HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) 226
`~ O
REDHAWK
(FORMERLY WOLF' VALLEY)
AT
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
' SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 217
AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 226
SCH. NO. 87031614
Presented to:
-~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTMENT
County Administrative Center, Ninth Floor
-~ 4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, California 92501
1
Prepared for:
GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
O 28910 Rancho California Road
i Temecula, California 92390
~ Prepared By:
RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION
27780 Front Street, Suite 9
Temecula, California 92390
and
THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES
3151 Airway Avenue, suite R-1
Costa Mesa, California 92626
-~ July, 1988
_1 O
~~
•
`,
~x`
•
,l
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
I. SUMMARY 1
A. Proj ect 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. 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
q. Phaslnq Plan 47
h. Grading Concept Plan 49
i. Landscaping Plan 51
j. Lighting 54
2. Planning Areas 55
III.
Pa '
3. Architectural Design Manual and
Landscape Guidelines 97
a. Architectual Design Manual 97
b. Landscape Guidelines 105
C. Implementation Program 121
1. Administrative Districts 121
a. RVAD 122
b. CSA 143 123
2. Administrative Standards 124
a. Project History 124 !~.
b. Legal Restrictions 125
c. Density Transfer and
Intensification 126 ~_
d. Administrative Plan Review 128
GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS 130 +~
A. General Plan Land Use Determination 131
1. Site Identification Within ,
Open Space and Conservation
Map Inventory 131
2. Project identification Within
Composite Hazards/Resource
Map Inventory 13
3. Land Use Area Profile and
Community Policy Area '
Identification For Project Site 132
4. Summary of Project Proposal/
Site Comparison with Applicable '
Land Use Category Policies 133 `~
B. Land IIse Element 134
1. Land Use Planning Area
Policy Analysis 134
2. Community Policy Area Analysis 135
3. Land Use Category Policy Analysis 136
4. Community Policy Area 137
C. Environmental Hazards and 1
Resources Element 137
1. seismic safety 138
2. Slopes and Erosion 143
3. Wind Erosion and Blowsand 147
4. Flooding 147
5. Noise 150
6. Air 4uality 15a ?
7. Water Quality 162
•,,.
i~,
3~
i
'I
~ •
i
,~
•
1
Paae
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
Page •
8. Toxic Substances 165
9. Open Space and Conservation 166
10. Agriculture 169
11. Wildlife/Vegetation 173
12. Mineral Resources 180
13. Energy Resources 181
14. Scenic Highways 183
15 .' Historic and Prehistoric r
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
11. Airports 215 ~'
12. Dlsastar Preparedness 216
E. Housing Element 21~
1. Applicable Housing Programs/
General Plan Policies 218
2. Project Housing Inventory/ s"
Relationship To a
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
• .
I
._~
,6
.`~~
7
_~M
•
~~i
.1 ~
~7
page
V. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION .COMMENTS 243
A. Department of Food and Agriculture 244
• B. Department of Conservation 246
C. Department of Transportation 254
D. Sierra-Club 259
E. Department of Fish and Game 265
F. Souther California Association
of Governments 270
G. Pechanqa Indian Reservation 276
x. Eastern Municipal Water District 288
I. Riverside County Sheriff Department 290
J. Native American Observer 291
IC. County of Riverside, Department
of xealth 297
L. Valley-Wide Recreation and
Parks Department 301
M. Department of Water Resources 307
VI. TECfiNICAL APPENDICES
A. Geology Reports and Paleontology Analysis
B. Biological Assessments
C. Archeological Reports
D. Traffic Analysis
E. Fiscal Impact Analysis
F. Notice of Preparation Comments and
Notice of Completion Comments
G. Persons and Agencies Consulted
LIST OF EXHIBITS
I-1 Regional Location
I-2 Vicinity Map
i-3 Topographic Map
I-4 Slope Analysis a
I-5 Hydrology Map
I-6 Environmental Constraints
II-1 Specific Land Use Plan
II-2 Recreation/Open Space
II-2A Class II Bike Trails
II-2B Equestrian Trail
IZ-3 Golf Course
II-q Circulation Map
II-5 Housing Types, Low and Medium-Low
II-6 Housing Types, Medium High
II-7 .Park Site °A"
II-8 Park Site "B" "
II-8A Park Site °C"
II-9 Water and Sewer Plan
II-10 Phasing Plan
II-li band IIse Summary/Phasing
II-12 Grading Concept
II-13 Landscape Concept
II-14 Identity Node Typical Plan
II-15 Identity Node Sec~ion A
II-16 Identity Node Section 8
II-17A Neighborhood Entry
II-17B Neighborhood Entry, Section C
'~
II-18A f Va
Typical Parkway for Margarita Road, Wol
Loop, Butterfield Stage Road and Pala load
II-18B Typical Parkway for Fairview Avenue Elf
Chamisal Road, Wolf Valley Road, Macho Roa
and Wolf Valley Connector.
II-19 Typical Landscape Buffers
II-20 Typical walls and Fences
II-21 Planning Area 1
II-22 Plani~inq Area 2
II-23 Planning Area 3
II-24 Planning Area 4
II-25 Planning Area 5
II-26 Planning Area 6
II-27 Planning Area 7
II-28 Planning Area 8
II-29 Planning Area 9
•
~:f •
•
List of Exhibits (continued)
II-30 Planning Area l0
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
IZ-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
ZI-43C Cross-section Fuel Modification Buffer/
Fill Slopes
IZ-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
•
~~
i' •
jf
LIST OF TABLES
I-1 Market Objectives
II-1 Land Use Summary
IZ-2 Park Table
II-3 Open Space and Recreation Area
II-4 Roadway Types
ZI-5 Target Units per Phase
IIZ-1 Seismic Parameters
III-2 100 Year Flood Event Maximum
Discharges for Redhawk
IZI-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
ZII-l0 Agricultural Areas Affected by
Road Improvements
III-il sensitive species for Redhawk
Specific Plan
III-12 Impacted Sensitive Species from
the Proposed Project
III-13 Existing Traffic Volumes
IIZ-14 Redhawk Comparison to
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
III-15 Effluent Volume Comparison
IIZ-16 Elsinore Union Hiqh School District
School Capacity
III-17 Park and Recreation Facilities,
Rancho California Area
ZII-18 Medical Facilities
III-19 Population Projections
III-20 1995 Population Projections
IV-1 I-15/Z-215 Corridor
IV-2 Highway 79 Corridor
IV-3 Cumulative Project Summary
IV-4 Comparative Unavoidable Impacts
IV-5 Redhawk Unavoidabce Impacts
IV-6 Commparative Matrix of Alternatives
.I
l _
z. suru~r-xY
`i
`',
•
1 •
9
! •
I. SUMMARY
A. PROJECT SUrII~lARY
~~ 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
i' 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
j! 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.
i
~ 1. Location and Description
The Redhawk project is located in the southwestern
h 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
l residential, commercial and industrial development.
j 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.
~ • - 1 -
i
I
j ---------~---~-~.i
I 'O
• I X95 t5
1 I
y VICTORVIILE
i I
1.03 ANGELES I SAN BERNARDINO
~ s COUNTY ~ COUNTY
~ ~
1
tot ~ SAN BERNNIOINO
SANTA LOS RIVERStae RtVERStDE
Mau1U ANGELES r--~_ wj to COUNTY
PALM SPRINGS
GRAN
• i
~_ - RANCHO CALIFORNIA
A r
qCi~ -`---------------
iC
ESCONaa7
SAN DIEGO
o COUNTY
yZ 9
aECo
~ UFORNI-® _
S/UA
SCALE
• ~
Regional Location Map ~° ~ 20 3O 'MILE
Exhbit I-1
i •
•
:,
_q
~ •.
i
The 1,275 acre project site .is located south of State
Highway 79, two miles northeast of I-15, adjacent to
Temecula Creak 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 Develop-
ment 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 three commercial
areas of 8.5, 14.3 and 5.2 acres respectively, a
182.7 acre eighteen hole golf course, three
elementary school sites totalling 32.2 acres, seven
park sites totaling 45.9 acres and 149.3 acres of
open space.
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 -
RIVERSIDE
/\ lpt[E IiATNEWS
LAKE VERRIS
7e SAN JACINTO
PERRIS
HEMET
ALBERHILL (/////)~~ oANroN ` WINCHESTER
V LAKE {~~y
C SUN ,
O CITY
7a
~ 4 LAKE EISiNORE ~/E gKIt7NE.l e
t s "'~/'w
''('9
_ 9'~1 ~\
WfE
CAMP PENDLETON L_ ~ ttt - ~~ ~~ -~~~ --. "'~
~s•"/
~,/' RAINBOW s
~,y~ ~ ,e
~j.
~~
+/ is .~.
1 FALLBROOK ~ ~`~
JJ 17NE1LL UK[ S ~ J
J V t' _7' "I~ PAUMA VALLEI
SAN DIECO I l~~ `^'
SCALE
Vicinity Map G 3/4 t.S
Exfiibit I-2
/ ~ Vf
w+
® •~~
a z ~ °~~ U
a H~~ ~ 8
"~ ~ ~ ~Q a o
. O o •C ~~M .~~ V
v~Qf 2
V _Q ~ < q
...
.C ~ °:~
RS '0 7s^
i.
0
a
~°
d. i '
v J~~J .e
~~ I V ~ s~ °. )~
~P~ o ~ ,
,., ,
- -
i I
1 ~• O ~
. ~s
4 ...: _.apo'" ~_ n I e e
6 ~. . t ~
l r S ~ t
y:, t tt
'.` J a
V~ I \•.
,; o .,
V \ / 1 ~ 1J
.Z ~
, ~- ~~'
•;:,, III, ~\ ~ ; ~ ) ~~ ~ " ti ~~ ~ `~ e
i ,- _ ~S l {
"'
a
U
~ 'c E
L
~~
~ V
W u
V
d
~J~w oor~~ d ~./ ~'~
.' •~ <
' 9
R' ~ ~ y~, r - ~7~ e o:
• t ~ ~`~
5~~~'4 '. , • • 4. ~ z i
<,
Y•t ~~. f`J/~. h ~ ~ \ tltt at ~./~O Q att ~ ~ ~~~ ( ~ ./I
~ /~ `~ \ ,4~ ~. \ at ~ 6 ~ ° w .`) %--~' _111 ~ -.
,~o J 'ate ~. 090/ ?~ 41 / /~~~ J
~,-~ i. ,
~/
~f~
~ `6 ~~ ~ ~l
~ ~ i! ~~ ~
~ ~ \
`,.. ~ _ ~ i 1 ~ _ F
~`IL ~:\ .....~~ _ a ~ + 007/O Nrn '... ~ _.'., _,
• 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
1 residential development. Conversely, Redhawk is not,
Oor intended to be, a self contained community. The
nature of the land use development plan is a product
~t of several parameters including the site's location
l 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
homebuyezs 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.
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
4 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
~i 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 aE a
f 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
• - 3 -
~`.
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 era inevitable over a ten (10) to
fifteen (15) year buildout period. .c~
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
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 g
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 K.
functional.
- 4 - •1;;
2® ~ ~"~ ~ °
G d ~o K
~, h ~ ~
L7 ~ Q~~ ~ g
~ ~
~ !~ N o $ ~ ~ A v ~ ~
~ ., c b ~ ~ rM~~ ~ ',
'ti _o ~.
~ ~
a. ~ :..',
O ~
tf1 J
~. ~
V
~C
L
:-
V
.~
u
e~
V
v
• ~ •~
h
a
... -. Z
i O `~ v'~~ ~ ~ ~
~- o ~ ~~~ ~
o
O .~ ~W 0m ~ ~
-a F-
-~ ~,
'' ~ I
s a
J
~~ ". v - ,.
a
', c
~~ ~ ~~ ~- v
~, , ~ i' .~
', ~ ~ ~_ ~'
,~ ~
•~~ ~ ~ Q
:•, r ®-~ ~
~~ ,,
'~ ~ ,~. '~i iii C ++
>r.~
~'c~< ~ Vie
;,
~' ~ ,.y~, ;~,
~.i ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
• ~ ~`~ ~'gM) r
Xs' L ~4 x~~
i t ~
~~ r,
~. ~ "1~
/ J '
~ t
1~
'F~1 y
A,
`'1~"'' t+~~
~~jfa~J w ~aC
r '~
w ~~ yy ~~ ~~, ~,
'7 ~ (( I'I
_~
~ ))II ''Pp b
. . ~~ ~: ~ ~ I- ~~
:;, ~Jl •~
~ ,~ ~ _
• ii ~ '
,'
T
•
+~ 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
i
These constraints have bean 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-366) will be excavated early in 1986 as part of
j 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
f areas.
" 1. Environmental Setting
~ The prominent 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 tlse eighteen hole golf
course. Another preddminant 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,
1 specifically the southwestern area of the property
~ and portions of the northern acreage bordering
Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road.
r
J Elevations on the property vary moderately with a
high elevation of approximately 1,340 to a low
• - 5
I~
}
i~
}
~ •
i
I-3.
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
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
Santa Margarita R:
flows into two tr:
River; Temecula
Portions of the
north-south wash
generally drain
towards Pechanga C7
northwesterly direr
plain traversing
site. Pechanga
approximately one
Y~nnnArrina_ Tha
within the watershed of the
.ver. Drainage Prom the project
.butaries of the Santa Margarita
Creek and Pechanga Creek.
property westerly of a broad
which traverses the property
.n a southwesterly direction
peek. Pechanga Creek flows in a
:tion with a small area of flood
the southwesterly tip of the
Creek joins Temecula Creek
mile westerly of the project
nreiect arBa easterly of the
broad north-south wash generally drains in a
northwesterly direction into Temecula Creek. The
;1 loo-year. flood volume for Pechanga Creek is
ff approximately 7,000 cubic Peat per second. The
100 year flood volume is approximately 36,000
i cubic feet per second for Temecula Creek. -Site
hydrology is summarized on Exhibit Z-5.
f •
I
:!
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 -
archaeological report, which is included in the
Appendix, has indicated that this site may contain •T`
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.
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.
Seismic Safety
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
u~
t
- 7 - c.
• ;`
s 1
d
~ b Z
L w ~ ~ y ~j ~0 ~ 8 t
a Q ~
~ y C .O ~ o ~ ~~~ py ! $ n
~ ~ v ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ •~ ~u~ z X
C .M.r ~bA~ OL O ~ o p ~~~ ",
b~ a_ W
•Ci O Rj ~ L fCS ~ O.n~II
*.
O C ~ u._ C ~ ~
W J O '~"' ~::.' ~
PnZa
ad'-
a
•,~
h`~ ~~
r '•'
3~ ~~
~ ~- .~
~~
i"> ~ ,~r%
.. s ~ 1 DL ~s %/T~{
J ~k. `` i
~~
e
y~A ~ ~ i' /~ ~~ IL. '~ ra
' ~ ~"~ ;1^
~1~ ~, `~?
~~ ea~~~
/, r,- ~ l~,l `i `
,~ ~ `
,. ~1s~ j~~ Cl ~ II [ ~Ij~B 1~ .
~7 ~i~ 1~~4 l~~ ~'~\~
s,
~~ 1
.X 1 ~ i i'
~ /ys 1 l 1 ~~ 1
~ I i
I ~~_~~,___ ^~
~" ~
V ~ y ~ ~i!{~~ ~~
t r~, Via- '
Q~ ~l ..., J i,~~ VaVIeY.•~' s, i tia. Rj
`~ t ~'
i `
fp: 4 r
t ' i /. <~ vy V V
~yrV ~ c ~ 6d - _ ~~•~ a
' '; ~f. ...p ~ Qa\Jaaaad;
~ o
• % `~
1
1 •
I~
~I
Seismic Safety(continued)
Level o! Significance:
Slopes and Erosion
groundshaking by the Uniform Build-
ing Code. A geotechnical evaluation
concluded that the site was subject
to an extremely, low probability of
liquefaction.
Groundshakinq 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.
Potential Impacts: Existing natural slopes in some
• portions of the property exceed
twenty-five (Z 5) 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
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.
Floodinct
Potential Impacts: 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.
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
- 9 -
•
x
• 7
..~
• Flooding (continued)
}
i
•
Level of Significance:
Noise
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.
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.
Potential Impacts: Noise levels along State Highway 79
will be approximately 6odBA 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 dSA 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
o! 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
I • - 10 -
1
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
(VMT) 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 525.30
per unit fee thereby generating
approximately 5105,956.00 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.
- 11 -
•
"'a~
• Water Quality
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:
i • Mitigation Measures:
Level of Significance:
Omen Space and Conservation
Impacts will be reduced to
acceptable minimal levels.
None are anticipated.
None required or proposed.
No significance.
Potential Zmpacts: 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 Measuzes: 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.
• - 12 -
•~..
Aariculture
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 g
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
Potential Impacts: Site development will eliminate r~
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.
OEf 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
2:~
- 13 - •
~~
1
• wildlife and Vegetation
•
l' •
1
Level of Significance:
Mineral Resources
Potential Impacts:
Mitigation Measures:
Level of Significance
Enerav Resources
(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.
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
None anticipated.
None proposed or required.
None.
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
feasible.
- 14 -
Scenic Hiahways rh.
Potential Zmpacts: 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.
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 Porination.
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.
- 15 - •~
z.:.
i •
1
•
~ •
I
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: Cumulative impacts in the project
area and 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.
Water and Sewer
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 (P2 1380)
will be constructed by the Rancho
Villages Assessment District and the
- 16 -
water and sewer (continued)
•~
Rancho California Water District.
Expansion of the EMWD sewage is
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.
Level of Significance: 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.
Fire
Potential impacts: The project will result in a demand
for approximately two additional
engine companies.
Mitigation Measures: 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.
Level of significance: Impacts will be reduced to minimal
levels in accordance with County
General Plan and Fire Department
requirements.
Sheriff
Potential Impacts: The project will generate a need for r~
approximately -two additional
Sheriffs officers.
Mitigation Measures: Crime preventive design measures
will be incorporated into the
project design pursuant to the
- 17 - =~
•
• Sheriff (continued)
review comments of the County
Sheriffs Department. Project
residents will proportionately
contribute to government revenues
and thereby the funding of
additional manpower and equipment.
I~
1
,~
Level of Significance: 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.
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: Zmpacts are reduced to acceptable
levels through the project miti-
gation measures.
Parks and Recreation
Potential Zmpacts: Utilizing 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.
- 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
IItilities
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. '
a
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 ~~
- 19 - •
project residents.
• Libraries (continued)
Level of Significance:
Health Services
Potential Impacts:
Mitigation Measures:
• 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.
• - 20 -
Disaster Preparedness
Potential Impacts:
Mitigation Measures:
Leval 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 -
•
l~
II. SPECIFIC PLAN
-zz-
:r
•µ
ZI. 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
o Open Space and Recreation
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 5.0 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.
- 23 -
c .`1WN
~ =4
~~
y o=
r
~~
Y
C YV
u<
~:
Z
<~
~yV
T_
• i• \ Q
rrA~A
VJ
r
de~~iriitli ~i' tNln .°..°.:.°..~. ~°.~
~~•p'xPx..MNN ONA NN NN ONV Ox~~P
NN ~ryi rr r~N ~O ^f1 'ON ~NOO
yp xx.~ ••p .t f. ^~N.pp'Nx~~
n N
On SPI~AMJ~^~ Y^ P~1~^t~lNl ~n
~I+nONhY ~IP~~• NP in~r nry(1
V## V <
7uW ^ O~tlW + xS 7j j5$
F f ~ ~~ a
W ~ ~j S~yO ~ AOj e0 V<
~~ N iw N Id
I
~ t // / •
~'~
- I - Z
~ ~ 41 ~ 1+'~ Y
~d ~
~
F ,I.
.-~ ~ ~r 1 1
•
1
J R
Q N
~a yy
~ 18 1
Y
I ~" ..'~
r , t
~..-
x
~1
b' P • i
R < '.
\:
111 }
yy. :
y~ /
r ~1
-
1 `l
~.
F
W
0
s
E - -
. .
~,~~:~
~-, .,.,
.:LC
~ i . o ,~
/ ~
: ~ ;;~.
V'
IH O .. i
~ ~ ~ 't~ ~. i~ ~~ x E
t ~ ~5(~;.~,~.
q ~W Y.'~~'•. ( ~ 4
• P' r k
;.` x .: ~ -
I~ ~
~ ~' ~ ~, Y e;M N __ ,A ~ 1
1 0(d-A
e I`
~" , I c
- e~"
t.' i ~ 1 ,i , ~~j~~ ' ~~~~
. r; ~ d
r
~ j~ 1 ,~ ~,~~~i ~ ~ ~ :~.
uj I ~
u;~z d ,,~V a.
~' V_- ~ ~ 1 ~ '.
I ,l~''~ 1,~/. .
II ' y~- f s~~. L r ~ . r:.
e
I ~ I)' ~ ~ Jl~e ;~R,A
Ir ~ ~ ~~--~~L~I`1.
n'
O~~
a ~~
<
.~~~ CY Y1~n~ ~ M~. d ! rr •t
~.
~~' ~ ~
..
+
~~
4 V'~vw ~:'.6
r
Z ~'
~ s
~~t
'~Q
I` / M9 ~
~
~ ~D
~:
{rr!r
SG
~
.,
sca~et
~
~,.p 0
<
y
~ xx
yc
~
W
o
T
~
3
.
~
E
V
..
H
~~~ ~ ~
b ~ x0 ~ p~
~ ~M ~~
I•
_... Ci
a
E
0
~ u
~C E
L ~-
I~
~ V ~
~ Q ~
w V
~ V
.1
~
1
' ~o a,
'
~ ~ ~
~1 m
k d " ~+
t xs
~ ~ a
~~ ' " xq
!•l P V in 'O
n
1
tr~ P
0} C'
J
n ~ ..rv K3.,~~~x
i + v.
w
~~ ~O . R ,f .y
J .
t ,
n
' COOIIt Ox
'..gall!
.
~. ~ t
N
."
x , 1
~(
ri
0
O
a
N
a_
x
L
TABLE II-1
•
REDHAWK
LAND USE SUMMARY
.Use Acreage Percentage
,~ Residential 774.1 60.7
i Commercial 28.0 2.3
} Open Space 8 Recreation 195.2 15.2
~! Golf Course 182.7 14.3
Circulation 63.4 5.0
Public Facilities 32.2 2.5
TOTAL 1,275.6 100.0
•
1 1. Residential
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
~ •
I
- 24 -
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 par 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. Sy
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
includes the development
commercial areas. Two of
of the specific plan
of three separate
the three commercial
- 25 -
~~
•<
~l
~J
~~
•
,~
I •
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
"C" will primarily serve the project residents
and the Vail Ranch Property because of its internal
location at the intersection of Butterfield Stage
Road and Macho Road.
Commercial Area "A", consisting of 8.5 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 Prom 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 three (3) commercial
developments with 14.3 acres. The design and focal
statement of Commercial Area "B" 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 "8" has yet bean 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 o4 the overall commercial
development.
Convenience commercial needs will be the primary
focus of the 5.2 acre Commercial Area "C" located at
the northeasterly corner of Butterfield Stage and
- 26 -
Macho Roads. Using the assumption that the adjacent •'
Vail Ranch property will also be developed for ,
residential uses, Commercial Area "C" would
ultimately serve a broader market than solely a
portion of the Redhawk project. However, the
sites distance from State Highway 79 and Pala
Road dictate that the emphasis of Commercial Area
"C" be predominantly, iP not exclusively,
oriented towards the convenience commercial needs of
residents within close proximity to the
neighborhood commercial center.
Open Space and Recreation
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 II-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 stzonq selling feature which also
increases the long term value of the adjacent
t
dwelling units.
other open space and recreation features of the
developmentgplan include
149~3
acres of natural open
T
,
space ,wand 45::9 a acres . of ~ ° parkland":,9 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 s
the project acreage being devoted to open space ~~
uses, excluding the school sites and golf course.
The golf course will contribute an additional i4.3
percent of the project total to open space.
Including the parks, golf course, schools and Y
natural open space, approximately 32.2 percent of
the project site is dedicated to open space and ~']
'
recreational use. j
- 27 -
,~
h
r.+
~ ® y'
.~ o
\ Z
C ~ C .~ H (,~ .w oo ba A~
O 0. vs N G 4• ~ rn p,~ ~ ~ z
...~ „ ~ ~ o. c ~ A s ~
s C ~ V a O V u ~ ~ ~
V fl. ~ ~ ^0
a~ p ~ t
~ J ~ ^.
r:
--
E
0
u
~C
L
~'
e~
V
.g
u
~ ~
V
,.
B .~. ~ ~ cn
a '~
,,<.~. .c
Y< ..^ b
a .~
®" y
x CJ L M W O ~ - ° ~ . '., - : „ , r 'r ..p, ~.i ,v a '°,
N. ~
...
a .~
II~/ •
1'
;.
f
I.
v
l} •
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 IZ-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 Planning 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 Por a natural
approach to flood control, and results in
aesthetic and economic benefits to project
residents.
Zn 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
i •
- 28 -
' ~ Class 11 Bike Trails
~~
Stripe Typ.
PALA ROAD /Sign Per Code Typ.
Section B-B 110' ROW
~ ~ ~4' Landscape
' Maintenance
tig8 ~ _ ~•~ s J _ ~ i_ Easement
by Developed by
Wolf Valley
Typical Section •-
ROW Will Vary
Restricted
Parking Typ.
8' Bike Trail Each Side of Road
(See Planning Areas for
location of Bike Trail)
j REDHAVI/K
Rancho California
Great American Development Company
The Plannin~Associates
3151 A~wsy Suss R-l
tau Mesa Ca 92626
n>41 ss6•s2oo
RANPAC
~d
Exhibit Ih2A
Equestrian Trail
10' Min.
Overhead
Clearance
Graded Native
Material
IT~~iI 1A~ Min_~
REDHAWK
Rancho California
Great American Development company
The Plannin~Associates
a~ nl~,~ . s~I. a• i
c.~,I. rte.. a. ~262e
~s~-s~
RANPAC
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Exhibit Ih28
I
li Q
~o ~ rJ
o¢ .I
, N
µ ~ ~
.~
V ~ ~~
° a
~•• ~_
e :' n ~i ~ Il .._..
u ~ a fe Y
ry N , (`...
4 . ,,
V
a
a.,::.
u ~
~ t 2:' .. = ~. : r
~ p ~ ~.
P ~ ,~ ~ '
~, Sl ~ ~~
• c3.
jZ ^' ~ t ) } r 't8'
I.
~ ~ ~
1
I I /,
I ~ 1 .
L
iI ~. ~ I j y 2S~ CO (~
p vU~l ~ ~I1 I O I
%) J O I
aU i ~ O '7 L..T..l ~- ;-.. I ~ i t. 4q 4.
_ I " ~, , ~ / g ~ 6 it i,, co smt, 8 ~,`t_:.J i
~, .
~ -- Ro~• ow° sc;oscoc
::
<r- pbo ~• ~ ~•~.
a
to `~,o~{~ <<~c~'4PQfEo ,,\ 8 ~ ,~ , I y,i s
v + CP~.~' `i ~..
~ ~ ~ f" ~_, 08 dj,~on ~ ~ `
~ ,.
..- .. .
.: f~~ I.. I I y ~P,j,~1i
,_I
~~
~,
a cn
i" i
is
r% ~ ' -
i.
i~`/
,/ i l 1
' ` (. 1
r ~^~ \~
\'~I
p0:~1 I
a~
ro
•~~ ~ ~
N ~~~ ~
qr~g qA ,~ g
o ~~~ •~1 ~"(tlJ $
,gyp ~C ~~~ `onil z
c¢ „ ~
ro~ ~ W
ar,~~ z
s ~
o ~
. _ _.. _.
Q
5L 'c E
Q
~.w
V
;f
'.~ ~
W c
;~., c~ c~
~.,,<~.
~~ r
•„r~ ;.~
u
~ • project entry along Margarita Road, persons
entering Redhawk would 'be at a high point in
( elevation near Planning Area 10 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
,I 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
I 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 for the Redhawk
~ project will be State Highway 79 and Pala Road.
The primary access directly to the project will
be from State Highway 79 along Margarita Road.
~~ Internal circulation will focus on the Wolf
Valley Loop which will partially be constructed
within the Vail Ranch property by the Rancho
Villages Assessment District. Other major roads
• - 29 -
I
....
....
V
L
.~
V
b
a
z
v3
=o
~~
o~~c
W
Qa
Z^^<
~,' ~I
a ~,
~:
~> o
"> o Q?e
03 30
_~
r V
a
=Y
° oG u
o~
Yy O C
~~ ~ o
o"S cQc'1~'
G H
m
P
~® •-
n
d
o
O~1
1r1
'" o
0
0
rn
0
H
a
•+
•V~ ~ o
Q y •O F
`n,~~
~ ~ $
C ,11
~~ ~
•C ~
~bt V
z
~
Ci ¢ q
a~~~
a
t
F-
a
E
V
b ~
~ 'c ~
L
~ V ~
Q
W c
~~ ~ ~
7
L
x
W
• within. the project which will be constructed by
i the Assessment District include Wolf Valley Road,
j'" 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.
;i Two access points will be available to Pala Road
from Fairview Avenue and Wo1P 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
j to County standards. The second alternative is to
I 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.
i Proposed School Site "B", consisting of a 9.6 acre
proposed elementary school site located in the
northeasterly portion of the project northerly of
l Macho Road and easterly of Butterfield Stage Road.
• - 30 -
:~
Proposed School Site "C" will be located adjacent to
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 Sites "H" and "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 districts 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 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 Development Standards have been
developed to implement overall design coordination of
development areas within the Redhawk Specific Plan.
These plans and standards focus on specific design
elements of the overall plan, including:
o Residential Areas
o Commercial Areas
- 31 -
•
o. Open Space and Recreation Areas
i
o Circulation Standards
o Drainage Plan
~o Water and Sewer Plan
o Phasing
o Grading
' o Landscaping
1 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
l Program which is discussed in the following subsections.
•
a. Residential Land IIse 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 i! 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 -
J •
:~
- 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.
3
* 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 3~
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
1
requirements.
The following development standards are keyed to the „,,
'
major land use categories of the Redhawk ~
!j
Specific Plan. The standards will be implemented §
through the S-P (Specific Plan) zoning designation.
- 33 - k~
• ;
?.~
-.I
i~
o Medium-low and medium Residential Standards
Medium-low and medium residential standards shall
apply to Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9,
~ 10, 14, 17, 18 and 19.
f
' Description:
~~ 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
`I 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
• shall be developed in accordance with
I Exhibit II-1.
* Flag lots shall not be permitted unless
,I 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.
,I
- Buildings shall be set back from the
tops and toes of slopes in accordance
1 with County Grading Standards.
1 - The rear yard shall not be less than l0
feet as measured from the rear property
~ line to the rear building setback line.
• - 34 -
~- -- ~, .~, ----, --_ ,-,j _~ -- ~----, r--, --- --- ---~
:~
'i
- 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.
- Side yards for detached products on
interior and through lots shall be not
less than l0 percent of the width of the
lot, but not less than 3 feet in width in
any event, and need not exceed a width of
5 feet. Side yards on corner and reversed
corner lots shall be not less than 10
feet from the existing street/property
line upon which the main building sides,
except that where the lot is less than
50 feet wide.
•
+ 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.
o Medium-high Residential Standards
Medium-high Residential Standards
Planning Areas 11, 12, 13, 15, 20
- 35 -
•
shall apply to
and 21.
n
L
X
L
• Description:
' The seven medium-high planning areas are located
l near the major project intersections or adjacent
l to commercial areas. The permitted density range
is from eight to seventeen dwelling units per
acre. Planning area target densities range from
"j ten to fifteen units per acre.
Standards:
~ * Medium-high density uses shall be developed in
~ accordance with Exhibit II-1.
i~ * 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.
- The minimum average building separation for each
~ planning area shall be 20 feet as measured
between the sides of each building which abutts
another building.
- 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.
• - 36 -
- 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.
b. Commercial Standards
Commercial Standards shall apply to Commercial Areas
nAn nBn and °C°.
o Description:
The three commercial sites planned for development
within the Redhawk Community area located near the
community entry points. The project total of 28.0
acres of commercial consists of parcels of 8.5,
14.3 and 5.2 acre neighborhood centers.
o Standards
* Commercial uses shall be developed in accordance
with Exhibits II-1.
* Building elevations shall include full roof r
treatments and all mechanical roof-mounted • ~J
equipment shall be shielded from view.
* The rear and side yards of commercial buildings r~
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 Prom roadway views. ~.7
c. Open Space and Recreation Standards °~
Open space and recreation areas may include the golf
course, neighborhood park sites, regional park land,
i~
- 37 -
• f.){1
id
aJ
Park Site "A"
1.6 AC.
~°~f V
School
o so ,Oo
e Plannin~Associates
3151 Aiwy Suite R-1
Caata Mus. G. 92626
17141556.5200
RANPAC
,---
F?ICMEERING CORPOItAT10N
Exhibit II-7
Tot Lot
Rancho Carfornia
Great American Development company
Park Site "B"
2.0 AC.
v~~cg.
Park
~~
~~~~~,
A
~ n~.. ~ •.,~..
Tot Lot
~••~~•
•.;-~
REDHAWK
Rancho Carfornia
Great American Development Comparry
•~
Area 2
.~'~
v so ,oo
~••~
The Plannin~Associates
3151 Airway Suds R-1
Costa Mess. G 92626
pla; ss6•s2oo
RANPAC
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Park Site "C"
1.6 AC.
5.;
7`
• '-
Golf Course
:q .:.
~ ~
Q• • -~.
•. ~i~. Park •
•~
• Open PI ay • '
.~
~:f
a~ •
• ~v
~?•~ • :' ~ Area 17 ~
a~
~c
~\
.\
.,
/ \
~~~
-•~
• •~
.`
.~
.,
~~-J
The Plannin~Associates
3151 Ai~wsy SuAe R-1
Coau Nksa Ca 92626
I»al 556.5200
RANPAC
f
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
F~rhihit II-R~
REDHAWfC
Rancho California
treat American Development Company
0
~_
E~ ~
~ ~.
~ ~
O ~,
N ~
O ~ N ~ ~ ~
W
~ Vf
~
~ O
~ ~ ~ ~
q
~ q
ppp
G~4J~ U ~ 7~
~ .~d ~~~~, U
4 .a_
~
O ~
'c~ to i '~
W
~
y ~
ca
r0~'d;
~
~ ~
z W
~
n z
W
,~
o U ~
~I
~M
1~~
o~
Ro ~.
~J
e
~~
L`_'S
~ ®~„ ~o
m of = a a
~® .~~ ~ c
y~~ a
NJ d ~ , `'
® ~ i ~ W
~ i ~ -~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
P ~, \ G'
~.
~~~~
~~ ~I.
. ~~.
~~ ~~~
~ ~-~:--~
.~
~'~
~~
~~
~ ~°
~ ~
®
~ ~
~
~
~
~®
® ~
~ o
~
~ ®~'
~:.
,~: :o
~
~~
~®
v
co
~w
o~
®~
~~
~®
~~
~ ~~
~~
~~
~~
~ ~
~ P
@~
~~
I~~I
Iii
I
~ ®,~~
/ o ~~
o`~
~,~d~~d
0
00
N
'd~
® ~ ®d~
v,,~~° @ o
S' d
~ T
.~ ~
~ ~< ~ ~
c 0 ~ ~ gqg a; z
'^ @~~0~ v
~~o a ~
I
~~
00 ~
b
a /
o~ ~
o'~
'~ l`
d V\
b
~^v~ ~
~~i
~~ _ ~ ~
1
~.~ ...
1 .
~,c~ -:
~~ . ~
~~~':
.~@~ .,
• :-.-:-w~ :~ ~ " ••
I '. ~ ~,
.. ~-:6-~ . ~ ~
... ~ ~ . ,
• ~ ~ ~ .
~/ t
a ~~ ~'~
~o
~ 'i
~. ~ ~ t.~~
. o
....~..
~~
~: ~
~`
:;~ _.~
o~
~®
.~
~~
~~
,:
. "_ (7J-C ll VJ A
--- r--- ~ --, --, - .. _.
~•~'/
s~J--
~ ~
~ e+~
~s
G
l
;.
_~,
~-~ , ~`~ .
~~
~~
~''.°~° /
A
~ .. Z
® ~
,- m=~
N~~ ~ a
~~~ ~
"~.t.
W
•^~ ~ ~ ~
~~ C a~ i s
\.~ ~C ~~ w
~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~
1`h1 O ~ q ~ Z
~/ ~ ~~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ o a
~ ~' /~
a. -f ~
r
i ~' ~ ~. ~.
,. I
~ .J~ ~ ~ .
~. ~ a ~
1..
~~,~..
~~
~~
..I ~,
~ ~ ~ ~~. .
` ~'` ~ @~
.~ ~1~'
,, ' ~
~^ ® ~
.~ ~~~
~.- ~ ~
~~
~' ~ ~ ~ ~ : .
~ ~:. I
~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~
~~
__.-
f. -
~~
ao
a -~
,.
-~ ~
~
~
~ ~
o
e
_ ~
~ ~ ~
~~
~ ~®
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
~~
_. ~ ~ ~
~ r ~ ~
`. _
~
'~
~~
. ` ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~~ ~~
~ ~ ..
..~
,~
~~ ~. ..
.~
,~
~ ~ ~~ I '
~I ~
l`. ~ l
~T
~.~ ~ /. :.
% ~~ /•
a
i O
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:
O +~ Open space and recreation facilities shall be
developed in accordance with Exhibits for Parks
"A" through "G".
*+ Park Site "A" shall be developed 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. Park Site "A"
shall be offered for dedication and improved
prior to fifty (50) percent occupancy of the
dwelling units in the final tract map in the
Planning Area adjacent to said park site.
~ Park Site "B" shall be developed 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
~ O - 38 -
park site exhibits. Park Site "B" shall be
offered for dedication and improved prior to O'
fifty (50) percent occupancy of the dwelling
units in the final tract map in the Planning
Area adjacent to said park site.
+~ Park Site "C" shall be developed on
approximately 1.6 acres adjacent to the golf
course and Planning Area 17. Park Site "C"
shall include B-H-Q, picnic facilities or other
passive amenities 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 Planning Area adjacent to
said park site.
a Park Site "D" shall be developed on
approximately 9.9 acres adjacent to the Pechanga
Reservation, Planning Areas 5, 9, 16 and 17.
Park Site "D" 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. 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
park. Plot plan approval of Park Site "D" shall ^~
not be required. ..~
+~ Park Site "E" shall be developed on ~
approximately 12.0 acres adjacent to Planning
Areas 19 and 20. Park Site "E" shall include y
biological resource enhancement areas,
equestrian trail or other passive amenities as
shown on Specific Plan park site exhibits. Park
Site "E" shall be fully developed prior to the
issuance of the 3,750th occupancy permit.
~
~ Park Site "F" shall be developed on ~'
approximately 14.9 acres adjacent to Planning
Ares 14. Park Site "F" shall include athletic
fields or other active amenities as shown on
- 39 -
O ..
t
O
,i
I
O
W~
I O
I~
..r
C
ro
.~
a
U
N ,•,I m
1 w r~l
M ,•,~
M U
OyE
CL
A N 1~1
E '~ a
a
~
U ~,
U ~
U
0 1
n a r
o+ dada a
ima mm 1c1~
e
C 1+1+0 1+1x0 Mir 0 ~
+~ !r a1 U it A
:
1 ~ I.i A U bl & ~C
~ (~~
(
U V
0 ~~
Uk0 LO b rd O
E CO CO CO 'i90 ~ O
06dq Owp Om+ra a1 ~ 9 t~~
~
8 C a C Q C
O 9
6
~
~ QJ
Ad A~ d AQ~
C +
o ~
~ a ~~ a
~ ~.~~ a m~ ~~ ~
.~ .~
~aa .
a,<a m~~o a se ® av
al C O Po C~ .a Cal PI O 1J O 9 O U
~ 10 ~.1 J.1 Q a9 +{ d~ ~ f0 M dl ~ U Wad wd d1 C
Q1 a1 w aJ C O l4 ®C a1 0a al C QI ~ ~
p .
a) .a +r d ~ .a m ~ ++ ®Y+ b ~ 6a O~
Q,9A.
U U .C O.Cd U r O. ad ~ nd O M O 7
.
0 d 0 O N 6 O bJ 19 fa rl b1 +1 U
M +a O 0a 5a ~+ O-ea M •.~ O 6d O~ .a W 50 U
6•aU0 Ra,9G0 G9t~0 Eal~*~ Oe0
~
~ C
m
~ ~
a
.~ e. '
~ ~ at aJ ~
~
O d U 6r al 'a
~~
~ mw a
e a a
~ ~
~ O O m 6L OQJ
L1 b~ bJ 19 ~ R9 •rd 1.1
~ U
H
M G C S ~ C
t
p
r ra m P~ ~ ~
. ® ..I W a1
N a m ~ ~ ~,~
~ a ~ ,
,~ ,.I
••
e
~m ®
0
U Ug UV e0
~ °
~ ~a as u°a~~
, a
o
m
~
m ~ ~o o w a~ o
om
r4 N rl 61 ~
C7 U
Q
~ 0
p B II
bl b~ ~ b~ b1 d1
+1 MI +1 +I .d
N N V! N N
M 4 W W W
~
N a a a a a
,,
,O c
m ~
~a
c
o°d~
U "i
..mE
Pa
N y ~
M ~ Oa
m~
rl
A d
~, a
C
~.i
E
C
m
8
O
.d
m
0
+1
8~1
M
M
m
m s+
mro
o®
ea tr
~~
m
.i
N
U
C >.
e0 U
O. c
~ ro
U d
U 7
O U
U
.C O
o
dr
~n o
n ~
m ~d
~ @
~
b
O m ~
~ m C
L
M +I .d +~
° ~ e °'
~
M m O w
WO, UO
~
m
~ ~
~~
~ c
" m
ro
i° m
mm e
y m ~
~
b i
~-
~
°
C C a
,
,
-
i
g
L
I
~
+
1 W m TW
~ ^'~
C ~
A
M . Sa LL
i0
~
m a
y
o
.
ro a
~o t
°imro ~e
~
..~ ., .~ ... ro
cma+w ea
g
~
° ~ ~
o
e.
r
Uw ro c. U>
a ~
~;
.~
m
d m
J.1 Jd
~ ~
y y
lxi j+
a a
~i
m
A
m
w
U
4
.~
t0
O
E
O Specific Plan park site exhibits. Outdoor
lighting shall be prohibited. Park Site "F"
shall be approved administratively by the
Planning Department in accordance with the
landscaping plan review process in order to
expedite construction of the park. Prot Plan
-approval of Park Site "F" shall not be required.
