Temecula Wine Country

Public Testimony for Wine Country Community Plan
Policy Related Comments

Received From Affiliation
City of Temecula Comments
04/21/11 Patrick r. Richardson, AICP- Director of
Planning and Redevelopment
City of Temecula

Received after July 19, 2012 (1:30 PM)-July 24, 2012 (4:00 PM)

Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association (TVWA)
7/23/12 Peggy Evens, Executive Director TVWA
Utility Corridors
7/20/12 Louis B. Davis, Local Public Affairs Region
Manager
Southern California Edison Company
Letter of Support
07/22/12 Joel and Beth DAndrea Resident, Glenoak Hills
Noise/Traffic/Sewer Concerns
7/22/12 Wendell J. Cole Resident, Glenoak Hills
7/23/12 Terilee Hammett Wine County Ad Hoc Committee
Member; Resident, Glenoak Hills
Trails Network
7/20/12 Juanita Koth Equestrian Enthusiast
7/23/12 Anne Sturm Visitor

Boundary Modification Comments
Date Received From Request
7/19/12 Faddoul Baida Supports staff recommendation to
exclude parcels from Community Plan.
Parcels are a part of Group B Boundary
Request Modification.
7/19/12 Tom and Susanne Campbell Concern project will limit use of their
property. Parcel is a part of Group E
Boundary Request Modification.
07/24/12 Kathy Spano In the process of purchasing
966380016; Ms. Spano is requesting
the parcel be included in the
Equestrian District. Parcel is a part of
Group E Boundary Request
Modification.

4:49 PM7/23/2012 4:49 PM

1
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Sent: Monday, J uly 23, 2012 4:26 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Amendment Request
Attachments: ORDINANCE NO 348 approved revision request.doc
FYI
From: Peggy [mailto:peggy@temeculawines.org]

To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Subject: Amendment Request

Good day, Mitra,
Attached is the Amendment Request to Ordinance 348.3479 that has been approved by the membership of the Temecula
Valley Winegrowers Association. Thanks so much for your patience and guidance. Good luck on Wednesday!

Peggy Evans
Executive Director
Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association
P: 800.801.WINE (9463) :: F: 951.699.2353
E: peggy@temeculawines.org
www.temeculawines.org

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO:
ORDINANCE NO 348.4729

Section 14.91 Definitions
COMMERCIAL WINERY. An agricultural facility designed and used to crush, ferment, and process grapes into wine.
Such facility usually operates appurtenant and incidental commercial uses such as wine sampling rooms, retail wine
sales and/or gift sales.
PRODUCTION WINERY. An agricultural facility with no appurtenant and incidental uses solely designed and used to
crush, ferment, and process grapes into wine. The facility is also used for bottling and distribution purposes.
INCIDENTAL COMMERCIAL USE. A commercial use that is directly related and secondary to the principal
agricultural or equestrian use located on the same parcel or project site.

14.96. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
d. Commercial Winery Standards: Situated on 10 or more acres in the WC zones; open to the public.
(1) The minimum lot size shall be ten (10) gross acres.
(2) A total of seventy five percent (75%) of the net lot area shall be planted and maintained to commercial standards in
vineyards - fifty percent (50%) prior to issuance of a building permit and twenty five percent (25%) prior to issuance of
building occupancy. Ten percent (10%) of this planting requirement may be satisfied by the planting of fruiting olive
trees. The planting of grapevines and olive trees in parking lots shall not be counted towards the planting requirement;
however, planting in the road right-of-way may be.
(3) At least 75% of the grapes utilized in wine production and retail wine sales shall be grown on site or within
Riverside County except in the following situations:
a. An exemption from this requirement may be requested for the first three years after the issuance of building
permit.
b. An exemption from this requirement may be requested by the Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association and
approved by the Board of Supervisors during an Agricultural Emergency for the Temecula Valley Wine Country area.
c. Exemptions requests shall be submitted to the Planning Director on forms provided by the Planning
Department.
(4) A commercial winery facility shall produce onsite at least 3500 gallons of wine annually.
(5) A commercial winery facility shall be at least fifteen hundred (1500) square feet in size.
(6) A commercial winery facility shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permit for any incidental commercial
use and operational prior to issuance of occupancy permit for any incidental commercial use.

e. Production Winery Standards: Situated on five (5) or more acres in the WC zones; not open to the public; subject
to minor plot plan approval.
(1) The minimum lot size shall be five (5) gross acres.
(2) A total of seventy five percent (75%) of the net lot area shall be planted and maintained to commercial standards in
vineyards - fifty percent (50%) prior to issuance of a building permit and twenty five percent (25%) prior to issuance of
building occupancy. Ten percent (10%) of this planting requirement may be satisfied by the planting of fruiting olive
trees. The planting of grapevines and olive trees in parking lots shall not be counted towards the planting requirement;
however, planting in the road right-of-way may be.
(3) At least seventy-five (75)% of the grapes utilized in wine production and retail sales shall be grown on site or
within the Temecula Valley AVA except in the following situations:
a. An exemption from this requirement may be requested for the first three years, after the issuance of building
permit.
b. The Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association shall be able to request a revocation for a specific amount of
time for all wineries within the policy area during adverse environmental circumstances or extreme economic
conditions.
c. Exemptions requests shall be submitted to the Planning Director on forms provided by the Planning
Department.
(4) A Production winery facility shall produce on site less than thirty-five hundred (3500) gallons of wine annually.
(5) A Production winery facility (building or structures) shall be less than fifteen hundred (1500) square feet in size.

7:49 AM7/23/2012 7:49 AM

1
From: joel.jbd@verizon.net
Sent: Sunday, J uly 22, 2012 8:59 AM
Subject: Questions regarding Community Plan
mynameisJoelD'Andreaandmywife,Beth,andIfullysupporttheproposedplansfor
Temeculawinecountry.WeareresidentsofGlenoakHillsandwanttomakesureoursupportis
documented.WeareunabletoattendthemeetingonWednesday7/25aswewillbeonvacation.
Thepeoplerepresentingourcommunityareonesidedandwe'veheardtheirunsubstantiated
argumentstoomanytimes.Pleasefeelfreetouseournamesassupportersofthegrowth.My
addressis40225LuceroDrive,Temecula,Ca92592.9513023237.SubmittedBy:JoelD'Andrea
9:07 AM7/23/2012 9:07 AM

1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Monday, J uly 23, 2012 8:53 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Wine country plan
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
Phone(951)9557436
Fax(951)9551811
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Wendell Cole [mailto:drcole79@verizon.net]

Sent: Sunday, J uly 22, 2012 1:33 PM
To: Stark, Mary
Cc: Syms Luna, Carolyn; Stone, J eff
Subject: Wine country plan

J uly 22, 2012

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for agreeing to hold hearings on the Proposed Wine Country Community Plan in Temecula
on Wednesday J uly 25, 2012. Although I may not be able to attend, I appreciate the effort being
made to make participation in the process available to more people in the area of concern than might
otherwise be the case if the meetings were held in Riverside.

I have two overriding concerns with the plan as proposed and with the mitigation suggested.

First is the issue of noise from wineries holding special events. These events very often have very
loud amplified music in outdoor facilities. It has already become difficult to enjoy an evening outside
during the summer months due to music coming from these events. The problem is that very often
music from two or more of these events is easily heard from our back yard. This dissonant sound is
very irritating and prevents us from enjoying our property. This will only increase in severity as the
number of wineries increases especially since many of the conditions of approval allow for special
events up to 200 or more times per year. Simple math will conclude that that means every weekend
night all year long will be filled with music and other loud noise. I doubt very much that this is the
rural ambiance that Supervisor Stone continues to tout whenever he is asked about the plan.
With this in mind I have three suggestions to mitigate this problem, in order of my preference:
9:07 AM7/23/2012 9:07 AM
2
1-Do not allow any outdoor amplified music.
2-Build into the plan some music free weekends. Give us 25 or so weekends with no outdoor
amplified music allowed.
3-Give code enforcement the appropriate police power, training and backing and make them
accountable to all citizens.

The second concern I have is with traffic safety on De Portola road. It is my understanding that there
are no plans to make needed improvements to this highway for the next 5-10 years. This is simply
unacceptable. With the projected increase of 44, 000 additional tourists per year in the area this will
create some severe public safety hazards for this road. The road currently floods almost every winter,
there are no shoulders, there are no left hand turn lanes and there are no bicycle lanes for the
frequent users of this road. There is also visible wear and cracking to the existing surface. With
increased traffic each weekend the deterioration of the road and hazards to cyclists and other
motorists and no plans for improvements is simply an unconscionable neglect of public safety. The
plan must include improvements to De Portola road sooner rather than later.

I think the overall plan has some merits, but I want to remind you that I live here every day. Most of
the visitors and many of the winery owners do not live here and will not be affected. Please consider
the residents when making final recommendations.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Wendell J . Cole
Glen Oaks Hills Resident
Temecula, CA 92592
8:32 AM7/23/2012 8:32 AM
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: PC Hearing, 7/25/12, Item 3.1
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
Phone(951)9557436
Fax(951)9551811
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: GOH Residential Representative [mailto:resgrp2020-wc@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, J uly 22, 2012 11:44 AM
To: Stark, Mary
Cc: Stone, J eff; Syms Luna, Carolyn; GOH Residential Representative
Subject: PC Hearing, 7/25/12, Item 3.1

Dear Commi ssi oner s,

Thank you f or hol di ng t hi s ver y i mpor t ant hear i ng i n Temecul a t o
f aci l i t at e ar ea r esi dent par t i ci pat i on.

As a member of t he Ad Hoc Commi t t ee r epr esent i ng Gl enoak Hi l l s homeowner s,
I woul d l i ke t o pr ovi de t he f ol l owi ng comment s f or t he Wi ne Count r y
Communi t y Pl an:

1. Many compl ai nt s have been voi ced r egar di ng noi se f r omcur r ent wi ner i es
i n many of t he publ i c meet i ngs hel d over t he past 2 year s. I appl aud t he
Count y i n ci t i ng sever al i mpor t ant mi t i gat i on measur es i n t he EI R f or t hi s
i mpact . However , i f t hese mi t i gat i on measur es ar e not enf or ced, t hey ar e
si mpl y wor ds on paper .

