °~ ~g ~~ ~o oo~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ®~ ~~ ~® ~~ ~g ~~ ®~ ~~ a w ~~ ~ ~ y ~ ~/Q~; c m ®~~ 1 4" ~ P fA ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ° ~~~ ~ g a A ~°~~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~ ~~ ~~~ t . ..... ... ..: ... ~.,.,:,.. ., .....;, ... ... ,.. .. `""^, Q' V L ~o the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Director of Building .and Safety. - All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for -the area of development in question. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be' utilized as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. j. Lighting The following lighting standards shall apply to all outdoor lighting systems within the Specific. Plan area. o Description O The project is located in the Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area, Because traditional d outdoor lighting systems interfere with observatory operations, low sodium street and safety lighting is required for proposed develop- . ments within the area. o standards The following standards shall apply to all housing tracts, commercial developments and parking areas and recreational structures within the specific plan area: - All street lighting within the project area shall utilize low sodium lights. - Parking lot safety lighting shall utilize low sodium lights. - Other safety lighting systems located within the plan area should also utilize low sodium lights and shielding. O J - 54 - O v Planning Areas The following subsection gives a description of each planning area within the Redhawk Specific Plan. The description is followed by a list of design features and a planning area exhibit. All development within each planning area shall conform to the planning area exhibits and related typical details. Locations and numbers of design features (e.g. neighborhood entries, etc.) are general. Final locations will vary based upon planning and engineering constraints and opportunities. O O - 55 - 0 1) Planning Area 1: a. Description: Planning Area No. 1 is proposed for medium-low density residential uses which consist of single- family detached housing and estate lots. Planning Area l consists of 42.2 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre and a maximum unit count of 188. Planning Area 1' backs onto- Wolf Valley Road which provides primary access to Pala Road and Wolf Valley Loop. Development around School Site "A" bordering Planning Area 7 and abutting the existing Murdy Sod Farm projectboundary. b. Land Use and Development Standards: e~~a~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Neighborhood entry from Wolf Valley Road _O * Community entry on Wolf Valley Road at property line * Identity node at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Wolf Valley Loop * Access to Wolf Valley Loop via Wolf Valley Road * Landscaped slopes and land use buffer bordering the Murdy Sod Farm * Buffered from Area 7 by School Site "A" and general local street * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop * .Medium-low Density Housing types, see Exhibit II-5. * Landscape detail, see details. * Neighborhood entry design, see detail. - 56 - P o~ t~ A 2~ ~, _ ~' N u n ~ ~® .. ~ ~ ~ ~ - ® ~ eo ® P O O O d ~ ~ ee h 0 q d i r' ® M ~ ~ 00 ® P oo ~ ~ ~ e ~, ® C ~ 0 O ® (~ 'Cy e~ qpo 6 ~I °~ ® qVq W q~ p !N ~y ~ . C7 ~( "q ~ y ~ tl ~~ .~~ ~ ~ N ~~ ~ r N ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~I f ! ~Q ~ . 2 y X W ~ ( Q p C~ 1~~ V //,F w q b i G~ C7 ~ ~ ~ O ~~. o .~ ® ~ s o J m . 0 0 ~~ ® ~ oo ~ i , s ~ ~ .. ® ~ •~ - .. u ~ eo~ e. ~ d Fri',' : ~;... ~ ~ ~ `\1'~ ~ ~ A ~j ~t + o ~ ~"~ t~ ~ o ...... ~_.~ 1, ,.... • ~` ~ 1 ~~ ~. ,;~ '~; s ~ o //i b ~. •~ ~ ~ ~ ti.. o ~ tJ-..y ~ IN i r'~//~ .; ~. l~~' ,,Y,,l,..o o. Q ,: r ~ ~ ~ 'II Sbt/ ~ ' ,,~ / . , ., j.. .~ ~ i ~ (. ,1 0 00 ~J ~ ~/ rT~ O ~ P F f I/ ' ~" 11:1 ~ ,~- ~ ~ ~-~~ ~ , ~ „~ `1 Tom- • ~.. \ / ..' u Fc~ . '`V ,{ +( :; ' ~ ~~rl"~4f1t3 . v t ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ L G oo .~;. ~ ire'''-' ,.~\.~ i @, ~ ~' d i Oq ~7 p ® ~ e ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ °~ f~ g ~~ t2 A. q' • v o eo ~ p. o , d' ®~ ~~ ,. O~ ~o * Identity node design, see detail. * Class II Bike Trail design, see detail. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply site-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plans, for further landscaping standards that apply site-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guide- lines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. ~ IThe minimum building separation, excluding. fireplaces and roof eave which may encroach two feet into sid yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. O ~'C Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slope in excess of 1 foot in vertical heigh shall not be less than 3,600 squar feet. Net useable pad depth excluding s in excess of 1 vertical foot shall be less than 75 feet. Net useable pad width excluding sl in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall be less than 36 feet. ~c; utomobile storage space shall be as required by Section 18.12 of ounty Ordinance 348. ~O - 57 - 0 D 2) Planning Area 2: a. Description: Planning Area 2 is proposed for low density residential .land uses including single-family residential and estate lot development. Planning Area No. 2 consists of 129.1 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre and unit range of 258 - 646 and a maximum unit count of 550. Planning Area 2 backs onto Wolf Valley Road, Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Connector and Fairview Avenue which provides primary access. The southern portion of the planning area is bisected by potential School Site "C" and Park "B". b. Land Use Development Standards: ~~af8 Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. O c. Planning Standards: * Neighborhood entries on Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Road, Wolf Valley Connector and Fairview Avenue * Community entry on Wolf Valley Road at the project boundary adjacent to the Murdy Sod Farm * Identity nodes at the intersection of Wolf Valley Loop and Wolf Valley Road; Wolf Valley Loop and Wolf Valley Connector; and Fairview Avenue and Wolf Valley Connector * Landscaped slopes as a land 'use buffer on project boundary abutting the Murdy Sod Farm. * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Road, Wolf Valley Connector and Fairview Avenue * Medium-low Density Rousing types, see Exhibit II-5. * Landscape detail, see details. O - 58 - b ~ b oQ g Q0 '~~ e~ ~ ~ z ~ ~~ ® "~ ®~ . @~ qq® ~ Cq_L L~q1 F.1hl~ 00 C \... \ ~, `~ ~~. 00 g .® d ~~ P ~ o0 b ~ ~~ ee @~ a~ I i~.. ~/ , ... ~~i.Y.~1 r ~ ~~ .^j' : ~....: 0 1 1''1': r,.~, ;.^>~. ., .~-Ca, i...~_ 111 ,. ...... ~,..,...;'~ :•:-.. `~;, ,yam ~ .;ct..~r'~'` ter;-, t, .. .. ~ yy~~ Cruel ~ _.~ f- ,. , .. ~ i y '.}\~~ l f y ....... ~ ... .. . .... .. .' _,, ..~ - is ir~..: ~ I ~ ..~ ~ \ ;4 W'......' I .. l ~~ Y.-r~i~ ' lM1 .. \... `` p -,_- _ I .. ~~ __ _ _.. {~~ \ \• f I / ~ 'fll 1 P ` ..~ , r'~' 7 ~ ~ ~ I o ® o0 .~. •~ ~ jJJ ~- ,y-pq a~ Al A C7 ~~ e. '~' ; ~...,:, ..~ `ti .\~ • ~ ~ ~ ~. c, @~ ~'~ d »E ~ ~ _ ~ ~I . (i ' ~ O ~ ~ ® c~ ~i M ACA p q "~" 00 . ^ ~, ° ~ L2 ~ ~ ,~ a ~ un ' ~ @a ® ~ @a ~ .~ ~~ d ~ 00 ,,V. 1'. ~~ ~ F' 1 1 , ~ } '•, 1 w ~_ •~.. "~ ~ ~ .~~~ ~ ~~~~ 33 g O ~ ea ® Q~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~® ~ P ~®~~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ® ~ Ei~l o o n ~ u ®2 ~ ~ ~ ~ t5I ® a~ ~~o~ ~ ?J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~® ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~' ~~-- ~~ ~ ~ ~ e ® "} o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ `~~ ~a ~ Y,};~~ ~ ~ ti ~... ~ ~ ~~1 ~.\ p d b .. 'a, ., A \y\ {1/ ,:, _; ,1. f.: ' \' .~ J % ~_ ~~i; ~~~ -~i,. ~~r .. I, i. .. ;i~11 ~ 4,,,~~~ ,1 I , ~{ } \ ) '... i 1 ~'... -". 1 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~• ~~.. ti•~ ® i q t q .ii\~ C~ t ,. ~f . \,; ` .. \;~ .r.. '•~~~ , , ~ ~ r. oca 1.. ,, . '. ~ , `~1 ~ ; , \ . a '~ '~ 4u 1 t i r ~ ~~67c ,1• , if'+~ v \ J . ~ l.; It `~.~... ) '..,... ` \ f .r \ ~ ~ . ... ~, b a b e~ `mil W 1 ~ 1 .. /p~~ LJ u y 1 s W V ,,.. ~o * Neighborhood entry design, see details. * Identity node design, see details. * Class II Bike Trail design, see details. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a.., i Development Plans 'and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. P O ~t The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. !}~ Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net. useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet: Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance 348. A O - 59 - D~ 3) Planning Area 3: a. Description: Planning Area 3 proposes medium-low density residential uses which include single-family residential and estate lot development. Planning Area No. 3 consists of 22.0 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 44 to 110 and a maximum unit count of 69. Planning Area 3 backs onto Wolf Valley Loop Road and focused on Golf Course. The area abutts the club house facility. b. Land Use and Development Staa~~~rds: Refer to Ordinance No. 348~contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Abutts club house and golf course * Neighborhood entries at two points off of Wolf O Valley Loop s * Landscapes slopes and golf course buffer along' the golf course and clubhouse * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop * Identity. node at the intersection of Wolf Valley Loop and Wolf Valley Connector * Medium-low Density Housing types, see Exhibit II-5. * Landscape detail, see details. * Neighborhood entry design, see details. * Identity node design, see details. * Class II Bike Trail design, see details. O - 60 - O O ~ . _.._. . ~ ~. ~ O Q `_~ ® ~ ® ~. ~~.. 9 /- ~. ~ ~ ~ q~~ ewe /,~u~ ~ N ~p~j ® g ® t7/ ® O ~R ~ " w ~ 0 ~Z r~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~® ® ~~ v i ~~ to ~' ~~ o oo~ ®~ ~o ~ P ®~a ~c~f ~ :n c .~_._. d a° ~~~' ~_ ~ ~~ d d d ~~ d P .~, ; .~, ~;'~~ . ~ 0 a~ 0 b A ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~o t ' ~ v 0 b ® A ®p c rr•^ 00 ® `~' ~ ~ ~~ o~ d d~ d ~ ~ ~ M OC ~ ~ ~ /~ FFF 1 ~ dd j ~ ~ ` _ Q ~ U ~ U C ~ trf • ~~~ '" V . X N: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `g r ~~ 0 ~~ ~I pp~ I-J o~ rt' a®~ ~~~ ~®~ o~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O <' i 00 * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plans, for further landscaping standards that apply site-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. /~C The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in .excess of 1 foot in vertical' height _O shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance 348. O - 61 - D~-~ 4) Planning Area 4: a. Description: Planning Area 4 is proposed for medium-low density residential uses to ,include single family residential, estate lots and adults only developments. Planning Area 4 consists of 45.7 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre and a unit range of 91 - 229 and a maximum unit count of 187. Planning Area 4 backs onto Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Connector and Fairview Avenue. Development areas focused on the golf course and surrounded by medium-low density neighborhoods b) Land Use and Development Standards: . oZ9c~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c) Planning Standards: pO * Landscaped slopes as a golf course buffer abutting golf course * Identity nodes at the intersection of Wolf Valley Valley Connector and Fairview Avenue and at the intersection of Wolf Valley Connector and Wolf Valley Loop * Development areas backing onto Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Connector and Fairview Avenue * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop, Fairview Avenue and Wolf Valley Connector * Neighborhood entries at Wolf Valley Loop, Wolf Valley Connector Road and Fairview Avenue * Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape detail, see details oO - 62 - ~ ,, '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ \~ . > ~ ~ ~ /~ o !' ~ ~ R . `F~ x qq C~ ~ ~!', P d a ~ ~• s ~ ;, e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b e a®~~ , ~, ~3 A ~~ ® ~' o ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® u~ ~ ~d d `~' .~ .~-~. - ~~~.y ~. r fol. ' N ey ~ ~~ ~ ~. d z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 00 00 ® Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' yi ® ~ p +~ o 0o q {{{____U~___1!pj ® ® ~ ~- ~O p . ~ \ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ y ~ @'~ A ~ ~ ( ~ ~ oo A~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ b ~ ~~`~ Lim ~ ~ ~ ~ °o° ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ®~ o ~ ~ d ® ~ o°o ~, ® ®~ e /; • `~ ~ r~ '~ ~ } ~~\ . ' ~ {~ t. t „r ~ ~6~qy`~ p n r A oC1 ~ n~1~ J~ ~l L.J ~ ~y ~~ ~ ,~ ,~ , . ~~~, ,cr~s~? ?~ ~ ~ cJ, ; ~~ .... C (~ ~ J ,~ .. 4:i:' ~. r~/ ~ 'n ,~ ~., .- g' ~' 1 :.:: ~ _._ ... .... ' ..: r : ayF ' n ,, ~.~ , ..J ;~~ °~ ~~ ~ `~ ~flao~BflQo~°ad 08ao,a°oaooD000f3L4ApIIII9ff[~Q o' ' ~ ' r ~ ,,: (1a~ ~~~• /..• .--yam ~ o0 o~ ~ ab ELI ~~~ ~ bo ~ o ~ ~~~ ® ~ ®~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ @a ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ee ~~r, 1' ... ~ ~~ ~~ . ~•~• ` ~ ~~~... ~ ~ ~_ `~ ~\•!•, b ~~ I ° e 1 a~ I e~ ~~ o .~~. * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Identity node design, see Exhibit details * Class II Bike Trail design, see details * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plans, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Development Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into .side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. ~O ~ Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 'Y Vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. S.~ Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County ordinance 348. O - 63 - ~O 5) Plannin4 Area 5: a. Description: Planning Area 5 is proposed for medium-low density residential uses which inlcude single-family residential and estate lot development. Planning Area 5 consists of 51.3 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre and a dwelling unit range of 77 - 192 units and a maximum unit count of 187 dwelling units. Planning Area 5 backs onto Fairview Avenue and. abuts the golf course, Pechanga Reservation and Park Site "D". b. Land Use and Development Standards: !~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348~~ c~ained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Neighborhood entries along Fairview Avenue O * Identity node at the intersection of Fairview ~ Avenue and Wolf Valley Connector * A land use buffer and landscaped slopes abutting the Pechanga Reservation * A Class II Bike Trail along Fairview Avenue * Medium-low density Housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape detail, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Identity node design, see details * Class II Bike Trail Design, see details * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply site-wide. DO - 64 - b D O g ~t s a~~ a ~ ~ ~. a ~~ 00 ~. ~~~ ~~ 0p0'' L7 r.~1.1.y _ e~tl pppp •~V O O o i i ., , „~ o ,,~ , o, ~: O ~' y . c~ Q ~ C.) r;i.,t 1 .~ i lam` O~~ OMm~ u N i®~ '~'" p vN ~.. ® ~ ~ ~ P qq !!4! qq~~ HV (~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ® ~ e< A ~ o ~ P o °~' ® oo 't'f" ~ c~~ v ~ ~ o d ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " Ei 'I ~ ~ a :.,.., • ,.. ~ J ~'Y'l~, r ; ~~. `.~' :~~ i r ~ ` ~, ~[~ ~ ., '' ~ ,/ ' ' C 4..{ ~. ('~ 1 U ~ ,~, , { 1 ~ ,y ..1 ,~~ .. ... j f 1 ~, ... • .. . !.~ ~' .L ~ _ g y 1~ 11 ~ ,~•r~T ..~ ~I P d `~ ~r~J V ~® 0 0 O tl e~ VI ~-~ i!1 ~G P ®~ ~~ 00 0 ~ o o0 b ~ ~g ~~ ®~ ~~ '~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. ~~Np ~` ~ qN ~~~~ ~ ~ pp® L=J O O 1P7`~" Q ®® C`~ V e Oej, ~~ t v ® ® r=~i ® ~ ~ ec ~ ~ e <.. I~ ~ ~pp ~' .mom [ R ~ r' f9 00 ~Q ~ ~,ec~® ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ o P ~ N/ ~ ~ N P c !~ .: ".~ " ~ ~ • ~ .;:, k ~ l ,,,... :: •::...y o ~ ~ ~ ® (~ ~ h/ O 13,1 ~ [5 ~ o ~ ~''\) :~~~ ~ ~ P~ o ~ `~ E ~ ~ + f~'1 o r~ ° ;'tip, ~,7~1.f,'~, . ;;3 :I ~ v4'~ ~J Q I . % o ~' e e O C7 q dd \ j p 0 0 0 ~ popi~ pppp ^///~~~`t'•j• ~ ~ tf '•, \ ~ f~ p C7 ~ FKk! ~ t~ ® `y~/I.~I.ekl~ 00 \ ~\ Iyr` ~ 6i b ~ ?j ~tl /~~ritejfi•. • •'•: ~ ~. y'~ :i+~~~~ ~9 ~ \~~~.1~ i : t/• q o o ~ b eo n~{,+}:'1 jf' ~ •:• •'::. C7 c e S~~' ::•r` p ~ ~ C~ /' ' ~ ~~~•} 'r "yam • •~ ~ i'.~'r • I - •. ~' •`:~ a ~ t• ~ ~ •~ 0p0 ~ ~ /~, :~ r}jI . f!j I I ••`i 1 ~ q f!7 1R ~'y I ~ t w~- ~ O 1~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I ~ i•% I ~ I ~C7~ O :~I ! jf t:: ~• I b Lv ~~ ~ ;, j: ~• I ~ q ~ f :. q b 1tl // fl ~\ \~ r%rj:{''` 'F'"''!ti:., I f ' ` : ' ;Yi:;1 N ~ f~ eoc~- /t f ; 'j' ® ® L~ I ^ ....1 ~. / / T ~ ~ Y ~ b C~ ' .j;jrreis~;t;3;:• •. ~. ..: r:j:I'• i ~ ~~ •~. .:.:." •• :jjNY: ~~ l a 1~.: . .::. . ® ~ "~ : _. ~ ..:: ~ •" u ~ ••i::•'.. ~: ~ L 0.. G~ `~'. f~ ~ .;j.=,•• ~ ~ g~ ~ egg ~ ~, ~ P ~. ~+ ®~ ~ ~ -. 0 * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop * Land use buffer adjacent to Planning Area 21 * Neighborhood entries to Parcel "A". * Neighborhood entry to Parcels "B" "C" and "D" from Wolf Valley Loop into a general local street * Medium Density Housing type, see Exhibit II-5. * Landscape detail, see detail * Neighborhood entry design, see detail * Identity node design, see detail * Class II Bike Trail design, see detail * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. O * Please refer to Section II.B.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. ~( Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12. of Riverside County Ordinance 348. 7) Planning Area 7: a.'Description: Planning Area 7 is proposed for medium-low density residential uses which include single-family residential and estate lot development. Planning Area 7 consists of 35 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre, dwelling unit range of 70 - 175 and a maximum unit count of 145. Planning Area 7 is focused on School "A" and backing on to Wolf Valley Loop. Access to Wolf Valley Loop via Wolf Valley Road. b. Land Use and Development Standards: ,a9~ g Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * A shared access to Wolf Valley Road with Planning Area 1 * Landscaped slopes abutting the Tonan property * Abutts Planning Area 1 and School Site "A" * Buffered from School Site "A" by a 66' collector street * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop and Wolf Valley Road * Identity nodes at Wolf Valley Road and Wolf Valley Loop * Neighborhood entry on Wolf Valley Road * Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscaped detail, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details . O - 68 - O O 00 d f~ O$Aq~ 1~ A r ~ ~ b ~ ® oo P ~.., p r o p ~ ~ P o0 ~ 0 0 t~ao @ oc ® ~ ~ ® o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo p p~p ~ b ~~ O ® ~ 00 O ~ O 6q ~ ® ® ~ [J J v . e r , ~..J .i ~~ '~'" ~ ~ ~ ~ q{{ ~Q-* ~~ S ~ E6 .. spa t~ 7 C e g a yWW(( _ M ~ V O ~'"~ d ~ ~ d ~•~ i~" ~ °~ ~ ~~ ® ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ® ~. ~ d ~ ~~ 'NI ~'ii ® c lSv 0dd0 ~tl 4r~' 00 kq~ b ~~ ~~ OD ~E C7 -~ s~ e ` .~ ~ ' , a n s ,e ~ .~ V ry eQ[~eJ f~ P a~a` P eo ~ ~ ~® I d 0 o~c P r+ ~-® ~ (S o~ 0 I ~~® ~~ ®~ ~~ ~ o0 o d ~ ~ b ~-.a d ~ 00 Qp ~ `~ r~ 0 00 :~„ ~~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . e c ~. ~~ A ~ u ~~~~ W r o A o~ ~_ o0qq o v ~~ b ~' ~L \~ ® (/dy~q oo ~y ® ~y ~~ ~v~ e~ S O~ O C~ e G ~® ® ® P d `a ~ . ~ C ~ `tl ~d ~ ® ~ 00 o o ® ~ ~ ••e ® Q ® ~ ~ ~ P ~ o o A p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j yy~qq C~ 00 b ~ A ®p ~. v o0 ® ~ ~~ oo~ /~!~1 O, ,~' N 1 0 * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan,- for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., .Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance 348. - 71 - 0 0 9) Planning Area 9• a. Description: Planning Area 9 is proposed for medium density residential which includes single-family residential, attached single-family residential, townhomes, duplexes and condominiums. Planning Area 9 consists of 27 acres with a density range of 5.0 - 8.0 DU per acre, a unit range of 135 - 216, and a maximum unit count of 153. Planning Area 8 is focused on Paseo Park Site "D". The area abutts the Pechanga Reservation, Planning Areas 16, 12, 15, 13 and 17. b. ~ aNnl¢ade Si~t1 Sao dQaYQ:aBtu.¢.C /i9®. 3~®. ~9~~ COn.~e~.~.o( lER/~i~, * RRestricted access to Pechanga Road O * Land use buffer adjacent to Pechanga Reservation and Planning Area 16 * Realign Pechanga Road 66 foot ROW collector which provides access to Pechanga Reservation from Pala Road or leave in its current location. * Neighborhood entries on internal 66' collector road * Medium density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape detail, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of .l..vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. b oP 0 [~ P f~ ~ b ~ @~ 0 \ ,\'.. ~./ f ~~ oc~ ;a.: ~ ~~ ~~! o~o ~® ~~ d~ ~ ~ oca Q~ ll~ \ o ~ a ~®® ~ ~ ~ ~a ~~@° ~ ~~ g~~ ~ o® ~~~ g~® aoa~ v ~~\ o~ Pg 1s ~ i to ~® ®~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ e < ® P b e'~ e ~~q o o ~ ~ 1~fpj ~ k!N ~~ 4~ b ~ 1~ ~ ~! ~ ~~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ®' '~ P ~~ ® O b ~~~~~ ~ o ~ A ~ ~ ~ ®~ o®o~v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~® ® a~ . ~ ®~ ' ~ ~ °~ ~ _~ ~ ® ~ ~~ A ~~ b b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ e pp® ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~' ~ ~ ~ f •.~•, _1 I d } - ..... ~ r, ....,. ~ ,_-~• ~ ~ ~ ;~ `, ~ ~ -~ .• ~ ~ ~ :'®®® ~o ~ ®,3. ~ i ~ O ~ /~~~ ~ ~ v ~® ~ ~ i ~ /" ~ ~ ~ .1 ,~ ~ / ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ '/ ^' ` ~ /,~' ` ~ %~ / ~ ,/ %~ ~ `~~., ® ~ ~ ~g.~ '~ ~ ~ P~~ c~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~®. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~, i x 0 10) Planning Area 10: a. Description: Planning Area 10 is proposed for medium-low density residential uses which include single-family residential and estate lot development. Planning Area 10 consists of 29.9 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 60 - 150 dwelling units and a maximum unit count of 120. Planning Area 10 backs onto Margarita Road and Wolf Valley Loop. The area is focused on Margarita Road as buffer to Vail Ranch Project and abutts Tonan .property to the south.. b. Land Use and Development Standards ,aZ9~~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: O * Community entry, at the intersection of p Margarita Road and Wolf Valley Loop * Neighborhood entry from Wolf Valley Loop * Landscape slopes along Margarita Road and Wolf Valley Loop * Collector street 66 foot ROW access to Tonan property from Wolf Valley Loop * Class II Bike Trail along Margarita Road and Wolf Valley Loop * Medium-low Density Housing Types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape detail, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Identity node design, see details * Class II Bike Trail design, see details O - 73 - 0PP0 C~ -L'S ~® ~~ CS 0 O D a~ ~~- ,~ e ~~] O p o0 (Oaf ,tl o~ ® oo ® P HM ® (/n ~ / ~k ~ ® ~ A •® ob w+J ~ ~ P ~ ~ @a ~® ~ ® °~ ' . ~ ~ @~ ' t~ ~ I Ei . @ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 00 o O d~ p ~ tl ~~t~q F~ b p~~ b pp~ C .. r,,~,. . ~.. ~ ,, ,r.,~ ,.,,. ..~ i~~ ~ :, r.... ~, Iiii , ,., ~ ,. ®~ d P ~ '~ g ~~.~ /1~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~t ~~.,~,~~ k- ~, '.'..' ,o , 1~~,, M1 ~~~ r ;: ~+~ ,.. .. ~.~ ~ `f,~1~~~1'. ~~ i - i ' ! ; ,..;,i ,.:;~! ri~;'~ I ~ ., ~~ ~ d ~~ ® ~ ~ ~ i g P e ~ P ~ ~ ~ °~ b °~ ~ J' IJ 'nUn® LJ ., ~1,'r~ 1 b ~~ E-J d ~ O ~o^ lFwy ~~ d d ~~ d ®. ® ~, O~ e b ~~ ,. -- i ,y ~y d ~ ~ Q~ 1 Q ~ O ~ O C u +' M . ~~ g ~ ~ W ~~~ ~ g _ V^ ~' d 1,~~~ ~ ~ b 4 ~ {/7~ JO ,( ~ ® h/ ®,o g~ o~ ~. ~~ ~~. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. ~G Minimum pad areas shall be as follows:. - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square O feet. 0 - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. ~'C Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance 348. O - 74 - 11) Planning Area 11: a. Description: Planning Area 11 is proposed for medium-high density residential land uses which include single-family attached, single-family detached residential, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, resorts, hotels, hotels, motels and lodges. Planning Area 11 consists of 11.4 acres with a density range of 8.0 - 14.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 91 - 160 and a maximum unit count of 137. Planning Area 11 backs onto Wolf Valley Loop and is focused on the golf course, club house and driving range. Access from Wolf Valley Loop via collector street. b. Land Use and Development Standards: . ~~cZ~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Community 'entry at the intersection of Margarita Road and Wolf Valley Loop * Neighborhood entries from collector street and at intersection of Wolf Valley loop and collector street * Landscaped slopes and golf course buffer abutting the golf course and clubhouse * Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape detail, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Identity node design, see details * Equestrian trail design, see details - 75 - 0PP0 C~ ~~ Q P ~. ~~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ei'I o u d d ~. 00 ~ ~g d~ o~ ~ P ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ w ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ .. a~ Q ~ E'9 - e'~ ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ P ~ ~a _~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o ~ P @a P~®~P®Z ~o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~® ® a~ . ___ b~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ®~ ~ ~ ~ qq~~ ~ e e9 eo b ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~, ~ dC~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ l l' ._. ~ ... O P ~~ ~~ ~°~ b~~g ~ ~® ........^~... • - s -- ,. J' l ~ ' ~ +i ice' »'yiK'*~ i :: ~~ ~' ,~~. ..,~ •.,. ~ .rte. \': .. :.. 't_.:. ` lip ~1k ~ .Q- \ 1 l i . /fin l\\ ... `', ~ ~ ;r;:: 'll,~(c(~;-''~ ~ ~ ~, ~.: \ \~~~ ~ :j ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ / \ OD ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~® g .: ~ ~~ d o ~ ~ g ~. 00 ?~~ o~ 00 ~~ °b ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ q /~ Al ~ Ov O ~ nco~ ® ~ ~v~ C7 q q ^t~y-~p ~ O ~ qC~ ~ ~ ~ c3 @~ ~ uo bpi 00 ~ ~ C7 ~~~ @ ~ l®7 Z~~~ ~~ C:/ -/ ~J * Class II bike trail design, see details * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development .Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. one major recreation facility shall be provided for each planning area. ~l one minor secondary recreation area such as tot // lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided for every 100 units of fraction thereof within a planning area. Patios, balconies and outside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick strips may be provided at each project entrance. Curb cut dimensions entrance shall not be more than 40 feet wide. for' each drive approach less than 36 feet wide nor - 76 - ~a 12. Planning Area 12: a. Descriptions Planning .Area 12 proposes medium-high density residential uses which include single-family attached and detached residential, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Planning Area 12 consists of 8.0 - 14.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 162 - 283 and a maximum unit count of 202. Planning Area 12 backs onto Fairview Avenue. Access from 66' collector .street adjacent to Planning Areas 16, 12, 9 and 15 b. Land Use and Development Standards: ~~~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Identity nodes at the intersection of Fairview. O Avenue and collector street * Neighborhood entries from 66' collector street * Buffered from Planning Areas 9 and 16 by 66' collector street * Class II Bike Trail along Fairview Avenue * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-6 * Landscape details, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Identity node design, see .details * Class II bike trail design, see details * Please refer to Section II.B,l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. O - 77 - P b o~ /~ ` C s ~ . .~ 2® ~ J~ N ti ry ~ i +/ Z ~ o ~~ ~o , o ;; ~-;, i ji..;: 2~' ~' %,: l ~ '*, ••. ~•._: 9: ~., d q~C~ f' q~ C7 oca b r ,~ ~ o Ir' ~ ~ ao ~~ ~~ Q C7 O VI ~~ y g ~ 2 d" ~ ~ o ~_ p ~~ ~ ~ b ~ o~ ®~ ~ ~M~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o< ec~~P ~~~ ® o b ~ ~ o ~ n ~ o 00 0 ~o P ~ ~® ® ~~ A- ~ A ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~°~ ®~ ~ 00 ®~ g~ ~~ ~ o ®~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ d ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ o x:45 i ;~ „r aH g a. ~ i P u o ~~~~; ~,~ ,~ ~~~~... ~. ~~~ 0 1~ pO o O~ 4 O ~ --! ~~ ~~. -~ ~~;~. y ~• ' `~ r I 4,\. ~~_~I ,L . ~ /\ ~ S rl~ ~~ ~~~ ~ a~~~ ~~~~ O ~ ~;~~ ~~ ~ o0 ~ ^~ to ~~,,~~ ~~ ,, ~~ ,- , ._;~~-.. f..)._ ~\ .,, g ~' ~A eo 1y ~~ A ,.f~' ~~ ~~ N 1 / / f j~/ , / /~ ~ ~ O I/~ ~/. I 1/\/~/\1~^y L/ ,' l~ * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. ~C One major recreation facility shall be provided for each planning area. ~. One minor-secondary recreation area such as tot.. lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided for every 100 units of fraction thereof within a planning area. Patios, balconies and outside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick strips. may be provided at each project entrance,. ~C Curb cut dimensions for each drive approach entrance shall not be less than 36 feet wide nor more than 40 feet wide,.. - 78 - 13) Planning Area 13: a. Description: Planning Area 13 proposes medium-high density residential land uses which. include single-family attached and detached residential, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Planning Area 13 consists of 9.6 acres with a density range of 8.0 - 14.0 DU per acre, a unit count range of 77 - 134 and a maximum unit count of 115. Planning Area 13 backs onto Fairview Avenue, transitions to medium-low density Planning Areas 2 and 17 focuses on the golf course b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Neighborhood entry at intersection of Fairview O Avenue and 66' collector street * Neighborhood entry off •internal collector street * Landscaped slopes and golf course buffer abutting the golf course * Class II bike trail along Fairview Avenue * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-6 * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Landscape details, see details * Class II bike trail design, see details * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. O - 79 - P 35 g 00 a~ @~ ~~ a. `"Z 0 b ~ 0 ~~ ~ o0 o ~. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~, ~7 ~ ' e ~ P , °° ® P ~ `~ ® ~ ® f~ ~ P oO ® ~ r±y ~p ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ® °~°y ® ~ Q® Cs oc .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ® ® ~b ® ~, ~~ y q ~ c~~ I~ 1 • ~ •~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ O ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o d ~ ~ °~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~g ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~~ ~ ~ ° <' ~~ ~ P I i ~1 f' i ,1 p /~1 ' ` ` ~ _ ~. ti r~ r, _ C) \ Q~ ::.: t::'tt::...~~•. ~.. •~ ~..- ~ ~ o Ell ® p~~\ ~ 'd 0 0~ ~. 0 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ®~ ~ g~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 00 ~~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ . ~l ~ ~ ~ -~~ p, 1 1 O * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping "fL standards that apply project-wide. ~`j One major recreation facility shall be provided for each planning area. ~( -One minor secondary recreation area such as tot /~~ lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided for every 100 units of fraction thereof within a ' planning area. '^~ Patios, balconies and dutside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick strips may be provided at each project entrance. O ~ Curb cut dimensions for each drive approach /1' entrance shall not be less than 36 feet wide nor more than 40 feet wide. - 80 - ~o 14) Planning Area 14: a. Description: Planning Area 14 is proposed for medium-low density residential uses which include single-family detached, single-family attached, and estate lot development. Planning Area 14 consists of 27.0 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 54 - 135, and a maximum unit count of 73. Planning, Area 14 backs onto Margarita Road. Project boundary abutting Park Site "F". b. Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348°~0 ~ ained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Identity node on Margarita Road O * Landscaped slopes and open space buffer s adjacent to Temecula Creek * Equestrial trail adjacent to Margarita Road * Class II bike trail along Margarita Road * Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape details, see details * Identity node design, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Equestrian trail design, see details * Class II bike trail design, see Exhibit II-2A * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for .further land use standards that apply project-wide. O - 81 - ~ , ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ P i°¢ , ,~ ~L. ` ~ ~ r ~ •; ,~ `' o g ~ •,,~ ~ ~ U ~ C g ~ L~ O ~ G~ M g >^ „ a ^~ QOq ~ C5 .~. / v 0® ~tl V ql ~s ® ~ o '~ ~ ~~ ~ g f~ ~' @~ ~~ ff' O 00 (~ a eo ~~ d o ~~ 0o eo uf'- tg1 O ~ ~ pp® h/ t~ E~" 1. C~ ® ~ ~, ~ 1~ ® ® ~ ~ ~ r y ~ ® ~ gp p 00 oF~1 pL~ ~g f ~ o 00 ~ p~ G oqp~~ ~ C7 Q~ C ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ Pepe \! ~] ~ GII ` H C/1 ' ~ p/J O O ~ C ~ S F e oo ® M ~ ~"A ° ~ ~ ® ~ P ® ~ ~ ~ Qe ee o ~ ° o pp b V ~ ® p eL~ ~ ~ °J7 C S 0 0 00 o0 o dd ctl q b v ~ H~U A ] N C7 •f Q~ Cq7~ C5 ~ .a '~ G J -~~1 Q A'C t7 ® ~ e e~ 0 P ®~ ~~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~~~ H ~qq~~ ~/ r~ O qq o p~~ Ch/ r1~7 C b Fd "~' o ca b qq~ L.~ ~°~~ ® ~ 0 0 l:/ b '4-' x ~~ ~~ d ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ #; b ~~~ M ~~~ ~Q N~ ~~~~ Z ~" ~ O ~' '~' P ~ d @~ o b 00 (i * Please refer to Section II.B'.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may .encroach two feet into- side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet: ~~ Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County ordinance 348. -~J - 82 - ~i-' 15) Planning Area 15: a. Description: Planning Area 15 proposes medium-high density residential uses which include single-family. attached, single-family detached, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Planning Area 15 consists of 15 acres with a density range of 8.0 - 14.0 DU per acre, a unit range of 101 - 210 and a maximum unit count of 150. Planning Area 15 backs onto Fairview Avenue. Primary access from collector street or Fairview Avenue b. Land Use Development Standards: ~~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Identity node at Fairview Avenue * Neighborhood entry at collector street. * Access to Fairview Avenue from collector street 66 foot ROW * Class II Bike Trail along Fairview Avenue * Neighborhood entries along collector street * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-6 * Landscape details, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Class II Bike Trail design, see Exhibit II-2A * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. O - 83 - P b 0 0 C~ a ® ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ d 0 ;tia b A o oo~ ®~ ®~ ~pq 00 d ~ ~~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ® ® g ~ ~ d ~ B ® ~ b ~® 0 O ;1 (' ~;~ ~. ,s; ~ ~ ~°°~~ P g r,~ u ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I $ 3 ~I ~' O~ gg~~ C~.J e ~ ~' ~~ .. @ ~ ~ g ~ <e ® P o ~ ~ ® ~ ® =' ~ Ea o~ ® @~, ® P ~ P ~ oo P ~ A o a~i ~ ® ® ~ ~ 0 ~ . o ~ ~ P ~ o P ~. ® o ~ oo ® ~ ~ ~ ~ - _. 00 P ~ ~ a g ~ ~ 00 w ,~.. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ b n ~, x W * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. One major recreation facility shall be provided for each planning area. One minor secondary recreation area such as tot. lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided for every 100 units of fraction thereof within a planning area. Patios, balconies and outside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick strips may be provided at each project entrance. Curb cut dimensions for each drive approach ry entrance shall not be less than 36 feet wide nor more than 40 feet wide. O - 84 - ~o 16) Planning Area 16: a. Description: Planning Area 16 is proposed for medium-high density residential uses which include single-family detached, single-family .attached, townhomes, condominiums, resort hotel, hotel, motel and lodges. Planning Area 16 consists of 11.2 acres with a density range of 8.0 - 14.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 90 - 157 units and a maximum unit count of 133. Planning Area 16 is located between Fairview Avenue, Pechanga_ Road and Commercial Area "A". Primary access from collector street. b. Land Use Development Standards: ,a~a~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 34.8 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: ,O * Land use buffer adjacent to Commercial Area "A" and Pechanga Road * Identity node at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and collector street * Neighborhood entries on collector street * Class II bike trail along Fairview Avenue * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-6 * Landscape details, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Identity node design, see details * Class II bike trail design, see Exhibit II-2A O - 85 - I~ P !o ~s R ~ s ~ ~~._..: 0 0 g o -- QO ~7 ~ 1 ~ oo~ g ~ ® P ~ ®~ P ~ ~ ~ P vo 1 e ~ P ~ P ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ => w P o0 0 M s p 00 00 . ~ ^ r ~ rU y ~® ~~.. yd ~ f ~~ -o ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~M o b m _. ~ ~ ~ ~ ®~, oo ~ A~~ ~ Ea o d ~ d f~3 ~® b ~~ ~ ~ ~~oo® t2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ®~ v ~ ~~ d ~ ~ e ~ @~ ~ E~ °u~ ~ ~~ ~ ® oo ~. ~ ~ ~. ~d ~ ~ I ~ ~ 00 ~~\ ~~ ~~ g P ~ ~' f~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~~~: ,:. 1 ~, ~ ::fir:.:;.::..... ;~ a ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~. ~c~ ~ ~ `~~` ° ~ ,l ~ I !~. ~ LLf C\ ~ l \~k .::~ •• O ~ V ~~ 0 O ILd O "~'" oqq0 Q O 0 ~ ~ • ~ I •' ~n U p O /1~ (/ ~ O ~ 00 ~~ / ' fy ~ ~ q~ C1 C ~ o~ A QQp p q u+ J ~ ~ ®~ b b am` p d ® ~'~ o® ~ ~ ~ 3~. o~ i~ ~® c~ ~J. ~ ~ O ~~, 1 ti ~o * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. one major recreation facility shall be provided for each planning area. ~: One minor. secondary recreation area such as tot. lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided for every 100 units of fraction thereof within a planning area. ~'c Patios, balconies and outside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. O ~ Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick ~ strips may be. provided at each project entrance. Curb cut dimensions for each drive approach entrance shall not be less than 36 feet wide nor more than 40 feet wide. .O - 86 - ~CO 17) Planning Area 17: a. Description Planning- Area 17 proposes. medium-low density residential uses backing onto Park Site "D" and golf course. Primary access from Fairview Avenue through Planning Area 13. b. Land Use Development Standards ~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348~ontained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Site design around golf course fairways * Pedestrian access to Paseo Park Site "D" and Park Site "C" * Buffered from medium-high density Planning Area O 13 by fairway #13 of the golf course. * Neighborhood entry at intersection of general local street with golf course boundary * Land use buffer and landscaped slopes adjacent to the Pechanga Reservation * Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape details, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. O - 87 - oho C~~ ~ !7 O ® O~oy lJ ~ tl [~ 4y @d ~ o b ~~ A ~ ~ ~~A ~~ ~~ o ®Eril ~ @~ ~ ® o ® ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~. C7 ~ ~ ~ ® . _..~nns~~`io I I 1 , ;~~ l ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^~ ~ r .. •ri: `.~~` .r:;;, .. ® [~ f~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ®. ~ ntj oe ® ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ °~ ® n ~ a G° ® ~' 6fj A Ei') ~ ~ ® p ® ~ ~_ ~~ o0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ® ~' ® g~ A t' ~ d ~ ~ ~ i e~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ b ~ ® -C7 ~ ~ ® ~~ p ~p ~YQ'ku 1 M1// li. / ~ • o~ _..,.. ~~ ~l F !" R'}. .~1 r , ;~ ~(:!. ~, ~~ ,. „~ - :.::: 1 I / ~ .~ 1 I' ( ~ i ,., i` .. 0... _ _ ~I l ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ oo~Q ~j ~ ~ oo d `~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti= o ~ ~® ~ ~ o ~ ° a ~ ~ oo g ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ . 00 ~gA ® P o. o ~ ~ ~ ~ ® e ~ / 1 ,rr• i ~~ ~~: -.. ~ v CO V j ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ '.~.,, fj9 :: \ ~ ~\ ~\. ~ ~ Y~ 0 ~~ °e~ ®e a '® ~~ ~ • dC ® ~ ~ < M L ~~ ~ ' ~ __$~ dd ~ ~ U ~ ' O U .G t ' t: W ~a ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ f= o o °s 00qq `~ o b ~ ~ ~ vv ~..~ . T ~`~ , ,,vim ~ ' ~ ~/ \~ l 1 1\ \ \ TVl ... ....., \;\ ~ fj i ~~,~ ,~ p p® I~"I O O LP7~`'7 ® ~ O ~P b ~ ~ ~ ® B ~ ~ ®~ oo~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ @~ `.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O ~o ~..;;~ * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. The- minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad -depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. ' `O jf Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12, of Riverside County Ordinance 348. O - 88 - -0 18) Planning Area 18: a. Description: Planning- Area 18 proposes medium-low density residential uses which includes single-family detached, single-family attached and estate lot development. Planning Area 18 consists of 68.4 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU 'per acre, a unit count range of 137 - 343, and a maximum unit count of 284. Planning Area 18 backs onto Wolf Valley Loop, Macho Road and E1 Chamisal Road. Primary access from Butterfield Stage Road. b. Land Use Development Standards: Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 " don~tained herein. C. Planning Standards: * Identity node at the intersection of Wolf ,~ Valley Loop and Macho Road O * Identity node at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Macho Road * Neighborhood entry points from Macho Road and E1 Chamisal Road * Class II bike trail along Macho Road and Wolf Valley Loop * 'Open space buffer and landscaped slopes adjacent to the southeasterly project boundary * Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape details, see details * Identity node design, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Class II bike trail design, see Exhibit II-2A O - 89 - Q ~~ s ~~. ~I i u N d I 0 ®, E~ ~ /~ GJ +~ 0 ~+ g 2~ $ , ~.,~ Oqp ~ ~ G"J I~~V ' P S ^ ~ A~ ~ A,CY r U ~ d b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~' ~ °~ ~'' ~i ~ .`tr Y i-qr ~' y. •a#~~~ t. '~a:i ''f., ora T:`. _ ~C . B L'"~ Ga ~_ ~. 1~, 0 fJ" d 0 pp ee kJN ~,a ~, ® ~~ ~ ~ ® '~'" Qp `~ eo ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ o d ~ ~ ~ o eo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ ® ® ~ @@ ~G 0 \>", i h\ ~. a 4 o~ V ~? ~ `7/, ® !, ~ ... ® ~ bj~ 00 ~ d b A ~A {~ ~ d ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~;~ .~. ~~. ®' d. `~ d ®P N ~® d .. C y~~ ~ a ~~ ~ , 8 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ W ~°°~~ ~~ ~qJ p p® C~ L-1 '~ A r~ 0~oy p t~ `~ p ,~, ~ ; ~ ~ o ::':', J 1'i.:! ~, ill', O ~ ~a "'.... 1~~:.', rrJJp6"e boo ~. ~.~ ~ u '''~ ' 1\,':,~' rte-, @3 ~ ~ !~~ ~ ~ ~r I~sl~ ~ CA j-,..,, '.. Yi ~ 00 ~.~ .. o oo~ 00 O ° ~ ~ ~ d M 1 W * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. ~G The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. j'~ Minimum pad areas sj~all be as follows: ~~. - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less than 3,600 square. O feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be less than 36 feet. ,~ Automobile storage space shall be provided as. required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance 348. O - 90 - .o 19) Planning Area 19: a._Description: Planning Area 17 proposes medium-low density residential uses which include single-family detached, single-family attached and estate lot developments. Planning Area 19 consists of 16.9 acres with a density range of 2.0 - 5.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 34 - 85, and a maximum unit count of 68. Planning Area 19' backs onto Macho Road and Temecula Creek. Primary access from Macho Road: b. Land Use Development Standards: ~ c~ Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: * Neighborhood entries off of Macho Road O * Neighborhood entry off of Collector Street * Open space buffer adjacent to Temecula Creek * Class II bike trail along Macho Road * Equestrian trail along Temecula Creek * Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit II-5 * Landscape details, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Class II bike trail design, see details * Equestrian trail design, see Exhibit II-2B * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans .and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. - 91 - P 2~5 o~o g a 2®~ 1~~~ v.i i a~ lip N ` M a 6 r /'S r ~ ~® OO b ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ® ~,. ~ ® ~ O ~, a r' GI ]]~yc~ O° YJ M ~ o ®_ a ~ oq ~ o b o ~~ oq >/~ ® G a ~L g ~ 00 00 ~I q~ ~ C7 O /~ o~o d A `~ ~' ~~ ~ ~,° ~,''"" ~~_ ~ ~ a ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d®b ~~ ooh ~ ~® ®d [, v ~ ~ _ y~~, @~ ®~ ~~~~ ~ °^ . ~ ~ ~~~~ ®vo ~ ® _ g ~ ~ a~ o0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ q~~~ ® O ~ 0 ay ~ eo® ~° ® ~ P ,~ Ei7 ~ ~ H9 `~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~® ® ~~ I @ B ~ 1 ~' ~~/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-~ ~ .~, d ~ ,o a ~ ° L, c o0 ~ ~ ~~ 0 d~ ~' ® d P e ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ p p C70q b ®~ q ~ b ~V e ® c o C7® v ~ `V H4! ,`~i• ' °q ~~ / . ~%~"n ' , p®p~J fJ ®4 p®p~/J O L~cl p ~/~ o g ® ~ 00 ~ e ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ =o * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide: The minimum building separation, excluding fireplaces and roof eaves which may encroach two feet into side yard setbacks, shall not be less than ten feet. }~ Minimum pad areas shall be as follows: - Net useable pad areas excluding slopes in excess of 1 foot in vertical height shall not be less, than 3,600 square feet. - Net useable pad depth excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot shall not be less than 75 feet. - Net useable pad width excluding slopes in excess of 1 vertical foot, shall not be 1eSS than 36 feet. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside County Ordinance 348. 1 O - 92 - a~ A b w.'" .~ ~ o g o `~ ® ~ `~ °fF3 ~~ oc~ ~ e~ :'~ GI ag b ® ~ ~~ _~ ~' d 00 ~ ~.®~. v ® b ~ ~~ G J b aq~ . cJ o ~~ ~ `~ ~1 f~ ~ e o ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~. ® d ~ '~'" q~ . e~G G~ ~~ g~ ~~ ~® ~ o0 B ~ P 0 pp~1 P ~~ A 0o W o •' J ~. ®.~ d P E? 4~~° 6 ~ ~~ ~ ~® B e ~~ ~~ C ~ ® o A ~~ ~~ 0 P ®~ ee ® `~ P ^, .~ cif ~®7 ® (~ o ~® 0 0 00 P d b ~ av d e ~~ E~'I o 0 0 .~~ ~ 1 ~ C~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a „~ ~~~~ ~ ~i ~ b I b ~~ 0 ~ o~ L~ c~ C C q ~. p a'cN d ~ o~ ,~ i ~ ~, d ®~~ a ® ~'~ a O 20) Planning Area 20: a.Description: Planning Area 20 is proposed for medium-high density residential uses, which include single-family detached, single-family attached, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. Planning Area 20 consists of 53.3 acres with a density range of 8.0 - 19.0 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 322 - 581 and a maximum number of dwelling units of 921. Planning Area 20 backs onto Butterfield Stage Road and Macho Road. No direct access to Butterfield Stage Road or Macho Road. Primary access from internal collector street. Abuts Park Site "E". b. Land Use Development Standards: Please refer to Ordinance No. 348.3984 contained herein. O c. Planning Standards: * Community Entry on Butterfield Stage Road * Identify Nodes at intersection of collector street with Butterfield Stage Road and with Macho Road * Three to five neighborhood entries off of collector street (66 foot ROW) * Land use buffer and landscaped slopes abutting Planning Area 19 * Open-space buffer and landscaped slopes abutting Temecula Creak open space area * Equestrian trail along open space area Park Site "E" * Class II bike trail along Butterfield Stage Road and Macho Road -93- O ~o * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-6 * Landscape design, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details * Equestrian trail design, see Exhibit II-2B * Class II bike trail design, see Exhibit II-2A * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further _landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. O ~ One major recreation facility shall be provided for each planning area. One minor secondary recreation area such as tot lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided for every 100 units of fraction thereof within a planning area. Patios, balconies and outside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. ~( Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick strips may be provided at each project entrance. ~'L Curb cut dimensions for each drive approach "I entrance shall not be less than 36 feet wide nor more than 40 feet wide. O - 94 - 21) Planninq Area 21: a. Description: Planning Area 21 proposes medium-high density residential uses which include single-family detached, single-family attached, townhouses, condominiums and apartments. Planning Area 21 consists of 12.1 acres with a density range of 8 - 14 DU per acre, a dwelling unit range of 97 - 169, and a maximum unit count of 141. Planning Area 21 backs onto Wolf Valley Loop and adjacent to project boundary and Vail Ranch property. Primary access from Wolf Valley Loop and collector street (66' ROW). b. Land Use Development Standards: a9~8 Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein. c. Planning Standards: O * Identify node E1 Chamisal Road and Wolf Valley Loop intersection * Neighborhood entries on Wolf Valley Loop and collector street * Landscaped slope adjacent to Vail Ranch property line. * Class II bike trail design along Wolf Valley Loop Road. * Equestrian trail along E1 Chamisal Wash * Land use buffer adjacent to Planning Area 6 * Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit II-6 * Landscape details, see details * Neighborhood entry design, see details ~, O - 95 - b V o~o 0 . s R / \\ a., a a , / d ~~C Q ~. ® ~~ N Eil a 0 0 00 0 00 g~ ~~ 7~ ~ ¢~ o d ~ ~ ~o ~, °~ ~~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ d d _`~ . __ ~~/ A (~ ~ @~ @! ~~ d P ~ d~ g~® ~ ~ A ~ dd 4 P w ~d~ ~ ~ y s < C 1 p_,J t. ~~~~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ Q A ° ~+ ~~~ o ° =°~ ~~~ eo oo' ~ \ ~~., . ~ ~. ® ,. ~ ~ tt o ~ ~ .i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4'~- ~. ~ ~ ~~~~•. ~ d~~~ ~ P 00 ~ oo ® P \ ~ oo O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ P ~ G7 f ~ 0 O 7 M ~ 7 C ° eo '~'`~ e ~ ~'y ~ o P ~ P 6 O ~ ~ ~ ~ a 0 o O° vlJ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~,., ~~a~ ~~® * Equestrian trail design, see Exhibit II-2B * Class II bike trail design, see Exhibit II-2A * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development Plans and Standards, for further land use standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping Plan, for further landscaping standards that apply project-wide. * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design Guidelines, for further design and landscaping standards that apply project-wide. One major recreation facility shall be provided ~Y_ for each planning area. One minor secondary recreation area such as tot lots, BBQ areas, patios or spas shall be provided -(,/1 for every 10o units of fraction thereof within a planning area.. _ Patios, balconies and outside stairs may encroach into the minimum building setback no more than 2 feet. Special paving such as stamped concrete of brick strips may be provided at each project entrance. Curb cut dimensions for each drive approach entrance shall not be less than 36 feet wide nor more than 40 feet wide. - 96 - ~r~cc[}~o~c~cc~aa~~0 ~~o~~Do~c~~ -~ a~ ~. ~~~ff d~~0 [}~ C~~Do~®P~o~ ~nU'~Q AUUi~fi'U~~UD I~1~I~DQUDQ'.UDQ (C®UIID~D~QU~/ ~~n~ ~O~uenu~nAss®~o~fl~s 3151 AlrWay . Suva R-1 cue -~. ~. ~z6z~ nw; sse-s~o ~y\omj,'~e~jJ-~-~Q ~ o Q o e ~o Architectural Design Manual and Landscape Guidelines The Redhawk project will be constructed over several years by various builders including the Great American Development Co. In order to maintain overall coordination of major architectural and landscaping components of the project, all development plans for residential areas shall conform to the following Architectural Design Manual and Landscape Guidelines. a. Architectual Design Manual The Architectural Design Manual has been established to address the architectural design criteria for the development of the various residential planning areas of the Redhawk Specific Plan. O The architectural guidelines have been designed to establish a high quality of appearance, to assure compatibility, to direct character and to enhance the community's overall value. These design guidelines provide descriptions and illustrations of a variety of building materials and forms which will enable the developer or builder to establish a consistent architectural approach while allowing the flexibility of design expression. The illustrations in this manual are offered as a visual expression of potential character and appropriate design response. Architectural components are defined as appropriate (encouraged), discretionary (limited use) and inappropriate, as determined by the developer. This design manual has been prepared as an assurance that the creation of the Redhawk community reflects an overall consistency. The enforcement instrument shall be the County and its review of all proposals for construction to ensure that such proposals conform with the intent of the architectural guidelines. All proposals must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. o Building Massing and Scale `~ The architectural' image of Redhawk will be perceived primarily from public spaces such as streets, parks, and other open space areas. 