~ Park Site "G" shall be developed on
approximately 3.9 acres adjacent to Planning
Area 6. Park Site "G" shall include athletic
facilities or other active amenities 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 in the Planning
Area adjacent to said park site.
t
`'I
Table IZ-3
Redhawk
Open Space and Recreation Area
O 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
O - 40 -
d
Circulation Standards O
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 ZI-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-Way (R.O.W.)
A-A Urban Arterial Highway 134 foot
B-B Arterial Highway 110 foot
C-C Major Highway 100 foot
D-D Secondary Highway 88 foot
E-E Collector Street 66 foot
F-F General Local 60 foot
Margarita Road begins as an urban arterial highway
and transitions to a major highway prior to s~
reaching Temecula Creek.
Pala Road is classified as an arterial highway >
between Fairview Avenue and Pechanga Road.
- 41 - O!S
J
J O 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
'~ Avenuc, E1 Chamisal Rosd snd F?acho 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 li 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
O 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
i 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.
-i - Arterial highway improvements shall be based on
`i 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
O - 42 -
with a 14 foot landscaped median and two 9 foot
parkways. An additional it foot landscape O4_
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 Poot 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, °`j
a curb to curb width of 36 foot for lots 7,200
square feet and larger, two 10 foot parkways for
40 foot sections and two 12 foot parkways for 36
foot sections and no median, except at
neighborhood entry areas, with 6 foot curb
sidewalks.
- Collector roads and general local roads shall be
flared at neighborhood entry areas to
accommodate landscaped medians in accordance
with Exhibit IZ-17.
e. Drainage Plan
o Description
The Redhawk drainage plan shall apply standards for
the development of major drainage courses with the 4~
project in accordance with Flood Control and Water
Conservation District directives.
s
- 43 - Oi~
~J
O 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. P4ajor 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 b® contained within the curb areas of
streets and the 100 year storms will b® 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
O courses and facilities within the Redhawk
project.
*~ 23ajor 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 snd Road Department standards.
¢ Where possible, parks and schools should be
designed adjacent to floodways for open space
and recreation considerations.
i
- 44 -
J
* Where possible, the equestrian. and bike trail Oe
system shall be designed along linear drainage
features.
f.
* Lakes may be built in drainage courses and use3 ,
• for aesthetic, retention, recharge or irrigation
.purposes.
* Lakes shall be included in the design of the
golf course.
Water and Seger Plan
The Redhawk project shall be provided with
sanitary sewer and domestic water facility for
all planning areas. Backbone facilities shall
generally conform to Exhibit II-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.
a
~.~
.
r
Y
- 4J -
/\~\\/
~,d ~
s~
i
r'
~ °
®° ~ ~
~
~a
as
Rio
ISo
be
6a ~ ®
~ ~ ~ `~
~ ~
J~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ .
~
~' ~ ~ 8
r
(mil J~ l~ -~ ~
~' ~ P P P P P EEO @~ b a- ~
s
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
0 I
I I
~ I
I o c~ o
~
1
e
I ,~.
v
~ ~ ~ i o f I ~ yJ
~ ~°
~ o I I
~ @~ ~
~J ~ ~
S
°
I ~
~ I .
..fl 10
~ C
r
n
d
O
d~
®y ~O ~ ~ O~
~~~ ~ ~
q ~~ p
~<ll~ -y4b~Fi' U ~
~ ~ rllill~ ~ x
•~ ~ W
~Q q
~M~n f~
1"'
q~q
Fie
O O Q
rSa
O
j~ ~~
P
a
~ O
o Standards:
j 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 oP 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.
~i
I
O
O
- 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 Pals 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 oP 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.
- 46 -
9•
Phasing Plan
The Redhawk phasing plan shall guide tha 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
Assessment District. Phase I and III 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 ands ZII
improvements of the Rancho Villages Assessment
District.
Phase I is comprised of Planning Areas 1, 3, 7, l0,
14, 8 and li, plus apart oP 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.
~~.
~~
r:
x.
O
- 47 -
~:~
O"
~0 ~ ~
P ® >~ ~
~ ~ P ~
~ o P
°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P
f~
P ° ~ aP ~
~b P a ~ o~ v ~ P
o~P o~~o~P o~~a~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~
a
0
a
0
•a
W
.~
~o
moo
o~
00
s o
0
D
D
0
0
a
o LQ
Y V
~. ~
ro
a
~i
a
a,
r~ ~.
~ `o
~ Y
a
~, ~ a
H
~ m `~ ~ s
® ~ `D
® „ ' m _.
~~~ ~ S
o ~ ~~ ~
O o i
~ ~ ~u~ z
S ~ ~~~~~ ~
~, o ~~ ~ z
~~~~ ~
o ~°
~~
d
® ~,
o~
~~
0
ro
~v
v
E
E
0
V
O
L
X
W
c7
~ ~
~ °~
~~
~.
yea
ms..
r^z
ryW r~i ~i
rtL
m
LH=
^ O
J
Iw m
N 4
]y LN
U4
nm
VyWIM4 Oti
m Nv
VN1~ ~
^ N
O
J
4 m
ms
C
nH SN
Yr
Y4 ON
yWm1 N.~i O n
MSL Ny
10
tl~9ln
~ ry
O O
J J
p ~ L. L. L
VIT mm` V
C C O {
Wr~i iN LLN f
34~ O^ DDN <
^ DI` DDm <
WMM ON 001'1
~6L NP Nmm 1~
6
Y.N ^ O
y.T N'
WO~
u o
o u, r
r 10~ VLe.. N
W~+
eS N
yW
MG
V O
W N b
•u
Di 1 1 1
om e m
m N n
^W N O
ut A N ry
rtiy
ya N
vy
V ~
y
H 9p qo .ni
Lr JO L.L J
wy1 pi • tl i Y
D D J
W MN <tl y
O WN q W
1
I
rv°
N
.1
P
F
v
O
J
4 m
m~
CW
LN
om
OP
mm
MV
H N
m
N N
P h
11. 1
V- A
D O
m n
..i.
m ~ ° ~ .°.
N
N
I
N
e
N
N
O
N
N
N
v
T
1
F
m
m
i,:
w
m
L
O
O
N
r
n
N
N In
N
N
I N
N
N
m N m
N r N
1 1 1
m n N
o ~O
0 0
P N
N,
1 m P
F
F M
~
y n
~ ~
G w e
4YWVVw
A
O O
s ~ V .1 V O
nynx~
n 8a `o„<
..
SN m MV
h
.~.. Z
N ~ {D ` 4
fi~gg{{
~ ¢ ~ of ~ 4~"JJ U
~~ :hOt Z
~~~~ ~
~~'~~ ~
a
O C
De u°
m ern
IOYC
l.Sa
p^CM
MILL
CO,Y
Lmhf
I II
InI-~n~unl
I~J
___----
~a
~~
°~ ~
~~
tlO
u v
r
r
i"
i~
S
x
W
~~ ~~ ~~
r ~ ~_, (--~, f ° r~--~~ ~--~ .__ r-.--a-.~.-_ Cl~~t ~~^~ '--~. --.
a 0
TABLE ZZ-5
REDHAWIC
TARGET UNITS PER PHASE
Phase I 1,109
Phase ZZ 443
Phase III 1,208
( Phase IV 655
{ Phase V 773
1 Total 4,188
o Standards
- Grading, drainage facilities, water and seder
l O 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 msy 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
1 - 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 10
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 thrcugh directives of the
Director of Building and Siety.
- 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.
O£
v
O ~~
~_
Y~
t
- 49 -
f.~
O ~
a
:.~
~®
V
00
I ~
o
oe
`~0 t..LLC
~p ~.LLd
J
m
07
m
d
~®
O
~ O
r ~n
O~
O ~`
A
S
~.
es
°~ e
® ~
o
b
4J
•~
er
N
a
ro
• z
O~.o F
=~ @
N~~ S
bU¢ U ~ {-~ ~~If ~
~C ~ gg~~~ .
~pQ ~iiti Z
u
s
C < q :r{
~~ O^
O
~n U
C O
QI Z
Z
W
r
a'°
.~
.O
L
X
W
~ A slope stability report shall be submitted
~ faith 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
I utilized in areas which may be graded during
O the rainy months.
vations
l
d
d
d
.
way e
e
roa
an
~ Preliminary pa
- All manufactured slopes exceeding ten (10) feet
in vertical height shall be graded
incorporating the following techniques:
~ Tha angle of the graded slope interfacing a
natural slope shall be gradually adjusted to
the angle of the natural terrain.
`~ fl 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 -
O
J
,~
- Natural features such as specimen trees and O
significant rock outcroppings shall be
shown on final grading plans. ~.
i.
Graded but undeveloped land shall
in a weed-free condition and
planted with interim lsndscap
with other erosion control
approved by the Director of
Safety.
be maintained
shall be
ing or provided
measures as
Building and
Landscaping Plan [~
The Redhawk landscaping plan shall apply to all
landscaped areas within public right-of-way or
landscape maintenance easements.
j
o Description
" 1
Landscaping within the Redhawk project shall be i.1
designed to impart a sense of place through
uniform treatment. General landscape areas ~
include slope planting, landscape buffers, ~
a
parkways, medians and project entries. '
o Standards: fill
l
The following standards shall apply to all .
landscaped areas identified by Exhibit II-13 or 4"
contained within the Redhawk Specific Plan. ~
t
Additional criteria are provided in the
Landscaping Guidelines subsection.
- Community Entities shall reflect the overall `~
theme of the Redhawk project as sat 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. ~_,
`1
- 51 -
O
J
,,
O - Neighborhood entries shall substantially
~ conform to Exhibits ZI-1?A and II-17B.
I
- Parkway and median landscaping shall conform to
Exhibits II-18A and II-138.
~ - Landscape buffers shall conform to planning
area exhibits and Exhibit II-19.
j - Walls and fences abutting collector streets and
larger roadways shall conform to Exhibit II-20.
I
- 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 oz maintenance easements shall be
maintained by County Service Area 143 or other
~ entity as approved by the County Director of
~ Planning.
O - 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.
l O -ss-
1
~J
°~
d
'D
A
O
K
v~
cq';
~_
N
'D
X
V-~ W
°~' d
O7 v
~.
~ o ~
~--+
~ ~ ~ o~ ~~ A~ ® ~~~ ~®
p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
oo
o ~ O d ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ O~
00 ~ L'
~ ~ ~ ~~
I-~ - Roaat/ ~S
~ ~N
5 / e q~e
66
Qo10
\ '- e
j ~ ~
! ro ~
_ O = ~
°C r d
~'
v .~
' x
~ W
~~
V
d
V
d W
(' ~ N
~
~
~ - ~'..
~ ~
... a+ ~
!
L ,`
'
-E
~ ~ r
X
~W
~
: y~
1
® x
W
N
~ ~. /.
~
~ Y
~ 41
~
Y ~
~ , v
L ~
~ v ~~
~
~ ~ ~
V ~
/' V ~`
p i.:e
~ ~ .
~~
b
b
~ O ^~
0
J
~ T."
v
~ rox
W
a~
=~
v
o~
~ 3
J
Q ,.,~
~~
~ ~-
ro ~ +~
o = '¢ :n
~-
~ ~ 41 X
x a.+ W
oD u ~ 41
~. v Y N
`v
U
~ ~
J =^
v¢'~~
N~ W
wry
b~ G1
o. ~,
..
-o ..
ro~
O_
~-
N
~ ~
EL
x
(O W
L
uv
N
W
~;~~
1
___.~
~
X ^O
fi ~
W o P
o ~
] ~ d ~ P
~ Q ~ o n
r~
~ ~ ~
1 v 00 M
~
~ Q~
JJ
CLe
l7 ~ ~ ~
~ o ~ P
V1 ~ ~ O
.x ~
a. o
~~-
•~ ,
~ ®y ~
~r~
~
~'
m ~
~
~ p~,
~~
~
j U
n
v
~~ ~Q
~~ ,;
'' ~J C7
1111
c ~
~ ~ ^,
~
~~
~ ~
~ E'°
®
A
~YJ
~/
om
~ A ~
~ ~ ~ ~
/~
/J ® ~ C~
LCi~/~O
\ U
v
p~
~~JJ
F~ o
"l7 b
Q ~
O o :E
~~ w
~~
a +r
0]~ a1
N
x ~ ..
v
~.+ w ~
c . -~
in y ~ ~ Qu
.Y N Q a
G. v W ~
.
.
v
•~
.
N
•b~ ' 1
V
~y v
,~ 11
i/ v
/ I
~ti '
1.,
_, .
%~N:
`, ._ _
v
(y L
> "
W
_rod
0 0~
~~..
~+
T m
v G.1
im:
Wyo.. ~
" a
/ O
~L
r- c„
r
d N n
v a
~
..
Q
3u~ ~~
~^'y~'/~
L~
.fl
~'
L
X
W
v
..
Q
..
b
W
Y
~.
ro
a
v
ro
A
HJ
orb
L~
d ~
~~
1:~
,~ '-.
ro
7'
4 ~ ~
~e'~'W(]~' «
b~
r
~ K
t W
ro~
1~ a
K
r
i
". _--
l 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
k~ elements shall include berms, ground cover,
shrubs and trees in conjunction with
hardscapinq, meandering sidewalks, benches and
other pedestrian amenities as appropriate and
approved by the County Planning Director.
- Landscaping plans along streets shall
~I incorporate the use of materials identified, in
the Redhawk Landscape Guidelines.
-i - Landscaping plans shall incorporate native
+ and drought tolerant plants wherever feasible.
- The backs and sides of commercial buildings
shall be landscaped to visually shield the
structures from adjoining residential property.
O - All existing trees with a trunk diameter
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.
1 Any trees removed with four (4) inch or larger
=1 trunk diameters shall be replaced as approved
by the Planning Director. Replacement trees
shall be noted on landscaping .plans.
I
- 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 -
I O
@J ~
°~®
GAO
O
P~P O
L~ ~a
V _
a
p
i ~
~ ~
o~ ~ .
d
A ~
fib. ~
~, ~ ~
~a ~ E~
~ q~'
b ' ~ ® i
d ~ ~ ~~;
a ~
® ® I
~ ~ ~I
A
~ -_
oa
d
a<
@~
Ad
!_J
'~ ~
'~~
~ Z
s
~~~ ~ S
p
~
~~. ~ ~
~ wit0~ Z
~¢
__
C ~M V ~
~
`
1"'
E+v
t~
f~
s
° ~ @~ .
~ 17._~_..,,
r R+
~_
a~
o~
~ '
b
~ ~.
o~
OO
1p`~Jp'
V
<~
~ ~
@J
~ ~ ~
® @ ~ ~
e Q
Q
® ~ d
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
b
~ v~+
~ ~~
b ®~
~
s
a ~~
0
00
~~
~~
~®
~a
~
~
00
~q
a o
b
~pp
C~
VN
OA
o~
a
~e
°~
e
qq~i
r9
d
C
O
<.
.®
~~ ~ ~
~. ,-
o~o~ c'3 ~ ~ ~"`n
g
JJ
C
~illt Z
~
~
~ ~ X
~
C
_
~
tae ¢ q
~nU~ z W
b
~a
o~ ~
b ~
®~
~~
•~
~~
~~
ae
d.
%~
v A „~
~ ~~~
~ ~ ~~
~ ® .~.~~~' yN's
o c ~ ~-„
'~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
c
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ® ~ ~
00 ,~, ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ @~
b
s
~d
1
y
'~`b
~,
J
~t
0
Iy 51\
W
d
o~o
lEa
`S~
VN
oa
d
a o_
~+~ r~
(tl
P
~j
1~
~
e~ 1 e~ T e~
e~
O
1,~1,,
.P~aJ
G J
~'
~ p~
I`""'I
~a
x
w
~~ E
® ~
~ Wpa
~!n
r~r ,
CPPS
L~
~'
~~
g
~9 I
• ~ ~
i
o
~.
1
Y ~
..
f
~'"
~ •~~ ~ l
~ CJ o
~ r
'"
~ ~ ~
H
~ ~` -
~ ~
b
D~ c'~ g ~J
` g
fl
i ~
L
~
• ~
J
~;trii z W
~
~
o ~ ~~--
.°.'
~~ z
~
b
i~
goo
,®
d
~I
~n1~n~
u
°~ e
~®
c°
a
P~
l~ ~~~qq
C~
g ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
o® ~.~
®b ~.~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~. o0
0
~ o ~
ac c
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@~ ~r L2 °~ `~ °
~ ® ~ ~, ~ ~;
d ® ~ ~ ~ L-
® ~' ~ ~ _
~ ~ ~ ~~'
~ ~
~_ ~
~~
h
,.
d
~f
~ ~
d
~
~ ~
~
~
~~
?j
V
,
r
~ ~-
~ ~
o ~
~
~
e
~
~
b' ;i~
~
~I
,
~e ~~ ~ - a®~ _..
~~
_®~ aka. ~
-~ q ------~,
~'
e~~ e~~ ~
~ .
~ .
i~
® ®
.
~ ~
~Q~
o ~
a,
A
ak,
d
d
R1
.a+
a~
en
.~
~
~
°~ ;~_
~~
~ ~
.c~+ ~
~ ~
.k ~
~ ~
~~ ~
~
~
~
°~ °~
~
d ~ ~
,~ ~ a
~ ~ ~,
A
~
~ ~ ~
~ 9 ~ ~~''
.~, ~
a,
~.
,V.~ ~
y
0
m
1.
Q d .n
`~ t-
~ ~
~ a
c~ ~ ~ ~°~tl
bD~ $ -o
~Inl
33
,.
ro Z Y,
W
~~c Z
v
9
oR,
y.a
.~
9
C
~ ~
~ °~ E
~ ~~
'~
~~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~~~
~a
b
~~
00 ~
~~
a~
a
~~
~~
bQF~
°~ ~
Q °~
b g„°
a
h
0 ~
Zi ~ .~... r, o ~
® ~J
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ r-
® ~/° 4''y- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .`,~. a C~ L
y
P~ o ~ ~ ~
go ~ ~ ~
o ~ `~
o~.~ ® ~ ~
~~~~~
~.
o~ o
~® ~ ~
~® ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ P ~ ~/ ,P o0
o~o
~ ~ .~
~..
0 ~
~ ~
C .. IV_' r/~ C/
~ ~' P ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ - - ~
~ o00 ~ ~ ~ ~
.o
b ~ ~ ~ g ~ g d ~ °~
b~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ o d o ~ ~ ~
~ ®~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 3 ~ b ~ ~
~~
~ ~
d~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~f ~
00
Il ~ ~ i
P I ~
~ i---o
I ~ ~ ..
_ P _
~' 00
I ~ P
~~ \~ ~~
~~
~ ~ ~ '~
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
°~
® ~ ~ `~
~ ~
~ ~ ®~
~ ~~ ~
® ~ ~
~ ~ oo ~ ~ o
~ o~ ~~~a ~
~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~
o~ oo ~
~~~~~~~~
~~
~~
o~
~~
®~
~a
°~
f
~~
®®
~~
~~
~~
o~
C-b ~'
d
1' ~
oA
00 ~
a~
~ ~,
~~
~~
o~
o ~~
r~
!.l ~
m
o~
'-
i.
v
c
0
h
~„
.,
®d N~
N
. ,,~ddd
c< A~
~~ v~
s
,~~o
~11
rii~~i z
I ~
od ~
~~
~~
~~
.~
~~
~~
~~
c~ ~
~i
D
~~
.O
L
x
w
~'`
ro ~
0 q0
C=': ~ qq~qq
~~ t~
d
ao
~~]
~'
~ ~
~~
d
~~
b ~
®~
®/`'
~V
00
~ ~
~ ~
d
~~
P
e~
kiN
00
~ ~
d
~~
d
® ~
b ~ ~+
~ ~ ~
~ . ~
~ ~
NI I
d ~ !rl
~ ~
I
k
d 4
I
~ ~ b~
@~ ~ ®°~ ~
°° ®~~ ~
~~ ~ I
c o
® ~ ~~
o~
(.q~ 0 A
W ~
o~ d i
®a
H
.~
~
Z
• ~
m
a0 ® o' N
~ ~ N ~
o`
~ ~ ~O
y 4p
~ ~
~ !i u :n
e ~
• ~ z s
~~
~ ~
_
~Q x
W
~ q
~ ,~ v
~
z
~
~
~ ~
b
pn~
u
a~
® @~
00
<~
G/
~~"
qh~~
CJ
o
oq
~~ d
~ ~
~
~
O°
~p
b
®
~ ® O
~
~
~ ~ liOJ
~o~
d
`~
00 o ~
~ o "~
~~jj ~
c~ ®~ o$
~ ®
C=
O q ~ O
~ ® p
® kY
~ ® GJ
\ `~ VOi/
~ ~
G tl0
0 Q
/ ~/
~ ~~
jj L~A
~~
~C/J r® GJ ~ ®
q ~
lY M Co ® ~ ~ C
~y ~ 'ACS ~~`a
®
~
C ~ c7
® C~ e1 ® r~ ~ b
~ a~ ~~ ~~
0
~~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~
U
0
N
m
m
n
d
C
Vf
~41p~ ~ O O
C
Vyl ~
~
~ ~ V
j
qQ
~U~ _~
u a+
Td
C
•
~ y!
Y c
7
Z .C
X
~
~
••L yy~~
W W
~e7U~
r~
C~
~? °~ ~
® ~H
,~
I..J
I
i
the responsibilities of other parties as
approved by the Director of Building and
i 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
I 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
The project is located in the Palomar Observatory
Special Lighting Area. Because traditional
O outdoor lighting systems interfere with
observatory operations, low sodium street and
safety lighting is required for proposed develop-
ments within the area.
V o Standards
Y The following standards shall apply to all housing
tracts, commercial developments and parking areas
i and recreational structures within the specific
plan area:
:a
'I - All street lighting within the project area
shall utilize low sodium lights.
j - Parking lot safety lighting shall utilize low
sodium lights.
j - Other safety lighting systems located within
{ the plan area should also utilize low sodium
lights and shielding.
O - 54 -
2.
Planning Areas ,~
O ~.
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.q. neighborhood entries, etc.) are
general. Final locations will vary based upon planning
and engineering constraints and opportunities.
_ ~~
O~
e~
- 55 - ~~
O .-
~.1
O
l
O
O
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 1 consists of 42.2 acres with a density range
of 2.0 - 5.0 DII per acre and a maximum unit count
of 168. 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 projactboundary.
b. Land Use and Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
~ Neighborhood entry .from Wolf Valley Road
+~ 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
P~
og
t~
O
~ ~.
.
®
~ _
ape
~ o
c~ ®
~ e~ e.
~ ~ ~ ~ d
eo ~ ~ ® p
~ ® ~ ~
~d
~
~ /
//
~
Fa
~
~
a
NJ ~ o
s°
®
Q~L'7 ~ OLqq]
p
cb e~
b . ea O
~ r~a
~
~~ ~~
~ ~.
~
e~ ~
~~ , F
,,-,
c:.~,
. ~\; f:
O ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~; I )
i i
;~ /
~!!~ ~ ~ \~ , l CI
@ ~®
~ ~ ~ ~
® e oo ® P Q
~
® G
L1 ~
eG ee
0
0
~ ® ~i'
(~ ~_
oN) o °o
~ ~ ~ ~
6
.~ ; ~ o
r N
~
H
~
~ K
~
c'3 ~ ~1
, °~ S
~
U
-°
t
~ Z X
~ W
•~ N ~ a
~
M ~~ (
~
~ W
b
T ' 7'
~ ~
1( j:
\~ e~~
~ ~1 ~J'~ /~ ~ ~ eo
, ._ D _.__ ~. ~
... ~- ~ ~'
B
X11 i
1 ~/
(~
t - °' 6
~, %~
'' " r~ I' d
~ ,~f t`':!. " ~ ELI °
~ IJ
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~/jr i i i~~
~ / ~r,..
~~: , ~ ~~~ III a ,: ~,
~- I _.
I
';.. ~. JC3 / ...
r t
I~~l'+[ 1~ . ~ I ~ I ~ ~ „ ..
f ` icy - f ~` ` ~/~ ~~ ')y ~ /L...... ~~ ~• ` !
.'
,~ i r:rn•f• f/ ~ 6~a ~ b
.. ~ \ c ~ t r ° ii c
H k ~ Ij i y ,>~ Yr al: .. ~ ~ ° ~p o a.
f ~ + cc) r + Orr. ~~;jr `~ ~ ~ ~ !~ c
c.
~ ~ '. ~
~ d
~~ ~
® ~
G7
e
p~
L`~-.l
~^(^ ~
U
o
e~ ec
d~ ~~
~ ~ B
~f ~ ~ E~
~~d
c~
~~
i
O
I
i
I O
i
l
I
~I O
I
J
* Identity node design, sae 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.
57 -
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
Ares 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 oP the planning area is bisected
by potential School Site "C" and Park "B".
b. Land Use Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
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
Fairvier~ Avenue
* Medium-low Density Housing types, see Exhibit
II-5.
~ Landscape detail, see details.
- 58 -
Q
{'
n.
s
O
s:
s
i
r
3
;.
O
t
~~~ ~
I 'a_ y
~j °~
\ ~ ~ d ® p C u
s .2® d ~C ~ ~ dui!! b x
w
~ --
P ~ ®@.~ QJ n V ~ ~
1,~ ((~~ d
p'~,(~ 6 ~ ` q6~1 00 ~ P
,' u/ ~ s `l7H ~ p ~e`~
o .o.d-(~u M. @~ ~, .
`~
o S ,~ `
o- . ~, ~ u~
\,. I UPI \ ~!. l ~'•~ (~i I...I ;j,~ ~ \ ~ ~'
`~
~ 1. ~'' . is ~xp~ i( Q ~ ~ t91 ® ~
° ~
® ~~ .. ~ l : ' JIB Il , Y~ ` Y• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® gp!
'~ii ~ o0 0 ~ 0 ® ~ M ~ e/
r r
rf ~®
\
~ ~ , ,y,~ t tll I l ,,
.,
~ ~,; ~: ~\ ~. ~ ~'' _.11,1 1 ;_: .. q ~ ~
Lei ~. t ~ 11' '~'~ 1 '? ~~ ~ `~' ~ ~
, ~
.• '. ~ tl 1'•11 I~ !l'a 1 ~;~~` .( ,
u ~\ \ ~ ~6f )~x'Y ~)~~'~~~il~'111 ~~. ~ 11 ~-1 ` ~\~, `~
-1 r~
®° :. I ~ ~. ('~ 11 ~ 11 (1~~~ S~ iL O f.1(~ i °® ~
` LYE ~ CJ' ~1 ,."(~~Y( ? §Y!`~ ~II ~ ~.~`~ I, ~ ~ ~~~ J~~' ~ ~\... ~, L~
_,
~'~~--1-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l\ (1"~r~~ `I t/11 ~1 (...1 •~,~~ I~,.ll 1,1,. 1\, lal _~`, ,~ ~ •,'~.I~t i., •`^~
@~ Q~ ~~1 .~ ado ®o ~ ~~ ~ J . 1'i ~S.Z, ~ 1 f~ 1L :~'•~l ~ •l \\", 1\ ` \i\ ae: -'
~ eza oo ~ ® ~ I' `1'l'\ ~I~ f\~l I 4t~.J_U~C~1S \ S'•,~ l11 ` \5 ~ ® .
C~ ' 9
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® b~~~ ~ Y; r' i , I ~ 1~, fax _~ ~ : ~.
~ -,
.,
x4 '~~ .. ,,!.
® ~ d ;r E I ~Xb '' ~I~ ~..- FBI _ .. •j
'''. .~ III I' :~(~ d
,~ ~ B
~ ~
~ .
~. O
i
1
I O
O
i
* Neighborhood entry design, see details.
* Identity node design, see details.
* Class ZZ 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-pride.
* 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.
- 59 -
3) PlanningT 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 DII 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 Standards:
Refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained herein.
c. Planning Standards:
* Abutts club house and golf course f~
* Neighborhood entries at two points off of Wolf
Valley Loop
* Landscapes slopes and go1P course buffer along
the golf course and clubhouse
* Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop ___
* Identity node at the intersection of Wolf ~,9
valley Loop and wolf Valley Connector
* Medium-low Density Housing types, see Exhibit
~~
II-5.
3=~
* Landscape detail, see details.
* Neighborhood entry design, see details.
* Identity node design, see details. ~~
* Class II Bike Trail design, see details. ~~
.~
..
- 60 -
O ~~
~~
o~
qO
h
® ~ "~
d ~ ~
® ~ f;9
o~ ~ oo
e ~ d ~
® ~
® Q
~ ~ ~ ® ~
~
Ei'I ° ° ~ c~ 0 ® ~
b
°
° °~ can o~
o ~
y
V1 ~ o
~ ~ ~I ~ ~
~ p
®
® a
~G
~~
J
~U
I ~~.:
~C.]
V
~ ~
~~--~_
~ ~ °°
rj {~
~~ W
((®q ~
C9 ~~ ~
~~~
~~
~ r-.
d
d
~~
"~>
d
~®
O
O
c~
O
Y-%.~:
0
o ~
o'er g
o ~ ~~
r"
~ ~ ~ ~°
~~~o
~~~
N~~
c¢`~~
~ a ;,
~~~~
b
b
p® ~a
C~J ^_•
q®q ~
eGL
~yqq qqC~~
k/W !7
'o°A~jJ7
CGe ~
~~
~~
®°
~~
o~
(~ O
~+~ ,air
z
0 0~
oc~
u
~pU®
~J
l
~~
a~~
~,
~~~
~®~
e~
C~
1 O * Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development
l 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.
~j * Please refer to Section II.B.3.; Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
O
' O - 61 -
1
O
4) Planning Area 4:
a. Description:
Planning Area 4 is proposed for medium-iow 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.o 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 r'
golf course and surrounded by medium-low density
neighborhoods
b) Land Use and Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
c) Planning Standards:
* Landscaped slopes as a golf course buffer
abutting golf course O
* 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
x
* 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
z
*
Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit ~'
II-5 xY
* Landscape detail, see details
- 62 - O >
~J
~r
1
ii ~ '~- ~ s
I~r a •®d'O ~
~~ y~~ @ S
~~i o
~ N a 11\\ 2 ~ ®e °° ® F~'i o ~~~ ~ ~~ v
~ H d ~ @J M ~~ ~.~d z
~~,_~- O dq pp
~ s ~ 0 ~ ~ ~' ~ •C Q ~ uai
~ ~ oo ~ 00
® ~ ~
s,' a
~ ~ ® ~ ~ o ~ ~
PP~ o .--ti~ ~ a
p R ~ 9 M ~ ~ ® ~,] p ® CSe
O N~` y~ ° P p p pq ~ ~ v' q' p
T ~ v. <Y
_ ~~ r r U b ~ $ (~~ P~
® ® ~r'
r
~ ~
p~ \ f o
®. ~ ~' ~ ~ by ~ ~
~ ~ vim- ~ ~~ ^ d ~
t, ®`~' ,o
P ~~°° ~
~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~
® ~ OA ~ c~ O
a ~`i ..
\,
•. ~,~. ~.
1,
: ~
\ --~ , ~
,•_.. _ I C
rr~~ ~ > , ~;
/~~J` .... U II
... V O • l~ 1 ,ti
it ~ %Xl ~~ , ~ ~ \\ ~~~% ~ t .~ /i j/~ / , ! ~ i®
'~ ~:
~~
i !+ ~ / Y l -
(( ~-
1 _~ 1
~\ 1 ^' ILL.
~j ~r. ~•` I ~l ~~~(I~ 1~\ .\ ~ ~, i` ' IMw1hm ~+ ( ,~ ~~! '~y'\ h \,`~ ~ \ ~ f~ \,~,` 15
~ ~// ~~ li,~, '~~ - ! ~''~ It} .~~ 'TY,'t( ~I~ .ate \ \Y\, II ~ ~J ~ d
,.
0
.e .e _- o :. a-
~ a~
i~ \ 0
4fl ~ ,.mot e®
_s-~:
~ ~~ ~ ~~
~ ® b ~ ~ ~
~~~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~'~
~ ~ ~~
o ~
~~ °®
0
i
O
1
YS.O
,I
* 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.
- 63 -
h
5J
s
Plannino Area 5• '`
O
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 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
* Neighborhood entries along Fairview Avenue
* Identity node at the intersection of Fairview
Avenue and wolf Valley Connector
* A land use buffer and landscaped slopes /\/~J}
abutting the Pechanga Reservation v
* 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.
- 64 -
O -< ~
-~ .
o~
qoQ ~
f~""
R
~A-1
~~
i~ ~
p
2® ~
E~
® ~
~ o o P
`c/~
\ ~ qqq~
Vef (~/
~
® pp
~~JJ
i~r•J
0 0
~ c.! ~ ~ ~
P
~
~ ~
flFj ~
~ NH ® Z'~
~ n
o
~
P
~
o
u~
P
~.
'/ ~ ... r ~
ii o
S~ ~ ~ •
0~
~ ~ ~1Y o O
00 '~ ~
~ ° ~ ;~l//1. o 00
~~~111 ~ °, ~ \\ , p
b~ ~+
o ~ ,~c
~ a ~ ;;
e~o7 O
a7L~' Q
A
o
O Q
O
a
oo
0 ice` ~ ~
1. _ V ~~c
~ ~ `%. :i
";` ~>. ~ t
` ~.
~ ~.~
1 A• ~ W
`^]`•
~ 4~(
,;
0 '~
. ^ ' r, '
r g~ ~
~ ~ ,~
•
/
~d o~ c~
~g®~
~o n !
~
~~ O ~ ~O (S. )t,.(t t,
~
~.~ :~j o ^ ~ ~'
o
~~ ._ . .
~
~
o
Ua _, n.~
A
~~.
n
00
~ ~
`~
® ~
o ~
eo
qop
t
t ~
i
4 - ~... , ,
~ j a..,~L:a..»
J ~,
~•.
•~
r, S
~,
~: i-: ~
t +
~ ~.
~:: •••'r.•.
4+
~ ~
y~
7
~.
r~r~{.fir r '"S~
~,
eo
P' ,ti .'~ ~
~ • ~ `•
P
~~
e ~
00
2
®
. 1
~ F
Z
~~
y=~ ~
@
q
o eDa c~ ~
° ~
~ 1!'i31 0
°e
~
~ ~.
•
~
~ ,1
~li~ Z
~
`
~
a~ ¢ q
~~
W
G~M ~
(z
W
O b
b
o~
Om.
o~o
$a
~~
~ ~
~ v
~ ~
~~
P
a
®~
~~
ec 0
o
o0
Pd
c~ g
~ ~
®~
~ ~
~ ~
~~
~~
o~
~i ~ ~
~~
~ ~
e~
~.MC~
IJ
,~
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.
2:j
o
~~
J
- 65 -
6) Planning Area 6•
a. Description:
Planning Area 6 is proposed for medium density
residential uses which include single-family
residential and estate lot developments. Planning
Area 6 consists of 93.1 acres with a density range
of 5.0 - 8.0 DU per acre; a dwelling unit range of
466 - 745 and a maximum unit count of 514.
Planning Area 6 backs onto wolf Valley Loop with
Parcels "A" and "B" and "D" focused on the golf
course. Parcels "B" and "C" back onto open space
areas. Parcel "B" abutts Planning Area 21, a
medium-high density area.
b. Land Use and Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 included herein.
c. Planning Standards:
* Parcel "A" is bordered on all sides by the golf
course and driving range
* Landscaped slopes as a golf course buffer
buffer along the golf course
* Equestrian Trail along E1 Chamisal wash
* Access to Parcel "A" is through Parcel "B" with
secondary access through the adjacent property
to the north
* Access to Parcel "B" is via access points along
Wolf Valley Loop
* Parcel "C" takes access off of Wolf Valley. Loop
and E1 Chamisal Road
* The majority of existing slopes abutting the
neighboring properties will remain as open
space
O ~._
s
~.
r
~3
- 66 -
a
O
`/
f~
0 PPO
t~
P
~ ~ ® ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ao
e~®~~~<`~,®
0
oo ® ~ ~ '~
npaq0 ov c~+S v~
(~ o o+! ~ VI ~ [~
~® ® a~
~ ~
~_ ~
~ ~
vo 0
t9f
0
e~
~ b
~
i5
Z~
(~
° °
d (~
A ov
15
d ~
b ~
~ ® ~
~
~ g ~ e
~
.
~ H ~ ~
® ~ (~y
~ ~
_
® ~ ~ /.
G
aw
~`- 1 ` ~O/
ov
~~
~ ~
®a~~ o
o ~ o0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~~
E~ @~
f9f ~ f~
A
~®~ .~
~ @ ~
o
OA ®®
I~
`~
®~ o0
~
~
~ ®d d
~ ~ ~ e P C
® ~ ~ ~ ~7 .
~ ems
~ ~
f= e .
~
®a ~ ~
~ ~a~ ~ -
~
~
~ .~ ~ ~
i
P Od ~,ti
~;
~ ~. 0 C~
00
`
i ~ ~ ~
ov
,; ~; ' ~
r / ~ /
' ~ / ~ ~9 i
(~ i ~- ~
C~ _ ~ •.
~~ ~ ~J~~ i ~ :.;
~ `~ ~ ~ i
,.. ~ l
~~
C/ / . , ~.
i U ~`
i ~ :)
~ ~.:.1•; i;: ;
'C A' ~ . n... ;.. ii.
v ~ ^ i
,~ ~~~
:~
~~~
~,-
r` /
~' ~ i/' . !
~/
:.
- .:~
>, - :::>;
~. ~ 0
' ~~'' Q `,
I i i •\`~\`~`~.f r C~,i'~Q~°~~~ Imo'"
_ i
~OrJ r-+
~ ~
~~ ® ~ ~
_~ (~ ~ d /_`, P
~.
~~
1,
1
1
,,~
fi:
I
„t. I
:i? I
~' I
.. _ 1
/
~,
/ A
i~
1 `
~ I
ill
II
II
i.
+d
~ ~_,~~
/ .~ .
~/~ry~/ /
'~
'
~ Z
~
d
~. o
.L" ~ 'Sn
5
~
~
~
~ g
qq gg
_
~
_ ~ ~ vSS
~ `Miut Z
~
P
L Q A yay]]
L{I
b ~ `g ~ z
~i7U~ V
.~
a
~ `~+ ~
t~ `t' tdI
~ ~~
A ~ ov
d ~
3 0
~~ ~
<~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
C~ ^
~ o
oo
® ~ ~
® ~
g
b ~
~ ~s
ov
r
I ~ ,,.
_il ~~~
b
F~
(~
~ ~~
o ~
15 ~ ® o0
~ ~~~°
®
~ ~ ~~
o ~ ~
~ d ®d
i~
o c~
.~
>~n
~/
~ ~
~ ~
~ b
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,,®
~ ~J
® ov
~1 _
W
°~~
o ~
~ ~
1
rr I I
I ~
ll
i I
it
I
II
it
II
I ~:.
II
11
.I ~
~- ~
1~
~ ~ I
~e B ~
b~
0 ~
~
d
~ ~' d ~ 0 ~ o
0
0 YJ ! ~ A
~
~-'J
p
OV-- •-~ d
~
i
!
o ~
~ ~
~ ~ {
!
~
~
~
g ~ ~
o ~ ~
E
~
~ ~ ~
e
o
~~ ~
d
d
a L~-~-!
a. .,: ,
~~~~ ~~~
Fi t A~F
~~~,s ! 1
r :r , ,~ j ~ ~.,1, ,
~ ~~~\~~
~,, ~.`. ~
r'+`
'~~~ ," l i ~',
k
'i\ ~~. ~
~ .. - - ~ 1. ~,, ~, , ~~,.
r
1
1
1
LL
1~
*.
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
I
*
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.i., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping standards that
apply project-wide.
j
O - 67 -
t
O~.
7) Plannino 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:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
s
* 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" O
* Buffered from School Site "A" by, a 66'
collector street
a
* 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
t-:~
- 68 - ~~
O v
3~
:~
o~
b
rd
C_7
e~
~.
b
eq
t,
+, ...
a
r
r
® ~
d
~•~r ,
~,
ems,
® ~.
~~
0
~
~
b ,
ooh
~ ~ ~ ~ ® P
~ o o ~ ~ p
q
<N y \ p
p ~ i
G ~ ~ s
y
wf
~~ a d
oo ® ~ ~ ®
O
~
® ~
00 ~
III
II
~
pA
~.~J
p A' ® q'
~ ~ qo
~+! °p~
db P (
~
W
_^
0
Cf
q
~
~ Qa ~ o o a ~
®
l~
~~ ~
OA ® off
O (®
~ Sq
00
~
!7 O
~ l~
~ A ~
C®0 $
® ~
~ 7p~~
~
\
s L
2®
O
ro
.~
d C
~ ~ ~D
.~
~Q A~
~~ w
~if7 V~
^~
r
oq~
C f-i
o0
eo
'~'
aP~
GV
~~
~~
~~
d
d
~ ~
d ~
~°
C
w~ z
Z
z
m
~? °~ ~
~ ~ ~°
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
o ~
0
~ ~e
~~
~~~
n
N
L. ~ ~.
,?~
O
~"
,~
I'
O
* 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-amide.