Ampl i f i ed musi c was qui t e audi bl e on my pr oper t y ~ 1/ 2 - 1 mi l e away f r om
sever al wi ner i es/ weddi ng event s over t he past 2 weekends, speci f i cal l y
J ul y 14t h and J ul y 20t h. 3 di f f er ent musi c sour ces wer e hear d on t he 14t h,
maki ng i t unpl easant t o si t out si de f or our meal .
Why ar e we st i l l hear i ng ampl i f i ed musi c i n vi ew of al l t he at t ent i on t hi s
pr obl emhas r ecei ved over t he past 1- 2 year s? Not hi ng has changed. Why
shoul d we t hi nk t hi s new pl an, wi t h al l t he new mi t i gat i on, wi l l r esol ve
t hi s annoyance? The Count y has a chal l engi ng posi t i on t o pr ove t o ar ea
homeowner s t hey wi l l , i n f act , f i nal l y st ar t t o enf or ce Or di nance 847 wi t h
ar ea busi nesses.

2. Rancho Cal i f or ni a Wat er Di st r i ct ' s Gr oundwat er Assessment publ i shed i n
Febr uar y 2012 demonst r at ed our gr oundwat er i s " i mpai r ed" at t hi s t i me wi t h
ni t r at es and sal t . Sewer l i nes wi l l hel p wi t h t he sewage ni t r at es, but no
8:32 AM7/23/2012 8:32 AM
2
sal i ni t y management pr ogr ami s t o be i n pl ace unt i l 2014. The number of
at t endees at l ocal speci al event s has not been wel l super vi sed as
evi denced l ast summer , when i t was l ear ned a l ocal wi ner y had doubl e t he
number of guest s at t end a concer t al l owed by t hei r Condi t i ons of
Appr oval . ( I n t hi s par t i cul ar case, 250 wer e al l owed and " 500+" wer e i n
at t endance. The Count y was made awar e of t hi s si t uat i on. ) The Count y' s
l ack of super vi si on has had a di r ect ef f ect on our cur r ent wat er
condi t i ons. I s t hi s goi ng t o change wi t h t he new pl an?

3. Last l y, r espect f ul i nt er act i on bet ween pr oper t y owner s, r egar dl ess of
l and use ( busi ness/ equest r i an/ home) , needs t o be f aci l i t at ed and enhanced
by t he Count y. Ther e i s def i ni t e r oomf or i mpr ovement i n t hi s ar ea.

Homeowner s i n Wi ne Count r y " j ust want t o be abl e t o l i ve her e" as a r i ght
put f or t h by t he Count y' s zoni ng. Si ngl e f ami l y dwel l i ngs ar e al l owed i n
t he 3 di st r i ct s and make up t he l ar gest popul at i on of each. Pl ease gi ve
consi der at i on t o t he bal ance and r est r i ct i on needed i n or der f or t hi s pl an
t o be a success.

Thank you f or your t i me.

Si ncer el y,
Ter i l ee Hammet t
Ad Hoc Commi t t ee Member
1:06 PM7/24/2012 1:06 PM
1
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 24, 2012 12:57 PM
Subject: FW: Equestrians in Wine Country
FYI
From: J uanita Koth [mailto:jkoth@dslextreme.com]

Sent: Friday, J uly 20, 2012 7:27 AM
Subject: Equestrians in Wine Country
DearTemeculaWineandHorseCountryPlanningCommission,
Thosewhoownhorseslivehorses.Justabouteverythingwehorseownersdorevolves,insomeway,aroundthe
livesofouranimalsandtheirwellbeing.Wherewearetoliveisatthetopofthatlist!Temeculasrootsaredeeply
anchoredinthisprinciple.Afterall,itwasIndiansfollowedbycattleandhorserancherswhowerethefirsttolivein
Temeculaandraisetheirlivestock.TemeculasButterfieldStageLine,CaliforniaSouthernRailroadandPonyExpress
wouldhaveneverexistedwithouthorses.Thehorsehasalwaysbeencentraltothelivesofthosewhosettledinthis
valleyanditremainssotodayformanyofus.Althoughtheworldhasevolved,toEquestrianswholivehorsesthose
changesdonotlessenourcommitmenttoalifestylebasedoncompassion,accountability,beauty,nature,sacrifice,hard
work,personalexpense,greatjoyandsometimesevengreatsorrow.OurEquestrianLifestyleisworthprotectingonall
levelsandforalldisciplines.WeTemeculaEquestriansarethecontinuationofanintegralpartofthiscommunitys
history.
Thankyouforyourtimeandattentiontomythoughts.
Kindly,
JuanitaKoth,PresidentTemeculaEqWineRiders
TemeculaEqWineRiders
1. Ourclubsmembershipcurrentlyconsistsofsmall,privateranchownerswhotrailrideinTemeculasWine
Countryatleast23timesaweek.Clubridesaremonthlyevents.Allmembersaresponsored,experienced
riderswhohavequalifiedformembershiptotheclub.
2. Ouremaildistribtuionlistextendstoover250horseownersandequestrianbusinessesinthearea.
3. Ourwebsiteishitseveraltimeseachday,additionallywehavereceivedover100contactemailsthruthe
website.Manyoftheseemailsrequestingtrailguideassistance,referrralsforhorseproperties/realestate,
boardingandequestrianservices.www.temeculaeqwineriders.com
4. Wearequalifiedmembers(#154611)oftheCaliforniaStateHorsemensAssociation,aprestigiousorganization
thatis25,000membersstrongandanadvocatefortrailspreservationinCalifornia.Ourclubsbylawsand
missionstatementreflectthisaffiliation.
www.californiastatehorsemen.com
5. Ourinsuredridesarefrequentlystagedfromlocalwinerieswhereamealandwinetastingarealwaysenjoyed
afterasuccessfulgrouptrailride.Wineryvisitorslovetoseeusrideandareoftenseentakingpicturesofour
horses.
6. OurclubhasriddenintheTemecula4
th
ofJulyParadeforthepastfiveyears,alwaysplacingfirstorsecondin
ourdivision.Allhorsescarrythesignofawineryorequestrianrelatedbusinesssponsor,thelistofsponsorscan
befoundintheFriendsSectionofourwebsite.Over8,000spectatorsattendtheparadeandwehavebeen
interviewedfornewspaperarticleseveryyear.www.nctimes.com/article_7dacf37c5d1e5c519471
7cd898a1411a.htmlWealsorideintheMurrietaVeteransDayParadeforwhicheachridercarriesabreast
1:06 PM7/24/2012 1:06 PM
2
collarsignbearingthenameofalovedonewhofoughtforourcountryineitherArmy,Navy,AirForceor
Marines.
7. Wehavecontributedtomanyequestrianrelatedcausesandorganizationsinourcommunityovertheyears.
Thisincludesholdingfundraisersforwineriestohelpcoverthecostsofhitchingrailsandtrails.Wehave
contributedfundstomanyequestrianparksandcampgroundsinSouthernCaliforniaaswell.Mostrecently,our
memberscontributedtotheCampPendletonMemorialFundforahorsenamed,SergeantReckless.Wehave
quiteastackofthankyouletterstoproveoursupportformanycausesovertheyears.
8. WeCHOOSEtoliveinthishorsefriendlycommunity.Weliveherebecausewecancoexistwithouranimals
andenjoyacommunityofneighborsandbusinessownerswhosharethesamelifestyle!
12:48 PM7/23/2012 12:48 PM

1
Subject: FW: APPROVE THE WINE COUNTRY TRAILS MAP!!!
From: Anne4Property [mailto:info@Anne4Property.com]

Subject: APPROVE THE WINE COUNTRY TRAILS MAP!!!
We want the Wine Country Trails Map approved and that these trails will allow the wine country
area to be enjoyed by many more people using these trails

Visit my website at: www.Anne4Property.com - Search the MLS in over 10 counties.

Email to: Info@Anne4Property.com.
8:38 AM7/23/2012 8:38 AM

1
From: Stark, Mary
Cc: Hernandez, Karlene
Subject: FW: GPA 1077 (Wine Country Community Plan)
Attachments: letterRiversidePanningDepartment.docx
EmailfromaWineCountryConstituent.
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
Phone(951)9557436
Fax(951)9551811
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Faddoul Baida [mailto:faddoulbaida@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, J uly 21, 2012 4:10 PM
To: Syms Luna, Carolyn
Cc: Stark, Mary
Subject: GPA 1077 (Wine Country Community Plan)

July 19, 2012
Ms. Carolyn Syms Luna
Planning Director
P.O. Box 1409 Riverside, CA 92501-1409

Sent via E-Mail Hardcopy to follow

RE: GPA 1077 (Wine Country Community Plan)
APN 927560008-3 (12.14 acres)
APN 927560007-2 (11.18)
APN 927560002-7 (10.40 acres*)
APN 927560003-8 (.23 acres)

Dear Ms. Syms Luna:

I own the above referenced parcels (listed by APN) located at the north easterly corner of State Route 79 South
and Anza - the main backbone roads leading into Wine Country.

The parcels are currently designated Tourist Commercial and have been since the Country adopted the General
Plan in 2003. For this reason I invested hundreds of thousands of dollars assembling the parcels and pursuing
plans to develop a full service hotel with restaurants and boutiques at this location.
8:39 AM7/23/2012 8:39 AM
2
Additionally, I have invested tens of thousands of dollars in research and design. When I approached the
County approximately one year ago, I was advised by staff that I could not initiate the appropriate change of
zone until after the Wine Country Community Plan (GPA 1077) was completed. I patiently waited until the plan
was brought forward.

Now, in reviewing the new plan, I became concerned that the plan as currently proposed may not adequately
take into account my project. My project is, however, generally consistent with the principle concepts of the
overarching plan. My project would assist the County in achieving their goals and help stimulate the local
economy by investing millions of dollars and creating hundreds of jobs both short term construction and
permanent jobs. The project is strategically located near the entrance of Wine Country and at the apex of the
main backbone roads into Wine Country.

Therefore, I respectfully request the designation of Tourist Commercial remain on my property and any
restrictions and/or prohibitions that might otherwise affect my ability to develop my project as proposed be
removed.