97 - ~3a~a~¢flo~~ ~fi1~~~o~~ ~~¢~ ~cc~~c~ ~~~~ ~Un~ PU~~aunuAss®~a~4~s 3151 /Uway Suite R-1 cite 1~xsa ce. 92626 n14; ssb•szbo e ~CoP~Q nw u i,.t:u liy.mlll p ~UII'D~ff D~ (~UUD~UDl/ p ° ° " ° Therefore, building massing, scale and roof forms, as the primary design components; require careful articulation in their architectural expression to these public spaces. - Appropriate: * Articulation of wall planes. * Projections and recesses to provide shadow and depth. * Simple., bold forms (encouraged). * Combinations of one and two story, conveying sense of human scale (encouraged). - Inappropriate:- * Large expanse of flat wall planes vertically or horizontally. o Building Heights and Setbacks O Identity is a major goal for the residential units of Redhawk. Consideration should be given to the articulation of rear elevations viewed from public spaces by providing variations in roof forms. To avoid a monotonous street scene in single-family planning areas, repetitive floor plans shall be alternately reversed and their roof expressions varied. Single family detached residences should maintain low plate lines and profiles at street fronts and boundary edges. Garages should be one story when set in front and should provide second story setbacks to create a human scale at pedestrian walks. To soften the architectural edge at area boundaries, building heights shall maintain a low profile through a combination of one and two story elements and varied floor setbacks at the second story. To lower the apparent height, second story rooms may be tucked into roof planes and roofs- may be clipped at the sides and corners of the buildings. O - 98 - ~a~o~~o~~ a{lc~o~[}~~~ ~~~ ~c~~[~~cc[k~ ~~D~ M~Dac~~ ~~~~~~ C~~of~®~~a~ QnP~~ AUUi~D'p~Up I~`J~~j D~STDQ (C®~iN~Qll~J ~Uu~ ~Oa~u~~ouvAss®~u~Ra's 3151 A4wa1r Sure R-1 cue ~. ce. ~ n1a, ssb•s2oo ~~o e Q -off oe ~O - Roof Pitches and Materials Simple pitched gable, hip or shed roof forms will be the predominant roof elements in Redhawk. All pitched roof materials shall be approved through County and -Great American Design Review to ensure a continuity of textures and colors. Roof projections and overhangs are encouraged as a response to energy and climate concerns. Low maintenance details limiting .the amount of exposed wood are encouraged. - Appropriate: * Simple pitched roof forms (encouraged). * Cornice banding for detail at parapet walls (encouraged). * Creating jogs in ridge line (encouraged). * Varying plate heights and ridge heights (encouraged). O * Roof Materials: Clay or concrete "S" tile, tern metal, copper, wood shake or concrete flat tile. - Discretionary: * Small areas of flat roofs with parapets at two story elements - Inappropriate: * Gambrel, mansard and "period" style roofs Non-continuous roof parapet o Materials and Color Exterior building materials shall be of natural materials which are compatible with and reflect the elements of the surrounding environment. This includes wood, masonry, adobe, concrete and plaster or stucco. Exposed wood sheathing shall be limited to the underside of roof or patio O - 99 - ~®®~ ~o~cc[~~~ ~~~ ~fil~~c~~o~~s~ ~00~ M~D~c~~ ~~~Q~ C~~~of~®~~o~ ~Grr~Q ~ ~~(~UUD~QUQ ~®UDU~n~~nq ~~n~ ~O~naouuAss®~u~4~$ 3151 Airway Suu¢ R-1 c~ie I~xss. ca. sz~e nla: ss6-s~o ~oy-7° Q~ 0 0 o e 1"6W'~7 O ° ° O ° ° O 1' ~ ~ ~ •.. P O decks. Exterior plaster of stucco will have a .smooth, sand or other light finish texture. Heavy textures such as large swirls or heavy trowel are inappropriate. Complementary accent materials and colors are allowed and encouraged. Wood trim shall be stained with semi-transparent stain or painted as accents. The crisp, clean and simple use of tile, brick, stone, masonry or pre-cast concrete are permitted as design accents and trim. Color is intended as a primary theme element. The value should generally be light, with darker or lighter accents encouraged to highlight the character of the structure; particularly in respect to balcony rails, awnings, inlaid the bands and cornice bands. All accents must relate to the architectural form and character of the building. Inappropriate materials include vinyl, metal or aluminum siding, rustic materials used as primary wall surfaces and dark earthtone colors. o Windows and Doors O Detailed and recessed door, window and wall openings are characteristic elements of the intended architectural style of Redhawk. Design treatment and architectural features such as pediments, small roofs, overhangs and projections to recess windows and doors are encouraged. Projecting windows may be used to add articulation to wall surfaces. - Appropriate: * Divided window lites (encouraged). * Rectangular and arched openings - Discretionary: * Use of canvas awnings (limited). * Use of wood lattice (limited). * Mill finish window of door frames (limited). O - 100 - ~~ ~~ V~Mo~f~ ~I~00~~ )L~~1Q~CC~ C~~~o~®~~a~ cGo~4 ~ ~~~u~u~uQ (C®~~n~ ~Un~ ~O~u~uobunAss®~o~Q~~ 3151 Alnvay . Suita R-1 cue -.+~. ~. sze~ nla; sss•s~o o e Q' o ~ o e n e ~ ° ° ~ ~ e l519~t5~1 ~o * Reflective glass. - Inappropriate: * Gold window or door frames * Metal awnings o Garage Doors Garages are a major visual element in single-family detached housing. Ornamentation is encouraged as it relates to the architecture and provides visual variety along the streetscape. The design treatments include color accents and architectural features such as pediments, mouldings, small roofs, overhangs and projections to recess the garage door. - Appropriate: * Recess from adjacent walls O - Inappropriate: * Corrugated metal doors o Balconies and Porches The use of balconies or porches is encouraged. Balconies should be incorporated into the building form to articulate and break up large wall masses. The shade producing qualities of balconies and porches is also an important consideration. - Appropriate: * Simple, clean, bold projections (encouraged). * Balconies which articulate wall surfaces (encouraged). * Ceramic the accent trim (encouraged). * Painted wood trim * Wood or wrought iron balustrade 1 O - 101 - ~~~~®woc~~ ~w¢~ ~®r~c~[~c~~ Q~ ~ ~, ~i P ~ ,5 ,r x °~ i 9 ~Uu~ ~U~~luo6Ass®~oa~4~s 3151 Ainvny Suit¢ R-1 nla; ssb•s~o U~~m~~~ C~~DDt~®~r~o~~~ a ~ o o a cGP~~ /~UVC~~UD ~~C~j DQDV~UD~ (C®QUD~D~UD~`/ e~~,l e O ° ° O ~~rra~~~ ®®®rr~ t - ~90~~ M~~~~~/ ~~~Q~ C~~~~®~r~o~ QnP~Q BUD ~~I~DUIfD~QD~ (C®UiCD~QD~y -, ~ .. ..~ ¢'~ G~ ~ 7Cf ~ ~ ~~ • - 1~+7, ~a ~~~~ _~• ~ ~Ib~ ~O~~o~uA~s®~u~,Q~~ 3151 Alrwey . Salta R-1 cite -~.rA ~ h1n; ssb•~ o e Q~ 0 0 o e ~° °~° eo~ -0 o Gutters and Downspouts Gutters and downspouts and other devices for control of roof water are important elements which shall be concealed or integrated into the architectural design. - Appropriate: * Pre-cast concrete scuppers or canales (encouraged). * Exposed collection boxes and downspouts (encouraged).. - Discretionary: * Exposed sheet metal scuppers o Columns and Archways Columns incorporated as a structural or aesthetic _. design element shall convey a solid, durable image O as expressed though bold forms. Columns may be used as a free-standing form or as support for porch roofs and balconies. - Appropriate: * Base incorporated at bottom of columns (encouraged). * Square or cylindrical columns of plaster or pre-cast concrete (encouraged). * Brick veneered columns (encouraged). * Wood posts - 6 inch x 6 inch minimum (encouraged). * Capital and column bands (encouraged). * Free-standing plaster archways at entrance gates (encouraged). O - 102 - P 4 ~ Y ~.. ~~~ ~- - - ~~ . ~~ ~~ ~~ $ ~~ - i~~m~~~ C~DDi~®~m~o~ Q~nIT~t~ I~UUOU ~~j ~5TD4 (C~au'u~Djy ~(b~ PO~anauuonA$$®~ua,4~$ 315! Airway SLita R-1 Costa fksso. Ca 92626 nw; ssb-s2oo o e Q ~ D O o n Q~~ D ~l 0° °O° ' ~~ ~ rr-"..n,,,,717~QD~ ~1Q~~ ~pCC~-~~1~5~ s ~M®Df~ M~~~c~~ ~~~~~ C~~~f~®~r~o~ ~nI '~~ ~UU1~QT,~~UD ~/~~UV~tEUD~ (C®UiN(~~QD~y ~~0~ ~O~~o~uua~Ass®~u~Q~$ 3151 Airway . Suiia R-1 cD~re 1~ ce. ~ n>4, ssb•s~o . "-V O~ D O D d U Cy.~vv ~O - Inappropriate: * Exposed pipe columns * Applied rustic veneers on columns * Thin posts, such as 4 inch x 4 inch wood or metal pipe column o Chimneys As an architectural form, chimneys shall be simple in design, having the same material and texture as the building to ensure the consistency of character and style. Chimney caps should repeat the fascia cornice band treatment integrating the trim colors. - Appropriate: * Boldly projected from wall surfaces (en- couraged) O * Design feature adding articulation to walls s * Decorative metal caps that match trim colors * Tile-caps, brick, or the banding - Inappropriate: * Exposed flues * Extravagant metal fireplace * Rustic material veneers o Mailboxes Mailboxes in single-family neighborhoods should be placed in groups no larger than four, set into a plaster or masonry pilaster, and detailed to contribute to the overall community theme. The mailboxes shall be housed in a structure similar in architectural style, character, form, material and colors as the surrounding buildings. In all cases, mailbox locations must n be approved by the U.S. Postal Service. ~..J - 103 - D ~` ~nM~D~ M~DDc~~ ~~~Q~ C~~~~®~r~a~ Q'nP~Q ~UU1~Pf~UD ~~~DU1fD~iN~ (C®UUD~UD~! G ~aD~ ~~I000~OUD~ ~5$®~Ud1Q~~ 3151 Airway Auz. Suita R-1 c«,a l~lssa. ca ~ - ma; sss-s~oo o , Q -oO oa ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ zSIA`-~11V D~ o Private Walls and Fences Fences and walls are encouraged to provide security, privacy and landscape definition. Wall treatments viewed from public spaces shall be consistent in treatment with the adjacent buildings. Plant material, particularly vines and espalliered trees, should be used to visually soften garden walls. - Appropriate: * Accent trim repeating cornice band or band of the (encouraged). * Adequate planting pockets between walls and walkways (encouraged). * Semi-transparent walls, such as wrought-iron grilles between plasters. * Wood fencing O o Building Details - Mechanical Equipment All air conditioning/heating equipment, soft water tanks, water meters, gas meters and electric- meters must be screened from public view. Sound attenuation is encouraged. Roof mounted cooling and heating units and related duct work are unacceptable on pitched roofs. On flat roofs, HVAC equipment and duct work is prohibited unless screened by parapet walls as high or higher than units and duct work. - Antennas All antennas are restricted to interior of the residences. Accessory Structures Patio trellises, pergolas and structures shall be constructed governing codes, with finishes the approved material and _O the attic or other exterior as permitted by complying with color palette. - 104 - ~~o~~~c~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ b a.0 ¢ y T,G~~ ~ '~ ~,~3 < .^I `d ~ ' b ~ ~ep M~ b P A a~~ ~ ~r ~~ m 0 ~ `- a~ a ~ ~M®~f~ M~CI~~~ G~~m~~~ C~~DDf~®~QDU~ ~nP~Q AUD1~Q'D~UD ~1~~DU4U~D~ (~UII~~U-~1 mac,-~,-oro ~ > s ,~ c S' > a ~ a «`~ ~ ~fi +~y ~~1~ a c~O y ~Ihe PO~a~unuae~Ass®~u~Q~s 3151 Alway . SuAe R-1 n,a, sse-s~o o e Q o O o e ~~o O c p O C a CS tJ :C~v ee. b f~ ~P bO Trellises and patio covers of bold, clean forms are encouraged. - Flashing, Sheet Metal and Vents All exposed metals (flashing, sheet metal, vent stacks and pipes) shall be painted to match adjacent building surface. Painted metals shall be properly prepared and primed to ensure a durable finish. - Skylights Skylights are to be designed as an integral part of the roof. Their form, location and color should relate to the building. Skylight glazing should be clear or solar bronze. White .glazing is discretionary. . Solar Panels Solar panels are to be integrated into the roof -O design, flush with the roof slope. Frames must be colored to complement the roof. Mill finish aluminum frames are prohibited. Support solar equipment shall be enclosed and screened from view. b. Landscape Guidelines The Redhawk Specific Plan consists of numerous areas that each require special landscape treatments. These guidelines shall provide a plant pallete and minimum size requirements for each of the various landscape areas. All development within Redhawk shall conform to these landscape guidelines. The guidelines shall cover the following landscape treatment areas. o Regional Biological Resource Enhancement Area o Community Entries and Identity Nodes o Neighborhood Entry Areas o Secondary Equestrian Trail o Chaparral/Urban Interface O - 105 - ~o o Landscape Buffers and Slopes o Street Trees o Neighborhood Parks o A Regional Biological Resource Enhancement Area has been incorporated into the project to allow for an area of naturalizing plant material that will attract a variety of wildlife. The plant list has been selected to reflect this specific purpose. Much of the plant material in this area shall be transplanted cuttings from an existing plant resource. If existing plant resources are limited or not available for propigation, all planting shall be from liners or one gallon materials in accordance with Plant List "A". All O planting areas shall water during the plant no permanent irrigation. Plant List "A": Botanical Name be provided -with adequate establishment period only; Common Name Trees plea europaea Arbutus unedo Ceratonia siliqua Cercis occidentalis Platanus racemosa Populus fremontii Prunus lyonii Robinia pseudoacacia Salix babylonica Pinus nigra Pinus halepensis Olive Tree Strawberry Tree Carob Tree Western Redbud California Sycamore Western Cottonwood Catalina Cherry Black Locust Weeping Willow Austrian Pine Aleppo Pine - 106 - 0 Plant List "A" (continued) Shrubs Ceanothus gloriosus Cotoneaster lacteus Aeteromeles arbutifolia Rhus ovata Groundcover Point Reyes Ceanothus Red Clusterberry Toyon Sugar Bush Atriplex semibaccata Creeping Saltbush Baccharis pilularis Dwarf Chaparral Broom Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Carmel Creeper Eriogonum fasciculatum Common Buckwheat Rosmarinus officinalis "Prostratus" Prostrate Rosemary o Community Entries and Identity Nodes O The community located to sub-community these areas consistency project with selection of entry and identity node areas are allow a statement at each within Redhawk. The planting for shall be designed to create a in the overall character of the subtle differences through the the plant material. Large canopy trees shall be used entry areas. to define these areas as major 50 percent of the trees selected for these areas shall consist of 24" box size or larger. The minimum tree size shall be fifteen gallon. The shrubs shall be 50 percent five gallon size with the small border plants at one gallon size. All areas shall have permanent automatic irrigation systems installed. The landscape architect shall design treatments by selecting from Plant List nBn_ - 107 - ~O Plant List "B": Botanical Name Common Name Trees Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flam Tree Liquidambar stryraciflua "Palo Alto" American Sweet Gum Magnolia grandiflora "Majestic Beauty" Southern Magnolia Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine Pyrus Kawakamii ,Evergreen Pear Quercus Ilex Holly Oak Shrubs Abelia grandiflora "Edward toucher" Glossy Abelia Agapanthus africanus Lily of the Nile Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily Escallonia exoniensis O "Fradesii" Escallonia s Plant List "B" (continued) Gamolepis chrysanthemoides N.C.N. Hemerocallis hybrid Daylily Ilex cornuta "Burfordi" Burford Holly Liriope muscari Big Blue Lily Turf Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo Photinia fraseri Fraser's Photinia Pittosporum tobira "Variegata" Variegated Tobira Pittosporum tobira "Wheeleri" Wheelers Dwarf Raphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn Ternstroemia gymnanthera N.C.N. Xylosma congestum Shiny xylosma Vines Clytostoma callistegioides Violet Trumpet Vine Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Vine Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria - 108 - 0 Plant List "B" (continued) Groundcover Armeria maritima Campanula poscharskyana Hedera Helix "Hahni" Hypericum calycinum Lonicera japonica Potentilla verna Trachelospermum jasminoides Sea Pink Serbian Bellflower Hahn's English Ivy Aaron's Beard Japanese Honeysuckle Spring Cinquefoil Star Jasmine Turf Turf Type Tall Fescue o Neighborhood Entry Areas O s The neighborhood-entry.:areas shall convey the same character as the community entry and identity node area except at a smaller scale. The Neighborhood Entries are utilized in areas of access from secondary and larger roadways to low and medium-low density •-areas, and from collector streets to medium-high density areas. The plant material shall be selected from Plant List "C" and be sized as follows: 50 percent of the trees shall be a minimum 24" box size and all- other trees shall be a minimum fifteen: gallon size. 50 percent of the shrubs shall be-five gallon size and conform to Plant List "C". Plant List "C": Botanical Name Common Name Trees Cercis occidentalis Lagerstroemia indica Nerium oleander Pyrus calleryana "Aristrocrat" Phus lancea Western Redbud Crape Myrtle Standard Oleander Ornamental Pear African Sumac - 109 - ~o oO Plant List "C" (continued) Shrubs Agapanthus africanus Cotoneaster lacteus Dietes vegeta Escallonia exoniensis "Fradesii" Gamolepis chrysanthemoides Grevillea "Noellii" Hemerocallis hybrid Heteromeles arbutifolia Liriope muscari Raphiolepis indica Lily of the Nile Red Clusterberry Fortnight Lily Escallonia N.C.N. N.C.N. Daylily Toyon Big Blue Lily Turf Indian Hawthorn Groundcover Aptenia cordifolia Delosperma "Alba" Gazania hybrid Isotoma fluviatilis Trachelospermum jasminoides vinca minor Red Apples White Trailing Ice Plant Gazania Blue Star Creeper Star Jasmine Dwarf Running Myrtle o Secondary Equestrian Trail The equestrian trail meanders through the major open space features of the Redhawk Specific Plan. The landscape design of the equestrian trail shall be consistent with the adjacent planted areas. The landscape architect shall allow transition between these two distinctively different areas. All trees shall be a minimum of fifteen gallon size except for eucalyptus varieties which may be planted from liners or one gallon containers. Refer to Plant Lists "A" and "E" for primary materials and to Plant List "D" for transition area. _o - 110 - ao oO Plant List "D": Botanical Name Trees Ceratonia siliqua Eucalyptus nicholli Eucalyptus rudis Geijera Parvilflora Pinus eldarica Platanus racemosa Populus fremontii Schinus molle Robinia pseudoacacia Shrubs Ceanothus gloriosus Cotoneaster lacteus Heteromeles arbutifolia 5hus ovata Groundcover Baccharis pilularis Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Eriogonum fascculatum Rosmarinus officinalis "Prostratus" ~droseed Mix Area Allysum "Carpet of Snow" Eschscholzia California Gazania hybrid "Red Shades" Lotus corniculatus Lupinus texensis Trifolium fragiferum Common Name Carob Tree Peppermint Gum Desert Gum Australian Willow Mondell Pine California Sycamore Western Cottonwood California Pepper Black Locust Point Reyes Ceanothus Red Clusterberry Toyon Sugar Bush Dwarf Chaparral Broom Carmel Creeper Common Buckwheat Prostrate Rosemary N.C.N. California Poppy Red Shades Gazania Bird's Foot Trefoil Texas Blue Bonnet O'Conners Legume o Landscape Buffers and Slopes Three major landscape buffers are reflected in the Redhawk Planning Area maps. These landscaped buffers and slopes consist of the following treatments: - 111 - ~O - Open space buffers - Golf course buffers - Land use buffers .These buffers are intended to cushion the impact between different levels and/or types of uses. For example, the open space buffer is designed to buffer open space areas from more intense uses such as schools, parks, and residences. The golf course buffer is designed to buffer the impact of the development areas from the golf course while providing- visual access to the golf course from development areas. The land use buffer is designed to buffer different land use intensities; for instance, medium-high density to low density housing, or commercial to medium-high density.• Plant materials for buffers shall be selected from Plant List "D". All tree materials shall be a minimum five gallon size except for O eucalyptus varieties which- may be planted from liners, one gallon containers or hydroseed. s o Street Trees Through the use of landscaping, a heirarchy of the street patterns between major access roads and interior residential streets shall be established. The landscape layout shall create identifiable landscape corridors for these areas. The major access roads shall be designed with large canopy trees and the interior residential streets shall utilize smaller scale accent trees. All street trees shall be fifteen gallon size minimum. Spacing shall be one (1) tree per lot or one (1) tree per 60 linear feet minimum. Tree locations shall conform to the Riverside County Street Tree Manual. Street tree quantities shall remain equal to one tree per 60 linear feet. Refer to Plant List "E" for materials keyed to highways, collector streets and general local streets. - 112 - O d O v Plant List "E": Collector Street and Larger Roadways Tree Botanical Name Common Name Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar General Local Streets Botanical Name Common Name Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Ceratonia siliqua Carob Tree Eucalyptus nicholli Peppermint Gum Eucalyptus rudis Desert Gum Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red Iron Bark Koelreuiteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Liquidambar stryraciflua "Palo Alto" American Sweet Gum Magnolia grandiflora "Majesty Beauty" Southern Magnolia Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Pyrus calleryana "Aristocrat" Ornamental Pear Quercus ilex Holly Oak o Neighborhood Parks The Neighborhood Parks are designed to accommodate a variety of passive and active areas. Plant List "F" represents a broad spectrum of sizes, textures, colors and forms. The plant materials shall be hardy, drought tolerant types that will enhance the area. All accent trees shall be a minimum of fifteen gallon size with 50 percent of the trees a minimum of five gallon size. Refer to Plant List "F" for park materials. O - 113 - 0 O ~O Plant List "F": Botanical Name Trees Albizia julibrissin Alnus rhombifolia Ceratonia siliqua Eucalyptus nicholli Eucalyptus rudis Geijera parviflora Platanus acerifolia Pinus canariensis Pyrus calleryana "Aristocrat" Salix babylonica Shrubs Ceanothus gloriosus Cotoneaster lacteus Escallonia e. "Fradesi" Heteromeles arbutifolia Raphiolepis indica Rhus ovata Xylosma congestum Non-Irrigated Hydroseed Mix Botanical Name Artemesia california Schismus barbatus Erigonum fasciculatum Eriophyllum confertiflorum Plantago insularis Irrigated Hydroseed Mix Allysum "Carpet of Snow" Allysum "Rosie O'Day" Lotus corniculatus Lupinus texensis Trifolium fragiferum Common Silk Tree White Alder Carob Tree Peppermint Gum Desert Gum Australian Willow London Plane Tree Canary Island Pine Ornamental Pear Weeping Willow Point Reyes Ceanothus Red Clusterberry Escallonia Toyon Indian Hawthorn Sugar Bush Shiny Xylosma Common Name California Sagebrush Desert Fescue Buckwheat Golden Yarrow Plantago N.C.N. N.C.N. Bird's Feet Trefoil Texas Blue Bonnet O'Conners Legume - 114 - dO o Fuel Modification Buffer at the Chaparral/Urban Interface The fuel modification buffers have been established for the areas depicted on Exhibit II-42. Within these areas specific fire safe design standards for architecture, site planning and landscaping shall be implemented to mitigate any fire hazard that may exist between the urban development and the native grassland/chaparral. Buffer I is immediately adjacent to the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Buffer II is behind the proposed rear yard property lines adjacent to the Temecula Ranchos. The site planning in these two areas differ and, therefore, require different fuel modification treatments. The following is a description of 'the fuel modification buffer for each Area. * Buffer I O The single loaded street condition proposed adjacent to the Pechanga Indian Reservation .~ has created a minimum of 121 feet between any house and the grassland/chaparral area at the subdivision boundary. Within this 121 feet is an approximately 20 foot frontyard setback, approximately 60 feet of right-of-way and approximately 41 feet of landscaped area. The following is a description of the special design standards for this area (see Exhibit II-43A). - Site Planning Provide a six (6) foot high concrete block wall along the subdivision boundary adjacent to Buffer I. This wall will meander along the boundary so as to avoid disturbing existing oak trees. Provide a landscaped buffer area between the block wall and/or subdivision boundary and the street right-of-way (described in Landscaping section below). O - 115 - °° ~i •~.. ~ ~~ o ~ ~ e~ ~m ~~ ~~ -~ ~ ~~~ W D ~~~ e® ~ ~~ .e .o 0 ~. u ~~ I~I I~ o~ ~ ~ Q.', O; 0 .~ so 0 g ®_ c y ~~ ~~ - m o~ m o a C ~ V '~ c y ~ U N "0 ~s ®d @~~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,~ = ~a J A I o 0 ~a Q ~v„ e p n® L.~ C `4r' ~/,~ 1 0 d Provide vehicular access to the Buffer area from adjacent streets at intervals of not more than 1500 feet apart. - Architecture The row of houses immediately adjacent to the buffer area shall be designed to the following standards: Slant roof lines to facilitate the movement of heat over the house. Roof overhangs .to be approved by the County Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Fire resistant roofing materials to be approved by the County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Stucco or other non-flammable siding O material of at least one hour fire resistant rating to be approved by the d County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. - Landscaping Native vegetated slopes within Buffer I. Remove all natural vegetation of a high fire hazard classification (see Plant List "G"). Prune specimen oak trees to reduce the amount of potential fire fuel and keep all branches six (6) feet off the ground. Manufactured slopes within Buffer I. Plant all manufactured cut or fill slopes with plant materials of fire retardant and low fuel volume characteristics (see Plant Lists "H" and "I"). O - 116 - - Maintenance The Buffer I area shall be maintained by County Service Area No. 143 (GSA 143) or a homeowners association. * Buffer II Both a single loaded street condition with. houses on the opposite side of the street from the native chaparral and the double- loaded street with the rear yards of houses abutting the native chaparral exist in this area. The following is a description of the special design standards that apply to this area (see Exhibit II-43B). - Site Planning Provide a six (6) foot high concrete block wall along the rear yard property lines where houses occur. ~(,/1 Provide vehicular access to the Buffer area from adjacent streets at intervals of not more than 1500 feet apart. - Architecture The.row of houses immediately adjacent to the buffer area shall be designed to the following standards: Slant roof lines to facilitate the movement of heat over the house. Roof overhangs to be approved by the County Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Fire resistant roofing materials to be approved by the County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Stucco or other non-flammable siding material of at least one hour fire _~ - 117 - 0 e® .~ 0 ~. ~^-~ .® t U M~ I.L E a c CO U .a a s T e O O .. L ~ •~ ~ _ ' E E c~ ~ c ~ E . c' ` °~ _ RS n. :!- ~- a~ ~ N ~ E ~ ~I ~ ~ y' ~ U ~. c ~O a ~ ~ in ~ ° ~- ~ U ~ y 'O fA ,a C 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F- cq C7 o 0 o e °a ~ 0 .c U C f~ U v N ~"' Q v ~.+ U f0 w C RS E~ .;;.a~. N d a ' C f~ .~ ~ ~ ... ~ v ~° ~ @~ ~°'~ ~~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ - b ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ e ~~ J .. ~` o~ b w rn c ~ ~ c R A ~° ~J a ~ ^ o .0 O ~ ~ ~ C w ~_ r .C U 1 ~` .. I ~;~ 0 .o resistant rating to be approved by the County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. - Landscaping The landscape buffer area shall extend a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the rear yard property line and the single loaded street right-of-way. The following is a description of that area. Native vegetated slopes within the Buffer II area. Remove all natural vegetation of a high fire hazard classification {see Plant List "G"). Prune all remaining plant species to a maximum height of eighteen (18) inches. In areas where the natural slope is 2:1 O or more, some larger shrubs and trees shall remain to reduce the hazard of slope failure. Trees that remain must, be spaced at three times their diameter and the branches pruned to a minimum height of six (6) feet off the .ground. Shrubs that remain must be no closer 'than twenty-five (25) feet on center. ground. Prune and thin specimen oak trees to reduce the amount of potential fire fuel and keep all branches six (6) feet off the ground. Manufactured slopes within the Buffer II area at the rear yard condition (see Exhibit II-43B, Section "A^). Plant all manufactured cut or fill slopes with plant materials of fire retardant and low fuel volume characteristics (see- Plant Lists "H" and "I"). O - 118 - ~O Except for. trees and larger shrubs of a fire safe nature planted for slope stabilization, maintain all other plantings to a maximum height of eighteen (18) inches. Trees shall be spaced three times their diameter with their branches maintained six (6) feet off the ground. Larger shrubs are to be planted twenty-five (25) .feet on center. Manufactured slopes within the Buffer II area at the single loaded street condition (see Exhibit II-43B, Section "B"). Plant all manufactured cut or fill slopes with plant materials of fire retardant and low fuel volume characteristics (see Plant List "H" and uIn). - Maintenance 1 O .'-All Buffer II area shall be maintained by 6 County Service Area No. 143 (CSA 143) or a homeowners association. Plant List "G" Botanical Name Common High Fire Hazard Species Adenostema faciculatum Chamise Adenostema sparsifolium Red Shanks Artemisia californica California Sagebrush Eriogonum fasciculatum Common Buckwheet Salvia species Sage Plant List "H" Botanical Name Common Low Growing Moderate to Hiqh Fire Retardant Plants Eriophyllum species Yarrow Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Lotus scoparius Deerweed k O - 119 - bO Plant List "H" (continued) Lupinus species Mimulus species Penstemon species Salvia columbariae Salvia sonomensis Trichostema lanatum 2auschneria species Annual Lupines Monkey Flower Penstemon Chia Creeping Sage Woolly Blue Curls California Fuchsia Low Fuel Volume Introduced Plants Artemisia caucasica Atriplex glauca Atriplex semibaccata Cistus crispus Cistus salviifolius Santolina chamaecyparissus Santolina virens Silver Saltbush Creeping Saltbush Rockrose Sageleaf Rockrose Lavendar Cotton Green Santolina Low Growing, Hiqh Fire Retarding Plants Carpobrotus species Sea Fig Delosperma 'Alba' White Trailing b- Ice Plant Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea Ice Plant Lampranthus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant Malephora crocea Croceum Ice Plant Low Growing, Moderate Fire Retarding Plants Acacia ongorup Arctotheca calendula Gazania rigens leucolaena Lippia canescens Myoporum parvifolium osteosperntum fruticosum Santolina species Trifolium fragiferum var. O'Connor's Vinca species Acacia Cape Weed Trailing Gazania Lippia Myoporum African Daisy Lavender Cotton O'Connor's Legume Periwinkle * Source: Trees and shrubs for dry California Landscapes, Bob Perry O - 120 - DO Plant List "I" Botanical Name Acceptable Trees and Large Shrubs O Laurus Noblis Platanus racemosa Quercus Agrifolia Robins Pseudoacacia Ceratonia Siliqua Arctostaphylos Pittosporum Heteromelus arbutifolia Garrya eliptica C. Implementation Program Common Sweet Bay California Sycamore Coast Live Oak Black Locust Carob Tree Manzanita Pittosporum Toyon Coast Silk Tassel The Implementation Program subsection consists of a discussion of administrative districts that will be utilized to provide major infrastructure financing and project maintenance mechanisms. It also includes a subsection consisting of the Redhawk Administrative Standards to control project implementation from the standpoint of legal restrictions, land use entitlements and administrative review. 1. Administrative Districts An assessment district is a mechanism authorized under the .California Streets and Highways Code which provides financing for public improvements. This financing is achieved through the levy of a special assessment on properties on the basis of benefits received. Typically, assessment districts are used to finance improvements such as streets, water and sewer facilities, street lights and flood protection facilities. Once a property owner or group of property owners have decided to proceed with an assessment district their first step is to circulate petitions among all property owners within the proposed assessment district boundaries for signature. Approval from owners of at least 60 percent of the land area within the assessment district is normally required to proceed with the O - 121 - .o assessment district. Following completion of this first step, the petition for formation of an assessment district is scheduled for a public hearing before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. If approval is .granted by the Board of Supervisors, implementation procedures are initiated by the County Road Commissioner and Surveyors office. After establishment of an assessment district, a lien is created on the properties within the district. This procedure provides the collateral necessary for the County to issue and sell special assessment bonds which provide the funds for the public facility improvements as well as administration of the assessment district. The primary benefit of establishing an assessment district is that assessment districts provide a mechanism whereby improvements are made on a comprehensive basis to the overall benefit of the public health, safety and welfare rather than on a piecemeal or incremental basis. A secondary O benefit is that the cost of the improvement can be spread over a period of years and allocated according to benefit. a. Rancho Villages Assessment District The Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD) is a project initiated by several major property owners in an area which encompasses approximately 5,860 acres along the State Highway 79 corridor east of Interstate 15. The boundaries of the assessment district as well as the proposed improvements are outlined within the Appendix of this report. Improvements planned for the Rancho Villages Assessment District include road, sewer, water, street lights, gas, storm drain and flood control facilities. A separate environmental document is being prepared to assess the impacts associated with the assessment district. (EIR No. 241, SCH No. 87082402) Currently, the Rancho Villages Assessment District petition has been accepted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors-but has not yet been scheduled for public hearing. O - 122 - ~O Initiation of construction for the facilities financed by the Rancho Villages Assessment District is anticipated in June 1988. Funding for the project has already been established. The Rancho Villages Assessment District is proposed in three phases with each phase having its own bond series. The three phases will be coordinated with the planned construction timetable for the various large projects within the District. Phase one is intended to serve projects which are now under construction or will be under construction within a year. Phase two will include projects which could potentially be under construction within two years. Phase three would include certain internal- public improvements for major projects including Redhawk, Butterfield Stage Ranch, Vail Meadows, Vail Ranch and Tonan Properties. b. County Service Area 143 (CSA 143) O County set mechanism - handle the including parkways, encompasses community property. first tentz submitted Commission Redhawk p2 vice areas are a special district. established by the County in order to maintenance of several facilities street lights, drainage, parks, medians and open space. CSA 143 much of the Rancho California but does not include the Redhawk Concurrently with the filing of the tive tract map an application will be to the Local Agency Formation (LAFCO) for annexation of the operty to CSA No. 143. Funding of CSA 143 activities will be included with annual property tax billings. An advantage of CSA 143 in particular is the large geographic base utilized to financially support administration of the service area. Redhawk will utilize CSA 143 for several functions including park maintenance, parkway maintenance, open space maintenance and street lighting. The CSA permits the project to provide these functions without the use of a master homeowners association. O - 123 - DO 2. Administrative Standards The following section contains a discussion of administrative standards which shall guide project implementation and review procedures. a. Project History .O On September 19, 1979, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the project site was heard by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. As approved, this GPA (GPA 145-789-L-45) changed the Land Use Element from "Agricultural Reserve" and "open Space and Other Agricultural Lands" to "Suburban Residential" (0-1 du/ac). The Open Space and Conservation Element was changed from "Agricultural Areas" to "Rural Areas". A Draft Envirorunental Impact Report (EIR No. 93). was prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department and was certified as adequate on December 11, 1979. Based on information contained within EIR No. 93, a staff report was prepared which recommended approval of the GPA and requested that a Specific Plan be submitted to address the concerns outlined within their staff report. Many of the concerns centered around the issues of slope, grading and traffic. The Redhawk Specific Plan was then prepared and included 'a detailed environmental assessment of the site. A screen check copy of the Draft Specific Plan for Redhawk was submitted to Riverside County for review in September, 1981. As a result of the County review, it was determined that the California Environmental Quality Act would be complied with by utilizing two previous prepared Environmental Impact Reports for the project. The two reports are the EIR for GPA 93 and the Rancho Villages Policy Plan General Plan Amendment EIR. O The Rancho Villages Policy Impact Report was prepared 4,000 acres in Rancho Califo Plan Amendment proposed a set area. The County determined, EIR, that the cumulative area Plan Environmental for approximately rnia. The .General of policies for the after review of the wide impacts of the - 124 - ;O Redhawk Project were adequately addressed in that EIR. At the request of Riverside County Planning Department staff, mitigation measures from the Rancho Villages EIR were integrated, where appropriate, into .the report. Site-specific concerns were evaluated in EIR No. 93 and this Specific Plan was prepared to alleviate potential site-specific impacts. b. Legal Restrictions Development of the •Redhawk project will be subject to a three tiered control system for architectural related factors. The first layer of architectural control is established with the deeds under the jurisdiction of Bedford Properties, the previous owner of this property and the master developer of Rancho California. Prior to the construction of any implementing tracts by merchant builders, Bedford Properties will have review authority over .architectural appearance of all construction. This will not be O restricted to the review of building elevations but will include any associated items related to > the overall appearance of structures such as antennas, walls and fences. The current property owner, Great American Development Company also has established review authority over the architectural appearance of all construction within the Redhawk project. This authority will be included as a condition of any sale which transfers ownership of all or part of Redhawk to other parties. As with the review authority of Bedford Properties, Great American will review not only the structures themselves but also any associated items which affect the general appearance of the development. The third level of architectural review will be codes, covenants and restrictions (CC & R's) which will be established with each tentative tract map. ~ These will be established by Great American Development Company and will carry with the property regardless of whether Great American Development Company or merchant builder are the actual developers. CC & R's will be O - 125 - D~ administered by an architectural review board which .will be established in accordance with regulations established within the CC & R's. c. Density Transfer and Intensification Due to the level of detail of specific plans, full marketing engineering and planning constraints are not known on a lot by lot basis. It is thus desirable to maintain a flexibility in the ultimate location of proposed dwelling units and the ultimate density of.planning areas. Density transfer, intensification, area adjustments and boundary adjustments permit this flexibility and are procedurally explained in the paragraphs below. o Density Transfer The maximum number of dwelling units proposed by the Redhawk Specific Plan is 4,188. The approximate number of dwelling units within . O each residential development area is established by Exhibit II-1. .Planning areas which do not achieve maximum density as indicated in the Specific Plan may be transferred to another residential planning area of the same major land use category (i.e. Medium-high, Medium-low. and Low) subject to the approval of the Planning Director or designated representative. The density transfer process cannot cause a planning area maximum density to be exceeded or the maximum number of dwelling units of major residential land use category or planning area to be exceeded. Approval of transfers in density will be predicted upon the proposal's consistency with the overall design objectives of this Specific Plan. The. review procedure shall be done administratively at the time of tentative tract and plot plan submittal and review without the requirement of a specific plan amendment or substantial conformance request. O - 126 - DO o Area and Boundary Adjustment Individual development as displayed on the Land Use Development Plan and other exhibits of this Specific Plan are approximate and not precise. Precision is limited by the scale at which the Land Use Development Plan Map and other exhibits are drawn. Precise planning area boundaries and acreages will be established in conjunction with the submittal and review tentative tracts, parcel maps and plot plans. Minor boundary and acreage variations shall be permitted subject to the approval of the Planning Director or his designated representative without an amendment to the Specific Plan or filing of substantial conformance requests. o Intensification Intensification is a situation whereby a physical constraint within an individual .O planning area makes construction on portions of the planning area impossible. Such constraints can include but are not limited to steep topography, grading constraints, unstable soils, drainage hazards, or Allquist Priolo Special Studies Area. Under these circumstances a higher density than permitted on the planning area density range must be built on the remaining unaffected portions of the planning area in order to achieve the target number of units. The maximum number of units within any planning area cannot be exceeded through the intensification process. Approval of intensification is accommodated by the administrative actions of the Planning Director or the designated representatives of the County at the tentative tract and plot plan submittal and review stage. The process of intensification is not subject to the public hearing process associated with a specific plan amendment or a substantial conformance request. - 127 - .CO d. Administrative Plan Review Construction of a specific plan project is not made within the context of a "snapshot" time frame. A specific plan is often developed over a time period of ten (10) years or greater. Recognizing these conditions, it becomes prudent if not an absolute necessity to have a mechanism available which will accommodate changing economic, market and financial conditions. To accomplish this, a development monitoring program is proposed as discussed below. A development monitoring program would include two basic types of, action. Less complex changes can be reviewed under the administrative procedures of the County relative to density transfer, boundary and area adjustments and intensification while more significant revisions will require the filing of a specific plan amendment or substantial conformance request and subsequent public O hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Examples of administrative and discretionary actions are listed below. Administrative review and approval procedures to the Redhawk Specific Plan shall include, but shall not be restricted to those actions listed below. o The transfer of units from one planning area which does not achieve the maximum number of units to another planning area as long as the maximum planning area density is not exceeded, the total number of units approved for the entire specific plan is not exceeded or maximum number of .units fora major land use category or a planning area is not exceeded by more than ten (10) percent. o -The adjustment of boundaries and areas which do not significantly change overall planning area relationships. o The intensification of planning area densities due to physical or other constraints as long O - 128 - .o as maximum units within planning areas are not exceeded. O Q o The addition of new textual or graphic information which does not change the effect of any County regulation. o Changes in the location or nature of public facilities which do not increase the target density of the project. o Adjustments of planning area boundaries and acreages. Discretionary actions which would require the filing of a specific plan amendment or substantial conformance requests include the following: o Changes to the text or maps of the Specific Plan other than the addition of new information which does not change the effect of any regulation or the adjustment of planning area boundaries or acreages. o Increase (not transfer or intensification) in dwelling unit allocation beyond the maximum specified density range in any planning area of the specific plan. o Major changes in the infrastructure system such as drainage, road alignments, water and sewer systems etc. which have the effect of increasing capacity beyond the maximum specific plan density. - 129 - 'O III. GENERAL PLAN/EIJVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O O - 130 - III. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section combines the Environmental and General Plan Analysis in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Format. A. General Plan Land Use Determination System This subsection uses the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan's System for determining appropriate land uses for the proposed project site. The four step process is based on the County General Plan's Land Use Element. At each step, the proposed project is analyzed against the appropriate Land Use Element section. 1. Site Identification within Open Space and Conservation Map Inventory. The General Plan has designated open space areas and has identified natural and non-natural resources within Riverside County. These areas have been delineated on a General Plan Map. The purpose of this step is to determine the proposed project area's location relative to designated open O space and resource areas. The proposed project area is identified on the Open Space and Conservation Map as Specific Plan Area No. 171. The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan No. 217 encompasses the same area of the previously approved plan but has been changed thus subjecting it 'to additional County review. Surrounding the proposed project are: areas not designated as open space; agricultural lands; mountainous areas. 2. Project Identification Within Composite Hazards/ Resource Map Inventory This subsection locates potential environmental hazards and resources relative to the proposed development by using maps contained in the Specific Plan. This step determines the potential of a proposed project to be subjected to environment hazards and identifies possible resources that could be affected Yiy the proposed project (Section C contains an in depth analysis of these and other hazard/resource topics). PO - 131 - O a. Environmental Hazards: Potential environmental hazards that exist in the proposed project area and are identified by the General Plan include seismic hazards and flood hazards. (See Exhibit III-1, Environmental Constraints.) 1. Seismicity: The site is determined to be in an area where tremors and related hazards occur. 2. Flooding: Temecula Creek runs parallel to the northern boundaries of the site and some of its related drainages transect the property. b. Resources The major resource identified within the proposed development area are the wildlife and vegetation associated with Temecula Creek and a portion of its drainage. Riparian vegetation exists on portions of the property which supports or could support a variety of O wildlife. Examples include the coast horned lizard, black-tailed gnatcatcher, grasshopper sparrow and Stephen's kangaroo rat. 3. Land Use Area Profile and Community Policy Area Identification For Project Site This step determines what Community Policy Area the proposed project falls within and profiles existing land uses of the area. a. Land Use Area Profile The Redhawk Specific Plan project is located in the Southwest Territory Planning Area. This area is characterized by urban land uses and corridors along Interstate 15, specifically in the Rancho California-Temecula area. b. Policy Plan Area The proposed project is located within the Rancho Villages Policy Plan. O - 132 - O P~ i,~ q+~O, Y 00 P~dG L®. C~ O O y y~ ~ ~' o ~ b @~ ~ 00 ~ q~q~~ Cf ® o 00 ~( v ~ ob p o0 S~ 00 `~ L ~ O ~ ~• • ~ . ~y b 00 t01 ~ C O~+ _ ~ ^ ~~~ d ® ~ ~ ~ QQQ ~ ~ ~~kt h ~ :'~ U V ~ ~ X p b~ q V qo~ .}~}~(~ T " ' ~ V G am Cf g 0 ~. J e~ ~ ~ `j= :~ !~ 3 a y .