* Please refer to Section II.B.1.1., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping .standards that
apply project-aide.
* Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-amide.
- 69 -
8) Planning Area 8:
O '
a. Description:
Planning Area 8 is proposed for medium-low density
residential uses which include single-family '•$
residential and estate lot development.
• Planning Area 8 includes 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 count of 120.
Planning Area 8 neighborhoods will focus- on the
golf course and clubhouse. The area backs onto
Wolf Valley Loop, with access from Wolf Valley
Loop and a 66' collector street which will also ~-
serve Planning Area 11 and the clubhouse.
b. Land Use and Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein. ~ ~~~
c. Planning Standards:
fr Landscaped slopes along Wolf Valley Loop .1
* Landscaped slopes as a golf course buffer on
the golf course. ~~
* Neighborhood entry from Wolf Valley Loop and r,
~
collector road. ~
;
* Identity node at the intersection of Wolf
Valley Loop and wolf Valley Road. °
~,
* Class II Bike Trail along Wolf Valley Loop.
* Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit ,
II-5
* Landscape detail, see detail a
* Neighborhood entry design, see detail
* Identity node design, see details
* Class II Bike Trail design, see detail f_~
~~
- 70 - O
!~
€ ~
Q~ ~ ~ ` ~
~l r , ~ ~ i0
"' ~ ~ 2® ~
5 ° ~ ~
~ ~
s 1
i V~ s
cP ° -~ ~ ~ r
t= /o v N
~ P
s
~ ~~ r^~'
~Q
P e ~
P ov
~ ~ ~
.Ik
i,
Q\.
b
d
o~
A
® b
e
~ ~
~~
~@®
~ ~
~®
®
e ~ ® P ~
d
0 \ ~ ~' ~ M
e
5 ~ ~
® ~
® q eo
~
~ b
P
t9f
O
® p ~ ~
® [~
~
~ e~
c'
~
~
e o
~ o
a
~ a
Q
H
f~ y ~
~ ~ N ~`J~J K
q
b0¢ cZ ~ ,
q
I
i1
0
U
~.~
~~ ~
ca tII
~rirtii Z
„ ~
~MC)~, Z
3
u
~
b
0
b ~
o f-i
~ ~
~y Q A~ Ai ~ eo
[~ <Y C!
~~ ~o
® ~~ a
®m ~~~ ~ eo
o~ ~ ~ ~ ov
o
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o~ ~ ~ ~
cn Fi o ® ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
0
~~
l ~
j \r
..v~ ~ ~: ,..,
` ,
~ ~ ~~
s \ -~~~~
V- .~ /
' ,.
.::: .
o~ ~''+
..;.
:. • :.r
• }i i
~ i y ~, ~
1 ,, :z
1' ~ ,Q ~
~"'' , , ~ i/ ~~:4 ~ 1 'f,(i-~-,~ ',' ~~1 may- oo~ ~ e
~ .._..
`1)f I~i
f
'~-1/ ./ ~' ~~
~,
~(. Q., _,. `Y
. ~~. -
~ n J .
: "O O it;;
' 1, ~ /,.: ' :''~~~ i ~ , f.. 'l ~
``mac J l r' ~~,•:,.. ~ ®~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ® ~
d ~ ° ~ $ ~ °~
®®~ ~ ® ~ ~~
~\ ~
u
~i
O
O
O
O
O
:. ,
o P ~pq
~7
C7
~ f'Pgp}
tl
~~
~S ~
a
1
O
O
I O
J
* Please refer to Section IZ.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.
- 71 -
9)
Planning Area 9•
O +
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 - t~.
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. Planning Standards:
+~ Restricted access to Pechanga Road
+~ 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 O
road
++ Medium density housing types, see Exhibit II-5
* Landscape detail, see details `.
+~ Neighborhood entry design, see details
z.:
~:
s~,
- 72 O Y
i3
.1
O 10) PlanningT 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 l0 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
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 containEd
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
t.
* Community entry at the intersection of
Margarita Road and Wolf Valley Loop
O * 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 -
~~~++
0 0
00
b
e~ ~
~!
~~ ~ o
e~ ~ z
.~
.1
~ , ;, ~~~:
~~ \ ' ~ ;~,
®~
~ o
~a °
00 0
~~
vo
~~
~ ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
r '
M
oo
®
P
~
e ~ 00
\ A4~ ~
A 4(~
~~
qq
WII
® ~ ® ~ P
°
~
~
~
~ ~
~
o
00 0 ~
~ 0 ® y®7
LG.
°~° ° ° ®
o
~ va ~ ~
b @~ ~ P ~ ~
.~
d
as °'
`~ ~ ~
~o ~
~
~~
°~ ~ ~
~~~ ,
~,
<~
.~
~ ~
d ~
~ ~
oA
~ ~
~~
\ o
°® ® a
®~
~~~
'~~@
~ ~~
~ o~ ~
~ ~®
~ t2 ~
~ ~
~ ~
~.o~
.~ i
\ e..
~ t, "'~
., , ~
I ~A
00
~
A
P
~
® ~
~
~
v ~ °
°
,' /; .,
~ ~ % ~ ,'
/ / ~
~ ~ ~ ,:
~ ~ ~ `~ „•
~ ~ ~
/ °
"' ~ ~ ~
/ /
~ / ~ /:
( 1 /~ ~ /
~` ~ ~ /.
1 ~~ ~
!-' ~ /• _ /
~~
.,
~®
O
M
O
o®
d
d
® f~
~~
~~eqq ~
C~
~~ ~
~~
~ ~ ~
h
~~
•~K
®~~
~dd
~U~
~¢~j~
~e f7 (~ `~
b
`/
O
V
°~: i1' V
~nlt T~
W
e~
6
~ °~ ~
~ ~ ,~
~ ~~
~ ~~
,.
,/ b
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~,`
`~' ~ ®
~
~
00
~
~ B ~
~
~~
.~
~® o0
~
P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`~
~, `~ ® e ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
~
Q
n
1
~~
o~
~Q-~
~'">
N
e~
~'
~ ~
~! ~ .
~ ~
a qca
vii
~~
~ V~
~ o
°~
.o
®~~,
~~
~~¢
~ ~~
~eO®
g ~ qq®~~
eo l~
ed
b
~ ~
e
~
~
u~ ® ~
~~ ~ ~
~ o <~
~~ ~ ~
~ .~
. ~~
,~
~,
~,
®
°
~
ao
~
~
qCP
~
~
A
OA
~ r '
M ~
°~1
®d
®
~
u
®
~
oo
~pj~
~y
,~H
~
~
~
~]
~
P
~
nu
qWp,
P
®
~ q~
W !
~
~
®
~
P
00
+°~~
C7
o
~
~
®^ @J
~ ~
eo
~d
~~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~
~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~, ~ ~ o ~
~~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~
~~ g ~ ,q
~~ ~
~,
..
' .,
( ~ ,
~.
~ / l / ;
` ~ ~ U
'.~ 1 J / ~
~ ~ ~ i ,~
~ r ~ ~ ~ 'G
~ , ~ / ~
~~
_ ~ ~
~`` ~~ ~
b eo
~ ~ 1
~ /,t
e ~ ® , ~ >,-
~ ~`~ ~~~~
,.
00.'
P
0
P~ ~
00
~.®
,.~
/®
~ ~
a
p__.,
Y"' d
2~
O
O
e~
d
® ~
® ~
~~
i ~~ ~
Hf
@®~
~ e
~ ~ ®®
~! y t~
b
~~
Op
~ ~
~~
~.. Z
~d~ ~ ~
Q
H n
~~ ~ p
°i ~
~ C
V
~ .C
{
C `';ui~ Z
•m~ r
LL
~e Q N
n ~
~
~
~
~
~
A
°~ ~
e~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
--_. ..__ ._.-,, .--. w-., .- -... .--_. .---. ..-_.. ,---.. f'""', ~."°"'R o/.°`A F'i„'R A!^~'+1 i"~"':4~ tiff
't"" ~ ~ ~ ~
`v.
b
o~
O
A
Z
~5
%-?~ 1=
N
~~
im
e®
P
d
a~
po
0
a°
~~/J a qc
O '~S p
o
~~
~a
~
~®
00
®
P ~
d r '
~ ~ ~
~
o ~Q ® u~ .
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
e ® ~ ®
~ ~
o ~ _
® qq
Ga pqq
p
u+~ _
o ® ~'
~
V V C C U ~ F/4/ O
b ~ ~ ~ ~
®
® `
t'~', p
j
~
~
~`pp
~~~n
II
p
OCO Y
0 O
o
ao ~~
~~
~ ~ p~ ~
~ ~ ~
p ~
® ~
~.
`~
~~ ~
d
~~
® ~
~ ~
q~
Cy
~'
•~ ;
y
~~~
~~~~
~,n~~
eCe
a
p~
P ~u ~
P
~ ~
~ °° ~
e ~
~'
;~
d
~i'
~~
d
d
B ~
!~
d
® P
q~
ppL-'-~
b
~^~
~ °~ ~
~ ~ ~°
~ ~~
~~~
n~ ~
H ~
~~ U
~ z
W
11 O
)~
~O
~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
aPP1Y Project-wide.
* Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
_ 74 _
11) Planning Area 11:
O ~.
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 DO 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.
a. Land IIse and Development Standards:
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 r
* Identity node design, sea details
* Equestrian trail design, see details
- 75 - O
~...
~a
P
Fwd
0 0
qq~
C_7
d
e
~~
~~
P
~
~
o ~
00 C d
a a
~
~ ~
_
~ `~ ~
d
"~ ~
~ ~
® P
~ I
~
\~°
®~
~~~~
~ ec
~~ .~
t91 ~
~ ® @~
d (.~ c~
_ ~s
'~
~ ~ °~
`~ ~
a,
v
6
,,~
o~
®~
® d
F' Foy ,~
p o0
~`e~ ~
~ ['):
60~
o kio4f ~ \
g \
~
~ ~ ® P
~
®
~ eo
~
~ ~
r'
M o
~ ® ~ oo
r
!i ~ oho ® ~ ~+
@a P 6 ~
0 °
~
d P
®
~
P @~
P A oc
0 0 `~ ~
00 o ~
~ e'
~~
~ ~
o ~~
o
~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~~~.
g e
b
® ~
~ Leo
e~a ~
~ ~ `~
~®
0
M
O
eoo
~' ~
a
d
0
o~o
o
u
z
I~I
~ ~~ ~
~~.
~ ~.
~.
Vl
~~
~~ ~
® y ~O
y~r'~
c~~
C
•~ ~~?
~~ ~~
e8°e
k'
~'
u
---~. r.^--- r-- - ---- --- ,-:=~; ~'-1 Gam-, r-~ r-?, ~-^-^, r-a
~O
i.
+~ 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 projecC-wide.
O
i~
i
- 76 -
12. Planning Area 12: O '
~ a. Description:
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
range oP 162 - 283 and a maximum unit count
unit ?~
:~
.
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
Avenue and collector street -
e Neighborhood entries from 66' collector street
~ Buffered from Planning Areas 9 and 16 by 66'
collector street
++ Class ZI 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 E~
~ Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development
Plans and Standards; for further land use
standards that apply project-wide.
- 77 - '~~
~~
O
.
,
~~
P
o~
C~
._...
~ r' %~
~`.... r.
....... .
~ °° ~
P g
~~
0
d
b
'S'-'
~ , "~~ ~ ~ ,
...
...
~ ~ .. .. ~-
. ,.
,:.-
~9 ~~~~
~~8aq ~ ~ _.
tY ,/-;.;..,
),,~ d3 r
_. o~ ,:
... „
d
~~
~~
e~
g ~ ~
\
~ °~
~ ® ~ ~
r '
' ~^ °'
~
M oo ® ~ ~ oo
e ~ P ~ ~
~
o ~ 0 ~ ~ o
q ~
A
• V o o ® app~~
l
FfN
GJ p
p
V ~I
~ q ® °~
~
o~ ~ ~ P ~ L2
~ ~ ~ ~
® ® ~ QQ
~G
® ~
® o0
00
tqo ~~]
A v
e5
°~
~~
~~-
~.
~I
1
~®
0
0
O
~~
~) ~ ~ ~
~,~~
:~~
~ ~~
~~ ,~^
.- ~ o
0 0
0
o \ -ddd
0
~~ ~
~~ `,
~° ~ ,
,d
o ~ o ec
eo 0 0 ',~~i ~~ ~ )
b o p~ ~ P o ,~ ~
O ,~ o
o ~ o ~ P~'~
i ~} ,~
`~..
~'
r
'~
(;%
ilf~
h
W
f~
edCNN
H ~ ~O
~~
'~ ~~~
.~
b
f`
r
1
g
~ ~
1 ! .L
~~ V S
~,~ z }
.y LL
Z
~~-
O~
~~
p~
tt®'
F~
{d
e
m,^--- ~---,. --- -- -. r-~ r--~ r,•--~a r--e •--, r-~--~,
O
I
i
I O
,:~
* Please refer to Section ZI.B.l.i., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping standards that
apply project-wide.
* Please refer to~ Section II.8.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
- 78 -
T
~.:
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:
O
-3
~ Neighborhood entry at intersection of Fairview
Avenue and 66' collector street
*~ Neighborhood entry off internal collector
street
¢J
~ 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 s~
+~ Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development
Plans and Standards, for further land use
standards that apply project-wide.
- 79 - O >~
FP
R
a
0 0
~ 1
~ o u/
i'
o .-.Ti~ r
C N
@~ ~ dz ~ ~ j
~~
Z
i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
r ~ t`
•, 1 .. _ _, _.... l
,.` ~
g ~ ~®
~~
0o
q
o P
" e ®
~ P
1
c
® ® N/
~
q~
~' ~ a
~
P ~ P , s
~ ~ u ~
~
o
°~j°~
® yp~q/
b
~ ° o ~
~ _
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
® d
~
~--
~~
~
qq
~~'~
~...J
Oft
O
® ~ ~
® ~ ~ q~
D
.\ p
~ ~E7 ' ~ 1
`` S _ ~ ~;
~~
~.
.._
0
0
b ~
0
o
~ ~.
~~
.~
~I
O
® lY
~~t~
g
00
-,
8~t~
~a ~ ~.
a~ ~ ~
-~. . .
`,
l
~ ®c~'~ ~~
~~'~ ~~
® ~ ..
e d
a
00
V
~,~~-
d~O~
. •- .ter' ..
0
O
M
Q
OA
0
0~
P
~, ~ \ ~
'~ ~~ \~
`~ ^ ~
~..
~ ~.
~\~ \~ •
~-~o o ~`~~ •~-Q ~ b cA' ~-
p~q
~tl
v F
~ ~~~
@~
~ °~ ~~qy
~~
IUUI
~J N~
b
•-y ;
® „~
H
~~
~~~~yp~
~r7V~
`~
1""
O * Please refer to Section II.B.l.i., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping standards that
apply project-wide.
+~ Please refer to Section ZI.B.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
O
I
O -80-
14) Planning Area l4:
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 Z7.0 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 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
+~ Identity node on Margarita Road
*+ Landscaped slopes and open space buffer
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, sae details
*~ Neighborhood entry design, see details
~ Equestrian trail design, see details
~ Class IZ bike trail design, see Exhibit II-2A
o Please refer to Section II.B.l.a., Development
Plans and Standards, for further land use
standards that apply project-wide.
- 81 -
O ~.
O
~~
O r
P
o~
~„
~
~
® ~
~
~ ~,
~
~
® ® `~ ~
® ° 0
~ ~ o
g
P
Ei'I
1 ~
c o
00 0
q
'~'
<a
~ ~ ® ~
® ~ ~ ~ o0
~Q~ ~-~
~~~ eea
P
® ~~ ~~e~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ® oc ~ ~
eeeo e~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@® ® a~
~,
c~ ~
~~
~®
o0
q~
~* "W"
c~
p C
b
q~
-C~"- ~
® ~
r~
®~
~ ~~
A ~
c ~
~
d
~. ~
°~ ~
b Oo 00
1'-' o
eeq
r~ eti
agog a }o~
p
q~~^
~ ~
(~ ~
duC~
@~
~®
@~
p~
A
®~
~ ~
~~
~ ~
~~
'~'' ~.
0o e"~....1-
~~~
E3 a~i~+
n
qq o0
C
~~pp q~q'~
b !7
M
a
~n
P
~ d
@a o
b
eo
?~
b
o®
H
'~
® y ~D
y
~~
c
.6 ~~~
~--
~~~
a
!~ ~1 Oe
a
,$
~z
o~
~~~p ~
pG'~
.~
~i
~nUnun~
I^~JG~
u
~~
d
M
L
P
[~
a~
0®
~~~ ~
` ~ T
a
s~
J a ~.,.
i a U` s
t~ a
~ U
~~~~~~--
~ r~
®~
od
t~ ~
~ (91
~ d
0
~ ~~-,
. sa
0
~^
d
b ~
o
oo~
®`~
~ ~
b ~
® d
a~
\ ~
~~
C~
// ~~
~p
MN M
g e a ~
~ oo ® P
u ~
M ~ ® ~. ® P
e o ~ ~ ~
@~ P ~ df
® ~ a o ~
o
P -~70
F' Zi ® ~'
,~_
~~ o
~ so
~ ®
P
~
~
~
~ ~
A
oA
P o~
f~ g
vo ®'
~ @~
` , ~
\` ~ ~.
^. '~~.
~~~ _ ~1
.~, ~
~.~ ~
~~~~ ~-
~~
~~
o /i
01.~~.,
I'- ~
0
o
{d
00
~~
o~
o~
~~
~~
~~
~~o
~~
~. ~
~~
~~
o~~
®®e~
~~~
~~~
®~
~®
0
0
O
H
d
.~^. ~ ~ M
A d ~ oC
~~~ -
~~ ~ ~! ~
~ ~ ~ L
~i~~ ~ x
~~^ W
~~ ~~
b
~i
~p~
~J
,~
(~, j l
~,
. ~
~°~a,
P ~ ,~
~ uo~
~ ~ ~
c~
oq~ ~
FA
°o°
e~
B
P
b
oho
!~~
0
® °°
c~~
® ~ C
~ ~ ~ P
~ `~ d
o ~ \
......'
. ,
O~ ~,
Li n Q
1
1
~
~~~/JJ
C3 ,~°
~ ~A
V/n~~~
~'S~
0
~! B
O
o
U
C:1
- y
~ .
00
),~
^^pp
kMl
e
®
g
~ ,'•
P
~ °° ~
~ ® ~ o 00
~ P
00 ®
0 ~ ~ oo
@~ P ~ P °~
~ ~ 0 ~
o o
® 6
/~
H4! ®
P ~'° ®@ ~ 6l
~
~~ ,
~ ~
~
°
~ ~ ~
e
d
b
'~'
C _
® ~'^
g o~o
e=i C
~.
eo ~
C7°J] !l
~®
O
0
O
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ ~
d ~
~
f~ ~
y`',J
(~ °d
0
~ (~ /(~
~
~
oo `~--
oc
~~
d
,
•
I
\
~'i
,~
A
0~
p®
L
~~
~J.~ 1x~
.~..
d ~
®y _Q
s~,_,~~`~~qqz
~ lJ
~~
~~~~
g
b
`~~~ s
..~„~
3
~i
o~
® ~
O
p~
e~
f~ ~
M
n n~
I~~1
L.~
j`~
~~
~ ~
a
o
~ ~ ~ A~
p
W! ~~
GI q
bV ~
® ~
qq
V
M
.O
W
' O
i
i
t
r
1
V
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 ZI.B.l.i., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping standards that
apply project-aide.
* Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-aide.
~,O
- 86 -
17) Plannin4 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 contained
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
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 Pechanqa Reservation
+~ Medium-low density housing types, see Exhibit
II-5
*~ Landscape details, sea 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 IZ.B.l.i., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping standards that
apply project-wide.
'1
O ~;`.~
r:
a
r
r
_,
a!
aJl
- 87 -
O ~l
Va,~
P
o~
0
o
® eo
~ ~
~~
~~
~~
d
~~
~®
~, @ ~
~ ~ P
_~.
9 \~
~ @~~q ®~ ~
2® ~
`~~. 9 , C ~ ® k1N ` V ~
oCS WJ oo ®~
e ~ 'b ~ ~ ~
°O o°
@ s~ w ~ ~ o 0 0~ d4/
" a bq ~ P
n G~ o°
r u ~ L2
~
~ ~
~ ~
~.
~ ~ ~ $ o
~' ~~
~~
~ g ~
o ~
~
o P b ~
®oo ~ ~~
® ~
hoc ~ ~ ~ b ~ `~
~
g ~ ~ ~
~
!7 ~ ~ ® ~ c~
F~Ji ® ~/ c~
~
C
q c~ ~ o q
r
q
~
g ~ ® ~ ~
I ~
/
• pIS ~®p `L"~ p~
f~
klh~ ~ ~
~
. 0~ L fJ ® ~~
~ ~ ,., .
~ l ~;
~\
~, _. _
_.
~, ,,.. ~-i~, ~~
~_ `~-'
cxt,
~ ~~ ,.:,
,.. Z
o
®v:O F .
S
y~~
'
: `~ V
222...
g Z
~
C 2_ ,~
~e Q
q
~~
yypp
~
^
~
~^
'fV
~
ea:
A
~ °~ ~
,~ ~~
~~ _
sq`~q ~
C7 ~ ~ 0
.~ oc v \Q~~J
v e~
~~~- II~~~JJJ
d~ ®~~
~~ ~ ~~
~~
~~~
G;;,~3.~ r, ~ ~..,~
~ ..,~
,,
~C
P
~ ~ ••
-- //,..
~.. ~-~ . ~ f ley
f e ~ - ~,
° fi0
e ~ ~ ~
~o ~ ~ ~
a' o
~' ~
~ b
~ fal
eo
~ o Q ~ d
~,~ @~ `~
q~
J~_. ® od
1tl b
~~ ~~ ~
° ~
~ ~. ~
~
H - ~7 o®
-_
~ M
~
~
00
~~
® P o. o
~
~
~
® e
~ _i
.•,..
~OO~
~i
1 ,J
-„ 1 '\
~, Q~ ) .
t~ ~ \
~ ~ `:;:
e9 ~ ~ ~.
P \ ~
'~..
~~ ~~\
a~ ~ ;
~~,~, ..
e ~
~ @ ~~
~~
~ R. .
~`
. `~ ... , i•~4
,.~
~-' ,~~ 4--' ~.. ~.
'~ ~, ~n '~
.; ~}~
ra ,__i ,
~~ ~
1 ~ ; ,~ , ~J / tef
\ ,\ ; ~OU/~ ~ d
U ~ ® d
~'
~ .~ f;~: •
c.; °®
;::: `.~
,.
~ ••~3~•
~.
\' ~
. ,,
t1
M
a~
X
W
~~l
O * Please refer to Section II.B.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
I
O
1
O
J
-sa-
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 Ind E1 Chamisal
Road. Primary access from Butterfield Stage Road.
b. Land Use Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein..
C. Planning Standards:
* Identity node at the intersection of Wolf
Valley Loop and Macho Road
* 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
- 89 -
O
s
~'
o
O ._~
~~
s,~
L-
O O
~~
Ea Ea ® fd
0 4 1~
® ® ~ ~
o ~ _~-~
®'~;~ Li ~'i~1\\
,~.. ,;
~~
~ o
~ ~
~ ~
~ ec
@~
e
s/~/~
Lb Q
e
b
ec
d
t!f ~
~/_®~~
l'J I
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~q~
f~ ~
~~ ~
~® ~
/ ~
'~ ~
`;;:; eca
,;
~
~ a
e ~ ® ~a
ae
~
~ ~
~
~/J
FA
f 1 ® A
~ ~
~ d ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ° ~
ee ~
~ ~® ,~ p~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ L2
eq
~
~ ~
~
~~
~
~~
~~
~
a
~~ ~~
d~ `~
~~
H
~® ~ ...
•~;
~
o
~
ads
~
N'~ ~ g
~
~
~ ~ . o
.e ~ as z
~
f'~..
yypqq{{ ~ {ay
W
~
~ M V ~ V
~
0 `
`
1~'
{d
~ °~ ~
® ~
~ ~' ~
~ ~
~ ~
.~
® ~
~ m ~a
0o c
d ~~
w, ~ ~ `~
~G o 0
!1% '• ~ t1
t ~. , ~ ~
,~
__ .1,r. ~ ~ \1J1 .r i
era d~~ v~.i.
~.., ~
® ~ ~ ".s;
~L ~ ~ \w
~ e ~ ® ;.
B @ ~ ~
b.~ ~ g ~
®~_ ~ ~
® ~ \
d d
0
~ ® B `~ ~ ~'
~ °° ~
b® a ~ ~ d
a ® e~~ a ~
~P ~ a ~®
~ ~ ~~ ~®~
~~ ®®®
P
~ ',w
~~ :
/I~•~~
Ir
~
a /i
(I '!-~
~i~ G9 ~
oO eoc
~, 0
R ~~" ~ ~ ~ ~i
~., ~,~
~,-,., .., \ ,
.
~.,:. ~
, ~ ~
o ~
,,
,
,:;- o
o
~
".~ ~
0
~
°
~~
o~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
t9f
d
l
Ix
W
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 ZI.B.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
O
O - 90 -
19) Plannin4 Area 19:
a. Description:
Planning Area 17 proposes medium-low dei:sity
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 OU par
acre, a dwelling unit range oP 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:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
* Neighborhood entries off of Macho Road
* 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-2S
* Please refer to Section II.S.l.a., Development
Plans and Standards, Eor further land use
standards that apply project-wide.
~`
a:9
O
a
€~
- 91 -
O .~
~, ,.
i!
~i
i
~.
i`
~ !`i
0
~'
s
f~
0
qq~
C_..7
~~ ~
~ T
~"
~~
i
~/~ n
~p N
~~ , h
~®
0o b
~~
~~~
~b~
~~
~~ ~
~ ® ~
og ~
y~
~`-''~`]
_® ~
®~
eo
~ I
~~
~~
~~
®~
°~ a
(_~_ q
1-p ~qq
b oti
~f e o
sy
~~
~~
p~
00
d
b
q~q~
o ca
~~
~~im
~ Ea ~
~~ ~
~ ~~
d ® !-~
~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~ .~
~~
~ ~
~~~~
Vs!
e ® ~
~
t~
® ~ ~'
pp
~/
f~
® 00
L~
b
~
OOO
®
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
~ Fp
. ~p~ e
~
, ~!` Le
oa O
o ~ p~' ~ _
¢lq~d' o
q
C7
!aA ]
[K
~® '~~ ~ o
® Y ~D
~
"
~ 0~
'
~ q
q g
I~
~ b4¢ cg ~ F=1
C ~11
°~
~
.~
~ ~ ' dui z
•^ N ~
~~~ ~
(
~
P W
Q~
e
e o
® 00 ~
~ o
e ~'
o
®
® ~ q
q
r=3
/ ~
~ ~
~'
` oO
AA
~'~ '1 \
o
~' ~ ~-'
.~.
~, ` o
,~
''~ ~
i ~,
_ ~
~~~ a
~ ~'
P ~' ~ ~
Sao
e~ ~ ,~
_'~ d~ ~ ® ~
- ~~a®g°
~~.
~ ~~
~~\- ~ ~
T
1
~i v
O * Please refer to Section II.H.l.i., Landscaping
Plan, for further landscaping standards that
apply project-wide.
i * Please refer to Section II.8.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
. standards that apply project-wide.
O
I
I - 92 -
O
1
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 41.5 acres with a density
range of 8.0 - 14.0 DO per acre, a dwelling unit
range of 332 - 581 and a maximum number of
dwelling units of 421. 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. Abutts School Site "B", Commercial Site
"C" and Park Site "E".
b. Land Use Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
*+ Community Entzy 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
Commercial Site "C" and Planning Area 19
a Open-space buffer and landscaped slopes
abutting Temecula Creek open-space area
~ Equestrian trail along open space area Park
Site "E" and School Site "B"
~ Class II bike trail along Butterfield Stage
Road and Macho Road
O
v
- 93 -
O s
r
i.
o q
qq~
t~
~~
b
!~
1^~'
~d
d
~ o
eo
~ ~
~~
(~ g ~ @~
® d.
~~
ag
`~
pp® ~
G`~ od
® ~
g
~~
oo~ ~
°Tl !~
g @ ~ ~
® ~'
0 ~ ~ 00
~ ®
o0 0
~ P
oo
~
P ~ ~ edf
~ 0 !~ o
0 ®
Qf
®
® ~
7
!~
~ ~ (~
°
° ~ o
o
oa
~
(fl
~.
® !'~
Ea ~ ~
F! o
® /~ ~~
yy
iqqy q~q 00
~1 C'o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ® ~ ~
~ ~
~g ®
~
®
~~.
® ~.
a ® 6
~• ~ ~.-~...tl
~~•~ \ ~ ,
~ ~ ~
.~-- ~q
o~ A
~ !H
~~
~~~
~ ~' a
d A
~ a .~
P ~ ora
l~
°S7°
~, ~
/~ ~
'~
® n
~~
~~
°~~
0
~®
0
M
O
00
W
P d
b
to~0
pC~
tl
-~
°fJ~°fJ
(le
btSi
_d
a ~'
.® d ~ ~ ~ ~°
y ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
C ~~:R LL-a ' ~iil 4 w
ca ;,~
~°~`~~ ~
8!
b
~`i
A
~~
eo ~qp
`v
o
0
q~3qq 0q
CJ o0
O
{A
!-!
1 ~~
b ~ Gd
~
~~
q ~~q
~ ~J
vo
°~
d
~ ~
g
~~
d ~
o~
'~7
oc~
^~
L~
f~
s
I
O
a
~O
* Medium-high density housing types, see Exhibit
II-6
* Landscape design, see details
* Neighborhood entry design, see details
* Equestrian trail design, sea Exhibit ZI-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. -
- 94 -
21) Planning Area 21:
a. Description:
Planning Area 21 proposes medium-high density
_ residential uses which attached, sitOlwnhousesy
detached, single-family Area 21
condominiums and apartments. Planning ®of 8 -
consists of 12.1 acres with a density rang
14 DII per acre, a dwelling unit range of 97Area621
and a maximum unit count of 141- anda adjacent to
backs onto Wolf Valley I'O°p ro erty. Primary
project boundary and Vail Rancan collector street
access from wolf Valley Loop -
(66' ROW).
b, Land Use Development Standards:
Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 contained
herein.
c. Planning Standards:
~ 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 Wo1P 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
o Landscape details, see details
++ Neighborhood entry design, see details
- 95 -
0
J
~ O
i
_~ O
i
_l
* Equestrian trail design, see Exhibit II-2B
* Class ZI bike trail design, sec 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.8.3., Design
Guidelines, for further design and landscaping
standards that apply project-wide.
-96 -
b ~l
t!N
o~
qoq
F
g~
~~
e~
~_®
R ~ N ~®
o
a ~ ~
a
~T'a
a
~ ~/'
t; ~ ~
~~~~_~~~
~~
~~
p~ OOH
b ~p
Abp
® 'tl
00~
OC~_'~
® ',1
/i
0
0
0
o ~
°~ so
o b~
o~ ~
~~ ~
0 00
~J ~ .~
b
~~
~ ~
@~ °
~ ~~
~ ~
mod.
o~
A ~
~ ~
~~
~~
C //
~ o~ ,~
~ ~ ~
~~
P 2
~
~~ P
~ oo ®
\ ~ oe
~ o
~ ~ ~ > ~
® ~ P
G7 ~ 0 0
q o C1
~ P ~ ~ ~ O
P
~ P
~ bA o
P ~ ® ,~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °
® ® ~'
d
Q
~~®
~a ~
~a
,Yr,. ~
® s-a
~ °
® ~
~~
~~~
?~
7~ ~~
@~
P
h
.d ~
F
v
®~~ ~ S
~q ~Qj
'O Q
~~ W
~
~
b
gP~
(~
°~ ~
~ ~ '~
~ ~~
^~G ~~pl
u v
x
W
~pci~a~c~~up~~ C~~ndlc~~o~c~~
~0~~ ~a000~
G°~1WQG1~ C~~II~D~OO PCt~Oc~
~a Coq
46n~ I~Ba~ewoau~A§§®~¢al4~s
a~x a~ sumo a-i
~~.~.
~; ~.~
o e Q ~ o O o e ~ 4
~o Q
O° °O° O
~~`
O 3. 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 A3anual and Landscape Guidelines.
a. Architectual Design kianual
The Architectural Design Flanual has been established
to address the architectural design criteria for the
development oP the various residential planning areas
of the Redhawk Specific Plan.
~ The architectural guidelines have been designed to
establish a High quality oP appearance, to assure
j 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 dhich 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
f potential character and appropriate design response.
Architectural components are defined ss 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 thm intent of the architectural
guidelines. All proposals must be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of building permits.
o Building flassing and Scale
The architectural image of Redhawk will be
perceived primarily from public spaces such as
streets, parks, and other open space areas.
- 97 -
O
i
~3~00@`10~~ fsil~~n~~ ~dl ~c~~~~
1
.~ 0
:i
MIIO~~ M~~~Q~
G°3~~Q[~ C~~~agop~a~
~4 ~
4~n~ (~9aaa~nBaa~A$§~aa~8~
3151 Ap~zy Sala R-1
Cora RCas Ca. 42626
n>a~ ss6•s2oo
o e Q O Q o e ~
~"ZO ° 4
(/~ p° DO° ° Oi
',.
0
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.
f
1 O
r
t
o Building Heights and Setbacks
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 lore 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.
- 98 -
[~uo~~']o~~ ~lc~a~[~t~~ ~w~l ~c~~[b~c~L~~
O
_i
M~o~~ M~DD °~
G°~1C~QU' u~ Cy~l~il~0o PW0~1
~ ~ r~ cc®
~I~ ~uuwuA.s§~a~i8~
3151 Atrer,:y Svaa R-1
~~~
n>a; sse•saou
o e Q o0 oe 4
~o ~ a
O°DO°° O
O - Roof Pitches and Materials
l
i~
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).
* Roof Materials: Clay or concrete "S" tile,
tern metal, copper, wood shake or concrete
o 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
i
J
O
~.
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
-99 -
[~®®~ po~c~~~~ ~~~I ~l~~~pa~~s~
I,
$,
,1
!~
~-
I
_~
O
~~
''~
I
I
~!
}
~ O
i
.cb' _.. .
G°3~Q~o C~~~D~oo PWO~
~Q ~ ~C~~4 ~~q
~~ ~P8u0UUiQ44~~ug4~S
3151 Au~y Sara R-!
~~~5~
n>~; sss-s~ao
o a Q - a Q o a ~ ~
Q'70 (3
( ~° oQo ° 0
+~^... P
v
I
y
O
i
i
1~
:j
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 oP 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
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:
e 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).
- 100 -
~onc~1®e~~ ~~~1 Do ®®ps~
~,
r
0
y
i
1
Y
,,
~ O
1
M~o~f~ ~1~0~~~
G°3~1WQU~o ~~~af~oP~a~
~ ~ ~~
44~e f~la~uwdou~i~s~BaR~
1151 Aler~ry Suds R-1
Caa~n PSG Ca. 92626
p101556.5200
~yo\y'/~e~Q o ~ o e
~~~
O * Reflective glass.
i
~ - 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
- Inappropriate:
i O * 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
j - 101 -
O _
J
I~
O
I-
i
.j
S
1
O
.,
I
f
l~
,-
M~O~f~ UaOac~~
~~Q .o C~~D~gop[~a~
(4 ..~ Q
~~lp~l~(~ ~®®PSS
ra
~...ct
4~~ 1~8~~unuae~A§~~a~BQ
335! Atr~.y Suits R-1
~~~
t714! 555.50
o e Q~ 0 0 o e
p~"jO 1
' 0° °O° OI
f
U
=;
i_
.i
t
i
i
r
.~
I
I
~;
,~
~i
I
V
~~fl~®woc~~ ~co9 p®pc~L~c~~
e--
~oD~ ~9~DOQ~
~~Q~ C ~~gor~~a~
n
a~
a~,
h
r'4
i1
~b~ ~QDQDOUB~ ~.55®~E?I$Q
3151 Agrxy /na Suna R-l
~~.~
~~-5~
o e Q D O v s ~
x'-70 ° ~
O o o O o e
'o
1
~ O
1
;~
i
O
6
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
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).
*~ Hrick 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).
- 102 -
;~
,,~
r
:;,
~~
~,
:1
:!
C~~4~~r~~ ~w~l D®e~rw~p®~~~
~~
,~
1
M9oD~ ~~DDQ~
G°3~QIr o ~~I~{~oPt~a~
~ ~ ~~
4ba° f~8awwu~ss~ua8~.
3151 Au~y Sups R-1
~~~
1116; 555.51D0
o e Q o O o e Q
~o ~ a
~° °~° e ~
~~
~~
,.u{
~~
i
i
i
I
i
:~.
~:
~~
C~®~~~w~ ~wo7 ~~~G~~~~v~
..,,~
~MoD~ ~I~DDQ~
G°~1WQI~ C~~D~gOPG~Dc~
~~ ~
~ __
S
~b~ f~8a~ortooA$§®~e~R~
3151 Au~xry Sumo R-1
~~.~
U1S; 555.5300
o e Q o O o e
~o 0
O° °O° ~
a ~- ~- ~ ~ i
Inappropriate:
~ O -
~ * Exposed pipe columns
* Applied rustic veneers on columns
* Thin posts, such as 4 inch x 4 inch wood or
,. ~ metal pipe column
i',
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)
* Design feature adding articulation to walls
t
i
* 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
be approved by the U.S. Postal Service.
'i O
- 103 -
i
i
0
:;
G°3~WG~i Jo C~~I~D{~OPW0~1
~ ~ ~
w-
~I~ ~un~ou,4s§~~B~s
3141 Au~.ry Suga R•!
~~~
~.~.~
° e Q 'off oe a
° c~
o° °o° e o
t O o Private Walls and Fences
! Fences and walls are encouraged to provide
security, privacy and landscape definition. Wall
J 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:
~i a 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
f grilles between plasters.
~ Wood fencing
;~ 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
J view. Sound attenuation is encouraged. Roof
mounted cooling and heating units and related
t 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 the attic- or
interior of the residences:
- Accessory Structures
Patio trellises, pergolas and other exterior
structures shall be constructed as permitted by
governing codes, with finishes complying with
the approved material and color palette.
Y
- 104 -
G~~ad~4c~ ~! ~~~ ~w~l ~~~c~c~~
g ~~
m 3s ~ ~`'
Ad 3 s :~~aa m ~
o a ~+-
Q ~~ ~
b`r~b o
D
O
i
M9o0f~ M~flDc~~o
G°~1WQL'~' o C~~1~Q~OPW0~1
~~fE! ~Q06DOEA~ ASS®~Ud81
3151 Funx~ /4a Suea R-1
Caaro ~, Ca. 42626
~~-~
o e Q o ~ o e '
~o 0
~° oQ° e ~
O 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
1 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 bulldinq. Skylight
glazing should be clear or solar bronze. idhite
.glazing is discretionary.
- Solar Panels
O
Solar panels are to be integrated
design, flush with the roof slope.
be colored to complement the roof.
aluminum frames are prohibited.
equipment shall be enclosed and
view.
b. Landscape Guidelines
into the roof
Frames must
Mill finish
Support solar
screened from
The Redhawk Specific Plan consists oP 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 Landscape Buffers and Slopes
o Street Trees
o Neighbor`~od 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 bean 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
planting areas shall be provided with adequate
water during the plant establishment period only;
no permanent irrigation.
Plant List "A":
Botanical Name
Common Name
Trees
Olea 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
O ~..
4
z
O
- 106 -
O
,..~
a
s~
l O
Plant List "A" (continued)
Shrubs
Ceanothus gloriosus Point Reyes Ceanothus
Cotoneaster lacteus Red Clusterberry
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Rhus ovate Sugar Bush
Groundcover
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
1 The community
located to
O sub-community
these areas
consistency
project with
~ selection of
t trees shall b
entry areas.
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
e used 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
"Bn
O
L
- 107 -
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
Quartos Ilex Holly Oak
Shrubs
Abelia grandiflora
"Edward toucher" Glossy Abelia
Agapanthus africanus Lily of the Nile
Dietes vegata Fortnight Lily
Escallonia exoniensis
"Fradesii" Escallonia
Plant List "B" (continued)
Gamolepis chrysanthemoides N.C.N.
Hemerocallis hybrid Daylily
Ilex cornuta "BUrfordi" Burford Holly
Liriope muscari Biq Blue Lily Turf
Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo
Photinia fraseri Fraser's Photinia
Pittosporum tobira
"Variegate" Variegated Tobira
Pittosporum tobira
"Wheeleri" Wheelers Dwarf
Raphiolepis indite Indian Hawthorn
Ternstroemia gymnanthera N.C.N.
Xylosma congastum Shiny xylosma
Vines
Clytostoma callistegioides Violet Trumpet Vine
Macfadyena unquis-Ceti Cat's Claw Vine
Wisteria sinensis Chinese wistaria
O ~.
O `~
a~
- los -
O r-
1
0
l
Plant List "B" (continued)
Groundcover
Armeria maritime
Campanula poscharskyana
Heders 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
1 O
O
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 Pollows: 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 occidental'is
Lagerstroemia indite
Nerium oleander
Pyrus calleryana
"Aristrocrat"
Phus lances
Western Redbud
Crape Myrtle
Standard oleander
Ornamental Pear
African Sumac
- 109 -
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 indices
Groundcover
Aptenia cordifolia
Delosperma "Alba".