Sincerely,
Faddoul Baida

Cc: Planning Commissioners

July19,2012
Ms.CarolynSymsLuna
PlanningDirector
P.O.Box1409Riverside,CA925011409
SentviaEMailHardcopytofollow
RE: GPA1077(WineCountryCommunityPlan)
APN9275600083(12.14acres)
APN9275600072(11.18)
APN9275600027(10.40acres*)
APN9275600038(.23acres)
DearMs.SymsLuna:
Iowntheabovereferencedparcels(listedbyAPN)locatedatthenortheasterlycornerofStateRoute
79SouthandAnzathemainbackboneroadsleadingintoWineCountry.
TheparcelsarecurrentlydesignatedTouristCommercialandhavebeensincetheCountryadoptedthe
GeneralPlanin2003.ForthisreasonIinvestedhundredsofthousandsofdollarsassemblingtheparcels
andpursuingplanstodevelopafullservicehotelwithrestaurantsandboutiquesatthislocation.
Additionally,Ihaveinvestedtensofthousandsofdollarsinresearchanddesign.WhenIapproachedthe
Countyapproximatelyoneyearago,IwasadvisedbystaffthatIcouldnotinitiatetheappropriate
changeofzoneuntilaftertheWineCountryCommunityPlan(GPA1077)wascompleted.Ipatiently
waiteduntiltheplanwasbroughtforward.
Now,inreviewingthenewplan,Ibecameconcernedthattheplanascurrentlyproposedmaynot
adequatelytakeintoaccountmyproject.Myprojectis,however,generallyconsistentwiththeprinciple
conceptsoftheoverarchingplan.MyprojectwouldassisttheCountyinachievingtheirgoalsandhelp
stimulatethelocaleconomybyinvestingmillionsofdollarsandcreatinghundredsofjobsbothshort
termconstructionandpermanentjobs.TheprojectisstrategicallylocatedneartheentranceofWine
CountryandattheapexofthemainbackboneroadsintoWineCountry.
Therefore,IrespectfullyrequestthedesignationofTouristCommercialremainonmypropertyandany
restrictionsand/orprohibitionsthatmightotherwiseaffectmyabilitytodevelopmyprojectas
proposedberemoved.
Sincerely,
FB
Cc:PlanningCommissioners
12:50 PM7/23/2012 12:50 PM

1
Subject: FW: letter from Tom Campbell re Temecula property
FYI
From: Susanne Campbell [mailto:suzanochka@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Thursday, J uly 19, 2012 8:31 PM
Subject: letter from Tom Campbell re Temecula property

Ms. Mitra Mehta-Cooper, AICP

Principal Planner (Project Manager)
P.O. Box 1409,
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside CA 92502-1409
Email: mmehta@rctlma.org
Phone: (951) 955-8514

Re: Agenda Item: 3.1
Area Plan: Southwest
Zoning Area: Rancho California
Supervisorial District: Third/Third
Project Planner: Mitra Mehta-Cooper
Planning Commission: J uly 25, 2012
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN
General Plan Amendment No. 1077, Ordinance
Amendment No. 348.4729, and Program
Environmental Impact Report No. 524
Applicant: County of Riverside
EIR Consultant: RBF Consulting

Dear Ms. Mehta-Cooper:

We appreciate all the help you have provided us in the past. We have reviewed the documents relating to this proposed
project, and must admit to having some difficulty in understanding all the implications for our property at 35600 Monte
Verde Road, Temecula. We read that if we fail to present possible objections at the time of the hearing, we will lose our
opportunity to contest any possible outcome; and since we're unclear on what the implications might be and we are not
able to attend the hearing, we wish to preserve all of our rights. Our specific concerns are on the restrictions of use that
might apply to our property, and the permission for new uses on adjacent property. We are concerned, specifically, that
the proposed revisions might
1) prevent us from building a small guest house or sheds for agricultural purposes
2) require us to widen our driveway
3) negatively impact our continued use of well water
4) limit the number of guests we may invite to our property for special occasions
5) omit citrus and other crops except vineyards as a potential agricultural use of our land
6) enable commercial development on the land immediately adjacent to ours (neighboring, that borders 79) that would in
some way damage the value of our property by creating a nuisance in increased traffic, pollution, noise, artificial lights or
disadvantaging our view.
We make formal objection to the proposed revisions to the extent that they would have any of the foregoing effects, or
otherwise further restrict the use of our property. If you have any assurances you can give us on these points, we'd be
12:50 PM7/23/2012 12:50 PM
2
delighted to hear from you. Our basis for objecting to any such effects is the inadequacy of the EIR, the violation of
California's anti-takings law, and the relevant prohibitions of the state and federal constitution.
It is our sincere hope that the changes can be worked out without having these consequences, in which case, we would
be hopeful of being able to support the proposal with enthusiasm.
Thank you,
Tom and Susanne Campbell
8:50 AM7/24/2012 8:50 AM

1
From: Kathy Spano [jumplatigo22@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 24, 2012 7:51 AM
Cc: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: #966380016 Zoning in Temecula Wine Country
July 24, 2012

RE: #966380016
Zoning in Temecula Wine Country

To Whom It May Concern:

I spoke with Mitra regarding the zoning on 966380016. This is a lot for sale that we are buying. I am an
equestrian and want to make sure it gets in the correct zoning, Temecula Winery Equestrian. I know that the
parcels next to the one we are buying are planned to change to Equestrian. The owner selling the property did
not request equestrian. I will be at the planning hearing at Temecula City Hall, July 25. Please let me know if I
need to do anything else to get this change before it goes into effect in October!

Thanks!

Kathy Spano

CommentLettersforWineCountryCommunityPlan
ReceivedafterJuly5,2012andPriortoJuly19,2012(1:30PM)
PolicyRelatedComments
Received From Affiliation
TransportationNetworkComments
6/24/12 AdrianMcGregor Resident
NoiseConcernComments
7/9and
7/18/12
TheresaFogarty Resident
LetterofSupport
7/17/12 FrederickJ.Bartz,MorganHillHOABoard
President
MorganHill
TribalComments
7/13/12 AnnaHoover,CulturalAnalyst PechangaBandofLuiseno
Indians
PlantingRequirements
7/16and
7/18/12
LaurieStaude PropertyOwner
7/16/12 GretchenAdkins PropertyOwner
ProductionRequirement
7/18/12 DeanFoote WineryOwner
7/19/12 ChristinaLesch(Petition) SmallWineryOwners
AllowableUses
7/16/12 RonaldMostero PropertyOwners
7/16/12 DonaldLorenzi LorenziWines
TrailsNetwork
7/10/12 AndreaDuncan EquestrianEnthusiast,Visitor
7/13/12 PatOmmert PropertyOwner
7/17/12 TammyRussell EquestrianEnthusiast,Visitor
7/17/12 TerinHarris Resident
7/17/12 TerriConners EquestrianEnthusiast,Visitor
7/17/12 LizBeam Resident
7/17/12 JoanneThacherDVM Resident
7/18/12 GilPankonin Resident
7/18/12 GlenandJanaDorr EquestrianEnthusiast,Visitor
7/18/12 NancyBennett EquestrianEnthusiast,Visitor
7/19/12 AngelaRisner EquestrianEnthusiast
7/19/12 KerryHoffman Resident
7/19/12 LorraineHarrington Resident
7/19/12 SilverStapleton Resident
7/19/12 SherryTurner Resident
BoundaryModificationComments
DateReceived From Request
7/06/12 JohnandMarilynNorris Supportsstaffrecommendationto
excludeparcelsfromCommunityPlan.
ParcelsareapartofGroupABoundary
RequestModification.
7/17/12 GaryKazanjian Supportsstaffrecommendationto
excludeparcelfromCommunityPlan.
ParcelisapartofGroupBBoundary
RequestModification.
7/12/12 JohnLaMagna ToincludeparcelinWineryDistrict
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Adrian McGregor [macsgarden2004@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, J une 24, 2012 3:50 PM
To: cluna@rtlma.org; County of Riverside Supervisor J eff Stone District 3; TioshaAssistant to the
Clerk of the Board *Ford; Harper-Ihem, Kecia; Clerk of the County of Riverside Board of
Supervisors Kecia Harper-Ihem; Harmon, J ennifer; Susan J ones Clerk of the City of
Temecula; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Subject: Fw: Box Please include all 55 pages below in sent form and from PDF files into Public Record
Attachments: Roadways in Temecula Wine Country.doc

--- On Mon, 6/18/12, Adrian McGregor <macsgarden2004@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Adrian McGregor <macsgarden2004@yahoo.com>
Subject: Box Please include all 55 pages below in sent form and from PDF files into Public Record
To: "Wine Country Adrian McGregor" <macsgarden2004@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, J une 18, 2012, 12:27 PM
Please place the attached statements into public record for the EIR and finalization of the RCIP 2012-13
General Plan and Southwest Master Plan. Please Print out all 54 pages into the Advisory Temecula Wine
Country Committee Members MINUTES
AND into the EIR of the Temecula Wine Country Plan, whose meeting will be held on J uly 25, 2012 at the City
of Temecula City Hall.

Submitted by: Adrian J . McGregor
P.O. 894108
Temecula, CA 92589-4108
macsgarden2004@yahoo.com
951.676.5024
35 YEAR RESIDENT

PLEASE LEGALLY NOTIFY ME BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OF ANY FURTHER MEETINGS RE:
THE 2012 RCIP GENERAL PLAN AND THE SOUTHWEST MASTER PLAN/ ADVISORY
TEMECULA WINE COUNTRY PLANNING COMMITTEE/ SUPERVISOR DOCUMENTS AND
MEETINGS RE: WINE COUNTRY/ ANY MUTE OR PUBLIC MEETINGS BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS OR EXECUTUVE DIRECTOR C. LUNA OR OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS/
PATTI ROMO HEARINGS RE; ANZA RD EASTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR/METRO
PRESERVE/STATEHOLDER MEETINGS FOR THE EASTERN BYPASS/ AND ANY NEWLY
WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION....RE: THE ABOVE...AND SUPERVISOR RESOLUTIONS AND OR
AGENDAS BY ANY AND ALL STAFF.

Freeways/Express Ways: Butterfield Stage Rd. Plans approved in

1988-89 to become 6 Lanes Eventually

Just for the record: According to the Final EIR for Butterfield
Stage Ranch, Specific Plan #226, prepared March 1988 by RANPAC
Engineering Corp, Temecula, Butterfield Stage Road between 79S
and Pauba was designated a Artierial Highway (6 lanes) with a 110
foot right of way as shown on the circulation element map of the
General Plan.