~ -~ F O 4. Summary of Project Proposal/Site Comparison With Applicable Land Use Category Policies or Community Plan. This step summarizes the proposed project, then determines what land use categories are appropriate. The project is then compared with pertinent.land use policies. a. The proposed specific plan calls for a reduction of lot sizes to change the gross density of the property from one (1) DU/AC (Dwelling Unit Per Acre) to three and one- third (3.3) DU/AC and proposes a mixture of uses. Medium-low to high density residential uses, which include single-family residences, townhomes and condominiums, will occupy 788.3 acres, or approximately sixty-two (61.8) percent of the total area. Commercial areas. will total twenty-three (23) acres (1.8$) while schools, parks, a golf course and open space will total 900.5 acres (31.4$). Open' space areas are located in potentially flood prone sections of Temecula Creek and O related drainage areas. within the project or are in slope areas of 25 percent or greater. These land use designations can preclude any buildings for human occupancy in areas of potential hazard. Roadway and waterline extensions had already been considered when the original specific plan was reviewed, but have been upgraded in the proposed specific plan as the change in density has dictated. Major linkages to Highway 79 include Pala Road and Anza Road. The Rancho Villages Assessment District will fund drainage, bridges and street improvements, including Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road. b. Land Use Categories There are five categories (Heavy Urban, Urban, Rural, Outlying and Planned Community) described in the County General Plan. The - 133 - O -0 categories are based on the varying levels of public services required for land uses at different densities. This project is a combination of Categories I & II, Heavy Urban and Urban, respectively. band uses described in these categories are: Category I (Heavy Urban): Land uses are characterized by intensive commercial and industrial land uses and higher residential densities. Under this category, the proposed project has intensive. land uses in the form of high density residential development of eight to sevehteen (8-17 DU/AC. O Category II (Urban): Land uses represents a broad mix of land uses, including. many types of commercial and industrial land uses- and [low-density] residential land uses. Under this category, the proposed project has mixed uses such .as commercial neighborhood 'centers totaling twenty-eight (28) acres and low-density residential development at two to eight (2-8) DU/AC. c. Southwest Area Community Plan Redhawk Specific Plan is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan, which has not been incorporated into the County General Plan.. When incorporated into the plan, issues and problems peculiar to the area will.be addressed while policies and land use designations will be assigned. Urban, industrial, commercial, residential and rural land uses are expected to be allowed at set densities for each area as constraints permit. B. Land Use Element 1. Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan site is located in the Southwest Territory Planning Area, as delineated in the Riverside County General Plan. The General Plan forecasts for the area show a P O - 134 - O marked increase in population; from 25,700 in 1980 to 50,500 in the year 2000. Subsequent housing units required for this increase will be more than double the present number of units. The factors listed below. are expected to accommodate growth in the area: * Greater access to the area due to improvements to I-15 & I-215: * Improvements to the water and sewer systems in Rancho California. * Relatively lower costs associated with property and housing in the area. * Increased industrial development potential with completion of I-15 to San Diego. * Increased demand for a variety. of housing densities and types. * Desirable air quality in Rancho California. 1 O 2. Community Policy Area Analysis The project site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Community Policy Area. This area consists of land within a thirty mile radius of the Mount Palomar observatory. Outdoor lighting within this area adversely affects the observatory operations with a condition known as "skyglow" which interferes with astronomical data collection due to the interference caused by broad spectrum radiation emitted by high pressure sodium lights. To mitigate this problem, the General Plan requires all new street lighting and outdoor lighting and outdoor lighting within the community policy area - be from low-pressure sodium vapor lamps, the light from which can be filtered by the observatory, thereby mitigating the problem of skyglow. Redhawk will comply with these requirements through conditions of approval which require the use of low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting sources within implementing subdivisions. O - 135 - :O 3. Land Use Category Policy Analysis By determining the level of proposed development and the amount of infrastructure required to service the site, it is ascertained that the Redhawk Specific Plan will be a.combination of Category I (Heavy urban) and Category II (Urban) Land Uses. Infrastructure for the project has followed master plans for the area. The Eastern Municipal Water District will supply adequate sewer service and the Rancho California Water District will supply adequate water service. Both districts have supplied a will serve letter for the proposed project density. The road improvements previously mentioned will provide adequate levels of service at project build-out. The project site is located in the I-15 urban corridor,' which currently has Category I & II levels of land use. The combination of land uses proposed is consistent with existing levels of land Fuse in the area. The mixture of Category- I & II land uses, which include residential and commercial development are as follows. O Category I (Heavy Urban) land uses are. characterized by intensive commercial and industrial land uses and higher densities. Examples of Category- I land uses include regional and community commercial centers, heavy industrial uses and residential densities of eight to twenty (8-20) dwelling `units per acre. The Specific Plan has proposed townhouses, condominiums and apartments ranging from eight to seventeen (8-17) DU/AC, which will encompass 121.0 acres or approximately nine and one-half (9.5) percent of the total project area. Category II (Urban) land uses represents a broad mix of land uses, including many types of commercial and industrial land uses and residential land uses with a density of two to eight (2-8) dwelling units per acre. O - 136 - ,O The Specific Plan has proposed three (3) commercial neighborhood centers totaling twenty-eight (28) ' acres or approximately two (2) percent of the total plan area. Lower density residential development encompasses most of the site at 674.3 acres or approximately fifty-three (53) percent .of the total area and will range from two to eight (2-8) . DII/AC. The remaining areas will be open space uses, recreation or school areas which will service ' the proposed surrounding development. 4. Community Policy Area The Redhawk Specific Plan is within proximity to the Rancho Villages Policy Plan which was adopted by Riverside County on August 25, 1981. It addresses the same issues and utilizes the same format as the General Plan, but on an area wide scale. Hazards, resources and appropriate land uses are delineated in the plan. The .project is also within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Community Policy Area which requires the use of low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting. ;O C. Environmental Hazards and Resource Element This section contains the impact analysis of topics covered in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan's Environmental Hazards and Resources Element. For. each topic, a report and analysis of existing .conditions on the site is given. Positive and negative impacts which affect the proposed project are described. Mitigation of negative impacts related to each topic will follow and will be mitigated according to General Plan Guidelines and County Policies. Throughout- the above process, the relationship between the proposed project and General Plan Policies. are discussed. Formating of this sub-section is as .follows: Topic a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies c. Mitigation Topics - 137 - ' O 1. Seismic Safety The following topic discussion is based on The Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential portion of Redhawk Project, prepared byEarth Research Associates, November,. 1987; Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by Medall, Worswick and Associates, 1985; and the .Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Existing Conditions The Redhawk Specific Plan is located in ~ southwestern Riverside County,'known as Wolf Valley, just southeast of Temecula, California. It is situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. Site topography ranges from river bottom, where Temecula Creek and Pechanga Creek flow, to rolling hills and flat ridges in the eastern portion of the property. Underlying the site is the Pauba Formation, ~O which is a combination of sandstone and siltstone with intermixed cobbles. Range tops are capped by terrace (ancient lake) deposits in the eastern section of the area. Alluvial deposits are generally confined to the major drainages of Temecula Creek and consist of silty and clayey sand. Based on the proposed project's proximity to regional seismic activity, the General Plan places the property within Groundshaking Zone IIB. This zone allows for low to high density residential units and multi-family residential units, along with small and large scale commercial development. The State has included a section of the property in the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This designation restricts development and land uses within designated hazard areas. The County General Plan stipulates that single-family residential and smaller scale commercial types of development are suitable vO - 138 - `O for the property, provided there is a geology report prepared and the project incorporates any needed design recommendations made in the report to reduce potential hazards. Table III-1 gives three (3) of the major faults in and around the project site and its relationship to them in terms of distance, maximum probable magnitude and likelihood of occurrence in the next twenty (20) years.' Table III-1 Major Faults Surrounding the Redhawk Area Distance from Maximum Fault Site Probable in Miles Earthquake Elsinore 1.75 west 7.0 San Jacinto 20 northeast 7.5 O San Andreas 37 northeast 7.5 Other hazards associated with seismic activity include ground rupture, seiches, dam or levee failure, landsliding, rockfalls and liquefaction. Existing conditions of these hazards relative to the site areas follows: o Ground Rupture: This hazard is generally associated with fault line zones which have not been found on site (see Page 7). o Seiches: A proposed water storage tank will be constructed as part of the improvements of the Rancho California Water District. It will be the source of water for the project area and will facilitate the needed water pressure to service the proposed development. o Dam Failure: Vail Lake is located approximately eight (8) miles east of the PO - 139 - O proposed project site. It impounds Temecula Creek, which flow through Pauba Valley. This .valley and Redhawk are located adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of the property (See Exhibit I-3, Topographic Map). The floors of these two (2) valleys, which are below the proposed project would most- likely become inundated. in the event of a Vail Lake Dam failure, according to County General Plan Hazards Maps. o Landsliding: Geologic studies indicate that the underlying Pauba formation and associated soils at the site .are not prone to landsliding. If on-site materials are compacted and used as fill for building pad preparation, slopes of 2:1 and thirty (30) feet in height could be safely constructed. o Rock Falls: No major rock out croppings or large boulders have been observed along the slopes and ridges of the project area. O o Liquefaction: Portions of the project site, according to the County General Plan Hazards Map, are identified as being an area subject to possible soil liquefaction during seismic episodes. Liquefaction is caused by .high ground water tables adjacent to some types of poorly consolidated soils. When ground shaking occurs during a tremor, ground water."mixes" into the poorly packed soils above. This action destabilizes the soils and can lead to building foundation failure during or shortly after a seismic event. The most recent geologic studies prepared indicate that no liquefaction prone areas exist within the project. General Plan Policies Applicable policies to the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan are as follows: o If the proposed site for a sub-division or human occupancy structure is located PO - 140 - _O within: (a) An Alquist-Priolo special studies zone or; (b) A County Fault Hazard Zone or; (c) 150 feet of an active or potentially active fault, then submission of a geological report is required with applications for permits or approvals. In accordance to General Plan Policies regarding public safety, a County Geologic Report was completed for the site. Since. that report, further studies have been completed. o Recommendations made in the County Geologic Report which reduce or eliminate all seismic hazards found to occur on the site must be incorporated into the project design. The recommendations listed in each report have been integrated into the proposed specific plan. The results of this integration can be found in Part C, the mitigation portion of this topic. O b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies Project Impacts According to available geological data, the site could be subjected to seismic activity and related hazards. Possible site hazards during a seismic event are: ground shaking, dam failure and seiching. Relationship To General Plan Policies o Groundshaking: The General Plan has specified the project area as ground shaking Zone IIB, which allows single family residential, multi-family residential of 100 units or more and major commercial development. This type of development is expected to withstand the level of ground shaking associated with Zone II if the development meets Uniform ~O - 141 - O Building Code Standards. The proposed project is compatible to land use designations for Zone II. o Dam Inundation: Comparisons between County maps and specific plan maps indicate that only the Temecula Creek wash area will be inundated during a complete dam failure. Commercial Area "B", School Site "B", Park Site "E" and Park Site "F" are located in the wash area. The likelihood of a complete dam failure is considered to be remote. If a dam failure did occur, the dam would completely disintegrate all at once when the reservoir was at full capacity to reach the maximum inundation elevation. Development within Commercial Zone "B" and School Site "B", as with. all development to be located within a flood plain, will have building pads constructed above the 100 year flood level elevation. -.O o Sieching: The General Plan states that if water storage tanks are to be placed on a hillside above the proposed development; then the possibility of tank failure during a seismic event should_ be considered in tank design. c: Mitigation The following mitigation measures are included in the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan. Seismic hazards have been mitigated to insignificance through the following mitigation measures. o All development in the project conform to Uniform Building Code related to groundshaking. o Graded slopes will not exceed greater than thirty (30) fee unless otherwise approved by the of Building and Safety. area will Standards 2:1 or be t in height Department - 142 - O o Cut and fill ratios proposed for the site will- be approximately L•1 to minimize massive areas of man-made fill. o It is recommended that the Rancho California Water District place the proposed water tank outside of the Redhawk Specific Plan -area, southwest of E1 Chamisal Road. Topographic maps show that if the tank should rupture, the resultant flow would initially move away from the property then turn back and enter the site at the golf course and open space area. 2. Slopes and Erosion The following discussion is based on County Hazards Maps located in the General- Plan and sources listed under the Seismic Safety topic. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan is located in Southern Riverside County and is dominated ~ by eroded hills, plateaus and small canyons O which generally decrease in elevation (approximately 1300 feet down to 1050 feet) as the property levels out into the Temecula Creek wash area: Coastal sage scrub and grasses cover most of the slopes and level areas with some cottonwoods and willows scattered throughout the Temecula Creek flood plain. Precipitation moves down slopes by overland flow into the ephemeral streams (they carry water as a direct result of precipitation) that transect the site. The drainages either flow into Temecula Creek to the north, or to a lesser extent, flow into Pechanga Creek to the west. Slope creep (a slow moving land slide) was observed on a small portion of the property. However, no major rock outcroppings or boulders have been located within the project area. Slope and soils maps-(see Exhibit I-4, Slope Analysis, and Exhibit III-2, Soils Map) of the AO - 143 - h 0 o~ o ® •. 00 o a ~ ~ ~ o ® b ~ ~ o ~ ~ E3 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~° o ~ i 8 t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ e~ J ~® m ~~ a dK ~ ~~ ~ ® . o ~ q, ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o. ~ ~~~ ~ ~9~~ a o b _~-., __ A oo~ ~® R~ ~ J MM~ N~ t~O specific plan show detailed topographic and' soils characteristics within the site. Steep slopes of twenty=five (25) percent or greater appear to be associated mostly with the Pauba formation, which is the bedrock that has been eroded to make up most of the alluvial-soils in the site. This soil is erodable, but in direct relation to slope steepness. Flat or gently sloped areas appear to be stable and should ' pose- little erosion hazard. Steeper areas, especially. those of twenty-five (25j percent slopes or greater, do show indications of erosion hazards. General Plan Policies The following Land Use Standards from the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan are applicable to the project site. o Hillside Design: Development in hillside areas should be designed to follow or flow with the natural contours of the site. Development is d% discouraged on slopes in excess. of twenty-five (25) percent and unstable ' slopes should be designed as common open space. Major projects and buildings on major ridgelines, canyon edges and hilltops are discouraged and any development on such areas shall be visually unobtrusive by sensitive siting and appropriate landscaping. o Slope Heights and Contours: All cut and fill slopes or combinations thereof shall be made no steeper than 2:1 (two horizontal to one vertical) and their height shall be no greater than ten feet. Exceptions to these standards are permitted if they are recommended to be safe in a slope stability report written by a soil engineer. The slope stability report must also include recommendations for erosion O - 144 - control and landscaping of the proposed grading. o Road Grades: County dedicated roads, County maintained roads, roads built to County standards, and access roads to all lots shall be graded to `~ a finished grade of no more than fifteen {15) percent or as recommended by the County Road and Survey Department. o Slope Stabilization and Landscape Plans: Y7here land uses are to be located on slopes subject to instability, erosion or slippage, an environmental assessment, rockfall study, geologic report or engineering report-may be required. o Grading Plans: Grading is to be generally limited to the amount necessary to provide stable areas O for structural foundations, street rights-of-way, parking facilities and other intended uses. Applicants for development permits will provide an estimate of the development proposal's grading magnitude and slope contours. of the site. Depending on the magnitude of the grading operation, the applicant may be required to submit a grading plan for County approval prior to issuance of grading permit. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Existing natural slopes in some portions of the project area exceed twenty-five (25). percent which is the maximum buildable slope, as delineated in County Standards. This characteristic, coupled with the erosive nature of the soil under steep slope conditions make the site subject to moderate erosion potential. .O - 145 - O When grading occurs on the site, soils could be "J eroded and washed down existing drainages. However, the grading plan will meet County standards and will balance cut and fill slopes on site, and the amount of cut and- fill performed will be an approximate 1:1 ratio (see Exhibit II-12, Grading Plan). Most slopes of greater than twenty-five (25) percent will be retained as open space and alteration of natural drainages will be minimized and drainage improvements installed. Relationship To General Plan Policies The Redhawk Specific Plan proposes ,the following measures to meet slopes and erosion standards. o Hillside Design: Most areas of twenty-five (25) percent slopes or greater will be designated as open space. O o -Slope Heights: All cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical feet. Contouring and landscaping of slope areas will blend into the natural terrain, where feasible. o Road Grades: All roads within and connecting the property will be fifteen (15) percent gradient or less. o Slope Stabilization and Landscape Plan: Geologic reports and follow-ups have been made since the inception of the proposed project. Landscape plans for the proposed project have incorporated stabilization standards into them. O - 146 - ~o o Grading Plans: Detailed grading plans are being prepared before any on-site grading activities occur. c. Mitigation The following mitigation measures should reduce slope and erosion hazards to minimal levels. o Most areas greater than twenty-five (25) percent slopes shall be retained as natural open space or,buffer.area. o County Grading Standards will be complied with throughout the grading procedures. O o Graded slopes will be landscaped in accordance to County Standards. o Grading that occurs during rainy periods will include sand bagging and desiltation basins in on-site grading activities as necessary. o Water trucks will be used to control dust. o Earthen dikes will be temporarily placed along the perimeter of drainage courses in accordance to Department of Building. and Safety directives. 3. Wind Erosion and Blowsand According to County Geologic Reports, there are no indications of this hazard within or around the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan area because soils in the area are not condusive to wind erosion. Construction related dust could exist on a short term basis, but can be controlled by spraying with water trucks. 4. Flooding a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The following discussion is based on the Redhawk Specific Plan EIR Number 93 prepared by - 147 - ,~O Albert A. Webb Associates and County Hydrology and Flooding Maps. The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan is situated in the Santa Margarita River watershed which drains Temecula and Pechanga Creeks. These two creeks. converge just northwest of the :proposed Specific Plan site (see Exhibit I-3, Topographic Map). The 100 year flood plain zones associated with these two creeks are shown on Exhibit I-5, Hydrology Map. Associated drainages are included on this map along with the extent of area each drainage affects. The drainages shown are found to ephemeral, that is, flowing in direct response to area precipitation. The greatest amounts of discharge expected during a 100 year frequency flood event. are included in the following table (refer to Exhibit 1-5, Hydrology Map). Table III-2 `O 100 Year Flood Event Maximum Discharges For Redhawk Specific Plan Area SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TOTAL TOTAL CREER DISCHARGE (C.F.S) DISCHARGE IN CFS Temecula Creek 36,000 Pechanga Creek 7,000 2,462 575 The table illustrates the fact that most of the area drains into Temecula Creek. See Exhibit I-5, Hydrology Map, and Exhibit II-1, Specific Land Use Plan, the proposed golf course area and the equestrian trail at E1 Chamisal Road. Most of this discharge is from the agricultural areas to the southeast of the property. General Plan Policies Pertinent policies for the Redhawk Specific Plan address development hazards within flood -O - 148 - plain zones and potentially flood prone areas. The General Plan states that all flood related .hazards must be adequately mitigated. Also, it states that, in general, no land uses are suitable within the 100 year flood plain zones, except for open space and recreation. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies The proposed project will increase runoff potential by the placement of impervious surfaces (roads, residential units, commercial centers) on the site. However, the proposed Specific Plan has taken flood hazards into account and .has designated open space and recreational land uses within 100 Year flood plain zones and potential floodways that are located on the site. Small sections of Planning Area 9, 16 and Commercial Site A and B are within a potential flood zone. Small drainages located within the site will be permanently altered during the grading and construction phases of the proposed development. Temecula Creek will have a two mile portion channelized outside of the plan area as part of the improvements scheduled by the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Storm drains and other drainage improvements will be placed in the developed areas to carry away run-off as part of individual tract plans. To insure that the proposed project area will not be cut off in the event of a 100 year flood event, Margarita Road, Butterfield Stage Road and Pala Road will have new bridges placed at their respective creek crossings. This will be accomplished through Rancho Villages Assessment District funding. Relationship To General Plan Policies The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan has incorporated all General Plan policies O - 149 - .O regarding flood hazards into its design. No structures for human occupancy will be placed within the. 100 Year flood plain zone or potential floodways. c.. Mitigation Measures All foreseen flooding hazards have been eliminated through .the incorporation of County General Plan and Flood Control and Water Conservation District Standards. The mitigation measures utilized are given below. o The 100 Year Flood Plain Zones associated with Temecula Creek are designated as open space in the form of a 17.6 acre park featuring field sports and a passive open space area. o Commercial Development located within the potential floodway of Pechanga Creek and Temecula Creek will have building pads constructed above the expected inundation elevation. ~O o The potential floodways located in the west-central portion of the property will be designated as a 182.7 acre golf course or as open space with equestrian trails. o Bridge crossings of Temecula Creek at Pala road, Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road will be constructed to withstand a 100 Year storm event. o The drainage crossing of Macho Road (at the equestrian trail) near the intersection of E1 Chamisal Road will be constructed to withstand an expected 100 Year Storm event. 5. Noise The following discussion is found in the Noise Element General Plan. r O based on maps and text of the Riverside County - 150 - ~. `~ a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The Redhawk acres of land generation on for Highway the west, whip noise. .Specific Plan encompasses 1275.6 that is primarily vacant. Noise site can be considered nil except 79 to the north and Pala Road to ~h generate some traffic related General. Plan Policies: The General Plan discourages single and multi-family residential developments, hospitals and. schools from areas where generated noise exceeds 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level, in decibels). The only areas in the project site capable of experiencing noise above this level .appears to be adjacent to Highway 79 and adjacent to Pala Road, approximately 315 feet perpendicular to the centerline, assuming build out to maximum master planned service levels. O O b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Noise impacts will generally be associated with roads which pass through or adjacent to the specific plan area. The Rancho Villages Assessment District has planned to widen Highway 79 and Margarita Road. Butterfield Stage Road, which is presently unimproved, will have full improvements along its route. The following table lists the roads scheduled for improvements by .the district which will serve Redhawk Specific Plan. P O - 151 - O Table III-3 Expected Noise Cont ours of Roads from Centerline , Width 60. 65 70 Road (feet) dBA dBA dBA Highway 79 134 315+ 155+ 70+ Margarita Road south 134 315+ 155+ 70+ of Highway 79 to creek crossing Margarita Road south 100 310 150 65 of the creek crossing Pala Road south of 100 315, 155 70 of Highway 79 Butterfield Stage Rd. 110 315 155 70 Wolf Valley Loop Rd. 100 310 150 65 O Wolf Valley Road 88 270 130 45 Macho Road 88 270 130 45 Fairview Road 88 270 130 45 E1 Chamisal Road 88 270 130 45 Relationship to Riverside County General Plan: The following General Plan Standards are pertinent to the proposed project and district- wide build out: o The following uses shall be considered noise sensitive and shall be discouraged in areas in excess of 65 CNEL (dBA): single and multiple family residential, group homes, hospitals, schools and other learning institutions and parks and open space lands where quiet is a basis for use. ~...J - 152 - o Business and professional offices where effective communication is essential shall mitigate interior noise to 45 dBA. o Proposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas shall be required to have .acoustical studies prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and may be required to provide mitigation from existing noise. o Proposed projects which are noise producers shall be required to have an acoustical engineer prepare a noise analysis including recommendations for design mitigation if the project is to be located within close proximity to a noise sensitive land use or land zones for noise sensitive land uses. o Projects that are incapable of success- fully mitigating excessive noise sha_11 be discouraged. o In areas within close proximity to highways and roads, the road design standard (average daily trips). shall be used' to estimate maximum future noise hazards. c. Mitigation The following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts related to noise to minimal levels. o Areas adjacent to roadways will use lands- scaping measures such as vegetated berms, trees and decorative block walls to reduce noise impacts from traffic. o Office buildings and residential interiors will not exceed 45 decibels and building materials should meet Uniform Building Code Standards. An acoustical analysis should be performed by a certified acoustical engineer to identify specific areas prone to noise impacts. ~O - 153 - O o Title 24 should be complied with in constructing the proposed residential and commercial developments. Standards under this code include the designation of insulation amounts and window pane thickness relative to project siting.adjacent to noise producing areas. ' 6. Air Quality The following discussion is based on text and data available in the Air Quality Data for Environmental Impact Reports and the Air Quality Summary prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The Redhawk Specific Plan is located in western Riverside County, which is characterized by inland valleys, rolling hills and mountainous areas. To the north and west are the San Bernardino Mountains (the tranverse ranges, which run O northwest to southeast) and the Santa Ana Mountains (part of the coast ranges, which run north to south). The region is located in a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by sunny days, cool nights and rainy periods in January, February and March. Mild temperatures typical for the area range in the sixty's (60's) and seventy's (70's) and generally gat warmer as one moves further inland. Night and morning low clouds and fog are a common occurrence and is caused by moisture-laden air moving off of the Pacific Ocean. The low clouds and fog generally burn off by mid-morning in inland areas leaving sunshine for most of the day. Unfortunately, this abundant sunshine contributes to-the production of photo chemical smog which can get trapped by inversion layers (warm air over cold air) that may occur in the area. - 154 - Light breezes, of an average of 5.7 miles per hour, usually blow throughout the area making the dispersion of pollutants very slow. Generally, the pattern of wind direction for • the area is as follows: As the sun rises in the morning, it heats up the atmosphere. The amount of this heating is relative to the buffering ,influence of the ocean, which keeps air temperatures in a very narrow range above the water temperature. The inland valley areas and deserts are not subject to the ocean's influence, and subsequently heat up faster and to a greater degree. This causes the air in the inland areas to rise, which acts like a vacuum and draws air in from the coast. Along with this air is smog and particulates that are produced in Los Angeles, which combines with the relatively small amount of smog that is produced locally. As the sun goes down, air in the inland areas cools, becomes dense, and pushes out the air below it which flows to the coast at night. _O This can cause an inversion as the more cooler marine air moves in from the coast and warmer, inland air flows above it. If both marine influences and inland air flows are strong, persistent inversion layers can be sustained for several days which traps smog and particulates that are continually produced. The Federal and State governments have air quality standards for air pollutants, which includes the preparation of air quality management plans. The responsible agency for monitoring air quality in the Riverside area is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). It also issues air pollution permits and enforces air quality regulations. The lead agency responsible for the preparation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin is the Southern California Association of Governments. - O - 155 - O The AQMP was adopted in 1979 and makes regional projections of future growth and resultant pollutant levels. Also, strategies are given which are designed to reduce air pollution emissions to National- Air Quality Standards. Currently, the Riverside area does not. ,meet these standards for four pollutant types: ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and Total Suspended Particles (TSP). Descriptions of the sources and effects of these pollutants are located on Table III-4 below, Riverside Area Non-Compliant Pollutant Types. Table III-4 Riverside F;rea Non-compliant Pollutant Types ------------------------------------------------------ Pollutants Sources Effects 03: Photochemical Oxidant Primary ozone, a pungent colorless toxic gas. Not emitted as a pollutant but created in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of reactive hydro- Causes respitory irritation and possible changes in lung function; damage to vegetation; and cracking of untreated rubber. CO: Carbon Monoxide: Color- less, odorless toxic gas. carbons and oxides of nitrogen in combination with ultraviolet light from the sun. Produced by in- complete combustion of carbon-containing substances in internal combustion engines, especially automobiles, and some industrial processes. Passes into blood stream, interferes with transfer of fresh oxygen to blood, depriving heart and brain of oxygen. - 156 - 0 Table III-4 (continued) Riverside Area Non-compliant Pollutant Types Pollutants sources Effects NOxi Nigrogen Oxides, includes NO: nitric oxide a colorless, odorless gas, and N02: Nitrogen dioxide, a reddish-brown irritating gas. Particulates: Tiny particles made up of divided solids of liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mists. Due primarily to the high temperature in combustion, nitrogen and oxygen in the air combine to form nitric oxide, and further chemical reactions produce N02. Automobile engines are the primary source, along with combustion in power plants, and some industrial operations. Consists of atmospheric particles from dust and fume- producing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion products including auto- mobile exhaust, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. A pririary receptor of ultraviolet light which initiates the reactions producing photo- chemical smog. Injury to respiratory tract alone or in combination with. gasses; absorption and scattering of sunlight reducing the amount reaching earth; damage to materials *SOUrce: Winchester Property EIR $227 by Turrini & Brink. - 157 - _O In accordance to California Air Resources Board Guidelines for air quality impact assessment, Tables III-5 and .III-6 are given to summarize air quality trends in the area. These summaries are for 1985 and 1982. Amore recent summary was not available at this writing. Please note that the closest monitoring station is located in Perris Valley, approximately 20 miles to the north of the Redhawk Site, and only measures ozone pollution levels. From the available data, it can only be discerned that ozone and total suspended particles are a major problem in the- area. Exhibit III-3, Regional Air Quality, shows the pollutant levels relative to the Rancho California area. In addition, it should be stated that the Rancho California/Temecula area has lower pollutant levels than areas to the north. This is due to a steady flow of air that moves from the mountain areas to the southwest through the Santa Margarita River drainages and into _.O Temecula Valley. This pushes back the pollution that moves in from the Los Angeles and Riverside city areas. General Plan Policies Relative land use standards regarding air quality found in the environmental hazards and resources element are as follows: 1) Air Quality Impact Mitigation: Major development proposals which may create a significant new source of air pollutant emissions must contribute to the mitigation of adverse air quality impacts. Major projects may include large industrial, mining, residential, commercial or recreational projects. Air quality mitigation measures to reduce automobile or energy use include the following: - 158 - O O ro uI 1 ~r H .k 11 H 3 ~.I H ro r1 WWx ro a N O~ ~a~ H ~ O O1 H ~~ v s+ ~, s~ ro m TS a ~~ ~ w wro a~ roro ?~ U rox ow N b ~+ ro L~ b +1 C ~ro ~N ~1 ~ Gl 1~ ~ -.+ W ro Of N -, ~ b ~+ H S-i ro 01 -o a ~ N m~ A k W N '~ ~~ ~~ roro -~ vii w +~i •.~i +-1 N ro U ~ a a~ ro +~ H rI 0 a z z w a M ~ ~ rn z o ~ MI ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ~ M N 11 In ~ .ti ~~ O ri O r-1 " N N ~ ~ z .~ ap v ~. f"1~ a n ~ a w ~ p' p~ osa inH ri .~-1 S-. N Jr" O V' 01 O r1 O r-1 b N a w 'O H N O! `~' C '~ N N N U O v ~ z ~ro ar c ~ ~+ - ~ U G ~ C b+'O k A O ~ X ro+~ Sa C -'+ 1~ O 1~ fa ro o k -~+ --~ o ro u~ o zo E.a x C. .,~ H .~ C -.-1 H E • A ~ ` d ~, ro N i+ A. n N N O j z it a H W H 01 C4 O fa a F1 m N. ro x U C .,~ 3 ui U t, O y . O H ro 1 ~ H ~ H ?~ +i 1-i 3 ~ ro~ •0~~~ aaH H +i N W O1 r-1 ~, N •~-i ~ N }a la ro N va ~~ ~ o ~ ~ rozs z m z z ~~ m N O1 ~. U rox ra w N Rf YI ro ro fc +~ ~ a a ~ m n. cL ch m C. LL N rf p L1 O ~t 7-1 N 1-1 ~ f-1 .~'i •r{ iJ 1"1.4' ri ,[: O ,L: O ~ •.i t6 V' ro .-i O1 co O .-1 O r-1 N N zro a w vH HH ro d roa rov cA b o ro z ~ z >.a i ~ z A X W N .d ~7 3-1 +i ro a ~ R E. ~. .~•' ro ro ~ a a ~ •.+ +~ a n, n1 c~ co v! CL ] ~ o H 1n 3-1 .[ '~ . 4' rl S'-. N .4 W 11 O V' f.' N +-I •.i O1 CO O rl O rl r-1 N O F-. ~-I r1 •.-I '~ U ~ ~ . -1 0 01 N ~ ~ 3-1 W ~ 110 a and ~ N ~ 2J H 3 i N 01~ ~ Ul ~ O O N~ 6.N +1Hro ~ °a o z mm ~ z ~ ro v ~ a +1 i m a i ~ +~ ~ •-~ a u+~ o n u n .~ st o v H x ro +1 ~ .a H ~ -.a ~ o a~ H z ~ o ro o x •,~ -.1 o ro ~ a c~ a c>~ o zQ E-Ia zap i oq. [/c'~y ~! O O OQQ ~7 O G ~~ ® ~ fd ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ® ~ ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ® ~' ~ pp~ t-'~ o e e o e ~ ~ o e o i . e o i a N Z .~.. x ~ 4 ~ y~~ O ~ ~~ g. ~' ~j Q ~- t~ ~ ~ ~ °G ~i • e q +~ ~29! A~ O ~M~~ z M ~_ X W 0 u1 Z ~ Q~ _ `/~v^]/ .../ ~... Inl.~In~4.JnI L..J pp~ b /r®, <7 O~ G~ e P~ ~IMC~ L.J O~' , ' d C O N 0 ~ N ' 'VpppCppppppYO 0 s - Bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, racks and lockers; - Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts; - - Park-n-Ride facilities; - Carpool preferential parking programs - Energy efficient buildings; - Solar access orientation of structures; - Solar heated and cooled structures and swimming pools. 2) Sensitive Land Uses O Sensitive land uses hospitals) should not be to sources of heavy air major roadways or heavy uses. b. Project Impact/Relationship Policies (e.g. schools, located adjacent ?ollution, such as industrial land To General Plan The following information was' prepared from base data and formulas provided in the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook For Environmental Impact Reports; December 1983. o Site Preparation and Construction Trucks, earth movers and generators will be used for construction of the proposed project. Vehicle exhaust emission and dust will contribute to air quality reductions in the area on a limited and short-term basis. Because .specific information is not available, due to -the many unpredictable variables related to construction, it is not possible to determine this impact. It can be stated, however, that water trucks will spray down the site during grading and lot preparation to control the dust generated. O - 159 - O 0 operation Of Completed Project When development of the proposed residential and commercial areas are completed, there will be two air quality impacts involved: 1. Increased motor vehicle emissions; the project will draw more people, into the area, increasing vehicular travel; 2. Increased power plant emissions; as people occupy the area, the demand for electricity and the use of natural gas (methane) will increase. The following tables show the expected amount of emissions that could be generated by the proposed project. The figures are based on a project-wide build out. Table III-7 Motor Vehicle Emissions Redhawk _O Pollutant CO (CARBON MONOXIDE) HC (HYDRO-CARBONS) NOx (OXIDES OF NITROGEN) SOX (OXIDES OF SULFUR) PARTICULATES TOTALS Emissions (Pounds/Day)* 6,293 606 1,361 199 266 8,725 or 3,184,625 Lb/Yr. *Assuming an average speed of 45 miles per hour in the year 2000 and a volume of 376,898 vehicle miles traveled. vim/ - 160 - -o Table III-8 Power Plant Emissions (Pounds/Day) Pollutant CO NOx (1988) SOx PARTICULATES ORGANIC GASSES TOTAL Emissions 13.6 98.1 93.5 11.7 8.3 225.3 Source: Emissions are based on a 1979• emissions inventory of power plants and electric power generation in-the South Coast Air Basin assuming an average hydro year and low sulfur fuel oil/natural gas fuel mix. O * A projected 4188 units will consume an estimated 24.5 million Kwb/year. Commercial consumption cannot be estimated at this time due to lack of specific square footages. Table III-9 Domestic Natural Gas Emissions (Pounds/Month) Pollutant Emissions 2-8 DU/AC 8-17 DU/AC CO NOx SOX PARTICULATES METHANE (CH4) TOTAL 384,837 1,924,186 NEGLIGIBLE 2,886 153,935 2,465,844 106,812 534,060 NEGLIGIBLE 801 42,725 685,398 GRAND TOTAL: 3,150,242 LBS./MONTH or 37.8x106 LBS/YR *Based on 6,665 cf/month/unit x 2,887 DU @ 2-4.5 and 4.6-8 DU/AC and 4,105 cf/month/unit x 130 DU @ 8-11 and 12-17 DU/AC Source: Southern California Gas Company, 1983. - 161 - a O o Relationship To General Plan Policies Air quality land use standards should be met through the following mitigation measures. g. Mitigation o Commercial centers proposed for the Specific Plan area will reduce the length of automobile trips by providing alternate destinations to Temecula and Rancho California. o Non-polluting modes of transportation will be facilitated by the inclusion of bicycle paths and encouragement of regional park and ride facilities in accordance with CalTrans recommendations. o The proposed residential development should coincide with the commercial and industrial development along the nearby I-15 corridor in the Temecula/Rancho California area which should result in shorter commutes. v o An air quality enhancement fee of $25.30 per ;.> unit will be paid by the developer to off-set regional cumulative impacts. 7. Water Quality The following discussion is based on a Geotechnical Feasibility Study by Medall, Worswick and Associates, completed in October, 1985. Additional geotechnical evaluation related to groundwater quality is contained in the Appendix of the EIR. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies o Surface Waters The Redhawk Specific Plan is located in a hill and plateau area just south of Temecula Creek, which flows through the northern portion of the property. The area is transected by various intermittant drainages that flow from the hills to the south (See v O - 162 - O Exhibit I-5, Hydrology .Map.) A small area to the west drains into the adjacent agricultural lands and ultimately into Pechanga Creek. All of these drainages, including the two creeks, are intermittant and only flow after heavy rains have saturated the topsoil. o Groundwater Subsurface waters in most of the project area range from approximately fifty (50) to sixty (60) feet below the ground surface. The groundwater appears to be in a perched condition, where the water is.trapped above an impervious layer under the surface. Also, groundwater in the Temecula Creek flood plain zone has been observed at approximately 12 feet below the surface. At the present time, water quality in the area appears to be good. The shallow, perched aquifer is being utilized for agricultural uses in Temecula Valley. A _ ^ deeper, confined or partially confined 7vl aquifer is being pumped for domestic use in the area (addendum, Geotechnical Percolation Testing, February, 1983 by Leighton and Associates.) The shallow aquifer could be slightly contaminated by agricultural runoff in the area, but no data is available to confirm this. It can be assumed, however, that some fertilizers and pesticides could be introduced into. the shallow groundwater, which is only being utilized for irrigation of fields and not as a domestic water source. General Plan Policies The Environmental Hazards and Resource Element calls out the following Water Quality Land Use Standard: o All development proposals will be reviewed for potential adverse effects on water quality and will be required to mitigate any significant impacts. - 163 - O b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Grading and building pad preparation is expected to alter the small drainages that transect the property when the proposed specific plan is implemented. Siltation of these drainages, and subsequently Temecula and Pauba Creeks, will occur during rainy periods. At project buildout, introduction of domestic pollution in the form of oil and detergents from street runoff could make their way into the shallow groundwater in lower portions of the site. Also, recharge of the goundwater could be slowed due to the introduction. of impervious surfaces. Relationship to General Plan Policies The proposed project will have an impact to area water quality which -will require mitigation in accordance to general plan policies. Grading and construction phases will incorporate measures into their plans and _ ^ project design will include mitigation of Tvl street runoff problems. c. Mitigation The following measures will be incorporated into grading plans and specific plan designs. o County grading standards will be complied. with throughout the grading procedures. Sand bagging and desiltation basins will be utilized during rainy weather. o Many slopes and drainages will be retained in a natural condition to act as natural filtering systems for street run-off. Cattails and sedges, if not allowed to choke the drainages, can be utilized to absorb large quantities of oil and soaps introduced into the water. These plants will most likely be introduced through natural means. - 164 - sO o Storm drainage systems will carry most of the possible pollutants out of the recharge areas. o The proposed golf course area will keep and provide natural surface recharge area, 8. Toxic Substances a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The potential hazards of toxic substances with regard to health hazards in general and water and air quality in particular are discussed in the general plan. Policies of the general plan state that the handling, disposal and clean-up of toxic materials shall comply with all applicable Federal, state and regional requirements. At the present time, there are no known toxic substances on site nor are there any known toxic substances located within the project vicinity. ~~ b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Development of the proposed project. is not anticipated to have any impact in regards to toxic substances nor is it anticipated that toxic substances will impact the project in any manner. Toxic substances are generally associated with industrial land uses. However, some toxic substances such as household detergents and oils will be produced, but are expected to be handled by proposed sewer improvements and County planned land fills. c. Mitigation Since no impacts are foreseen, mitigation measures will not be-required. AO - 165 - 'O 9. Open Space and Conservation This discussion is based on Wolf Valley Specific Plan EIR appendix, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, the Riverside County General Plan and Wolf Valley Specific Plan Biological Assessment, prepared by Tierra Madre Consultants. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Much of the area in and immediately around the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan is not officially designated as open. space in the Riverside County General Plan. However, there is currently no development on 'the proposed project site. Native plant communities of coastal sage scrub and riparian areas presently occupy the site with some areas of twenty-five (25) percent slopes or greater. Surrounding county designated agricultural land include some sod-farming and citrus growing to the west and north of the site. The flood plain of Temecula Creek is in a natural state except for some areas that are being grazed. ~~ Residential land uses are presently changing the rural character of the area. Homes currently exist or are being constructed just west of Pala Road off of Highway 79 near Interstate 15. This is representative of the entire I-15 corridor in the Temecula-Rancho California area, which is experiencing rapid growth. Under the currently adopted Specific Plan Number 171, approximately 100 acres of open space has been designated. These areas include Temecula Creek and the -associated floodway located in the west central portion of the site. Open space has also been designated where the Alquist Priolio Special Studies Zone is located. The Pechanga Indian Reservation ajoins the Redhawk Specific Plan in the southern portion of the property adjacent to Planning Area 5, 9, 16 and 17 and Commercial "A" (see Exhibit - 166 - O II-1, Specific Land Use Plan). As shown in the exhibit, a landscaped buffer is planned between the Reservation and the specific plan area. Presently, negotiations are being conducted to determine appropriate measures to separate the two areas. The buffer could consist of native trees, indiginous~shrubs and a decorative wall. In any case, a land use buffer will be placed along the property boundary with final specifications subject to the cooperative discussions between the developer and the Pechanga Indian Reservation. (See Exhibit II-42 and II-43 A-D.) General Plan Policies Open space and conservation policies pertinent to the project area are as follows: 1. Open space should be designated in areas of known or potential environmental-hazards. 