Gazania hybrid
Isotoma fluviatilis
Trachelospermum
jasminoides
Vinca minor
o Secondary Equestrian Trail
Lily of the Nile
Red Clusterberry
Fortnight Lily
Escallonia
N.C.N.
N.C.N.
Daylily
Toyon
Biq•Blue Lily Turf
Indian Hawthorn
Red. Apples
White Trailing Ica Plant
Gazania
Blue Star Creeper
Star Jasmine
Dwarf Running Myrtle
The equestrian trail meanders through the major
open space features of the Redhawk Specific Plan.
The landscape design of the equestrian tra11 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.
- 110 -
O
O ~,;!
ti--J
O
s.i
.~
I O
l
i
}
Plant List "D":
Botanical Name
Trees
Ceratonia siliqua
Eucalyptus nicholli
Eucalyptus rudis
Geijera Parvilflora
Pines eldarica
Platanus racemosa
Populus fremontii
Schinus molls
Robinia pseudoacacia
Shrubs
Common Name
Carob Tree
Peppermint Gum
Desert Gum
Australian Willow
Mondell Pine
California Sycamore
Western Cottonwood
Callfornia Pepper
Black Locust
Ceanothus gloriosus
j Cotoneaster lacteus
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Shus ovate
Groundcover
O Baccharis pilularis
i Ceanothus griseus horizontalis
j Eriogonum fascculatum
Rosmarinus officinalis
"Prostrates"
Hydroseed Mix Area
Point Reyes Ceanothus
Red Clusterberry
Toyon
Sugar Bush
Dwarf Chaparral Broom
Carmel Creeper
Common Buckwheat
Prostrate Rosemary
Allysum "Carpet of Snow" N.C.N.
Eschscholzia California California Poppy
Gazania hybrid "Red Shades" Red Shades Gazania
Lotus corniculatus Bird's Foot Trefoil
Lupines texensis Texas Blue Bonnet
Trifolium Eraglferum o'Conners Legume
o Landscape Buffers and Slopes
Three major landscape buffers
Redhawk .Planning Area maps.
buffers and slopes consist
treatments:
are reflected in the
These landscaped
of the following
- 111 -
O
4
C..
Open space buffers
Golf course buffers
- Land use buffers
O ,
L
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
eucalyptus varieties which may be planted from
liners, one gallon containers or hydroseed.
0
Street Trees
O
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 par 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 -
x ^~
O
J
a
O
Plant List "E":
Collector Stzeet and Tree
Larger Roadways
Botanical Name Common Name
Cinnamomum camphors Camphor Tree
London Plane Tree
Platanus acerifolia
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar
I
General Local Streets
Botanical Name Common Name
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder
1 Ceratonia siliqua Carob Tree
Peppermint Gum
Eucalyptus nicholli Desert Gum
Eucalyptus rudis
Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red Iron Bark
` Roelreuiteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
' Liquidambar stryraciflua
American Sweat Gum
~ O "Palo Alto"
Magnolia grandiflora thern Magnolia
~ "Majesty Beauty" Sou
Canary Island Pine
Pines canariensis Italian stone Pine
Pines pines
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache
Pjrus calleryana
Ornamental Pear
"Aristocrat" Holly Oak
Quercus ilex
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.
I - 113 -
' O
>1
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 ovate
Xylosma congestum
Non-Irriaated Hydroseed Mix
Botanical Name
Artemesia california
Schismus barbatus
Erigonum fasciculatum
Eriophyllum confartiflorum
Plantaqo insularis
Irriaated Hvdroseed Mix
Allysum "Carpet of Snow"
Allysum "Roaie 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
Eacallonia
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 Slue Bonnet
O'Conners Legume
- 114 -
O ~.
c
,.
R~
O d
J
o 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
The single loaded street condition proposed
adjacent to the Pechanga Indian Reservation
has created a minimum of 121 feat 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 al 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).
- 115 -
O
~+
m
~~
.~
c
0
.~
7 ,D
C ~
m
~~
.0
N C
.. ~
~ °'
U
m ~
o (SS
~-
+~-~
ai ~
C
c'n U
'D
.~~
~ ®V ~
~ ~. ~~ ~
U u
~° o ~~ ~
.~~ ~~~~ ~
.~ ~ < - g
~~
~~~
_~ .
rt~
~ ^ O~
~~
CI
e
n n n 11[[~~VJJJII
C
a
O Provide vehicular access to the Buffer
area from adjacent streets at intervals of
not more than 1500 feet apart.
- Architecture
The row oP 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
resistant rating to be approved by the
County Fire Department prior to
O - issuance of building permits.
Landscaping
Native vegetated slopes within Buffer Z.
Remove all natural vegetation of a high
Eire 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").
- 116 -
1~
I~I'
~1
•m
•m
i
~i
V
I)~~~^l
J
a
~ ~ ~~ y~~
~' ~
e
~ ~ ~ ~~~
•~ ~
.~ ~~,~~
(~
~/ ~ J
~~~ d
0
V
~I
Z
~~ ~~~
qq~
h~a
((®~
v-
~(((ggg]]]ppppppp(pg(p]]JJJJJ~~~~~
O~
C~
r`CP~p~(j~'l
Gp
X69
^~^G~
lJ
ed
0
.~
•m
^~
W
.e
O
N
.`
f~
t
U
MM~
~.L
U
N
f'-'
N
W
T
~~
N O
~ L
~ ~
N =
'E E
~ ~
c ~ E
~ a> cv
a. I'c- ~
~,y Q
'Et _E I-°
ml ~ ' ~
a> ~, M C.) c
..
c'Q~a
~ a~°i in `-
a~
n. ~ °v
o ~ y~
~ ~ j =
~ ~
H ~ ~
M
.x
U
_O
m
N
U
C
O
U
t
2
in
m
N
O
t
U
c
//~~
Li
U
(--'
18 ~~aTOJd
a~
~~z
N
a
0
a~
.-.
U
:~
7
C
(~
.m.,.
e. N . S
~ ~ ®~~ ~ Z
~ ~~~ ~~ ~ a
~~°~~
o ~ ~~~~~
e
~'~~~ ~~~
.~°
%P ~ ~ n
VV J
C
C:
~~
.~
R
i
o~
b
c~
c ~ ~
d
~ ~ e
a>
U
7
O ~ ~ t~
C
~~~
i
.~
~°'
U
m
r
0
~ '° 1
N N
c~
i O
l - Maintenance
The Buffer I area shall be maintained by
County Service Area No. 143 (CSA 143) or a
homeowners association.
y~ a 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
j 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
~ ZI-43B).
- - Site Planning -.
Provide a six (6) foot high concrete block
wall along the rear yard property
lines where houses occur. -
. Provide vehicular access to the Buffer
~ area from adjacent streets at intervals of
~ O not more than 1500 feet apart.
- Architecture
I
~ The row of houses immediately adjacent to
the buffer area shall be designed to the
1 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 -
1
resistant rating to be approved by the ~Y
County Fire Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
- Landscaping
The landscape buffer area shall extend a
minimum of Pifty (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 z
maximum height of eighteen (18) inches. ~-
In areas where the natural slope is 2:1
or more, some larger shrubs and trees ~.
shall remain to reduce the hazard oP
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. '1
Prune and thin specimen oak trees to
reduce the amount of potential fire '}
fuel and keep all branches six (6) feet ~
off the ground.
Aanufactured slopes within the Buffer IZ
area at the rear yard condition (see
Exhibit II-43B, Section "A").
Plant all manufactured cut or• fill r
slopes with plant materials of fire
retardant and low fuel volume
characteristics (see Plant Lists "B"
and "i").
~~
- 118 - '~
O S
~~
:i
'I O
of a
b
h
s
ru
Except for trees and larger s
i 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) Peet on
center.
i 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 oP Eire
retardant and low fuel volume
'~ characteristics (see Plant List "H" and
°I")-
- Maintenance
C O
All Buffer II area shall be maintained by
County Service Area No. 143 (CSA 143) or a
homeowners association.
Plant List "G"
Botanical Name
Hiah Fire Hazard Species
I
~~ Adenostema faciculatum
Adenostema sparsifolium
Artemisia californica
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Salvia species
Plant List "H"
Botanical Name
Common
Chemise
Red Shanks
California Sagebrush
Common Buckwheat
Sage
Common
Low Growing Moderate to Hiah Fire Retardant Plants
Eriophyllum species
Eschscholzia californica
Lotus scoparius
Yarrow
California Poppy
Deerweed
- 119 -
O
f
Plant List "H" (continued)
Lupinus species
Mimulus species
Penstemon species
Salvia columbariae
Salvia sonomensis
Trichostema lanatum
Zauschneria species
O
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 salviifoliua
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Santolina virens
silver
Saltbush
Creeping Saltbush
Rockrose
Sageleaf Rockzose
Lavender Cotton
Green Santolina
Low Growing. High Fire Retarding Plants
Carpobrotus species Sea Fig
Delosperma 'Alba' White Trailing
Ice Plant
Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea ice Plant
Lampranthus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant
Malephora crocea Croceum Ice Plant
O
Low Growing. Moderate Fire Retarding Plants
Acacia ongorup
Arctotheca calendula
Gazania rigens leucolaena
Lippia canescens
Myoporum parvifolium
Osteospermum Pruticosum
Santolina species
Trifolium fragiferum
var. O'Connor's
Vince species
Acacia
Cape Weed
Trailing Gazania
Lippia
Myoporum
African Daisy
Lavender Cotton
O'Connor's Legume
Perixrinkle
++ Source: Trees and shrubs for dry California
Landscapes, Bob Perry
- 120 -
O r
l
0
assessment district. Following completion of this
1 first step, the petition for formation of an
I 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.
f
- 122 -
Y
S
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 Dhaselhavins
proposed in three phases with each p 4
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 u~blic
would include certain internal p
improvements for major projects including
Redhawk, Butterfield Stages Ranch, Vail Meadows;
Vail Ranch and Tonan Properties.
~, b (;:County ,Service Area"143 (CSA*143) -
County service areas are a special district
mechanism established by the County in order to
handle the maintenance of several facile=ides
including street lights, drainage, p
parkways, medians and open space. CSA 143
encompasses much of the Rancho California
community but does not -include the Redhawk
property. Concurrently with the filing of the
first tentative tract map an application will be
submitted to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the
Redhawk property 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 i~itrioit the -usn -:: of; . a
'master homeo~rners,assocsation7s~
123
O
O
s~
O
~~
~~
0
O
2. Administrative Standards
The following section
administrative standards
implementation and revie
a.' Project History
contains a discussion of
which shall guide project
w procedures.
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
Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 93j. 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 Por GPA 93 and the Rancho Villages ,Policy
Plan General Plan Amendment EIR.
The Rancho Villages Policy Plan Environmental
Impact Report was prepared for approximately
4,000 acres in Rancho., California. The General
plan Amendment proposed a set of policies for the
area. The County determined, after review of the
EIR, that the cumulative area wide impacts of the
O - 124 -
b.
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 warn evaluated in EIR No. 93 and this
Specific Plan was prepared to alleviate potential
site-specific impacts.
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 Hedford
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
restricted to the review oP 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 Hedford 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
- 125 -
O .
,~
O
~~
O .~
~_~
i O
1
4
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
I O
I
The maximum number of dwelling units proposed
by the Redhawk Specific Plan is 4,188. Tice
approximate number of dwelling units within
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
J major residential land use category or
planning area to be exceeded. Approval of
1 transfers in density w}11 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
i amendment or substantial conformance request.
~I O
l
- 126 -
O ~
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 oP the Planning Director or his
designated representative without an amendment
to the specific Plan or filing oP substantial
conformance requests.
o Intensification
Intensification is a situation whereby a
physical constraint within an individual=
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. Y
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 a.l
intensification process. Approval of
intensification is accommodated by the ~~
administrative actions of the Planning a
Director or the designated representatives of
the County at the tentative tract and plot
plan submittal and review stage. Tha process l~
of intensification is not subject to the ~,]
public hearing process associated with a
specific plan amendment or a substantial
conformance request. ~
3~
- 127 ~ O 9
O
d. Administrative Plan Review
1 Construction of a specific plan project is not
1 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.
1 To accomplish this, a development monitoring
program is proposed as discussed below.
,~ A development monitoring program would include
two basic types of action. Leas 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
j of Supervisors. Examples of administrative and
discretionary actions are listed below.
Administrative review and approval procedures to
the Redhawk Specific Plan shall include, but
ti shall not be restricted to those actions listed
below.
o The transfer oP 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 (l0) 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 -
l
O '.
as maximum units within planning areas are
not exceeded.
o The addition of new textual or graphic y,
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 wh ich would require
the Piling 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
~.A
dwelling unit allocation beyond the maximum
specified density range
in any planning area z'~
of the specific plan. 3
o Major changes in the infrastructure system
such as drainage, road alignments, water and
sewer systems etc. which have the
egged of increasing capacity beyond the
maximum specific plan density.
- 129 -
O
i
O
II O
~~ O
III. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
- 130 -
III. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section combines the Environmental and General Plan O '
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
space and resource areas.
The proposed project area is identified on the Open
ecific Plan Area
S
i
M
ap as
p
on
Space and Conservat
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/
1
Resource Map Inventory
This subsection locates potential environmental ~
hazards and resources relative to the proposed
development by using maps contained in the Specific
Plan. Thia step determines the potential of a
proposed project to be subjected to environment
hazards and identifies possible resources that
could be affected by the proposed project (Section
C contains an in depth analysis of these and other
hazard/resource topics).
8~
- 131 - O ,~
3~
al
~ 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 .
1 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
,f supports or could support a variety of
wildlife. Examples include the coast horned
lizard, black-tailed gnatcatcher, grasshopper
O 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
l land uses of the area.
~ a. Land Use Area Profile
j 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 -
J
4. Summary Of Project Proposal/Site Comparison
~ O
I with Applicable Land Use Category Policies or
1 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 calla for a
reduction of lot sizes to change the gross
density oP the property from one (1) DU/AC
(Dwelling Unit Par 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 774.1
acres, oz approximately sixty-one (61) percent
of the total area. Commercial areas will total
twenty-.eight (28) acres (2.2~) while schools,
parks, a golf course and open space will total
410.1 acres (32.2$).
open space areas are located in potentially
flood prone sections of Temecula Creek and
related drainage areas within the project or
O are in slope areas of 25 percent or greater.
e land use designations can preclude any
Th
es
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 bean 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
Rural, Outlying and
described in the County
(Heavy Urban, Urban,
Planned Community)
General Plan. The
- 133 -
B.
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 Uzban and Urban, respectively. Land
uses described in these categories are:
Category I (Heavy Urban): Land uses are
characterized by intensive commercial and
industrial land uses and highe~eesPrcpcsed
densities. Under this category,
project has intensive land uses in the form of
high density residential development of eight
to seventeen (8-17 DII/AC.
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 neighborhoacresentand
totaling twenty-eight (28)
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 sat densities for each area as
constraints permit.
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
- 134 -
O '.
a~:
O
6:~
.~
® FI
0 0O
C.']
~ ~
(~ ~ o0
c! 5
~ ~ ~
00 ~ q
q~~
C!
®®
® O O
oa C~
g ~ 00
((~~ b o ~
V cc4"'
VV
(~ ~
O ~ ~
•
'
~
.
b
00
V
~ d ~ ~ °
® ^ ® „ .o n
y~~ ~ S
~r p
~ o ~ :a~i~
.
~~ z
rO ~ ¢ N
~
O~ p
C
CS~
A
qq~
L'S
~•
`^)~
O
r e~r a
`~P~/
L`, ~~
J
S
y
y
a
y
5
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 unit§.
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.
a Increased industrial development potential with
completion of I-15 to San Diego.
a Increased demand for a variety of housing
~ densities and types.
~ Desirable air quality in Rancho California.
2. Community Policy Area Analysis
~ The project site is located within the Mount
O 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 Prom low-pressure sodium vapor lamps, the light
from which can be filtered by the observatory,
thereby mitigating the problem of skyglow. Redhawk
will comply witi: these "requirements through
conditions of approval which require the use of
low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting sources within
i implementing subdivisions.
` O
I
- 135 -
commercial
The Specific Plan has proposed three (3) O
neighborhood centers totaling twenty-eight (2s) 4
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-S)
DII/AC. The remaining areas will be open space
uses, recreation or school areas which will service
the proposed surrounding development.
C.
4. Community Policy Area
The Redhawk Specific Plan is within proximity to
as adopted
h
i
w
c
the Rancho Villages Policy Plan wh
It
by Riverside County on August 25, 1981.
addresses the same issues and utilizes the same
wide
format as the General Plan, but on an area
ces and appropriate land
scale. Hazards, resour
e delineated in the plan. The project is z
uses ar
also within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special
Lighting Community Policy Area which requires the
use of low-pressure sodium outdoor lightirq. ~
Environmental Hazards and Resource Element
This section contains the impact analysis of topics
General
i O
ve
covered in the Riverside County Comprehens
Plan's Environmental Hazards and Resources Element.
sis of existing
d anal
y
For each topic, a report an
conditions on the site is given. Positive and negative ~
impacts which affect the proposed project are
elated to
t
s r
described. Mitigation of negative impac
ill follow and will be mitigated according
each topic w
to General Plan Guidelines and County Policies.
Throughout the above process, the relationship
ct and General Plari Policies
between the proposed proje
are discussed.
Formating of this sub-section is as follows:
Topic ,
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
a
.
b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan %s
Policies
c. Mitigation Topics '~
a
- 137 -
O
:_3
i
I O
j 1. Seismic .Safety
The following topic discussion is based on The
Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential
portion of Redhawk Project, prepared by Earth
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 xJo1=
Valley, just southeast of Temecula, California.
1 It is situated in the Peninsular Ranges
i 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 oP the property.
' Underlying the site is the Pauba Formation,
which is a combination of sandstone and
O 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 Groundshakinq 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-PZiolo 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
~ O - 138 -
J
for the property, provided there is a geology O `
report prepared and the project incorporates
any needed design recommendations made in the
report to reduce potential hazards. ~~yy
Table III-1 gives three (3) of the major faults i
in and around the project site and its ~~JJ
relationship to them in terms of distance,
maximum probable magnitude and likelihood oP
occurrence in the next twenty '(20) years.
Table IIZ-1
Major Faults Surrounding the Redhawk Area
Distance from. Maximum
Fault Site Probable
in Miles Earthquake
g
Elsinore 1.75 west 7.0 ~
San Jacinto 20 northeast 7.5 'il
7.5 a
San Andreas 37 northeast
O Q~
Other hazards associated with seismic activity
include ground rupture, seiches, dam or levee s
failure, landslidinq, rockfalls and ~~
liquefaction. Existing conditions of these
hazards relative to the site are as follows:
o Ground Rupture: This hazard is generally l
associated with fault line zones which have
not ..been Pound on site (sea Paga 7). ~
o Seiches: A proposed water storage tank
will be constructed as part of the ``~
improvements of the Rancho California
water District. It will ba the source of
water for the project area and will
facilitate the needed water pressure to ;g
service the proposed development. i3[
o Dam Failure: Vail Lake is located
approximately, eight (8) miles east of the >~
~~
O .l
- 139 -
I '~~
O
i proposed project site. It impounds
Temecula Creak, 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
1 ~ 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 landslidinq. IE on-site materials are
compacted and used as fill for building pad
preparation, slopes of 2:1 and thirty (30)
i feet in height could be safely constructed.
i
o Rock Falls: No major rock out croppings or
large boulders have been observed along
the slopes and ridges oP the project area.
o Liquefaction: Portions of the project
7 O 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
i caused by high ground water tables adjacent
to some types of poorly consolidated soils.
When ground shaking occurs during s 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.
f General Plan Policies
Applicable policies to the proposed Redhawk
Specific Plsn are as follows:
o If the proposed site for a sub-division or
human occupancy structure is located
1 O
- 140 -
b.
within: (a) An Alquist-Priolo special ~/ '
studies zone or; (b) A County Fault Hazard
Zone or; (c) 150 feet of an active or 3,
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 3
Report which reduce or eliminate all
seismic hazards found to occur on throsect
must be incorporated into the p j
design. _
The recommendations listed in each repos d
have been integrated into the Prof
specific plan. The results .of this
" integration can be found in Part C, the
mitigation portion of this topic.
Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan
Policies O
Project Impacts
According to available geological data, the '.
site could be subjected to seismic activity and ''
related hazards. Possible site hazards dura~ ;~
a seismic event are: ground shaking,
failure and seichinq.
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 Oniform
- 141 -
O
~~;
I O
I
I
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 Sieching: The General Plan states that if
water storage tanks are to be placed on a
O 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 area will
conform to Uniform Building Code Standards
related to groundshaking.
o Graded slopes will not exceed 2:1 or be
greater than thirty (30) feet in height
unless otherwise approved by the Department
of Building and Safety.
O
I
- 142 -
o Cut and fill ratios proposed for the site O ,
will be approximately 1:1 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
iP 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
which generally decrease in elevation
(approximately 1300 feet down to 1050 feat) 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
transact the site. The drainages either flow
into Temecula Creek to the north, or to a
lesser extent, flow into Yechanga 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
- 143 -
~:.~
O
i
~ ~
~ N
o °a ~ ~
~, ~ ® ~
o@ ~
~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 ~ ~ q
~@~F~ ~@~
~ ~~b~~~ °~~,
~ ~ ~i~~ ~ d
y~~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
m
o io
~ ~ "~
~ u
~ ~¢ A
~ ~ ^ a: z
~~~~
O ~
~'
o d _~
'~
d
~ ~
,g
N
i 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 'fie 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
~1 ~ 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 (25) 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 o:
the Comprehensive General Plan are applicab3e
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
~. O 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 tan 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
i O - 144 -
~f
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:
Where 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 stablestreet
for structural foundations,
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 soma portions a=cent
project area exceed twenty-five (25) p
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.
- 145 -
O ,.
'~~
s
bJ
X~
z,
O
1
1
1I
1 O
When grading occurs on the site, soils could be
` eroded and washed down existing drainages.
However, the grading plan will meet County
standards and will balance cut and fill slopes
I~ 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
II retained as open space and alteration oP
natural drainages will be minimized and
drainage improvements installed.
~~ Relationship To General Plan Policies
,~ The Redhawk Specific Plan proposes the
j following measures to meet slopes and erosion
standards.
r. o Hillside Design:
Most areas oP twenty-five (25) percent
slopes or greater will be designated as
~; open space.
~i
o Slope Heights:
~ All cut and Pill slopes shall be no steeper
than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1)
O
vertical feet. Contouring and landscaping
i of slope areas will blend into the natural
terrain, where feasible.
1 o Road Grades:
All roads within and connecting the
property will b® fifteen (15) percent
=_{ gradient or less.
o Slope Stabilization and Landscape Plan:
i 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 -
I
J
3
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 b® complied
with throughout,the grading procedures.
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.
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.
The following discussion is based on the
Redhawk Specific Plan EIR Number 93 prepared by
O
O L~
r}f{
1J
- 147 - O ~,
Flooding
a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
;o
l 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 oP 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 expectec
during a 100 year frequency flood event are
included in the following table (refer to
Exhibit 1-5, Hydrology Map).
Table III-2
100 Year Flood Event
Maximum Discharges For
Redhawk Specific Plan Area
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
TOTAL, TOTAL
CREEK 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 Creak. Sea 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
I
- 148 -
b.
plain zones and potentially flood prone areas.
ll Elood related
t O
a
The General Plan states tha
hazards must be adequately mitigated. Also, it ,
states that, in general, no land uses are
flood plain zones,
suitable within the 100 year ,
except for open space and recreation.
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan
Policies
The proposed project will increase runoff
potential by the placement of impervious
sidential units, commercial
surfaces (roads, re
centers) on the site. However, the proposed
Specific Plan has taken flood hazards into
and ,
account and has designated open space
flood ~
recreational land uses within 100 Year
plain zones and potential floodways that are
located an 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 L
drains and other drainage improvements will be
placed in the developed areas to carry away =~
run-off as part of individual tract plans. a3
To insure that the Proposed project area will
flood
not be cut off in the event of a 100 year
Road a
ggargarita Road, Butterfield Stage
event
,
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 `"1
The proposed Redhawk Specific Plan has _3
incorporated all General Plan policies i`~
- 149 -
43~
O ..
i
~, 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
i eliminated through the incorporation of County
General Plan and Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Standards. The
mitigation measures utilized are given below.
r o The 100 Year Flood Plain Zones associated .
with Temecula Creek are designated as oper.
'~` space in .the form of a 17.6 acre park
' featuring field sports snd 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.
I, ~ o The potential floodways located in the
O 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 based on maps and text
found in the Noise Element of the Riverside County
General Plan.
i
,.
I
l
,I O
4
- 150 -
O
a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The Redhawk Specific Plan encompasses 1275.6
acres of land that is primarily vacant. Noise
generation on 79tetcantheencorthlandePalalROadeto
for Highway
the west, which generate some traffic related
noise.
General Plan Policies: ?$
The General P=es
~agesdevelopmentsa
idential
multi-family
and schools from areaC
uniee
hospitals
cmm
generated noise exceeds 65 ~I' ~ The only
Y i
Noise Equivalent Level, in decibels).
t site capable of f,
areas in the projec
experiencing noise above this level appears to
Pala
t
s3
o
be adjacent to Highway 79 and adjacent.
5 feet perpendicular to
Road, approximately 31
build out to maximum
i
ng
the centerline, assum
master planned service levels.
Project Zmpact/Relationship to General Plan
b
.
Policies a
Noise impacts will generally be associated with
h or adjacent to the ~
roads which pass throug
The Rancho Villages ~
specific plan area.
Assessment District has planned to widen
Highway 79 and Nargarita Road. Butterfield
will
roved
unim
l
,
p
y
Stage Road, which is present
full improvements along its route. The
have
following table lists the roads scheduled for
ill serve
improvements by the district which w
.
Redhawk Specific Plan.
a~
4
~
~.
<2
O .~
- 151 - %~
9
O
I,
~~
I.
ii:
i
l O
I:
_~
i
I
I
Ii
1
Table III-3
Expected Noise Contours of
Roads from Centerline
Rpad Width
(feet) 60
dBA 65
dBA 70
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 7A
of Highway 79
Butterfield Stage Rd. 110 315 155 70
Wolf Valley Loop Rd. 100 310 150 65
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 tha 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.
- 152 -
rofessional offices where
o Business and p O '
effective communication is essential shall
mitigate interior noise. to 45 dBA.
~-
o proposed noise sensitive projects within
noise impacted areas shall be required to i.
have acoustical studies prepared by
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 shall 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-
scapinq 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 Oviform Building Coda
Standards. An acoustical analysis should be
performed by a certified acoustical engineer
to identify specific areas prone to noise
impacts.
- 153 -
s~.~
x
~!
O '~ }
;~
i
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
i0
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
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 get
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.
O
i
- 154 -
Light breezes, of an average of 5.7 miles per
hour, usually blow throughout the area mslowg
the dispersion of pollutants very
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 ttse 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.
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 sustaiand
for several days which traps smog
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 Aiz 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.
- 155 -
O .
r~
~3
O Y~
's~
O >
d
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 Quslity.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 Area Non-compliant Pollutant Types
O
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-
carbons and oxides
of nitrogen in
combination with
ultraviolet light
from the sun.
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.
Produced by in-
complete combustion
of carbon-containing
substances in
internal combustion
engines, especially
automobiles, and
some industrial
processes.
I O - 156 -
.)
Passes into
blood stream,
interferes with
transfer of fresc.
oxygen to blood,
depriving heart
and brain of
oxygen.
='.l
Table III-4 (continued)
Riverside Area Non-compliant Pollutant Types O ~~
"'-"---~- Effects
sources
Pollutants ___________- a
----------------Y ---------------
NOx: Nigroqen Due primaril to A primary
Oxides, includes the high temperature receptor of
NO: nitric oxide in combustion, ultraviolet light
a colorless, nitrogen and which initiates
oxygen in the air the reactions "
odorless gas, roducin hoto-
and Not: Nitrogen combine to form P g P
dioxide, a nitric oxide, and chemical smog.
reddish-brown further chemical
irritating gas. N02~iAut mobiles
engines are the
primary source.
along with
combustion in
power plants, and `
soma industrial
operations.
Particulates: Consists of Injury to
Tiny particles atmospheric respiratory tract
made up of particles from alone or in
divided solids dust and fume- combination with
~ reducing gasses; absorption
suchlaslsoot, industrial and and scattering
dust, aerosols, agricultural of sunlight
fumes and mists. operations, from reducing the
combustion products amount reaching r
including auto- earth: damage to
mobile exhaust, materials
and atmospheric
photochemical
reactions.
++Source: Winchester Property EIR #227 by Turrini & Brink. ^\~
- 157 - ~~~
O 4_
t
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 Ranch^
California/Temecula area has lower pollutar.-
than areas to the north. This is due to
levels
j _
a steady flow of air that moves from the
_ mountain areas to the southwest through the
Santa Margarita River drainages and into
~
~ Temecula Valley. This pushes back the pollution
that moves in from the Los Angeles and Riverside
~ O city areas.
licies
P
l Pl
o
an
Genera
Relative land use standards regarding air
quality found in the environmental hazaids and
resources element are as follows:
1) Air Quality Impact Mitigation:
Major development proposals which may
create a significant new source oP 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:
,j1 O - 158 -
I
~,
.~
~o ~.
~. ~.
ro a
~ s c
m~ z rn z
a+ d
N b
d
N d
~O
~E %
CW
1.1
b
0
7
y
1 ~
H SCE
N ~ +'~
M ~0 ry
t A
Ada
ma
E ++
4
to
O+
.r
N
~0
M 'O
~+ c
a .o
.a y
4 ~
'O ~
W l0
'~
t0
-.i
b 1.r
Sd M
b 41
~o a
C \
~d
N ~
A U
D %
W
b
{.1 ~1
~ b
eb
C
~ N
3a W
wy
~.1 +i
b b
V y
Ot
ai
C
i0
JJ
7
.~
O
a
~
s w s
°' ~m
c a
O, n ~ l+
N W Ill H L
p~ prl O~ NN ~
LI
+1
C
M
3a
3~
^)
F
T
. L
_
b
~ m
z '' z ° ca
d
fr
O.
n
N
N
O
Z
a
N
H 8. n~ W
0' ~ ~ O
9 ~
0
, L
i
t
O 3a u'1 M ~ L ~+
rl rl'L N L
O V' d
01 Orl Orl b N M
d
la
m
ii
N
a d
N L
y y .. C
3
U p i 0
d
a
+
...
... N IO
C 7 •+ Cl
~ O y
C ~
i C ~'O U 3+
W
~ O 'O % b aJ O
O
~ O y
A O X i ~.
i
~ ~0
V S O 2O ECL e
'f
I O
I
,~
=~
(.
~~
l
l1
1
Y
~Y
I
I
Ii
J
~~
i
I O
1
~aa
3
nnn
a rat K
N K
G W $
M m
m ~p a
one
M M
$ m
<wa
o r
rr
6 0
m ~
w
° ° o d o
a o w x
~ °
n o c ~
r a
r e
c a
r w 7
O 0.~ 7 rr
.
o ~ ~ ~
~ c ~
a m R
rr~o z o
N ~ IN o O
~ ~
r. N O
H D+ "'
y
b
.,
A
c~
a a
rr
Nr ro ro moo -••w
~
O SN 7r 7r K O
K tfi -t o ~ 7•
M C b UJ
~ \ ~ ~ 6 d d
'
O O
'
u 8 8 p
l , Y
a w
~
a
w
X
O
A a
Z Z r Z fDK
$ 8 C ~
~ K
~
~
'0 d
a a
~'{ D.
W
N
O
C
az
NN ro ro Co ~n WK
O O h u K O
S K t
ii K N
K C u W 'O 7
N
\ ~O b 9 K b
w ~ 7
I g 'S
d
a
M
d
w
Mo
I nK
N N
fD K
3 3 0 3
~
~
n n
na
t-• N
N
r
.o
N
Y
w H
K ,R79
A m
a d m
r£ H
rxr
~7 M
K 1
O~
N
G
3
8
a
K
K
i
oc
0
0 0
~~
~ ~
b
~ ~ ~ ~
P
p
0
e
e
0
e
v
C
O
N
ro
0
o~
'-
~~
V1 y
00
o {d
~ ~
® ~
h
!~
Z ~.. T \ Z
v v®i=~ ~
o ~ ~~~qqpCQQ ~ g
~ ~ Q(.J~ '. ; U
•~~~~ z
6¢ A
o ~,~~~ z
W
p~
L~_I
~"]
P~
O~
d
00
Q~
V ~
.~
M
.~
.c
x
W
- Bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes,
O 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
Sensitive land uses (e.g. schools,
hospitals) should not be located adjacent
to sources of heavy air pollution, such as
major roadways or heavy industrial land
uses.
b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan
Policies
O The following information was prepared from
D
base data and formulas provided in the SCAQM
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.
- 159 -
O
0
When development of the proposed residethere
and commercial areas areactspinvolved: 1.
will be two air quality imp
Increased motor vehicle emissions; the
project will draw more people into the area,
increasing vehicular travel;eo2le occupyathe
power plant emissions; as P P
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.
Operation Of Completed Project
Table III-7
Motor Vehicle Emissions
Redhawk
Pollutant
CO (CARBON MONOXIDE)
HC (HYDRO-CARBONS)
NOx (OXIDES OF NITROGEN)
SOx (OXIDES OF SULFUR)
PARTICULATES
Emissions (Pounds/Day)
6,293
606
1,361
199
266
TOTALS 8,725 or
3,184,625 Lb/Yr.
*+ASSUminq an average speed of 45 miles per hour in the year
2000 and a volume of 376,898 vehicle miles traveled.
O
O
- 160 - O
O Table III-8
Power Plant Emissions (Pounds/Day)
Pollutant Emissions
CO 13.6
NOx (1988) 98.1
SOX 93.5
PARTICULATES 11.7
ORGANIC GASSES 8.3
TOTAL 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.
~ A projected 4188 .units will consume an estimated 24.5
million Rwb/year. Commercial consumption cannot be
estimated at this time due to lack of specific square
footages.
O Table III-9
Domestic Natural Gas Emissions (Pounds/Month)
Pollutant Emissions
2-8 DU/AC 8-17 DU/AC
Cp 384,837 106,812
NOx 1,924,186 534,060
SOx NEGLIGIBLE NEGLIGIBLE
PARTICULATES 2,886 801
~E (CH4) 153,935 42,725
TOTAL 2,465,844 685,398
GRAND TOTAL: 3,150,242 LBS./MONTH or 37.8x106 LBS/YR
4Based on 6,665 cf/month/unit x 2,887 DU @ 2-4.5 and 4.6-8
DU/AC and 4,105 cP/month/unit x 130. DU @ 8-11 and 12-17 DU/AC
Source: Southern California Gas Company, 1983.
- 161 -
O
o Relationship To General Plan Policies O
Air quality land use standards should be met
through the following mitigation measures.
c. 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 iri
the Temecula/Rancho California area which
should result in shorter commutes.
o An air quality enhancement fee of $25.30 per
unit will be paid by the developer to off-set O
regional cumulative impacts.
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
transacted by various intermittant drainages
that flow from the hills to the soutls (See
- 162 - O
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 intermittent
and only flow after heavy rains have
saturated the topsoil.
0
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
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 O
Policies
Grading and building pad preparation is
expected to alter the smawhen d~enaproposed
transect the property
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
street runoff problems.
c. Mitigation O
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 - O
O 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.
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 al'
applicable Federal, state and regior:.
requirements. At the present time, there are n_
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
O 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 handlefl
by proposed sewer improvements and County
planned land fills.
c. Mitigation
Since no impacts are foreseen, mitigation
measures will not be required.
- 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
the rural character
currently exist or are
west of Pala Road off
Interstate 15. This is
entire i-15 corridor
California area, which
growth.
are presently changing
of the area. Homes
being constructed just
of Highway 79 near
representative of the
in the Temecula-Rancho
is experiencing rapid
IInder 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 Spacial 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
O
O
- 166 -
O
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
opportunities and aesthetic amenities.
3. Critical natural resource uses should be
O 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.o 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.
- 167 -
O
To offset the proposed increase in density, the O
proposed Specific Plan has designatedarks0at
acres of open space, of which includes p
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 ZI-2, Recreation/Open
space). This increases the amounoo fpercentatas
open space by approximately
compared to the currently adopted Specific
Plan.
Relationship to General Plan Policies
General Plan Maps indicate two critical
natural resource 8eatp=o;e~hat could be
affected by the prop
one feature is the native riparian vegetation
associated with Temecula Creek. Cottonwood
trees associated us~thot~sideeeofwthe proposed
but were located j Most of the '
project's northern boundary.
vegetation within the site consists of coastal
sage scrub, which is not considered a unique
plant community in the Riverside County General
Plan. However, it should be stated that O
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 tha 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 northing
portion of the project site but no sp
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 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
O 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 -
O
Specific Plan Number 171 has been designated as O
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 IZI-10
Agricultural Areas
Affected by Road improvement
Comparative
Agricultural Agricultural Quality of
Preserve Use Soils in Area
Road No. for Agricultural
---------e°-°=- Us=====~
Wolf Valley Loop
Margarita Road 17 Limited Cattle ~ Poor
Butterfield Stage Road Grazing
Macho Road 17 Citrus Growing Moderate
Pala Road
Wolf Valley Road 2 Sod Farming Good
Fairview Road
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
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-ter.
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
rights-of=way as shown in the General Plan
per Rancho Villages Assessment District
O 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
b
c
General Plan Policies O
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.
.Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan
Policies
The road improvements, sewer lines and water
lines necessary to service the proposed Project
dill 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
The proposed specific plan is located in a
growth corridor specified for the Southwest O
Territory as delineated in the County General
Plan. Land use buffers will separate
agricultural areas from urban uses as specified
in General Plan Policies.
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).
- 172 - O
O o Landscaped buffers will be placed along the
ecific Plan area and
f the S
i
p
es o
boundar
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 wit`
harvesting due to road constructior.
activities.
o Growth inducement to the citrus farm is not
expected to occur as s result of Redhawk
because of its General Plan status of
Mountainous. Minimum lot sizes are ten (l0)
acres and certain restrictions apply which
O limit the density 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 (See Exhibit I-3, O
Topographic Map.) The project area extends
floor ronedthe twestsand northsouIn each valley
noorth and PechangaeCreek tomthelwestreek to the
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 °ecies
site, support a diversity of animal sp
which are common to many areas of Southern
California. The following table lists
sensitive species known or are likely to occur
on the site. "Sensitive", according to the
California Natural Diversity Data Base, refers O
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-11
Sensitive Species for Redhawk Specific Plan
Scientific Name ++Number of Sightings Ocou==encey of
(Common Name)
___ Occurs
Accipiter coooperi
Cooper's Hawk
8 occurs
Ammodramus savannarum (nests)
Grasshopper Sparrow
saetos --- Occurs
Aquila chry ~ (winter visitor)
Golden Eagle
174 - O
O
Table III-li (continued)
Sensitive Species for Redhawk Specific Plan
Scientific Name
(Common Name)
*Number of Sightings
Probability of
Occurrence
Buteo lagopus
Rough-legged Hawk
Suteo regalia
Ferruginous Hawk
Occurs
occurs
(winter visitor)
Dipodomys stephensi --- Low
Stephens Kangaroo Rat
Elanus leucurus 2 Occurs
Black-shouldered Rita
Phrynosoma coronatum 3 Very Hiqh
blainvillei
San Diego horned lizard
Polioptila melanura --- Hiqh
california
California black-tailed
O gnatcatcher ---
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus Hiqh
Orange throated whiptail
G
*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 -
badgers, grey foxes, squirrels, mice and O
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.
These bird species, along with some species of
song birds, use the willows and cottonwoods
located in the wash areas as roosting and O
nesting sites.
Stephens Rangaroo Rat
The Stephen's Rangaroo Rat is listed as
threatened by the California Department of Fish
and Game. Although one Stephen's Rangaroo 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 snd Resources Element
of the Comprehensive General Plan contains the
- 176 - O
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 b®
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.
b. Project Zmpsct/Relationship To General Plan
O 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.
- 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
Black Shouldered Reduced
Kite (occassional
visits)
San Diego Displaced
Horned Lizard /Reduced
(Habitat Loss)
California Black- Reduced
tailed-gnat- (human
catcher disturbance)
Orange Throated Reduced
Whiptail (Habitat Loss)
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
Insects Diverse plant
community
O
O
- 178 -
O
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
impacts to vegetation and wildlife. They are
designed to retain roosting, nesting and
food/prey habitats for area wildlife and
O 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,
rn
- 179 -
toyon, sage brush, buckwheat, sycamore trees O
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 blantedinin
or new native scent tolTemeculapCreek.
buffer areas adj
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 founo~standemaps
within the project area. Geologic rep
show no mineral resources or existing mining
operations.
a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
No- on site resources ofre~edeRiverside County
- Mineral Resources Map
General Plan. Two rock product sites are
located in the Rancho California-ToneCthe
area although these have no closestg site is
Re~awk project as the
approximately one ,and a half miles west of the
Wolf Valley area.
General Plan Policies
General- plan policies for mineral resources
stress the scarcity oto ~=bane5developmenta
their relationship
Although the proximity of a resom =e tO ~luable
area makes the resource
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 are~raffic
as noise, dust, odors and truck
- 190 - O
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
No significant impacts to mineral resources are
O 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 oP energy
and tha 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.