Roadway Design: Intensive urban uses shall be served by streets
and highways capable of handling high volumes of commuter and
truck traffic.

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.

It is still contend that BSR is a sleeping dog. Because of the rukus
caused in 2003 of approved 2000-2002 RCIP General Plan and
Southwest Master Plan transportation Corridors by Cal Trans
approved Butterfield Stage Rd. to be the to start with four lane
expressway (Eastern Bypass) and changed in 2003-2004 by Robin
Lowe and Ron Roberts with the assistance of Stephen Brown City of
Temecula Planner submitting for the Council Members to abort the
newly designed and approved $32,000,000.00 million new RCIP
Corridor Plans designed and mapped by Parsons Mapping, which was
available on CD-ROM completed in finalized design. In less than 60
days Roberts and Lowe changed the approved finalized new corridor
roads/future freeways which had been a four year process, which is
documented in the Executive Committee Minutes of Transportation.
,
The City of Temecula and the County of Riverside had to leave
Butterfield Stage Road alone for a while and work on other issues
surrounding the area to fit in the final puzzle pieces. But, all the
activity around it (wine country expansion); 79S new exchange and
so on have a connection somehow to BSR and at some point in time it
will need to be expanded to 6 lanes; there is not enough room now to
do it. We walked it off and measured the existing road. Houses will
need to be taken by emanate domain.

The facts might not mean anything now, but keep it in the back of
your mind as for what is going on elsewhere.

BSR is still part of the puzzle.

In 2005 a METRO PRESERVE STATUS for 50 years with a every
5 year review periods were put in place on Anza Rd. of Temecula
Wine Country by the Department of Transportation (Either by CAL
Trans and/or by The County of Riverside Dept. of Transportation,
OR POSSIBLY BY BOTH.

In 2002 Bill Hughes of the City of Temecula stated at the
Falkner Winery Wine Country Update that when ANZA RD. is
completed out in 40 years, it will be 16 lanes WIDE.

The EIR Transportation negative impacts to all agriculture and
humans, is found in the City of Temecula Planners Offices within a
CD-ROM which is kept on a staffs desk, not in a binder. It was
sent by the County of Riverside Staff as Letter No. 10 included in
the 2005 City of Temecula Financial Report for 20 Year Growth.
It states: That along the Anza Rd. Eastern Bypass there will occur
Level 6 Hot Spot Carbon Monoxide Cacogenic Soot Contamination in
all of the low laying valleys along the Eastern Bypass with the
introduction of 77,000 cars per day. (This has been upgraded to
85,000 in 2012). It will harm the health of children and seniors
breathing and any one with breathing illnesses.)

THESE statements were NEVER PRESENTED TO THE
COMMUNITY OR IN WRITING WITHIN THIS 2012 RCIP
GENERAL PLAN NOR IN THE SOUTHWEST MASTER PLAN,
WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, 1076,
WHICH CONFUSES THE ISSUES OF now calling the Wine Country
as 11.85 square miles, and also calling it the Wine Country Plan. This
information was given to Margaret Rich, who did not show the
Parsons mapping, documentation, and 2007 Stakeholders one year of
meetings, which Dan Stephenson, Naggar, Commercho, and others
were hand picked/appointed by Jeff Stone, Supervisor.

Jeff Stone violated the sealed 2003-2004 RCIP General Plan and
Southwest Master Plan of his District 3, by placing in motion I
believe the illegal process of changing the 9,000 families rural
single residences and parcels to agriculturaland now changed their
deeded descriptions of their paid for lands and zoning FOR FUTURE
COMMERICAL TAKE OVER AND USAGE OF EITHER UNITED 21,
AND/OR RDA. BY BRINGING IN THE COSTS OF
TRAILS/SEWERS/ INTO THIS 2012 EIR, electrical corridors may
now share the trails for walking and horseswhich does not mix as
was done in LA, Anaheim and Orange County I believe.

And, the omission of the impact of the Metro Preserve being
withheld from the residents of more than 9,000 presently, may be a
felony CA PENAL Code 115.
Also, County of Riverside have omitted the proven Napa Valley
recycled 1% Variable Formula that mandates abundance of northern
CA waters to blend with Colorado water.

I request that the PDF File of 51 Pages also be placed into public
record. I am only a private citizen, without attorney assistance. I
believe my statements to be true.

PDF]
Microsoft Office Outlook - Memo Style
www.socalwinecountryplan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0...70
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Subject: FW: Temecula Wine Country EIR Statements in 2012 I believe to be true ..... SILENTLY
IN 2005 A METRO PRESERVE WAS PLACED UPON ANZA RD.

1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Theresa Fogarty [terry501@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, J uly 18, 2012 8:39 AM
To: J eff Stone; J ohn Tavaglione; Supervisor Benoit; Marion Ashley; Bob Buster; Mehta-Cooper,
Mitra; Stark, Mary
Subject: events Sat.-Wine Country Hearing Notes/comments
To the Supervisors, Mitra, Planning Commissioners c/o Mary Stark

Re: Wine Country
Planning Commission Hearing July 25/ comments

This past Saturday night, J uly 14, 2012, 3 events were going on at the same time in Wine Country - - each with different
styles of music. It was like being in a vortex..... being bombarded by incompatible styles of music. It was not enjoyable to
sit outside. Solutions: put this music inside, lower the volumes and calendar events around each other. Cumulative
impacts need to be avoided./mitigated.
Thank you,
Theresa Fogarty
3:30 PM7/17/2012 3:30 PM
1
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; 'grandylss@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Questions regarding Community Plan
Thankyou,Phayvanh.
GoodafternoonLaurie:
Thankyouforsendingthisemail.
IwanttoassureyouthattheCountyisnotgoingtomandateyoutogrowspecificcrops.Thefollowinglanguagecanbe
foundunderSection14.92oftheproposedzones:
(5)Vineyards;groves;equestrianlands;fieldcrops;flower,vegetable,andherbgardening;orchards;apiaries;the
drying,processingandpacking(otherthancanning)offruits,nuts,vegetablesandotherhorticulturalproductswhere
suchdrying,processingorpackingisinconjunctionwithanagriculturaloperationoranincidentalcommercialuseas
definedinthisordinance.
Additionally,theCountyisnotplanningonchangingyourproperty'szoningclassificationthroughthisCommunityPlan
process.Whichmeansthatyourlandwillcontinuetooperateuses(andgrowcrops)peritscurrentzone.Shouldyou
decidetodoawineryorcommercialequestrianuseinthefuture,theproposedCommunityPlanwillimpactyou.
Ihopethisanswersyourquestions;otherwise,pleasefeelfreetocallme.Iwouldalsoliketoencourageyoutoregister
yourselfonthefollowingwebsitetogetanautomaticealertwhenwesetthenexthearingdate.
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/
Thankyou,
Mitra
Mitra Mehta-Cooper, AICP
Principal Planner - Strategic Programs,
Riverside County Planning Department,
4080 Lemon St. 12th Fl.
Riverside CA - 92502.
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)

Please be advised that effective July 01, 2010, our business hours will be from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM (M-
Th).

This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information
contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.

If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error
please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately.
3:30 PM7/17/2012 3:30 PM

2
From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh

Subject: FW: Questions regarding Community Plan

FYI
From: grandylss@aol.com [mailto:grandylss@aol.com]

Subject: Re: Questions regarding Community Plan

I would please like Ms. Mehta-Cooper to respond to my e mail as she did to my neighbor
Gretchen Adkins yesterday. Thank you. Laurie Staude
-----Original Message-----
From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh <PNANTHAV@rctlma.org>
To: 'GrandyLSS@aol.com' <GrandyLSS@aol.com>
Cc: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra <MMEHTA@rctlma.org>
Sent: Tue, J ul 17, 2012 9:02 am
Subject: RE: Questions regarding Community Plan
Ms. Laurie Staude,

Thank you for your comments concerning the Wine Country Community Plan. Your letter will be presented to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Phayvanh

Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
Urban Regional Planner III
County of Riverside Planning Dept.
951-955-6573

Please be advised that effective July 01, 2010, our business hours will be from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM (M-TH).

From: GrandyLSS@aol.com [mailto:GrandyLSS@aol.com]

I am against the proposed requirement to plant 75% grapes on my 12 acre parcel in the Rancho California Highlands.
(924100010-1) I have written letters to Ms. Mehta-Cooper and to Supervisor J eff Stone.

I cannot attend the meeting J uly 25.

Please keep me apprised of any developments that may change what I plant on my property in this residental area.
Thank you.
Submitted By: Laurie Staude
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Gretchen Adkins [gretchen.adkins@verizon.net]
Subject: J uly 25 hearing
MsMitraMehtaCooper
PrincipalPlanner(ProjectManager)
CountyofRiverside,Transportation&LandManagementAgencyPOBox1409
4080LemonStreet12thfloor
RiversideCA92502
ToMitraMehtaCooper:
AsapropertyownerinRiversideCounty(APN924050028)Ireceivedtherecentmailingabouta
publichearingonJuly25,2012.LivinginNYC,andhavingverylittleadvancenoticeabout
thehearinginTemecula,IamunabletoattendtheJuly25meeting.
Iamconcernedthat"thepowersthatbe"thinktheycanmandatewhatisgrownonprivate
property.IamagainstbeingtoldwhatImightplantonmyownland.Mylotiswithina
residentialcommunitywherethelandisusedtobestfittheneedsofthefamilieswhoown
theland.IamproudthatwehaveaHomeownersAssociationwithCC&Rstoprotecttheuseof
ourland.Iamtoldthatcitrustreesinviteinsectsandotherbugsthatthreatenthehealth
ofvineyards.Surelyvegetationondomesticlotsofsmallacreagewouldnotthreaten
commercialgrowersofgrapes.Iown7acresonCaminoSierraRoadinRanchoCaliforniaandI
donotacceptthatIcanbetoldwhattogrowonthem.
Iwouldappreciateareplyandtobekeptuptodateonanydiscussionthatmightfollow.
Sincerely,
GretchenAdkins
336WestEndAvenueapt.9C
NewYorkCityNY10023
2128779761
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Deane Foote [deanefoote@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, J uly 18, 2012 7:20 PM
Subject: 2020 Plan
Mitra
In case you have not yet heard, I disagree with the 3500 gallon, must produce, section of the plan. As the state
and feds only require the capacity to produce 3500 gallons, the county nor the wine growers can legally impose
a higher standard. It is up to each winery depending on its own plan, size, economic condition, and
circumstances to determine how much wine it will produce. If this is passed there will be legal consequences. I
also disagree with the 10% planting of olives. This makes sense ONLY if we are talking of a new venture which
has unplantable area. What about existing 35 year old trees, no matter what type. The 10% idea should be
applied across the board. If you need clarification, Please call me at the number below.