2. Open space areas should be included in project designs to provide recreational _,O opportunities and aesthetic amenities. - 3. Critical natural resource uses should be controlled and managed. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General .Plan Policies The proposed project is expected to have positive impacts to the site. Even though development will lead to the loss of some open space, the project currently approved would have also led to an open space loss. The current Specific Plan No. 171 calls for a lower density of development at 1.0 DU/AC, while the proposed Specific Plan calls for a density of 3.3 DU/AC. However, in the current specific plan, there is little or no control of the amount of open space within the large lots because the uses would be up to the individual lot owners. ~O - 167 - O To offset the proposed increase in density, the ' proposed Specific Plan has designated 410.1 acres of open space, of which includes parks at 1.6, 2.0, 1.6, 9.9, 12.0, 14.9 and 3.9 acres. The Redhawk open space also contains 182.7 acres of golf course and 149.3 acres of natural open space (See Exhibit II-2, Recreation/Open space). This increases the amount of designated open space by approximately 400 percent as compared to the currently adopted Specific Plan. Relationship to General Plan Policies General Plan Maps indicate two critical natural resource features that could be affected by the proposed project.' One feature is the native riparian vegetation associated with Temecula Creek. Cottonwood trees associated with the creek were observed but were located just outside of the proposed project's northern boundary. Most of the vegetation within the site consists of coastal ...,0 sage scrub, which is not considered a unique plant community in the Riverside County General _ Plan. However, it should be stated that cumulatively, the project's contribution to the reduction of this. plant community could be significant, but would be lost anyway under the currently approved Specific Plan. The .other critical resource potentially found to be on the site, according to the County General Plan, is the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. Marginal habitat has been observed in the Temecula Creek areas bordering the northern portion of the project site but no specimen have been observed at those locations since 1981. Open space areas that have been designated in the proposed Specific Plan could accomodate some Kangaroo Rats that might move back in the area. c. Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been designed into the proposed Specific Plan. - 168 - 'O o Open space has been designated for all potential resource hazards associated with possible flooding, potential seismic activity, and slopes as follows: 1. Potential Floodways - Natural open space areas and equestrian trails - A 182.7 acre golf course. 2. Land Use Buffers - Separate and defined land use types and densities both within and adjacent to the specific plan. 3. Slopes - Most slope areas of twenty-five (25) percent or more will be designated as open space. o Approximately 410.1 acres or about 32.15 percent of the total project area will be devoted to passive and active recreational uses. o Natural and landscaped buffers are included in the project design to separate and define areas. within the proposed project. o Riparian areas that could be potential wildlife habitats will be designated as open space. 10. Agriculture This discussion is based on Riverside County General Plan Maps, aerial photographs and the Western Riverside County SCS Soil Survey. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies No agricultural uses exist within the proposed project boundary. The presently approved - 169 - PO ~ Specific Plan Number 171 has been designated as rural residential, and, any agricultural uses would have been at the discretion of the individual owners. Because agricultural activity is located only in adjacent areas of the proposed Specific Plan, any impacts associated with the project will be indirect, and associated with road and sewer improvements off site. Road improvements will be completed through mechanisms of the Rancho Villages Assessment District and through project implementation itself. of these improvements, the following table shows which road constructions will cause a loss of agricultural land as a result of widening or paving. Table III-10 Agricultural Areas Affected by Road Improvement Comparative ~ Agricultural Agricultural Quality of Preserve Use Soils in Area Road No. for Agricultural use Wolf Valley Loop Margarita Road Butterfield Stage Road Macho Road Pala Road Wolf Valley Road Fairview Road 17 Limited Cattle Poor Grazing 17 Citrus Growing Moderate 2 Sod Farming Good The reduction of these areas presently used for agriculture is unavoidable but would have likely occurred under the presently approved Specific Plan. Even though the proposed project's development is at a greater density - 170 - O and requires a larger degree of road improvements, the following points must be considered: - Both Vail Ranch and Murdy Sod Farm are currently seeking specific plan status and have requested withdrawal from Agricultural Preserve status. - The project area is located in an urbanizing corridor along Interstate 15 according to the County General Plan. - Cattle grazing in the region is of a limited nature and- is a detrimental land use, especially in the Temecula Creek Riparian area, where much of this grazing occurs. Sod farming is considered a short-term agriculture use and .is very land intensive. It is expected that the land will soon be irretrievably exhausted in the near future. - Sewer line and water line improvements will ^ be aligned with existing and proposed road U rights-of-way as shown in the General Plan per Rancho Villages Assessment District improvements and will not constitute an additional loss of agriculture lands. In light of the above facts, long term agricultural productivity of these appears limited. Some pilferage of citrus fruit could occur from the phased development of the Redhawk Specific Plan area. It is difficult to foresee to what degree this would occur, but it can be surmised from past observation that pilferage of agricultural products occurs where access is easier, as in the case of residential development occurring adjacent to agricultural land uses. Measures will be taken, however, to minimize the potential financial impact to agricultural land owners. - 171 - O General Plan Policies The County General Policies regarding agriculture are: to protect economically viable agricultural lands; to designate buffer areas between agriculture and other land uses; and to review proposed urban developments in agricultural areas based on area-wide factors. These policies affect the proposed roadways and road improvements that are to serve the project and the project's boundary areas between agriculture and proposed urban development. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies The road improvements, sewer lines and water lines necessary to service the proposed project will result in some loss of agricultural lands. However, as mentioned, the sod farm and Vail Ranch are not going to be used for agriculture in the future. Any impacts to the citrus farm will be mitigated to accepted levels. ,, Relationship To General Plan Policies _ O The proposed specific plan is located in a growth corridor specified for the Southwest Territory as delineated in the County General Plan. Land use buffers will separate agricultural areas from urban uses as specified in General Plan Policies. c. Mitigation Because agricultural uses are likely to be reduced due to the Interstate 15 corridor of urbanization, the Redhawk Specific Plan proposed will have an insignificant effect on area agriculture and will contribute little to cumulative agricultural land loss. Also, the County has a policy of agricultural use preservation for lands to the east of Butterfield Stage Road and the avacado and citrus groves to the wet of Temecula in the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, the following measures should mitigate any impacts that might occur (please refer to Chapter II, Circulation Plan). qO - 172 - O o Landscaped buffers will be placed along the boundaries of the Specific Plan area and present agricultural activity (see Exhibit II-1, Specific Land Use Plan). o Care should be taken during construction and improvement of roads within areas of agricultural activity to minimize the affected areas and should include. - Spray down with water trucks to minimize dust. . - Keep all construction related vehicles within or immediately adjacent to the road right-of-way during operation. - Cooperate with the local agriculture land owners to minimize interference- with harvesting due to road construction activities. o Growth inducement expected to occur because of its Mountainous. Min acres and certain limit the density to the citrus farm is not as a result of Redhawk General Plan status of imam lot sizes are ten (10) restrictions apply which of development. o Landscape buffers between agricultural and residential land uses will contain walls or other preventative devices to minimize access to any persons with the intent of stealing or vandalizing crops grown on the agricultural property. 11. Wildlife/Vegetation The following discussion is based on a biological assessment and addendum by Tierra Madre Consultants completed in January 1987. o Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The Redhawk Specific Plan area is located where Pauba Valley and Wolf Valley join and blend - 173 - O into Temecula Valley Topographic Map.) The from eroded foothills in floor on the west and floor flows two creeks; north and Pechanga Creek (See Exhibit I-3, project area extends the south to valley north. In each valley Temecula Creek to the to the west. Coastal Sage Scrub Community Most of the project site is located in eroded foothill areas, which support a coastal sage scrub plant community. Typical vegetation of -this community includes grasses, composites (e.g. sunflowers), various buckwheat species, lupines, scrub oak and live oak. This plant community is prevalent in undisturbed areas of western Riverside County and extensive representations can be found to the south of the project site in the Pechanga Reservation. Coastal sage scrub communities, as found on the site, support a diversity of animal species which are common to many areas of Southern California. The following table lists O sensitive species known or are likely to occur on the site. "Sensitive", according to the _ California Natural Diversity Data Base, refers to those species whose population is declining locally or statewide, or have a limited distribution, or have a low tolerance of human presence. Table III-il Sensitive Species for Redhawk Specific Plan Scientific Name *Number of Sightings Probability of (Common Name) Occurrence Accipiter coooperi --- Occurs Cooper's Hawk Ammodramus savannarum 8 Occurs Grasshopper Sparrow {nests) Aquila chrysaetos --- Occurs Golden Eagle (winter.visitor) O - 174 - sO Table III-11 (continued) Sensitive Species for Redhawk Specific Plan Scientific Name *Number of Sightings Probability of (Common Name) Occurrence Buteo lagopus --- occurs Rough-legged Hawk Buteo regalis --- Occurs Ferruginous Hawk (winter visitor) Dipodomys stephensi --- Low Stephens Kangaroo Rat Elanus leucurus 2 Occurs Black-shouldered Kite Phrynosoma coronatum 3 Very High blainvillei San Diego horned lizard Polioptila melanura --- High ,~california California black-tailed gnatcatcher Cnemidophorus hyperythrus --- High Orange throated whiptail *For the specific location of sitings, see Exhibit III-1 Environmental Constraints, and 5, 6, 13 and 17, of Exhibit III-6, Specific Land Use Plan Source: Redhawk Biological Assessment by Tierra Madre Consultants, January, 1987 Of those species observed at the site „ only the San Diego horned- lizard is a possible candidate for state or federal "threatened" status. Other common animals found in the area include cottontail rabbits, pocket gophers, skunks, - 175 - O badgers, grey foxes, squirrels, mice and ' several species of reptiles and birds. Riparian Community Riparian vegetation (vegetation associated wholly or in part with wetlands: e.g. creeks, rivers, lakes) is found along the northern portions of the site where Temecula Creek flows. Vegetation found along the creek wash are predominantly willow saplings with some interspersed cottonwoods. Below these trees are assorted composites and grasses. Riparian areas and associated washes are habitat and movement corridors for many species. Transitory animals include mule deer, coyotes, skunks and bobcats. Animals which use the wash areas as permanent habitat include deermouse and other rodents, which are preyed upon by raptor species such as the golden eagle, black shouldered kite and red-tailed hawk. 'O These bird species, along with some species of song birds, use the willows and cottonwoods located in the wash areas as roosting and nesting sites. Stephens Kangaroo Rat The Stephen's Kangaroo Rat is listed as threatened by the California Department of Fish and Game. Although one Stephen's Kangaroo Rat was captured during biological assessments in 1981 in the Temecula Creek Wash outside of the project area, a recent assessment conducted in July of 1987 did not capture any specimens nor was any evidence seen. Presently, this site does not appear suitable for the Kangaroo Rats due to either flood events, cattle grazing or sheep grazing.' General Plan Policies The Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan contains the - 176 - '~ O following Land Use Standards relative to ~ Wildlife and Vegetation: o Detailed biological reports, including inventories, impact assessment and mitigation shall be prepared and submitted with substantial development proposals. o Disruption of sensitive wildlife shall be kept to a minimum and where necessary adequate measures shall be taken to protect impacted species. o Disruption of sensitive vegetation shall be kept to a minimum and adequate measures to protect vegetative species shall be taken. o Where possible, landscaping shall be accomplished through the use of vegetation native to the project site. o Adequate provision shall be made for the retention of existing trees and other flora and where necessary, immediate planting shall be planned and implemented. O b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies The proposed project, which includes low to high density residential development, commercial areas, recreation and open space will lead to reductions in species diversity and individual species numbers. It is expected that many species will inhabit the proposed open areas in reduced numbers depending on their tolerance for humans, or move to other areas such as the Pechanga Indian Reservation. The following table shows sensitive species listed in the Existing Conditions section and lists whether the species will migrate off-site or stay in reduced numbers. Also included are the species' prey and habitat requirements that will be impacted. O - 177 - O Table III-12 ~- Impacted Sensitive Species from the Proposed Project Species Name Population Food/Prey Habitat Status Cooper's Hawk Reduced (occassional visits) Grasshopper Displaced Sparrow (Habitat. Loss) Golden Eagle Reduced (occassional visits) Rough-legged Reduced (occassional visits) Ferruginous Hawk Reduced -O Black Shouldered Reduced . Kite (occassional visits) San Diego Displaced Horned Lizard /Reduced (Habitat Loss) California Black- Reduced tailed-gnat- (human catcher disturbance) Rodents Large trees for nesting and rodent habitat Grass Willows and grass- Seeds lands Rodents Large trees for roosting and rodent habitat Rodents Large trees for roosting and rodent habitat Rodents Large trees for roosting and rodent habitat Rodents Large trees for roosting and rodent habitat Ants Sandy areas Insects Diverse plant community Orange Throated Reduced Whiptail (Habitat Loss) O Insects Diverse plant community - 178 - t.O other mammals, birds and reptiles will be reduced or displaced by the proposed project.Some of these species that are tolerant of human contact will remain in the area while other common animals more suited to the new environment will move in (e.g., sparrows, mice, side-blotched lizards, western fence lizards). Temecula Creek should remain as a movement corridor for coyotes, deer and foxes, especially at night. Riparian vegetation will be reduced when Temecula Creek is altered for reduction of potential flood hazards. Relationship to General Plan Policies In depth biological assessments have been performed in the proposed project site and mitigation measures should reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation and wildlife to minimal levels as required in General Plan Policies. c. Mitigation The following mitigation measures'should reduce `O impacts to vegetation and wildlife. They are designed to retain roosting, nesting and food/prey habitats for area wildlife and preserve native vegetation. o Approximately thirty-two (32) percent of the property will be retained as open space of which 149.3 acres will remain natural. These areas include the northeast portion of the project area adjacent to Temecula Creek which is part of a designated Biological Enhancement Area by the Rancho Villages Assessment District.. o Margarita Road has been realigned to miss a large stand of cottonwood trees located in the Temecula Creek floodplain. o Vegetation of landscaped "areas, which include buffer zones, the two parks and the golf course, will include native and drought tolerant vegetation such as ceonothus, 0 - 179 - O toyon, sage brush, buckwheat, sycamore trees ~' and cottonwood trees (for details, see Section III, Specific Plan,. Landscaping Plan).. o Large native trees located within the site or in road rights-of-way will be retained or new native trees will be planted in buffer areas adjacent to Temecula Creek. o Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers stream alteration permits must be obtained which will require mitigation measures be made that reduce impacts, as delineated to their standards, before a permit will be issued. 12. Mineral Resources No mineral resources have been found to exist within.. the project area. Geologic reports and maps show no mineral resources or existing mining operations. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies O No on site resources were identified on the Mineral Resources Map of the Riverside County General Plan. Two rock product sites are located in the Rancho California-Temecula area although these have no bearing on the Redhawk project as the closest site is approximately one and a half miles west of the Wolf Valley area. General Plan Policies General plan policies for mineral resources stress the scarcity of the resources and their relationship to urban development. Although the proximity of a resource to an urban area makes the resource more valuable because of its convenience to the marketplace, it also can result in the loss of mining opportunities. Urban encroachment into mining areas results in problems in areas such as noise, dust, odors and truck traffic O - 180 - .O that almost inevitably result in the eventual abandonment of active mining operations. In other instances, urban development is constructed directly over the mining area or resource. For all practical purposes this then eliminates the land use option of mining. The goal of the general plan policies is to preserve significant mineral resources for future utilization and to prevent the encroachment of urban development into areas actively used for mining. b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Because there is no evidence. of mineral resources on site or in the project vicinity, completion of the Redhawk project will not have any significant impacts on such resources. Thus, the project will be consistent with General Plan policies encouraging the preservation of significant mineral resources and the discouraging of urban encroachment near existing mineral resources. c. Mitigation O No significant impacts to mineral resources are foreseen. Thus, mitigation measures are not necessary. 13. Energy Resources a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Current energy usage on the project site is negligible as there is no significant human activity on the site. Policies of the General Plan emphasize the conservation of energy and the. utilization of alternative sources of energy whenever feasible. Major energy assets such as wind and geothermal resource areas and existing energy generation facilities such as oil and gas wells and power plants are identified on the energy resources map of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. None of these major resources or facilities are located within the proximity of the project site. O - 181 - °O b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan During the construction period for the project, short term energy consumption will include the use of raw materials, gas used by construction vehicles and electricity used by construction equipment. Upon completion of the project, energy will be consumed by project residents through the use of fossil fuels for private automobiles, natural gas for space heating of homes and electricity for lighting and household tools and appliances. An approximation of electrical and natural gas usage by project residents-can be made based on the number of dwelling 'units within the project. The maximum number of dwelling units which will be constructed in Redhawk is 4,188 but the .actual number may vary. Assuming the maximum number of 4,188 dwelling units, the approximate annual energy usage would be' 24,449,544 kilowatt hours of electricity and 237,306,060 cubic feet of natural gas. _O In terms of general plan policies, energy _ usage by Redhawk residents will be minimized by implementation of the mitigation measures discussed below. This will comply with the general plan policies concerning energy conservation. c. Mitigation The following techniques should enhance energy conservation in the proposed project area. o Multiple land uses within the project site will reduce driving times and consolidate the distance required to travel to reach available services. o Bicycle trails will be provided along proposed roads to encourage alternative modes of transportation. O - 182 - O o Title 24 state energy standards will be incorporated into building designs. These standards give estimates of heating loss and electrical consumption and recommends insulation techniques, lighting placement and wattages, window size, etc. 14. .Scenic Highways a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The project site does not have direct. frontage on any highway which is either designated or eligible for designation as a state or County scenic highway. However, the site is located within several hundred feet of Highway 79 which is.eligible as a County Scenic Highway. Policies of the General Plan encourage highway resources. This program not only has inherent aesthetic benefits to residents and visitors alike but also yields economic benefits through the stimulation of tourism. _, b. Project Impact/to General Plan Policies :~O As briefly mentioned in the previous section, the project site is located- at a higher elevation and several hundred feet distant from Highway 79. Thus, commercial Area B and perhaps a portion of Planning Area 14 will be . visible from Highway 79. However, the visual effect on. Highway 79 will be minimal due to the distance from the highway and the landscaped screening. of the northern side of the commercial area which faces Highway 79. The visibility of Planning Area 14 from Highway 79 will at most be -only minimal due to the screening effects of not only Commercial Area B but also the open space buffer area between Commercial Area B and Planning Area 14 and the golf course proposed for the central portion of the plan area. _ O - 183 - O c. Mitigation e o Open space buffers will be placed in sensitive viewing areas between Highway 79 and the proposed development. o Major entry landscape treatment will be designed to screen the project from Highway 79. 15. Historic and Prehistoric Resources The following discussion is based on an archeological assessment conducted by .Larry L. Bowles and Jean A. Sancras, of the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of California at Riverside „ in March, 1979. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Cultural Resources An assessment conducted for the proposed project shows one known archeological site, called RIV 364 (See Exhibit III-1, Environmental Constraints). This site is known as "Old Temecula" of which 4.3 -'O acres are located within the proposed project site.. Evidence of both .European and Aboriginal occupation during the mid-ninteenth century has been found in the immediate area, which was located in a major travel route of the time. During test phases at the site, 9,160 specimens were found and catalogued. Because of the amount of specimens recovered and the site's importance to the history of the Temecula Valley Area, RIV 364 is of National Register of Historic Places Quality. This designation implies that the site could be a significant cultural resource for the area. Paleontological Resources ~ The project site overlays the Pauba Formation, a sedimentary bedrock that is known to contain fossils from the last Pleistocene Epoch, which began 1.5 million years ago. However, a paleontological assessment by John Joseph Chemeht, of the University of California at Berkeley, has found no fossil resources within the proposed project site. - 184 - .o General Plan Policies The following are applicable Land Use Standards for Historic and Prehistoric Resources from the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the comprehensive General Plan. o Significant Historic Resources Development proposals shall be assessed for potential impacts upon significant historic resources. o Prehistoric Resources Development proposals shall be assessed for potential impacts upon prehistoric resources, including archaeological and paleontological resources. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies The implementation of the Redhawk Specific Plan `~ will result in the disturbance of RIV 364, the "O1d.Temecula" site, due to grading of building pads and the construction of Margarita Road (See Exhibit II-34, Planning Area 14:) Even though no paleontological resources have been recovered from the site, the underlying Pauba Formation may still contain fossils. This formation will be extensively disturbed during grading operations during specific plan implementation. Relationship to General Plan Policies Policies for historic and prehistoric resources state that proposed development projects be assessed for possible impacts to cultural sites and fossils. If the proposed project does impact these resources, then adequate measures should be implemented to reduce the impacts to insignificant levels. - 185 - -O c. Mitigation The following measures will be performed during specific plan implementation All impacts to known and possible cultural and paleontological resources should be reduced to nominal levels. o Site RIV 364 will be surveyed and archeological resources recovered and catalogued by an archaeologist prior to construction. o A paleontologist will be present during grading operations to recover any fossils associated with the Pauba Formation. 4O D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT This section will be formated in the same way as Section B, Environmental Hazards and Resources, but will address issues relevant to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. The purpose of the following discussions is: 1) to analyze the proposed project's ability to utilize existing public facilities and services; 2) delineate what new facilities and services are planned or need to be developed in order to service the proposed project. 1: Circulation The following discussion is based on maps and text related to the Rancho Villages Assessment District, the source of funding for road improvements that will service the Redhawk Specific Plan area and the Redhawk Traffic Study by Schatzmann, Thompson and Associates. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The proposed project is accessible by two roadways. Highway 79, which directly connects to Interstate 15, is classified as a variable width expressway. Pala Road which connects to Highway 79, is classified as an arterial road with a 100 foot right-of-way. Dirt road extensions of Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road presently cross into the proposed project site, O - 186 - O south of Highway 79. Pechanga Road presently ° connects to Pala Road in the southern portion of the property. Anza Road and Fairview Road are dirt roads that run through the property but are designated in the General Plan for improvement to paved secondary road status (See Exhibit II-4, Circulation Map). The following table shows .existing roads that surround the proposed project. The numbers represent average daily traffic volumes as sampled in 1985. Table III-13 Existing Traffic Volumes Roadway Average Daily Classification Traffic Classi- fication Volumes Interstate 15 North of Highway 79 ~/~~~,•ighway 79 just east _Uof Interstate 15 Margarita Road North of Highway. 79 Pala Road South of Highway 79 Pechanga Road Freeway 30,000 Expressway 10,500 Arterial 676 Arterial 3,768 Collector 404 * Data from revised Traffic Study for Rancho Villages Assessment District, prepared by Schatzmann, Thompson and Associates of Vista, California in September, 1987. The roads listed in the above table that will service Redhawk are shown on Exhibit II-4, Circulation Map. The present road system is serving existing development mostly to the north of Highway 79 (See Exhibit IV-1, Area Wide Development Potential and Present Land Uses in O - 187 - O Section IV, Growth Inducement). The area in and around the project site is experiencing rapid growth, which is one reason why the Rancho Villages Assessment District was conceived. The District is expected to make road improvements that will be utilized by many proposed developments within its service area including Vail Ranch, Butterfield Stage Ranch and Redhawk Specific Plans. General Plan Policies The following are Land Use Standards of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan relative to Circulation. o Road right-of-way and dedication: Necessary rights-of-way dedications shall be made by developers as part of the land division and review process. All road dedications shall relate to the overall existing and proposed street systems of the immediate area surrounding a proposed development. ~O o Roadway Design: Intensive urban land uses shall be served by streets and highways capable of handling high volumes of commuter and truck traffic. Through traffic movements shall be limited to General Plan roads and should avoid streets through residential neighborhoods. Provisions shall be made for highways capable of carrying high volumes of through traffic between major trip generators. o Alignment: Curves and roads shall be designed to permit safe movement of vehicular traffic at the road's design speed. o Access: All-weather access shall be provided to all developed areas. o Intersections: All street intersections shall be designed to assure the safe, efficient passage of through traffic and the negotiation of turning movements. 4O - 188 - vO o On-Site Road Improvement: Private land developments shall be required to provide all on-site road and auxiliary facility improvements necessary to mitigate any development-generated circulation impacts. A review of each proposed land development project shall be undertaken to identify project impacts to the circulation system and its auxiliary facilities. o Off-Site Road Improvements: All developments shall be required to mitigate all significant impacts which they will place upon the circulation system. Off-site improvements shall be required with development, when necessary to mitigate increased traffic demand. Such off-site improvements will be provided by the developer or by other County-approved financing. mechanisms, including .State or Federal funds. All identified impacts to the circulation system by proposed land developments shall be mitigated by the developer in conformance to requirements _.. established by the responsible agency. >O o Arterial Highways: Arterial highways shall be identified on a map and improved as area development and highway needs warrant. Whenever possible, improvements shall be made with financing mechanisms which equally distribute the cost of road improvements among those who will benefit. o Collector Streets: Provisions shall be made for a comprehensive, efficient collector road system in developing areas. o Commercial and Industrial Development: Improvement of streets and highways serving as access to developing commercial and industrial areas shall primarily be the responsibility of the private developer. These may include road construction or widening, installation of turning lanes and traffic signals, and the improvement of any drainage facility or other auxiliary facility necessary for the safe and O - 189 - O efficient movement of traffic or the ~ protection of road facilities. o Circulation Hazards: The circulation system should be designed to avoid or mitigate significant environmental hazards. Adequate measures shall be taken to protect County residents from transportation-generated noise hazards. Increased setbacks, walls, landscaped berms, other sound absorbing barriers or a combination thereof shall be provided along freeways, expressways -and four lane highways in order to protect adjacent noise-sensitive land uses from traffic-generated noise impacts. o Flooding: All roadways located within identified flood areas shall be provided. with adequate flood control measures. o Congestion Relief/Levels of Service: Private developments which are projected to reduce levels of service on existing facilities below rO acceptable standards shall be required to provide appropriate mitigation measures. Traffic signals shall be constructed and improved at appropriate intersections. Developments which are identified as major trip attractors (i.e. commercial and employment centers), shall recognize the potential for public transit service in their design. Provisions shall be made to establish park-n-ride facilities along major commuter travel corridors. o Pedestrian Facilities: Appropriate facilities shall be provided to assure the safe movement of pedestrians. o Bikeways: Bikeways should link major activity centers such as residential areas, employment centers, commercial facilities, recreation areas and education facilities. O - 190 - cO b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies Trip Generation Redhawk Specific Plan, when project build-out occurs; is expected to generate 69,796 trip ends. Actual trip ends will be reduced by twenty-five (25) percent due to internal interaction, making the total'number of trip ends at 52,347. As auto travel increases into the proposed project as construction of the five phases are completed, approximately 367,898 vehicle miles will be traveled daily by residents at project build-out. Road Extensions Road improvements that will be made by the Rancho Villages Assessment District include Margarita Road, Butterfield Stage Road (icluding bridge improvements over Temecula Creek), Pala Road and Highway 79. As the project is implemented, the internal circulation system will be completed, which includes Wolf Valley .. Loop, Fairview Avenue and Wolf Valley Road (See Exhibit III-12, Circulation Map). The Exhibit also,, .O shows the proposed widths of the roads within the project area. Cumulative Impacts The build-out of Redhawk is, by itself, not expected to exceed road capacities as planned by the Assessment District. However, Redhawk will contribute to .area wide cumulative traffic totals, as shown on the table below. Table III-14 Redhawk Comparison to Cumulative Traffic Volumes Redhawk Traffic Volumes Cumulative Traffic Volumes for District Trip Ends Trip Ends 53,347 203,672 _O - 191 - " v The table illustrates the residential nature of the proposed Redhawk project by showing a greater percentage of trip-ends for the site in relation to total district trip ends. This is backed up by the fact that an approximate average of sixty-seven (67) percent of the peak evening traffic in the project area is coming into the project site. Relationship to General Plan Policies Rancho Villages Assessment District and the Redhawk Specific Plan will in conjunction conform to the General Plan's Circulation Standards as listed below. 1) Road Right-of-Way and Dedication 2) Roadway Design 3) Alignment 4) 5) t.O 6 ) 7) 8) Access Intersections On-Site Road Improvements Off-Site Road Improvements Arterial Highways 9) Collector- Streets 10) Commercial and Industrial Development il) Circulation Hazards 12) .Flooding 13) Congestion Relief/Levels of Service 14) Pedestrian Facilities 15) Bikeways O - 192 - bO The proposed project will be consistent with these standards, as will the Rancho Villages Assessment District. For details of conformance, please see Section II, A-5 and B-1 of this report; the Rancho Villages Assessment District EIR and the traffic study contained in the appendix of this report. c. Mitigation The expected level of service is expected to range around Level C (stable flow conditions, somewhat restrictive traffic. volumes). To alleviate the pressure on the service level of the proposed circulation system and keep the level of service close to a C rating, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into Assessment District Plans and the Redhawk Specific Plan. o All proposed roads will be constructed as delineated in County road standards. o Improvements to Butterfield Stage Road, Margarita Road, Pala .Road and Fairview Avenue will 'provide stable flow conditions once :-, improved, per Rancho Villages Assessment O District plans. 0 o Access to residential and commercial land uses will be set at a level appropriate to land use requirements and expected traffic volumes, such as the case with Highway 79 adjacent to Redhawk. It is proposed that access be limited by increasing the distance between major intersections thus allowing more uninterrupted traffic flow. o All weather access will be provided through bridge improvements at Pala Road, Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road. o Highway 79 should be widened to a six-lane expressway from I-15 to Anza Road, as delineated by CalTrans guidelines. o Class II bike lanes are recommended on Wolf Valley Loop, Fairview Avenue, Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road. They will all connect ,O - 193 - O to a Class II bike trail adjacent to Temecula °' Creek which is a County designated bicycle route. o Internal circulation should maintain stable flow conditions utilizing Rancho Villages Assessment District improvements, including traffic signal placement and lane geometrics. 2. Water and Sewer The following discussion is based on maps and text related to the Rancho Villages Assessment District, the major source of funding for water and sewer improvements that will service the Redhawk Specific Plan area of which the project development. is a contributor. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Water Supply The, proposed Redhawk Specific Plan is located within the Rancho California Water District, which is a sub-district of the Eastern Municipal Water District. The source of water for these two O districts is shown below, which is listed in sequence of each District's subsequent source. 1. Rancho California Water District - Local Wells - Eastern Municipal Water District 2. Eastern Municipal Water District - Local Wells - Metropolitan Water District 3. Metropolitan Water District - Colorado River - Northern California via the State Water Project - Local Wells O - 194 - 'O Exhibit III-4, Existing Area Wide Water and Sewer System, shows the proposed project site and existing water lines in the area. sewer service Sewer service for the proposed project will be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water district (EMWD). Existing :sewer facilities include an eight to twelve (12) inch sewer line that runs adjacent to Pala Road (See Exhibit III-4, Existing Area Wide Water and Sewer System) The EMWD maintains a water reclamation facility for the Rancho California Water District in Temecula. This facility has a treatment capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day with enough acreage available to expand existing operations to approximately 6.25 million gallons per day by 1989. Rancho Villages Assessment District As previously mentioned, the Rancho Villages Assessment District is going. to be a major source of funding for water and sewer improvements. It O should be stated, however, that the District is under development and subject to County review, and the feasibility of providing services to the Redhawk Specific Plan area could be dependent on the approval of the Assessment District. General Plan Policies Pertinent policies, as delineated in the water and sewer sections of the Public Facilities Element, are: o Category I A Category I development must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. A Category I development must use a district water system and district sewer system. The project proponent must show that adequate water and sewer facilities, water resources availability and sewage treatment plant capacity will exist to meet the demands of -~ 0 - 195 - G ~ d . h ~ .J C w 'y ,." ~~ ~ ro ~ .~ y 0 ~ ~~ M ~ e /fib ~ ~- ~ '^ 3 ~ '" ~ ~ e<AO ~ ~ ._. ~k ~ oo ~ ~ wb ~° ~°C ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ .g A ~ N Z .G oo ~ C ~' ~" 'N b GJ d 0J a+ ~ g 3 u.e X 00 ~~~ r- o M ao u. a N ~ ° g n v D 0o i g p I ~ ~ ~ ~~ '' ~ o ~ .~ o • A Y " -, I~ w'I~u1 1~ W'' fA 4a~~'~(~/ ~/ ~:a.-p ' ~ `,..,,I O fcs>°as0 ""~~ l!~ ~ I ~I l~ 'Y~11,' = /.M:,IAT' ~~ Fi`~ % 1~//. 1 rl ~ ~~ ~I .il7~I I .` I ~ee= _y6:-'IL. i ...t MMM I !' \. o ,. I it ~ ~fl ti~ ~~ ~Li r~ I ~~`a'~ ~ ~~ _ ~ tt ~" ~/ , ~'' / \1 ~t \~ + .,"ai~ \I~fs~k> `I Ft\i,,\'~ ~~~~.s (j~ . ~~`\~I~'1~~ q \~ ` /~ ~ fy~Y~~__I a '\ II~ ~ ",~6`~\\ .~ ~ dt .~~I~ tt ~\ y~ '>1 ~ ~ S:- e~~" ~!D~ i i ~~\ 1 ~s. 1 II ,\ ,r. _ a F ~ II \ ~i,\~V ~ .e~l.~ ~'J .` f/I ~f , I ",~ ~ / i I~ tl ~ ~ /! ,.~ '` _ -4>ay' I ~..as I _-~' I ~il~.l ~ %.~.~;`.,. ed., \y ±~~>1 \~.. ~ .) ~l ~ C•l ~, {gyp ~ ,'~ p' ~\r b~,;.v`' • C;Y r1i/ ~ 1' ~,~ .o I i' ` `"ai v ~~ ~ „~: < I r i / J~ \ ~ ~ 1 ~~1 1,' a- ,. 1 ,'1.,~t ~ Imo-.. T.. ~ v ~ i t i \ \ 1 / .. ' III I \ \. /~ (< {~ or ~"t t L ' \ .ya 1 " ~y - I ' I fir, , ;'' ~ ~ " r " a~ ~° ~nf ~.. ~ M~q„ lj \ st <C1, .~v'* >` \ "~. +""+ a°~ rt. ~,,L'I N ~\`4•°«.¢_' dy],,..e. «.,T, ~1•<yB ~ ~5 I •.~~ ° C1 \ ~e *~1F4., I. / :., ~ Ep7 I ~ r ~. es~. _ r .,r J e ~JYY'I ty, i. I:\ - ~ ," LL.. ~ .. .~~.: _ ___ ., "S• , \ / ~~*I _ \ 'i (i ) .~+. ':\ I .. .t ~ I ~ l ( : 5 ~ Il Qj L o~1'I~ I ~ :~ . I ..., + . / I' ~ I J? ,. ~ / c, \ \.'~ ~ / ~ i~ i l~ ~ 'e.y, ~,, ,~ .,,lt 1`c tiff' ' V1~; ~'\~"~ ?o 1 ) i ~ \ ~ ~u f I , r l i ~ \ t\ l~j Il f/ f'o 1 ~ A.. M ,. R. 0 V • 1 ,~ •,,~ / ~~ ~# H i\ ,\ > \ I /.'.ice' .\ W' 0 1 J~(. ~ I (I l _ i f I' I -., -- .; .a ~ .._ __. O O the project. Commitments for adequate and °~' available water and sewer service must be confirmed by the special districts. o Cateaorv II A Category II development must be located within 'ti special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. A Category II development must use a district water system and district sewer system. The development proponent must E show that adequate water and sewer facilities, water resources availability and sewer treatment plant capacity will exist to meet the demands of the development. Commitments for adequate and available water and sewer service must be confirmed by the special districts. o Water Use for Landscapin Irrigation systems shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the wasting of water. Vegetation which uses less water will be encouraged for landscaping -O purposes. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan's water and sewer systems are designed to coordinate with the Area Master Plans. Sewer and water extensions are being planned as part of the Rancho Villages Assessment District. The district is planning to provide service to all proposed development, including Butterfield Stage Ranch to the north of Highway 79. The residential development proposed by the specific plan, based on complete project build-out, is estimated to require approximately 2.67 million gallons of water daily (4188 DU x 3.3 persons/DU x 200 gallons per day) while 1.4 million gallons of wastewater (4188 DU x 3.3 persons/DU x 100 gallons per day) will be produced daily. The water and sewer improvements proposed by the Assessment District are expected to O - 196 - 'O adequately service future development District boundaries volumes (in million by -the Wolf Valley Redhawk and any subsequent that will occur within the The table below compares. the gallons) of effluent produced area with expected cumulative volumes for the area. Table III-15 Redhawk Specific Plan- - Effluent Volume Comparison for the Temecula Wastewater Facility Existing Volume Existing, Plus Expected Area-Wide* Wolf Valley Area Cumulative Volume 2.0 MGD 3.4 MGD 7.4 MGD *Based on 22,249 DU x 3.3 persons/DU x 100 gallons per person. Dwelling unit figure based on the Rancho Villages Assessment District EIR. _ Relationship to General Plan Policies O The Redhawk Specific Plan proposes a combination of Category I .and II land uses which will use water from the Rancho California Water District and utilize the Temecula Facility of EMWD for wastewater treatment. All of the necessary water and sewer improvements required to service the proposed project are being planned under the Rancho Villages Assessment District, which is submitting an Environmental Impact Report. More detailed information will be contained in that report, especially on cumulative and area-wide impacts. Any design changes and mitigation of water and sewer impacts required for that project will be coordinated into the design and implementation of the Redhawk Specific Plan. c. Mitigation o Facilities, water lines and sewer lines are being planned by the Rancho Villages Assessment - 197 - District to provide adequate services for the ~O specific plan areas level of development. o The EMWD sewage treatment facility in Temecula will expand its capacity to 6.25 million gallons per day. Additional increases in capacity can and will be made as the need arises. o All landscaping irrigation systems will be automatically controlled and designed in accordance to County approved plans. 3. Fire Services a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Fire protection services are provided to the project area by the Temecula Fire. Station located at 28330 Mercedes Street. This station is operated jointly by the California Department of Forestry and the Riverside County Fire Department. Current staffing during the summer fire season is twelve personnel, with one volunteer rescue unit and ~j'~ four "heavy° fire trucks during the summer fire v season and two trucks during the winter season. Within two years, a new fire station is planned for the intersection of Winchester Road and Jefferson Street. General Plan Policies General plan policies emphasize the maximization of the public safety and welfare. Particular emphasis of the general plan policies pertains to the administrative review of new development projects. Land development projects are reviewed by the County fire department with respect to the adequacy of fire protection. Fire department review is required prior to Planning Department approval of a project. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Development of Redhawk will result in the need for approximately two additional engine - 198 - ~O companies. The need for additional services is more prominent for residential projects because of the' increased human activity inherent in the 24-hour-a-day nature of residential land uses. Portions of the project are located within high fire hazard areas due to the presence of chaparral. Project design will incorporate fire safety features as recommended by the County. Relationship to General Plan Policies In compliance with general plan policies, the Redhawk Specific Plan will be reviewed by the County Fire Department prior to any approval by the County Planning Department. Fire Department review will focus on the provision of a safe environment from a fire protection standpoint and mitigation for the additional impacts resulting from this project. c. Mitigation o The developer will contribute to the payment of fire mitigation fees in accordance to County O policies. These fees help to pay for a portion or all of the necessary equipment, personnel and fire stations required to service the site. o Potential fire hazards due to the existence of chaparral adjacent to the site will be mitigated through the designation of a fuel modification buffer and non-flammable wall. 4. Sheriff Services a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The Lake Elsinore Sheriff's station provides law enforcement services to the project area with a manpower level of approximately 30 officers. The Sheriff Department's goal is to maintain a ratio of one police officer for every 4,000 population. As the population of an area increases, additional financing of equipment and manpower needs are requested from the County Board of Supervisors to meet the increased demands. - 199 - 0 i~ General Plan Policies General Plan policies encourage all new developments to be designed in accordance with the best available safety and security measures. In accordance with this policy, all Category. I and II projects are reviewed for adequate security measures by the Sheriff's Department prior to any Planning Department approval. Design features which assist in the creation of a secure environment include, but are not limited to, adequate outdoor lighting, security hardware, landscaping which does not permit hiding places for criminal elements, and street design and building locations which maximize visibility for law enforcement personnel. b. Project Impact/Relationship To General .Plan Policies The proposed project could crime. Based on the Sheriff Di one officer for every 4,000 persons per dwelling unit, the would generate a need for additional sheriff's officers. result in increased apartment's policy of population and 2.1 Redhawk development approximately two Relationship to General Plan Policies Review of the Redhawk project by the Sheriff's Department will comply with the general plan policies encouraging the incorporation of state-of-the-art safety and security design measures. c. Mitigation o The Sheriff's Department will specific plan as part of the procedures for all land us proposals. This review process County Sheriff's Department opportunity for input into desig plan for additional needs personnel, and/or equipment as review the County's review e development will enable the to have the n issues and to of manpower, necessary. - 200 - O o Design of the project in conformance with the recommendations of the Sheriff's Department will enhance the safety of project residents and aid in minimizing the additional crime generated by the project. As a result of the input of the Sheriff's Department, the best available technology and design will be utilized to discourage criminal activities. 