- 181 -
O
b, Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan O
During the construction period for the
Project, short term energy consumption will
include the use of raw materials, gas used
b construction vehicles and electriUiton
Y construction equipment. P
used by the project, energy will be
completion of h the use
consumed by Project residen~iV$terautomobiles,
of fossil fuels for P of homes
natural gas for space heating
and electricity for lightihq and household
liances. An approximatibY
tools and aPP and natural gas usage
of electrical
project residents can be units bawithinn the
number og dwelling of dwelling
project. The maximum number
units which will be constructeVa~ RedAsasuming
4,188 but the actual number maY units, the
aPProxima~ n~nnualf 4energy eusage would be
237 3065060 icubictfe toofsnaturallgas icity and
In terms of general plan policies, energy
usage by Redhawk residents aviation mmeasures
by implementation of the mitig with the
discussed below. This will comply energy O
general plan policies concerning
conservation.
c. Mitigation
The following techniques should eCnhdLea•energy
conservation in the Proposed proj
o Multiple land uses within the project site
will reduce drii=ed ttoeStravelcoto lreach
the distance requ'
available services.
o Bicycle trails will be provided along
proposed roads to encourage alternative
modes of transportation..
- 182 - O
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
As briefly mentioned in the previous section,
O 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 Ares 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.
- 183 -
O
c. Mitigation O
o Open space buffers will be placed 79 sandltthe
viewing areas between Highway
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 baseL•°goelesrand JeancAl
assessment conducted by iealYResearch Unit of the
Sancras, of the Archaeoloq' in March, 1979.
University of California at Riverside,
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 ZII-1, Environmental Constraints).
This site is known as "Old Temecu=c"osedwhPLO7ect
acres are located within the can and Aboriginal
site.- Evidence of both Europ century has
occupation during the mid-ninteenth which wasO
been found. in the immediate area,
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. RZV
364 is of National Register of Historic Plsite
Quality. This designation implies that the
could be a significant cultural resource for the
area.
Paleontological Resources
The project bedrock ethats ise ~°rn EtO acontain
sedimentary och, which
fossils from the last Pleistocene EHewever, a
began 1.5 million Years ag
paleontological assessment by John Joseph Chemeht,
of the University of California at Berkelro'o ed
found no fossil resources within the P P
project site.
- 184 - O
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
"Old Temecula" site, due to grading of building
O 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 Folicies
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
specific plan implementation
and possible cultural
resources should be reduced
be performed duri~
All impacts to kno -~~
and paleontological
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.
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 O
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,
- 186 -
n
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
Average Daily
Roadway Classification Traffic Classi-
fication Volumes
Interstate 15 North of Freeway 30,000
Highway 79
Highway 79 just east Expressway 10,500
of Interstate 15
O Margarita Road North of Arterial 676
Highway 79
Pala Road South of Arterial 3.768
Highway 79
Pechanga Road 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 (Sae Exhibit IV-1, Area Wide
Development Potential and Present Land Uses in
- 187 -
O
Section IV, Growth Inducement). The area in and O
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 Roadway Design: Intensive urban land uses shall
be served by streets and highways capable of
handling high volumes of commuter and truck O
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.
- 188 -
O
O 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 Arterial Highways: Arterial highways shall be
O 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
- 189 -
O
efficient movement of traffic or the O
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 oP Service: Private
developments which are projected to reduce
levels of service on existing facilities below
acceptable standards shall be required to
provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Traffic signals shall be constructed and O
improved at appropriate intersections.
Developments which are identified as major trip
attractors (f.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.
- 190 -
O
O 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 (S.ee
Exhibit III-12, Circulation Map). The Exhibit also
shows the proposed widths of the roads within the
O 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
53, 347
Trip Ends
203,672
- 191 -
The table illustrates the reside
howingataregreater O
s
proposed Redhawk project. by
f trip-ends for the site in relatb tithe
percentage o
total district trip ends. This is backed5eveny(67)
of sixty-
fact that an approximate average
ro ect
vening traffic in the p 7
percent of the peak e
is coming into the project site.
area
Relationship to General Plan Policies
Rancho Villages Assessment District and the Redhawk
conform to the
i
on
Specific Plan will in conjunct
Circulation Standards as listed
'
s
General Plan
below.
1) Road Right-of-Way and Dedication
2) Roadway Design
g) Alignment
4) Access
5) Intersections
5) On-Site Road Improvements O
7) Off-Site Road Improvements
g) Arterial Highways
g) Collector Streets
l0) Commercial and Industrial Development
li) Circulation Hazards
12) Flooding
13) Congestion Relief/Levels of Service
14) Pedestrian Facilities '
15) Bikeways
- 192 - O
The proposed project will be consistent with these
O standards, as will the Rancho Villages
District. For details of conformance, Assessment
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
District plans.
O 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
- 193 -
O
to a Class II bike trail adjacent to Temecula O
Creek which is a County designated bicycle
route.
o Internal circulation Rancho mVillagessAssessment
conditions utilizing traffic signal
District improvementgometricsing
placement and lane 4
2, Water and Sewer
The following discussion is based on maps and text
the Rancho Villages Assessment
related to or source of funding for water and
District, the maj service the Redhawk
sewer improvements that will
Specific Plan area of which the project development
is a contributor.
a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Water Supply ecific Plan is located
The proposed Redhawk Sp which '
within the Rancho California Water Districal Water
is a sub-district of the Ewatern forlcthese two
District. The source °f which is listed in
districts is shown below, ent source.
sequence of each District s subsequ O
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
- 194 - O
O Exhibit III-4, Existing Area aide 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
should be stated, however, that the District is
under development and subject to County review, and
O 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 CateaorY 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
- 195 -
O
c y
o~@~ is •~ c ~ Y
C ~ to J J C
eo ~ C O C ~
~ ~ ~
ro ~
ee • C C GJ •C ro
~ °~ \ C ~ ~~ N b N d
.1 ° • ~
e o ~ ~ r N M 00 t~ d
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 0
e¢p ~ o
o O
~ O I ~ a
e
e O
it U ~ .-a. ~'~ °fv .
I ~
II I ~
\.Y 4 .(1.. ~ ., 1 r I f ly ~, f )'a ~I I I I ! _1 ,~ J~ I I
\F 1 I G- _
t a h ~~4y.
y~ I. k: l ~j., 1. I, f r 1
v ~. ~ 1 ~ IF /,lj
~~ ( tll u it s~c•Y p1 .11 •.~
\ ~ ~ -}-{ ~
e'~,•>'- ,.'all ~.+~;~ t Y4.
\ ' ';f ~ ~ I } ,eta . ~ fi:. ` I , ~ p:, ~ ~ \jJ7 1'` ~ / 1 \ ,
~, ~ ,, , ~• 1 ., ,.
/ / t I r , ~ r , r I ~ / I. ~ o~o~a
r i !~.~ l r
~ fit, '~ 7~~. `; p'4b ~ ~ F `~ 1
~.:.
I i 1.: ^~ 0060 ~06D0 y.. ' ~,. - O.
~ ~1. : ..--e~"~ ~ .1
tij~ ~ ~ ~ ~> p~ .~. 0 1 ~~ ~
~.I~.^T p 1
s1.. ~T ~ \\ R' \ I~'. \1 i'_ ..
j I ]~ ~yf / .` 11 ~. {{ i ~ iOb
1'' i I 4 c ,
,.. t a. 1
SS 3
l)'~~~'.J~/ i\ J l ~~ ,\z `dap, "~ \.
m
=~ ~ ~
•V ~ yy \
~ ® ~ F~~f O
V ~ ° '^ ~ ~ ill ~
~~_ M ~ ,;; ~ g_
~~ ri C_<VOe U u
~ d 'C rqN. z .n
Gi a0.1 C a d e a .C
ro W ~ <qN i w
~ ~ O p @~ ~ O^ ZOZ
nU.. W
/~7 ~! ~ l t7 / y • a'Er ~~
®` it
I ~ Y' a•
.. a ,•
°
. , ~, 1 ~
i\....
y'• /~' • I I ~• 1
~~ ,'- ' \ 1
;~ ~
y ~ 1 00
~ ,'i ' I ~( 'y`
\ ("4 ...~ l j 11.
~~ 1 I „e\ 1'\13
,•~ Q- oe
•
( a
~~ I •~ `l
o' 1 t (~,
~ i ~f ~ q
i . ?" ^..
It \ ~ ~0~{
L
:~~ nl /
\ ••~ - -
J~ • ~\
1 ~,~ .
°~~1o I ~aQ I q~~ 1_
? ~ ~~° s °e a i ~,.i ,.
I o :• ~ ~'
o F9atl jj ~<
I I/ \ ~ ~_%
/I!7U \~`
ice'
~ ( 1.
"~. 4 I \ ` • / i IY" ~ `ff _11,~ 4 '/ (ry.•°~1 ` t '6.~/~ (rk.._ ~ \ \ _
S :'
;.
y _
ffyl v/~~ -~ ~- /.~ /~ ii ~t .1'111 \ \J ~` -
..q, \ ,, .~ I ~ i ;
~-~ ~ ` -`, ., .. y'LL .\ ` 1~-L~\ • y,IIT N4 1~ \t/u''. 'I \~ llr~ I'\..~I L ~ I~/
\ ~~ .I/' ~~CC/ ~ r i f ti I ~ •'1(, }~ is I 1 :.. /.
~~.~X~iSY ~~~ /Y _. ;J ~ ~1 l Ir I i`. 1~ ht `~t I~i ~^'+4 ~ ~.;.1\\ ~. ,' iCA. ;`o a ~.
\ l°~~ \ I ~~.A ~-- ; / it lT ~.' t \ / ~ ~ i ~ I , / J. ~
1 1 ~ /
~., /~ ~ 'l ~_' _~ ~ IF" l -~'~ c \""' ,"G.c 4~, t .. ~i ~1i. X61! 7
NJ \ \ \ ':,~I~ ~r 11J~ I . ~? ~4'~ ~a ~ N t.: 1 \liut( (~
- ~~
O O O
O the project. Commitments for adequate and
available water and sewer service must be
confirmed by the special districts.
o Cateaorv ZI
A Category iI development must be located within
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
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 Landscapin4
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
purposes.
O 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 Redhawk and any subsequent
future development that will occur within the
District boundaries. The table below compares the
volumes (in million gallons) of effluent produced
by the Wolf Valley 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/DII x 100 gallons per
person. Dwelling unit figure based on the Rancho
Villages Assessment District EIR.
Relationship to General Plan Policies
The Redhawk Specific Plan proposes a combination
O 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 Streethe ThCalifornia
is operated jointly by
Department of Forestry and the Riverside
County Fire Department. Current is staffing
twelve
during the summer fire season
personnel, with one volunteer rescue unit and
four "heavy" fire trucks during the summer fire
season and two trucks during the winter season.
Within two years, a new f1rWinchester lRoadanandO
for the intersection of
Jefferson Street.
General plan policies emphasize the maximization
of the public safety and welfare. Particular
emphasis of the general plan policies pertains to
the administrative review rc acts azevreviewed
projects. land develo$rtm n with respect to the
by the County fire dep artment
adequacy of fire protection. Fire dep
review is required prior to Planning Department
approval of a project.
tionship to General Plan
General Plan Policies
b, project Impact/Rela
Policies
Development of Redhawk twol
for approximately
result in the need
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
policies. These fees help to pay for a portion
O 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.
O - 199 -
General Plan Policies O
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.
c.
Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan
Policies
The proposed project could result in increased
crime. Based on the Sheriff Department's policy of
one officer Eor every 4,000 population and 2.1
persons per dwelling unit, the Redhawk development
would generate a need for approximately two
additional sheriff's officers. O
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.
Mitigation
o The Sheriff's Department will review the
specific plan as part of the County's review
procedures for all land use development
proposals. This review process will enable the
County Sheriff's Department to have the
opportunity for input into design issues and to
plan for additional needs of manpower,
personnel, and/or equipment as necessary.
- 200 - O
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
O 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 -
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 w111 pay a total of
$1.50 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
Soth the Temecula Union Elementary and Elsinore
Union Hiqh 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 Eollowinq table.
Table III-16
Elsinore Union High School District
School Capacity/Student Generation and Enrollment
NAME OF VAIL TEMECDLA
SCHOOL: SCHOOL MIDDLE
GRADES: R-5 6-8
~RR~T 780 660
CAPACITY:
TEMECULA
HIGH
9-12,
600
0
O
- 202 - O
O Table IZI-16 (continued)
Elsinore Union High School District
School Capacity/Student Generation and Enrollment
NAME OF VAIL TEMECULA TEMECULA
SCHOOL: SCHOOL MIDDLE HIGH
9-12
GRADES: K-5 6-8
~RRENT 717 549 740
ENROLLMENT
OF STUDENTS
NO 63 UNDER 111 UNDER
.
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 nqn-mature adult
homes in Redhawk will generate approximately 2,303
elementary and middle school students and 638
high school students.
O 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 -
O
determine the precise method of acquisition of
the school sites by theascen~l ofsschool fees
school sites and/or the p Ym ro ram
will constitute the impact mSchoolionDistrict.
with the Temecula Union
Mitigation of the impacts cssibl Eencompassnthe
High School District will p Y .
payment of some school fees by the developer to
the school district prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5, 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 Golis ooenstc
Although Privately owned, this facility P
the general public. Also located within a mile
are the Temecula Community harSchooleCand private
Park, Temecula Valley Hiq
facilities at Linfield Christian High School. An
Cal forniaoisrshowntinntheftabletbelown the Rancho
TABLE III-17 O
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
LOCATION ACREAGE OWNER FACILITIES
NAME
a
Nature Santa Rosa 3,700 Nature
Conserv. Natural
open space
Conserv. Mountains Acres hiking,etc.
River-. Artificial
Lake North & side lake with
Skinner east of
Count
Y cam in
P 9~
Rancho boating etc
California . .
100
1 Kaiser Artificial
Vail Lake Hwy 79
f
t ,
Acres Develop- lake with
o
eas went Co. fishing,
Rancho boating etc
California
- z04 - O
O TABLE III-17 (continued)
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACZLITIES
RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
NAME LOCATION
Butterfield Hwy 79
Country east of
RV Park Rancho
California
Rancon Alta
Park Murrieta
Drive 6
I-215
Temecula Rancho
ACREAGE
800
Acres
7.92
Acres
Sports Vista fi
Park Margarita
Temecula Pujol St.
Community in Temecula
Park
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
Valley
Hiqh
School
Rancho
Vista &
Margarita
Linfield
Christian .
High School
Pauba Road
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
Calif.
Water
D15triCt
Lakes &
camping
facilities
Elsinore Playing
Union fields
Hiqh (baseball,
School soccer,etc.
District
Playing
fields &
gymnasium
O - 205 -
TABLE III-17 (continued) O
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
PLANE LOCATION ACREAGE OWNER FACILITIES
Temecula Rainbow J.W. Clubhouse,
Creak 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 O
of tourism as well as providing recreational and
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
- 206 - O
O unincorporated areas. Under this program, the
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 ZI 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 (Sea Exhibit II-2,
Recreation and Open Space). -
b. Project Impact/Relationship To General Plan
O Policies
Premised..on; the.QuimbvAct standards of three (3)-
`"' ulation,_ the
acres: 'of =pack 'per .thousand pop..'
Redtiawk ;,project- -Frould :generate ~ a~, .demand; .= for
;` approximately, twenty-six- (26'j'acres of'park land.-i
'~ (4'188' DU, .x,;2:1-;~persons--per<<unt,, 'based -on, SLAG`
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
- 207 -
O
development of neighborhood and community parks O
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
,~, .~.s+ . P'` w,~x .
icier as ~reil as those
should the Board of
o Recreational amenities provided in the
Redhawk project include the following: (1) _
an eighteen hole golf course on 182.7
acres; (2) 149.3 acres of natural open space;'
(3) 45.9 acres of parks (4) equestrian
trails along Temecula Creek and the El
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 O
II-8, Park Site "A", Park Site "B" and Park
site "C".
7. Utilities
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.
Telephone service to the project area is provided
by the General Telephone Company. There are
currently no facilities on the project site as
the acreage is presently undeveloped and
unoccupied. However, a buried cable and conduit
are located along nearby Highway 79.
- 208 - O
O Cable television service in Rancho
California is provided by W West Communications
Company. As with telephone service, no
' facilities are currently installed in the
project site although one and a half and two inch
trunk lines have been installed in both Pala Road
and Highway 79.
General Plan Policies
General plan policies emphasise 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 utili2e
the same right of way as the project's backbone
O 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 56.20 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
Por 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 O
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 Chsmisal 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 O
primary impacts will be noise and dust and
secondarily soil erosion. Growth inducing impacts
resulting Prom 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 Erom an extension of gas, electric,
telephone and TV lines is vary 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 afar greater hurdle for
land development than do the more moderately
priced gas, electric, telephone and cable TV
lines.
- 210 - O
c• Mitigation
O Measures to mitigate the construction related
impacts include:
o The restriction of construction to daytiae
weekdays, the use oP 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
O and/or alternative dis osal will
specifically be analyzed inpa 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.
ofehav9nneral plan also emphasizes the necessity
for an g adequate solid waste disposal capacity
other Y planned land use developments. These and
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 O
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 Plsn 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 O
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
Ynez Road. The existing library contains
13,000 volumes within a 2,000 square foot
facility.
- 212 - O
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
Roads is planned to serve the Rancho
O California area.
o The Redhawk Specific Plan will
participate in the financing of the above
new library through the payment of a
S100.00 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.
lo. Health-services
a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .
Two major medical facilities currently provide
service to the Rancho California area. These
include th® Inland Valley Regional Medical
Center in Murrieta and the Fallbrook
Hospital in Fallbrook. Major medical
O - 213 -
facilities servicing the Rancho California area O
and vicinity are shown on the following
table.
TABLE III-18
MEDICAL FACILITIES
NAME p,Np LOCATION
Hemet valley Hospital
1117 E. Dev92343re Ave.
Hemet, CA
Fallbrook Hospital
624 E. Elder Avenue
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Christian Hospital
Medical Center
2224 Ruby Drive
Perris, CA 92370
Inland Valley Regional
Medical Center
I-15 at Clinton Keith Road
Murrieta, CA 92362
Golden Triangle
I-215 & Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.
Phase I Convalescent Center
NO. OF
BEDS
24 HOUR
EMERGENCY
242 Yes
50 Yes
36 Yes
86 Yes
99 N/A
General plan policies emphasize the County's
role in identifying areas of the County
which are in need ~enedcoordinated iwith Tthe
information is
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
- 214 - O
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. Zt 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
ever increasing importance of aviation and
O 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.
O - 215 -
In response to the issues reviewed in the O
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 oP operational safety and the
adequacy of capacity are long term issues beyond
the scope of this project which will be resolved
upon the relocation of the Rancho California O
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
- 216 - O
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
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
or channelizinq with soft bottom will permit
flood waters to travel through the site without
O 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 Elood plain
levels.
Single family residences and all other
structures are impacted by the presence of the
fault and the resultant potential for
groundshakinq. Through the IIniform Building Code,
construction standards are implemented which are
designed to give structures .the ability to
withstand groundshaking fiom seismic activity
without severe damage as well as preventing the
exposure of building occupants to hazardous
conditions.
- 217 -
O
c. Mitigation O
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 modiisin levelaise
all structures above the flood p
o Mitigation for groundshakinq is included in
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
The construction of all structures will include
additional reinforcements orBuildingedCodes to
required by the Uniforoundshaking.
mitigate the impacts of g
g. 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
and communities, the provision of affentsbcf
housing and housing opportunities for all segm
the. population, monitoring land resources to assess
of an adequate supply of housandO
the availability the affordability
sites and monitoring housing supply.
diversity of the existing
For the most part, programs and policies discussed~e
the Housing Element of the General Plan are
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 housi~hg
a. mixture of housing types and price ranges,
development of.housinq supplies in close proximity
to employment centers, and the development of
industrial parks and other land uses whicUnderd the
achieving a jobs/housing balance.
general heading of affordable housing, one program
directly applicable to Redhawk relates to the energy
- 21s - O
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
income categories. Several market segments
ranging from first time home buyers to families in
the market for estate homes will be available.
O 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 diversification 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
219
O
residences, although a substantial number of O
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
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.
- 220 - O
O 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 oP 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
pOptJLATION 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*d* 264,648
* Refer to the cumulative impact section for a list of
proposed projects.
** Represents 4.64 of the existing plus proposed`2008
project population.
**~ Assumes 1004 twenty (20) year buildout of proposed
projects.'
O - 221 -
RSA 49 includes the Rancho California-Temecula O
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 Ares 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
population of approximately 8,795 people. //~~
A rough comparison with SLAG-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
- 222 - O
O Redhawk and all other currently proposed projects
by 2010, a comparison to the SLAG projections for
2010 is shown below.
TABLE III-20
2010 POPULATION PROJECTIONS (RSA 49)
SLAG 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 flqures 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
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 SLAG 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 preceedinq
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
- 223 -
O
intensity to that of the proposed project- Also, O
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 wi olicies
existing community meets the general plan p
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 controfbutthg
factors to the regional context
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 this regard$lAlthough
General Plan policies in is fairly
the number of on-site jobs made on a
minimal. extensive efforts are beingdiversified
community wide basis to provide a site
economic base. Realistically, the Redhawk
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 wall as the projects
proximity to the urban center of Rancho
California and reladesi co~featuresandwhichstwill
development are acts, particularly for air
minimize regional imp
pollution.
Another regional consideration hasingallTheatwo
projects including Redhawk is the phasing of
major influences affecting royal of
construction are: 1)County review and app
phasing plans for large tract maps and specific
plans; and 2) the consumer desires of the
- 224 - O
O marketplace. Although the market will currently
absorb a volume of housing units which exceeds
SLAG 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
improvements and the implementation of a
balanced land use development program. By its
Q 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
- 225 -
O
on-site jobs and facilities for alternative modes
of transportation. Park-and-ride facilities are O
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 grogram of the Rancho
California. Development C.~pany (formerly Kaiser
Development Corporation), the Rancho California
area generally enjoys a c_:sar 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
job-deficient -and housing-rich areas include
the targeting of available economic development
funds in such areas, forecasting high levels //~~
of employment growth, working with SLAG 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
- 226 -
O
O particularly emphasize the need for additional
jobs in areas experiencing a jobs-housing
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
bettyeen 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.
O
In summary, the Rancho California community has
an identified job-housing imbalance 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
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. ADMINISTRATIVE 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 eupected time
frames of development based on the market and
economic data available at the time of specific plan
- 227 -
O
approval. Phasing of projects encourages a logical O
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.
Project Time Frames For Development
The continuum
completion of
a time period
the ten year
five phases as
exhibit.
from initial construction to
tedhawk is expected to occur over
of approximately ten years. over
period, development will occur in
delineated on the phasing plan
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 Bala Road. From a marketing
perspective the entryway along Highway 79 is critical
to the public awareness and success of the project:
Secondly, the Phase Z area is logical as the first
stage o4 development due to its proximity to
- 228 -
O
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 foz 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
O also unpredictable. These circumstances and the time
changes through the County
ssin
i
g
n proce
involved
make it desirable to maintain the maximum flexibility
in phasing.
~. Development Monitoring
A specific plan is often developed over a time period
of ten (l0) 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 oP action. Less complex changes can be
reviewed under the administrative procedures of the
County relative to boundary and area adjustments
O - 229 -
while more significant revisions will require the O
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
Ztedhawk 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 affect 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
rnn4ormance recuests include the following:
o Changes to the text or maps of the specific
plan other than the addition of new information O
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
- 230 - O
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
Zssues 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
plot plan basis. The County may require the
O 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.
O 231 -
6.
Vesting Tentative Maps O
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
and Ordinances. Vesting tentative tract map
status is being requested for each of the five
phasing areas to ensure that project O
implementation is carried out in a consistent
manner and is congruent to plan specifications.
- 232~-
O
O
O
O
IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
- 233 -
IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS O
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 47,736
dwelling units are either under construction, have
received tentative or final approval or are in the
planning stages (refer to Tables 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 4.0 dwelling
units per acre. Further, all of these projects are
proposed with commercial and industrial uses.
In the State Highway 79 corridor an estimated 20,2,3,/6~
dwelling units are either under construction, in t°~/
planning stages or have received tSeverale projects
approval (refer to Table IV-2).
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
- 234 -
O
0
O
O
LI
O
?I T7
~~
'~ 8 Lei
H b y U
~xm ~N
A .~ ~„~
E ~~
a .~
H
~.
~
.
~.
a+ a~
c ..+
m a
m
.~
to
v
m
e+
r'+
~
~
a+
'~ m Ill .d l'1 tD ~O In of Ill of N
aD
m
a
~~
ro ro
rl M
LI U a
i~ L/ m ~ O rl Pf N r1 Il1 P1' of Pf
a m s~ v+ In ~ e+ e+ n r+ n ~o .i
~ ~ ~
b~4
co ~
I-I U
U
4
O
.ti ~
ro
M
c a Ic o n ~+ rl N o o n o+
m a,+ ~c v . rn n m In la .r m I'7
Pf N n ~ Ilt O Ill n N ~D
M C
a' N r/ rl V` O N N t1
m .r .a .-I
a
N a In m O 01 O ~O ID Ill N N
ro m n ~ o to .i n o. o ~ n
JJ LI 'i N ~ n QI n N O N
O U ~ ~
E IC ni .~+ .c ri
a
m
T "
'I
c L ~
..
, a s
.l m
m m
lq m i
+ I
i .!G 9 ro O .d
" a a
,+ o+ a s
+ e o ro .
o ro . ~+ m ro ~+ m >
~ ~ E c m o u %
w ro -
+ > ~ +
+
m m w G d L ro
~ «
'I .C Z m
Cti m .° ~ C w G H
w u C ,
° v a a a s
~ c a o c
~
0
.~
o uc>,
romu
~ ~ A a
Br C
gum
oov
U G
.~
O m ro
~ A ~
LI t C
O m
•.+ a '6
s+ m ~+
aaa
~m
u -+
~ H
n O m m
rn ~ ai m
~ boa
Ub 8
roeo
S+ro U
L
A a O
7 .a a!
a O 'O
C t m
m U a
m a 7
'° - m
mas+
~ >xo
n Gro~
~. W
v m -m
~a ro
mrom
LI O H
°o~m
.~ .i ..I
:°+wy
,O.I so+ c a0i
rn mo
~ 8 U ~
~ U O~
O
W rl O
C 4+ N
ro 4+
.~I m b
-.ro+ m y
LI d O
N a W
Ada
ro NOa
a+
0
E
0
z
O
b
-.~
!. 4
N O
N ~ V
M R ~ n
~' a aoi r
E p ,,OI+
L S.
a
m
Y
m
Y
N
M ~ o
lI J.I
{'. M V' IA Q N1 n .i 01 ~} v Q IA N n
N N
'O C Pf e1 V' I+1 n Ill Q P1 N N of N .t
NG
01
a
.~
:°
~
.
o
~
i t
i W
a
IA 01 Sa ID O N LL'f O O O O O O O O Ill
6 N n N Ill t'f ~
~
~
@
M U
b
+1
/~
C 10. m 01 O Ill O O l'1 O O O O •i ~O
d Y CO N O N O IA v ~ O Cf R N ~'1 ~\
~ rl LL1 OD PI m N Y Nt N rl rl •i N /
\
C \
J
O1 .7 V' N Ill P7 rl rl O \ J
y N
a
rl m Ill N N l1 ID Ill O O Ill IA O t1 7 d
10 d n Ill O N ~ n C~ OI aD Il1 c aD of i~I
N .ti n ~D In N V' OI S
O U
E R .i .i v .r
Y
m
U ~
tG
jI c .+
a w
of
d m o
m a
c a ~
u o m
a y >,
~ 4 ~ QI m N 01 N G OI '0 A
Y ro ~ o a a n l~ n ro n .~ e
U rl U b O O m T ~ U m CI »'I
d rl C fa 11 YI O1 01 N O +-1 ~
7'1 ~i +i IO m Q1 l31 rl rl N ~ N W i-1 +1
a r. ro rl .~ b ro U v U c U i+ o >~
, ry +i +~ M C IO W IQ +~ 10 ~J E d
® b 10 AI J O LI ~I W RI LI 7
pS a > > S E E H E 0. E m a^
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
CUM[JLATIVE 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
TOTAL 18,849 68,022 2,142 4.1
O * Open space, 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 c~ithin 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
- 235 -
O
entire Rancho California area to cumulative impacts
in the areas of environmental issues and publi~
facilities and services. Issues of concern relativ
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. Nany proposed and existing
developments are located within the influence of
seismic fault zones and could be impacted by
seismic hazards. Infiltration oP 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
and landscaping. Animals that are reliant on
native vegetation for food and foraging areas
will be replaced by organisms more adaptable t
an urban environment. Existing wildlife such
soma rodents and large predatory birds a
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 (sea 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
- 236 -
O
organizations such as SCAG and Riverside County.
These agencies and their advance planning functionsO
serve to mitigate cumulative impacts to public
services and facilities. On a subregional basis,
SLAG 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
growth within the assessment district boundaries
only. It should ba stated that the assessment
district could have planned for servicing outlyin
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
oP 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.
- 238 -
O
tll
C
ro
.i
a
U
•,i
w
•.~
U
v
a
w
ro
d
a
w
W
L
N
O
e
~ 3w
Hro
~a~
F e
N
N
.r
A
ro
-,,
0
m
c
d
..,
a.~
ro
l~
ro
O
U
d
c
o
Z
m
ro
ow
0
o -°+
s
s~
O
r+
ro
S
.+ o
aror ~
K W
M ro
W ~
G d
~~
M O
wd
a
v
a
ro
d
w
w
d
v
d
w
.r
•~ O
.r .a .~ .a .r .r .~ -.a
~ w
w w w i w w w w
'r .y
.y .r .~ .~ .~ ~
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
d O d
d d . W
s o
a a ~a a m
fa 3a .~ M fa 3a .. ro
.a
o ro ro ~ c m
ti ~ a
+ m i +
, a
+ i
ro ~ m a o o
u a
i d d s
y i
U
U
U w
8 U U ~ R ~
.a
3
~ C' U
m 3 3 ..
3 3 3 ...
~
.~ ~
a+ d
~ d
m w
~
N O
o~ -~ i+ ai m m m ro .r m w
~o ro d m m ro ro ro -~ .+ ro o~
+~ N ~+ +~ .i ao cA m .
c ~ m b
F
i
~ m d ° d a
croG ro ro a
i w w
01 Q~ U .a ~ X X X •.{ .~ ?C O1
x s~ a .~ .a .~ .~ ., .~ o .. x
a v ~ a ~
asa m m ~ ~
a m
as
O .~ a+ in
ro N
w ~ O 0
TCI dl CI ro ro m d ro~ i+ S
i l
i m
C 3a G fd f0 3+ J~ lr A 3+ 3a U O U1 O O O L
roo 00 .ao -+o roo o -~e s e ear
?48 ++6 06 A R SH N 6 O~ ~
H
r 3a
S
C O ro b O 3a ro lr .
to f.i Ofa Wl.r Sfa Cfr C1a .a0 UO O ON
CO O O O ro0 ro0 O ++ G1 +~
m m .a i~ .i ~ m .r H .~ o~ .y mat ro
L ~ ~ .a ro rl O rl f.i ~ to .~ ro O G m ~ d
Q, N C. J~ ro 1. ~ •.i d N f.l
y ~ > a a o ~ s m w
0
.~1 N P1 R ICI ~D !~ [O 01 ~ O
O
O
O
m
a+
U
ro
u1 8
~ 3 ri
Carom
~a~
E "y
O
ro
c
a
.~
ro~
0
,+
m
~o .r
da
w ro
row
ID O.
M y
+~+ U
S~
1+
O
C
.-i
g
4
O
r
ro
z
m
y
U
ro
8
M
m
ti
0
m
z
m
m
O
ID
°
M
a
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
xx xxx xlCxxxiCxXxxXX
x xx
o ~
.. .+
i+ o.
U U
~ ^~
y w
m -+
U C d~
-OiU 70 O
w 3a rl M W Y
a C W M b m m H U U U
0 0 d1 d B >+ U U +~ .r ..a
U .+ w m d -~ w 7 ~+ m .•+ d
esmoo~+o mwo~d-+ ++mmm
rooocz-+ v >ro~~m ~omymm
y,w 7 .i v ro~0 ~ ro m c ro
cw aoro-~dadoa3d mw3~.~»++
O w ++73+mW >«r to d.~ uro ~
m m o~ w a U i° c -° i w m .O i m•• U i °o .+ e.° H. Ur G
H O mm YA + Lro i .~ i. O r~ O~ d W A~ ~~ + O U m O~ m~-~ i
Wy~pE~tWC70 roE33~*.a~+1P.N.7%E'a
rl N A ~ ILI ~O fr m O~ ~ r/ rl rl 'i rl rl r1 .d r/ N
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 Pechanqa 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
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 Pal
Road as well as Vail Ranch, Tippett and other propertie
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
- 240 -
O
A r N N O
N
N T r
•p • N
N y
r S
O I
i~ •
c
z n o
' H
2 ~••
O
O Z
n9 Zg9 0 rNn m nP'D~D a N[ Z n8 rm w.9 H^'N W
Onb 00•um 07r•O'000 N qr0 br •00n77 .^ «
7 0 n 6 n n r b O 0 m n.7 o r n
m
w
~ ••~
n D C 0 g g •~ 7 9 m t n m S 6 rd 7 O
!
^• m
r O w n b r 0 0 S Oro B r 0 n 0 - n r r m b n
7mmmcmamNmnnoe... r7< g coo.-nc
ca.-nr mn~n o7.7 n o ob ~o.-acnco 0
0 O^g nDVDu.m mm Nr 7n nn m On C •O
[0 0bm .wm70r•r m00 bGrw• br'
O nnn6nr n I O n S -9 mm «w 7K ["6 A
C 00•C r00 ~OnN0l9 D b g .•n r0 n b O
rim C- 7 n 4n00 ROO nn 7 OCbmw 7
6rm rg 0JO•m7 rrw70~• ~OC7m n0 6
O b n 7 m b m 7 n< m m 0 m g r
7 0 b c b n m 0 O m ~O n O O r b n b n
s 7 7 w 0 .. n r m n o r
• 6 i b n ~ c - K ~ o
n r 7
a n m
mmn 80ffmC1Ca O.0 o Or•r'nZ aZ
7vJb•bbmnmr cs nW oo ao
6 b b n 0 n m b r 7 O C 7' ml n~ O 9g 9
b 7 0 7 • m 6 7 7~ m w D O C 9 •O n o
~D m•On nOr~OB n <w b \Ob On
n 6• m 77 .• m o o oan n <o
m 6nvn ~o r•« 9« n C~nR 0W.
6 6• O b 0 m o b 0 c r m 6 0
ro cnc rn n7 m.• o b- ~n
7< n O n 7~D ~O 00 07 r N n
~O O m b b n 6 O m 9
•- O 0 7 n b C 9 7 n 0^
~ m
6 m r r• 7 n S
;~
p N
6 c
i o 7 G ib u o
. •+o
0 7 n w n•D N- J r r• <
~ i n b m 6 O m n r
n r• c .m bm s o
m 7 •< n 7 o T c
m '< n o n - m
o c s .-
m r 7 •<
O
r N ~O 'q s 8
v 6v a w z c •a ^ ^. 6
^ g «- o b a W
m n` r' m m L O n 7 0 0 0 b W r• N 0 N n '•
•• -.......
W
O
~d
n Jn`• A UOO m N
O9
'
9 6000
C o n NArO.O N• n m O 9
m n a o r 7 n n .. 6 .
m o m o b n b s• o c m
7m Om7n 7Onn « ga.•n7 D.• e\ n
o nK
c Da
e
°
• °
w'
°
~m
m c
.
~
o~ amb
~
o i mn
v•o mcvn nnrn 7 m nnnNr.
bmomrm oor•c aav n o~nm 6 o n
• nm onm a .•n bn .- c \ m 7
m 60 0g 0 [n0 nmN <
r •b
~ m 0 0' r R 7 .
.
m n 0 0 m
b~ m m o n ~ \ m s
~. m n n 7 sm \ r o 0 7
n n rr n S
7 n .. I
D
bNCt •amff
b•o ^ B r o b W N
:.:. r•m .- n.~•
•v
m n m b r m b m b .......•... 7 r ••7 w a N n
0 nJOma 0
R Or mnN•O n m O `
9.O
60n n b
0 b [0 O • C\
mgSn n. O i
7 m 7 b 7 n 7 N
'
o
m
6•c o o os m mn
:
m
9O oco°~ c°7o n~`n a o 0
b• 'O m m m b rr m 7 ~ m
n m b o n m n c
O
m
O
b
O 760b 0m .•
(
•
j ~ J
•
\ ~O
~
0• 6 q O O 7
. 9
o q
n b n A\ ~
n n
m
n A b 3 m 0< 9 C C (" m +1I
' O 6 r O A O< n A
G n 7 b •- 7 ~~ 0 m m 0 Y m 9 ~' 7 0 0 0 r 0 0
70nu.0 nrm nm< c onymg\.-m7
om•••ovo.-r•nam o- 7mcnga•-r•n s
n r.nnm b6r •pn mrm no 6m .-
w.Or m m~OO b w.q 0 m n7n X007 «
7
g
^ 7 N •O n b n 0 7 n 0
g
b n 0
n
n n n ~
b bnm 0 •wrn m ~ ~ n m
b fb
«706 'O O bb •••~ 90 0 r•O r. Olb n C
y6 ~ 0 n.g 7 b b 7 `r0 m
O
9 ~ n
n
C 6 6 m
~
p
6 0 m b A N
N D' b 0 g 0
0 6 S n
6 C 0
• m•
rj
a
r
m
C ~. ~ O
a ~ O
~ O
« n O
¢ena ornnz W
opr7Ca10a rboo rozom 11
-
O orooor m,,, ,. ooocn ~
od nboon .~pp0 ~- rc ~
Obe rn6 a np 7•cC6n
r'
p r O n 7 .O • O L
~' 7
7 r n -~ • O w G Y' 6
0 O 1°
rK ~ A 6 n :• 0 n o n
_
.1 6 d n w
r
PJ
b M G
C70 r Own n
mb F.w
w. b C
rnw0
O
~ wOS~
b6O 70r Or O 7
d
O O'
n 6mw~ •
"
0 00 ~ o m
o ^~ ^
7 7 O d M ~~
O
~ s
~canvow rar
~ w~OOZ
rorbo az
vo
°
n
~c~° C Q G 7 G b O
.
-
o r r O O r s G n
O O r O O r w
C w
'
d c 0
0 0 6 n 0 a
n 0
n wbn•^
C D 6 n0 Ou.
6 b C C r O n _ ~ O
w .~ 0 0 0 6 6~
o•conr~
°
°
d
ar n. n10
ooU•^ o0 -nr
. 6n
O mn
oiOwa ao °
w om:~n n~o
qOr o n .
„c
r00 7 n do •"w
O 710 6 C r
~d
r
m O n r n n O
o r w r
•-t
d0
e
.
n 6
6e
° o w n r
n a ..
1 w0 .pc
Bg rm
1 b r
b~
07
1 ... O
na
l 6b rOn6 b mn
ns
pmo
wlo
O r 0 7 6 w O O n O i G~ n b
o b n O w
7n O'
w
G 'D
0 W
r9 nOOw
00 D
drp r
. 00n0 Q
r0 Cr
~
d r10b0 6w
r r06n~
O OOS O
0~ nf
f C
~ Genan
•O rbOOCn r
wO 1"
~7tl w~0 n o °
~ tO
O .,
C
r
G p e0 7
b 07~ OV ,
r
0
rn Ondd0 O0 nrnn O
r
n
COD w n0~ O nO r rt0 wOw
b •„ p~ ~0
• 7 ~
°
A
0 S
A1006 1
..
0 r
O p r 10
a ~ tr•c o 0
1„ 1 c n
w 6
K
r
w10 'mn r'a~ OwrO 61+
wr7nOJ wCw6r
ror>> q
n
oonsv ° d~°~w
o <
s0 n00 '1 no ~n
o b
w n
6~ O~ 0 0 6 0 6 0 A r d O
0
a
0 n o
° c
o~o~a
o o n
o b r o o m
o noo.-oo •coooo m
n 7-
r~ O K
O
~ m d 0 9 d~ d C
m
C 6 0 b n n O
-
O O .J b 0 6 6 r 7 w O
° K
~
6 O b ~ 10 ~ -
0
n
r ryw'm n O 7
O
• .
O W
b 1• b Ow
rb r ^ O
7 r; ~
. n.-9neabbnaw
wens
bvaobeacn.
O O O r 9 w 7 n O r 7~ n O O n ° r 7 n
O r D
O
m ww~0
n «
L rdOA/w,
w
y
wn9 p~nr 8
.
r
+
n r n b O .
..
.
w 0 0 0 n O r w n 6 ~ O O n~ e
.d r ~
O H10 o n
n boo r r n n O n~ r D ~ r- r
bocrn
o r b O S r b 0
o mm~nnn enCn
r o
l-O
®
p 6 e d
r d
onrarl o
po
y
~
° boor
e
n o r m r c c n
onnCnoo~B a r n m n o.
e r g
b oronoo•- n c n
oo°w O
o'K •
K 6 ,,,mo
s n c n o b m
p
n o d a
0
O 10 r r rrbD 10 .dS O
10 na
noo o ~ d'o~ ~ d
G , b ° r
O
d
O
O
O
v
V
u
0
6
W
AC
r O
0 r
76
O
-• Y
>r
O ~•
Y r
sY
~• O
6
Y N
u
09
++ O
O
Y O
6 ~
O 6
as
0
C
O
r
Y
r
O
C
O
u
P
C
r
0
q
Ol
\ Y O
q= O• au 1 T
OY-w• O!•O 0 u 9 C400 ~
O.• \T•O O Cr q~q ~
y D•00 000C C.+Oq OCO
Y10> r q 9~•• gvrC ~.~Y00
r•OQ 01Y •-1 OYO OgYrO
q Y O q r P Y 0 Y r r C U Y
OrrY O.+L•C > YYry
q Y 0• g q N> r C Y C Y u 8 T
ON 6 0 Y 90010 dGGIOQYO
Y Y O u Y 01fl rr Or O p 7••• 0 Y
Y 0 Y . r Y N 01 Y r 0 0 0 r O Q O C 0
•.•O Y A7 a1 C•.160•O Y~gYr9Y0
.~ \
O O
\ Y O O
O a P p Y P Y 1
NGr OLr OY O
q •+ C Y'r O 0
C AOO CY1 O C••O.00
rN1pL r01y Otl•r G;
OY~~ O.rv OIY00
g Y 0 0 0 W 0 r C Y C
oY o. •oom•ooowe
Y Y O u Y Y ••• r O r O
Y o Y . r Y o . r r o e o ..