Deane Foote
Foote Enterprises LLC
Foot Path Winery and Foote Path Farms
Home of 100% Hand Crafted Red Wine
36650 Glenoaks Rd. Temecula Ca. 92592
951-265-9951
www.footpathwinery.com

Follow us on Facebook at Deane Foote and Foot Path Winery. We are on Twitter and footpathwine.
July18,2012
Ms.MitraMehta
RiversideCountyPlanningDepartment
480LemonStreet
Riverside,CA
DearMitra,
RE:C/VZoneWineries
LastMondaymanyofthewineryownersoftheTemeculaValleyappellationwerein
attendanceforaspecialmeetingheldatWiensbytheTemeculaValleyWinegrowers
Association.Thismeetingwassomewhatcombative,andwe(theundersigned)felt
thatitisimportanttoidentifysomeissuesthatreflectthevaluesandbusiness
modelsofthesmallercommercialwineryowners.Thewordsquality,safetyand
logisticsseemedtohavebeenomittedatthemeeting;onlyvolumewasdiscussed.
Firstandforemost,itiscriticalthattheplanningdepartmentconsidera
grandfatherclausewhichwillallowallwineries,andwineriesinworkwiththe
planningdepartmenttocontinuetorealizetheirbusinessmodelbasedonthe
conditionsthatwereineffectwhentheirplotplanswereinitiated.Inmostcases,
thebusinessmodelandfinancialstabilizationforanewbusinessisbasedonthe
allowancesandentitlementsfromtheonset.Changinganythingnow,eliminates
thoseentitlementsgiventoeachofthewineriesinTemeculaValley.
Secondly,itisthepositionofthesmallerwineriesthattheclausecapacityto
produce3500gallonsremainsintact.Itiscriticaltohaveflexibilityeachyear,
andallowawinerytoproducefinewinewithintheirbusinessmodel.Itis
understoodthatawineryneedstomakewine.Making3500gallonsperyearisnot
feasibleeveryyearduetothefollowingconstraints.Thecountyshouldnot
conditionabusinesstocomplywithaNEWordinancewheretheydonothave
themeanstoenforce,butmoreimportantlywherethewineryandthecounty
wouldbefinanciallyencumberedtocomply.
LooktowardstoprankedsmallwineryproducersinNapaValleyforconfirmation
thatsmallerwineriesnotonlyaddstothecharmandversatilityofwinecountry,but
alsoisnecessarytomaintainasolidreputationinamaturewineregion.
AssumeRedWineproductionyearone
10acreproperty
24tonsofgrapes
3600gallonsONSITE
1500SFBUILDING
Fermenting3500gallons=48tonmacrobinsatcrush4x4x3=768SF
Storagefor59barrels=6barrelsx10stacks=280SF
Year2:Youhaveaging560SFbarrels
Year3etc:Youhave560SFbarrelsandneed768SFforcrush
Noroomtomaneuveryourforklift.
Noroomfortherestofyourequipment:filters,pumps,press,tanksthatcouldlead
toworkerinjuryordeath.Safetyhasbeensacrificedforvolume.
THEN:Youneedtostorethefinishedcasegoods.
Assumptions:
7acresplanted
3TONSPERACREFORQUALITYWINE*
21TONSFORHARVEST*
*ThevineswouldneedtobeovercroppedtoproducelargeryieldswithINFERIOR
QUALITYofgrapestomeetthe3500galloncriteria.
Afineredwineproducerwillbarrelagetheirwinefor18monthsto2years
Bottleageadditionalyear.
Determination:
Itisimpossibleforasmallproducertohandlethiscapacityyearly.
Inconclusion:
Boutiquewineownershaveabusinessmodelwheretheycanbringmorevariety
anddiversityintoanaggressivegrowingappellation.Conditionsthatstifle
creativenesswillaffectthereputationoftheappellation,andinevitablydiminisha
positivereputationfromtheconsumer.TemeculaValleyhastheabilitytocreate
excitementandgainmarketsharefromwinedrinkersthatendorsePasoRoblesand
NapaValleyONLYifitcreateswinesofsimilarquality.Theentertainmentin
Temeculaisaseparateissue,andshouldnotbeapartofthewinemakingcriteria.
TemeculaValleywinecountryshouldbeaboutFINEWINE.Wineriesbydefinition
arefacilitiesusedfortheprocessingofgrapesintowine,whichmayincludebutnot
limitedtotheaging,storingorshippingofwine.(Winegrowers02license)
Wineisthepicked,crushedandfermentedwinegrapes.
Growthisonlybasedontheabilitytomeetandexceedexpectations.Once
expectationsareexceededawinerycanpaytoenactlargerscaleinitiativesfor
futureprofitabilitymodels.Ifconditionssetforwineriestooverproduceand
overbuildbeyondourabilitytofinance,manufactureandsellataprofitableretail,
thewinerywillbefacedwitheithermakinginferiorproductwhichwill
diminishthevalueofTemeculawinecountrywhichwilldevastatethe
TemeculaValleyappellation.
Thefollowingwineriesandwinegrowersareinfavorofthestatedpolicychanges
above.Listnotcompleted(signatureswillbeprovidedatthemeeting7/25/12)
_________________________________________________________________________________
ChristinaandKennethFalikGershonBachusVintners
_________________________________________________________________________________
AndrewKleinerLumiereWinery
_________________________________________________________________________________
WilmerYabarMasiaDeYabar
_________________________________________________________________________________
DamonChuronWinery
_________________________________________________________________________________
SteveChapinChapinWinery
_________________________________________________________________________________
DeanFooteFootpathWinery
_________________________________________________________________________________
AlexYakutAlexsRedBarn
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Donald Lorenzi [lorenziwines@yahoo.com]
Subject: winery designation
Hello Mitra,

Now that we've received our approval at the Director's Hearing today, we are requesting to be included in the
Wine Country Plan with an "existing
winery" designation. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Please let me know if you need
additional information.

Don Lorenzi
3:06 PM7/10/2012 3:06 PM
1
From: Andrea Duncan [babychops2u@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Community Plan
Wonderful! I assure you myself and my horse peeps will be frequent fliers should that happen!
On Tue, J ul 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh <PNANTHAV@rctlma.org>wrote:
Dear Ms. Andrea Duncan,

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your interest in the Wine Country Community Plan. Your email
will be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Best regards,
Phayvanh

951-955-6573

Please be advised that effective J uly 01, 2010, our business hours will be from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM (M-TH).

From: babychops@lycos.com [mailto:babychops@lycos.com]

I am a wine tasting visitor (we usually bring a lite lunch and hang out all day sampling the wines, then bringing
our favorites home) and just learned that there are some equestrian trails - I love that the plan is to expand them!
My friends and I would absolutely LOVE to do wine tours on our horses. Please include a staging area large
enough for folks with big trailers (3h or larger) to turn around and park in your plans so those of us who don't
live at the trail head and only have one trailer (that isn't a small one) can trailer in.
Thank you SO much - this is fabulous news! Submitted By: Andrea Duncan

1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Tammy Russell [tammyrussellrn@yahoo.com]
Subject: Temecula needs to remain horse friendly
To All that this will Concern:

Please keep Temecula and the valley horse friendly. We do not want the area to be known as "just another
concrete jungle". In order for an area to thrive, it needs to appeal to a variety of interests. Look at Norco; a very
horse friendly town. The people there are willing to live in the extreme heat and at times smog because of this
equine acceptance. We horse families have enormous financial commitments to horse/animal/live
stock businesses. This rural atmosphere among the wineries and other businesses is what makes us special.
Don't go the way of LA or other horrible places.

It's also important for our kids to be brought up in a rural and agrigulture area. I speak from experience being
heavily involved in the Fallbrook FFA and working with kids at the fair. Many grads have chosen to pursue
higher education in agriculture as a result of their experiences. Support the out of doors in every way possible.
In my travels across the nation and world, I see how people love and support the communities in which they
live when they are given these lifestyles.

Thank you,

Tammy Russell, a neighbor
Fallbrook, CA
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Harris, Terin L [terin.harris@av.abbott.com]
Subject: Equestrian Trails and the Community Plan
To the planning commissioners,

I am a horse owner/lover/rider in the Temecula Wine country, and I am writing to you with regard to the
proposed equestrian trails and the community plan . A network of trails make the wine country more attractive
and add to the peaceful, country image of Temecula. Equestrians and tourists will see Temecula as uniquely
pastoral, unlike any other wine country they've visited around the world. As a matter of experience, when I ride
through wine country and even visit wineries on horseback, there is generally a fascination and awe when
visitors see horses. They want pictures to capture this memory of their Temecula Wine Country experience.
A connected network of trails is critical to keep horses exercised and of sound mind. Small segments of
trails without a thoroughfare are neither useful, nor are they particularly fun to ride.
The trails are disappearing at an alarming rate because the General Plan did not protect them all with legal
easements held by the County. We need the County to protect this asset to Temecula's Wine Country and to
reclaim the easements. By doing so, Temecula's equestrian community and tourism will flourish with a well-
connected network of trails benefiting wineries, keeping equestrians safe and providing a unique and
stimulating atmosphere for Temecula.
Horse owners and lovers are a very significant portion of the Temecula population, and we contribute
economically to the community in many ways. A large number of equestrians moved to Temecula Valley
precisely because it is a horse friendly community and has the promise of equestrian trails. That is the reason I
moved my family to Temecula's Wine Country. It is an amazingly beautiful area that is has a country feel with
the excitement of business and entertainment by the wineries. The Community Plan allows 5 horses per acre in
the Equestrian and Residential zones, but only 2 horse per acre in the Winery zone. Horses and vineyards are
compatible agricultural uses for land, so it is difficult to understand the rationale for this variance. In addition,
the Plan currently has many specifics about horse keeping that have no real basis, such as requiring 20 covered
stalls for a 10 acre operation. Most equestrians that I know treat their horses extraordinarily well without any
need for regulations from the general plan which is not based on animal husbandry. Ordinances that ensure
animal health and welfare already exist.
Horses are so much a part of the history of the Temecula area and so much a reason for Temecula's current
popularity as a destination site, perhaps better nomenclature for the area is "Wine and Horse Country". I believe
that the signage and designs for the Equestrian Zone should reflect this. There are fantastic equestrian centers in
Temecula, and coupling businesses with them would promote both causes and foster more gestures of good will
and respect between the wineries and the equestrian community. The Valle de Los Caballos (Valley of the
Horses) has long been a separate area with a distinct land use plan. I believe it should be preserved as the heart
of the Equestrian Zone.
Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully consider Temecula Wine and Horse Country's future, and
thank you in advance for ensuring that Temecula's equestrian community thrives with a vibrant and connected
network of trails and continues to add to the ambiance of Temecula!