5. Schools a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Educational services are provided to the project area by the Temecula Union School District and the Elsinore Union High School District. Temecula Union School District provides schooling for the elementary grades of kindergarten through the fifth grade. School facilities for the sixth through. the twelfth grades are provided by the Elsinore Union High School District. Schools servicing the project area include Vail School for Kindergarten through fifth grade with a.current enrollment of 717 students and Temecula Middle School for grades six through eight with a current enrollment of 549 students and Temecula Union High School for grades nine through twelve with a current enrollment of 740 students. Temecula Valley High School has currently completed Phase One of a three phase construction program. Each of the three phases is planned for a capacity of 600 students. Phase Two will increase the schools capacity from 600 to 1,200 students. Initiation of construction for. phase two is scheduled for September, 1988. General Plan Policies General plan policies recognize the rapid growth occurring throughout Riverside County. In this regard, the general plan policies encourage the County to assist school districts with the provision of demographic and development data, as well as facility planning and the inclusion of school districts in the .development review process. - 201 - d ~o PO NAME OF SCHOOL: GRADES: CURRENT CAPACITY: o,O Mitigation of school overcrowding is handled directly by the school districts. The maximum fees permitted under current state legislation are $1.50 per square foot for residential uses and $0.25 per square foot for commercial or industrial land uses. Virtually all school districts statewide are now charging the maximum fees permitted under the current legislation. Therefore, it is anticipated that the developer of Redhawk will pay a total of $T.50 per square foot of dwelling unit to the Elsinore Union High School District and. the Temecula Union School District combined and $0.25 per square foot of commercial building to the two. school districts combined.. b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies Both the Temecula Union Elementary and Elsinore Union High School districts are currently experiencing some overcrowding due to the rapid growth of the area. The number of students residing in the Redhawk project after ultimate build out can be estimated by utilization of the student generation rates from the two respective school districts. The Temecula Union School District uses a figure of 0.55 students per household and the Elsinore Union High School District utilizes a ratio 0.20 students per dwelling unit. The schools affected by this project are listed in the following table. Table III-16 Elsinore Union High School District School Capacity/Student Generation and Enrollment VAIL TEMECULA SCHOOL MIDDLE K-5 6-8 780 660 TEMECULA HIGH 9-12 600 - 202 - O Table III-16 (continued) Elsinore Union High school District School Capacity/Student Generation and Enrollment NAME OF VAIL TEMECULA TEMECULA SCHOOL: SCHOOL MIDDLE HIGH GRADES: K-5 6-8 9-12 CURRENT 717 549 740 ENROLLMENT: NO. OF STUDENTS 63 UNDER 111 UNDER 140 OVER OR UNDER CAPACITY CAPACITY OVER CAPACITY: CAPACITY NO. OF STUDENTS 2,303 (ELEMENTARY & 838 GENERATED FROM MIDDLE SCHOOL) PROPOSED PROJECT: Based upon the student generation rates used by the school districts, the 4,188 non-mature adult homes in Redhawk will generate approximately 2,303 °`O elementary and middle school students and 838 high school students. Relationship to General Plan Policies In relation to the general plan policies, the development plan includes three (3) potential elementary school sites of approximately 10.7, 9.6 and 11.9 acres. The number of schools proposed are consistent with the intent of general plan policies to .provide adequate educational facilities for the students residing within a development. c. Mitigation o As previously mentioned, the Redhawk project includes three (3) potential elementary school sites of approximately 10.7, 9.6 and 11.9 acres respectively. Negotiations between the Temecula Union School District and .the developer will - 203 - 4O determine the precise method of acquisition of the school sites by the school district. The ' school sites and/or the payment of school fees will constitute the impact mitigation program with the Temecula Union School District. Mitigation of the impacts to the Elsinore Union High School District will possibly encompass the payment of some school fees by the developer to the school district prior to the issuance of ' building permits. 6. Parks and Recreation a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies There are several recreation areas in the project vicinity with the closest facility being the privately owned Temecula Creek Golf Course. Although privately owned, this facility is open to the general public. Also located within a mile are the Temecula Community Park, Temecula Sports Park, Temecula Valley High School and private facilities at Linfield Christian High School. An overview of recreational facilities in the Rancho California is shown in the table below. aO TABLE III-17 PARK AND RECREATIONAL RANCHO CALIFORNIA NAME LOCATION ACREAGE FACILITIES AREA OWNER FACILITIES Nature* Santa Rosa 3,700 Nature Natural Conserv. Mountains Acres Conserv. open space hiking,etc. Lake North & River-. Artificial Skinner east of side lake with Rancho County camping, California boating,etc Vail Lake Hwy 79 1,100 Kaiser Artificial east of Acres Develop- lake with Rancho ment Co. fishing, California boating,etc - 204 - O TABLE III-17 (continued) PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES RANCHO CALIFORNIA-AREA NAME LOCATION ACREAGE Butterfield Hwy 79 800_ Country east of Acres RV Park Rancho California Rancon Alta 7.92 Park Murrieta Acres Drive & I-215 Temecula Rancho Sports Vista & Park Margarita . Temecula Pujol St. Community in Temecula Park ca O Temecula West of Park the Rancho California/ Temecula area along Rancho California Rd. Water Park East of the 200 inter- Acres section of DePortola & Pauba Rd. Temecula Rancho Valley Vista & High Margarita School Linfield Pauba Road Christian High School OWNER FACILITIES KACOR Camping, (Amer- swimming, ican hiking,etc. Adventure Rancon Baseball Realty & Soccer Fields Kaiser Baseball & Develop- Soccer ment Co. Fields Playground & picnic areas,etc. River- side County Rancho Lakes & Calif. camping Water facilities District Elsinore Playing Union fields High (baseball, School soccer,etc. District Playing fields & gymnasium - 205 - O TABLE III-17 (continued) PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA NAME LOCATION ACREAGE OWNER FACILITIES Temecula Rainbow J.W. Clubhouse, Creek Canyon Calachis 18hole golf Golf Road Company course, Course driving range * The primary intent of this. facility is the preservation of natural .resources rather than providing a recreational "playground". The Nature Conservancy is open to the public although uses are primarily limited to low impact activities such as hiking and equestrian traffic. Even if there were no public use of the property, the mere fact that it exists in a natural state on a permanent basis constitutes a significant 'open space resource for the region. General plan policies encourage the provision of parks throughout the County. Parks are envisioned as an economic boost in the promotion of tourism as well as providing recreational and j cultural benefits for local residents. Current County policies emphasize the County's direct participation in a regional park system. A standard of one developed acre and twenty five natural acres of regional park per thousand population has been adopted by the Riverside County Parks Department. The County also encourages the development of neighborhood and community parks, but does not directly participate in a neighborhood park program at this time. County policies in regards to park facilities are proposed for significant changes in the near future. An amendment to the County's Subdivision Ordinance No. 460 will be presented before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The proposed ordinance amendment. would implement the state's Quimby Act on a countywide basis in all v - 206 - P O unincorporated areas. Under this program, the A County would require the dedication of park land and/or the payment of in lieu fees as a condition of approval for land development permits. A ratio of three acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 population is proposed (26 acres would be required for the Redhawk project). However, this ratio could be exceeded in the event that a local parks and recreation district has existing higher standards. Bicycle and equestrian trails are also identified in the general plan as components of an overall recreation system. A primary equestrian trail is planned for Temecula Creek and secondary riding and hiking trails are scheduled along the north-south trending wash on the property (see Exhibit II-2, Recreation and open Space). Class II bike lanes are proposed for the project area, and the County plan of .bicycle routes identifies Highway 79 as a Class II bicycle lane, which is adjacent to the site (See Exhibit II-2, Recreation and open Space). l O b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies Premised on the Quimby Act standards of three (3) acres of park per thousand population, the Redhawk project would generate a demand for approximately twenty-six (26) acres of park land (4188 DU x 2.1 persons per unit, based on SCAG 1982 figures) The Rancho California area is fortunate in having a significant amount and variety of recreational facilities available with the exception of local neighborhood parks. Relationship to General Plan Policies The issue of regional parks and their relationship to general plan policies is addressed at the County's initiative. Individual land owners and developers have no direct involvement in the County's regional parks program. County policy encourages the private PO -zo~- A O development of neighborhood and community parks without the direct involvement of the County. The Redhawk project follows the intent of general plan policies with on site recreational amenities being voluntarily provided by the developer. c. Mitigation Redhawk will provide several facilities to exceed the recreation demands of project residents. Current policies as well as those which would be in effect should the Board of Supervisors implement the Quimby Act will be exceeded by development of the project as proposed. o Recreational amenities provided in the Redhawk project include the following: (1) an eighteen hole golf course on 182.7 ~lO acres; (2) 149.3 acres of natural open space; (3) 45.9 acres of parks (4) equestrian trails along Temecula Creek and the E1 Chamisal Wash; (5) Class II bike- trails along Margarita Road, E1 Chamisal Road, Macho Road, Wolf Valley Loop, Butterfield Stage Road, Wolf Valley Road and Wolf Valley Connector Load and Fairview Avenue and a Class I bike trail along Temecula Creek. (See Exhibit II-2, Open Space and Recreation and Exhibits II-7 and II-8, Park Site "A", Park Site "B" and Park Site "C". 7. IItilities a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Electrical service to the project area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company. Major facilities in the project area include 33 and 12 KV (kilovolt) lines along Highway 79 and a 12 ,KV line along Pala Road. qO Telephone service to the project by the General Telephone G currently no facilities on the the acreage is presently unoccupied. However, a buried are located along nearby Highway area is provided ~mpany. There are project site as undeveloped and cable and conduit 79. - 2os - O Cable television service in Rancho California is provided by VU West Communications • Company. As with telephone service, no facilities are currently installed in the project site although one and a half and two inch i trunk lines have been installed in both Pala Road and Highway 79. General Plan Policies General plan policies emphasize two major considerations. First and foremost are the effects which the siting of major utility lines may have upon the safety and welfare of the general public. A secondary concern is the provision of an adequate level of services for any proposed developments. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies In order to service the Redhawk project, facilities for natural gas, electricity, telephone and cable TV will have to be extended to and throughout the project. site. It is anticipated that major facilities will utilize O the same right of way as the project's backbone road system which includes Fairview Avenue, Macho Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Wolf Valley Road, Wolf Valley Loop, Margarita Road, E1 Chamisal Road and Pechanga Road. Natural gas lines will cost the developer a reimburseable cost of $6.20 a foot. Electrical lines are also constructed on a reimburseable basis with the cost being $6.90 a foot. More specifically, major gas lines required for the project include the following: STREET SIZE OF GAS-LINE Margarita Road 6" Loma Linda Road 4" E1 Chamisal Road 4" Pala Road 6" Macho Road 6" Butterfield Stage Road 8" Monte Verde Road 4" Fairview (Pala to Macho) 6" Fairview (East of Macho) 3" All other streets 2" - 209 - O Specific information on the electrical facilities required to service the project is unavailable without the completion of a detailed study by Southern. California Edison personnel. Major branch distribution cables required for telephone service would- be installed along the street rights of way for Loma Linda Road, Margarita Road, E1 Chamisal Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Macho Road and Fairview Avenue. TV cables usually "piggyback" or use the same rights-of-way as electrical transmission lines. TV cables are normally installed at no cost to the developer. Relationship to General Plan Policies 'The above extension will satisfy County General Plan policies pertaining to the provision of adequate utility services. Since there are no major regional transmission facilities existing or planned in the project vicinity, General Plan policies regarding these facilities are not applicable to this project. Physical impacts of the extension of utility lines to service this project will primarily be focused on the project site, and will be limited to the construction. period. The primary impacts will be noise and dust and 'secondarily soil erosion. Growth inducing impacts resulting from the extension of utility services are expected to be minimal.Growth inducing impacts will primarily affect the ,Pala Road area which is largely developed or approved for development. Another point is that growth inducement resulting from an extension of gas, electric, telephone and TV lines is very moderate in comparison to the growth resulting from the extension of water and sewer lines. This is due to the cost differential. The much greater comparative costs of the construction of water and sewer lines presents a far greater hurdle for land development than do the more moderately priced gas, electric, telephone and cable TV lines. ,~ - 210 - O c. Mitigation Measures to mitigate the construction related impacts include: o' The restriction of construction to daytime weekdays, the use of watering trucks and the expeditious completion of construction. These measures will minimize the exposure of surrounding residents and visitors to the impacts of noise, dust and soil erosion. 8. Solid Waste a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Solid waste disposal for the Rancho California area is the responsibility of the Riverside County Road Department. Rancho California is served by the Double Butte Sanitary Landfill which is located approximately two miles west of the community of Winchester. The Riverside County Waste Management Plan adopted in 1983 indicated that the Double Butte landfill -would last until the year 2,000. However, information from County officials indicates that the Double Butte landfill may reach capacity well before the year 2,000. The. issues of adequate capacity, replacement sites and/or alternative disposal methods will specifically be analyzed in a new countywide waste management plan which will be completed by 1988. General Plan Policies General plan policies pertain primarily to the landfill issues of siting and capacity. issues of concern on siting include the sensitivity of and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The general plan also emphasizes the necessity of having adequate solid waste disposal capacity for any planned land use developments. These and other pertinent issues will be specifically addressed in the solid waste management plan which will be prepared within the next few months. - 211 - O b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies An average of 11.26 pounds of residential and industrial solid waste per day per person is generated in Riverside County. Using an average of 2.1 persons per dwelling unit, the 4,188 dwelling units would generate approximately 99,029 pounds of solid waste per day. Relationship to General Plan Policies Applicable General Plan policies pertain to the availability of adequate landfill capacity. Adequate capacity is now available although this situation may change dramatically in the future. However, the current availability of capacity would make the project consistent with general plan policies. c. Mitigation o Prior to the existing landfill reaching capacity, another landfill site or other techniques of disposal will have to be implemented. The new waste management plan which will soon be completed will specifically address the topic of adequate landfill capacity for the Rancho California area in general and the Double Butte landfill in particular. This issue will be resolved through implementation of the policies and programs within the new •waste management plan. No specific impacts from this particular project are anticipated that can not be mitigated under the County's normal operating procedures. 9. Libraries a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Library service is provided through the Riverside City/County Library System. A temporary branch is located in the Rancho California Plaza at Rancho California Road and Yne2 Road. The existing library contains 13,000 volumes within a 2,000 square foot facility. - 212 - P O General plan policies emphasize the importance of libraries as local cultural resources and recognizes the need to provide adequate facilities. A particular need for the updating and expansion of library facilities in the rapidly growing areas of -the County, including Rancho California, was identified. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies The Redhawk project is likely to contribute to a greater demand on existing library services in the Rancho California area. General plan policies pertaining to the provision of adequate facilities will be addressed and satisfied through. the mitigation program discussed in the following section. c. Mitigation o A new library for Rancho California at the northeast corner of Winchester and Ynez O Roads is planned to serve the Rancho California area. o The Redhawk Specific Plan will participate in the financing of the above new library through the payment of a $100.00 per unit fee prior to the issuance of building permits. The new library is slated for construction within the next three years and will include approximately 50,000 volumes in a 15,000 square foot building. 10. Health Services a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Two major medical facilities currently provide service to the Rancho California area. These include the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center. in Murrieta and the Fallbrook Hospital in Fallbrook. Major medical O - 213 - ~. O facilities servicing the Rancho California area and vicinity are shown on the following table. TABLE III-18 MEDICAL FACILITIES ' NO. OF 24 HOUR NAME AND LOCATION BEDS EMERGENT Hemet Valley Hospital 242 Yes 1117 E. Devonshire Ave. Hemet, CA 92343 Fallbrook Hospital 50 Yes 624 E. Elder Avenue Fallbrook, CA 92028 Christian Hospital 36 Yes Medical Center 2224 Ruby Drive Perris, CA 92370 Inland Valley Regional 86 Yes ~O Medical Center I-15 at Clinton Keith Road Murrieta, CA 92362 Goldeh Triangle 99 N/A I-215 & Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. Phase I Convalescent Center General plan policies emphasize the County's role in identifying areas of the County which are in need of medical facilities. This information is then coordinated with the appropriate health service agencies. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Development of this project would generate a demand for approximately twenty-seven additional hospital beds. This would obviously not be significant enough to justify the, construction ~O - 214 - O of any major facilities such as a hospital. As the population of the area increases, it is anticipated that private sector medical facilities will correspondingly expand to supply the necessary level of services. Existing medical services appear to be more than adequate to meet the needs of the local population. c. Mitigation No specific mitigation measures will be required. It is anticipated that the private sector will expand medical services in response to the population increase of the area. 11. Airports a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The .project is not directly affected by nor does it directly affect any aviation activity because of the site's distance from any airports. The closest airport is the Rancho California Airport located west of Interstate 215 off of Diaz Road. General plan policies note the O ever increasing importance of aviation and the need to provide facilities to meet the existing and future needs of the County. other important considerations discussed in the general plan concern the compatibility of airports with surrounding land uses. In this regard, the general plan considers the continued viability of existing airports endangered by urban encroachment and conversely the impacts of the airports upon surrounding land uses in terms of noise and safety concerns. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies Redhawk will have no direct impact whatsoever on aviation activities. Indirectly, local takeoffs and landings could show a marginal increase due to the increased population represented in Redhawk. 1 O - 215 - O In response to the issues reviewed in the general plan policies, future plans call for the relocation of the Rancho California Airport to a site. northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester and Borel Roads in French Valley. This will address the general plan concerns with the existing airport in terms of safety and capacity. Another issue resolved by the proposed relocation of the Rancho California Airport is that of alternative uses of the existing airport property. Due to the significant increase in property values during the last several years, the pressure for alternative uses of the airport property has steadily increased. Airport relocation will make the current airport site available for industrial or other land uses which are more financially advantageous. c. Mitigation No specific mitigation measures are proposed or considered necessary as there are no directly related aviation impacts. Mitigation for the concerns of operational safety and the ~ adequacy of capacity are long term issues beyond O the scope of this project which will be resolved upon the relocation of the Rancho California Airport to French Valley. 12. Disaster Preparedness a. Existing Conditions The County's general plan stresses the need for a coordinated response to natural and man made disasters. Specifically in reference to the project site, both an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and 100 year flood plain traverse the project property. These concerns are reflected in the specific plan's land use development plan. b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan Policies The project itself will have no impact on the natural hazards on the site but conversely O - 216 - P O the natural hazards do impact the project in terms of design and construction. Potential flooding hazards exist along the northern boundary of the site, where the 100 year floodplain of Temecula Creek traverses the property. Other drainage courses are also scattered throughout the property, most notably the large north-south drainage channel easterly of Monte Verde Road which roughly bisects the 1,275 acre site. The second major hazard affecting the site is 'the Elsinore Fault System which passes i by the project site. In accordance with general plan policies, all areas within the 100' year flood plain as well as areas affected by less severe flooding and runoff will be either retained in open space or modified so as to accommodate the drainage as well as the proposed construction. The golf course on site will-not only provide a recreational amenity but also permit the retention of the north-south drainage which connects to Temecula Creek as open space. Conserving Temecula Creek in its natural state P' O or channelizing with soft bottom will permit flood waters to travel through the site without directly impacting any areas planned for development. Correspondingly, the design of the project will reflect the presence and resultant impact of the 100 year flood plain. Flooding impacts will be mitigated by the construction of storm drain facilities and the elevation of building pads above the flood plain levels. Single family residences and all other structures are impacted by the presence of the fault and the resultant potential for groundshaking. Through the Uniform Building Code, construction standards are implemented which-are designed to give structures the ability to withstand groundshaking from seismic activity without severe damage as well as preventing the exposure of building occupants to hazardous conditions. a - 217 - O c. Mitigation o Mitigation for flooding will include the retention of drainage channels as permanent open space and the construction of flood control facilities such as storm drains, culverts, rip rap etc. Building pad elevations will also be modified to raise all structures above the flood plain level. o Mitigation for groundshaking is included in the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The construction of all structures will include additional reinforcements or other measures as required by the Uniform Building Code to mitigate the impacts of groundshaking. E. HOUSING ELEMENT 1. Applicable Housing Programs/General Plan Policies The. Housing Element of the General Plan discusses many aspects of the housing market in Riverside County including the conservation of existing housing 'O and communities, the provision of affordable housing and housing opportunities for all segments of the population, monitoring land resources to assess the availability of an adequate supply of housing sites and monitoring the affordability and diversity of the existing housing supply. For the most part, programs and policies discussed in the Housing Element of the General Plan are the responsibility of the Planning Department or other County agencies rather than individual property owners although the County does provide incentives for developers to participate in various housing programs. These programs are oriented towards .factors such as the provision of affordable housing, a mixture of housing types and price ranges, the development of housing supplies in close proximity to employment centers, and the development of industrial parks and other land uses which aid in achieving a jobs/housing balance. Under the general heading of affordable housing, one program directly applicable to Redhawk relates to the energy ~i O - 218 - P. O conservation requirements delineated in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Dwelling units ' in the Redhawk project will comply. with all energy conservation standards of Title 24. 2. Project Housing Inventory/Relationship To General Plan-Policies As outlined in the Specific Plan's land use development plan, Redhawk's housing inventory will include a mixture of housing product types and densities. Dwelling unit densities will range from two to seventeen dwelling units per acre. Housing product types encompass a broad spectrum including estate homes, conventional single family detached units, attached single family residences, townhouses and condominiums. In terms of General Plan policies, issues applicable to the Redhawk project include the mixture of product types provided and the ability of low and moderate income people to purchase or rent dwelling units within the project. Redhawk does provide housing fora substantial range of persons which should include some of those in the low and moderate a O income categories. Several market segments ranging from first time home buyers to families in the market for estate homes will be available. This diversity of product pricing complies with the intent of General Plan policies to provide housing opportunities for a variety of income levels. It is not possible at this time to provide speculative figures on actual sale prices. As previously discussed, the potential range of residential product types will be quite diverse. Virtually every product type with the exception of mobile and modular homes is represented in the land use development plan. Redhawk complies with the intent of General Plan policies in encouraging the divers ification'of the County's housing supply. 3. Project Compatibility With Existing Inventory/ Relationship To General Plan Policies Rancho California is characterized by a predominance of conventional single family 4 O - 219 - ~. O residences, although a substantial number of apartments and patio homes have been constructed in recent years. The supply of apartments appears to have substantially exceeded the current demand.- Conversely, even though patio homes were considered a major risk by the Rancho California Development Company, they have proven to be very popular in the local marketplace. The number of mobilehome and condominium units in the Rancho California area is quite small. These product types do no appear to be a strong factor in the local housing market, In summary, growing segments of the housing market at the current time include conventional single family residences and patio homes. Other segments of the local housing market are currently static or essentially inactive. It is expected that the current. emphasis on conventional 7,200 square foot single family lots and patio home products will continue for the forseeable future. Eventually, demand will increase enough to justify an increased supply of rental units. However, any significant increase in the demand for condominiums is not expected for several years. This is particularly prevalent in Rancho California due to the fact that O single family homes are only slightly higher priced than condominiums. Concurrently, the preference for the single family home lifestyle is quite evident. There is a demand for condominiums in the Rancho California area although it is not very significant at this time. Based on sales and building activity in the Rancho California area, it is evident that new housing units should emphasize detached single family and patio home product types if they are to meet the needs of the local marketplace. Redhawk will provide the product types in demand for the current marketplace. Housing goals of the general plan are also satisfied by the diversity of product types and price ranges provided within the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan also incorporates the land use and phasing flexibility which is realistically required with a project of this magnitude and time frame. b - 220 - ,~ 4. Project Design Mitigation/Relationship to General Plan Policies As previously discussed in the housing sections of this report, two primary housing policies of the Riverside County General Plan are to provide housing for a diversity of life styles, tastes, and income levels. Redhawk's inclusion of a substantial variety of housing types insures compliance with the intent of the General Plan's housing policies. F. REGIONAL ELEMENT 1. Regional Growth (SCAG) Forecasts a. Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts For Project Site SCAG, the Southern California Association of Governments, is responsible for regional planning issues within the southern California area. Among the duties performed by SCAG are population projections for the geographic areas within its jurisdiction including the project site. Redhawk is located within Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 49. Population projections for RSA 49 are shown in the table below. TABLE III-19 POPULATION PROJECTIONS RSA 49 Baseline SCAG 2010 Population Projection 141,858 Approximate Existing Population 34,215 Proposed Projects Without Redhawk* 221,638 Wolf Valley Projected Population 8,795 Proposed Projects Including Redhawk* 230,433 Existing Plus Proposed 2008 Project Population*** 264,648 * Refer to the cumulative impact section for a list of proposed projects. ** Represents 4.6$ of the existing plus proposed 2008 project population. *** Assumes 100°s twenty (20) year buildout of proposed projects. - 221 - RSA 49 includes the Rancho California-Temecula area as well as Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Murrieta Hot Springs, Lake Skinner and Vail Lake areas. b. Refer To RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile The Redhawk site is located within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area (LUPA). Boundaries of the Southwest Territories Land Use Planning Area directly coincide with the boundaries of RSA 49. Therefore population projections for RSA 49 are also directly transferrable to the Southwest Territories Land Use Planning Area. Applicable population projections were discussed in the previous section. c. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis With Regional Growth Forecast Assuming that Redhawk's population per dwelling unit will be consistent with the RSA average of 2.1 persons per dwelling unit, the approximately !~ 4,188 dwelling units would yield a' project O population of approximately 8,795 people. A rough comparison with SCAG-82 growth forecasts can be made utilizing the best information currently available. A key statistic is the number of dwelling units proposed within the RSA/LUPA. Although not a precise figure, the information available indicates that roughly 105,542 dwelling units are currently proposed within RSA 49. Most of these dwelling units are located in the Rancho California -Temecula area. Adding the 4,188 dwelling units for Redhawk, a total of 109,730 dwelling units are proposed within the RSA. Based on the previously discussed data and an assumption that all units proposed would be constructed within a ten year period, the RSA would theoretically have a population increase of 221,638 without the Redhawk project, and 230,433, with the Redhawk project. Assuming a buildout of O - 222 - • O Redhawk and all other currently proposed projects by 2010, a comparison to the SCAG projections for 2010 is shown below. TABLE III-20 2010 POPULATION PROJECTIONS (RSA 49) SCAG 141,858 Proposed projects without Redhawk 221,638 Proposed projects including Redhawk 230,433 (3.8$ increase) It initially appears that there is a plethora of potential dwelling units in the RSA in relationship to the SLAG projections. However, the face value of these figures is in effect "deflated" by two factors. .Probably the most significant being that several approved projects will never be built due to a lack of financing, changing market conditions and a myriad of other factors which may unexpectedly occur. Secondly, not every project proposed or "on the drawing boards" will be approved. Thus,' the number of dO planned dwelling units tends to be misleading as a representation of the number of units which will actually be constructed. Nevertheless, it is clear that the SLAG figures .will be exceeded even if the dwelling unit projections are "deflated" and the Redhawk project was never constructed. Assuming that SCAG projections are exceeded, topics including project location, infrastructure improvements, project design and phasing and air quality are addressed in the following paragraphs. Much of the validity of this project in relation to the issues mentioned in the preceeding paragraph is dependent on the projects association within the land use context of the surrounding community. In the particular case of Redhawk, the location, infrastructure and secondary air quality issues are directly correlated with these factors. The Redhawk site is located in very close proximity to existing urban development which is similar in vO - 223 - 4 O intensity to that of the proposed project. Also, the project site is located directly in the path of urban expansion. Rancho California is a rapidly growing area which is expanding in all directions but particularly to the east of the geographic hub of Rancho California Road and Interstate 15. The project's context within the existing community meets the general plan policies regarding the extension of existing land. uses and public facilities and secondarily in minimizing air quality impacts by the sites proximity to major circulation routes and existing trip destinations. Project design and phasing also are contributing factors to the regional context of the project. Project design relates to concerns such as the appropriateness of the housing product proposed for the marketplace, the supply of a variety of housing types and price ranges and a balance of jobs and housing. The Redhawk project is quite diverse in its housing program and thereby appears to meet all of the General Plan policies in this regard. Although the number of on-site jobs is fairly minimal, extensive efforts are being made on a O community wide basis to provide a diversified economic base. Realistically, the Redhawk site is not an appropriate location for major commercial or industrial land uses. Under these circumstances it is not practical to achieve an on-site balance of jobs and housing. Conversely, a balance of land uses is a realistic goal on a community wide basis. The inclusion of some on-site jobs as well as the projects proximity to the urban center of Rancho California and related commercial and industrial development are design features which will minimize regional impacts, particularly for air pollution. Another regional consideration for all large .projects including Redhawk is phasing. The two major influences affecting the phasing of construction are: 1)County review and approval of phasing plans for large tract maps and specific plans; and 2) the consumer desires of the O - 224 - O marketplace. Although the market will currently . absorb a volume of housing units which exceeds SCAG projections, there is always the possibility of major economic problems which would adversely affect the demand for housing. Phasing plans are beneficial to landowners, developers, and the County. A landowner wishing to sell his property to merchant builders benefits from the financial and marketing flexibility provided by a phasing program. The County also benefits from a regional planning context by having major projects develop in a progressive time frame commensurate with the construction of public facilities. Secondly, the County benefits by the additional. control instituted over cumulative environmental impacts such as air quality and traffic circulation. The benefits discussed above serve to guide growth in an orderly. fashion. The phasing of large projects throughout the County results in the minimization of regional impacts. This occurs through the coordination of infrastructure "~O improvements and the implementation of a balanced land- use development program. By its nature, the decision of whether or not the SCAG population projections will or will not be exceeded is a policy decision of the Board of Supervisors. rather than an empirical environmental determination to be made by this report. Exceeding SCAG projections is a value judgement decision which will be based on the relative advantages and disadvantages of environmental degradation and an increased supply of housing and jobs. It is an important point to note that this decision has previously been made by the Board of Supervisors through prior approvals of development projects in the RSA 49 area. Air quality has been discussed in detail within the air quality section of this report. On site mitigation measures have been instituted within the project design. These measures include the projects proximity to the trip destinations within Rancho California and the provision of p O - 225 - _O on-site jobs and facilities for alternative modes of transportation. Park-and-ride facilities are an effective mitigation measure and will be included near the project by the Rancho Villages Assessment District. On-site trip destinations and/or freeway proximity are considered prerequisites to a successful park-and-ride operation. The reader is referred to the air quality section of this report for a discussion of ' these items. 2. Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies RSA 49 can be described as job-deficient and housing-rich. However, due to the success. of the business development program of the Rancho California Development Company (formerly Raiser Development Corporation), the Rancho California area generally enjoys a closer balance of jobs and housing than does the rest of. the RSA. Nevertheless, employment growth in rapidly growing areas including Rancho California inevitably lags behind the boom in population. General Plan policies applicable to ob-deficient and housin O j g-rich areas include the targeting of available economic development funds in such areas, forecasting high levels of employment growth, working with SCAG to incorporate the development of a commercial and industrial job base into their development review criteria, making periodic comparisons of job growth and population growth and working with local governments and the private sector to implement local economic development strategies. As discussed in previous sections of this report, programs of both the County and Rancho California Development Company have already been instituted to specifically address the imbalance of jobs and housing. The County's Department of Economic and Community Development specifically focuses their programs and funds on areas of the County such as Rancho California which face the problem of a shortage of jobs in relationship to the housing supply. Also, the County's growth forecasts O - 226 - particularly emphasize the need for additional jobs in areas experiencing a jobs-housing ~o inbalance, such as Rancho California. The County staff coordinates with SCAG staff to insure that SCAG review of major projects such as the Redhawk Specific Plan reflects the. needs of local communities in terms of developing a stronger economic base and reducing the gap between jobs and housing. As discussed earlier in this report, the practicality of having a major employment base within the confines of the Redhawk project itself is limited due to the context of the property in relationship to major transportation corridors, existing commercial and industrial employment centers and the surrounding land uses. In summary, the Rancho California community has an identified job-housing inbalance which is typical of ,similar areas experiencing a population boom. Also typical is an economic maturation whereby the gap between jobs and housing is progressively narrowed over time as the employment base "follows" an expanding ~?O population. A substantial population growth is advantageous to the business community by providing a market for products and services and a labor force to support business expansion. Jobs could continue to lag behind the population growth for several years although on a progressively less intense basis. G. ADMINISTRATI~IE ELEMENT The Administrative Element section includes a discussion of General Plan policies related to specific plan phasing requirements, project time frames and development monitoring. 1. Phasing Policy General Plan policies require all specific plans of land use to include phasing plans. The purpose of the phasing plans is to indicate the expected time frames of development based on the market and economic data available at the time of specific plan - 227 - PO approval. Phasing of projects encourages a logical development of the urban form of the community and the coordination of public facilities improvements internally as well as with other proposed projects. Another General Plan policy pertains to the buildout and implementation of approved specific plans. The County recognizes and encourages the economic and social benefits of land development but discourages the concept of "tieing up" property with the approval of unrealistic projects which may represent a "paper" increase to the property value but have little probability of actually being constructed. Whether the result of speculation or general economic circumstances, such a situation is socially, economically and physically detrimental to the County by effectively preventing the productive use of major areas of vacant land. With this potential problem specifically in mind, the County has expressly reserved the right to reconsider any specific plans which show no reasonable evidence of progress within a five year period. The process of reconsideration includes a public hearing before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors do have the option of revoking the adopted Specific Plan. Of course, this action is seldom taken but it is available should the circumstances warrant its implementation. 2. Project Time Frames For Development The continuum from initial construction to completion of Redhawk is expected to occur over a time period of approximately .ten years. Over the ten year period, development will occur in five phases as delineated on the phasing plan exhibit. Marketing of-the homes and the extension of roads and public utilities have precipitated the proposed format of the phasing plan. Highway 79 is viewed as the "front door" of the project even though there is direct frontage along Pala Road. From a marketing perspective the entryway along Highway 79 is critical to the public awareness and success of the project. Secondly, the Phase I area is logical as the first stage of development due to its proximity to - 228 - P O the existing infrastructure. Also important from a marketing standpoint is the inclusion of a wide range of housing types in the first phase of development in order to "test the market" as well as inform the public of the diversity of housing types which will be available in all phases of the project. Similarly, the subsequent phases are designed to reflect the marketing and infrastructure parameters of the site. Phase II provides direct frontage to. the secondary access to the site along Pala Road as well as being the logical area for the extension of roads and utilities. Phase Five may be the last area to be developed due to the lack of direct exposure to major thoroughfares and the distances from existing public facilities and utilities. Although a ten year time frame of development for the entire project is proposed, a phase by phase time frame has not been specified. The reasons for this are- the unpredictability of the housing market and the developers desire to maintain the maximum flexibility for the project's implementation. Not only are general market and economic conditions often unpredictable, but the development time frame of other projects is another pertinent factor which is also unpredictable. These circumstances and the time involved in processing changes through the County make it desirable to maintain the maximum flexibility in phasing. 3. Development Monitoring A specific plan is often developed over a time period of ten (10) years or greater. Recognizing these conditions, it becomes prudent, if not absolutely necessary, to have a mechanism available which will accommodate changing economic, market and financial conditions. To accomplish this, a development monitoring program, discussed below, is included in the Redhawk Specific Plan. A development monitoring program would include two basic types of action. Less complex changes .can be reviewed under the administrative procedures of the County relative to boundary and area adjustments - 229 - O while more significant revisions will require the D filing of a specific plan amendment or substantial conformance request and subsequent hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Examples of administrative and discretionary actions are listed below. Administrative review and approval procedures to the Redhawk Specific Plan shall include, but not be restricted to, those actions listed below: o The addition of new textual or graphic infor- mation which does not change the effect of any County regulation. o Changes in the location or nature of public facilities which do not increase the density of the project. o Adjustment of planning area boundaries and acreages. Discretionary actions which would require the filing of a specific plan amendment or substantial _O conformance requests include the following: o Changes to the text- or maps of the specific plan other than the addition of new information which does not change the effect of any reg- ulation or the adjustment of planning area boundaries or acreages. o Increase in dwelling unit allocations beyond ~ the maximum specified density range. in any planning area or the specific plan. o Major changes in the infrastructure system such as drainage, road alignments, water and sewer systems, etc., which have the effect of increasing capacity beyond the maximum specific plan density. As the specific plan is implemented through the administrative and discretionary review process, it will become necessary to formally track the implementation process in order to monitor the compliance with development standards and O - 230 - O conditions of approval. Therefore, on or before July 1st of each year, the master developer and the County will coordinate the review process through the submittal of a report to be prepared by the master developer. 4. Fiscal Impact Issues relative to the fiscal impact of the Redhawk Specific Plan are presented in the report contained in the separately bound appendix of this report. 5. Development Agreements A development agreement entails the drafting of a contract between a developer and the reviewing agency which delineates specific provisions required by the agency before entitlement of the land is finalized. Currently, a development agreement ordinance has been drafted for the County of Riverside. The County, under this ordinance, will make agreements with developers on a specific plan and possibly a O plot plan basis. The County may require the developer to provide improvements such as water and sewer lines and roads to service the proposed development while the County agrees to allow a set density and type of land use. The County also agrees not to request any changes or impose new ordinances and standards on the proposed development once an agreement is made. Negotiations are now underway between the County and the property owners associated with the Rancho Villages Assessment District, which includes Redhawk within its boundaries. The Assessment District is providing the infrastructure extensions required to service Redhawk (please refer to the Rancho Villages Assessment District EIR, Number 241) and an agreement is being sought involving the district plans and developments under County review within the Assessment District boundaries. P O - 231 - O 6. Vesting Tentative Maps Riverside County Ordinance Number 460, which in part implements the Subdivision Map Act, was amended to include the designation of Vesting Tentative Tract Map on December 17,.1985. The purpose of the vesting tentative tract map, upon approval, guarantees the developer, person or agent the ability to proceed with the proposed development in accordance with current Riverside County Standards, Policies and ordinances. A vesting tentative map is analagous to a typical subdivision map in design parameters and content, but must be clearly labled as a vesting tentative map. The cost of processing a vesting tentative map is higher than an ordinary subdivision tract map because additional information, such as building envelope and size, property topography, preliminary grading plans, elevations, landscaping, sewer and water plans and road details may be required for proper review. The five phased Redhawk Specific Plan is written according to current County Standards, Policies ~O and Ordinances. Vesting tentative tract map status is being requested for each of the five phasing areas to ensure that project implementation is carried out in a consistent manner and is congruent to plan specifications. O - 232 - r O PO IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS - 233 - "O IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS A. Cumulative Impacts 1. Existing Conditions Redhawk is a development proposed within the growth area of the original 97,000 acre Rancho California Community. This area can be broken down into two impact zones that abutt each other. The first zone is located on the I-15 and I-215 corridors northeast of Rancho California. The second zone is located adjacent to State Highway 79 to the southeast of Rancho California. In the I-15 and I-215 corridor an estimated 47,786 dwelling units are either under construction, have received tentative or final approval or are in the planning stages (refer to Table IV-1). Of the major projects reflected in the table, the gross residential densities run from 1.1 dwelling units per acre to 8.4 dwelling units per acre. The average residential project area density is 4.O dwelling _ units per acre. Further, all of these projects are .O proposed with commercial and industrial uses. In the State Highway 79 corridor an estimated 20,236 dwelling units are either under construction, in the planning stages or have received tentative or final approval (refer to Table IV-2). Several projects are proposed for the corridor including the Butterfield Stage Ranch, Redhawk, Vail Ranch, and Vail Meadows projects. The gross residential densities run between 2.3 to 7.7 dwelling units per acre. Redhawk falls at the low end of this spectrum. The average density for the corridor is 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Commercial and industrial uses have been subtracted out prior to computing the totals. The majority of projects in the area are mixed use and include commercial project components. b. Impacts The two growth corridors within Rancho California are experiencing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures from the San Diego, Orange and Riverside County housing markets. A number of growth restrictive measures have recently been O - 234 - a~ ~ O ~~ o m a oo ~ co v oo M M v v rn o N G >, b G ro m +1 +•1 m ~t1 .