C•r O Y C C O Y C] O O O N
w0YA71.161A901 .O Y0q
Y .w \
\ Y Y ~ O
0 9 r 7 Y P Y 1
Yi2 O qLr Ou O
OO TCN.r.• OOCw
CAO CCNO CrOo
r NlOrrq y qbr C
r•0 ^• 00 0Y0
OO ^10r pYgY
°a lr.o°a °o ..o -°1e~e
O Y g 0 0 6 • Q P g P C
Y Y O Y Y r r O r 0
Y O N Y Y 0 • r r 0 0 0 r
C•+ g 0 C q Y 0 0 0 0 0 Y
•.• O Y 6 w P A O m 9 Y 0 0
Y
4 A
q \
O 0
A 8
\ Y
S O
a L
Sf Y
AO 010
YO 00
Y
r q r p
Y q
NfV YO
Yv o0
tiO GN
01 01 a r
Y w
Y O
O O
0 0
Y ~
>. c
T O
Y O 0
ONO A
CrY p
O O 6 Y
O
0 C O C
c o a o
0
M
d Q
. R E
~ OI
GO N
V N O a
:I+IaO
uaau
•• G q 1
D' Y'O Y q Y
Yr q•Or O
~D'O y••• 00000
O C q E Y Y Y
wogaegi~a~u
9 Y •r O~ Y Y Y O m C
E>O YOYC q'OYP
O O g Y q O C 0 0
O Y N~ 01 Y 7 0 m
w O 0 Y O g O Y r Y 9
IODN 6w 0,•r OM mr
ni•
• L
9 ..YI Y r
v 9 0 O •••
b C~ O
A4O C
aYr Oy
H O r N
s>oYo
O O O Y
Y
u Y m o u
Y
tOLY ma
O
9
4 Y O u
0 0 0 0 0
CC N Y Y
g O L 4 Y
Y r Y G m
Y O'O 9 Y A
P Y 0 0 6 C
Y 0 Y 0 0
O O Yr Y P
arg0 mq
O
r C O
r q m
r p Y O
9 O r
pqua
r
1q N O ~p
O
a a o A
M q L •••
E Y Y r
O ONw•
Y q
r O L O
q d N d
O
N qq
M T C
O ~
•~+ • 9 O
O 0 Y
vYOa
10 O E
n m 0
000
a NNO
•+C.• YY
CGOYOr
6 O Y O
u0~00
r CgOt
IO r S Y Y
O
Y
r Iw O 9
O Y O
r r y C u A
O O COO Y
rC Or Or
Y O O ~ O'C
O L Y C r r
YgYrl.l .Y
0 0 Y O r
r N W O Y Y 9
L g O Y r 0
Y O Q r O O L
Or OLYON
'n Y OOY
q O O Yrr C
aroo•eor
0
Q M
E N
~Y•F V
S N R
O•• O
Fs0
!1 41 tll
.¢m
se.a
C
0
d
u
r
V
u
O
d
m
!• C
r o
m ..
O i
r V
>..
OY
L +•
6 Y
... 6
u W
Oq
r~ O
Y O
o. 6
o d
za
m
C
O
Y
q
C
O
u
a
G
Y
m
a
m
C
O
m f. Dq u
N Y C 4
O 08.. gti..P.
Y O r 0 ] Y
r C] O Y Y
qrg O`~ VVr
m O r O a r q 6
O ] ~• Y 6r 0 4
u°ma°a.a.aao
O
N O
Y r d
O O O
a -• u
o C O O
O 0 ~ D O '
6 r q O
p r r r r C
rr] OYr
a 0` YON
q Y .. o
m o 0 0•O•q~
O C ~/ dr O Y
r r 0 0 0 0 Y
u r a r a] r
Y
ouq
M O O
Yr 60
moa]
a .• +•
oe o
O O r D 6
d r q O
mrrrYC
.Oiw ~ OO+Oi
90'u CY
OmYmrp
tumor r
O C Y r Y Y
r r 4 0 0 Y
u r a a W r
q m
O O q
O XG O"'~
g A u G 0 '~+
~DYOaL
oqr.. u
VY 6m+G+O
1•Y OY r
y 0 0 0 0
d rNl!
-+BY 00 C
mr O 6Y O
] Y
P»OPO
meYu
Y Y a r a r
O O Y w• Y
Y O 0 Or d
m Y L o m o
a a.. a .. o
J
Y
O
r
O q O
q Y mr
06w O
Y pCS T
O Y Y
u or ar
O w Or
r Y a r 0
m O r a
mOmm 0'
r a 9 Y
r Y O V O q
r g Y r u 0
Oar 0 9 0
a*+maa a
r
F
(L M
~ n.~
F 4
6 ~
a0
1
V O
O O ~
O O O O
6rYo
O a C
Y a 0 u 0
uo~~~
a u a m
O m OY
Y 6 0 0 W
O O Y m O
r
O r
q P r
OOr
Y I.1 !•
Q Q •r
Y L O O
O O Y O u
qw~N V O
6w O Or
m ] O r O
C O O g Y
O Y Y Y 60
du u o dm
0 0 o.+4ro
O Y
o a
n m Y o
ommro n a .~+
OTr O O
Y ro Y O
O Y t O r 0 0 0
O Ow O 7~NY
V v Y Y r
6 Y 0 O O O Y O
Y e • Y a e e..
] m O r r a O
0 0 0 0 Y O D 0
O V Y Y r 9 V 0
duuuodour
oooao]umn
00
u a+
d1 Pr
m O r C 0
O O O Y
C r u Y 0
60~+Oy
O w G O
OYL
OOL u
Y Y Y +
a a •N o
r O O Y
a^ OO
Y•000•O.O
d O Y Y Y
do ure•r -
4]omoo
r C O
r r Y C
~e-°.u
Y V O O ~
Yoa
•q+0 DD O
]oodY°u°Y
a O W
era
O O r !•
Y Y Or
r C C m r
mra]Y
z
m .O.
a a
6 9
m a
m
z V1
d D z
6 2 O
04N
O O
1•q t O
O C v O
9 0 q T
O g r Y Y C r m
0 0 Y Orr q
o.°.°ood~o°a~
Y~•IY9rY D
C Y r Y O
r V 0 q] O Y
ODg00 O
O r C -Y
Y O q] Y g r d
O O C O O C a 0
S] O a m O 0 Y
C
C Y O q
6 Y Y Y g Y O O
Oi O^10]L Yr
g 7 Y a r 0 0 0 0 C
m a Y 0 0 a 0 0 g r
O O O d 6 Y O r Y G
YY6q a0or r~
Y O d Y Y 0 7 D
M gOD06~VYC0
Y C ~
o m w r e
ar o a o °Y
Y Y Y C g Y]]
r 7u 0•NOO
y O D g O 0 y V
CgOBaao.
Y O O Y O C O r
~muaO.r.mw
s g O r C O
m Y 6 Y 0 0 0 0
a r G r Y G
6 D O B Y dY Y
r q
.-• C
r q Y
a m Y C
mq d0
!•Y Or
O O Y Y
a N O
qr Or
O .-• Y ]
O O 6
r Y 7 O
Y Y Y d
e ~ dq
6Y0~
o d da
Y q q
O ] Y O
V V O O p0
ou a YOCN
YO r •DYrr
DC rY >.O Ow
00 •qr0 YY
L Y Y C O d O w 0
7u000wOL~
-.ao emoar
C O C Y 0 0 Y 0 4
] 9 Y m~ g N C 0
Q Y Y
O Y C O O r C r 0
zoouYmror
z
of 1y
~ F
a
.a F
0
n~ Q V
r z N
8 4 a
O
O
O
O
O
O
q
0
q
S
C
a
m
O
m
7
O
O
Y
6
C
..qi
6
O
Y
u
6
m
A C
r q
m •+
] d
O
r O
> r
m Y
Y r.
o. u:
-•
a
Y N'
O9
'''~ O.
O >'
Y O:
d Yn
o ca
za
m:
C:
O.
r.
u:
r:
4:
C'
O.
u:
O`.
w
Y'
0:
r
01
d J! 0
> 9 Y u d a
q d 0] 0 0 9
G Q W Y C m O C
A~agq mgd40
m D>> O O g d 4 C O•
d Oqr YtOr
a m O Y m w >• O Y m
g 9 a 6 Y w Y O r Y 0
Y O O O C Y C O r t 0
m Y Y Y 7 Y M Y 9 0 Y
oe v
v aY O q
O m u 9 Y Y
0 r C d q
Y.qr O e 09 C 6
U Y Y b r O r O
q 006 m 6u
u T g q 0 0 0
1.1 Y Orr r O A
vas9ouro
C O
r V Y
~ O O
q O O A
q O~ Y Y Y
O *+m G Y Y
Y O m a O C O
Y +• O O
Y
6
O
0 q Y 9
Om m r O +•
r OOr Y 'n Y
0o e q •a
9 Y Y r O 0 O
Y O Y Y q ufs
m v 4 0 • r O C O
O C Y >. m• >r O
•-• 00 Y 0 OO r O Y
V O N g 9 O: V b m V
•Y q
O C r
]
Y q O
G 8 •
a v e
r b O
Y m r F
m m o
.~• r . O
r q rc•no
r O Y O Y
6 Oqt+ O
0 0
q S Y 0
ti u
g
Of • Y
0
> AY O an
g 1 Y Y O G 0 9 0
r ArY GY Yr 0
g q q C u r ~ Y Y
mabo oammu
0
Y
Y r
Y 0
9 O
L
OY
O
O O
u..
u d
q 0
m
9 -•
oa
Y
+• 9
D q
r O
J Y
Y
c i
9 Y u r C
d O u ~ r q
uu]OOr y.q.• B
Y C C a Y g d 7 q Y
d r m u Or H O Q•
.+ euo Yeu .+>.
O C Orv 010 O mr
O d m Y G m O m m] 6
Y 9 0 u 0 u 7 Y O Y
a] g r q A C C O Y O G
aag9Garq]uma
.. o
a o 0
Y I 0 1 9 r Y
0 0 9 A Q g 0- O
O O O r r 7 O r r
0 O 7 m r ~v p D 0
m Y 0 Y C g O L 0 Y
9 0 r 0 0 r u 0 A C
C r g q w q Y Y r a 0 Y
m r C 0 g 8 0 0 0 Y u O r
Y r a C 7 9 O r 0 0 0 Y
OrrYgrr 9000Y
Y O m 0 6 g m O C m 0
m g 0 0 0 0 0 G m m 0 0-
~m4000Ya O.Oa 09
Y
u 9
O O A
+~+ m a
OOm O
O,YO qmO C
O Y O Y r Y
v+tOa Mr aCO
Oa+9 ~ C9iwq
vam{ OO Ou
meo rroGOu
V Y 6 0 0 0 C w 7 0 Y
d0 a~+qq>OO~+
G O m g C q Y O t C r
hmrr 7017mY 09
m
0 O P
O q
9 m Y O
7 7 O Y
r 0 Y -0
u Y o
.°. o> d •+
O m 0 7 6
02!007
] C u O O
9 Y A Y r 0
O O O.rY
O O O q
O r Y Y.9 7
069u90
Y O O g C 9
aoaa0a
O
O
C
r
.~ O Y w
G O O
Y V D C
Oq O
u 0 O m 0 O
] O y 9 0 0 7
au e m
v O C 0 0 Y
c@i au •YOOo
O O •" ~ Y Y O O Y
~aooaooeu
O
Z
4
am
m u1
F9
6 07
aN
q
Y Y Y
e a e c
a a ~ e• m
~••9 0,9 q a~
0 0 r r r• g r r m
97 mu 6m ar
Y u u m i0 O C O
+d•+d 0 m O O g Y 0 Y9 Y
m Y 7 0 m N r Y 0 9 0 ••• 0
r 0] 0 0 0 w 9 Y C Y r Y
Ow O V 006G b•giba O
A Y C
au-
0
Y Y Y
t 9 - C C
ra0 64 m 9 aH
O m O N > O r r O
q] rr rOU 60 a.'~
Y u u O g O C q
O g 9 9 7 0 tl C Y 0 Y r ti
r r O O g O m 0 m 9 Y
W Y 9 m O J r Y d g 0 r 0
- O 7 0 0 m W g Y C Y r Y
Y Y r r Y A 0 Ar q r] q
Or OV 6m O.t m.r6a B
Y C
y ur
0
O
Y
m O
A Y Y Y
a O O d O 9
-9 6q q as
m 0 O O O L C 0
~'Oj tiw+>i0Y 60 a~
Y Y Y O g O C Q
4 0 9 9 7 0 C Y O Y r r
m Y'004 0.O• V 090.9••0
Y Y •]• .O• Y O Ar C Y r Y
q r 7 A
6 Y C V 6 S G b r_O a 8
Ol Y -
O Y
O Y o
w u a
qo
o~u
b O O O
01 Y O
O N u w
X100 Y
O O D O
Y Y q O
O•r O
O O'O Y
C O mr
aYOm
O
Ot
OrY
Y
••• G Y
m O O
r m
••~ Y
a o o
r v q O
COO w
r Y O r
saeo
01
u
r
u >
as
n fJ
O• N
u
W
u
O
6
N
Ae
•+ e
d .+
~ d
-d. u
> ..•
d V
Y r
6 V
O
6
Y m
b 'O
*+ O
Y O
6 Y
O 6
Z 4
m
C
0
r
Y
r
0
C
0
u
P
G
M
Y
d
r
p
d
e e
o ~ o e
AY drYd
Y m D Y d Y d Y
M e u e m d m
Y:au.diaouac ..e.
d Y Y C r V m r P Y
N d u ~ d^ w 9 C q +e• O
mumo-.uerrem
u 0 O 'O Y e 0 e ®° ~ O
C 6 O O r C t n• Y d
~ m O 0 Y L g 8~ 0 q
O O Y L r C r r~ r t 0
UYOY m6m0•Ca OY
0
O' O q
Y Y C C
O ~ f 0 ~ O
V mlO OYOY O
V e Y f7 V e 0 m O
Y +8i A Y O O Y g C Y
O YDV V O r d
L AY P C
N O o d • •+ +• 4 C 'O •.•
ddumruerre
A C Y C Y 0 O Y m 0
Y O e g r d 0 O Y
amum°Oa®eri00
OOrrOGr.w ~rtr
V Y o 9 Y 6 g d C a O Y
Oq
ti ~i d
m m Lq cm
Y Y r r C
eOq 0007m
V mL O.+rr O
W 8 Y 0 V a O g Y
Yr AY q CL.y
OYDV OBtiP
otioob •.~uea~
A C Y C Y m r Y 8 0
Y O O e r g 0 0 0 Y
C 6 Y Y d b V d-Y Y O
m V 0 Y Y d 0 8
O O r r O C r Y At r
vY~m~oYaummmY
d
m d
C AY
6Dd ~ C O
m 9 L q C m
Y Y O d C Oar 0
4Y dmCq Oa
YYW drrrm
V V V O. Y 0 0
Y~O 0 q CL•+ Y
Ldq Ar Or ~'
mYY •rYG9r
AeOY m.-giY00
Y m g r e 0 0 0 Y
0 8 0 m O Y YO O O
OrLOCrY AGr
V Y Y Y 6 V m O 0 Y
C
O
•+ o O
Y d Y
uoq
• O
Y O O
O C O O
Y Y Y
6Arr
rl > O
V Y Y
V C O C
r d m O
Y Y
O Y d 'O
L ~ x d
muu~m
d
O m O O
arze
Dr P
mu
Z >
41 O:
S 4i
of N
Oo
y O
4
m o O o
r C Y Y
O O e
L°o°m
u o a
dale
•nYr
C O C r
o ar a
•~ •O C
00 a•O,
L OOY
u o... u ti
O O > C O
Y Y 7 O
A Oar Y1m
Y O m b 0 0
uY0 LL
geaaYu
O O O O Y S
••• O Y Y q
N r W d V
6 0 o 0 0 0
v O A Y
O O Y O O
OVO qOw V
rOm 109 O
m Da O
ore ooe. qu
Y OO r60 YO
omo,or. eqa mo
O Y O +• W r Y
~ O,ugOO090~Ou
m Y e m Y V 0 0 0 V
0 7 0 r V O L G q
armaa m oacFYe.
Y
C
m ~d .» m
80L e.~0
6M P O O >'O
•+ OmNiOitY q
> O Y p Y 0 0 N
O Y O O 6•-•
o °e V C w y q0 •
0 0 0 0 0 0 Y V
O O~Y YY O
O'O OOOOG 00
O>>L 70Y Y.w
Y O Y V Y ~ Y O OI
6 a O m 0 0 0 Y
4
O
Y
O
Y
O
C
O
P
O
O
L 'O
ue
m q
0
O d
B 'O
N
J
8
2
V
N
9 G
r Y
~ o
a°
Y
C m 0 0 m
O O D V O
C Y Y O o Y
m e ••• Y 0 0
o -• e
Sf Yr O C O
Y V V> O Y
OOq O••~ O
6 YVL Da0
0
O
12 O~+C
Y O,O Y•p
g O Y Y q
~6CIi 1t
Y O u'A O
O DOT V
L •O O
A Y Y.O S
r C .+ w
aOrV O
Y Y O
ro o a~ o
Alf 7M O b
r Y P ~rl Y
YO,O OOC OY
BwooO+O+Onq q
r OOCrYYY'O
q O e\ 9 9 9 0
Y d C d O z C~ 0
6010i~VLYCO
ago,agYqF-•
O
Y O
O Y
a r
O
Q O
dl
Y Y
r q C
O GOr
Or9
if Y O
Y O O
m O O
ouo
8 Y Q.
n
Y
O
0
C
Y O
o -+
V Yq
o O
C Y O
m u o
you
O Y .~
o a
9 Y
O G O
zq0
00
2 M
aF
6
Y m
6 V
4 M11
f. a
4
O
0
.W. m
O O
P Y~
Y O
Ur
O
v 4
ti 7
a u
O
O
O
O
\ u
95 P 1 0
j C C Y O •
u Y^ W Y 7 u Y q m® W q
N O A O O q C g 0 0 Y
O~ \ P V O C r 4 0 0 7
Oum ] C4 O~•C• Owr C ..Y 00'
'•• •O q r P Y ••• • u 0 N 9 Y r -b
mu m m..PYaO re.+Y
A Y O Y g Q u] r C Y C Y u 8 A
m w 6 O Y g O P O P C• 0'0 7 P
YVO uY7N .nr Wr000•r ~OY
V Y Y • r V u P Y'r 0 0 0 r 8 g O C 0
C .r O Y C C O O O 7 0 0 0 Y O C O O C
w bYAO•r C.+6mq V•O OUr9 V O
O O
O
C
q
d
w
W
V
O
6
W
AC
r q
O .+
Od
O
-• Y
>r
p Y
y r
o• u
v
o.
V O
0q
T O
O 9
Y O
6 d
O 6
za
m
e
0
r
u
q
C
O
u
P
C
r
Y
O
r
p
N
0 3 P O Y P Y 1
9 C ~/OG r Y
utS +• OCr Ow O
C AOO C O C•~+00
+•v10] rq a' OwrC
rlOq Oq OYO
O V • ••1 P Y q V
prM Y p Y C 9
g Y 0 0 q w 0 r C Y C
O Y 6. 0 0 6 • g P O P C
Yuo uY .. .•r mro
V O u • r V O• r r g C O r
C r g Y C C O Y C 0 0 0 0 Y
~+O Y AOti PA7mq Oq q
Y ••1 \
A q O
O S~ O Y P Y~ 1
uK~4Gw oal o
00 PCy.•1 qOC~
C AO C CMI O C.~ 0 0
r Y1p +•rPa gWrC
rlp •+ Oq Ov0
O V ••1 O ••1 P Y O V
Or el00 Y C >
q Y 0 a~4 W O r C Y C
O Y g 0 0 6 • g P q P 0
Y V O Y u.y +• 0r p
V O u Y V 0• r r 0 0 0 r
C~ N• C O Y C O O O O Y
rrOY D. •r PAOmq Vqq
O 10
r r
C C O
Y Y C
O O O
W W •• C
y C d
.. .•• p p
AO C10 rN
uU OU ./ O
u
v M
q
e
e q
+• Y • .•1 Y r .•~ A
Y O C 4 0 C O C
0
O u O O Y p
p 0 d
O O r u 7 0 0 0 0
•+ O g q 0 0 0 0 0
mmmz»t~ ucau
e
0
mO
O O
V Y
A r
> >
Y P
0 0
q Y
AY
Y O
. a
ti O
b w
YYr
~ q G
O
q m 0 O O
u .•+Oqq
.. r O g A ,0 •+ Y~
q q> .. .. r ... q o
r 0 7 0 r O O V
V YC VYC~•Y.r
0 0 g 0 Y'O q 6 U
a ~.+ u qr.r 0
O C O O O b 0 0 0
uraaoaaae.
O
C
O Y
Y ••
mq0
q O PI
9 G Y
q Y O
r o o
.. e a A
O O•+O
fp Pqq
1 P
L Y C
O C\r •
e~mgo
aeo.'+m
O Y V 1
rgOw.-1
O .~ 1.1 q
09 Yr
a 0 Y O V
q a > ~ o
r q O 8
O r 0 0 0
M 0 ~ 9 0
O
v » A
Oq O
q O O
a Y \
q Y O
M O a
ti C
~ P•O+
Y O
OY
Cr
0
O
O Y C
Y q O
O
O O q
aoo
um
•prr
r 9 O
••I Y 6•
O O b
f00 Y
.:
m y V
..•
O m T 0 >
Y~ V
m 7 b r Y 0
D O O 6 r g 9 O
aron reb
Y C0
O
w C®qu '
~+ 4 Y 0 1 +• m Y
7C ~
OC
O OOOr
Or 0b S 00•+
1 Y q
Y
T r OC
w 8 Y O +~
m 9 .+ O >
O O
O 7
O b.~Y
O O b r 0 0 0
0 au •y Cb
7 mY 0 O f.
O 0 0 0 y ~ r 0 Y
r 0 0 0 0 O'Y C 0
°
0 000 eaa
s
Y 0 YO Y O'O Or
a ounm 'S qOr
o
0
0
0
q e
e u 'e
° ~
.
, a u
~ ~ 0 4
0 0
~ rw1 O r 'r
7 Y b r Y
b OV Qa •••00
+• 90 .~ CYO
L 0
~
y
m
b O I ~ •
•
'
J ..
6 CrY OY.nw
O Q
Y
B C O Y Y
G.Ib ZObO
i. C r
r Q 4
m -. u m
7 d r O O O 0
m m
O
o
O °
u b
I •u mm
•
e. o•
.
> r r S O r Y r Q O O C>
~
r
O
Y r Y 0. C
O Y
O 8 0
d u ••~ Or1~T00 m OIY q O q
.~0 O.rr Ogr000 OO
6 m r U Y 1 O Y 0 • ••• !•
Y0 00 OO•YmaO C brY
y C9~ O O > q0 ••• OO
09 900b Oti 00r .ICY
TO YG OGC Y0 OY 00~
O> OOY YO YOQ 0 7r•••
Y O 0r OG C.+rG b ~Y.n
O~Y m OYYO 006Y PIJ 1 r
6 O m C r O U 7 q • 0 C O Y
06 rOOL 00'O C.C•O O00
S4 USUtSbG OC Oltl m 8 0m
0
C
O
r O
Y O O
C O ++ O D
O b i b y
~ °
~o o
'o
a eo c
G
••
~ 8 G O Y
q O O D
.
i 4
O m O •••
m za ar
m
m a•
xu ~~
` m°
mm m
S N .7 M
c
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 Lo 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 Lonq Term
Productivity
O
Implementation of the proposed Redhawk Specific Plan
will consist of two main stages. Stage one is the
extension of sewer lines, water lines and road
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 gzading and
construction-will occur during the completion of Phases
Four and Five of the Redhawk Specific Plan.
During these five phases,
greatest impacts will occur
impacts are short-term in
construction and gradin
construction traffic, noise,
which are being mitigate
it is expected that the
in and around the site. The
nature and are related to
q activity. They include
dust and erosion, all of
d through the above phasing
- 241 -
O
~ ~ ~ C ~.
'^ p0 O oC aof
'u Q!
ro _
~ ~
O u ~ ~ U vl ~ tg
@a @~ @~ ~ ~ ro a a ~ o U c ro 'p o
IS v av ~ ~ ~ y ~ `y v o _ D~ . N ~ >
~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 a v ~y c ~ 'va c op`. ~ ao n.o ,~ ~c v ~~ M ~ ~>q
~ v v ~ % ~ o_ •a p o~ o~ v ro•b o ~ ~ c_ <~o ~ o ~_
® o ~ O > ro :~, > > ¢ ~ ~ O O .C ~ N v ~ N ~ VI '~' U U ~ c ~C A A vNi V '~
U O O " > > > c O
a ~+ d o c c °~ a a- ~ o`a v v ro ro .~ v ~ c o W °' < q~ w W
'~ @d ~ U ~~ vai Q Q d w Q ~ O 1- 1- ~,~ j a~ F- ~
® ~" 5 0 ~ cf°cV o o ~o"~ v
0 0~° p a o~°v,~o..°~Q oy o~ ., o„o~ooo, _ `
0 00 op°ooo °u°uoProo,~oo °A po o~ _ _ _ : "4:, 1 ~ ~ ~f, - - . .~j.
o °°o°' o° o °° oo°o9gL'os°o~ ° o d' p°a ~
0 0° o°o °°o°o °o~ oo a° oo tl'o ~ i s 1 1 \ a -`~' q
P~ o o ~ • ~ ~ ~ / \ ~ \ (CSI Lea
0 0 0 o O Pp6 0 0°0° o°° -- - ~'
, o0 00 o ybo 00060 0~ -~ \
°oo yoo oo~O°ooo 0000 o p ~0 00 1 ~ ~ a _ - - - - G
°OO o°o °o. o ~o v,00 dpePC o°o. \ C
00 °0 0 0°0 0 0° °~o°'~ o ,~ ~ 1 __ _ _
o~fft~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 op ~°a °o~ ,A_o°o - 1 . i - - __ / / ~ -C - ~
'./°ovp,° ooooo.P~ YOV b 0°P / `f -
0°0 4'.~aEdoo°o~ o eo°Pe~°oo b°o°< ~ / 'P I ~ ~. \ :< ' ~ \
c°o°opo °o°o o°~o°~° 0°°0°°oo~OOO ' i 1` I ~ I ';~ ~ s' -~ : 1 ~ ~ O C7
°o°o°o°opo°o o° °o °a o o < 7 ~ .. - ~
~`~0 0 0 0 0 o p~r°o~o °0°opo-ooo ~• , _ N - Q • ~ ~ \
ov oooQ~oo ooo 0 1 ~ -
ODOPPff•PPDDPO°D D-0O°O°' ' '{'~ ' J T ~~ ;~
boooo0 0o a o0µ~,d"0-000' ~ i ~ - - '
00°0 0 opo~o a°°0000~~. ~C• /_ _ .1 _ ~, 1 ~.+
° pp,,((--.~o °°0 0 0 0`}~l 0 0 00,.0 o II i--":'`- ~ a- .'.:. F~
~0~00000 OOODDQ°D OPT 1~ f~ I;3'i f•" :S''" 1 ,'>i i..
00000000 00 ooo° o. .. f~' c:
000 00 o OopO yo000~ ~Q, .' \•', Z 4, ~ rr//~~''~~ ma
OP°~jG P°O DgCO D`bO Y O I , ~~••• ~` I I ~. \ ~ of
0000[p_000 OOOU PO°Q ```~~_~~~yyyOl ~~- / ~ _!~ % I C!
O°O°O OvVV °O OvO O OOPO 0~~ IR ~- . I 111 ., \ ' •
0 o duo 0 o a o oq~ 0 0 ••;r \ ! •~ > L
6e o oo6opo 0 o- 9 •. ~/:..1 ~~^ '~ ~~.~ ~ OG7
o°°° oP °°°0° °o44P°o° ° o°oqo° ' " i~; 1
ooo ~Ao o~o 17'00 o~oy,~~•~ ~_^1 ~"
opo 0 0 0 0, q°o o 0 A o o -~ 1.~`~ i ' ~ ~~"' • Z '~ ••''?~:' : : "e _
000000 _v ':•}• - - - - _- ~ n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o° o° ° °~ \ 11~/JJ
0000 oooo°a°0 0°00°0°~ qPppp90°~~0 ~o c ~ ~ •~ ~ \, •\ ~.1 ~ __ }:',};•''~
0 0 0~ ° o o Y7•o°op°oa~o o°o °o ..~ Y ~ ~ j- ~_. ti TJ'}::•• • • ~ \
°o°O°°~o o°o° o°opo°o 0°o°a° ° q. - +~ 1 , , a _. ,. .k° _ > ~ •~ r{~y'i1 '.:. is
P o000o aeoo °°bopo$o \ ~ y '~~' :; l.•~::~~{:};~ ., '
o ~ °o°a°o°o 0 00 0 ° ob °yy 0 00° bo ~y ` ~ 't., ~ •;ti}}Y}{}•~:•• ~ __ ` .Y p
e~ 0 0 0 &o ~ ~Cq, o~o op ~ , ~~ f. ~ ~; 1 , ~ IM }. i r {{• .. Cn
A0v odp°o a~o °o'4$"d' o ~o 'A~ y ~ ~~ - :F.r.•:.~::.~ •: .::•. - ® G~
0°6°0° °o°o O~ o°o°o o° opp oQo ~~,F I / . ; p ..l ;:•~ •::::: • 1.}• .::{:: :• '1 ~ • ~
0 00 O O O O°..o O O O°O°O' V V a O° 0 i 14 P% S ~}. 1 ~•' :•};.• }~ r: ~ -
00000 00° 'I " }~ ' '•' '
4pp~°~o°o° o a ° ooo°oO o ou o°0o g n „)•'.'. ~r :r• i- . l I p n p f ~
o°o_"o°O~ ~l°o O °o° o o ppeovo0° 'S. ~~ ~ '{•• '•:1}{:i}::~•'• }~',',•r•'•;•~ \ - ~uul pC7l
'~° ~oo0°O0a o d°vo°oO o°e° ~ ° coop __~. - ? ~W'•'r}}.. ~ . ;r:}.{:: }? • - - S ~
oT~L°,o°° ooooopo°~O ° 00 0 0°0 ° °° i ., \ : F" : }:1{.•• • • ~~'~~~:r r:•.~ ~ ;}:},~.~~•
o°o°Ooooe u °o°Qo~°oop°_~0y}~0 0 0 0°00 0 1. - f \ ' .; I"" kT':}?:.: '} •: .•./.:.. }: pMC (~ yy
~~0,•P..o_O~b_•O_~a_O_O_O_ O_°.O n n n ......?:•\':•J••~: 1 •.Q '.]AS::•:•.::}::ya ._ ~:y~.~u < ._
I~
i) l
`
~i
;~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
.:
1 ~, ,
\ f
;t,~
. / R.
_~t_
~G
~i~F~w 1\
1~'
1
~-~ \ ~
^`~\ I \ \
~... ~ I \ /
~~ \
~, ~ ' -
'`
~ /
\ ~ .,f
1 a ~J
Q
I
~~
4'
1
\ / ~ \
~
~~ 1 ~ >r
.
7
, \
l I, 1. ~.~
~
..
~
:-
,(
. ,
#
. ~, ,,, ,
~.
~
,
~ '
h .\
,.
.~:-
~_
_ 1
~'~
/\_
y
i _
~•
i
~ • ~ I~ \ S. . \/y
1,,1
`' i~ ~ \\.'.V . ~ ~'
11
,' ~ ~ L 1
/f ` -
.
:,,
I \.
`
~
~\
.f
. r
;
f . * I \,
,~., ,~ ,
\
~
~
~ ~ µf -
~
1 .l. `-~„
~~I
~.
\
~
< 1
~ . 1 ~'~ f< 'o
<
/C, : t~ 1 ~ _ ' N 1 •?a.~ 1 x-11 . ,
\
{,••.... .\ ~ `\\ 5 I`. R--lam ... eT• ~ ry IJI~„J
~ - ~ /J ~~~ \~~ ' +1~ '• '. . Y `may- ~ ~ I L` 1 . ~ 1. ~\I 1 ~ /tl J - ~
• O '.' ~..~ \~'. ..
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 wilublic
consumed as urban activities and required p
services come into the area. It should also b® 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 Par 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
An irretrievable commitment- of resources is generally
O 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. Dpon 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 oP 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 - 242 -
O
V. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION COMMENTS
- 243 -
O
O
O 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
(STOP). Under specific direction of the County Board
of Supervisors, projects must be reviewed for
conformance to the existing General Plan rather than
being held in abeyance for adoption of the STOP. Being
O 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.
- 244 -
O
Such buffers should be from fifty (50) feet to 500 feet O
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 Prom residents
of newly developed adjacent urban areas.
Response•
The County has indicated it will condition implementing O
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 - O
O 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 oP 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:
The Department is concerned with the increasing loss of
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 (15.60 and that
it has been used for cattle grazing and not been used
for intensive farming in the past, this proposal does
- 246 -
O
not represent a significant incremental loss of prime O
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 prima 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
following information to ensure the adequate assessment
of the Specific Plan's impacts in these areas:
o The agricultural character of the area covered by O
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 oP 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
O 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.
O - 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.
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 -
O
Finally, we concur with the suggestion of the O
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. Zf 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 bean assessed Eor agricultural impacts
under a previous EIR (EIR No. 93) which was done for a
General Plan Amendment (GPA 145-788-45) on site which
changed the designation from "Agricultural Reserve" and
"Open Space and Other Agricultural Lands" to "Suburban O
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,
- 249 - O
O slight. This soil is in capability class
IIIs-4.
Hanford coarse sandy loam is found on slopes of
e 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 IIIe-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 loans 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.
The Ramona and Buren loans are soils typically
found on 15 to 25 percent slopes. Runoff is
O 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 (10) months and has
a pending proposal for urban use. Historically, this
site has been used for cattle grazing and not for
farming. Mundy 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 O
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
prima 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 O
fault rupture in the project plan.
Response•
A detailed fault hazard investigation has been
accomplished foz 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 Por 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 bean complex, diffuse,
and possibly difficult to recognize. In contrast,
there is clear evidence to the northwest that the
Wildomar trace is active.
- 251 -
O
0
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
O 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 seismic safety,
should be clarified. The DEIR's Summary of
Environmental Setting states that the section•of the
proposed project that lies within the Alquist-Priolo
Spacial Studies Zone would be subject to strong ground
shaking (p. 14). This statement should clarify that
the remaining project area would also be subject to
damaging strong motion. Further in the summary, the
O - 252 -
ar zone" would be
t "
l
-f O
e
oo
c
DEIR states that a 50
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 ZII-1,
since the geological appendices do not provide
definitive information on the fault location.
Response•
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 O
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 Eoz 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.
- 253 -
O
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 EZR. As currently described, Seismic
impacts are not mitigated to a point of insignificance,
and should be included as a Significant, Unmitigated
Impact.
in summary, there are several inconsistencies contained
in the DEIR which should be resolved prior to issuing
the Final EIR:
O 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 .
Because of the complexity of the project and the
necessity for extensive evaluation in the short time
remaining, we would like to discuss our concerns with
O - 254 -
the County of Riverside
drafting of the final
approved. The following are
considered:
Response:
(Lead Agency) before the
en4ironmental document is
comments that need to be
Zn ~ 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. Zt was generally agreed that any
additional CalTrans comments or recommendations would
be included in the County Road Department Conditions of
Approval.
Comment•
Trip generation (page 286) - There appears to be an
error in the Average Daily Trips (ADT) calculations at
project build-out; build-out (33,688) ADT) should be
equal to internal trips (76,423. ADT) plus external
trips (51,120 ADT).
Response•
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
0
O
- 255 - O
0
O
O
defined for off-site
improvements.
Response-
As explained on pages
Assessment District
off-site improvements.
merely a listing of
disclosure of funding
improvements as should the
278 and 280, the Rancho Villages
(RVAD) is providing funding for
The paragraph on page 282 is
General Plan policies regarding
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 DEZR's:
o Establishment of Park and Ride facilities within
commercial areas of Wolf Valley and Vail Ranch as
directed by CalTrans.
- 256 -
0
o Encouragement of the use oP 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 O
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.
Comment:
Any or all of the proposed changes to the development
area could have a significant effect on creek
degradation/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 loo-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 -
O
0
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 Creek 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/aggregation
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.
conveyance of at least 15 times the 100 Year Flow.
O 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.
-258-
0
Should any work be required within State Highway O
right-oE-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
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.
Responsa•
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
- 259 -
O
O
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
negotiations with CDFG. These negotiations are ongoing
with CDFG through the 404 permit process for Wolf
O 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 -
measures directly respond to General Plan policies and O
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 identify any significant
topographic features on site. The subject property is
not designated as open space by the General Plan. The
conversion oP~the property to urban use has been twice
previously addressed and approved by the County under
GPA-145-789-45 and Specific Plan 171. The current
proposal represents an improvement to. the open space
commitment under the existing Specific Plan 171
entitlement which is now in place.
Specific Plan 171 called for 100 acres of open space O
while the proposed plan calls Por 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 (28.2 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,
irretrievable Resource Commitments. Additionally,
accessibility to open space and recreation areas will
be greatly enhanced by the proposed plan which includes
development of sn open space and trails system tied to
planned regional corridors and systems. Therefore,
proposed open space and recreation improvements will
- 261 - O
O have major positive impacts to future County residents
when compared to the existing grazing status or the
existing land use entitlements related to the subject
property .
Comment•
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 O
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
6.25 MGD and the prima:
station serving the
construction. The EMW
capacity charges is also
(Page 295).
treatment plant expansion to
:y trunk main to the Pala lift
project site is also under
~ fee structure relative to
clearly stated in the DEIR
Additionally, the project proposes to utilize reclaimed
wastewater for golf course irrigation purposes, which
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 O
than septic systems. This positive impact will
directly benefit the Pechanqa 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 SCAG 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 -
O
O forecasts are similarly clearly discussed in relation
. to General Plan policies by the DEIR (pages 339 through
348). Additionally, SCAG reviewed the DEIR and
recommends certification of the FEIR (see attached SCAG
comments).
Comment•
Cumulative impacts to wildlife/vegetation, traffic and
circulation, air quality, and water resources, open
space, aq 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.
Comment•
No environmentally superior alternative is identified
O 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
implementation of the previously
plan, requires the use of septic
economic constraints. Geotechnical
would entail the
approved specific
tank system due to
studies indicate
- 264 -
O
that groundwater contamination could occur as a result O
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 DEIRS 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 O
development will primarily affect historic Stephens'
kangaroo rat (Slat) 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, par 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 - O
O
checks with the Department of Fish and Game. Live
trappings throughout the RVAD have failed to reveal the
presence of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SIQt). 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
O 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
(SCF~s 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 O
alludes to mitigation proposals discussed in the DEIR
for the RVAD (SCR 87082402). For these reasons, this
letter shall serve as the Department's comments on five
distinct DEIRs (SCRs 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. Zt 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 O
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 Prom CDFG
have visited the subject property for these purposes.
Representatives from the County and area property
- 267 - O
O 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
communities which would result from project
implementation to be significant unmitigated adverse
impacts which are inconsistent with the requirements of
O 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 -
o Preservation of significant open space areas within O
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 ware 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
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 O
proposed to to provide materials for planting of large,
mature trees which will provide opportunities for
raptor purchinq, nesting and roosting.
Comment•
The DEIR documents the existence of historic SKR
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 SIGt 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 bf the
County's burgeoning population growth (estimated at
approximately 5 percent par year) it is not an
exaggeration to find that, within a cohesive plan for
this species, it is threatened with extinction.
- 269 -
O
0
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
Mr. Dan Yparraquirre and Mr. Joe Pesci on February 2,
1988. Mr. Joe Pesci has also observed the subject area
O 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).
- 270 -
O
Because of the close relationship of the document to O
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
particularly timely and of interest to .persons involved
in shaping the future of Rancho California through the
development review process and other actions. A
program is enclosed for your consideration. O
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
- 271 -
O
0
O
0
would result in a population of 264,648, almost double
the 141,858 Baseline Projection Year 2010 population
for the entire RSA.
Response•
Fob 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 SLAG-82 forecast. In addition, the Assessment
District DEIR 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 DEIR did not address SLAG 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:
SCAG 2.010 Baseline Projection:
SLAG-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 SCAG on February 11, 1988.
- 272 -
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 requiie 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 O
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.
- 2'73 -
O
O 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. dt
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. -
Response:
O 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 - 274 -
m
O
a
W
m
U
-.i
W
W
Ct ~
+i
'O C
~0 O
>, w
s~ .a ..r
~.i0. m
3./ U
y 'O U
cc
M i0
a
ri
m
M
U
0
U
,~ m
rm
,.. ~ .,
3 ~
O O
C~7 >. ~ U
do ~ O
n
m
01
.1
O
m
D
n
m
O~
rl
d
CM
b
m
a~
..
ro
dv
.a
v
V m m m O n ~ O ~O n
n m N .ti N N v P1 N rf
O m ~ O~ m O ~O O~ n ~D
n a ao r o ~c ~v m n n
N e+ a N r .+ m .~o m m
o in e+ n .r a •+ e
of ~+
rf O n m to O O n ~ O
O ~O t0 Nf 1[1 m P7 m rl N1
~O O rl Q •i N N N ~ ~"~
ni m n 1D .i Q if1 .a .a N
rl P1 ~O ~O m V' P1 If1 Pf N
~0 r1 r/ n N n ~
N
m rl O~ e+f N e1 O ~ IL1 ~D
~
O~ ~ u'f n m O~
n in n O
v rn a ~ v ~o .~ n o r+
b
v m o~ ~o o, o ~o m .r m w
o v N m n ~ .~ a ~0 7
O 1'1 V' Q P1 ~O rl N N C
N G
0
v
..