Respectfully,

Terin Harris

1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: tcinwa@msn.com
Subject: In support if Temecula horse trails
In support of keeping Temecula horse trails open.
Terri Conners
45987 Bristlecone Court
Temecula. 92592

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: joanne.thacherdvm@gmail.com
Subject: Equine trails in the Temecula Valley
PleasesupporttheequestriantrailsintheTemeculaValley.Ihavelivedherefor28years
andhaveslowlyseentheencroachmentof"progress"andit'seffectonthisarea.Weneedto
protectthisaspectofourcommunityandprotectandprovideforEquestriantrails.People
comeouthereonweekendstogotrailridingatplaceslikeGreenAcresRanchthathave
never,ever,beenhorsebackridingandleaveamazedandproudofthemselves.Thisisapart
ofAmericathatweneedtosave.Pleasehelp.
Sincerely,
JoanneThacherDVM
9515063615
J uly 18, 2012

Riverside County Planning Commissioners
c/o Mitra Mehta-Cooper
Principal Planner Strategic Programs

To: Planning Commissioners and Ms. Mehta-Cooper

From: Gil Pankonin

Subject: Comments on Wine Country Trails

These are minor changes that were incorrectly identified on the current draft of the trails map. I
have marked the items in question on the attached portion of the map so you can easily find the
areas Im addressing:

1. Trail from Berenda Road that links to the horse crossing on Rancho California Road
these lines were drawn in error and the correct route is shown with dotted/circled lines.
Furthermore, this should be colored PINK as a Regional Open Space Trail. This is
marked as item 1 on the attachment.

2. Trail that parallels Los Nogales Road The Trails Sub-Committee of the Advisory
Council had agreed that this trail should be along the south boundaries of the properties
along Los Nogales Road. But wed like to be sure this is drawn clearly north of the creek
that runs alongside Los Nogales Road, since the creek washes out frequently. This
clarification will prevent unnecessary maintenance costs. This is presently a Regional
Open Space Trail. This is also marked on the attachment as item 2.

3. Trail along De Portola Road going East from Los Alamitos Drive The purple line
designating the Regional Trail needs to continue all the way to the boundary of the
proposed Wine Country, as the bike trail does. And then, it needs to connect over to the
East Benton Road trail, to complete that equestrian loop. Somehow it just dropped off
arbitrarily.

4. All wine country trails (including local trails) need to be held by the County for
equestrian use. Otherwise they will not exist in years to come. Such a loss has happened
in the mapping effort of the 1980s. Lets not repeat that mistake.

5. Roundabout at Rancho California Road and Anza Road The combination trails going
into this roundabout will be used by hikers/joggers/cyclists as well as equestrians. But
because of the current landscaping at the roundabout, pedestrians/hikers/cyclists and even
horses cannot be seen by cars entering the roundabout, creating an extremely dangerous
situation. Correction needs to take place to eliminate the safety hazard.

4:02 PM7/18/2012 4:02 PM
1
Subject: FW: Temecula Trails Plan
From: J ana Dorr [mailto:janadorr@gmail.com]

Subject: Temecula Trails Plan

J ohn Petty, Commissioner
Riverside County Planning Commission
c/o Mitra Metha-Cooper

We are residents of Temecula, and we support enactment of the Trail Map along with its future implementation.
We urge the County to put a process in place for adoption of the easements in order to make the trails a reality.
We believe there are many beneficial aspects for equestrians, as well as equestrian businesses, in the proposed
Wine County Community Plan. It would be a great benefit to the equestrian community to have access to a
complete and connected trail system which existence will be guaranteed by a County plan with the appropriate
easements. The equestrian community is a significant portion of Temecula's population with an impact on the
economy of the community. To provide a benefit to this portion of the community can only benefit the entire
community including the wineries and a considerable portion of other local businesses.

Thank you for your consideration,

Glen & J ana Dorr
4:00 PM7/18/2012 4:00 PM
1
Subject: FW: Horse-riding trails/equestrian facilities
From: Nancy Bennett [mailto:nbjbennett@yahoo.com]

Cc: nanbarber@verizon.net; Marion Satterfield; melissa spilman
Subject: Horse-riding trails/equestrian facilities

To t he Temecul a Pl anni ng Commi ssi on
c/ o Mi t r a Meht a- Cooper

I wi l l be at t endi ng t he publ i c hear i ng on Wednesday, J ul y 25t h at 9: 00 am
t o r evi ew and suppor t t he bui l di ng of r i di ng t r ai l s i n t he Temecul a and
Fr ench Val l ey ar eas. Our 5- acr e hor se r anch i s l ocat ed at 37350 Pour r oy
Road i n Wi nchest er . The ar ea we ar e i n i s uni ncor por at ed and i s
desi gnat ed as bei ng i n t he " Temecul a spher e of i nf l uence" .

We ar e i nt er est ed i n seei ng r i di ng t r ai l s connect i ng us wi t h t he pr oposed
t r ai l s of Temecul a and Wi ne- Count r y ar eas. Wi t h r espect t o t he pr oposed
t r ai l s, whi ch I under st and ar e t o be used by hor ses, bi cycl es, and hi ker s,
I woul d l i ke t o suggest some i deas r egar di ng saf et y. We have r i dden
hor seback on t r ai l s ( Sant a Rosa Pl at eau, f or one) t hat ar e used f or t hese
t hr ee act i vi t i es. We hor se- r i der s t end t o use t hese t r ai l s on weekdays
onl y, because t he t r ai l s ar e cr owded wi t h bi cycl e r i der s on weekends and
hol i days. Our hor ses ar e exper i enced t r ai l hor ses, but i nci dent s wi t h
bi cycl es ar e hai r - r ai si ng and undesi r abl e.

Because hor ses and bi cycl es ar e " Vehi cl es" t hey car r y r i der s who ar e
dependent upon r el i abl e r ul es of t he r oad f or saf et y.
Some hor ses ar e af r ai d of bi cycl es and shoul dn' t shar e t he l anes wher e
bi cycl es ar e r i dden. Tr ai l r i di ng on hor seback i s gener al l y done at t he
wal k and i s a l ei sur el y act i vi t y. Bi cycl e r i der s t r avel ver y f ast .
Al l hor ses can and wi l l r eact vi ol ent l y t o bi cycl es t r avel i ng i nt o t hemat
al l speeds.

To be pr o- act i ve wi t h pr event i on of acci dent s and i nj ur i es t o t hese t r ai l
user s, I woul d l i ke t o suggest t he f ol l owi ng t ool s and i deas f or saf et y:

1) Si gnage: HORSES ARE AFRAI D OF BI CYCLES:
USE CAUTI ON Pl aced at f r equent i nt er val s
al ong t he t r ai l , and at ent r ances t o t r ai l s.

2) Tr ai l s: Separ at e hor se t r ai l s f r ombi cycl e t r ai l s.

3) Mul t i pl e- use t r ai l s: Pr ovi de separ at i on of hor se pat hways and bi cycl e
pat hways by i nst al l i ng bar r i er s such as f enci ng, t r ees, or scr eeni ng of
some ki nd.

4:00 PM7/18/2012 4:00 PM
2
4) Per haps speci f i c days f or hor se r i der s, and speci f i c days f or bi cycl e
r i der s.

Thank you f or any at t ent i on and consi der at i on you can gi ve t o t hese
r equest s.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed;

Nancy Bennet t
37350 Pour r oy Road
Wi nchest er , CA. 92596

1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Angela Risner [risnerranch@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, J uly 19, 2012 11:20 AM
Subject: So Cal Wine Country Trail Plan
Dear Mitra Mehta-Cooper,

I would very much like to make my voice heard regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting regarding the Trails
and the Community Plan. I reside in Norco, CA and belong to Rubidoux Riding Club. Our club recently hosted a wine ride
on May 5, 2012. We were able to stage from Keyways as well as spend the night on their property. RRC anticipates
holding further club rides in the future. It took several pre-rides and the help from many local equestrians to determine the
best route. I found it difficult to navigate the area without a trail mapping system and a patchwork of trails. It is imperative
that horse trails and crossings be safe from fast moving vehicles.

I believe that Temecula Wine country is the ideal location to establish a network of horse trails which will be utilized by
locals horse owners, horse groups and winery patrons. Horses are an intregal part of the history of the area and so much
a reason for its current popularity as a destination site. Equestrians support large property minimums, to keep the "open",
"rural" feel of the area. Equestrians are a significant portion of the population who continue to invest in their infrasturctures
which further enhance the beauty and economic viability of the area. Equestrians contribute economically to the
community in many ways, including supporting local businesses and visting wineries. Equestrians have local businesses
and/or commerical operations. Equestrians are concerned and involved citizens, and many are community leaders
themselves.

I urge the County to step up and take the easements in order to have a complete and connected trail system. I also urge
that the County develop the area into a uniquely pastoral wine country which can only lead to tourism destination.