--1 M co O In M In M N v W m •.1 aA ~Aa a oob U G ~ ~ ~ -•1 ~~~ O m •.1 a 'O \ ~+ m •.+ °' a mb ~a i -a -.1 +1 la 1~ 11 m ~O O rl M N rl ~ M M M n O m m a' m tia M In ~o M M n r+ n ~o ,•-I v ,C 1~ ~ ~ r-I .--I M 01 O m ~ _ l W . G o ri r+ +~ LL 1-I U o ro a ro AU t i a y ~ y, . i O N A N M A I x~ 0 ~3~U '~ -m m~ ~ ~ + N U m a ' ~v v m n co in ~n o co ~n .•~ m M ~o co ro H b + ''a N d -•+ M N n v n N n .C ro •. a w A Qi m l a D -1 v O N M n a N . r•1 N aN rov ro - 1 a i H sa o >a USaU ro ro r-I rl r1 ro O % •. i S a 1 / r-1 a In O O O O tD O LLl N N ~f) U F O ro m n v o co .i n rn o v- n .-1 LI G~ ~ ~1 r-1 N. d' n 01 n N O N 01 m 0 U m H~ N .--I V' ri r-1 r-1 M N r1 Ob U O o ° ro . + • a e w >a a m ro w o+ -.~ G ro +/ .~ m ~ -.+ +/ a ~ m ro o m sa a a m m o~ •.+ ro u a a m m a •,.1 +~ a ro s+ a o u~ m -.+ rl x ~ ro o ~ +/ a ro a 1 ~ o m a ~ v a +~ + ro ~, ro - ~ G o ro ~ m ro a w > b m A ~ w H G ~ m ~ O •ri N ~ 3 i ~ i - O m O G O O ro m }~ E s. ~ a ro .-+ .i ~ >a c la o o ~' ° ro a ° ~ ~ ~ a n ~ ~ c i a s :° • ~, O 6: +1 V' In V M [~ rl Ol d' d' V' ill N1 M am '~ ('.. [~/ P1 V C/ l~ 111 V' P1 N N 17 N V' -,~ y A 01 a ~ ~, roro -.. -.~ s,Ua N N Sa 10 O N 1fl O O O O O O O O I[1 ~3 N [~ N In t'1 ~ a O ~ H U S+ O b •.i ~I p O S a 1„ ro v ,~ ~ ~ N a Y 41 '~ G m 01 JJ co 10 rn N o O ~ N o O o 1(1 r/ V' o rl o- o O Pl o d' r-t N 10 C1 O ' .--1 ~ V .~ d -.1 ri 1/1 10 M CO N V 1'1 N ri r-1 rl N . a ' -1'Y ~ % J ~ • V' N If) f'1 ri r-I N - E 1 ° x a ~ , a ro ro r.+ cn ri N 1l1 1'1 N Cl ~O 1/1 O O In 111 O f'1 V' ro N ~ 111 O N •! t` 01 O1 co 1n v oo P1 O U N ri [~ ~O In N d' Qi . H Q' r1 .-i <F C ~ ~ a .., a x 1 ~ ~ ro ~, ~, a +~ +~ +1 +1 o rq m m s+ sa >. CP i1 3 N d N O1 N C 01 b +l ro .Li O a a ~ M l~ ro [~ rl U .-i U 'Cf O O c0 rn d' U ao N Ol .-i G ro 3+ 3a 01 rn N o -.-I M M .-i .-i ~ N N O ffi ~ a ~ O H N Sa ro ?1 R ~ a~ ~ .q +~ N +~ P. ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ro ro A ~ a ~ H l i O O F ~ R S W ~ D ~ H H E a H tc O passed in the urbanized communities within these ~ Counties. These restrictions combined with low land cost have created a demand- for relatively .inexpensive housing. .Individually, these projects contribute marginally to area growth. However, collectively these projects will produce many changes to the character of the region. When the figures for I-15/I-215 and State Highway 79 corridors are combined, the cumulative impact becomes apparent. ' TABLE IV-3 REDHAWK CUMULATIVE PROJECT SUMMARY Corridor Acres Res. Units Ind/Comm. *Res.Density HWY. 79 4,934 20,236 195 4.3 I-15/215 13,915 47,786 1,947 4.0 ` O TOTAL 18,849 68,022 2,142 4.1 * Open spa ce, flood control, roads, parks, schools and other uses -have not been subtracted from the total acreage figure used to compute residential densities. Industrial and commercial acreage are not included in residential densities. The overall increase in units and related demand for services and utilities will provide for a cumulative impact to the area. These projects will increase pressure on adjoining lands to convert to urban uses. The final development of the projects could indirectly influence expansion of the remaining developable areas within these two corridors. However, The Redhawk project can be shown to contribute less than 6.2~ of the projected cumulative dwelling units to the Rancho California area. The cumulative impact of this project can therefore be construed as being minimal. The submittal of the large tract map and specific plan applications outlined above could subject the .-. O - 235 - O entire Rancho California area to cumulative impacts in the areas of environmental issues and public facilities and services. Issues of concern relative to the many development projects in the area are noted below: 1) Geology Impacts to steeply sloped areas and erosive soils will occur as a result of cut and fill operations. Permanent alteration of area topography is expected as developments are completed. Many proposed and existing developments are located within the influence of seismic fault zones and could be, impacted by seismic hazards. Infiltration of precipitation is expected to be inhibited which could limit groundwater replenishment and subsequently lead to increased run-off due to increased impervious surfaces. 2) Wildlife and Vegetation As projects are completed, native vegetation and wildlife habitat will be replaced by structures. O and landscaping. Animals that are reliant on native vegetation for food and foraging .areas will be replaced by organisms more adaptable to an urban environment. Existing wildlife such as some rodents and large predatory birds and mammals-such as deer and bobcats will be replaced by common urban area animals. 3) Traffic and Circulation It is expected that traffic and circulation problems will occur in the area, especially if road improvements fall behind projected volumes. Road improvements of the Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD) are' expected to accommodate projected capacities (see RVAD EIR No. 241). 4) Air Quality Cumulative air quality impacts will result from continuous development in the area.' However, it is difficult to foresee if the proposed development will result in a redistribution of regional populations or will result in new PO - 236 - O residents from out of the County or State. Logically, it can be deduced that a combination of the two above scenarios will probably occur. 5) Public Services Proposed developments will result in the extension of water lines, sewer lines, electricity service and gas service in the area. c. Mitigation Further efforts are now under way to address these cumulative impacts include the Southwest Territories Community Plan study and the advanced planning activities of utility companies and regional planning agencies such as the southern California Association .of Governments (SCAG). On a local basis, there are several programs which mitigate cumulative impacts. These programs include the community wide economic development activities of the Rancho California Development Company, the Riverside County Department of Economic Development and the formation of several assessment districts for the construction of public facilities. The design features of the current project also assist in mitigating the cumulative concerns of land use development. The Southwest Territories Community Plan was initiated largely as the result of concerns about the cumulative impacts of development. A particular concern for the Rancho California area was expressed because of the rapid pace and planned levels of development activity. The community plan will be utili2ed as the vehicle to quantify cumulative impacts and identify subregional mitigation measures in terms of the types, intensities and locations of land uses and the implementation of appropriate public policies to manage growth. Utility companies such as the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone Company and vu-West Communications monitor development activity. The utility companies prepare projections of population and other pertinent data based on information from - 237 - O organizations such as SCAG and Riverside County. These agencies and their advance planning functions serve to mitigate cumulative .impacts to public services and facilities. On a subregional basis, SCAG publishes projections of employment, housing and land use. These projections are utilized by numerous planning services to monitor growth and to formulate land use policies. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Rancho California Development Company and the Riverside County Department of Economic and Community Development are involved in a continuing program of strengthening and diversifying the local economic base, thereby directly reducing the potential for cumulative traffic circulation and air pollution impacts by creating more local trip destinations. The Rancho Villages Assessment District and other districts, which is providing services to Redhawk, will mitigate cumulative public facility and service impacts for the Rancho California area. The assessment district is providing sewer and water lines that are designed to serve the planned O growth within the assessment district boundaries only. It should be stated that the assessment district could have planned for servicing outlying areas which would have led to more cumulative impacts by inducing growth. The Redhawk Specific Plan has addressed cumulative impacts in the following ways: o Open space has been retained and increased in amount to preserve riparian habitat and preclude development from known environmental hazards and has been utilized for the creation of land use buffers. o Air quality impacts have been reduced. by the inclusion of bike trails and local trip destinations. o The specific plan process will provide orderly growth within the County and consistency throughout the plan area. 4O - 238 - ~. O B. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Several unavoidable impacts will result from implementation of the Redhawk project. These impacts include a historical site, raptor habitat, landform alterations and use of fossil fuels. A comparative analysis of unavoidable impacts is provided for other approved specific plans by Table IV-4. In comparison to other approved projects, Redhawk has minor unavoidable impacts of existing environmental resources - all of which will be mitigated. Major proposed unavoidable impacts are limited to the use of fossil fuels, including electric and gas use, traffic volume and historic resources, which in all cases can be mitigated to acceptable levels (see Table IV-5, Redhawk Unavoidable Impacts). C. Alternatives To The Proposed Project Four (4} alternatives were evaluated in relation to the proposed Specific Plan. The four (4) included the existing use of the site; the no project alternative; the existing use of the site is considered as the environmentally superior alternative and a high-density °O intensive mixed use- design. The existing use, of the site is some non-intensive grazing and open. space. The site can be graphically quantified through visual inspection and by using consultant reports contained in the EIR Appendix that reflect the existing environmental quality of the site. The no project alternative does not mean that the site will remain in its present state. The no project use means the site reverts to the approved use of 1370 dwellings units as per approved Specific Plan X171. The no project alternative involves a plan designed for Kaiser Development Company in 1986. The 1986 plan was never submitted to Riverside County for processing because the septic system proposed would cause severe impacts to area soils and groundwater. The site was sold to Great American Development Company, which assembled a team of consultants to evaluate the previous research and project- designs and to bring forth a new and more comprehensive plan with a balanced design which has culminated in the proposed specific plan. The site pO - 239 - P~ m ° z N ro ~ O ro a U -ri w +i ~ U N A LL m ro N ~ ~ ~ ~ G ' a -rl ~! ~"• N A O ~r ~ P "°w O N y ba H ~ H ~ O y •n ri A ~ ro v .,, 0 ro a m "' o +' .~ ro -~ ro ~' ~ ~ '° a v ~ ~ o U w' ~~ - ro ~ (~ . v ~ ~ 01 -.a U P O ~' " a w v ri H ri .--1 rl rl ri •rl rt rt b ~ ~ ro rt m ~ w w w ~ w w w w w .~ .~ ~ ,-~ ri ~ .~ •r., d 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N w N w m i a i a •r{ -ri •ri -ri •rl ~ N H 3 -~ H N O O O O O N • t, s, --. ~, N s, ro a a ~•, a a a o ~. w d _ _ N N N rid N 01 N -.-I ri N N ' O N D N N O Si 'J ' N U ~. U U ri U U ~ ~ -ri r-I ~- m 3 3 `~ S 3 3 ~ U ~- W -ri ~ N ~ R ~ N N ri a w • + a ~ ~ o >. a ~ O Sa b~ +~ +~ N N N ro i . N N a ~ ~ ~ ~ m si ~+ s, o s~ a arox ro ro m w as w w d B rn o ri ri x x x ~ -.+ r• x U1 x N q ri ri ri ri .+ ri O ri x ~ ~ a~3 w m ~ ~ s v ~ a +~ ro a ~ ~ m N ° m ~ ~ , d w ~ ro ro ~ ~ro a~ ro roar -. ad w rtu s , s + ~ O is ~ Sa N Sa y Sa A ~+ Sa U O _y O O O.~ ro o 0 0 .~ o •.+ o ro o o -.+ ~ ~ ~ R +~ .Yi ~ •ra ~.~ O ~ .CZ ~ xi Fi N ~ ~ ra P ~ O O U O O O N N 7i O ~a- ~ }a x to ~ }a }a r i ~ p 0 O O O ro 0 ro 0 O •.i N ~ N N ri Sa •ra }1 N ri '~I ra ~r• N oW ro .C.' ri - ra ro ri O ri fa ri W ra ro O # N ~n N ~ N {'.. 11 ro A l1 -rl CL N Sa N ~ fa CL ~ x U N to O b+ ~ p v ro -r~ ro s, -.a iL ra m ~ ~ a a o ~ x ~ ~ 0 ri N (7 V' Ifl l0 l~ 00 01 r--1 P O D -O D O N -V U ~ S1 .~ 3 H H b N bay E -'~ O D ~~ ~ ~ oa ~. w ~~ NA .v a m +~ ~ o w xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx J~ U •.i U ~ ~ ~ d N A O ~ xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx ~ O D rt G '~7 3a O -r, x x x ro ~ O O b -,i ri +~ C4 U U .,.~ W W N •~ q U .~. O N 1~ U N N O U 0 U - O O 3 -i ~ ttl W '~ N O r-1 •r{ CL Sa r-1 -.i d +~ H N N W N ~ N N N Cl ~CW 3a 'C1N 01 H UUU N D O N CL ~ 7r U U -.-1-.i •.~i U U ri W N Ul `~ 3-I '~ ~ Ol •rl N 3a 2f -.~ W -•i ?~ N O .-~ -•i Lt U p (Yi d U C.E:NOOi~'J NW O.i01•.i3~ 1~UINN ~ N i-i W ~ .-I U ttl b ~ b N ~ itl -.+a~ocwa+~~ ow3~u~ UoNV~ooo 'O N N i0 W U L.. IJ 0.i Ol 1~ UI -.-1 O ?C +i. 3-i +i pa N O -.I N A b 3-i 01 N UI p, rt +~ N 3a rl ,q Sa rl A 'U 7-I N S-~ O N Sa LI •r1 r-1 /0 LL R~ i-1 b b -ri O U ~C O +i O/ •.i O WZDpH~WCh OitlH33WMv]MUI~I~~ a o S-1 r-I N M V~ t[1 ~O [~ CO Ol O .--I N C7 V' u1 10 [~ CO O~ O a .--I ri rl rl ri ~-I r-I r-1 .--I r-I N ~. O is being designed by the Planning Associates and re-engineered by Rancho Pacific Engineering Corp. The final alternative proposed for the site was a medium to .high density village with a core commercial area at the Margarita Road entrance to the site. An industrial "campus" was designed at the Pala Road entrance to the site in front of the Pechanga Reservation. Although the steeper slopes would be left in open space, the remaining slopes would. be graded to accomodate the designed uses. The following Table IV-6 is provided to summarize the relative impacts of these four alternative land use plans. D. Growth Inducing Impact Of The Proposed Action Several factors can lead a project to be .growth inducing. Among these factors are the extension of utility lines, improvements to circulation systems and economic pressures imposed upon surrounding vacant land. Through the mechanism of the Rancho Villages Assessment District, the Redhawk project will include the extension of sewer and water lines along Pala Road southerly of AO the Pala Road-Margarita Road intersection and along Highway 79. Both of these actions could be growth inducing by providing services to undeveloped areas such as the sod farm (Murdy) and other properties along Pala Road as well as Vail Ranch, Tippett and other properties along Highway 79. Possible growth inducement from road improvements will be virtually identical to the sewer and water extensions, with the properties along Pala Road and Highway 79 being most affected. Economically, the project will affect the properties within the Pala. Road and Highway 79 frontage. However, development of Redhawk will only provide sewer and circulation .systems for development within the specific plan boundaries. And, in the case of Highway 79, it is probable that the growth would occur regardless of the Redhawk project because of the highway's status as a major circulation route and other proposed or planned development along its route. Exhibit IV-1, Area Wide Development Potential and Present Land Uses, illustrates existing area conditions 4O - 240 - O b ::. W J W . 4 (ti 0 .W m a ,o Y O. •O m ~p N .O V a W m 'O l a m O. r • m ~o •. u a u E C q mH 1 C q w .O .O . q C E.. V m - a O q ~ ~ u 0 '~ "~ a q O O. •p m Q x • a - ~ a q F U++wm qa~ q O 4 L ~ -.. Y w a O E m Y C m U q L O. N C g O ti C m u ~. d C % - ~ C m O. Y C u W m •O q m ~ m W q m O. W m +a O W - • £ U m -•. W • u-~.~4 Eala m C J d 'O r1 -.. ~ q m 4 U'•i M' • W • . m p 4-.~r+OO. O-.~ O C W.+\E W O +/m o a >mu W.ti ++O-nu0c c iw>ouol-Limo wa m W W m••.e.-~gewa J a 7 K> O m£ q Y m 1 +~ V 4 u p m O A m .-ml W 9 m ~ . i \ ~ -.+ r m. U .+ W m a m v c m W > aoq ~ ao mumm Wo m c m .~+.. v, ~ u 0 • q We.Wa ma 0 , o m o, Y a a o 0. a '~"' ~' c ur a W o ur m u q m\ o m o 0 o.v ,. a 4- L JCOEV N C UCgC WC D O b a 4 u o q q m a a m y uav as > o W,+ .amum ,,o moox •mo a L O M m m 4 N v 11 F N C^ ~^ ^ q W am•tiq Wua o. n q ~ E~~~ e.a 3aW [Laura In a. + m 1 • U C O C O q \ W L ' C u w W w a .-1 .-1 m \ 1 u O m m m q m UI •-~ t0 m O U W .ti G At ++ L m m .-1 . .ti w a > Nq4 a oYS m Em m•O m. > C m \ 7 M U q L .~ •O m V m W U H U O •O W 1f1 O U O. O~ a .ti O O W g W m m a F ^+ •ti N U U Y m C. u +1 aJ U Y O. 7 W d O. 4 w V W m O\ q m U C O'•+ V 7 a W L O W Z M ¢- v O,ftw Eq Ou•O a ~O OI O >•a.+ oG u \~ .+O t Y.+vE N .+ 4um c UcaO W e w m ao.ga uaoloom vM u0e-. mau m F a o m.+ •Inac~r+urv uma mmmv Yo.v o.a q 0 m 4 F r .d u ~ ~~ •~ m O O w m 0 1.1 C^ -~ ^ q • .-~ U N m N .-1 N 1.1 m O O F Y m a a E1.-1 O L q 4. my aB.~E~~••~ •-. f>Zh¢O.'Od $qM1. O•Nq O M •Q w T C .ti W N •'1 q 7 m £ O~ O m a 4 0 q d ..w u .trl ~ +~ U W O a m a Y i C 7 >+. H n ~h Na+ t. w C m M' m M O 1.1 C n •O C O 1 W 7 E F L +1 O .-1 q N m w .1 C M ¢ a u t .ti .. q •o o W o a --m u c a a aue m m .. . 4 d q O 'O . 4 m q q m O~ q u 0 .ti C m m m P O. C Y m 4 > G £ U ~ q W M W C U l~ +l 7 U a m ,+ O m •O W ++ - a O q m a O a 0 ••p 'p U -nm YUUO 4 N6 N.-•O.UO.U'p 4 O> Y t.4 C O m W w C C~ m m'p Y YO qm\ W 4> u E O~+~OY Yrnm a 4~ Y O. E O O m Y q .-~ C +~ C 'O a m C m C W O. EOn 4 wt am CMgqu mua q~O 00. OO .'1 V aO. •.amYma O.gLtC Z4 ZuH.+q a 0.0 £ aC9 W303 UWq W u •O C .ti y O C A S a N q l 'O "• "• m +~ q q M W m N C C 3 Y a u •O .+ m m w O~ W O O m u a a q O C -.. E a m W a • > aJ C a q a t 3. W.1 O •O m u W C a P M m C M ++ t a• ar •C m E ••~ W •.+'O C 4 W m a m C ~lN m 0 .1C m 0> V1 4 C a a N O U q u m -.~ ' U++ E q m dm N u rn O m +~ >. O'O a O H 7 T C V N q W d- t u 0 1 U +~ u ~p / u M 0 H q •ti .. 7 a O O W •.a .i O C m W • W a m -N m= rn a4m W uY LG Hv1 W m griO er Ot. E•tim m C O 7 U a~ .-1 O. q 0 m V C t 0 v1 Y m -w u .-1 W 7 V ]u+~00a E >Cw Wmmu1..WN m'O gaaq WC aq+•^IV ~ O+1 m.~E ONm CLm O+~qY Y m.~ W me > ~•+ v.l ~OCW - u~W o.c..E EmaOu -•. ai m m L L m a s O M Go G L W m O a -ti W Y •O Y O C % ••. Gt,40P - .~q 0+1m NmmmL.titOWW mOaLO w N ... F 6 w q +~ 3 W Z! v1 v O~ d .] / q u 10 '•~ 0 6 E Z O. V z p Q M Z H ¢ °• u z H H >~ Vl O W H V N w am m H r•. O O w w¢ .~a o wm vlw ~O ~O _O m q 0 m M Z C P q m O q 7 0 m 4 o. e q a u w u O d m >• C ~ q q .r oa r V > -.. m M M ++ d V .~ m L N u r b O > 4 0 a 6 Z 4 q C O M M O C O U rn c r q k W ~O 4 O L ti 1 O m M O •+ ~+ 4 o u m d O q > 9 C M ^1 m m O C C L O m m u-~D k O -•1 O W O > u M O 7 OIC 4 C'•. •O -~ m 'O 'O •O 6 O m O m O T g O L M q q.-IUma mwm>O u O w O 0 C C • C ~ M g 4 7 M e •q e ~O E ~+ q O N .-I C m .. rn o e o qM 04 T+1 O 4LtiL 6 m 6 C g q 4+t •i UO m dCLq •+~+ e m u 0 6 q q.+eo-.e N k 0.1 M O W O U W 6 V E 6 +• O 4 N mM O .+ D o ++ u Y 'O4 C u.1 q m C 7 d E O O q d U a O 'O .~I q ~p qmm>. om,+>q O 4 C m a w 'm me ° o q m c o o m -+ o .+ Z E-4Cw C ~.I M o1s o +.M q~ 'Oa 00 O +1 O 044.E .y7gW W o b uc4 .,oaa q O 0 4.OD TC 7 ~ -ti u 7 mO q q O L O .-I Z O Y.7 6 V Z r 0 O O J q4 Y m m L C'O- m 1 01 qw.a m m +• O O Y m m 0 q C -.I O V g 4 q a C+I O C 'O O q q 0 C m m •-I V m q +~ O U D U q Y 4 Y-Y q U -.~ q -w C U O V 4 q +~ W~OL4M CV m OmW w.a L O +++~.~ d4w q 7 CY'O gwOU q L O m 4 C C+~ m 4 C L HaOmg4>4d-~a+ >I ~l y M N ~i q •'1 q 4 q 'C mY o ++ e q ~bC+ciO6 •p 70 O>s O 10 ~w m qu q U L m +1 m 0 0 0 C m Y.+6M m V 7 0 V U 4 C'O 4 C+1 Y •.a d~wwq ~o .. a. m OD u > q O >. x c .i a+4m W ti q m m +~O q 44 g m m e ~ +i O Y m ~ O u O'O q'O .O U C C m E M D.w E VDO mq.r6 ,. mavoo w 'O O q 01.ti MN q~'O 0 LOOM 10 C O H au Or q'O m'O •ti B m m 7 V > .-I V m O m .-1 > .r W m U m q v~ 4+~ M O w m e V D 9 uq O .~ .~ 0 o c J a +I v Y 01 V c •o +~ O C M r-I q Y q 01 m q m r 4 mKb m M a q q O t -.~ N 01 O O q+~ Z Y d S W N O z ~. L O 0 0 4 m 1 O a u O• 6 C®u mTw T'0O O+Iq m•~D qY O~ U 7> q q-~Y 4 •O 4 01.-I D .+ U m m C ti t ti m q q Y C q+~•O-I 4 m PH m m •Y L •-I E q U +~ L L 4 L 7- d 4 4 01 C+~ q O O q++ 0/ I+ V 7 a D 0 d 4 D q C N • I q 6 L C +~ -•~ p -•~ Y q Tmw q+~ q u U g E q D +~ C ~+ m .y q U q C .-I q C m4 8010 omw~wm e Ouw 4.-100 e m D m-. 4 v1 m O L P -.~ q GL 4 q O 45+1 ~+4 P4 L 1 +a e .t .. c qM O 1 q 6 t -•~ M c ++ ++ q >. q ,. q ,+ .+ 4 E m D -• d o q m w E O q ~ u u m e P G U G .-I 'O O 4 C w g O Y P w m w q 4 10 m s++oma p14 'O u m .+ m %o q ,+ c ai .1 o q v m 9 7 'O P C E L O ~wq6 m a C Y O m q w 6 C O rnu . u M > c .rVm>.m u m .. o D g o .~Y O4 M w a e,+'o dm w.. q q.+ q q /°.om`oo~.t H dD V a D 6 O C C q t O O q M •J +~ +~ m u o q >•Lw q OO q uu0 .~OCD .tea L 'O U 01 q .~ 100 C L>•>.q O W O • +1 4 .+ C P C U m+~ O 'O N -.~ > q q L O g q 4 'O q ~+ O m qM q O K rn3D K-n qq N H H J 0: 4 M 7 as O . O O C O 1 m 0 q l -• w o Tb t q q 7• Abu o M q q C Y q N Y C q A O 7 a q b O• 6 q .•I r b q O• C q b'1 L I.. C .-I q q O q E .+ .1 .1 +. o'O O m m 0 u q+l •-1 b q O C -. q D N 6.~ Y m G O E g N a q N ,'~ ^•-1 C 7 ON N 07 C ONO6rO a-+ N-.~ P •UO+• Ob m • aawLENY ~ b 'O E u w N a m u q G u -w N q q q N N U m q O Y C Y ~•1 M O b 7 g N w q m.lmq.-1b6 L0~+1 -.•+~ OAb mA O pa..ud.,.gq qo~ q m .le -+~ L il q+lq HgmV ggPU Nmb7N~ON6 V maar37m N6Q~mM OmGOOGaq V m N g 0 ~ S n g a S q O M q N q N -~ 6 1~ 0 6 q m .+ C 9 +• V q 1~ .~ C OI qC qm mO.1 C N.O b +~ m r ~. A b N1.1 ~• O O r m u C q E u C q q •.a 6 uuubw q q 0 6 -+~ O m N L m q O b d q q .r +~ o .r O O N •+ .-1 .~ C m O u o u .~+ q •+ fi l l N O .~ q 7 O ~ U w 4 q 0 7 N 7 r O m m g C q .-Ir 7 O Nr q w V fi q 0 dtt a m q 7 a P• V O u d u O g r m a u 0 0 m o b -+ O b u wq q G % 4 Y6ML .-+qb ++ g m N U m m 7 m.i O m 0 0 6L ® u C > mOO q.lbr COggM • NV60 amgwN q OCU d.aON oU Nu 6m V 46MU0O A N .-IwgEOmN d0006m C60+17Nm0q'C 6 V.-1aw37~.1 Ogqu QN nlmmAA PU ULO Y q U O • N+• dq o q m H 67 Iq qN O N t P e a -~ -•~ m r o u E O m o• •-i e q me m qmN aeq .a .... ~ .+-.lo .ti m.+TAO mOI .+ q q 6 O qbm 0. 6 u 6 N N u~ q q N u C N d -+ba q q ~OqN NuuLb 77 U ON~-1 .-1UC Lt W.-1q O m r7Y qM OO -~ O'Iq OqO qOU q 7wu GmA gONU '. -~ a PU CU q w 7gbq m GbgdP7w o b q q duo 0 0 o u u o o u o G m.. 0 q m N m.r P m C • U fi C C w M u g N r O d m q m .y r - 7 q• .-1 +1 7 0 +1 m V rn 6 u D P 10 OCU.-1NN COgmM qAO Lb o.~ Cm ' .1 +~ggON gUNN.r EUO mN6um qoq U.~1a3wr 6V UV Od0 U1~ -.111 +IL.-1NL O q qqV 7V qHl 4AO 6u O.uu ~O m m q b 0 T ~ C O i .- POq Uv f~ q .-1 4r 6"'1 qH q "76 b Y•uL Ow 4 C ~ O .a A N b 0 •~ . -1 G ~.1 V O U O dt O qqu +IqN >-. obru u e.ruNO a o mw uou cq m o u mue N+1 udm~.lo douo gbdo ~ q u 4 m t q q u t g q Y Y d +~ 6 +I L ,f1 q m t Y a N q u m .+ H w 0 q C u u u C b~.1 q rl U q +1 O d N q q C r M Q .~ Y 7 0 q 7 u E 7 w O O q 4 O> .+q GNU k H 00 ~ wUY 4 N O N.u ^Jr 7r O q q O• 01 q d L m 01 q ~.1 d d m N/ u ~ g O N 4 06 1f NLggq dm U+•w+l 6N qr S 4 3 P u F w q 4 7 g q O m O 6 dA ~+ emu O C q - iCE m7 N d • O -n C Y 0 O u V q 0 OI O -~ O b m rruC qU N MgCu L ~p N qM qb C 0 u O +~ •AUMM +1 m 6w O 6 C -•1 U • +1 .+ q -A OI m b u oa>. 00 0o Ae u>.m qw e qw. u NVm •+ qo •bwm Nw O V O L ?•+~ 4 m A L +1 m 01 m N 0 0 0 U O u q .~1 b C O q -M Y Y G d O M .~u 7.~Iq .rOHE m gq+1NC T of mO.r 7 76 Oq 7umOOw qt'1 C g m W q P O O g V m P m t O m OIC "1 ..13 > a qw +1 O~m C q 7M u - N G N A C O L u O m N 0 q q .~ u row qb m qr >• 7> Y m fib uL H +1 N mu.+u O' u Ym.i q6 N u H O 7r O q 0 M C C m.ti O N G O Or C.-1 m W 3'r1g3301 Iq .N 70 q ZOOV UQIr q+l Z O W M Z V F O 4 4 W r >. d T W F F N OS •r 4 ~ •"~ W J F W .] Z V) O W F4 W OZ .]q V O .-uO 0 0 W 7 0 0 X S C P a m D W 7 0 0 L 0. C q d 0 U O d N TC .a q W .+ oa 0 .. o > ~. m w Y +• 6 U 0 Y V1 u s ~o +~+ o o> L O °• a o d z .t W C O L v c 0 U P C M Y W x N \ u 0 ..• q=p• MY 1 W N 3 C C -N L W 0 +• L 0 1 u~G ~.. w 1.7 WL 0 v00w U au a1q u qas O .r \ O~'O W C M q 7 q 7 v a 'O O w 0 W' W O W C TOO C W W C C •-1 O W O C O b C w 0 0C L u u -~ u N a +~ q E --~ q M ++ C .~ .1 Y O W PI '0 q C U O O T -.••pq NL.1 0u 0 ggUw W 41 9O q OG•O4 U 0 U ® • N 0• L q V- w +~ C L V > L .-• O D Y L u 0 6 C W -• w L W N t O C > U L -.~ d ~-• 0 -~ Y -.~ -•~ 0 0 4400 ggYa-+eLC LU 6T C>O V04'0 '0440• Dui 6.04 '0O 0.00•CO W'07P OW OVgOC 0q 1100 u 471!1 •1 +~ W~• 087N W L 0 U yJ 011706 U01!•+•UDOI L+~0C WY1807G0 Y dOa+V 01100 m ° ° ° - ° G ° NOY T7M C.1 n • o uv mc i ~- su m ia, +Orw S-1gW 6~w ~ \ q 0 Y Y 3 q P 7 U 1 .~ > S C Y 0'. G ~A Y +~ L 0 -w llYM qt~M W Y m a Y ~! ~0 Y q w q .. c ,+•.. U v .. w ., q o .. U C TO 0 CYf 0 G•-1 O W .O Cw 0 OCL uu +~ulDa +~OIa gwMC - 1./Oq C V0 O wb'O O '0 Ou0 0 '00 g0t94 O U 0 •'1 OI Y q V > Y N O D u Y Y 0 d m gLOro qwm -+c~c oc>ooar wvovLT Ou d • OOd •0010 OIC 000ta q OG OU M V O Y L Y .9 -.~ W -•1 O O V y 7 P Y 0 0 6 G -U0u •+~U W •+1 +•OC WM u 604 y Oa10B- C 7m W 1 10bT7HPT O40q NDy 6N S-• iOH 64 4 .-1 \ T q C 0 \YL B O •-1 C0 qZw 740• ~Y 1 N qd 3CUOC +~ L +10 V O uY 7 qt+~ mu 0 a W .-1 q e u .~ u •o • • OOI •'i 'OO Cw Q•p_Y> C TOCCVIO C.nO W ID 0+10 rulo .. ~..m a qw-.. a rlu W~0 .. to .. o ~o • as o q O V .~• O N P Y q U >> O T WtiM.O W N C > M qt•-1 gY09 qwo .aCYC • p(U+~.-• 0 Y 0 m 0 6 • O OI O OI G x 7 LU o M Y.1M W»~o oOUw -- U 0 u M V W• +~ ++ W C W -A Y q C .-1 g 0 C A Y C 7 0 0 0 a+ w O t 0 1+01. 61+OIT7Y10 UOq WD+!D N 11 T q • W W T E u q 0 \ 4 w 7 C x n m ~ 3 s .~. ..0 0 X u OqL o u o q omo 0 0e r in, v ... •r ol.l mq0 o > uuo -. x.+x wc-.ou N q K O 4 0 r 1JM LO dqL W u v o o - ®o rn-• 0 0 Y 1t1 Y L ~p 0 m z -.cggt al .+ N~•• S 4Y W 0 m u V w +~ 1.1 0 '0 Y O W• Y 0 o .+ +1 0 e u T o W o Wegqu m W .+ e q .+ o -. '~ v C 'O O~ O . i .. . uC. 1J u 0 u +~ M V T C W 0 4 0+1 P• 0 +~ Y W O V L> Y 0 0 LOOY+~W O u 0 T U O Y 0 C.~Y T MO W+IOOL - O W 6Y O•i OL Y O L 0 T 4 0 W Y O C O C q W U Y+1 +1 C Z OZO S+~g4t 0+1 - O 2U 11 4 H 1/1 F p( tll N 4 VON V > rl F V V 7 W O ~-• , h N FSO OZ 1 V1NN m~ n i O rO O m m m x I C a m m D m 7 O b Y d e m 4 u w V O 4 N T C .• m m •-1 7, d O +~ U: > M- m w. y -.~: d u: .- m: u u »: m9: r m' O >' .. o: d w: oa Z 4' m: C: O: ti. u: M: 'O: C' U: O: C. +~: u~ m; -w x. O:I m Y m > 9 4 U m a qm 07 Um 'O t •O w L C m O C C.4LmU Lou q'O q •w O~.wO .-qiq> OC m a o> m u o m g c rn m O q +• L t 0 -•~ Ohm 04mw TO Nm 'O 'O a 4 4 M Y V N 4 m M q U q Y N O'O 4000 CL CO.~L m 01 L Y Y 7 Y N L 9 m Y m M TY O q O • L -~ O m U O Y W mry C m m m g m q V T I.ti C09 CE V Y Y mry m-ti m gmo4 m4,+ u~nmxoom 1.1 L q M +~ ~1 O T ~msomu.,m C m -M • M Y •+ O m ou m T m m- Y L M L O m P m C m N M O m 64w Y .~ a OwOm M O +~ N O m.~ Y T 4 m m a m• a m m V Y 'O E Y .!~ mu40 •-.~ •mCm O C N Tm- >+~ m .-1004 q00-•~ OY U Vvf m9a10d 6U w q O C .i +1 7 N q O L E O O• t0 E M ~O m t1 m .+ H co m q .+.+ - m O 'O gvOm .+ m -1 a 10 0 •-1 ,O N m Y a ma~+u ~ .i .~ q q m a v m O m g O m m a > T4 Y m O•X m• V 4 m L m 'O m .-• TM alLU4ti m m m m CY-.~u4M d 9 d m O T m m U Y N +~ 4 q +~ 'C m t m L m m m uu V V' mm .O .M Y a -. o E m +~ O J 4 m C 1 •O Y Y rY C m •-1 O U q w 'O t 7 a m -.~ C u u T m 0 .. 4 .~q E r.ce aygm~ml, m M m Y 4+~ E O 'O m ~+ E U O V 6 V L T q Cm+~u mai0 mq.i m m m 4 t m V m g 9 6 4'OmYmYO 4q L T L m m> VT m m 4 q 7 mew q TC C q M Ot Ra m~Ota-• m 7 Vw m .a q m O m 4 I q l >.n Y mm 9Tmxm.~q 9 Y OY 7m.y ~w m q E .-1 +~ 9 G m O 7 m .-• M• q m Y@ 4 C g O L m Y Om MOm+• LUTC C-N 'O xM~OYY MamY gYmm Cm0•>. EU +~ C 6 'O E m O C Y Y m -•~ L.y b• C 7'V Uti m m m 4 m-ti +• V'q +~r1 'O m E O V u V mm6'O mm C mm g m m m O m m L q w m m +~ S w q fi'O B 4 F O. O a O'O V q m m •/• rl m a oqw o w O C 6D• °' b y q 0 Y +1 u MC OD L•-I 4C m Out; ca+miwO ++aqc o• mu O M L Y q~ U P m M uY4mmee~..nmY m 9 m L M pd Y L q Um L m m q C M I. m L C +~ H m ti .1 7 N 7 m Y q 'O m m q T m q 'O q Nm 7 7 O Y .-1 O L q V'Y m .Gi > ai'.Ti mme~44 gxmq~ aeumm vu>m.sm..ro m m 4.+ u mu mq o ~a /. t• a ~ 4ymm a o4au~mm M O m q C •O d m m 3 g q m m C M .~1 m 4 u t m O Y y 9 C m •O m L O O m m m m m Y M M m 90 •O m0 7 4 a~ c w • O G q m Y N 6 V • W m ~m O I q m m ai ~O t. a m '/"1 Y Y g m L H Y'O -• q Tm 7 .+ g m m a m e u as IV !J F 3 am m 4 L U C '6 -•• C C T m w q q +• 'O 6'O •O [h u m m 0 0 m C C q m m O N >. q+. .q m L p u m g m C q V q 'O 'O 7 E U C M U L -•~ -.~ -ti +•O mgmmq m 'OL w L V m m u.a M m'O m.r m ++ m 7 0 m m w'O H C /++~ U V L .~1 .-1 Y T m T.~ q +~ 7 q o,w c" 4matd..da E H V w • m V L Y C 'O -:~ C C ~•O 4'O w q O•+q+ q q O N > qr+~ m 'O7 NM +,mu 4q O•ti L Y Y m m m C q V q q 'O 7 E V C Y V V +~ -.~ +1 M m m m m m q m ~O L M Y •O m m Y i-1 Y m 'O m N m -N m70mmW'OLGL-wu Vu.a .~•YTm Tw q.~7q 4LCU 6gKtd•-1da@ M V+1 • @ m Y mm TY a+ Y C •O m +~ C . C +Pi'O 4.Ow 'O O•P m m O N>• q M M q. I..+,.mgmcq V q'O 'O 7 V C W V L~.1-.~ •r~ -A O m g m q m q L M t, 'O m m'.y Y m O m •y m +~ m 7 O m W 'O Y C L w Y O.Y GU bat d.+da E Vl V w • • O Smi m Y V > q O m ~ u q O aoom 1n .+ m u w u V Y -.~ mqc> r1 m M. O m 6 m w~mm a o m m O'mY t m m ~.• H M q w m q L m +~ u 4 -.1 C Y M O O +~ M .-~ N 6 m d -. ai ~O m C O m Y +1 Y m-•• s4cm m v H W > as N 4I E C ' O 1 0 E •p t- >. L q -M L m m 'O .-1 Y . na q D w m u m Y r u m 7 O wm U'gmq m • +•q O D O m L .+ m U u q 7 u g C -ra m m m y. q m u u C -w U q -.. pI L .~ C 4 4 C q m O q ~ C q q q >. Y OI C O O q O O P M q tll m u u 'a .a 'O C'OM m O m V O-w -.a m 'O qUq O+a UC+I +a C q LD m Cuu OqL m - A C +a +a u q q 4 q q C V m OI q q +a u m q % u 0!O 'O q m m u 0 q•OL q m.-1 C -.1 C 6 m m .~ C D .-1 4 6 •~ u .-1 X 4 +~ m C m _ = 7 gmmL D q6.-1 O q m7 .-1 Y U U>.qL Om4t+a C.ati 7+1tO CO C-a q m qq.:-r O U4qu q6 q6C a q4 Oa+a> 0. 4WG 6U m m m q P wqt ma+mu q tome xo.at +~ w m u E V g m q m U d-ra U'O 4 d q u O q +IE O U.94>. L q0>Cq gOL4 q m L+I >.L q 7u q C 4LD O d4L00 o m .+ D w u q M m. >. d•.a r, m d e z a t T 4 P C - m 4 q m m ' q W m'Om •.-1 +aV CEO ..a Lgg0.m0 4gUT0 7 qmU m+a UC+a -.aC Uuq LC U q qG O >• C u t u q g L q m g C a M u U g a m a U -.I u O q q.a q 0 m Y O O~ q ~ t'O q > C 6u u q m .+ C D N 4'm O E m 4 S Yf m L 0 7C o ~quq agfi..oe .amuwq .+u o L O' m +1 +~ O C +~ N 7 +~ L +~ •i +~ w m M -.a G r-a M 6 U 4 g O u 4 m d C a O L 4 0 g 0 0 0 4 q +~ M O .+ C m m m. D m C q w m >. L m 0 4 u -.~ +~ C O m 4 m m M u m C q +1 q C T O OI V IO N q - h q .-1 q •q gmcod mwq qm.r w N .,Ind .+ Mql mti..M q uwu qq w qq •o Oi wmL6 U64 qm ••aON FO> O TJl 7N m m -ra 6 O U m M - q d m .-1 4 0• dN L u 4 .a Y•4 q ca.+ •ov o ow q u m q mw q q -. muaw ofi.+rn mm.+ .,y.a me ud ooe w e >.•.. ~ •.. a 4 q m d o ++ q q o o m q -M In O 'O m• .y L C a M U O -•~ •O 3 -ra Y 6 w •Q 'O O M •O ?( U qmU m+aq C qdw Gq qq -.~OmC-•-IL44.0 m >. C u G L g N u fi m 0 Y O ++ w +~ 4 M q q \qqq m d uogq-.q~mmu ID4m •u o •m•oo ogoE gzvd,+ ., rn C6uugm UmYLm 9 g V q 4 4 g 0 8 •du~p m 0 'O q u OI u g q u w q m m U _ y m dm1 C q - 6 L O'O 4 m g 0 V O Om.a-.10 C•.au >.tM q70 -raw OtLq 6UL Ut YtO U 4O0 u44m mqL 4+a t0 OG4g000F Uw 4gdq qu mFr+ m ' T C m' 0 .aq CTU ® . q .+ o D -.a m y ,. 4 m ~a d q .+e m e u o qo D q c m mIO .+m a. a M V m m fi ++ +a C fi O t q .-1 m q >-ra 4u O qC P O 4N OI V o>'O q mw q M q q C4 d O .a O 0+1 C q m 4-ra Muw m.-1 +a +aq NmSNN l.Lq mL W U w U U d 4 g m O L N U V 4 N ..r m -w -.a m U m 4 > q 4 V 4 q m Jf q 6 4'O V q C D.-1 m 4 0 O dr~a 4 C uN m C OE.+OI 'O mw~ow >.q OC+a V Lmq T.ra 7+I C C C 4 m O m'O MMU ..+L Ca•r+ 'Omgq q q 4w q..aO Tm ggm+aq C mOIH uu O • ,%Lm O> >• -r. L q r-I u fi m q C N C C m O L q q 40 ugq+ag7mmY O'OmOm mL mO qm0 64 Cm qm Umu4m 4.a 'O O'O EU m\ 646 6 7€ m ' 4 4 q O fi 0 7 7 t 7 m Y r-I V O O d O•rat O C+au>.t +a 40L Uu.+u ql•f O m4 Z 4 O L u u K U g q q u M a q VJ g m q 4 2 4 6 C O m +a O m p C u m 4 m ,Y O V 'O q u y .w m m q q u u m m y d M O C 6 m m p C ~ w ® 4 O , T+a O .J> q P ML u w Y 4 q w C m G - .-1 OI ++mq0 O C4 q L m U 0 +a m 4Mq- 'O fimu u L7sm ~ .VC mL+a m q u u m q q o > m x ogom o ocm ~ w z -r. z c z ~o z q q O 00 4 M U J 6 .+.`+ O v1 m a S !a ]K xru r. K V ~.. 'O m q n. O O °I a m 4 q q -ra v o IO 4 r 7 4 V O ~O C O~ m m A m 7 O b w 4 C m a u M u a m TS •-1 m m N yp O +~ 4 > +~ mw M +1 d V ~- m a+ ~ m O 'n b O > L O h V oa 2 4 m C O u w '0 C O U T C ~. Y m w tv \ u ro x a -.. 1 m 3 C C Y m b uY-.• aY7 N m 'Ob ba V A ^~ O T b V ~0 C m m 0 1• O•-~ \ V~u b C-w 4 7 m ~ CTOb Cmm C-•~•rOm bC0 ..~ u ~p 9 -.~ m& +f m W -w C •+ •ti 4 0 m b V b b .-~ P Y m V ~M +~ C L V m +• M Y m •'i L b G > V 4 +~ 6 b400 gbuy+~CLG .NM ET m Y p m Y '0 '0 T m O~ C m m •O 7 P V V b u 4 7 N .~1 M q .~ O H 7 •y m V VOY •+1 UYOl t1 +~mCmM H'07Gm e.a bl.ccmom7bom,/ocooe HO4T71r C.i pm•o uomV..a V m M \ m m \ N 6 O m 3 T 7 L p u 1 uY-•Li mGM Ou p b •y C N`rl V •Q O ~ •-I ~0 b C w C TO b C vl b C .+ O m .+M x'90 ~0'90 b o~ p p.ViaL b~Y Ck>V O u 0 4 0 0 p • 9 rn 0 G • Y V b u4 u.-1 +~mtiO V b u • .+ U m • ~..+ m C m ~. C•-1 ~01•GCmMC700 bu w OMTINPT7mV V'0 b L N \ T • m m \Yfa @ O b 3++ 7 W P u 1 xeube ~..- s. ux7m.e•.. mu m m C u •y V 'O O O~ .~ 'O b C+~ C TOCCVf b C•~+Om +~u1D .aw0~ 9 mMw C +~~0 •+ 00 bu0 O U .y b.-1 PMm V mL09 mM• .Li CY C mu ~ooop •oo~ornc w V m +. u.y -.. m.. o ubu LOm •~. ~+mc m-.. C ti m b C m Y C 7 b O b u H b L p w 0~ T 7 m '0 U 4 m A b +~ M C C b 4 3~ C 0 0 0 M M •• t -+ -. e p • •+ • -. o m T m m b -.~ H V V O ti m H V W N O + a • •-1 ~. i .-1 T Y Y 7 N Z' O L' b V Y m 7 u 6 b 6 b 7+au 7 m 6 C 6 .7 O 'O m O m O b O W NN2t4 U' U V V C O m 'O b b V Y M M > 7 . Y P b b m M T u u 0 +~ G .~ b wbu Y k +a J m m m m b C C m O'O 7 4M 4 7 u m 9 7 u u ..~ Orb .+.+ b b Tb.~ m.i m A>.~ti+iti V 7 ..-.m7buoov~ V L t V L C a Y ;. b m q m 4'p '0 O. V~ 6 7ti V m.. •ti m 6'07 6m7H4 oeobomomo U+~9~ moi9 ma m C b L y .. mvo m b l7 9 L O Y m +~ b0 .~ G@T OO.~q N O~mq 1 O~ 4 N C m C \+~ e 7 m ~ m boc7b O~ @ O .~ m b Y V 7 b C LOO+t ry m .ti f•/ m w 7 u ~. ao1+oV a b c w v~o,H .+ b T 6 O u O b 0 H 9 u'O V u ••T 4®O 9 ~ \ m C •O N O +~ b F .r C Ob0 N O••r Y b o ai C M m b O Y C u m O m m m '0 amb uL •0 w +~ +~ > 7 '1 4 O' O m b N m 4 ++ m q V V m m v -.. O - n v m -+ o a o .~ v m 7 L 4 w .~ Y m a O m 'l 7d1 .ti Cw C 0 V 7 ti 0 4 K m O•u C q - w q L 0 1 ++ q.L Z 6 V E L C 'O E a 0 G .~ O O'O mw Gwgw Z q'ON 1 u m C C q 0 ~ +~ pV V E 'O +1 m 'O N m rl q M N 4 O N .-ILm OO M wm m aa1 - i .+e 7 m . O m 7w'04 . i Cm q ~'uCq > qqa+, I H g Y • 6 0 O C 'O e a 4 g Y 0 4 O'O m++ p OOM4 Z q 'O .i 0 m q m M q .O C U9 • p q C O u q .~ +~ a V E °• m ° vo- n mv o -+ r7 0 ,. Y -ti 7 M M .~ M O u 6 ..~ q q o - @ t q O a O ,O 7 ...... V o. a ., ,+ O•u.Iw N q q 1 ... > a s. eo l.w `O Ouw OHO O o Sgwm - >. C •+ .-1 q q m .+ o m 7 p v m m o m m o u ~w0 -q c.+ v qwo v... >+~ ~S OwuM q0O C> a E 0 ~ q 4 L.1 u TC M m Em po ~^gwl~r~mOmrnL uN Ob 'O 6LtOam C w.tiL u c>.+q o >mo ..qq O'O q O •M O.r q'O +~ .r C 4 '/+ m L C 0C t u q O u q 017 O> m 04 u~0 L ma q 7-.~+~ 1+0 q++mL C.~HL N u .-1 P 0.L mmLUE qq O.u r1 .7 . . 'O. Om C+~OE 7m 1 6 C'OL - O q .•1 -~ m 0 4 m O. O G .X• O O '0 0 7L 4 U SU7Lw p qL On O. Z qw m C O -w m u m y "~ m V 'O 4 V 4..~ C O -ti, U w y w V m C ~ m O~ m C H E t E Y u m u m q 10 0 N 'O Y M q a N O m O -A 07 2L 2^I O ~ N ~ 4~ mOC w• m .... O y NC - a ~ ~ •N ~ Y ~ =~ ,n J ~ C ~ •y N- ZZ °~° ~ E C ~ C ~ Rr ®ec fJ a N O O ~ L1 s+ ty! d r~ ~ V O ~ ~ 'D 'R ~qq eo e C C Gl - .ro ~ fO ~ n Fe < v oo V ~_+ ~ °O ~ C I-- ~' 'N 1<<0 f61• CCC. 61 a+ ~ ~ 3 m N X b !~ ~ J ~ ~ `1 < r G ~ ~ W o a~N ~ W oo~ ~ ~ N ~f ~O s O 7 ~ 7 ~ < ~ ^ ~ ° ~ ~ ~. r o M o0 u. n. N O G g PVC ~~ g o i ~ ~ • ~ ~ o i I' 1 1 ~i h 1~" , ~ 6~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ o °`~° .. "i n ~.ti fh ~y i~f~ / ~ i' "_"_ san~aa= R 17 ~ 1 ~, l~~ ~.i~';::,~~ .w ) ~ r\ . ~.. t 1 _ 1 _ .-:: l .. „ i, I ^ I 1 1 1 i ~. NI ~! , ..\\ Q a a- ~'\ ~~ I''~ /f .:.N -r /t~~~= ~ ~ 7T~_ 1\/ ~ F.. ~ \ I Ny' r' ~.~ Ire I p I-~- _ °J _N~t y ,~ 11 _L I ~I~~t ~ I~ I ~ ! ~6}ly~,~,,,~ ' 1~ I~.I hJ I• `~ _. .- NN ~~ ~ ~ - L t d O ~. a ... (~ l I} .-'t~4~'~ ~r ~ t N~-q, -~I.4 '- - - I f~°A,, a 1 1 , \~ I 14 ttS ~~Iggg```/\~ I \ \ ~~a ~ I ~ ~_ ,.1; ; _, l;f.,~:" __ I,` ,,, °'11;4" r:[.-IL I F ~;,"~ fl ~ 0 \ ,- r ` . t 11-~4r \ ic. t\ I 1;~A 1 ~E~ I ~..r;' \ \J ' \ ~ ~ E 1.. ( 1 Q~ n ~J , \ I ~ 1 Ida ; a !I ~ ~i ~~ ~ `k ~~': ~ ~ `.~ "~>.--:y, 6 ~ ~. ~ I 1 f-~~n~ ' Q~~--'I ~N'P.N.i', ~1) I^` { 1 ~11 \~ _~~~~ ). i. t t ~ fL.N .. •M's~ea~..(C~\`~. ~ ~~1 ~ 1 •sa.. 1111 I ~,~b~ ~ ~~ ". ~` `\ . \ ~ , r •~.. [%1 ~~- X111 ~.'+~l C •0 ,~Ne'.~~-( 1 I 1 a~.\ \~..< \ ' ~. :rill ,1 ~ T, nm• ; °o ~ 11,,J 1 ! a'C. \ , - ,\J~ Farr- ~---~'\'n",, ~, @~~ II~~ ; .. ~ ~l ,~+ ~' •'~ r t4~ '~ ./~ ~ (h I ~ ~~' §1 )C r``:. .1~` `°`~~tM; II ~ X11' 1~ r ~, "^re„Jai < 1 e,, .t R ~ , ~ `! I`o ', e Ei ®E7 ~ 7 :: r i i 1 .. .._ L~.... ,. _~. _____-____ e , .G \ / I '. I I' („ f r ~'ti' e , ~': r 1i S~~ tE tr . a Y'~ \ta~yj~ 1„` ~,r ~. ~T _ ,~~/ \ r fl ~:.. '~ ~':\ '. llll ~.t N ° ft. t\I E ~e"'1E I'1 ;~ „~ YY ~. ~~ r •<.. , \ \ r, r, v ~ l ~~ ~~~ -'~' ' 1. ~ ~ ' \~ ;~ `J . ` ...f ~ ~ - 1 :r ~ ' r1 111. Mw .. 1 `•-~ll ~° \ \ v 'Yj: ~ /i `, yj f y- ""I '. ~ t_lI r .. 1 p ~\E,, ~\I ~ \ ~ ~ r .. '. r 7 i r }~ t ` e ice' \ ~ ~ \ ~~ ~! ~ `' ` r ,\ ` I ' :~j ~~ ~' ~ 11 I l o .. ~. .r'• t .. ~\\/J ~\\ . G1 \~ ~ l ~ ,.'` I \ t ~~''"' ~~a. I~ ,, ~\ .~I4fi -t,r`r~e4-\'.~ c1~1, _ ~~'~<;\`,` .Mf~'l\(I~ .. r ~ v °- °C ~ V .ro+ , • V rr ~ d O v1 ~ GC U v, 9 o .. @a @a @~ ~ ~ a a ~ V `° ~ E ° °o m w .~ N ~ °~ IS ~ ~ N a~ '° f"' N m a ~ ~ • ~ a`, O ~ Oc„ ` v u o v = >. M °' 09 d ~ '~li ~ ® ~ o vc :~• > >Q, •~ ~ o o .E ~ vv >~' v," U o~ ~ ~gmdu~i `' 'v b ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ a o.m ~ •.~-, > > ~ ~ ~`nvm` `° ac,o ro vE ~ ~3~N N Q @J ~ d o cj a a ao, o. 04 .v v ``° '`° cv cv c a~ .o ~V ~ ~NNa z_ ® .n V.. @~ °~° ti :- .. :c L X W 0 ooood'd° o° .° ° ° ° o E°'" °o n t . ~' ~~41CCCC 1 ` ~ ~` ~~ , ~' 1.. ~. r,, .... r. i ~ ~>: o o~ ' o 1 ,T ~ \ / •. ~ \ ~ ` ... _L ~t 1 1 ~;~ ~ ~, ~, ! ~ -' i ~ ,~~' s ;~ ,:, ay ~°~ '...•:. e~ 4. ~~, ~ 1. `l _. O. 1..__... _...... _.__._ ......._ - <• _~ ' ~ r D 4 J 'p ~ ~\. ~ LJ ~' O •;`" g r ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ i ~_ ,~ r ,\ rn _ r .p ~~` •` y ~ ~ g ..,,., ... ..... 1 ` Q ' ~:4f•.d•' .. 4s...~ r. r} i•'Fi.•.rr. ~ f/.na. .r~ o. .~ _. ..... ... ,, , gF . ,~ t ~ •r ~A ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~` 3 f i `:,. ~ ~,., >, ~. .., .~ `., ~'~•' > 'f O /~ ,T 1 ~W5 'O~ ~~ +\ O~ ~: 'fib '`~( y I ~ ? , 4. .fir. '~~ i \'1 . t ~t n ~ r Y>. ,:.~ ~ ~ - ~~J~~. C.. l: ` ~ .. ;ass' `. ~'o ,. ~, t: ---- -- ~;, i.•®. s is ~r \ O -D _•_._ _. .... ~'~,: ...~ ...__ ....,-.0...~! ... O and land use status. As shown, the Rancho Villages ~ Assessment District, which includes Redhawk, is located in the center of the exhibit (see Exhibit III-4 Existing Area Wide Water and Sewer System, Section III, Topic 2, Water and Sewer). As previously mentioned, the district will extend water and sewer for its own area only, thus limiting growth inducement. Redhawk, which has already been designed-for development under Specific Plan No. 171, is surrounded by existing and potential development of varied densities to the north, while steep, mountainous areas and the Pechanga Indian Reservation lies to the south. The area to the east is not developed, but has its own Master Planned Roads (Fairview Road and Anza Road) and lot development restrictions. Because of these facts, it can be stated that Redhawk will not lead to any unexpected growth inducement in relation to General Plan policies and County guidelines. E. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of The Environment And Maintenance/Enhancement Of Long Term Productivity Implementation of the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan O will consist of two main stages. Stage one is the extension of sewer lines, water lines and road v improvements up to the specific plan area by the Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD), which has not been approved and funded yet, but is expected to be adopted in 1988. The improvements proposed are at a community level and are designed to service the entire Specific Plan area. The grading performed for the Redhawk extensions will be done at Phase Two of the assessment district plan, with the improvements for Redhawk estimated to be completed in approximately three years after district approval. In addition, the first phases of the Redhawk Specific Plan will be completed around this time. After that, additional grading and construction will occur during the completion of Phases Four and Five of the Redhawk Specific Plan. During these five phases, it is expected that the greatest impacts will occur in and around the site. The impacts are short-term in nature and are related to construction and grading activity. They include construction traffic, noise, dust and erosion, all of which are being mitigated through the above phasing O 0 - 241 - O plans at an Assessment District level and a Specific Plan level. Grading and Building Code standards are also incorporated in the plans to reduce impacts. Long-term impacts generally include those resources discussed in Section F. Once the .project is built, resources such as fossil fuel, water and air will be consumed as urban activities and required public services come into the area. It should also be stated that the plan area has already been committed to urban uses by the County, and the proposed project makes it economically feasible to build out the site. Recreational amenities and open space have also been incorporated into the plan design at a far greater proportion than adopted Specific Plan No. 171,_leading to long-term protection of riparian habitat and open space. So, the proposed project is more consistent with General Plan Policies and County Guidelines than the current plan and provides a more economically feasible land use while enhancing the quality of development in the area. F. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment Of Natural Resources Should The Project Be Implemented O An irretrievable commitment of resources is generally d considered to be associated with day-to-day occupancy of the site following project completion. Fossil fuels and building materials such as lumber and forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper and lead will be consumed during the construction period. Upon the completion of construction and occupancy of the site, fossil fuels such as fuel oil, natural gas, gasoline for vehicles and many other petroleum based products will be consumed on a daily basis. Environmental changes such as the physical alteration of the land and the commitment of the property to urban uses could conceivably be reversed in the future. However, the likelihood of this occurring is very remote. The loss of open space and wildlife habitat and the alteration of the area's topography can, for all intents and purposes, be considered permanent. O d - 242 - 0 b V. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION COMMENTS O b' O e/ - 243 - po V. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION COMMENTS A. Department of Food and Agriculture Comment It is unclear from the DEIR whether the project lies in the region being addressed by the Southwest Territories Community Plan. If so, then the Community Plan should be approved before review and approval of the Wolf Valley Specific Plan. Otherwise, the CDFA encourages Riverside County to carefully consider project necessity given current and future .population trends and other projects proposed for the region before committing open space and agricultural land irreversibly to urban uses. Response• As stated on Page 187 of the DEIR, the project is located within the Southwest Territory Community Plan (STCP). Under specific direction of the County Board O of Supervisors, projects must be reviewed for conformance to the existing General Plan rather than d being held in abeyance for adoption of the STCP. Being a specific plan, the project would be designated as a .specific plan and no parcel specific land use "designation" would be given under the current County approach to the STCP. Land use details, therefore, are appropriately considered under the specific plan review process. It should be noted the project area has existing underlying entitlements for residential use and, therefore, the decision to commit open space and grazing land to urban use has already been made by the County. Comment• While the DEIR recommends the use of buffers to lessen the impacts of urban development on adjacent agricultural operations such as citrus orchards, it seems these buffers are to be located on the adjacent property and not on project property, as depicted in the Specific Plan Use Plan (Exhibit II-1). The CDFA recommends that any landscape buffers be included on project property and that they be sufficient to mitigate impacts from noise, dust and spray drift. O - 244 - Such buffers should be from fifty (50) feet to 500 feet in width, depending on site specifics and agricultural activities. Response• The land use buffers delineated on Exhibit II-1 appear to be located outside the project. This appearance is for illustrative, graphic presentation purposes only. Landscape buffer areas, in conjunction with significant open space areas, are proposed on the site adjacent to agricultural operations. .These buffers and open space areas vary in width from 50 feet to over 500 feet in accordance with the Department of Food and Agriculture recommendations. Comment• The CDFA would also recommend the use of a Right-to-Farm Ordinance to protect existing agricultural operations from complaints from residents of newly developed adjacent urban areas. ~ ) Response- The County has indicated it will condition implementing vesting subdivision maps for compliance-with the above listed recommendation. Comment• The CDFA recognizes the right of local government to develop and implement local land use policy, but also is compelled to comment on the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. The CDFA thanks the Rancho Pacific Engineering Corporation for the preparation of an environmental review document which discusses the impacts of urbanization on agriculture for this project, and therefore, recommends approval of the DEIR. Response: Comment acknowledged. - 245 - B. Department of Conservation Comment• The proposal would convert 1,275 acres of mostly prime agricultural land to residential and related uses. There are not Williamson Act contracts on the site. Response• Based on the previously certified EIR for the .Wolf Valley Specific Plan 171, the project site consists of approximately 199 acres of prime agricultural land. This represents approximately 15.6 percent of the total project area. Therefore, the project site should be considered as mostly non-prime agricultural land. Additionally, the majority of prime land is located within flood plain areas which have historically not been used for agricultural purposes other than grazing of cattle in the past. Comment: O The Department is concerned with the increasing loss of p agricultural land, especially prime agricultural land, which is occurring throughout the state. Proposals for the conversion of prime agricultural land due to development seems to have increased dramatically in Riverside County during 1987. Farmland conversion statistics, developed by the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), indicate that projects have been proposed for over 11,170 acres of agricultural land during the past year. The potential loss of .this farmland is part of a larger phenomenon which has been qualified by a recent American Farmland Trust study. In "Eroding Choices - Emerging Issues", the Trust found that conversion of irrigated farmland was occurring at a rate of 44,000 acres annually in California. In the context of these figures, the loss of farmland that would result from this project constitutes a serious cumulative impact. Response• Based on the fact that the project site consists of approximately 199 acres of prime soils (15.6$) and that it has been used for cattle grazing and not been used for intensive farming in the past, this proposal does O - 246 - bO not represent a significant incremental loss of prime farmland contributing to cumulative State losses. Nonetheless, the County has recognized the potential significance of cumulative agricultural impacts from urbanization in truly prime agricultural areas. The County has instituted an agricultural preservation General Plan Program to identify prime areas and to implement agricultural protection policies. Comment: Therefore, the loss of prime agricultural land should be identified and treated as a significant environmental impact (see California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.., Appendix G (y)). The Final .Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should provide information on the number of acres of agricultural land to be developed, the potential agricultural value of the site, the farmland conversion impacts and possible mitigation actions. Specifically, we recommend that the FEIR contain the O following information to ensure the adequate assessment of the Specifc..Plan's impacts in these areas: b o The agricultural character of the area covered by the Specific Plan and of nearby or surrounding lands which may be affected by the conversion. Statistics regarding agricultural values for the County of Riverside may be obtained from Riverside County's Agricultural Commissioner, in particular for avacados and wineries and other agricultural products. - Types and relative yields of crops grown in the affected areas, or in areas of similar soils under good agricultural management. - Agricultural potential, based on the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Series map designations. A cursory examination indicates that most of the agricultural land is Prime, with some Farmland of Statewide Importance and Grazing Land. - 247 - o Farmland Conversion Impacts. - The type, amount, and location of farmland conversion that would result from implementation of the Specific Plan. - The impact on current and future agricultural operations. - The economic impacts of the farmland conversion. (In assessing-these impacts, use could be made of economic multipliers, such as those used in the. University of California Cooperative Extension's study, "Economic Impacts of Agricultural Production and Processing in Stanislaus County^.) o Mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen the farmland conversion impact of the Specific Plan. Some of the possibilities are: - Direct urban growth to lower quality soils in order to protect prime agricultural land. - Consider methods such as transfer of development rights. - Establish buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts and open space areas to separate farmland from urban uses. (Indicate the width of the land use buffer which was identified as a mitigation measure on page 25). - Implement right-to-farm ordinances to diminish nuisance impacts of urban uses on neighboring agricultural operations and vice-versa. - Increase densities or cluster residential units in order to preserve agricultural land for productivity and provide open space amenities and vistas for residents. eO Also, farmland trusts, which have been established by other Counties, such as the Santa Barbara Land Trust, can be used to effectively protect agricultural land, and should be considered in the analysis of mitigation alternatives. - 248 - Finally, we concur -with the suggestion of the Department of Food and Agriculture that the projects • including oak Valley, Rancho La Quinta, Wolf Valley, Vail Ranch, Butterfield Stage, Center Pointe, Warm Spring Glenn and Warm Springs should be given CEQA review as an aggregate for their cumulative and growth-inducing impacts. If the ,County chooses not to take this alternative, we recommend that each project's DEIR/FEIR contain an analysis of the cumulative and growth-inducing impacts within the context of all of the others, with regard to agricultural -land conversion. Response• As previously mentioned, conversion of the property to primarily residential use should not be considered as a significant impact due to the limited area of prime soils and to-the historic grazing rather than farming practices that have occurred on site. Additionally, the site has been assessed for agricultural impacts under a previous EIR (EIR No. 93) which was done for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 145-788-45) on site which O changed the designation from "Agricultural Reserve" and "Open Space and Other Agricultural Lands" to "Suburban Residential". This EIR was utilized for the underlying land use entitlement for residential use on site. An excerpt from the previously approved Specific Plan No. 171 Soils Section and a soils map is provided below. Gorgonio loamy sand is found on slopes of 0 to 8 percent. This soil is in a capability unit of IIIs-4. Grangeville fine sandy loam is found on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Soils are well drained and have a capability unit of I-1. Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loans are typically found on slopes of 2 to 15 percent. Runoff is medium, permeability is moderately slow, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. These soils are in capability classes IIIe-* and IVe-8, respectively**. Gorgonio loamy sand is found on slopes of 0 to 8 percent. This soil has rapid permeability, .O - 249 - ~O slight. This soil is in capability class IIIS-4. Hanford coarse sandy loam is found on slopes of 8 to 15 percent. Runoff is medium and the hazard of erosion is moderate. Permeability is moderately rapid. This soil is in capability class IIe-1 and Ilse-1. Ramona Riverwash sandy loam is an eroded soil, typically found on slopes of 5 to 8 percent. Runoff is medium and the hazard of erosion is moderate. Permeability is moderately rapid. This soil is in capability class IIIe-1. The Ramona sandy loams found in areas of 2 to 5 percent slopes occur on alluvial fans and terraces with moderately slow permeability, runoff is medium, and the hazards of erosion is moderate. This soil is in .capability class IIe-1. 'O The Ramona and Buren loams are soils typically found on 15 to 25 percent slopes. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of erosion is high. This soil is in capability class VIe-1. Rough broken land consists of alluvial materials that are remnants of old alluvial fans and terraces. These fans and terraces have been disected by drainages to such an extent that areas of recognizable soils cannot be mapped. Slopes range from 30 to 50 percent. This soil is in capability class VIIIe-1. Surrounding agricultural areas have been clearly identified by the DEIR. Vail Ranch will come out of agricultural preserve status in ten {l0) months and has a pending proposal for urban use. Historically, this site has been used for cattle grazing and not for farming. Murdy Sod Farm has also filed a notice on non-renewal and has a pending specific plan filed with the County. A grapefruit grove located southerly of the site will be provided with mitigation in the form of landscaped and open space buffers to minimize direct impacts from crop pilferage-and vandalism. An onion farm northerly of State Highway 79 and easterly of Butterfield Stage Road will be provided with mitigation O - 250 - from the establishment of an open space area along Temecula Creek. The primary agricultural areas in Rancho California are located several miles easterly and westerly of the projects. These areas are responsible for the bulk of citrus, wine grape and avacados production in Rancho California.- These areas are protected by General Plan Policies and agricultural open space and zoning designations. The County has directed growth to the core area of Rancho California and away from these prime agricultural areas. The County has also instituted right-to-farm policies and has required open space buffers in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Conservation. Comment- The Department's Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) has reviewed the Draft EIR in regard to the potential for earthquake-related damage. A section of the proposed development crosses a fault zone contained within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (1980 Pechanga Quadrangle Official Map). Because of this, the proposed development should follow the recommendations of a careful, detailed evaluation of the potential for fault rupture in the project plan. Response- A detailed fault hazard investigation has been accomplished for the project site and is currently under review by the County Geologist. Any recommended mitigation measures will be included in the project conditions of approval. Comment- We recommend that the geologist for the County of Riverside review the applicant's fault evaluation studies for their adequacy of investigation. The fault in question is the southeastern portion of the Wildomar segment of the Elsinore fault zone, in an area where past surface rupture may have been complex, diffuse, and possibly difficult to recognize. In contrast, there is clear evidence to the northwest that the Wildomar trace is active. - 251 - bO Response: The fault hazard investigation for the subject property would confirm the above listed observations. Although extensive field work did not locate any evidence of active faulting, the County Geologist is reserving final comment until additional information can clarify the complex nature of geology in the subject area. Any recommended mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the project. Comment: Appendix A to the DEIR contains reports of several geologic and geotechnical investigations that were performed to evaluate geologic hazards. The latest of these reports, by Earth Research Associates, Inc. (ERA), refutes earlier investigations and concludes that there is no active (Holocene) faulting within the project area. Consequently, ERA recommends that no building restrictions or setbacks be required (ERA; Appendix A, page 6). We cannot comment completely on ERA's conclusions and b- recommendations because important map information was not included in the Appendix. However, at least one ,fault shown in ERA's trench logs (trench 3) exhibits offset up.to the ground surface. This fault exposure should be fully discussed and resolved in the DEIR, as it appears to indicate activity. Additional studies and appropriate project revisions may be warranted. Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment: Some aspects of the DEIR, pertaining to should be clarified. The DEIR's Environmental Setting states that the proposed project that lies within the Special Studies Zone would be subject t shaking (p. 14). This statement shou the remaining project area would also damaging strong motion. Further in t ~`~-~ seismic safety, Summary of section of the Alquist-Priolo o strong ground ld clarify that be subject to he summary, the - 252 - bO DEIR states that a 50-foot "clear .zone" would be established on each side of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. "Clear Zone" should be defined, and the intended mitigation should be more fully discussed. It appears to be inconsistent with the Specific Land Use Plan map (Exhibit II-1), which showed planned residential development within the A-P zone. If Exhibit II-1 represents planning based on the conclusions and recommendations of ERA's report in Appendix A, then the summary statements should reflect these findings, pending the County's approval of ERA's report. If the Summary statements were meant to describe a setback from the fault trace, rather than the A-P zone, such a setback assumes the presence of a discrete fault trace, which has not been shown to be evident. It follows that the DEIR should address the evidence for the inferred location of the Wildomar fault trace, as shown on maps such as Exhibit III-1, since the geological appendices do not provide definitive information on the fault location. Response: O The DEIR has been amended to delete any reference to a fault setback based on ERA's preliminary findings, and to add reference to strong ground motion throughout the project site. Again, it should be noted that due to recent geologic events in Wolf Valley and to the complex nature of geology in the area, ERA's report is currently being reevaluated by the County Geologist. This report will be approved and any recommended mitigation measures will be included into the conditions of approval for the specific plan. Comment: ERA's findings of no evidence of Holocene displacement may not translate into a reduced hazard of seismic strong shaking. It is possible that a lack of Holocene surface rupture in the vicinity of ERA's investigation reflects fault complexities occurring at depth between the ends of several segments of the Elsinore Fault, or that the fault trace occurs outside the limits of ERA's investigation. ERA's findings, if valid, do not preclude the possibility of an earthquake occurring in sufficient proximity to the proposed project as to cause damaging ground shaking. O - 253 - ~O Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment: The DEIR proposes to mitigate the seismic strong shaking hazard through construction according to Uniform Building Code standards. UBC sets only minimum standards for safe building construction, and may not mitigate the seismic hazard to "insignificance" as suggested on page 203 of the DEIR. Avoidance- of the fault zone as a mitigative solution, which is proposed in the Summary section of the DEIR, is not discussed in subsequent report sections. We recommend that an avoidance mitigative solution be discussed more fully in the Final EIR. As currently described, Seismic impacts are not mitigated to a point of insignificance, and should be included as a Significant, Unmitigated Impact. _O In summary, there are several inconsistencies contained in the DEIR which should be resolved prior to issuing the Final EIR. Response• The County Geologist also has concerns relative to the geology of the project site and is currently working closely with ERA to fully address potential seismic and geologic impacts. The updated report and investigations by ERA will be included in the FEIR and mitigation measures will be applied to the project in accordance with the recommendations of the County Geologist. The comments of the Department of Conservation are appreciated and a copy of the FEIR will be transmitted upon certification. C. Department of Transportation, District 8 Comment• O Because of the complexity of the necessity for extensive evaluation remaining, we would .like to discuss project and the in the short time our concerns with - 254 - DO uO O the County of Riverside drafting of the final approved. The following are considered: Response• (Lead Agency) before the environmental document is comments that need to be In accordance with the above referenced request, meetings were held on February 5, 1988, and February 19, 1988 between representatives of the Riverside County Road Department and CalTrans. Representatives of the project proponents were in attendance for a part of the. meeting. It was generally agreed that any additional CalTrans comments or recommendations would be included in the County Road Department Conditions of Approval. Comment Trip generation (pag error in the Average project build-out; equal to internal trips (51,120 ADT). Response: e 286) - There appears to be an Daily Trips (ADT) calculations at build-out (33,688) ADT) should be trips (76,423 ADT) plus external The term "internal trips", as used in the traffic study and in the EIR should be clarified. "Internal Trips" refers to the sum of all trips, internal and external to the project, therefore, the additive calculation in reference is built into the "internal trips" figure. Actual trip ends generated by the project will be 52,347 due to a 25 percent reduction caused by internal interaction. The above stated figures are based on consultation with the traffic engineer before the actual Rancho Villages Assessment District traffic study was finalized and terms of the preliminary study clarified. The newer figures are based on a reduction of the external drawing power of the smaller commercial areas proposed for the Specific Plan as opposed to preliminary estimated. Comment Funding sources (federal, state, local governments or developer) referenced on page 282 should be explicitly - 255 - defined for off-site improvements as should the improvements. Res of nse• As explained on pages 278 and 280, the Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD) is providing funding for off-site improvements. The paragraph on page 282 is merely a listing of General Plan policies regarding disclosure of funding for off-site improvements. Comment• No mitigation is listed for project traffic impacts to I-15. This needs to be included. The project proponent should contribute to, but not be limited to, the following improvements. required to accommodate satisfactory flows of traffic: 1. We agree with the traffic study that Highway 79 should be improved to a six-lane expressway from I-15 to Margarita Road. The developer should contribute his fair share to the Rancho Villages Assessment District for improvements to Route 79. ~ In addition, the I-15/State Highway 79 south inter- change should be improved to accommodate project and cumulative impacts due to the rapid growth of the area. The developer should contribute a fair share toward the improvements to I-15. An Urban Interchange, by Greiner, should be considered, if needed, to improve interchange capacity. 2. Future addition of signals at the following locations are needed: a. I-15 and Rancho California Road. b. Interstate 15 and Route 15. Response: Mitigation for impacts to I-15 are implied by the following mitigation measures which are included in the Wolf Valley, RVAD, Vail Ranch and Butterfield Stage Ranch DEIR's: o Establishment of Park and Ride facilities within commercial areas of Wolf Valley -and Vail Ranch as directed by CalTrans. ~-/ - 256 - o Encouragement of the use of alternative modes of transportation by including bike lanes and pedestrian amenities in accordance with the General Plan policies. o Inclusion of on site trip destinations, including commercial and recreational uses for project residents. o Encouragement of a regional jobs/housing balance in the Rancho California area. State. Highway 79 is proposed for improvement of six (6) lanes between I-15 and Kaiser Parkway at this time. Project .proponents will continue liaison with CalTrans through the project feasibility study report and project report process. The developers will proportionately contribute to State Highway improvements, including ramp widening at the State Highway 79/I-15 interchange, in accordance with relative benefit as determined by the RVAD assessment engineer and the County Road Department. An urban interchange may ultimately be needed in conjunction with other regional facilities. These facilities should be identified on the County .General Plan and regional financing mechanisms should be developed as a cooperative effort between the County and CalTrans. The developers will contribute monies .for traffic signals and traffic signals will be installed as volumes warrant through the County Traffic Signal Impact Mitigation Program. (`nmmE?nt Any or all of the proposed changes to the development area could have a significant effect on creek depredation/aggradation for a considerable distance up and down stream of the' improvements, which could endanger the structural integrity and/or the water carrying capabilities at street and highway structures in the area. The grading plan (Exhibit II-12) shows , fill taking place within the 100-year flood plain of Temecula Creek (Exhibit III-1). -This may have an impact on State Highway 79 which lies north of Temecula Creek in this area. - 257 - DO Response- Comment acknowledged. Design of improvement plans for the State Highway and Temecula Creek are currently being prepared. Mitigation of the above referenced impacts will be addressed in the design of these facilities. That portion of Temecula Creek bisecting the proposed Wolf Valley project is naturally experiencing degradation/aggradation which could ultimately impact State Highway 79. The proposed channel improvements are to be analyzed by HEC2.and FLUVIAL-12 to evaluate sediment transport. The design goals are to lessen any present problems and protect the integrity of all structures. This is to be achieved by lowering .the flowline of Temecula Creels such that positive drainage can occur from State Highway 79 and other off site areas to the creek. Additionally, the slope and bottom width shall be adjusted so any degradation/aggragation is minimized and/or controlled to specific locations. The lowering of the flowline additionally provide extra freeboard that will be more than adequate to permit a >O conveyance of at least 15 times the 100 Year Flow. Furthermore, preliminary computer models indicate that at peak flows significant scour is expected such that the actual channel boundary will be .much larger, providing more conveyance area than the actual "design" configuration. Any bulking due to suspended sediment will be mitigated by the above mentioned safety factors and design features. Comment• Changes to Temecula Creek must take into consideration the increase in volumes due to the proposed development and improvements, as necessary, to protect the highway. These improvements must accompany development of the area and should, in realizing the importance of the State Highway, recognize that higher standards and design criteria are required. We would like to review drainage plans and calculations when available. ~O - 258 - 0 D Should any work be required within State Highway right-of-way, CalTrans would be a responsible agency and may require that certain mitigation measures be provided as a condition of permit issuance. We urge early and continuous liaison with CalTrans on proposed plans as they affect State highways. Response• Comments acknowledged. D. Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter Comment: The DEIR contains no reference to the project site's potential as habitat for the least Bell's vireo, a federally listed endangered species. This is a significant inadequacy as the willow stands in the riparian habitat are appropriate vireo habitat. A spring/summer biological survey is an absolute O necessity. The survey must be frequent enough and over an extended time period to ensure thorough assessment ~ of the potential for LBV habitat. Guidance should be sought from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure adequacy of review. The studies must be completed prior to certification of the EIR.- Indeed, the studies will represent significant new information and will necessitate recirculation of a revised Draft EIR. It is also clear, given the direct and indirect impacts to many sensitive species, that the project will have significant adverse impacts on wildlife/ vegetation contrary to the DEIR's conclusion. Overall impacts to sensitive species, as identified in the EIR, warrant the conclusion that the project will have a significant adverse impact on wildlife which is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, especially in view of cumulative impacts to wildlife in the area. Response: The biological assessment for the Wolf Valley Specific Plan prepared by Tierra Madre Consultants identified no least Bell's Viero habitat in the- area. Two field visits were performed for Wolf Valley - one in January and one in July. Also, Tierra Madre Consultants O a - 259 - 0 0 prepared a spring survey and biological assessment for the Rancho Villages Assessment District (RVAD) EIR which includes Temecula Creek on the Wolf Valley property. One (1) vireo was observed after repeated visits in the vicinity of the Pala Bridge crossing of Temecula Creek, outside of the project area. This habitat is much denser than any riparian areas located in the Wolf Valley portion of Temecula Creek. The field surveys and biological reports were prepared in close cooperation with the CDFG, who also visited the subject area on more than one (1) occasion. As a result. of cooperative mitigation between the assessment district and Wolf Valley, a biological enhancement area is being provided within the specific plan property which should, in effect, increase the amount of potential least Bell's vireo habitat above what is currently available within Temecula Creek. Additionally, early liaison with the California Department- of Fish and Game (CDFG) on enhancement of Temecula Creek began. over one year ago. The proposed mitigation program was established in direct O negotiations with CDFG. These negotiations are ongoing with CDFG through the 404 permit process for Wolf v Valley and .RVAD. Therefore, implementation of the proposed specific plan will have positive impacts to .the riparian habitat of Temecula Creek when compared to alternatives of continued grazing activity or development of the project site under existing entitlements. Comments• The DEIR fails to present criteria for determining when impacts are significant or not. Similarly, it is not clear when proposed mitigation measures reduce the level of impact to insignificance. Thus, there is no clear connection between the data and the impact analysis. This is a fundamental flaw in the DEIR which demands revision and recirculation. Response: As clearly delineated under each EIR topic, General Plan policies and standards are the criteria utilized to determine impact significance and the appropriateness of mitigation measures. Mitigation O - 260 - ~o measures directly respond to General Plan policies and standards, all of which have been met or exceeded. Therefore, the connection between project data and impact analysis has been made on a topic by topic basis in accordance with General Plan policies. Comment• The project will have major impact on landforms and the visual character of the area. Impacts to open space must, therefore, be considered significant. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the level of impacts to insignificance. Response• The General Plan does not iden topographic features on site. The not designated as open space by the conversion of the property to urban previously addressed and approved GPA-145-789-45 and Specific Plan =ify any significant subject property is General Plan. The use has been twice by the County under 171. The current O proposal represents an improvement to the open space commitment under the existing Specific Plan 171 p entitlement which is now in place. Specific Plan 171 called for 100 acres of open space while the proposed plan calls for 176.4 acres of passive and active open space. Significant natural features, including slopes in excess of 25 percent and natural flood plain areas are preserved as open space. In addition, a 182.7 acre golf course is proposed, making the open space area which precludes residential or commercial development at 359.1 acres (28.21 of the site). This committment to the preservation of open space and natural landforms reduces impacts to acceptable levels in accordance with General Plan policies. Landform alteration has been addressed in the CEQA section of the document under Irreversible, Irretrievible Resource Commitments. Additionally, accessibility to open space and recreation areas will be greatly enhanced by the proposed plan which includes development of an open space and trails system tied to planned regional corridors and systems. Therefore, proposed open space and recreation improvements will O 4 - 261 - e0 17O dO have major positive when compared to the existing land use property. Comment• impacts to future County residents existing grazing status or the entitlements related to the subject The circulation system impacts are significant; as indicated on page 289, LOS will range from C to E, the latter being a poor LOS. Mitigation measures suggest that Highway 79 should be widened to six lanes, but do not specify who will be responsible for this widening. Further, the widening in itself represents an impact and should be addressed in the EIR before it can be considered adequate. Response• The DEIR clearly and consistently identifies the RVAD as the financing mechanism for regional and subregional circulation facilities (page 55, 56, 165 through 167, 216, 279 and 286). Furthermore, direct and indirect impacts related to the RVAD are the subject of EIR No. 241, SCH No. 87082402. Additionally, based upon the updated traffic study for RVAD, all intersections are at LOS D or better in accordance with General Plan policies. Comment• The treatment of water resources is inadequate. Mere reference to the Rancho Villages Assessment District, which has not yet been approved, is not adequate evidence that the water resources will be available for this project. The same is true for sewage treatment, with respect to which is merely asserted that the increases in EMWD's sewage treatment facility's capacity "can and will be made as the need arises." Response• Water and sewer service can and will be provided by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), respectively. "Will Serve" notices have been obtained from the above districts for the proposed project. RCWD has incorporated demands of the subject property into their - 262 - ~O long-term water demand projections through the RCWD Water Resources Master Plan. Assurance of a long-term supply is made through a combination of imported water and the utilization of local groundwater resources. RCWD has approximately 40 wells capable of pumping over 40,000 gallons per minute and of producing 27,000 acre feet of water annually. Water storage capacity exceeds 55,000,000 gallons. Imported water supply is assured by virtue of the fact that the property is also within Metropolitan Water District's service area. EMWD has already begun treatment plant expansion to 6.25 MGD and the primary trunk main to the Pala lift station serving the project site is also under construction. The EMWD fee structure relative to capacity charges is also clearly stated in the .DEIR (page 295). Additionally, the project proposes to utilize reclaimed wastewater for golf course irrigation purposes, which O will have positive impacts to water supply and treatment capacity. Additional positive benefits are derived from the proposed project relative to existing entitlements due to the use of sanitary sewers rather than septic systems. This positive impact will directly benefit the Pechanga Reservation which is dependent upon area groundwater resources and is clearly detailed in the Project Alternative Section of the DEIR. Comment: The DEIR does not adequately address impacts associated with cumulative exceeding of the SLAG growth forecast for the area, particularly with respect to regional air quality and transportation plans. Response• Cumulative regional air quality impacts are clearly discussed and mitigation measures are proposed by the DEIR (pages 223 through 237 and page 367). Cumulative transportation impacts are clearly discussed and mitigation measures are proposed by the DEIR (pages 277 through 290 and-page 367). Impacts to SCAG population - 263 - forecasts are similarly clearly discussed in relation to General Plan policies by the DEIR (pages 339 through 348). Additionally, SLAG reviewed the DEIR and recommends certification of the FEZR (see attached SCAG comments). Comment- Cumulative impacts to wildlife/vegetation, traffic and circulation, air quality, and water resources, open space, ag lands, and public services and facilities should all be listed as significant adverse impacts not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Response• Cumulative issues have been discussed according to CEQA guidelines. Cumulative impacts associated with the project have been mitigated to insignificance by meeting County standards, as. clearly discussed under each comment topic section listed above. O Comment: p No environmentally superior alternative is identified and no indication is given as to whether the County chooses to reject project alternatives, and, .if so, why. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126 (d) (1). Again, this deficiency must be corrected and the DEIR recirculated. Response• The environmentally superior alternative is the proposed project and should be chosen over other alternatives. The higher density residential land uses will obviously affect circulation, noise and air quality and would likely result in less open space. Also public services and facilities could be taxed under a higher density development scenario, causing an unnecessary burden on the County if project revenues could not cover service costs. The "no project" alternative, which would entail the implementation of the previously approved specific plan, requires the use of septic tank system due to economic constraints. Geotechnical studies indicate v~ - 264 - N.-~ that groundwater contamination could occur as a result of a septic tank system (pages 272 and 273). Project alternatives are clearly addressed in the DEIR in accordance with CEQA (pages 372 through 380). E. Department of Fish and Game Comment- We have reviewed the DEIR for the RVAD which is a plan to finance public facilities construction in a 5,860 acre area along the Highway 79 corridor in Rancho California in southwestern Riverside County. The public facilities consist of streets, bridges, water, sewer and flood control improvements. The RVAD consists of 36 separate properties. Four of these properties, totaling 3,849 acres (Wolf Valley, Vail .ranch, Butterfield Stage Ranch and Vail Meadows) are also currently under review for development, and the Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the DEZRs for each of these related projects. The planning area is largely rural and consists of coastal sage scrub, row crops and grazing lands, and is bisected by Temecula Creek. Construction of the proposed improvements will primarily impact the riparian resources of Temecula Creek whereas subsequent construction of the related residential 'and commercial development will primarily affect historic Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) habitat and other sensitive species associated with the coastal sage scrub community (San Diego horned lizard, California black-tailed gnatcatcher and orange-throated whiptail), and will negatively impact raptors through conversion of grassland which are important raptor foraging areas. Response• Impacts to riparian habitat in Temecula. Creek, per RVAD improvements, have been estimated to be approximately 25 acres in combination of removed and disturbed. The RVAD has incorporated a regional biological enhancement program in the Temecula Creek drainage for the purpose of establishing replacement habitat on a 3:1 ratio, thus assuring a net loss of riparian habitat. Said biological enhancement areas have been created as a cooperative effort between the project proponent, professional biologist and early liaisons and field - 265 - eo checks with the Department of Fish and Game. Live trappings throughout the RVAD have failed to reveal the presence of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SRR). As individual developments come on line, additional biological assessments will be required on a case by case basis.. The San Diego horned lizard's primary habitat within the Vail Ranch area will be preserved through the retention of major drainage areas and broad washes in a natural and/or quasi-natural condition. Raptor nesting and perching sites will be retained and enhanced through the establishment of the biological enhancement areas and through incorporating native .specimen trees within the streetscape and buffer landscape treatment. With respect to the conversions of grasslands, the project site has been the subject of intense agricultural and grazing activities throughout the past century. Said activities have resulted in a relatively massive disturbance of the native vegetation within the project boundary. Former perennial native grasslands have been virtually eliminated and replaced by grasslands composed primarily of ruderal European weeds and inland sage scrub communities have been eliminated or limited to relic occurrences or broken ground unsuitable for agricultural activity. The subject site's wildlife values overall have been significantly reduced through a century, of human .utilization. Remaining inland sage scrub within the project boundary consist of isolated patches. As such, this habitat type is broken into fragments which, if preserved, would result in relative small islands not suitable for preservation. The occurrence of species of special concern is spotty or populations are so low in numbers that survival of an isolated group would be questionable and due to past abuses, the subject site does not demonstrate high species diversity which is a good indicator of habitat quality. Comment• The DEIRs for the Vail Meadows, Wolf Valley, Butterfield Stage Ranch and Vail Ranch redevelopments (SCHs 87072003, 87031614, 87030917 and 87110216, respectively) are very closely related to each other in terms of project impacts upon fish and wildlife resources. Additionally, these developments (totaling 3,849 acres) are entirely contained within the 5,860 O - 266 - acre area of the RVAD. Further, each of these DEIRs alludes to mitigation proposals discussed in the DEIR for the RVAD (SCH 87082402). For these reasons, this letter shall serve as the Department's comments on five distinct DEIRs (SCHs 87072003, 87031614, 87030917, 87110216 and 87082402). Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment• Approximately 25 acres of riparian habitat associated with Temecula Creek will be adversely impacted by proposed developments. Mitigation measures described in the RVAD DEIR (the creation of a Biological Enhancement Program involving 70 acres to be dedicated to the enhancement and preservation of riparian habitats) have merit but additional information regarding a precise description of impacts and a precise description of existing conditions within the 70 acre mitigation area is needed. It is the policy of the Department to oppose projects which result in a net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. In'this regard, the loss of riparian wetlands associated with proposed development must be offset through the creation of no less riparian acreage of no less habitat value than that acreage and those values which would be-lost to project implementation. We recommend that the County incorporate mitigation requirements into the DEIR which assure that no net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat values will result from project implementation. Department personnel are available to work with County staff on the development of such a mitigation program. Response: Additional information relative to the 70 acre mitigation area is provided in the biological assessment contained in the RVAD DEIR. Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has been contacted relative to the assessment district and to the 404 permit process. Representatives from CDFG have visited the subject property for these purposes. Representatives from the County and area property - 267 - DO owners will continue liaison with CDFG to insure a no net loss of habitat and to implement the mitigation program. Comment• The RVAD DEIR, as well as the- related DEIRs discussed above, describe losses of grassland and coastal sage scrub communities that are important habitats for several sensitive species (page 352, RVAD DEIR). We believe that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as the Land Use Standards of the County Comprehensive General Plan, require either avoidance of impacts to sensitive wildlife species or that such impacts are fully mitigated. Instead, the DEIR under- states the significance of these impacts and offers no mitigation for the loss of grasslands and sage scrub communities. We` recommend that these habitats be preserved as open space in sufficient acreage to reduce impacts to these sensitive resources to levels of insignificance. The Department considers adverse impacts to grasslands and south coastal sage scrub O communities which would .result from project implementation to be significant unmitigated adverse p impacts which are inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. Response• No. impacts to any rare or endangered species were identified by the biological assessment for the above listed projects. Cumulative impacts to raptor foraging habitat in Rancho California was identified by each document. Regional cumulative impacts to declining populations of birds of prey will be mitigated by the following methods: o Enhancement of riparian communities on an approximately 3:1 and no net loss basis. o Planting of significant acreage within landscape, open space and land use buffers identified on the landscape exhibits for each specific plan with tall trees and native vegetation for perching, nesting and roosting of raptors. O - 268 - DO o Preservation of significant open space areas within each plan, particularly areas of 25 percent slope and~100 year flood plains. Potential habitat for the San Diego coast horned lizard and Orange throated whiptail will also be preserved by developing Temecula Creek as a natural soft-bottom channel where improved and by dedicating the channel as perpetual open space area. Furthermore, all grassland and scrub communities observed on site were identified as highly disturbed. This project could either be developed under existing entitlements or could continue with grazing activities which would further degrade the environment. Both options were analyzed and rejected under the project alternative sections due to the fact they would preclude any of the environmentally superior habitat enhancement mitigation measures discussed above. Potential impacts in this connection have been identified and that mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts to acceptable levels in O accordance with General Plan policies. The project proposal additionally represents a significant increase ~, in the open space commitment when compared to the existing underlying entitlement. An on site nursery is proposed to to provide materials for planting of large, mature trees which will provide opportunities for raptor purching, nesting and roosting. Comment• The DEIR documents the existence of historic SKF2 habitat within the project site. This documentation, in addition to similar documentation for related projects in the subject 5,860 acre area, is evidence of the fact that the SKR population in the County is in extreme jeopardy. For this reason, we renew our request to the County Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors to work with the Department on the preparation and implementation of Countywide plan for the preservation of this species. In light of the County's burgeoning population growth (estimated at approximately 5 percent per year) it is not an exaggeration to find that, within a cohesive plan for this species, it is threatened with extinction. - 269 - Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment• In summary, we recommend against certification of the RVAD DEIR (and related DEIRs discussed above) until such time as our concerns have been resolved. Depart- ment personnel are available to discuss our concerns and recommendations in greater detail. Response• Given the level of biological assessment and committment made by the project proponents to begin an early and continuous liaison with CDFG, the above listed comment reflects limited communication between the-local office of CDFG and the Sacramento office. The comment apparently does not recognize the input CDFG has had on the project to date. Field observation ^ visits were made with CDFG representatives, including ~.(}J) Mr. Dan Yparraquirre and Mr. Joe Pesci on February 2, 1988. Mr. Joe Pesci has also observed the subject area and recommended mitigation measures for Temecula Creek on other occasions. A representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also visited the site and has recommended mitigation measures. All biological resource impacts have been identified and mitigation measures have been proposed in accordance with General Plan Policies. The project proponents will continue efforts to establish a close working relationship with CDFG in an effort to successfully implement recommended biological resource mitigation measures included in the subject projects and to resolve the concerns of the CDFG through the 404 and 1603 permit process which have already begun. F. Southern California Association of Governments Comments: Thank you for submitting the Rancho Villages Assessment District Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). dO - 270 - DO Because of the close relationship of the document to the DEIRs for Butterfield Stage Ranch, Wolf Valley and Vail Ranch, and because all of the documents were prepared in a similar format by the same consultants, this letter will be used to respond to all four documents. Staff review is based on regional plans and policies and the issues we asked to be addressed in our. responses to the Notices of Preparation. Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment• Rancho California is experiencing most of the issues that occur with rapid growth in Southern California. These issues, and how private and public leaders and citizens can take actions that serve the economy, 'environment and social equity, are being addressed at the Regional General Assembly, February 4, 1988, in the City of Industry. I think the program would be O particularly timely and of interest to persons involved in shaping the future of Rancho California through the d development review process and other actions. A program is enclosed for your consideration. Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment• Each of the project-specific DEIRs presents different population growth projections based upon the cumulative impacts of related proposed projects (107,729 for Wolf Valley, 114,729 for Vail Ranch and 138,646 for Butterfield Stage Ranch). This is certainly confusing and should be clarified. For the purpose of this discussion, the largest total presented (in the Assessment District DEIR) will be used. That total of 109,730 additional dwelling units in 55 projects over 26,000 acres is not presented with a corresponding population projection. Using the average of 2.1 persons/dwelling unit for RSA 49, the additional units will result in an additional 230,433 persons. When added to the 1984 population of RSA 49 (34,215), this O - 271 - would result in a population of 264,648, almost. double the 141,858 Baseline Projection Year 2010 population for the entire RSA. Response• For all of the above referenced FEIRs, the RVAD population estimate shall be used in accordance with the above listed comments. It should be noted that the estimate is a worst case estimate, and many projects have been significantly redesigned to reduce density when compared to the original RVAD estimate. Comment: The three project-specific DEIRs compare the three different and lower cumulative population projections with the SCAG-82 forecast. In addition, the Assessment District DEZR entirely omits any comparison of the expected growth with regional forecasts. As requested in our comments on the NOPs, the DEIRs should compare the projections with both the SLAG-82 Modified forecast and the Baseline Projection. Response• The RVAD DEZR did not address SCAG population forecasts due to the nature of the project. The RVAD DEIR focused on impacts and mitigation measures related to infrastructure improvements and not specific plan land use issues. Therefore, each specific plan addressed population forecasts relative to SCAG projections. The following table shows the relationship between the 109,730 dwelling units shown on the RVAD DEIR and SCAG-82 Modified Forecast and the Baseline Projection. This comparison is incorporated referenced FEIRs by reference. Existing RSA 49 Population: Cumulative Population 2010: (109,730 x 2.1) Total 2010 Population Projection: SLAG 2010 Baseline Projection: SCAG-82 Modified Forecast: into all of the above 34,215 230,433 264,648 141,858 (1) 96,000 (1) (1) Based on telephone conversations with Mr. Tom Brady of SLAG on February 11, 1988. - 272 - ~O ,O O Comment• Since the Regional Air Quality Management Plan is based upon the growth assumptions in SCAG-82 Modified, it is essential that the DEIRs fully consider and attempt to mitigate the air quality impacts of the additional anticipated- growth. In this regard, we commend the requirement of an air quality enhancement fee paid by the developers to offset regional cumulative impacts. It would be helpful if the DEIRs specified the types of programs that will be supported with these funds. In addition, the County should require and the DEIRs should enumerate a Number of transportation/land use measures to reduce trip generation at existing and future development. SCAG is currently working with the Riverside County Transportation Commission concerning the implementation of the measures included in a Prototype Transportation/Land Use Ordinance and Report published by SCAG in January, 1987. Another approach is to include an air quality element in the General Plan, as was done in the City of Pleasanton. Copies of that plan are available from SCAG or the Air Quality Management District. Response• Riverside County has not yet adopted any programs for the air quality enhancement fee. The DEIRs for each specific plan include discussion of transportation/land use measures to reduce trip generation. A summary of those measures is provided below. o Establishment of Park and Ride facilities within commercial areas of Wolf Valley and Vail Ranch as directed by CalTrans. o Encouragement of the use of alternative modes of transportation by including bike lanes and pedestrian amenities in accordance with the General Plan policies. o Inclusion of on site trip destinations including commercial and recreational uses for project residents. - 273 - DO o Encouragement of a regional jobs/housing balance in the Rancho California area. Comment• In addition, the preponderantly residential nature of existing, recent and planned developments in the area has exacerbated the increasing jobs/population imbalance in the region. In particular, over the last two years Los Angeles and Orange Counties have had employment growth at twice the rate of population growth while Riverside County's employment growth (9.1 percent from 1985-86) is roughly 60 percent greater than its population growth (5.7 percent from 1/1/86 to 1/1/87). While the three project-specific DEIRs explicitly address the concern over jobs/population imbalance, it does not attempt to analyze or quantify the overall impact of the related projects on the balance of jobs and population. in the region. It should be made clear that the projects, by proposing substantial housing increases without assurances of proportionate employment increases, will likely lead to a greater regional imbalance. ~O Response' Although Riverside County, as a whole, is experiencing a slower employment growth rate when compared to Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the Rancho California area shows a much better performance with respect to the jobs/housing balance. A strong case can be made that housing, in fact, is the key factor to insure continued industrial, commercial and office space in Rancho California. The Rancho California area has always emphasized planning for development of industrial and commercial space and the balanced community concept. The current advisory committee plan for the Southwest Territory Community Plan, for example, shows approximately 13,682 acres of industrial property and 2,551 acres of commercial property. Based on the attached figures for Rancho California, the percentage growth of industrial, commercial and office space can be assumed by comparing the amount of existing space with the amount of space under construction. >O - 279 - p0 N' U N N N U .~.{ W W O 1C -r{ ro ~ G YI l0 O >, w sa~~ rt ro .+ O '1 Itl 1a U d ~ ~ U ~ t~ H fC a .~, U 31 U1 O U O a r x~ ~ ~ .~ 3.-i ae ae 0 0 - .i In ~ ~~ ~ ~~ o r v co co co o r .-i o m M CO r aD N .--I N N <r M N M 01 O OD ~M Ol CO O ~O Oi r ~ ri r m co r o ~o ~o m r r N M 01 N r ri lD ~O 111 ~ O 111 M r rl Ol .-1 ~7' U N M .-1 A r M V' r fo In o o r d' o co o ~o to M 111 f0 M c0 ~ M 01 l0. O rl d' rl N - N N rl M ri r-1 CO r t0 .--I v In ri ri N rl M ~ l0 CO d' M In M N t0 M ri r N r V ,R N N W CO r{ 01 M N M O V' In ~ . l0 Ol V' 111 M CO r Ill r O Ol w v rn rn ~ v ~o ,-~ r o .-1 rn ro r-1 <r co m to rn o ~ rA .~ co a1 O tl' N O r M .--I cp ~ l0 ~ O M d' d' M ~O rl N N C. .~ N ~ ~ O U O C4 ~ bl b+ iT ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ -r l 1- - -• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ 0 0 > '~ '° A a y o ro roaa+~roalaa ro ro m ro ~ro N N ••i -.i U •rl •,..1 Ol Ol •r1 •r1 N •.i N N ri 1l ~ 11 01 +1 O N N Ul 3-1 f-1 b 1-I Rf r-I rl •r{ N i~ N '.~ N W r-1 CP rI N N rl Ol rl 0 b ~ ~ b ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ 3 -1 ro ~ bl~A~ 0 1 --- l OHO ~OGi1~~N OroO~O~O~I OJT U •.i U .-1 •rl U +-I !].•.~ +1 U .-i U •.-i U O U O U O ro rtf Itl +1 •rl ro •.i r-i .--I w .-I w •.-1 w sa w w -.+ w o w .a w +) w p, w w o•.~osaowo.ao~ o.qo-.+oo0 0 G ~ ~ ~ N O A .IN N- NANN@ N OI N N N bl b+ ~ b+ ~ b+ 3 tP m b+~-t b+ tP+l b+ > bl w m~rtroto ro ~ m~~r+roNrooro ...u ro +1 ~ +1 N J / N ~ N .. u •.~ ~ ~ +~ C +/ ~+ +~ ro .~o•.~o-~loalob+oo+ ~looo-.~ooos~ow rtoHO oaoaoa .oo>ao000Oaoa~ -•+ W +1 w +1 w •.~ w -.~ w -.+ •.+ w a1 w 3+ w w row al ~ % ~ % H ~ ~ ~ ol~almw lo1 a1~ 1 m m~wa ial.cm tll 3a ro >a U 3-1-.-1 H •.i LI -.i N H O 3a Sa 'O 3+ +~ 3a A ro ~ roA ro~ ~ ro ~roortso~~~3~m i A~. R • > a Ear- f'r Ear tr ~r o ~+ ~r ~r tr tr H to UJ U1 fA to U t!) to U! Iq tq ~O O O N U ro a N Ul U .,.I W w oro 2s ~ a ~, roo w .--I •.i ro~~ ~~v to ~ U >~ ~ H ro a ro •~, U N N O U r x~ ~ ~, 3 ~-t 0 0 3a -+l C7 ?I U dP ~'. ~ r rb 01 U 01 A r co rn .R N W 0 rn ro aw N ~o .r co to m .n o co v' r rl N rl V' N ~D r .•-I N O CO C1 r .-I M t+1 rl N m v tD In w ~o In r In .~ 00 o In co In 'd' O lfl 01 N In Cl 01 Ill d' N m o o v o rn v ~o rn o ~o v o In o v .-I. ('l .--I o r N r v rl C ~ b+ O+ ro ro F G ~ > U •'I •.•f •.i O ~ ~ % ~ . ~ r -I r 1 LL N •.i -.1 -.-1 LL +~ N N A A A ro ~ V1. ~ m ro w v al ar w .-i .--i U U .~ U .~ w a -.+ •.~ a•-+ a rI 0 o w w w a +l +l w U U o0 0 00o a N N •.i ri r-1 w bo w tnw ~ w p,w W G O~ O~ O U O O ~ ~ O b ~ b ~ ~ W O N + •1 +. O+ b> P > L ro -.+ ro •.+ ro m ro o ro a o~ o ~ o 0 o o m , n a W W W U W b W~ N N N U. U Sa -.