.o
O
H
o
o
~
ro +
~
m e c e
A /0 ~ 'O 'O 'O .ti
.. .~ .~ C .r .~ .ti r0
a a ~0 +1 M .ti >
a ~ ~ w
c a+ .+ ro
v ~oca_~roama b a m A mm
Q1 d +'1 +/ U M +i Q~ CI +M +i m M
~+ i+ ~o ~+ o s+ v s+ r+ ~+ ~+ v o c o c
01 GI .~ L M ~J 01 J~ O C! m m 3r 1a W M W
,~ .~ .r m ~+ m > m w .r O~.ti m m ~ W r+
amaaomooti acame eaea
s aea~o e~o wb~ e-+ s a+e e s
oco cocaca o~oococoyoi+
o-~o.-+-~u-+a-.+~+ u.ro-+oooouo
O
~
~
~ y
p
~
7
M
w-
.i
iw+
+w faw
w. iw
w
,
w
w
wa
O++Ob+0010tOp O~0++000 O
~ 7
d
O
G
,lG17
NAClm01Cm+ OlY
iOl
m
W N
T T 7 D• 7 T 3 T m C~'+ D~ tT i.~ O+ > O~ w
A .+ b 'O ~0 i0 i0 ~0 ~ ~0 '+ i0 m i6 O iE
•• i~ i0 yJ C i~ m 11 m J~ m •• J~ ++ i+ i0 i~ C ~+ M 1.~ 'O
~ O+i OM O OHO O+O O~ ~ O U O~ O O O a0 d
wot+o ocococ a+o~oooooao.+
w
w
w~
w~
wM w gw
Uw Glw ~w
w
~
m
C
O
C
O ~
-
i
mdmtme
~
~+m~mrom.am~m.a wm
m~
~
~~ ~c~
"
~~
emo~
~~cAroma
7 -
+
o
>
a
a
a
"' 3am
oa a°a°o
~
~
~
ea
o~ '
H y y m o1 vl U m m N m y
O
O
v
O
O
O
m
U
ro
D.
y
m
U
M
W
W
O ro
+i
'O t
G 1.1
~ro o
H.r~
ro ro '.
s -+ ro
E M U
~ '70 U
C c
.. ro
a
ri
ro
..
U
la
gm
8
O
U
r m ~,
,, ~ .,
a .+
~ ro m
dP '$ D
n
m
r-1
U
m
O
n
m
O~
•i
m
W
rn
.a
ro
E
.~
N
~O v GO 1f1 O~
~o o co v n
.M N rl V' N
~O {~ •i N O
m n n ~ r+
l'1 r1 N
m < t0 in v
co ~n r in .i
GO O 1f1 GD 1[1
~ O In O~ N
If1 1'1 O~ Il1 d
N
m o o e o
o~ v ~o rn o
~o v o u~ o
e .a r~ .. o
n N r v .~
.~
G C~ Q~ O~ ~
U +Oi +Oi ~.Oi O
> .~. .; .bid m
''O 'O 7 7 7 ~ ~
Y ~ A ~ GA G ~
.mi ~ U U roi O ~roi ~
8 6 w w ~W ~ ~"ro
U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
w pew p,w ~ w Cw D. C
O +OiOM070Tf0 La U
m'Om'Oml+mmm0 C
m-'~+~»'~+ro~~o~ow a
1.+ 7 a,r ~ y C ~+ s. ~+ ~0
O~ O~ O U O C 0~
w mw mw w rowan m
mm..m-~mmmtmH -+
U 4 W 3r W la 'O 3+ a+ H~ 7
MroWrowroe.~OMro'.7 0
Q.w707077737 N to
w T C O' O~ O'
O u1 V1 fA ul V1 u
Comment• O
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.
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 O
Freeway to less congested segments of Z-15. Therefore,
growth in Rancho California may have less impacts to
existing segments of the 91 Freeway which are congested
easterly of Cozona 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 to
percent reapectively, 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
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
planning for the substantial growth in this area and we
eagerly await the forthcoming Southwest Territory Land
O 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
- 276 -
O
piece of ground, there are no buildings or supporting O
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 Limn and effort
expended by the Council to resolve concerns related to
their immediate and surrounding environment. There
have bean 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 in accordance with the directives of the
County Planning Department and the Council.
In accordance with SCAG population estimates, the
proposed project oP 4,188 dwelling units will generate
a population of 8,795 parsons, roughly one half of the
population given in the above listed comment.
Additionally, only one Master Phase (Phase III) of
development is proposed adjacent to the Reservation.
Under the existing underlying land use entitlement O
(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.
- 277 -
O
O 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,
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
O 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 Pechanqa Reservation water
resources.
- 278 -
O
0
o Access from the project to Pechanqa Road will be
restricted.
Comment•
Our Indian Reservation was czeated 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 condusive 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 Parming• and into the Oak
Forest of Pechanqa, 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 Pechanqa
are expected to adjust to every disadvantage and
disruption that this proposed over-population will
bring. For the above reasons, we vehemently oppose
this destructive development which is an infringement
on our lifestyle that has existed before history began.
Response• O
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 DO/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 bean
shown to have a positive fiscal impact to the County.
Additionally, the construction of each home will
- 279 - O
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 foz 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•
The project proponent does not propose any new wells on
O 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 -
O
accordance with the request of the Council. The road O
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 fora limited distance, this is a
County road.
Response•
Pechanga Road is a County maintained facility Prom 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•
Pechanga Road will be constructed in accordance with
full width ultimata County standards on the project
site. O
Comment•
2.4 As an extreme measure, in the event that our road
is moved, the only direction that it can qo is
closer to the Pechanga Creak, which is conducive
to flooding.
Response•
Following negotiations with the Council and input from
the County, Pechanga Road will not be moved Erom 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.
- 281 -
O
O Comment•
2.5 If 2.4 iS implemented, then a road that meets
County standards and mitigates the flooding
condition of Pechanqa 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 Pechanqa Road in accordance with County
standards.
Comment•
2.6 We strongly recommend that the
road which has existed for over
remain at its present location.
not a County road, then we would
strip of land turned over
Reservation.
Response:
location of the
one hundred years
If this road is
like to have this
to the Pechanqa
O Pechanqa 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 Pechanqa Native Americans approximately three-
quarters (3/4) oP an acre net of property within
Commercial Area "A" which is located between the new
intersection of Pala Road and Pechanqa 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 Pechanqa Indian
Reservation have not been provided by the Bureau
- 282 -
O
of Indian Affairs; therefore, we are not able to O
verify the accuracy of the physical boundaries
which have been. determined by the developer.
Resvonse•
The project proponent has completed an ALTA (American
Land 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.
Resvonse•
The project proponent has agreed, following
negotiations with the Council, to postpone construction
within Master Phase III for a minimum of three (3)
years. This should permit adequate time for the B.I.A. O
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.Z.R. since they will
be directly affected.
Resvonse••
DEIRs and FEIRs will be provided to the Council in
sufficient quantity to circulate as the Council
determines appropriate. Additionally, the 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.
- 283 -
O
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).
Res~onse•
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
decorative block walls have been provided within
development areas abutting the buffer. Sensitivity to
O 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 on the project site. An
updated report is included. in the FEIR Appendix in
accordance with the request of the Pechanga Tribal
Council.
- 284 -
O
0
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 #217 for a complete and
current archeological survey.
Response•
A complete, updated survey of the subject site is
included in the FEIR Appendix in accordance with the
above listed request.
Comment•
Creating a vacant parcel of land to accommodate 16,000 O
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 -
O
O reed to
(51) homes, the project proponent has ag
t a six (6) foot high decorative block wall and
t
ruc
cons
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 Pechanqa 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
Pechanqa Reservation. Significant changes and
modifications to the specific plan and EIR have been
made as a direct result of these meetings. The time
and effort of the Council and Tribal representatives is
greatly appreciated in this regard.
O Comment•
Lights:
6.1 The visibility of the night sky which is enjoyed
by the People of Pechanqa 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.
- 286 -
O
Comment• O
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
danger oP having our life style detrimentally affected
by developing an irreversible, artificial environment.
Response: O
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 Pechanqa 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.
- 287 -
O
O
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
O 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, 81. 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 -
O
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•
O
Page 295, Par. 2. It is stated that the project water O
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.
- 289 -
O
0
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.
O 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.
Buiidout of all phases is expected to occur over ,a ten
(l0) 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
O - 290 -
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 SCAG 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. IIpan
completion of 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:
J
The project fiscal impact report indicates fiscal
impacts will be positive. The EIR includes staffing
and budgetary. information provided by the Sheriff's
Department.
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
ware necessary to transmit additional documents. These
documents are available at the request of the Council.
- 291 -
O
O
O
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
Zndian heritage.
Response•
In accordance with this recommendation, another
archaeological survey has begun on the project site.
Results of the survey will be incorporated into the
FEIR Appendix and any recommended mitigation measures
will be included as conditions of approval for the
project.
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.
O - 292 -
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 Zndian 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 Zndians in accordance with the above
listed recommendations.
Comment•
Noise levels will increase with this specified road,
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.
0
O
- 293 -
O
O 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:
Air quality will also be degraded by this
O 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.
O - 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.
o 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
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 tha loss of natural
vegetation. The DEIR merely referenced an observation
0
O
- 295 - O
O 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 Zndian 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
fifty (50) foot landscape buffer setback and to lower
the density of lots abutting the setback. Planning
Area 9 was also redesigned to shift all of Pechanga
O 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 DEZR 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.
- 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•
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.
O
Comment• O
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 #226.
I am confident that you will respond to the
recommendations and requests made in this latter.
Response•
Comments acknowledged.
R. County of Riverside, Department of Health
Comment•
The proposed project is located in the existing
^fissure area^ identified by the County of Riverside,
Department of Building and Safety. As of this date,
- 297 -
O
O
O
O
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.
Comment•
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.
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 EZR 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 -
Response• O
The project is located within RCWD. Water service will
be provided by RCWD. Service letters have been
obtained from RCWD for- all of the project's
subdivisions.
Comment•
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
Department as the agency responsible foz solid waste
disposal. This responsibility is now that of the O
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.
- 299 -
O
0
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
waste. Waste generated should be contained within the
construction site by construction of temporary chain
O .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.
O - 300 -
0
Resoonse•
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, page 18, item "d" states: "Active
recreational uses do not include natural open space,
nature study areas, open space for buffer areas, steep
slopes, riding and hiking trails, scenic overlooks, O
water courses, drainage areas or water bodies." This
development proposes parks in said areas and does not
meet the guidelines 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
- 301 -
O
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
O 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.
Comments
Mitigation measures list open space and trails which
have no bearing on active recreation areas.
Responses
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 -
has adopted an equestrian and recreation fee for O
development agreements.
Comment•
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.
Responsa•
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 O
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 - Thera is no mention of a
community recreation center and/or a site for future
use. A development oP this size needs to sat a site
aside for this future need. The development should
generate a population exceeding 12,000 residents.
- 303 -
O
O
O
Response•
Based on SLAG 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
earthquake fault?
Response•
County want a park built on an
Although this park was originally
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
faulting was revealed during
investigation.
designed within .the
Zone, no evidence of
the fault hazard
O - 304 -
0
Comment•
Page 87 - "Park A shall be developed prior to the
issuance of 3,000 permits". This is too late into the
development and should be adjusted to prior to the
1,000 permits.
Response•
The improvement of Park "A" should occur commensurate
with population demands and with improvements related
to Temecula Creak 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 O
made to the Pechanqa 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 Por parks? Where will
future community recreation canters 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 - O
O 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 f loodway and Park B in a
seismic area. Are these areas appropr iate for parks?
Should children be in these areas? Can a future
Community Recreation Center be located in the park?
O 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 fc
Community Recreation Center.
Comment•
to occur within the
listed of excellent
These parks were
park and recreation
Adequate area exist
x 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 -
O
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
Flpod 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 O
annexation to County Service Area 143.
M. Department of Water Resources
Comment•
After reviewing your report, we also would like to
recommend that you further consider implementing a
comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water
supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality
water supplies.
Response•
The project proponent has already begun negotiations
with Eastern Municipal water District (EMWD) to use
reclaimed water for golf course irrigation purposes.
- 307 -
O
O 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 Instltute Standard
A112.19.2, and urinals and associated flushometer
valves, if any, that use less than an average of
1-1/2 gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and
O associated flushometer valves are exempt from the
requirements oP 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.
O - 308 -
maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory
faucets and sink Paucets, as specified in the
standard approved by the American National Standards
Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI
A112.18.1FI-1979.
O
0
installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has
certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate
standards.
0
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
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 - O
0
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 oP 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.
O 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.
e 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.
O - 310 -
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.
lo: 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.
O
- 311 - O
0
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 newly constructed
slopes should be done as soon as possible (utilizing
native or low-water-using plant material).
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by
mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as
required. -
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize
problems associated Frith sediment transport during
construction.
Response:
Comments acknowledged and incorporated hereinto by
reference.
0
O - 312 -
0
Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan
Schatzman, Thompson and Associates
Len Schatzman
California Oaks, An Urban village Specific
Plan/Environmental Zmpact Report
Vista Murrieta Specific Plan No. 206
Wolf Valley at Rancho California Draft Specific
Plan No. 171/Environmental Impact Report
Tierra Madre Consultants, Lawrence F. LePre, Ph.D
Riverside County Road Department, Ed Studor
Riverside County Planning Department, David James
Riverside County Planning Department, Ron Goldman O
Eastern Municipal Water District, Marshal Demoz
Temecula Union School District, Mrs. Billie Stapp
Temecula Valley High School, Mr. Moore
Audie Murphy Ranch Specific Plan No. 209 and
Environmental Impact Report
Adreas Cover Specific Plan No. 211/
Draft Environmental Zmpact Report No. 221
Rancho Villages Assessment District Draft
EIR No. 241
Ranpac Engineering Corporation
David W. Dillon, Director of Planning
David James, Supervising Planner
Christopher Terzich, Associate Planner
- 313 - O
O
Attachment "A"
Critique of Department of Fish and Game Comments
by -
Royce B. Riggin of RBR and Associates, Znc.
O
O
IdBR ~ Associa4es, Inc.
273 "~' St Sums BW. Son Dixgo. U 92101
(6I9) 2339+156
California Department of Fish sad Ga®e
Response to the Rancho Villages Assess®ent District (RVAD)
Environmental Impact Report (SCH87082402) and Associated Site
Specific EIRS.
Rhe Department°s concerns may be summarized a9 follows:
a. Mitigation for the lose of approximately 25-acres of
riparian habitat must be accomplishe~3,on a timely basis so
that there is no loss of habitat value and within areas
appropriate to revegetation/rehabitation.
b. The proposed RVAD will result in significant unmitigated
impact to grassland and sage scrub communities and their
associated sensitive wildlife species.
O
c. The proposed Assessment District will result in significant O
impacts to historic Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat; this
species has just been nominated for endangered status under
the Federal Endangered Species Act.
(The California Department of Fish and Game letter is intended to
be a response to the Rancho Villages Assessment Distzict
Envizonmental Impact Report and to the Environmental Impact
Reports for Vail Meadows, Wolf Valley, Butterfield Stage Ranch,
and Vail Ranch (State Clearinghouse Numbezs: 87072003, 87031614,
87030917, and 87110216 respectively). The following responses
address the concerns of the Department as they zelate only to
implementation of the Rancho Villages Assessment District).
In Response:
a. The RVAD Environmental Impact Report identifies a
Biological Enhancement Progzam as mitigation foz the
1 O
O anticipated impacts to approximate 25-acres of riparian
habitat associated with Temecula Creek. This will
result in a nearly 3:1 replacement for riparian acreage
lost. It is anticipated that the enhancement program
will be initiated at the beginning of the first phase
construction, so as to insure that riparian woodland
habitat values are retained. The facilities proposed
as a part of the RVAD (where they would directly impact
wetlands or wetland resources) will be subject to both
Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and Section 1603 (Fish
and Game Code) permits. It is anticipated that as part
of these permits, specific conditions will be applied
sufficient to assure that:
o The full 70-acre mitigation program will be
realized, and the vegetation will be of a density
(30 :ercent cover) appropriate to a riparian
woodland.
O o No loss of habitat values will result.
o Facilities construction in the riparian areas will
be accomplished at times other than the breeding
season, and
o The biological enhancement program will be
initiated concurrent with the first phase of the
RVAD.
It is anticipated that a detailed enhancement program
will be subject, through both the 404- and 1603-permit
process, to the review and approval of both tie Fish
and Wildlife Service (advisory to the Aray Corps of
Engineers) and the California Department of Fish and
O 2
Game. O
b. The Department in their response indicated that, in
their opinion, loss of grassland and Inalnd Sage Scrub
communities will constitute a significant unmitigated
impact.
The Rancho Temecula/Ranch Pauba/Little Temecula Rancho
area has been subject to intense agricultural and
grazing activities throughout the past century. These
activities have resulted in a relatively massive
disturbance of the native vegetation within the RVAD
area. 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 relictual occurrences on broken ground unsuitable
for agriculture or intense grazing. Although this O
area, despite disturbance, retains considerable
wildlife value, these have been significantly reduced
through a century cf human utilization.
The existing ruderal grassland communities are of
wildlife value principally to raptors known to
overwinter in the Temecula/Warner Springs corridor.
The ongoing urbanization of the Temecula area and other
parts of the northern end of this corridor will have a
cumulatively significant impact on the value of this
area for overainterinq populations of raptors. This is
a regional problem not amenable to mitigation or
addressment at the individual project level.
Mitigation of this impact could only be accomplished on
a broad regional basis that would, in affect, negate
the ongoing urbanization of this region. Thece ace no
known planning or financial tools available, at this
3 O
O time that would prevent or significantly ameliorate
this process of urbanization. NOe roonteitherpthe
species utilizing this corcidor ap.
Federal oz State Endangered Species list. Several,
however, do appear on the blue list (Tate, 1966) and
are known to be subject to population declines
regionally or nationwide, but it is doubtful that the
RVA7 project, in and of itself, will result in a
significant effect on any raptor population.
O
O
Remaining Inland Sage Scrub within the boon etches on
the RVAD consists primarily of isolated p
broken ground unsuitable to more intensive agricultural
usage. As such, this habitat type is broken into
fragments which, if preserved intacked, would result in
relatively small islands not suitable for preservation.
Soule and Simberloff (1986) identify the following
parameters as being necessary criteria when selecting a
biological reserve that will have long-term
survivability:
o an area having optimum habitat for species of
special concern
o an area of high species diversity h d egree of
o an area distinguished by a hig
endemicity
o areas allowing security for long term conservation
The remaining patches of Inland Sage Scrub within the
RVAD boundary do not meet any of the above criteria.
The occuzcence of species of special concern is spotty
or populations are so low in numbers that survival of
an isolated group would be questionable; due to past
agricultural utilization the areas do not demonstrate
high species diversity; there are no known sensitive
4
endemics within the RVAD; and none of the areas which O
could be preserved would be of a sufficiently large
size to afford security of the biological components on
a long-term basis.
xable IV-9 within the Environmental Impact Report
identifies ten sensitive species that occur within the
RVAD boundary. The specific status of these ten
species is detailed in the attached table. One of
these, the Golden Eagle, is fully protected under
special Federal statutes and the disturbance of its
nest(s) is specifically prohibited by law. The Golden
Eagle is not known to nest within the boundaries of the
RVAD but if such are identified they could not.be
subject to development. This species breeds to the
southeast in the Agua Tibia and Palomar range and birds
from that population undoubtedly forage throughout the
Temecula area. The Black-shouldered .Rite is a fully
protected species under California law and is adapted O
to urbanized environments. This species has made a
notable population comeback since the banning of DDT
and other egg-thinning pesticides that resulted in near
destruction of this species. It is considered to be
compatible with the ongoing development of the Temecula
area. Stephen's Kangaroo Rat is subject to a proposed
rule under federal law that would designate it as
endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
It is anticipated that the proposed rule will become
final near the end of calendar 1988. With the
designation of this species as endangered under the
Federal Statutes any population of the species
occurring within the boundaries of the RVAD would be
subject to specific addzessment separate from the
California Environmental Quality Act process. It is
anticipated that a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will
5 O
O be developed in the near term for this species.
Properties within the RVAD will undoubtedly be included
as a part of the HCP. As indicated in the
Environmental Impact Report, extensive trapping within
the RVAD has not identified extant populations of this
species, although it has occurred historically within
the area. The remaining 7 species appearing within
Table IV-9 (Cooper's Hawk, Grasshopper Sparrow, Rough-
legged Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, San Diego Horn Lizard,
Black-tailed Gnatcatcher, and Orange-throated Whiptail)
are not presently designated under either California or
Federal law as threatened or endangered. The Cooper's
Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, and Ferruginous Hawk all occur
in the RVAD area only as transients. A lack.of
suitable nesting sites and the existing degree of human
utilization of the area limits their occurrence. Both
the Grasshopper Sparrow and the California Black-
O tailed Gnatcatcher breed in the Temecula area (Garret
and Dunn, 1981); the former in grassland the latter in
Inland Sage Scrub. Although the RVAD itself will not
directly effect in any significant way populations of
these two species, proposed residential developments
.(not directly a part of this EIR) may. The San Oiego
Horned Lizard and the Orange-throated Whiptail are
restricted to sandy sage scrub and to mature Inland
Sage Scrub respectively. The Whiptail's presence is
closely correlated with the occurrence of its primary
food species: the Western Subterranean termite. As is
the case with most of the above species, the RVAD will
itself have little direct effect on these habitats and
will, therefore, have no direct significant impact.
Implementation of subsequent resident projects may
result in significant reductions in both of these
species populations.
O 6
The adverse impacts to non-native grasslands and the
remnant Inland Sage Scrub communities due to
implementation of the RVAD are not significant and,
therefore, extensive mitigation is not required.
e. The Department expressed concern for the existence of
historic Stephen's Kangaroo habitat within the project
area. As identified above this species has been
proposed as an endangered species under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. A final rule making is
anticipated in November of 1988. Extensive trapping
conducted as a part of the. RVAD Environmental Impact
Report found no extant populations of the species
within the assessment district boundary. In
conjunction aith the anticipated listing of this
species as endangered, .a habitat conservation program
for western Riverside County will be prepared. If
colonies are identified within the assessment district
boundary at some future time, they would undoubtedlyO
become a part of this overall preservation pzogram for
the species.
7 O
£ederal* State"4 Other°ee
Cooper's Hawk - 3rd Priority BL
Grasshopper Sparrow - - BL
Golden Eagle Protected 3rd Priority -
Rough-legged Hawk - - -
Ferruginous Hawk C2 - -
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat "E" T N/A
Black-shouldered Kite - Protected -
San Diego Horned Lizard C2 - N/A
California Black-tailed
Gnatcatcher C2 2nd Priority - _
Orange-throated Whiptail C2 - N/A
"Federal status based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1985 and
1986)
""State status based on following sources:
Threatened and Endangered species: California Department of
Fish and Game (1980)
Birds: Remsen (1978)
Mammals: Williams (1986)
oo"Tate (1986)
8
REFERENCE CITED O
Fish and Wildlife Service
1985 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Review of Vertebrate Wildlife. Federal Register
50 (181):37958-37967
Fish and Wildlife Service
1986a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 CFR 17.11
Garrett, Kimball, and J. Dunn
1981 Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon
Society.
Remsen, Jr., J. V.
1978 Bird Species of Special Concern in California.
California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento.
Smith, Jr., James P. ed. O
1984 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California. California Native Plant Society,
Special Publication No. 1 (3rd Edition), Berkeley.
Tate, Jr., James
1986 The blue list for 1986. Am. Birds. 40 (2):227-236.
Williams, Daniel F.
1986 Mammalian species of special concern in
California. California Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento.
9 O
0
Attachment "B^
Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
O
O
STAR M GW07MIA-O~F7CE Of 7ME GO~'67HGt GEORGE OEUwfJ~Ara. Ge.o.m.
OOFFICE OF PIAPIPdIPdG APlD RESEARCH
Imo TFIVIN mts:T
sAaAeae+ro. a vwia "
January 28, 1988
O
O
Uzma Siddique
Riverside County Planning Qepartment
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Subject: Specific Plan 226/Wolf Valley
SLHM 87031614 .
Qpar Ms. Siddique:
'14ie State Cleariaghous2 submitted the shave named draft F~vixvnmental Im~Ct
Report (EIR) to selected state agencies Yor review. 'Fhe review period is
closed and the comments of the individual ageacy(ies) is(are) closed.
Also, on the enclosed Notice oY Canpletion, the C3.earin8house has checked
which agencies have commented. Please reviEa the Koti.ce oY Completion to
ensure that your cc~ent package is complete. IY the package is not in
order. Please norify the State C3.earinghouse imtma3lately. Your eight digit
State CO.eari~house number should b2 used so that t2 may reply promptly.
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or
other public agency shall only make substantive ca®ents on a project ehich
are within the area of the agency's expertise or ®hlch relate to activities
mhich that agency must carry out or approve. (AH 2583, Ctt. 1514, Stats.
1984.)
~ese counts are Yornarded Yor your use in preparing your Yina1,EIR. IY
you need more inYormation or clari.Yication, ve suggest you contact the
camo2ating agency at your earliest convenience.
Please contact Joha tleene at 916/445=0613 1Y you have any questions
regarding the eaviron~tal review process.
Sincerely,
OfYice oY Peimit Assistance
~-
~•~ ~~~.
David C. l~nenkamp
ChieY
Eaclosures
cc: Hesau'cxs Agency
Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District
901 wan EsOianaoe Avenue
P. 0.90: 907
San Jaeinto. California 92363
Telephone 17141 654.1505
r1
Decenber 23, 1987
~. •.. .t ~v i~
. = . ,r.:
..,- oEC ti8~sa~
t
RIVEf,~! DE-r~,p;~MEN
PLANNING
(.r.... V-...._
ao-~~ o= D!gec-o=s
!., n. .,
DanNi Vo^ D~~s:a
. o-.. ~.-
Eeh•n! B~r.a
S.<.„.,.
M. •'-
t~.~R SC nOu!!n
N,-„•
Ms. Uzma Siddique
Riverside County Planning DeparLnent
4080 Lenon Street. 9th Floor -
Riverside. CA 92501
RE: EIR 226/Specific Plan 217 - kolf Valley
Dear Ms. Siddique:
Valley-lode Recreation and Park District has the following concerns on
the above referenced project:
1. Ordinance 460.76 page 18 item °d" states: "Active recreational
uses do not include natural open space, nature study areas,
open space for buffer areas, steep slopes, riding and hiking
trails, scenic overlooks, water courses. drainage areas or
water bodies." This development proposes parks in said areas
and does not meet the guidelines of useable park space.
2. 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 acres.
pitigation measures list open space and trails which have no
bearing on active recreation areas.
3. Exhibit 11-1 - Location of parks to overall development appears
Lo be poorly planned. A centrally located park is more practical
to service a development of this size. Parks as designated are
located in hidden corners of the development. Current
configurations of park sites do not tend themselves to multiple
use. Area 3 would be a much more desirable location.
4. Page 51 - Open space is for flood control and as such is unuseable
for parks.
O
O
O
0
Ms. Uzma Siddique
Riverside County Planning Department
Riverside, CA 92501
December 23, 1987
Page Two
5. 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.
6. Exhibit 11-7 - One third of the park is a drainage channel.
Is this useable park area? The park configuration does not lend
itself to good design.
7, Exhibit 11-8 - Park configuration is inadequate.
6. Page 74 - Does the county sent a park built on an earthquake
fault?
O 9. Page 87 - "Park A shall De developed prior to the issuance of
3,000 permits". This is too late into the development and
should be adjusted to prior to the 1,000 pemits.
"Park site 6 at 3,500 permits" needs to be changed to 2.500.
10. Page 185 - states that the parks are located in potentially
fiood prone sections of Temecula Creek and that human occupancy
in the area is a potential hazard.
Are these appropriate sites for parks? where sill future
community recreation centers be located?
11. Page 210 - states "most areas of 25: slopes or greater sill D_
designated as open space."
12. Page 215 - Reinforces facts that parks are designated within
the flood plan.
13. Page 249 - Both parks are located in potentially hazardous
areas. Park A in a ftoodaay 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?
O
O
Ms. Uzma Siddique
Riverside Lounty Planning Department
Riverside, CA 92501
December 23, 1987
Page Three
14. Page 313 - gitigation states that
by development of the project as
incorrect. Ordinance 460 should
park area has not been addressed.
plain and drainage channel are no
round basis. Further, throughout
is referred to. The golf course
basin.
"The Quimby Act pill be exceeded
proposed." This statement is
oe referred to and useable
Please note that a flood
t useable park areas on a year
the document the golf course
will also act as a flood retention
15. In closing, the District recommends that the area annex to an
appropriate agency providing park and recreation services.
Valley-Vide appreciates this opportunity to comment on the specific
plan. Please transmit any future data to the District Office.
Sincerely,
Sa~p~agerager
Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District
SW6:ps
O
O
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
~1S BYRD. SHERIFF
January B, 1988
~~111~~~'.~~d'~
LAKE ELSINORE SHERIFF'S STATION ~ (714) 674-3131
117 S. LANGSTAFF ST. LAKE ELSIAIORE. CA 92330
v r.:~. 1 '. ....:I
n
Riverside County Planning Department ~~;', '.-
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Ms. Uzma Siddique
Regarding: EIR #226 - Specific Plan #217 - Wolf Valley
Dear Ms. Siddique:
On January 4, 1988, we received your letter and Specific Plan to
tine above referenced Environmental Impact Report. In response to
this report, we offer the following information to be entered into
your final draft.
O This particular development, upon completion, will impact the pop-
ulation 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.
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 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.
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 of this project, the additional
growth will negatively impact"the Lake Elsinore Sheriff Station and
the Rancho California Area, unless this project makes adequate pro-
visions for the additional officers needed.
Sincerely,
COIS B SHE F
'~ I ~
`~ V '
William D. eynolds~Captain
O Lake Elsin re Station
~~~6~i~0~6 QD~~1~
~d~WWoWC~ ~G~~~dWn 6 a
~sEgty
E%R/SPEC%F%C f~l~
TITTRL
EIR q0: 226
SPECIFIC PLAPI q0.: 217
PROJECT gAFiE• kJolf Valley
~~ SheH ff's DeparUnent
FRAM: Riverside County Planning Depar4men4 O
Contac4 Person(s) Uana Siddique
Phone: (719) 787-6356
TRAgSgITTAI DATE: December 11. 1987
RETURq DATE: January 25. 1988
The Riverside County Planning Depar9a2nt 1s curren4ly reviewing a Specific Plan
in the Rancho California area. The enclosed Draft
Environm2n a mpac epo an pec c an are provided for your review and
corm~nt. Please provtde car~an4s on the adequacy of 4he analpsts and the
appropriateness of 4he pro3ee4 9n e~i4ing indica4ing the section of Concern.
Comr~nts ~y include addi4lonal or alternative eitigatton e:aasures than those
proposed in the documant.
Please note the pro'ec4 name and specific plan amber for nil correspondence
and indicate 1f you e~uld 19 he to be no4141ed of public hearings.
O
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET. ROOM
/~~ April aa, 198a
Sac,ora~ra Jonnio I4lranda, Tribal Spokeapnraoa
IA.'a- '""` Pochango %ndian Tribal 08fico
0o Poat OPfico Box 1b77~
To~ocula, California 9x390
poor Ma. Miranda:
Boo~dotDi~ ~ Ao eaa oxproaand at our nootiag oS April 19, 19B®,
Rancho California Y~ator District ahtJroa tho concorn of
1Uahord a StofYay tho Pochanga Band regarding a goliabla Bator oupply.
Pivid~t
some A D~9 Flo acknottlodgo tho %ndian rights to eater Eros tho
~ vtm ~~ k7olf valloy and aro proparod to tsl~co any roaaonablo
stops to guarantoo tho Bator oupply.
lialph DJ1y
des A. Laod6A
doiiioy L 119ie8kg
Z C. Bwo
oer,~
O sew r. llAilm
Gan:ml MomgQ
Phillip L gorlr~
Di~eerm a! Flooom -
7koouecr
.N~mon L TLomm
Di~ator o1 En~ratiog
13omen R A4eAliotar
Diicer~ a! Opmatiam
g Moioraemm
Bay a. B~
D4cefv at pamiaintiutiva
Diotefrt Ste'
Hufm ood Taehcz
todol Couoc:~ _
O
Spocifically, ao fliacuaacd, rn Hill oxtond e
proporly oisod pipolino to your LYOlay Tract eoll and
provido Bator dolivory at that paiait should your.eoll
boeosto umaaablo. At thio tiro, % .c~e~uld anticipato a
lino also capable of dolleoring about teico Your
eurroiit roquirosonta, roportndly 17S gallons per
minuto. Tho apocific onginooriag cguoationa Hill .haeo
to bo anac~orod lator.
Tho plpolino would assuro a Bator supply should
~®chanical or physical failuro intorrupt your Boll's
production.
I fool confidont that an agronzaont adocguatnly
protocting tho %ndian rights can bo eorkod out.
You e~oro gieon
Fiastor Plan. That
boing updatod. Tho
roguirosnnta sill bo
copioa of tho IIC~9D pater Rosourcraffi
Plan is, as roported, currontly
%ndian rights and Bator supply
addrnaaod is tho Hoe mport.
A briof fiold inapactioa in93eatoo that tho
faeilitioo roquirod could bo doaignod sad eonatructod
~aickly upon agrooiaoat.
t3o aro evnilablo to moot at your coavoaionco With
logal or othor roprooontatieoa to c~orLt ouQ as agroorsont
and tho physical dotaila.
~nry truly youga,
~FORt~YA 1~1,1TRR D%STRYCT
i 8 lla
6onoral ManagoS
<' O
>~~ a ~
GREATAMERiCAN DEVELOPMENTca~u+r
June 2, 1988
Temecula Band of
Luiseno Mission Indians
Pechanga Indian Reservation
P.O. Hoa 1477
Temecula, CA 92390
Attn: Mrs. Jennie Miranda
Tribal Spokesperson
Dear Mrs. Miranda:
We would like to thank you for the meeting last week
among you, Dr. Shipek, Members of the Tribal Council and Great
American Development Company representatives and consultants.
We believe the meeting has improved and enhanced our
relationship in regards to the joint boundary of our properties.
At the meeting, several important issues were
discussed which concern both of us. For the purpose of
documenting those issues and what Great American Development
Company has agreed to include•in the 'Conditions of Approval'
of the Specific Plan for this Project, they are listed as
follows:
1, rv,ir„ra~ Resources
We have agreed that archaeological resources
owned by us will be given to the Pechanga Indian
Reservation.
2. Ar~haeoloav
We have agreed to provide the archaeological
cultural resources assessment for Dr. Shipek's
and your review.
This package will include:
o all of the project site surveys
o reports
o test pit data
o analysis, and
o methods. O
O
28910 Rancho California Road, Suite 700, T(~14)1699~33606390
O Temecula Band of
Luiseno Mission Indians
June 2, 1988
Page 2
Dr. Christopher Drover's resume of educational
background, teaching experience, professional
publications and cultural resource management
ezperience will also be provided.
3, D'- -- - Ro-d~ on Corners of Property
in response to your request, we will furnish the
engineering survey data for our common boundary
which shows those portions of the eaisting
east-west dirt road crossing two corners of the
Great American property. At the time appropriate
County approvals are obtained, we will deed these
portions of the property to the Pechanga Indian
Reservation.
4. Flood Control Studv - Pechanga Creek
We have agreed to furnish all data derived from
the county-required flood control study of the
cause and effects of any impact on the Pechanga
Creek which will be prepared during the
subdivision mapping process. This will be for
the review and participation by a Pechanga Indian
Reservation-appointed hydrologist/civil engineer.
5. Water
We have agreed to furnish our independent study
analysis done by Mr. Warren Shirling of Highland
Soils.- This will include:
o the Rancho California Water District's
existing and planned well points
o well ,logs
o ground water contours, and '
o the locatioa of the aquiclude.
6, t-ndGc-ne Buffer/Set Bacti
We agree that no residential dwelling structure
on the Redhawk property will be closer than
approximately one hundred twenty (120) feet from
the Redhawk Property line, wit.`. the average
separating distance being approximately one
hundred seventy (170) feet therefrom. (See the
O enclosures entitled Redhawk Edqe Condition.)
Temecula Band of O
Luiseno Mission Indians
June 2, 1988
Page 3
7. ~^~~^*v-Main ained Pechanqa Road
We are prepared to leave the county-maintained
Pechanqa Road in its current configuration and
alignment from Pala Road to the Pechanqa
Reservation, subject to any requirements of the
County which would require a reconfiguration
and/or realignment.
g, c~hool Site L.acation
We agree that the school site along the tribal
flat lands in the Fiesta location makes good
planning sense. This location would also help to
serve the tribal children and eliminate, as was
stated, long bussing or drives to other school
locations. The ultimate location is subject to
the appropriate governmental approvals.
We have responded to your concerns and by a copy of
this letter to the County we are requesting that these design
criteria be included in the °Conditions of Approval° of the
Specific Plan for this project.
Thank you again for the openess of the discussions and
the ability to share our future as good neighbors.
Sincerely,
ICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
t en J. For%d~
ice Pre ident
enclosures
cc: Dr. Florence Shipek
Darwin Olsen, Esq.
Roger Streeter
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
Joe Richards
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
Ron Goldman
Riverside Co. Planning Dept.
O
O
O
O
600 !ouch Commonu~oolth
January 22, 1988
1t ~ ' - ~ ~ '-~ 1
1:..
C,
. , t®UYF7ERfl CIR11F®r~fll~
ti=lllC)AIWYI®fl AF CvOVERflfflEflYJ ~`
Rronuo • Niue 1000 • loi Rngobi. Gollfornio .90005.213/385-1000
Fir. Richard J. FiacHott
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lennon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
RE: Rancho Villages Assessment.0lstrict. Butterfield Stage Ranch, klolf Valley
and Vail Ranch Draft Envirornnental Impact Reports
SLAG File Numbers RI-50918-EDR, RI-50919-EDR, RI-50920-EDR, RI-50939-EDR
Dear Fir. gacHott:
Thank you for submitting the Rancho Villages Assessment District Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Because of the close relationship of the
document to the DEIRs for Butterfield Stage Ranch, klolf Valley and Vail Ranch
and because all of the documents were prepared in a similar format by the same
consultants this letter ail! be used to respond to all four documents. Staff
reviea is based on regional plans and policies and the issues ae asked to be
addressed in our responses to the Notices of Preparation.
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 particularly timely and
of interest to persons involved in shaping the future of Rancho California
through the development reviea process and other actions. A program 1s enclosed
for your consideration. "
Each of the project-specific DEIRs presents different population growth
pro,~ections based upon the Cuiaulative impacts of related proposed projects
(107,729 for liolf Valley, 114,729 for Va11 Ranch and 138,646 for•Butterfield
Stage Ranch). Thts is certainly confusing and should be clarified. For the
purposes of this discussion, the largest total presented (tn the Assessment
District DEIR) will be used. That 4ota1 of 109,730 additional dwelling units in
55 protects over 26,000 acres is not presented with a corresponding population
pro,~ection. Using the average of 2.1 persons/dwelling un14 for RSA 49, the
additional units will result in an additional 230.433 persons. dhen added to
the 1984 population of RSA 49 (34,215), 4his would result in a population of
264,648, almost double the 141,858 Baseline Projection Year 2010 population for.
the entire RSA.
The three project-specific DEIRs compare the three different and lower
O Mr. Richard J. MacHott
Page 2
January 22, 1988
cumulative population projections with the SCAG-82 forecast. In addition, the
Assessment District DEIR entirely omits any comparison of the expected groath
with regignal forecasts. As requested in our comments on the NOPs, the DEIRs
should compare the projections with both the SCAG-82 Modified forecast and the
Baseline Projection.
Since the Regional Air Quality Management Plan is based upon the groath
ssential that the DEIRs fully consider
it i
i
i
d
s e
,
f
e
assumptions in SCAG-82 Mod
and attempt to mitigate the air quality impacts of the additional anticipated
groath. In this regard, ce commend the requirement of an air quality
the developers to offset regional cumulative impacts.
aid b
t f
y
ee p
enhancemen
It could be helpful if the DEIRs specified the types of programs that sill be
supported cith these funds. In addi4lon; 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. SLAG is currently corking
cith the Riverside County Transportation Commission concerning 4he
implementation of the measures included in a Prototype Transportation/Land Use
Ordinance and Report published by SLAG in January, 1987. Another approach is to
include an air quality element in the General Plan, as aas done in the City of
Pleasanton. Copies of that plan are available from SLAG or the Air Quality
Management District.
O In addition, the preponderantly residential nature of existing, recent and
ti
l
on
a
planned developments in the area has exacerbated the increasing jobs/popu
imbalance in the region. In particular, over the last tco years Los Angeles and
Orange Counties have had employment groath at tcice the rate of population
t from 1985-86) is
groath chile Riverside County's employment groath (9.1 percen
i/86
m
c
E
p
h
a
pe
o
the
address
IRs explicitly
specific D
project
three
Hhile the
l/i/8~.
to
concern over jobs/population imbalance, it does not attempt to analyze or
f the related projects on the balance of jobs and
t
i
o
®pac
quantify the overall
population in the region. It should be made clear that the projects, by
proposing substantial housing increases cithout assurances of proportionate
employment increases, sill likely lead to a greater regional imbalance.