Angela Risner
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: lorraine harrington [lfh415@yahoo.com]
Cc: Kerry Hoffmans
Subject: Fw: Statement for wine country meeting
Mitra, one more that came to me rather than to you. Please include in the mailing

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kerry Hoffmans <khoffmans@wineresort.com>
To: lorraine harrington <lfh415@yahoo.com>
Subject: Statement for wine country trails meeting

Hi Lorraine,

I trust you received my yahoo emails letting you know I will not be able to attend the meeting
so please use this statement. Please forward what you think is appropriate to Mrs. Mitra
Mehta-Cooper.

I have 3 interests in the Wine Country Trail s network meeting. I work, live and ride my horse
in the Temecula Wine country and enjoy the lifestyle the community is all about. I live in
Country Road Estates on 5 acres and most of my neighbors have horses on their property and
have established trail system throughout our community. I am also a co-founder and proud
member of the Temecula EqWine riders established in the wine country of Temecula.

I also work as a manager in a winery and have been published in a book Horses in Wine Country
in which I sell very successfully in the gift shop I manage (sold close to 100 books so far and
the interest is climbing). I find the guests that come into wine country love the ambiance of
horses in wine country and what the equestrian lifestyle lends to wine country. Many times I
have ridden to the wineries (that have hitching posts) and enjoy their food and wine. The guest
reaction is memorable to both me and them as I ride away.

Please continue the efforts of maintaining and establishing a trail system throughout wine
country to be enjoyed for generations to come!

Cheers and good luck!

2

Kerry Hoffmans
Tasting Room and Retail Operations Manager
34843 Rancho California Road
Temecula, CA 92591
951-587-9463 ext. 7219

J uly 19, 2012
To: Riverside County Planning Commissioners

From: Lorraine Harrington, Temecula

Subject: Comments on Proposed Wine Country Community Plan

Commissioners,

I am a property owner (35820 Pauba Road, Temecula), and equestrian who has been deeply
involved in the development of the proposed Wine Country Community Plan and the associated
Trails Map. I urge you to approve both, with the following changes noted below.

First, I believe the plan will preserve, and indeed enhance the Wine Country as a unique
equestrian-oriented area , primarily by legitimizing the current commercial equestrian operations,
preserving large-scale properties throughout the area but particularly in the Valle de Los
Caballos (VDC), and by finally making the trails a connected and legally supported network.

Historically and currently, horses and horse-related businesses have been a major element
of the community that we feel needs to be preserved
The Community Plan can not only legitimize the long-standing equine businesses but
preserve a locale in Southwest Riverside County that promotes less dense development, a
rural, semi-rural, or open atmosphere that encourages horse-related activities,
while providing an appropriate balance of vineyards, a reasonable number of small
wineries. The equestrian community has not opposed the concept of Wine Country
growth; instead, we have labored within the Advisory Council to encourage growth in
the 3-zone concept; to temper the impact of over-commercialization in the Valley of the
Horses ; to integrate horses into the Residential and Winery zones in the appropriate
balance.
A stable, attractive, and well-planned Equestrian Zone will add to the overall ambiance of
the expanded Wine Country as a tourist destination, but will also attract new investment
by equestrian businesses and landowners as alternative locations fail to provide zoning
protection for horse-related activities. In other words, horsemen who have to move away
from dense development will find a vibrant community for relocation here in Wine and
Horse Country.

Trails are a critical component of the Community Plan for resident equestrians. In working with
County Parks and the Community Plan Advisory Council, we have sought to:

Redo the Countys Trails Map to revise the current patchwork of trails to nowhere and
create a network of connected trails that enable riders not only to exercise their horses on
a daily basis but to access the beautiful scenery, the wineries and the surrounding lakes
(Vail, Skinner, and Diamond Valley).

The trails have been mapped with 4 underlying principles:
1. Safety the goal is therefore to get trails OFF road shoulders and onto the
back edge of property lines.
2. Connectivity most trails are designed as loops with connecting arteries,
and with spurs out to the lakes. The entire system will also link to the City
of Temeculas trail map
3. Accessibility we have incorporated some staging areas for access to the
trail system
4. Flexible design standards - the network is not a homogenous set of
lookalike trails (some segments are groomed, wide, multi-use trails while
others are undisturbed nature paths).

The map, when approved, still requires proper execution. I strongly believe that we will not be
able to preserve the trails unless the County steps up to accept the easements for all of them.
Recognizing that there will still be some movement in the mapped lines as discussions with
landowners progress, it will be critical for the County to begin accepting easements as soon as
possible to preserve the integrity of the trail network. We do NOT want a repeat of the 1980s
mapping effort when many easements were offered but not accepted, leaving us with the current
patchwork of unrideable trails.

Other critical concerns about the current version of the Community Plan are as follows:
While I and my fellow equestrian members of the Advisory Council applaud County
Staff on creating a document that captures most of what the Advisory Council and
members of the community suggested, we see several areas that we believe should be
changed before approval, including:
Number of allowable animals per acre in Equestrian Zone - The Advisory Council
had agreed on 5 per acre. The latest draft of the plan complicates this by stating that
Two such animals may be kept on each 20,000 sq feet up to one acre and two such
animals for each additional acre. The number of such animals is not to exceed fine
per gross acre We should omit the unnecessary complicating language.
Sewers The community strongly opposes bringing sewer trunk lines down De
Portola Road. In previous meetings of the Board of Supervisors (and thus on
videotape) as well as in countless public outreach meetings in the Wine Country,
Supervisor Stone has stated repeatedly that sewers would not be allowed without a
vote of the community and at very least would be on an opt in basis. However, the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this plan concludes that sewers will be
required by each new project, not excluding the Equestrian Zone. We understand the
limitations of the current conditions, but also understand that we may therefore need
to curtail growth or manage it to what our conditions can handle without sewers in
Valle de Los Caballos.
Micromanagement of design standards for equestrian establishments - We find the
current draft way too detailed on most points related to sound horsekeeping practices.
For example, requiring 20 covered stalls on a 10 acre property, with no regard for
how many horses reside there, seems nonsensical. Likewise, mandating the size of
stalls and weather shelters reflects a lack of knowledge of how operations work. We
have asked for this section to be significantly simplified numerous times, and have
never gotten an explanation for why it has not been changed. We believe it would be
inappropriate in most instances and unenforceable anyway. Besides, we already have
ordnances in place about animal welfare, dust control, etc.
Moratorium on new projects after approval The final paragraph of the Plan
stipulates that it will go into effect 30 days after approval. We want to make sure that
a rush of non-conforming projects are not allowed to begin the permitting process
during this 30 day period. Please insert wording to this effect.
Zoning of area across 79South This is currently a mixed use area, and what we
have heard is a strong voice for designating at least a section of it as equestrian, but
certainly not putting it all into the Winery Zone. Most likely a subdivision of all 3
zones might work best. There are residents there working on a cohesive suggestion
Street name changes While we recognize that there is nothing written in the Plan
itself that proposed changes to De Portola, Anza, Rancho California Road and other
streets, we also know that in conjunction with the growth plan, a movement outside
the Advisory Council has been ongoing to change street names. The residents, and
particularly business owners along De Portola strongly oppose this notion. Since
several of them are internationally and nationally recognized businesses (currently
with greater marketing reach than any of the wineries), the disruption to their
businesses would be detrimental.
Several individual landowners on the outer edges of the Equestrian Zone map have
requested to opt out of that zone, which will leave the equestrian area with the
potential for denser commercial development along the edges. We want to be
watchful of this, and thus careful to not allow Hotels within the Equestrian Zone and
to limit Special Event Facilities to parcels of 100 acres or more (which is what is
written in the current draft). This is in the spirit of preserving a quieter, less traffic-
or noise-congested, open and horse-friendly area.
* * *

Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. I hope we are able to refine the Wine
Country Community Plan toward an even better blueprint for the future of this wonderful region.

1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: SILVER STAPLETON [silverinvinc@msn.com]
Ms. Mehta-Cooper,

I have attended a number of meetings over the past few years. First, may I say thank you for all of the time and
effort you have put into the Temecula wine and horse country development in general. More specifically, thank
you for your efforts in helping us acquire safe places to ride our horses. I have been very impressed with your
obvious abilities and skills.

I cannot tell you how nice it is to ride from winery to winery, crossing streets that have been marked with
appropriate signage. I have people visit routinely from out of town to ride, who just marvel at the
advancements that have been made in our horse community here in the Temecula Wine Country. Their dream
would be to leave the city and live in such a place some day. I actually think now it could more appropriately
be named the Temecula Wine and Horse Country.

I was very seriously considering selling my property in Wine Country last year and moving to Arizona. I
intended to move to a place where riding would be better and easier to ride for a distance. When it appeared that
we would finally have connecting trails with legal easements, which would allow us to ride from our homes,
throughout the Wine Country, I decided to stay. My choice to stay was made because riding is something that
is very important to me and most of my friends. I also stayed because I thought property values would surely
improve, even in this difficult economy, because of the ongoing projections for trail easements.

I truly feel that our community is special both because of the equine involvement and because of the wineries.
It is a unique blend that somehow is working very well. I would respectfully request that you and the Planning
Commissioners continue to work toward acquiring trail easements, in an attempt to connect the trails throughout
our community.

I vehemently oppose any type of development that will require heavy usage of water and sewage disposal. That
certainly is not part of the dream for this beautiful Temecula Wine Country we call home.