~1 U Q1N-'I W+i NN N ,r~N~ 3a U LI w L1 w N 'd f-I Y S-I S2 7 -.irow row roa m •.Iro~ o a ~o ~o ~~ ~ 3 ~v~ cn O Vl U) U] VJ to is Po Comment• The DEIRs should also analyze and document the air quality and transportation impacts if current trends continue and Rancho California's residential growth further increases long-distance commuting to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The dramatic increase in long-distance commuting among Riverside County residents has .significant impacts on regional traffic and air quality that should be quantified and mitigated in the cumulative impact sections. The very brief discussion of these subjects in the DEIRs is not appropriate given the importance of the issue. Response• The traffic engineering firm of Schatzmann, Thompson and Associates was contacted relative to the impact of long-distance commuters to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The best guess estimate at this time is that approximately 2.0 percent of the total ADT from the' Rancho Villages Assessment District area will commute to Los Angeles and Orange Counties via the 91 Freeway. PO If growth in Rancho California is replacing growth in other areas of Riverside County, impacts may .have the effect of transferring trips from segments of the 91 Freeway to less congested segments of I-15. Therefore, growth in Rancho California may have less impacts to existing segments of the 91 Freeway which are congested easterly of Corona in comparison to growth occurring in Riverside or Moreno Valley. Westerly of •Corona on the 91 Freeway, impacts of growth anywhere in western Riverside County would be equivalent. If one assumes a buildout population of Rancho California at 264,648, an average household population of 2.1 persons, there would be approximately 126,023 households in Rancho California and 1,260,229 ADT. 2.0 percent of 1,260,229 ADT would contribute approximately 25,205 trips which would split between the 91 Freeway, the 60 Freeway and the Ortega Highway (State Highway 74). Given a split of 60 percent, 30 percent and 10 percent respectively, cumulative impacts would add approximately 15,123 ADT to the 91 Freeway, 7,561 ADT to the 60 Freeway and 2,520 ADT to the Ortega Highway. It should be emphasized that 2.0 percent is a gross estimate. and is not based upon sophisticated modeling - 275 - ~o techniques. Proposed mitigation measures to reduce cumulative circulation impacts include the following: o Establishment of Park and Ride facilities within commercial areas of Wolf Valley and Vail Ranch as directed by CalTrans. o Encouragement of the use of alternative modes of transportation by including bike lanes and pedestrian amenities in accordance with the General Plan policies. o Inclusion of on site trip destinations including commercial and recreational uses for project residents. o Encouragement of a regional jobs/housing balance in the Rancho California area. Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We applaud the great deal of thought and work that has gone into -O planning for the substantial growth in this area and we eagerly await the forthcoming Southwest Territory Land Use Area Plan currently being prepared by your Depart- ment. We also commend the creation of an EIR for the Rancho Villages Assessment District to provide a more comprehensive means for evaluating the impacts of growth in a cluster of projects. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the final EIRs when they become available. Response• Comment acknowledged. G. Pechanga Indian Reservation, Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians - The Tribal Council, Pechanga Indian Reservation Comment• The focus of our reply to the Wolf Valley proposed project is how our immediate. and surrounding environment will be affected by building 4,188 dwellings, amenities and increasing the population in this particular area to 16,000. Presently, on this PO - 276 - 0 piece of ground, there are no buildings or supporting amenities and zero population. From this perspective, one can image- that our reaction to this proposed project is one of extreme alarm. Response• The project proponent appreciates the time and effort expended by the Council to resolve concerns related to their immediate and surrounding environment. There have been several meetings held at the convenience of the Council and several field surveys held with consultants of the project proponents and representatives of. the Council and Tribe. The following responses give a summary of the commitments made by the project proponent to resolve Council concerns im accordance with the directives of the County Planning Department and the Council. In accordance with SCAG population estimates, the proposed project of 4,188 dwelling units will generate a population of 8,795 persons, roughly one half of the population given in the above listed comment. O Additionally, only one Master Phase (Phase III) of development is proposed adjacent to the Reservation. Under the existing underlying land use entitlement (Specific Plan 171) homes on one-half (1/2) acre parcels with 100 foot frontages are permitted immediately adjacent to the Reservation. Following meetings with the Council, the project was redesigned to include product which can be economically developed with sanitary sewers to mitigate potential groundwater impacts and to include design features to mitigate lifestyle and area compatibility impacts. The following provides a summary of proposed mitigation measures in this regard. o Development areas have been pulled back entirely from the Reservation boundary. o A fifty (50) foot wide (minimum) landscape buffer, utilizing native and low fuel landscaping materials, is proposed between the development areas and the Reservation boundaries. P O - 277 - o The buffer is designed to incorporate fast growing plant materials to screen the development areas from the view of the Reservation and to preserve the privacy of Tribal lands adjacent to the project boundary. o The buffer area will be planted immediately upon approval of the project. o No residential construction activities will occur within Master Phase III for a minimum of three (3) years following approval of the project in order to permit growth of the landscaping materials in advance of construction operations and occupancy. o A six (6) foot decorative block wall will be constructed at the property line of lots abutting the buffer and along the right-of-way line adjacent to Pechanga Road. o All existing oak trees adjacent to the Reservation will be preserved within the buffer areas. If, for any reason, an oak tree must be relocated, O relocation will occur with full input from the Council. If, for any reason, an oak tree cannot be preserved or relocated within the buffer area, the tree shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis within the buffer or as otherwise approved by the Council. o All existing traveled ways within the buffer area shall be preserved for Native American use. If, for any reason, a portion of the traveled way must be relocated, relocation will occur in. accordance with the direction and approval of the Council. o Density adjacent to the buffer has been reduced from seventy-seven (77) to fifty-one (51) lots. o Planning area densities in Planning Areas 5 and 17 have been reduced from 4.2 DU/AC and 3.9 DU/AC to 3.8 DU/AC respectively. o The use of septic systems will be prohibited anywhere in the project. Sewer. systems will be provided to protect the Pechanga Reservation water resources. O - 278 - _o o Access from the project to Pechanga Road will be restricted. Comment• Our Indian Reservation was created on June 27, 1882, and from August 29, 1893, its inception to the present, it has existed as a rural isolated natural environment. This is conducive to our culture and for the last one hundred years we have developed a lifestyle that is compatible to the existing environment. When it was convenient for the settlers of Temecula to drive the Indians away from the .good farming. and into the Oak Forest of Pechanga, we had to leave lands that had been ours for who knows how many generations. We have accepted the majorities practice that Indians should live in isolation on the most undesirable land in this area. Now, because a few will monetarily profit from over-populating this area, the Indians from Pechanga are expected to adjust to every disadvantage and disruption that this proposed over-population will bring. For the above reasons, we vehemently oppose O this destructive development which is an infringement on our lifestyle that has existed before history began. Response• The Council's historic comments are acknowledged. The project proponent and the proponent's consultants have met numerous times with the Council and Council representatives to adjust the land plan to protect the Native American lands and lifestyle. Significant changes in the plan have resulted from this liaison and are summerized herein. The overall density of the project is 3.3 DU/AC. This is a relatively low overall density when compared to other approved specific plans in the area. By providing housing, public facility and recreation opportunities to future project residents, the project proponents are creating long term economic value and safe and decent shelter for a future population estimated at 8,795 persons. The project has also been shown to have a positive fiscal impact to the County. Additionally, the construction of each home will O - 279 - ~o generate approximately 1.6 jobs directly and 2.1 jobs indirectly. The project will, therefore, generate a total of 15,496 jobs over a ten (10) year period. This will not be a destructive development for a few greedy speculators, it will represent a long term commitment of many individual homeowners, corporations and companies to creating a quality environment for future County residents. Comment• Increased Wells: 1.1 Any proposed wells in those areas close to the Pechanga Indian Reservation will affect our water basin. This is in direct violation of our water rights as indigenious people and against the Hilgado Treaty which was upheld by the Supreme Courts and which Pechanga is in litigation to establish their tantamount rights to water in the Santa Margarita River Basin. Response• _O The project proponent does not propose any new wells on site, nor does the project require additional wells to service future residents. Comment: Road Entrance to the Reservation: 2.1 Pechanga Road entrance for a limited distance is a County road. A representative from the proposed project has informed the Reservation that this entrance is on their property. We heard two suggestions; that the road can be moved or it can remain with the understanding that it is owned by Great American. Response• Following negotiations with the Council and input from the County, Pechanga Road will be realigned from its present location to conform to County standards. The new right-of-way will be placed entirely on Great American property to assure County maintenance in - 280 bO accordance with the request of the Council. The-road will be constructed to County standards and will be paid for by Great American. Comment• 2.2 For a limited distance, Pechanga Road has been maintained by the County. This action has led us to believe that for a limited distance, this is a County road. Response• Pechanga Road is a County maintained facility from Pala Road to the Reservation boundary. Comment- 2.3 All County laws establishing a road will apply to a portion of the Pechanga Road. Response• O Pechanga Road will be constructed in accordance with d full width ultimate County standards on the project site. Comment• 2.4 As an extreme measure, in the event that our road is moved, the only direction that it can go is closer to the Pechanga Creek, which is conducive to flooding. Response• Following negotiations with the Council and input from the County, Pechanga Road will not be moved from its present location on tribal lands. The road will only be realigned on the project site and will transition back to the existing alignment on Tribal lands. The new alignment of Pechanga Road will be elevated out of the existing flood plain and will be provided flood protection in accordance with the directives of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. O - 281 - ~o Comment• 2.5 If 2.4 is implemented, then a road that meets County standards and mitigates the flooding condition of Pechanga Creek will be provided by Great American. Response• The project proponent will provide for all necessary right-of-way and the improvements needed for construction of Pechanga Road in accordance with County standards. Comment• 2.6 We strongly recommend that the location of the road which has existed for over one hundred years remain at its present location. If this road is not a County road, then we would like to have this strip of land turned over to the Pechanga Reservation. O Response• Pechanga Road, from Pala Road to the Reservation, is a dedicated, County maintained road. It must be realigned through the project site to establish a safe intersection at Pala Road in accordance with County standards. The project proponent has agreed to dedicate all necessary right-of-way and to transfer to the Pechanga Native Americans approximately three- quarters (3/4) of an acre net of property within Commercial Area "A" which is located between the new intersection of Pala Road and Pechanga Road and the Reservation. The new intersection will be located approximately 135 feet southerly of the existing intersection. However, the Reservation has requested the roadway be a County maintained roadway; therefore, no transfer will be necessary. Comment• Boundaries: 3.1 The physical boundaries of Pechanga Indian Reservation have not been provided by the Bureau ~O - 282 - ~O of Indian Affairs; therefore, we are not able to verify the accuracy of the physical boundaries which have been determined by the developer. Response• The project proponent has completed an ALTA (American I:and and Title Association) survey of the project boundary and has a title insurance policy for the subject property. The project proponent will cooperate with the Pechanga Reservation and the B.I.A. on any future surveys of the Reservation boundary abutting the project site. Comment• 3.2 The Reservation will make a request to the B.I.A. for a survey. We suggest that you wait for this survey in order to prevent any boundary disputes. Response: O The project proponent has agreed, following negotiations with the Council, to postpone construction v within Master Phase III for a minimum of three (3) years. This should permit adequate time for the B.I.A. to survey the Reservation boundary abutting the project site. Comment: 3.3 There are individuals who own property that abutts the proposed project. These property owners should be provided with the E.I.R. since they will be directly affected. Response• DEIRs and FEIRs will be provided to the Council in sufficient quantity to circulate as the Council determines appropriate. Additionally, th'e project proponent has been in contact with the Council relative to obtaining the input from adjacent homeowners to the buffer. The Council has presented or will present a plan to each individual homeowner per the request of the project proponent. O - 283 - ,O Comment- 3.4 The names and address can be obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Riverside, California {Telephone No.: (714) 351-6624). Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment: 3.5 The buffer areas between the proposed project and the reservation should be more than the proposed thirty feet. This aspect should consider the desires of the Reservation. A development abutting an Indian Reservation is a unique situation. Response•. The buffer has been redesigned to a minimum of fifty (50) feet. Additionally, density has been reduced and O decorative block walls have been provided within development areas abutting the buffer. Sensitivity to existing conditions is being addressed by site specific landscaping details designed to preserve existing conditions and promote privacy of abutting land owners. The project proponent appreciates the time and input of the Council and Pechanga Native Americans in this design effort, and looks forward to a continuing liaison with the Council and Tribe. during implementation phases of the project. Comment• Cultural Resources: 4.1 The EIR recognizes one archaeological site which was, no doubt, designated prior to the Environmental Quality Act. Response• The EIR recognizes RIV-364 updated report is included accordance with the request Council. O on the project site. An in the FEIR Appendix in of the Pechanga Tribal - 284 - Comment• 4.2 The Pechanga Business Council would like a copy of the report which identifies this site. Response• Complete copies of the FEIR will be transmitted to the Tribal Council in sufficient quantity for distribution to any appropriate party as determined by the Council. Comment• 4.3 We need to consider the total parcel of land which will. accommodate Plan X217 for a complete and current archeological survey. Response• A complete, updated survey of the subject site is included in the FEZR Appendix in accordance with the ~/'~) above listed request. e~J Comment: Creating a vacant parcel of land to accommodate 16,000 population will create an environment that is totally foreign to this area, and will drastically affect the lifestyle of indigenious peoples. 5.1 The amount of dwellings for this project will increase traffic noise from intradevelopment vehicles and roads, people and domestic pets from zero to a significant level. Any amount of these noises has never been present in our environment. Response• The current underlying land use entitlements will permit a population of approximately 2,877 residents. The proposed project will generate approximately 8,795 future residents rather than 16,000 future residents. Fifty-one (51) dwellings are proposed adjacent to a fifty (50), foot wide landscaped buffer which abutts approximately two (2) miles of Reservation boundary. To mitigate potential noise impacts caused by fifty-one - 285 - DO (51) homes, the project proponent has agreed to construct a six (6) foot high decorative block wall and to heavily landscape the fifty (50) foot buffer zone fora distance of approximately two (2) miles. Given these conditions, it is unlikely that noise generated by residents and pets will be significant. Access to Pechanga Road will be restricted from the project and the Reservation entrance may be clearly identified at Pala Road to discourage Non-Native American traffic. Internal streets to the project will be set back from the Reservation a minimum of 125 feet and will be very low volume general local streets. Traffic noise from these streets will be reduced significantly by the construction of homes, a six (6) foot decorative block wall and a fifty (50) foot landscaped buffer. The project proponent and consultants have had numerous meetings with the. Council and Tribal representatives in an effort to preserve and respect the lifestyle of indigenious peoples of the Pechanga. Reservation. Significant changes and modifications to the specific plan and EIR have been O made as a direct result of these meetings. The time and effort of the Council and Tribal representatives is b greatly appreciated in this regard. Comment Lights: 6.1 The visibility of the night sky which is enjoyed by the People of Pechanga will fade with the lighting from all of the dwellings, street lights residential and commercial night lights. This may affect the viewing for Palomar Observatory. Response• Development of the project site will occur in accordance with the "Dark Sky" policy of the Palomar Observatory. Street lighting will be shielded, will include cut offs and will be from low pressure sodium sources. Private outdoor lighting within Planning Areas adjacent to the Reservation will be minimized and controlled by CC&R's in accordance with the above listed comment. O c> - 286 - D [`nmmPnt Smoke: 7.1 The Wolf Valley area is accurately named. It is a valley and holds smoke in the area. Although every summer day has an appreciable amount of wind, this condition does not exist in the winter time. If every dwelling in this project contains a fireplace, this will cause a lingering of smoke in the atmosphere. Response• Fireplaces will be an option of homebuilders within the project. Spark arrestors will be provided in accordance with the directives of the County Fire Department. Comment• The Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians are in O danger of having our life style detrimentally affected by developing an irreversible, artificial environment. t~ Response: Every effort has been made by the project proponent to address the concerns of the Council. Significant changes and modifications to the plan have been made as a direct result of meetings and a desire to preserve and protect the lifestyle of the Pechanga Tribe while at the same time permitting the subject property to be developed to create an environment which provides safe and decent shelter, open space and recreation opportunities and public facilities and services for future project residents. Comment• This project will not accommodate a need in the overall community. The jobs in this Temecula, Rancho California community do not provide an income that would qualify ownership of the proposed dwellings, so the potential buyers would be commuters who will increase freeway traffic and pollution to the atmosphere. 0 er - 287 - Response• The proposed project is designed for housing products which address a nearly full market spectrum. Segments are included for renters, first time homeowners, move-up buyers, move-down buyers and empty nesters. In comparison with the existing underlying land use entitlement which only proposes construction of estate and custom homes, the current proposal is much better aligned with the job market of Rancho California. Comment• Presently, the time it takes to travel from Pechanga Reservation to Temecula and Rancho California has tripled. There are no provisions in this EIR that will provide to maintain the present level of traffic. We vehemently oppose this development and request that we are informed of all hearing dates. Response: The project will maintain adequate service levels on all roadways in accordance with County General Plan policies. The project is contributing towards three bridges, expanded roadways and regional and subregional traffic interlinks. H. Eastern Municipal Water District Comment: Exhibit II-9; Pages 82, 83. The proposed sewer plan as presented does not totally conform to EMWD's master sewer plan for the project area. Attached is a copy of the District's sewer plan. During the tentative tract planning stage, pipeline alignments, tributary flows and pipe sizes will need to be extensively reviewed and approved by the District. Road alignments shall consider the design of a gravity sewer which will provide for the sewer to be located in road right-of- way and not through easements or requiring a lift station. - 288 - Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment• Exhibit III-4. Existing EMWD facilities include a 15-inch diameter sewer pipeline located in Pala Road. Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment• Page 292, Par. 2. The expansion of EMWD's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF) to 6..25 MGD is expected to be completed by June, 1989. Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment• Page 295, Par. 2. It is stated that the project water demand will be 1.26 MGD and that the project wastewater flow will be 1.4 MGD. How can the wastewater flow be greater than the water demand? Response• RCWD figures were used for water demand. Comment: General: Throughout the document, it is stated that the Rancho Villages Assessment District is the proposed funding vehicle to provide the required sewer facilities. In the event the proposed assessment district is unable to provide these facilities, other means for their provision must be made. Response• Numerous other mechanisms are available including Community Facility Districts and developer financing. O - 289 - Comment: General: Some, but not all, of the proposed project is in EMWD's Improvement District U-8 (refer to the attached map).. Annexation of these areas currently not in the improvement district to U-8 is required before sewer service can be provided. Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment: General: We request that more consideration be given to the issue of effluent disposal. Treated effluent use is required for this project unless -other mitigations for effluent disposal can be presented. Response• Treated effluent is proposed for golf course irrigation use in accordance with the above listed recommendation. I. Riverside County Sheriff Comment• This particular development, upon completion, will impact the population of Rancho California by approximately 12,564 persons. This increase in development and population will result in an increase in crime. We need a time element for beginning and completion of each of the five phases. Response• Based on SCAG figures for RSA 49, the project population at buildout will be approximately 8,795. Buildout of all phases is expected to occur over a ten (10) year period. Comment The specific law enforcement needs which would result from the Wolf Valley project can be estimated at 7 additional deputies, This figure is arrived at by sO - 290 - D~ computing the officer-resident ratio of one officer per 1,500 persons. The figure in your specific plan of officer-resident ratio of one officer per 4,000 persons is incorrect. Response• Based on the above listed ratio and SLAG population figures of 2.1 persons per household, the project will generate .a need for 5.9 deputies. Comment• At the present time, we have one, deputy servicing the Rancho California area, which encompasses an area with a population of approximately 40",000 persons. Upon completion bf this project, the additional growth will negatively impact the Lake Elsinore Sheriff Station and the Rancho California area, unless this project makes adequate provisions for the additional officers needed. Response• O The project fiscal impact report indicates fiscal ~ impacts will be positive. The EIR includes staffing and budgetary information provided. by the Sheriff's .Department. J. Phillip Ibanez, Jr., Native American Observer Comment• The Draft EIR has not been properly circulated to surrounding Indian Tribes in this area for their review. This omission violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). Response• The DEIR was circulated to the Pechanga Reservation as it is the only Reservation located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. We would normally rely upon the discretion of the Pechanga Reservation and the Native American Observer to notify the County if it were necessary to transmit additional documents. These documents are available at the request of the Council. dO - 291 - ~o Comment: The Draft EIR fails to show proper updates on the cultural resources that will be affected by this project. Response• The DEIR Appendix includes an updated cultural resource evaluation relative to RIV-369 and land use changes from the underlying Specific Plan 171. Comment• Another archaeological survey must be performed to produce more significant data on cultural resources and Indian heritage. Response• In accordance with this recommendation, another archaeological survey has begun on the project site. O Results of the survey will be incorporated into the p FEIR Appendix and any recommended mitigation measures will be included as conditions of approval for the project. O Comment• During another archaeological survey, a Native American Observer must be hired and present at all times. Response• A Native American Observer may be retained to monitor future archaeological field surveys in accordance with the above listed recommendation. Comment• During all future grading and trenching of this project, a Native American Observer must be hired and present at all times. - 292 - 0 Response• A Native American Observer may be retained to monitor all future grading and trenching operations in accordance with the above listed recommendation. Comment• All Indian artifacts found during an archaeological survey or future grading or trenching of this project must be returned promptly to the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians by the Native American Observer. Response: All Native American artifacts found during future surveys will be returned promptly to the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians in accordance with the above listed recommendations. Comment• O Noise levels will increase with this specified road, o and will ruin the quietness of our surrounding rural area. Response• Although noise levels will not increase significantly within the Reservation due to the project design which basically internalizes all major circulation improvements, the project has been redesigned to address compatibility concerns expressed above. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the land use plan in order to mitigate noise and compatibility concerns: o A fifty (50) foot minimum open space land use buffer has been established adjacent to the reservation. o The buffer area will be landscaped with fast growing. plants immediately following approval of the specific plan. - 293 - o Construction of units within Master Phase III will not-occur for a minimum of three (3) years in order to permit adequate plant growth within the buffer areas. o Six (6) foot high decorative block walls will be constructed on the property line adjacent to the buffer area to minimize noise generated from back yards. o Access will be restricted from the project to Pechanga Road in order to not create any additional traffic other than that generated by the Reservation. o Density of the tier of lots abutting the land use buffer within Master Phase III have been reduced by widening the lots and by reducing the total number of lots abutting the buffer from seventy-seven (77) to fifty-one (51). Comment• O Air quality will also be degraded by this ~ overdevelopment of houses and traffic. Response• Due to the direction of breezes in the Rancho California area, the Pechanga Reservation is upwind of development areas on most days. The Air Quality section of the DEIR identified potential degredation of existing conditions during periods of air stagnation due to cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures are proposed by the specific plan to reduce air quality impacts to acceptable levels in accordance with General Plan policies. Comment• This project will adversely affect wildlife in the proposed project area by disturbing or removing the existing natural environment. ;~ - 294 - Response• The proposed project will not impact any rare or endangered species. Impacts to sensitive species including declining populations of birds of prey will be reduced to insignificant levels in accordance with General Plan policies by the following mitigation measures. o Riparian enhancement areas will be developed within Temecula Creek. 0 open space areas and landscape buffer areas will be enhanced by planting tall trees suitable for perching, nesting and roosting of raptors. o Sandy wash areas within channelized and undeveloped portions of Temecula Creek will be maintained in a natural soft bottom state. o The broad wash area traversing the central portion of the project will be maintained as a generally O unimproved channel within the golf course area. Tall trees will be planted within the golf course area to provide perching, nesting and roosting opportunities for raptors and other birds. o Open space areas and landscaped buffers will be planted with native drought resistant landscaping materials to offset the loss of scrub vegetation. o An on site nursery will be established to provide mature landscaping materials throughout the project open space areas, buffer areas and recreation areas. Comment• It is erroneous and not federal policy to consider using the Pechanga Indian Reservation as a wildlife preservation in substitution for nearby overdevelopment that destroys a natural habitat. Response: The DEIR did not propose to utilize the Reservation as a natural preserve to offset the loss of natural vegetation. The DEIR merely referenced an observation dO - 295 - ~~ made by the biological report contained in the Appendix which characterized the highly disturbed nature of existing vegetation on site due to past grazing activities as compared to the relatively undisturbed native vegetation which occurs on the Reservation and on lands generally located southerly of the project site. Comment• To reduce high density houses in the areas of 9, 17 and 5 that border the Pechanga Indian Reservation, mitigation measures are to project 2 houses per 5 acres. Response: High density development is not proposed within the above listed planning areas. Planning Areas 5 and 17 are low density planning areas and Planning Area 9 is a medium-low density planning area. .Planning Area 9 was redesigned following Native American input to include a O fifty (50) foot landscape buffer setback and to lower -the density of lots abutting the setback. Planning 1> Area 9 was also redesigned to shift all of Pechanga Road onto the project site, providing additional setback and buffer area adjacent to the Reservation. Similar buffers, landscaping and setbacks are proposed for Planning Areas 5 and 17. Additionally, densities within Planning Areas 5 and 17 were redesigned following Native American input to reduce density from 4.2 DU/AC and 3.9 DU/AC to 3.8 DU/AC respectively. The areas were also redesigned to preserve Native American traveled ways which traverse a portion of the the project site and oak trees near the project boundary. The very-low density development alternative described by the above listed comment was analyzed and rejected by the DEIR within the Project Alternatives section. The basis of the rejection was potential for adverse groundwater impacts from the use of septic systems. Compatibility impacts and potential groundwater impacts are mitigated by the above listed design features (i.e., buffers, setbacks, block walls, roadway design and reduced density) and the use of sanitary sewers. c~.O - 296 - ~o Comments: To set up a meeting with the Pechanga Indian Reservation Tribal Council and Pechanga Water Committee concerning water quality, groundwater contamination, wells projection, and the loss of our groundwater from. your proposed development. Response• ~O The project proponent has met several times with the Pechanga Tribal Council and representatives of the Pechanga Tribal Council to discuss groundwater and other Tribal concerns. In order to mitigate potential groundwater impacts, the use of sanitary sewers and the development of a product-which is economically suitable for sewer construction is proposed. The project proponent has no direct control over RCWD well site location; however, they pledge to work closely with the Council on the resolution of any issues in this connection. The time and effort of the Council is greatly appreciated in this regard and a continued liaison is seen as a benefit during project implementation. Comment• Provide an EIR to the Pechanga Indian Reservation for all future development by your company in this area. Please ensure that I am notified of all public hearings regarding the above EIR X226. I am confident that you will respond to the recommendations and requests made in this letter. Response• Comments acknowledged. K. County of Riverside, Department of Health Comment: t~ The proposed project is "fissure area" identified Department of Building and located in by the County Safety. As the existing of Riverside, of this date, - 297 - eO the general study area of this proposed project is at best uncertain with reference to future development until studies confirm the identity of the known hydro- geological problems. Response• Mitigation measures for the above referenced impacts are included within the project geotechnical investigation in accordance with the recommendations of the County Geologist. (nmmant- Significant grading is proposed for the project. Again, this affirms the need for establishing ground stability. Response• Comment acknowledged. Mitigation measures are proposed in the geotechnical investigation, in accordance with the recommendations of the County Geologist. O Comment• Water and sewer distribution and collection systems are .proposed with a sewage lift station. Due to identified liquefaction potentials, including high ground water,. special design for these pipes and structures would be necessary. Response• Mitigation measures for public facility impacts relative to liquefaction and groundwater will be provided in accordance with the directives of the County Health Department, EMWD and RCWD. Comment• The Draft EIR alludes to Rancho California Water District serving water to the project. This is inferred and not stated. Therefore, it is unknown as to who will provide water service. - 298 - DO Response• The project is located within RCWD. be provided by RCWD: Service obtained from RCWD for all subdivisions. Comment• Water service will letters have been of the project's Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is specified to provide sanitary sewer service. However, existing EMWD plant flow and plant expansion dates to accommodate the project are not called out. Response: On page 292 of the DEIR, EMWD expansion plans to 6.25 MGD by 1989 are stated. The project will be constructed across a ten (10) year period. Absorption will be incremental. Comment• The report mistakenly identifies Riverside County Road ~O Department as the agency responsible for solid waste disposal. This responsibility is now that of the .Department of Waste Management. Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment: The report recognizes limited life of nearby Double Butte Landfill. (Final capacity will be reached before 2,000 A.D.) An alternate site is the E1 Sobrante Landfill located at Temescal Canyon Road and Highway 15E. A solid waste transfer station will most likely be constructed in this area before the year 2,000 A.D. Solid waste generation and disposal will have an impact on the Double Butte Sanitary Landfill. Response• Comment acknowledged. .O - 299 - ~o Comment• Solid waste generated by the golf course and commercial centers are not addressed in this report. Response• Solid waste generated by commercial and golf course uses will incrementally impact the lifespan of the E1 Sobrante and Double Butte Sanitary Landfills. Comment •. The report should address the impact and proper handling of the construction waste generated during the .development of the project, i.e., amount of construction waste that will be generated. Response: Construction activities generate additional solid O waste. Waste generated should be contained within the construction site by construction of temporary chain .link fences at the project perimeter until such time as it can be collected and disposed of at a sanitary landfill. Comment• The report does not address the traffic aspect of waste collection. Are the streets adequate and accessible for collection vehicles? Response• All proposed roadways will be constructed in accordance with County standards which are sufficient to accommodate collection vehicles. Comment• The report should address solid waste enclosures for the commercial centers and residential areas. An adequate number of permanent waste .storage enclosures should be provided to promote visual aesthetics and routine cleaning and to prevent odors and propagation/ harborage of vectors. - 300 - DO Response• All solid waste enclosures for commercial and residential areas will be developed in accordance with Ordinance 348. Comment• The. report should address the type of waste collection services which will be utilized in the proposed project. 'Response• Waste collection services will be provided to the project site by Inland Disposal, Inc. L. Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District Comment• Ordinance 460.76, recreational uses do s nature study areas, slopes, riding and .water courses, drain development proposes meet the guidelines page 18, item "d" states: "Active not include natural open space, open space for buffer areas, steep hiking trails, scenic overlooks, age areas or water bodies." This parks in said areas and does not of useable park space. Response: The open space component has addressed the open space issues from two (2) perspectives; Ordinance 460.76 (Quimby Act) and the Riverside County General Plan. Further, the specific plan land use component delineates and categorizes the various open space amenities into the following components: passive open space, active open space, parks and recreation. There is no attempt made in the text to promote or define the various open space components as active recreational uses unless said use does, in fact, meet .the active recreation criteria. In that specific plans are categorically exempt from the Quimby Act, ,the development is not subject to the requirements of Ordinance 460.76. However, in a good faith effort, the Quimby Act requirements were used as a standard of ,o - 301 - ,O measurement and said requirements have been met with respect to commitments for active recreational amenities. Utilizing the Quimby Act as a standard of measure, the specific plan would be required to provide 26.38 acres of neighborhood parks. The project will provide approximately 32 acres of park land in addition to an 182.7 acre golf course and 144.4 acres of natural and/or quasi-natural open space. With respect to the .Riverside County General Plan, said General Plan recognizes the use and retention of major drainages and floodways as open space resources. Additionally, the Riverside County Parks and Recreation Department has identified Temecula Creek as a linear open space resource of a regional significance. The intent of the County is to utilize major drainage areas such as the Santa Ana River and Temecula Creek as. open space and recreation corridors. Comment• Page 36 - Potential impacts states a demand for 26 acres of park. This is incorrect based on the number of dwelling units. 4,188 dwelling units requires 32.54 s acres. Response• 4,188 dwelling units will generate a population of approximately 8,795 persons based on SCAG projections for RSA 49. Based on Quimby Act standards for three (3) acres parkland per 1,000 population, the project will generate a need for approximately 26.38 acres of park land. The specific plan will provide thirty-two (32) acres of park land, 182.7 acres of golf course and 144.4 acres of open space. Comment• Mitigation measures list open space and trails which have no bearing on active recreation areas. Response• Trails and open space areas are designed to integrate and provide pedestrian, equestrian and bike access to park areas. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors _O - 302 - 0 D O CJ' has adopted an equestrian development agreements. Comment• and recreation fee for Exhibit II-1 - Location of parks to overall development appears to be poorly planned. A centrally located park is more practical to service a development of this size. Parks as designed are located in hidden corners of the development. Current configurations of park sites do not lend themselves to multiple use. Area 3 would be a much more desirable location. Response• The park areas have been designed and distributed equally throughout the project. An additional- park. has been provided in the panhandle portion of Master Phase V. All of .the parks have been designed as neighborhood parks with primary and secondary uses tailored for their specific configurations. Final improvement plans for park areas will be provided through the plot plan review process. Comment• Page 51 - Open space is for flood control and as such is unuseable for parks. Response• Open space within the flood plain is planned for regional trails and is intended to link park and recreation areas through the drainage corridor. Park space planned within the 100 Year flood plain will be protected from seasonal flows by a pilot channel. Comment• Page 56 - Public Facilities - There is no mention of a community recreation center and/or a site for future use. A development of this size needs to set a site aside for this future need. The development should generate a population exceeding 12,000 residents. - 303 - G~ DO ~O Response• Based on SCAG criteria, the project will generate approximately 8,795 residents. Any proposed park site or the golf club could be utilized for a community recreation center. Additional opportunity exists under a joint use agreement with Temecula Union School District. Comment• Exhibit II-7 - One third of the park is a drainage channel. Is this useable park area? The park configuration does not lend itself to good design. Response• Some park -area is located within the Temecula Creek flood plain in order to provide an integrated open space and recreation corridor in accordance with County directives. Automobile, pedestrian, bike and equestrian access will be provided to these areas. A rectangular configuration is proposed as an efficient land use for athletic fields and other facilities. Comment• Exhibit II-8 - Park configuration is inadequate. Response• This park has been redesigned; however, a configuration that provides athletic fields, basketball, tennis courts and a pedestrian plaza should not be considered inadequate. Comment• Page 74 - Does the County want a park built on an earthquake fault? Response• Although this park was originally Alquist-Priolo Special Studies faulting was revealed during investigation. designed within the Zone, no evidence of the fault hazard - 304 - DO CO ~O Comment: Page 87 - "Park A shall b issuance of 3,000 .permits°. development and should be 1,000 permits. e developed prior to the This is too late into the adjusted to prior to the Response• The improvement of Park "A" should occur commensurate with population demands and with improvements related to Temecula Creek as provided by RVAD. Therefore, Park "A" should be improved prior to the issuance of the 1500 occupancy permit. Comment• "Park site B at 3,500 permits" needs to be changed to 2,500. Response• Park B should be constructed prior to the issuance of the 3,000 occupancy permit, but no sooner than three (3) years following project approval due to commitments made to the Pechanga Reservation. Park C should be constructed prior to the issuance of the 3,500 occupancy permit. Comment• Page 185 - states that the parks are located in potentially flood prone sections of Temecula Creek and that human occupancy in the area is a potential hazard. Are these appropriate sites for parks? Where will future community recreation centers be located? Response• The section should be correctly quoted to say that flood prone areas should preclude buildings for human occupancy. Potential exists for a community recreation center or in a joint use center with the Temecula Union School District at Park "C" or at the golf club. - 305 - Comment• Page 210 - states "most areas of 25 percent slopes or greater will be designated as open'space." Response• Comment acknowledged. Comment• Page 215 - Reinforces facts that parks are designed within the flood plan. Response: Comment acknowledged. Comment: Page 249 - Both parks are located in potentially hazardous areas. Park A in a floodway and Park B in a seismic area. Are these areas appropriate for parks? Should children be in these areas? Can a future Community Recreation Center be located in the park? Response- The Wildomar Fault was found not project. Numerous examples can be parks within 100. year flood plains. specifically designed to create a corridor within Temecula Creek. outside the 100 year flood plain f Community Recreation Center. Comment• to occur within the listed of excellent These parks were park and recreation Adequate area exist or construction of a Page 313 - Mitigation states that "The Quimby Act will be exceeded. by development of the project as proposed." This statement is incorrect. Ordinance 460 should be referred to and useable park area has not been addressed. Please note that a flood plain and drainage channel are not useable park areas on a year round basis. Further, throughout the document, the golf course is referred to. The golf course will also act as a flood retention basin. _O - 306 - C~-~ Response:• Quimby Act standards will be exceeded by 5.62 acres. All proposed park areas provide for useable park space on a year around basis. Park areas within the 100 Year Flood Plain have a theoretical one (1) percent chance per year of being flooded. However, Temecula Creek will be provided with a bypass or pilot channel around park areas in addition to flood protection provided by Vail Dam which significantly reduces peak flows on Temecula Creek. The use of golf courses as a recreation use within flood plain areas is also an industry standard-and an appropriate response to flood hazard related to land use issues. Retention within the golf course area may or may not occur, based upon final design requirements. Comment: In closing, the District recommends that the area annex to an 'appropriate agency providing park and recreation services. Response• The subject property is proceeding with plans for annexation to County Service Area 143. M. Department of Water Resources Comment: Response• After reviewing your report, recommend that you further comprehensive program to us irrigation purposes in orde supplies for beneficial use water supplies. The project proponent has already begun with Eastern Municipal Water District reclaimed water for golf course irrigation we also would like to consider implementing a e reclaimed water for r to free fresh water s requiring high quality negotiations (EMWD) to use purposes. - 307 - Comment• Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation. To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described here. Required: The following State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in structures: o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings as follows: "After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of ~O 1-1/2 gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer valves are exempt from the requirements of this section.° 0 0 the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable efficiency standards. ~,J - 308 - maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory. faucets and sink faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI A112.18.1M-1979. o Title 24 of installation or rixcures unless certified to the CEC compliance standards. o fiitle 24, Cal he manufacturer has with the flow rate ments, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to steam and steam-condensate return piping and recirculating hot water piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water-heating systems is also required. ~:-~/ o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned water. o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in -all public facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water. To be implemented where applicable: Interior 1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 2. Drinking .fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing valves. 3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.* Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower. - 309 - 4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used. 5. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be served upon request only.* 6. Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1-1/2 gallon per flush toilets be installed in all new construction. Exterior•* 1. Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. 3. Group plants of similar water use to reduce overirrigation of low-water-using plants. sO 4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. 5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compation. 6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low-water- using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. * The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing these materials or providing other information. 7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the -water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. PO - 310 - bO e.O .. O 8. Use pervious paving materials whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge. 9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. l0. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge. 13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. Flood Damage Prevention: In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: 1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. 2. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. 3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the Environmental Impact Report. 4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood. - 311 - ~O 5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and, engineering studies, especially for hillside developments. 6. Revegetation of disturbed or 'neWiy constructed slopes should be done as soon as "possible (utilizing native or low-water-using plant material). 7. The potential damage to the prpposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as .required. 8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems:associated with sedimenti transport during construction. Response• Comments acknowledged and incorporated'=hereinto by reference. O O - 312 -