The OEIRs should also analyze and document the air quality and transportation
impacts if current trends continue and Rancho California's residential groath
further increases tong-distance commuting to Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
The dramatic increase in long-distance codaauting among Riverside County
residents has significant impacts on regional traffic and air quality that
uantified and ®itigated in the cumulative impact sections. The very
ld be
h
q
ou
s
brief discussion of these subjects in the OEIRs is not appropriate given the
importance of the issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. be applaud the great deal of thought
this area and
h i
n
and cork that has gone into planning for the substantial groat
Pl
an
ce eagerly aca14 the forthcoming Southcest Territory Land Use Area
lie also commend the creation of an
artment
our De
d b
O .
p
y y
currently being prepare
tAr. Richard J. FiaCHott O
Page 3
January 14, 1988
EIR for the Rancho Villages Assessment District to provide amore comprehensive
means of evaluating the impacts of growth in a cluster of projects. tie would
appreciate the opportunity to review the final EIRS when they become available.
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Brady at (213) 739-6742 or mew at
(213) 739-6649.
Since
A
G-~:~~~i~e~f"
RICHARD SPICER
Principal Planner
RS:TB
CC: Brian Farris, SCAQFiD
O
O
O
O
O
Uzma Siddique:
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street. 9th Floor
Riverside. California 92501
RE: dolf Valley Specific Plan # 217 -EIR - 226
Dear Mr. Siddique:
r. ~ :..
.
Ir~ ti d ~!' ~7,~i~.
11jYYrr JAN 151988
P.IVEnSi~~ ~;;`~TY
PiAti~VIF!u OEP~RTN!EF~T
January 12. 1988
As a Native American Observer and a member of the Temecula Band of Luisan_o
Mission Indians. I have reviewed the Nolf Valley Specific Ptan #217 -EIR 226.
Tho Draft EIR is deficiont in the following wars regarding environmental and cultural
resources:
1. 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.).
2.. The Draft EIR fails to show proper updates on the cultural resources that will
be affected by this pro)ect.
As a Native American Observer and a member of the Temecula Band of Luiseno
Mission Indian. my recommendations and comments for the doff Valley Specific Plan 217 -
-EIR #226 are as follows:
A. Another archeological survey must be performed to produce more significant
data on cultural resources and Indian heritage.
8. During another archoological survoy, a Native American Observer must be
hirod and prasont at all times.
C. During all futuro grading and trenching of this proiect a Native American
Obsorver must be hirod and prasont at all timos.
D. All Indian artifacts found during an archoological survey or futuro grading
and tronching of this proiect must be roturnod promptly to the Tamocula Band
of Luisono Mission Indians by the Nativo American Observer.
E. Noise levolII will increase with this specified road, and will ruin the quietness
of our surrounding rural area.
F. Air quality will also be degraded by this overdevelopment of houses and
traffic.
G. This proiect will adversely affect wildlife in the proposed Proiect area by
disturbing or removing the existing natural environment.
naota0/ltr:l
-2-
H. It is erroneous and not federal policy t'o consider using the Pechanga Indian O
Reservation as a wildlife preserve in substitution for nearby overdevelopment
that destroys a natural habitat.
I. To reduce high density houses in the areas of 9. 17. and 3, that border the
Pechanga Indian Rosarvation, mitigation measures are to Proiect 2 houses Per
5 acres.
J. To sot up a meeting with the Pechanga Indian Rnanrvation Tribal Council and
Pechanga dater Committon concerning wator quality , groundwater
contamination. wells proiaction, and the loss of our ground water trom your
proposed development.
K. Provide an EIR to the Pechanga Indian Reservation for all future development
by your company in this aroa.
~. Please onsuro that I am notified of all public hearings regarding the above EIR
# 226
I am confidant that you will repsond to the recommendations and requests made in
this letter.
Phillip Ibanez. Jr.. Nativo American Observer O
46747 Pala Road
Tomacula. California 92390
(714) 676-SS68(Mossa9n)
0
naota(d/ltrt 1
~~~~~~ 1[nr~~ IfB~~~~v~~®~
'~ TEMECULA BAND OF LUISEIdO MISSION WDIANS
bL~a e
~ ,i
seuKeseenson January 21, 1988
Jo®olo dlra®du
P.0. boa 16)7
Yoooeulc, Cc. 92]80
Yr1DO1 null 716 67b3760
COUptIL piimCn.4
Fb1111e Iboma RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
vsoaeco alroeso 4080 LEMON STREET, 9th FLOOR
°ieOO°l• c"r°°r RIVIILSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
bcolla L. Sarc~
Qario m.lcd
63orlo tltip9c
TO: Ms. Urma Siddique
FROM: The Tribal Council, Pechanga Indian Reservation:
RE: Wolf Valley Specific .Plan /f217 E.I.R. (226)
O The focus of our reply to the Wolf Valley Proposed project is, how
buildin
d b
ff
g
ecte
y
our immediate and surrounding emriornment sill be a
4,188 dwellings, amenities and increasing the population in this pazticu-
laz azea to 16,000. Presently on this piece of ground there are no
buildings or supporting. amenities and~Zero population: .From this pazspec-
tive one can imagine that our reaction to this proposed project is one of
extreme alarm.
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 alvironment. This is conducive to our culture and for the last
one hundred years we have developed a life stale that is compatible to the
existing ewironment.-When it was convenient for the settlers of Temecula
to drive the Indians away from the good farming and into the Oaf Forest
of Pectlanga, we had to leave lands that had been ours for who imows 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 slid
disruption that this proposed wer-population will bring. For the above
reasons we vehemently oppose this distractive developement which is an
infringement on our life style that has existed before history begin.
Less importantlq but more specifically our concerns are as follows:
1. Increased Wells:
1.1 Any proposed wells in those areas close to the Pechanga Indian
O Reservation will affect our water basin. This is in direct violation
of our water rights as indigenious people and aga~Jlst the Hilgado
Treaty which was upheld by the Supreme Courts and which Pechanga is
Page 2.
Cont. Wolf Valley Specific Plan 1t 217 E.I.R. (226)
O
in litigation to establish their tantamount rights to water in the
Santa Margarita River Basin.
2. Read 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
reservp,tion that this entrance is on their propertq. We heard two
suggestions; that the road can be moved or it can remain filth the
understanding that it is owned by Great American.
2.2 For a limited distances Pechanga Road has been maintained
by the county. This action has led us td believe that fora limited
distances this is a county road.
2.3 All county laws establishing a road will apply to a portion of
the Pechanga Rosd. (~\)
2.4 As an extreme mnnenre, in the event that our road is moved.../
the only direction that it can go is closer to the Pechanga Creek
which is conclusive to flooding.
2.5 If 2.4 is implemented then a road that meets county sta~ards
and mitigates the flooding condition of Pechanga Creek will be provi~
ed by Great American.
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 wrnild like to have this
strip of land turned over to the Pechanga Reservation.
3. Boiaularies:
3.1 1'he physical boundaries of Pechanga Indian Reservation have n
been provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; therefore, we are not
able to verify the accuracy of the physical boundries which have bee
determined by the developer. O
Page 3.
Cont. Wolf Valley Specific Plan ~/ 217 E.I.R. (226)
O
3.2 The Reservation trill make a request to the B.I.A. for a
survey, We suggest that you wait for this survey in order to
prevent asry boundry disputes.
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.
3.4 The names and addresses can be obtained from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in Riverside California, (Telephone 0 (714) 351-6624)
3.5 The buffer areas between the proposed project and the reser-
vation should be more than the proposed thirty feet. This aspect
should consider the desires of the reservation. A developement
.abutting an Indian Reservation is a unique situation.
4. Cultural Resources•
4.1 The E.IR. recognizes one archaeological site which was no
doubt designates prior to the Ernirorm~ental Quality Act.
O 4.2 The pec}~nga Business Council would like a copy of the report
which identifies this site.
4.3 We need to consider the total parcel of land which will ac-
commodation Plan li 217 foz a complete and current archeological survey.
5. ChanlLinA a vacant parcel of land Lo accar¢nodate•16.000 oooulation will
create an envioam~ent that is totally forei~ to this area, and will
drastically affect the life-style of indif3enious peoples.
5.1 The amount of dwellings for this project will increase traffic
noise from intradevelopement vehicles and roads, people and domestic
pats from zero to a-significate level. Any amrnmt of these noises
have never been present in our enviornment.
6. Li ts:
6.1 The visibility of the night sky which is enjoyed bq the People
of Pechanga will fads with the lighting from all of the dwellings,
street lights, residential and commercial night lights. This may
affect the viewing for Palomar Observatory...
O
"o- ..
Cont. Wolf Valley Specific Plan 11 217 E.I.R. (226)
7. Smoke:
7.1
The Wolf Valley area is accurately Hamad. It is a valley an
O
rotas smoke in the area. Although every summer day has an appreciable
amrnmt of wind, this condition does not exist in the winter time. If
every duelling in this project contains a fire place this will cause
a•lingering of smoke in the atmosphere.
The Temecula Bend of Luiseno Mission Indians aze in danger of
our life stale detrimentally affected by developing an irreversible~azt~
ifical emrironment.
This project will not accommodate a need in the over all commmity..
The jobs in this Temecula, Rancho California Commtiaiity do not provide an
income that could qualify ownership of the proposed dwellings. So the
potential buyers would be commuters wtm will increase freeway traffic and
pollution to the atmosphere. _
Presently the time it takes to travel from Pechanga Reservation co
Temecula and Rancho California has tripled. There aze no provisions in
this E.I.R. that will provide to maintain the present level of traffic.
We vehementlq oppose this developement and request that we are inform-
ed of 'all hearing dates..
Respectfully,
r~ JJ
~ ~~-~~-~ ~L~~i~~~
e Miranda,
~ ibal Spokesperson
O
O
~~ C~o~o~o ~p~c~
serving Alversiae and son Bernardino Countles
Tehquitz Group ~ I.os Serranos Group
Sea Bernardino Mtns. Group ~ Moiava Group
568 N. Mountain Vioer Ave., Sutte 130
s~ Berna=aino, CA 92401
(T)4) 381.5015
.anuary 5, 1589
L'_ma =iddique
ki~eral3e Crusty Planninz CepsrLS_r.t
»OK:~ LEm~~n ="Lreet
ni~eraidE. .A 9. C»
_._. DEI3 Na. 2~.5
Dear Ms. Siddiqu~:
~..
JAS'! 26 ~°~8
Pi~+i~`.I,\J DtFr.iiT'il':~~:T
The Sierra Clue h35 the LJi1_Wing •=omments:
i i t T`:e ~'EIB r.]riLainS n= r°_ferer..e L^ LhE F•r^_ ieCL SiLe'c
:~_.1 a5 .:aGl ~__ I•.r . Vi_ B a.v_n__.
115Te~7 endar.Enrcd sps_.c5 ^,~~n .° a •_anL iAa_cy~_a_~
_~ T_2 ,+i11JR _Land. ire LhE r1D3=ian hatiLit are .~~_~tSi3 ~=
Vire0 haCi Lat. A :prln2:'Summer CJ=i=EL7a1 SUrVeVr15 a*.
3C_°C1uLe neC e==1LV. ..iE .L'r Vey m`st ~•° fr9]u2.^.L EL ~~=.': 3 :=
~Ver a^ e:.Leri~ed Lime perl-~ LG erisU_'e LhJr''?L'gr~ d~5es=m=.'-L
_ T ~"~,T.1 3~ 1 i1~f.~ ~ ~J G _
__ hE p_ nti__ .=~r 9V 3__La=. ;;_idance sr_u_d b_ ___ _
from the U... Fish and wildlife Service to ensures aE^,ca•=)~
of rEVleW. Th°_ SLlidle5 must Ge completed :,rior L~
certification of the EIF.. Indeed. the studiES will
r=_present significant neu informati:n and Wiil neczssiLaLe
rECirculatian c•f a revised Draft EIR. I*_ is ai5= clear.
,~iVen the •d1Te_t and lndir9CL impa:t5 LO many $eu3iti7e
Spe•:ie5, LhaL Lhe prGjECL Will !lave ~1gnlfiCant advErse
impacts on Wildlife/vegetation contrary to the DEIR's
conclusion. Overall impacts to sensitive species, as
identified in the EIR. Warrant the ccnclusion that the
proiect Will have a significant adverse impact on Wildlife
which is not mitigated to a level of insignificance. .
especially in Vieu of cumulative impacts to Wildlife in the
area.
i1i The DEIR fails to pros=_nt criteria for determining when
impacts are significant or nct. Similarly. it is net clear
when proposed mitigation measures reduce the level of impa•:t
to insignificancy. Thus there is ne clear connecticr.
O t•etwEen the data and the impact analysis. T.`,is is a
fundamental flaw in the DEIn which demands revisi=•n ar.~
r=circulation.
~•
... To explore, enjoy and preserve the aatioa's forests, eJaterS, eJ)Id))fe, and rrilderaess ... ``W
•?` The prof=_•.t will have major impact on landiorms an: t:e O
visual character of the area. Impac*_s to open space must.
therefore, be considered significant. She proposed
mitization measures do not reduce the level of impacts to
insignificance.
(::) 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
assessed in the EIR before it can be considered adequate.
i5) The treatment of eater 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 far this protect. The
same is true for sewage treatment, with respect to which is
merely asserted tha*_ the increases in EMWD's sewage
treatment. fa=ility's capacity "can and will be made as the
need arises."
i5) The DEIR does not adequately address impacts associated
with cumulative exceeding of the SCAG growth forecast for
the area, particularly with respect to regional air quality O
and transpc•rtation plans.
!7) Cumulative impacts to wildlife/vegetation, traffic and
circulation, air quality. and eater resources, open space,
ag lands, and public services and facilities should all t•e
listed as significant adverse impacts not mitigated tc• a
level of insignificance.
(3) No environmentally superior alternative is identi_`ied
and nc indication is given as to whether the County cheeses
to reject project alternatives. and. if so, why. This does
net comply with CEuA Guidelines, Section 15125 td) (1).
Again, this deficiency must be corrected and the DEZR
recirculated.
SincelIrely,
~~Y~ ~`
Bill Havert
Conservation Coordinator
c
bounty ®~ ~ive~~ide
DEiARTI`~ER1T OR P4EALYH
OY®:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. January 2 9 r.~..~.,..,_.
./ _ AT?N: Uzma Siddiqua ~"+ ~ ~ I~
I: ~
PA®~. H. R. LOCHS, Land Uso Supervisor JA~ 2 71p88 ~'
EIR 226/SP 217 - F30LFE VALLEY RIVEhSi(JC ~uuNTY
0~: PLAtJt;ING DEPARTbtEiJT
Environmontal Hoalth Servicoa
abovo referoneod projoet and
S~S~SR__8 ~$~
O
0
has roeoivod and ravievod tho
otfora tho following eommonta:
Tho proposod projoet is loentod in tho existing "fissuro
nroa" identifiod by tho County of Rivorsido, Department of
Building and Satoty. As of this dnto, tho gonoral study
aran of this proposod projoet is nt boai uncertain with
retoronco to Yutvro dovolopmont until studios confirm the
idontity of tho knocm hydrogaologieal probloms.
Significant grading is propaaod for th'o~ao$Cability9ain,
this affirms tha nood for ostablishing g
E7ator and sever distribution and eolloction systoma aro
proposed with a sowago lift station. Duo to idontifi®d
liquofaction potontiala, including high ground valor,
special dosign Yor thoao pipes and atrvcturos Would bo
nocoasary.
Tho draft E.I.R. nlludoa to Rnneho California Hntor District
so wing cantor to tho projoet. This is intorrod and not
statod. Thoroforo, it is unknocm as to Who will provido
eater sarvico.
Eaatorn I9~micipal t7ator Diatrict IEF1k3D) is spoeifiod to
provido sanitary aonor gorvieo. Howovor, oxiating Et~JD
plant Ylon and plant oxpanoion dntoa to aceommodato tho
projoet aro not eallod out.
JCS:tml
oo»an~m~..•+ao
O
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
ATTN: Uzma Siddigve
January 26, 1988
SOLID E~AST~:
The report mistakenly idontifios Riverside County Road
Department as the agency responsible for solid Haste
disposal. This responsibility is now thnt of the Department
of Waato I~anagomont.
The roport recognizes limltod life of nearby Double Butte .
Landfill. (Finnl capacity sill bo reached before
2.000 A.D.) An altornnto silo is the El Sobranto Landfill
located at Temeaeal Canyon Road and Highway iSE. A solid
waste transfer station sill most likely bo constructed in
this area before the year 2,000 A.D. Solid waste generation
and disposal will have an impact on Lho Double Butte O
Sanitary Landfill.
.Solid waste generated by the golf course and commercial
centers are not addressed in this roport.
The report should address the impact and proper handling of
the construction waste generated during the development of
the project, i.o., amount of construction waste that will bo
generated.
Tho report does not nddrosa Lho tratPie aspect of waste
collection: Aro Lho streets adoquato and accessible for
collection vohielost
Tho report should nddrosa solid waste onelosuros for the
commercial cantors and roaidontinl areas. An adoquato
number of permanent anato storage oneloauroa should bo
provided to promote visual aosthotiea and routine cleaning
and to prevent odors and propagation/harborngo of vectors.
Tho roport should nddrosa the typo of Haste collection
sorvicoff which will bo utilized in the proposed projoct.
RK:SS:tae
HRL:tac O
Sate .F Celifwnia
OhReen®reandunn ~ '~
a
ro 1. Projects Coordinator /gy,~C~~L
Resources Agency ~ ~ '~
2. County of Riverside ~ 9~~ 9 d
Planning Department '"
4060 Lemon Street, 9th Floor_
Riverside, CA 92501 \
From poportmonl sF l5sh end Cooeeo
She Goseurcos Aeency
January 27, 1988
s~bioC: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIA): Rancho villages
Assessment District (RVAD), Riverside County, SCH 87082402 (and
DEIRS for the Vail Meadows, Wolf Valley, Butterfield Stage. Ranch,
and Vail Ranch Development, SCRs 87072003, 87031614, 87030917, and
871110216, respectively)
O
we have reviewed the DEIA 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 AivWa~ede
County. Tt,e public facilities consist of streets., bridges,
sewer, and flood control improvements. The RvAD consists of
36 separate properties. Four of these properties, totaling
3,89 acres (Wolf Valley, Vail Ranch, Butterfield Stage Ranch, and
veil Meadows), ace also currently under review fo: development,
and the Department of Fish.and Game (Department) has reviewed the
DEIRS 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 Temeeu.a Creek. Construction of
the proposed improvements will primarily impact ti-e riparian
resources of Temecula Creek whereas subsequent construction of the
related residential and commercial developments will primarily
affect historic Stephen's kangaroo rat (SKA) habitat and other
sensitive species associated aith the coastal sage scrub community
(San Diego horned lizard, California black-tailed gnatcatcher and
throuahtconversionlofagrasslandslwhichgarevimportanttraptor s
foraging areas.
The DEIRS for the Vail Meadows, wolf Valley, Butterfield Stage
Ranch, and Vail Ranch redevelopments (SCRs 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 5,680-acre area of the
P.VAD. Further, each of these DEIRS alludes to mitigation
proposals discussed in the DEIR for the RVAD (SCH 87082402). For
these seasons, this letter shall serve as the Department's
87030917,0871102161Sandc87082402jSCHS 87072003, 87031614,
O
_2_ O
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 cf 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 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.'
The AVAD 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 understates the
°signifieanee of these impacts and offers no mitigation for the
loss of grassland 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 communities which would
result from project implementation to be significant unmitigated
adverse impacts which are inconsistent with the requirements of
CEQA.
The DEIR documents the existence of historic SRR habitat within
the project area. This documentation, in addition to similar
documentation for related projects in the subject S,HoO-acre area,
is evidence of the fact that the SRR population in the County is
in extreme jeopardy. For this reason, we renew our request to the
County Planning Department and the Hoard 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, without a cohesive plan for the preservation of this
species, it is threatened with extinction. O
O
-3-
in summary, we recommend against certification of the RVAD DEIR
(and related DEIRS discussed above) until such time as our
concerns have been resolved. Department personnel are available
to discuss our concerns and recommendations in greater detail.
Thank you for the opportunity to reviea and comment on this
project. if you have any questions, please contact Pred Worthley,
LongoBeach8nCAe90802R4467nor~byttelephoneratd(213)5590e5113.
Pete Bontadelli
Director
O
O
' .Stela e! Celifemia
~~~Pff1®P®P9~lJPP9
To State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning 8 Research
Attention John Keene
1400 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
From O~ARTPA6dT OF T9AR15PORTATIOPd
District 8
Sebper: Elolf Valleq Specific Plan - DEIR
Buoinoas, Tronnperrariorr end Mw„ieg
ooro ~ January 21 , 19~\
F;b ~.: 08-Riv-15_4.91/1
scx U 87031614
Because of the complexity of the project and the necessity for
extensive evaluation in the short time remaining, we would like t~
discuss our concerns with the County of Riverside (Lead Agency)
before the drafting of the final environment document is approved
The following are comments that need to be consldered:
o Trip generation (page 286) - There appears to be an error in
the Average Daily Trips (ADT) calculations at project build-
out; build-out (33,688 ADT) should be equal to internal trips
(76,423 ADT) plus external trips (51,120 ADT).
o Funding sources (federal, state, local governments, or
developer) referenced on page 282 should be explicitly dei~
for off-site improvements as should the improvements.
o 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 Lo accommodate satisfactory flows of
traffic:
1. He agree with the traffic studq that Highway T9 should be
improved to a six-lane expresswaq from I-15 to Flargarita
Road. The developer should contribute his fair share to
the Rancho Village Assessment District for improvements t
Route T9. In addition, the I-15/State Highway Route 79
south interchange 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 Interchaage,,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. ~L •~"'" y
~c ~ :.,tea
State Clearinghouse
Attention John Keene
Page 2
January 21, 1988
o Any or all of the proposed changes to the development area
could have a significant effect on creek degradation/aegradation
for a considerable distance up and down stream of the improve-
ments, 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) shoos fill taking
place within the 100-year flood plain of Temecula Creek
(Exhibit III-1). This may have an impact on State Highway 79
whlch lies north of Temecula Creek in this area.
o 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 arereco nizeuthat
in realizing the importance of the State highway, ~
higher standards and design criteria are required.
o tie would like to review drainage plans and calculations when
available.
O 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.
ETe urge early and continuous liaison with Caltrans on proposed plans
as they affect State highways.
If you have any questions, please contact Richard Dennis on ATSS
670-165.
~. ~~~
GUY G. YISBAL
Chief, Transportation Planning
Branch A '
RD:ldb
ec: GSmith, Plan Coordination Unit, DOTP
O
Shiro of CoGOcnea
~~ tU~®6'®P8 @,lyF~
To 0av0 January 26,
Mr. John Rcene
State Clearinghouse ~0 Sacr ! N .~
Office of Planning and Research ~
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95818 ~ ~~C
JAN 2 6 gas
F'~" °COif °~ ~ ~ ~"~7O --laaO % StrOOt, Room 104 ~'~
Sacramento, CA 93814 A35~AW0'
0
~'°` SCH No. 87031614--Wolf Valley Specific Plea ~
The California D~apartment of Food and Rgriculture (CDFA) has
reviewed the Draft EnviroTUanntal Impact Report (DEIR) concernin
the above referenced project and has the following comments and
recommendations.
It is uncloar Eros the DEYR whether the projcict lies i.n the reg
being addressed by the Southwest Territorina Community Plan. I
so, then the Community Plan should be approved before review an
approval oP the Wolf Valley Specific Plan. Otherwise, the CDFA
caurages Riverside County to carefully consider project necesa
given current and future population trends and other projects
proposed for the region before committing open space and aq~
total land irreversibly to urban uses. v
While the DEZR recommends the use oP buffers to lessen.tkse impa
of urban development on adjacent agricultural operations such a
citrus orchards, it seems these buffers are to be located on tt
adjacent property and not on project property, as depicted in t
Specific Land IIse Plan (Exhibit II-1). The CDFR recommends the
any landscape buffers bn included on projec4; property and that
be sufficient to sitigato impacts from noiso, dust and spray ds
Such buffers should bca Prom 50 Peet to 500 Peet in width depent
on site specifics and agricultural activities.
The CDFR would also recommend the use of a Right-to-Farm Ozdint
to protect existing agricultural operations from complaints frc
residents of newly developed adjacent urban ar®as.
O
m.,o~
O T9r. John Reene
Page 2
January 26, 1988
The CDFA recognizes the right of local governments to develop and
implement local land use policy, but also is compelled to comment
on the conversion of agrieultura2 land to urban uses- The CDFA
thanks the Rancho Pacific Engin®ering Corporation for thn prepara-
tion of an ranvironmental reviee~ document ~rhich discusses the im-
pacts of urbanization on agriculture for this Project, and there-
fore recommends approval of the DEIR.
~~
Steve Shaffer
Research Analy
Agricultural R
(916) 322-5227
O
Branch
0
s,e-° of toufi~ia
RA~e~®e®e~~~~
Te Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Ms. Ozma Siddique
County of Riverside
Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
fraa t d ~ c3 k~a Or x
The Department of Conservation haR~~
Riverside's DEIR for the Specific Pla
Because the proposal involves the loss
is is as area of significant geologic
offers the following comments.
nay aesouacas noawcr os c~uaoa
Cam :
~~eE~Fe
aA~ .~
API 2 0 1968
Draft Enviroam~
Impact Report (DE
for wolf valley
Specific Plan 217
SCHffi 87031614
yi.~eH(~i'e County of
n`,__z®feience8 abov®.
of valuable farmland, and
hazards, the Department
The proposal wou18 convert 1,278 acres of mostly grime
agricultural land to residential and related uses. There are no
Williamson Act contracts oa the Site.
The Department is concerned with the increasing loss of
agricultural land, especially psime agricultural land, which is
occurring throughout the state. Proposals for the conversion g~
prime agricultural land due to development seems to have U
increased dramatically in Riverside Couatp during 1987.
Farmland conversion statistics, developed by the Department of
Food and Agriculture (CDFA), indicate that projects have bees
proposed for over 11,170 acres of agricultural iaad during the
past pear. The potential loss of this farmland is part of a
larger phenomenon which has been quantified by a recent American
Farmland Trust study. In °Erodiag Choices -- Emerging Issues°,
t$a Trust found that conversion of izrigate8 farmland was
occurring at a rate of 44,000 acres annually in California. In
the contest of these .figures, the loss of farmland that would
result from this project constitutes a serious cumulative impact.
Therefore, the loss•of prime agricultural land should be
identified and treated as a significant environmental impact
(see California Administrative Cod® Sectioa 15000 et seq.,
Appendix G (y)). The Fiasl Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
should provide ingormatioa oa the number of acres of
agricultural land to be 8eveloped, the potential agricultural
value of the sit®, the farmland conversion impacts, and possible
mitigation actions.
O
Dr. Snow and Ms. Siddique
Page Two
Q
O
Specifically, we taco®ead that the FEIR contain the following
information to ensure the adequate assessment of the Specific
Plan's impacts in these areas.
o The agricultural character of the area covered by the
Specific Plaa aad of nearby or surroun8ing leads which map be
affected by the conversion. Statistics regarding
agricultural values for the County of Riverside map be
obtained from Riverside Couatp's Agricultural Commissioner,
in particular for avocados and wineries an8 other
agricultural products.
- Types and relative yields of crops grown is the affected
areas, or in areas of similar soils under good
agricultural management.
- Agricultural potential, based oa the Department of
Conservation's Important Farmland Series map
designations. A cursory esaminatioa indicates that most
of the agricultural land is Prime, with some Farmland of
Statewide Importance and Grasiag band.
o Farmland Conversion Impacts.
- The type, amount, an8 location of farmland conversion
that wou18 result from implemeatatioa of the Specific
Plea.
- 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 is the University of
California Cooperative Esteasioa's study, °Economic
Impacts of Agricultural Production and Processing in
Staalslaus County.°)
o Mitigation measures sa8 alternatives that would lessen the
farmland conversion impact of the Specific Plea. Some of the
possibilities are:
- Direct urban growth to lower quality soils in order to
protect prime agricultural lead.
- Consider methods such as traasfer of development rights.
- Establish buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts
and open space areas to separate farmland from urban
uses. (Yadicate the width of the lead use buffer which
was identified as a mitigation measure oa page 35).
O
Dr. Snow and Ms. Siddique
Paqe Three
- Implement right-to-farm ordinances to diminish nuisanc O
impacts. of urban uses oa neighboring agricultural
operations, and vice-versa.
- increase 8ensities or cluster residential units in order
to preserve agricultural land for productivity and
. provide open-space ameaitiea and vistas for residents.
Also, farmland trusts, which $ave•.boen established by othez
counties, such as the Santa Barbara Land Trust, caa be used to
effectively protect agricultural lead, and should be considered
in the analysis of mitigation alternatives.
Fiaallp, ae concur with the suggestion of the Department of Food
and Agriculture that the projects including Oak galley, Rancho La
Quiata, golf galley, Gail Aanch, Butterfield Stag®, Center
Pointe, Warm Spring Gleaa, wad Warm Springs should be gives CEQA
review as as aggregate for their cumulative and growth-inducing
impacts. If the County chooses aot to take this alternative, we
recommend that each project's DEIR/FEIR contain as aaalpsis of
the cumulative and groe~th-inducing impacts within the contest of
all of the others, with regard to agricultural isad conversion.
The Department's Division of F3iaes and Geology (DMG) has review/1
the Draft EIR is regard to the potential for earthquake-relate
damage. A section of the proposed development crosses a fault
zone contained within as Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
(1980 Pechanga Quadrangle Official F?ap). Because of this, the
proposed development should follow the recommendations of a
careful, detailed evaluation of the potential for fault rupture
is the project plan.
We recommend that the geologist for the County of Rivsrrside
review the applicaat's fault evaluation studies for their
adequacy of ineestigatioa. The fault in question is the
southeasters portion of the Wildomar segment of the Elsinore
fault zone, is as area where past surface rupture may have been
complex, 8iffuso, wad possibly difficult to recognize. Ia
contrast, there is clear evidence to the aorthwest that the
Wil"domar trace is active.
Appendix A to the DEYR contains reports of seeeral geologic and
geotechnical investigations that were performed to oealuate
geologic hazasds. The latest of these reports, by Earth Research
Associates, Ise. (ERA), refutes earlier investigations wad
concludes that there is no active (HOlocea®) faulting within the
project area. Coasequeatip, ERA recommends that no building
restrictions or setbacks be required (ERA; Appendix A, page 6).
O
Dr. Snow an8 F3s. Siddiquo
Page Four
O
We cannot comment completely on ERA's conclusions and
recommendations because important map information was not
inelude8 in the Appendix. However, at least one fault shown in
ERA's treach logs (treach 3) exhibits offset up to the ground
surface. This fault exposure should be fully discusse8 and
resoleed.ia the DEIR, affi it appears to indicate activity.
Additional studies cad appropriate project revisions may be
warraated.
Some aspects of the DEIR, pertaining to seismic safety, should be
clarified. The DEZR's Smmnary of Environmental Setting states
that the section of the proposed project that lies within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies sons wou18 be subject to strong
ground shaking (p.14). This statement shoul8 clarify that the
remaining project area could also be subject to.damagiag strong
motion. t'urther is the summary, the DEIR states that a 30-foot
°elear zoae° would be. established oa each lido of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. °Clear soae° 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 shows planned residential
development within the A-P zone. If Exhibit II-1 represents
planning based oa the conclusions and recommendations of ERA's
report in Appendix A, they the summary statements should reflect
those 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 thaa the A-P zone, such a setback assumes
the presence of a discrete fault trace, which has aot been shown
to be evident. It follows that the DEIR should address the
evidence for the inferred location of the wildomar fault trace,
as shows on maps such as Exhibit I%I-1, since the geological
appendices do aot provide definitive information oa the fault
location.
ERA's findings off ao evidence for Holocene displacement may not
translate into a reduced hazar9 of seismic strong shaking. It is
possible that a lack of Holocene surface rupture in the vicinity
of ERA's iavestigatioa 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
iavestigatioa. ERA's giadiags, if valid, 8o not preclude the
possibility of as earthquake occurring is sufficient proximity to
the proposed project as to cause damaging ground shaking.
O
Dr. Snow and p15. Siddique
Page Five
The DEIR proposes to mitigate the seismic strong shaking hazard O
through construction according to Uniform Building Code
standards. UBC sets only minimum standards for safe building
construction, and map aot mitigat® the seismic hazard to .
°insignificance° as suggested oa page 303 of the DEIR. Avoidance
of the fault zone as a mitigative solutioa, which is proposed in
th® Summary section of the DEIR, is not discussed is subsequent
report sections. sae recommend that as avoidaace mitigative
solution be discusse8 morn fully in the Final EIR. As currently
described, Seismic impacts are not mitigated to a point of
insignificance, aad should be included as a Significant,
Unmitigat®8 Impact.
In summary, there are several inconsistaacies contained in the
DEIR which should be resolved prior to issuing the Final EIR.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
DEIR. Ale hope that the above-mentioned impacts are gives
adequate consideration fa the FEIR. If % can be of further
assistant®, please feel Eros to call ~ at (916) 333-5873.
~.~,,..,.-~ - O °~
Dennis J. O'Hryaat
Environmental Program Coordinator O
SO:DJO:dlw
0539H
cc: Stephen Oliva, Chief
Office of Laad Conservation
Zoe F9cCrea, Division of P43nes aad Geology
Jeff Howard, Division of FTines and Geology
Earl Hart, Divisioa of F2ises aad Geology
O
Srsro s1 Coliievn2a
G~I~PT1®P®P~(~ &/PtT9
ODau Jn~i ] ~! O ~
1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. ~
To Assistant Secretary for Resources ~~eFI
2. County of Riverside
Planning Department /qN~ 6 ~ ~
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor 9 9~0
Riverside. CA 92501 ' ~~~
Attention: Uzma Siddique ~~,
Fran , Do~m- of ~lalor Ronouveca
Los Angeles. CA 90055 ~ \
subpar: DEIA for Specific Plain No. 226/Holf Valley. SCHp 87031614.
Tlw @oawrcon Agor.eY
Your subject docu®eat has been revleaed by our Department of E7ater Resources
staff. Recommendations. as they relate to Hater conservation end flood damage
prevention, are nttached.
After revieai.ng your report. r~ alno Would like to reco®and that you further
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reelalaed Hater for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh aster supplies for beneficial uses
requiring high quality aster supplies.
For further information. you may Wish to contact John Parienaki at
(213) 620-3951.
Thank you for the opportunity to review end comment on this report.
O
C~~~~
Charles R. tThite, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
O
~l(:pAG3YNl~F1Y ®p ~lAYLW Rf~~kd-0WC~ffi R~CAG7t~Cq®AYOOgS
{~®p ~YAY~p COq~EI~VAYI®F1 AWE E"JAY6~W R[~~6ANIAYB»p O
To reduce aster demand, implement the aster conservation measures described
here.
RO~FlIPO®
The following State leas require actor-efficient plumbing fixtures in
Strllctur@S:
o Health end Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets end
urinals in virtually sll buildings as follows:
"After January 1. 1983, all nee buildings constructed in this state
shall use aster closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, ahieh
are aster-conservation aster closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals end associated
flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout aster closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
0
0
0
trraeaeney stanceras) estaoiasnes ezracaeney stanaaras that gave cne
maximum floc rate of all nee shoaerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink
faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National O
Standards Institute on November 16, 1979. end known as ANSI
A112.18.1Af-1979•
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No nee 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.
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compliance with the floe rate standards.
o Title 24. California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(3) and (1)
address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce aster used before
hot aster reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to
steam end steam-condensate return piping and recirculating hot aster
piping in attics, garages. creel spaces, or unheated spaces other then
between floors or in interior walla. Insulatioa of aster-heating
systems is also required.
O
Q
O
o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential aster 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
aster conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
aster.
o Government Code Section 7800 speeifieu that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1..1985. be equiPPed aith
self-closing faucets that limit flog of hot aster.
Yo bo I~Plo~oe8od ~poeo o~~IEeo[e0o
Interior:
1. Supply line Pressure: Water pressure greater then 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 aith self-closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservntion reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms.°
Thermostatically.controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shoaer.
4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of aeshers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishaashers be used or spray
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced floc. Drinking aster be
served upon request only.°
6. Ultra-log-flush toilets: 1=1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all nee construction.
Exterior•O
1. Landscape aith log aster-using plants aherever feasible.
2. Minimise use of lean by limiting it to laem-dependent uses. such as
playing fields. When lean is used. require germ season grasses.
3. Grout plants of similar eater use to reduce overirrigation of
log-aster-using plants.
4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of log-aster-using
landscaping end sources of additional assistance.
°The Department of Water Resources or local aster district may aid in
developing these materiels or providing other information.
O
0
5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
soil sill improve the aster=holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve end protect existing trees end shrubs. Established plants are
often 'adapted to loa-aster-using conditions and their use saves aster
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the aster that sill reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, end automatic irrigation systems
are a fee methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
8. Use Pervious paving materiel whenever feasible to reduce uurface aster
runoff end to aid is ground aster recharge.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface aster is minimized. -
S0. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed assts aster, stored
reinaater, or grey aster for irrigation.
il. Encourage cluster development, ahich can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This sill reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground aster recharge. (/~J
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the ineorporatiol~/
of natural drainage systems in nee developments. This aids ground water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground aster recharge. Preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas es open space.
O
0
O
O
R6®®® ®ACJAd6 fPIg~NLgYEACJ
1. It is the State's policy to conserve eater: any Potential loss to ground
aster should be hitigated.
In flood-Prone areas. flood damage Prevention measures cede ~ sto Protect a
proposed development should be based oa the following gui
2. All building structures should be protected against a 100-Year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate MaP organa~gement
Boundary end Floodaay Map. issued by the Federal Emergency
Agency, the 100-Yeas' flood elevation end boundary should be shorm in the
Environmental Impact Report.
4. At least one route of ingress end egress to the development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6• soon~asapos~sibled(utituliadingrnative or~loa-aster-using P~~ dmaterial)~
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by ®udfloa should be
assessed end mitigated as required.
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize Problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
'~ ~ RIVERSIUECO[JNTY
' ~~--• ' :. •. FIRE DEPARTMENT
~ a
`-
n
~
~ ,` -
~ ~
1 IN COOPERATION WITH THE
NT OF FORESTRY
•
I,!I
,~
~ , „+ ~ / I
~
, CALIFORNIA DEPARTME
.Y•q~
'_ e n r:++~+++r.':.. / RAYHEBRARD
_
` FIRE CHIEF
t .
1-28
88
-
,
p
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ T/'`
~
ATTN: SPECIFIC PLAN TEAM
/~ ~
f
~ -
RE: SPECIFIC PLAN 217 -WOLF VALLEY
Plannin0 & EnOineerin0 Of(Iu
4090 l.ernon Street. Suite i I
Riveroide. CA 92401
(7141 787.6606
with respect to the review and/or approval of the above referenced docwnent, the
proposed project will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Department's ability
to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due to the inr•,reased
number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional buildings and
Human population. A portion of the impacts associated with capitol improvements
or one-time costs such as land, buildings and equipment can be mitigated by
developer participation in the fire protection impact mitigation program. However,
the annual costs necessary for an increased level of service are only partially
off-set by the additional county structure tax and could require an increase in
else Fire Department's annual operating budget.
Fire protection impacts r_an be mitigated by use of the impact mitigation program
and an increase in the Fire Department's budget. Therefore, the Fire Department
recommends approval of the specific plan subject to the folloainq conditions
and/or mitigations:
1. All art?r mains and fire hydrants providing required fine floss shall be
constructed in accordance aith the appropriate sections of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 460 and/or No. 546 subject to the approval .by the
Riverside Cou.,ty Fire Department.
2. The project proponents shall participate in the fire protection impart
mitigation program as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
3. Hazardous Fize Azea:
Planning unity 4, 9, 12, 13, 15 thru 21 and the south portions of 2 and 6 are
located in thu "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County as shown on a map
on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any building constructed
on lots created by this specific plan shall comply aith the special construction
provisions crontained in Riverside County Ordinance No. 546.
4. Sper_ial Fire hazard Zone:
A fire brake/Y~uffer zone shall be provided for those lots within planning
units 5, 9 and 17 that share a common boundary with the Pachange Indian
Reservation. The special zone shall consist of the following items:
O a) A minimum 45 foot set back shall be maintained between the subdivision
boundar}• :end the rear property line.
Subject: SPECIFIC PLAN 217 - WOLF VALLEY PAGED
b) A minimum 15 foot graded road shall be provided within the 45 foot
set back extending from Pechange Road to the stub end of Fairview
Avenue.
c) Emergenr_y access shall be provided from the interior street system to
the fire brake road at intervals not to exceed 1500 feet along,the wal]
The opening in the call shall have a motel gate with a chain and lock.
d) A 6 foot non-flammable wall shall be constructed along the rear propert
line within the special zone.
e) The rear yards shall be not less than 30 feet between the wall and any
buildings with the crondition that no woos construction such as patio
covers or sheds be allowed.
f) All buildings within the zone shall be seperated by not less than 30
feet. If buildings are less than 30 foot sepezation, the exposed
walls shall be one hour fine rated construction with all openings
in the wall protected with 3/4 hour fire rated assemblies.
5. Prior to approval of individual tract maps, the applicant shall prepare,
and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a fire protection land-
scaping plan to include all areas aheze natural vegetation is adjacent
to developed areas. 0^\
All questions regarding the meaning of the cronditions shall be referred tot ~/
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
~. ~°
MICHAEL E..GRAY, Planning Officer
amb
O