Respectfully submitted,

Silver Stapleton
P. O. Box 893904

"The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking
action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Silver Stapleton Investigations, Inc. is neither liable for the proper,
complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt."
1
Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
From: Sherry Turner [sherry@teamturner.com]
Subject: Planning Commissioner Letter
DearPlanningCommissioners,
IwritetoyouasaTemeculacityresidentwhomkeepsahorseoutinwinecountry.UnfortunatelyIwillbeoutoftown
onJuly25
th
fortheCountyMeetingbutwantedtosharewithyoumythoughtsonourbeautifulWineandHorseCountry
area.
IrideseveraltimesaweekinwinecountryaswellasintheValledeLosCaballosarea.Asthisareaspopulationgrows,it
iscriticaltohaveasubstantialnetworkoftrailstokeephorses,riders,residentsandvisitorssafe.Equestrianridingadds
excitementandbeautytothewinecountry.Iridetothehorsefriendlywineriesallthetimeandcanttellyouhow
manypeoplecomeuptouswantingtopetthehorsesandgettheirpicturestakenbythem.Infactyouwouldbe
amazedifyoutalliedupthenumberofhorsestiedtohitchingrailsatthewineriesinanygivenweek.
Thereisarealconcerninthehistoryoftheequestriantrailsnotbeingproperlyhandledinthepastandthetimeisnow
fortheCountytostepupandtaketheseeasementstoensurethatweremainahorsefriendlyarea.
Ifyoulookatthegrowthaloneofthehorserentalbusinessintheareaitshouldtellyouwhatvisitorswantaswell.Iget
stoppedallthetimeandaskedwheresomeonecangoforatrailride.Wealsohavelargenumbersofhorseclubs
outsideofTemeculabringinglargegroupsandsubstantialbusinesstothearea.SeveralweeksagoIledagroupof57
ridersfromNorcothroughtheValledeLosCaballosareaandwebroughtalotofbusinessto3wineriesthatdayalone.
PleasegetitrightforTemeculathistimeandapprovetheproposedequestriantrailmap.Therehasbeenahuge
amountofeffortfromsomanytoaccuratelymapthesetrails,tomakesurethereisaconnectednetworkoftrailsandto
keepthemmaintained.
Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration,
SherryTurner
28321CorteOcaso
Temecula,CA92592
9516959971
Mrs. Norris request to exclude the parcels from the Wine Country Community Plan. These parcels are a part of and this request
is consistent with Staff recommendation for Group A Boundary Modification Request.
7:13 AM7/12/2012 7:13 AM
1
From: J ohn.LaMagna29@gmail.com
Subject: Questions regarding general Wine Country planning and circulation questions
IenjoyedreadingtheWineCountryPlan.IownpropertyonCalleLasLomasoffOakMountain
Road(APN927280035)andnoticedthattheproposedclassificationofmyparcelis
"equestrian".CanIpetitionthestudyteamtoplacemypropertyinthe"winery"
classificationtherearpropertylineofmyparcelformstheboundarybetweenequestrianand
wineryclassifications.OnedayinthefutureIwouldliketostartawineryonthe
propertyandhavingitclassifiedinthe"winery"titlemightmakeiteasiertodoso.
ThankyouforyourconsiderationandIlookforwardtoyourresponse.
Sincerely,
JohnLaMagnaSubmittedBy:JohnLaMagna
Please click link
Environmental Impact Report No. 524 and Responses to Comment Letters
TEMECULA
VAIL LAKE
LAKE SKINNER
LA SERE
N
A
W
A
Y
R
IC
A
D
R
M
O
R
G
A
N
H
IL
L
D
R N
IG
H
T
H
A
W
K
PA
SS
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
LO
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
S
C
IR
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
C
HARDONNAY HILLS
SUMMITVILLE ST
L
E
O
N
R
D
V
A
N
G
A
A
L
E
L
N
T
E
H
A
C
H
A
P
I
PASS
VALENTINO WAY
DE
PORTOLA RD
GLENOAKS RD
C
A
L
L
E ARAGON
VIA RIO TEM
EC
U
L
A
M
U
IR
F
IE
L
D
D
R
CASSINO CT
OVERLAND TRL
C
A
M
IN
O
PIEDRA RO
JO
W
O
LF
VALLEY
RD
H
A
R
MONY L
N
VIA CORDOB
A
HWY 79
GEISBAUER RD
EL
C
H
IM
IS
A
L
R
D
JO
H
N
S
T
O
N
D
R
C
A
L
L
E
F
I E
S
T
A
RANCHO
VISTA
R
D
H
IG
H
V
I S
T
A
D
R
M
A
D
D
A
L
E
N
A
R
D
T
U
D
A
L
S
T
CALLE BARTIZON
TEMECULA CREEK RD
M
O
N
T
E
V
E
R
D
E
R
D
C
A
S
E
R
T
A
D
R
V
IA
R
A
M
I
D
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
ST
S
ERRENTO
D
R
TURTLE CREEK ST
C
A
L L E B
A
L
LENTINE
G
ALLERON
ST
CHANNEL ST
M
ILAT
S
T
PASEO
DE
LAS OLAS
R
I V
E
R
A
D
R
H
IC
K
O
RY PL
SAN
SI M
E
O
N
S
T
D
O
D
A
R
O
D
R
ROYAL CREST PL
M
A
D
IG
AN
S
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
L
VER
M
O
N
T
RD
S
AGE CT
OLD KE
N
T
R
D
COR
T
E
P
A
R
A
DO
BRONCO CI R
Y
A
R
DLEY
CT
CALLE
RESACA
V
IA
S
A
B
IN
O
VINO
WAY
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
OOD ST
V
IA
A
N
G
EL
E
S
COPPOLA ST
C
A
L
L
E

M
E
D
U
S
A
RENOIR RD
S
IE
R
R
A
G
R
O
V
E
D
R
WHITEDOVE
L
N
M
U
M
M
S
T
C
O
N
G
RESSIONAL DR
SKYLINE DR
FAVARA
D
R
A
M
IC
I ST
VINEYARD
AVE
C
A
L
L E NO
V
E
L
D
A
TULLEY RANCH RD
FROG
S
L
E
A
P
S
T
R
E
ID
E
L
S
T
VIA
CERRO V ISTA
PERIGORD RD
C
A
MINO NUNEZ
T
IR
A
N
O
D
R
R
IV
E
R
T
O
N
L
N
YUCCA
ST
IVEL RD
VIA SALTI O
J
E
F
F
R
E
Y
C
IR
B
IS
O
N
C
T
LIN
D
A
ROSEA RD
HEITZ LN
ESPLENDIDA WAY
BUNKER DR
M
A
R
G
E
P
L
P
H
E
L
P
S
S
T
P
O
U
R
R
O
Y
R
D
VIA SERON
A
H
ERN PL
CAMINO
V
E
R
D
E
CALLE NOPAL
CALLE
BELLAG
IO
BOREL
R
D
STA
R
PO
IN
T ST
CAMPO DR
A
P
IS
R
D
D
ENIS
E
R
D
CRYSTALAIRE DR
INDIAN KNOLL
R
D
CALLE VISTA
LOS NOGALES RD
BACCARA
T
R
D
REGINA DR
NIC
O
LAS RD
KAHWEA RD
V
IS
TA
D
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
RD
LOR
R
A
IN
E
D
R
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
RD
E
L
M
P
L
V
I A
D
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
D
O
A
K
S
T
PA
M
P
E
R
O
W
A
Y
SANTIAGO RD
M
A
R
G
A
R
ITA
R
D
C
R
O
S
S
O
V
E
R
R
D
H
A
W
K
C
T
W
O
L
F
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
BUENA
V
E
NTURA RD
CALLE AZURE
NORTHSH
IR
E
C
IR
ANJA AVE
AVENIDA BRAVURA
PO
PPY ST
W
Y
A
N
D
O
T
T
E
S
T
JANDA C
T
AVENIDA TAXCO
OWL
VA
L LEY RD
S
E
A
G
U
L
L
W
A
Y
HONORS DR
R
EDH
AW
K
PKWY
AULD RD
JEDEDIAH
S
M
IT
H
R
D
LUNA DR
ARMOISE D
R
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
BUTTERFIELD COUN
TR
Y
R
V
PARK
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
OAK
MOUN
T
A
I N
R
D
B
EN
TO
N
R
D
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
V
A
N
S
C
O
Y
K
ALTA MESA CT
C
IB
O
L
A
C
IR
CALLE ARN
A
Z
TERA
M
O
S
T
M
O
DENA
D
R
WATTS RD
B
A
R
R
IN
G
TO
N
D
R
A
V
E
N
ID
A
A
R
IZ
O
N
A
P E
B
L
E
Y
C
T
CALL
E
R
IO
GRANDE
GUEVARA DR
LY
DIA CT
SPARROW WAY
CAREN
TAN
D
R
S
A
TTUI ST
A
LT
A
N
O
S
R
D
HOBBY HORSE RD
L
A
DERA VISTA DR
LISA
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
E
S
C
A
L
O
N
A
MAZOE ST
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
ID
G
E
R
D
D
E
P
U
T
Y
R
D
SCENIC RIDG
E
D
R
B
R
U
C
E

L
N
VIA LUISA
M
C
C
A
BE
DR
A
N
Z
A
R
D
KAARL
A
R
D
P
IA
S
A
N
O
P
L
CALLE CAMPO
C
AL
L
E
ANITA
V
IA
D
E
L
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
O
V
IA
FE
RNANDO
V
IA
L
O
B
A
T
O
LA
B
O
N
IT
A
ALLEN RD
PESCADO
DR
JA
M
E
S DR
SCANLON
R
D
M
U
S
IL
E
K
P
L
PRISCILL A ST
T
Y
L
M
A
N
S
T
DOTTIE CT
M
O
N
TE
DE ORO RD
CAPITOL ST
G
RAND
E
R
D
A
Z
U
S
A
S
T
V
IA
A
N
IT
A
GALATINA
ST
ANGELO
D
R
C
E
L
IT
A
C
IR
CALLE CAPRI
JOLYNN RD
V
IA
D
EL
TO
R
O
N
J
O
HEATHER RD
S
U
NN
IN
G
DALE D
R
RONALD RD
VIA ALVARO
RIPS WAY
ERICKSON DR
D
E
PORTOLA RD
DOROTH
Y
CT
V
I A
P
A
S
C
A
L
ORLINDA DR
ALADDI N CIR
CALLE
SEGOVIA
DEL RE
Y
R
D
T
E
M
E
C
U
LA
L
N
C
A
L
L
E
B
R
E
V
E
D
IC
K
S
O
N
BROWNING ST
WOLFE
ST
V
IA
C
ALINA
C
E
E
C
E
E
R
D
V
IA
ELENA
S
O
L
ID
A
G
O
R
D
M
O
N
TE
R
O
D
R
SOTELO
D
R
EMBASSY AVE
S
A
N
D
AK RD
H
IL
T
R
D
M
O
N
T
E
R
O
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
CABERNET
C
A
L
L
E
F
R
E
S
C
A
C
A
N
T
R
E
L
L
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
V
IA
D
EL OSO
CAMINO SIERRA RD
CALLE LINDA
W E L L
I N
G
T
O
N
CIR
HANOVER LN
MA
G
G
I E
W
EED
LN
L
O
R
I
W
A
Y
VIA QUITO
PASEO DEL T
R
A
Z
A
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD
SA
NTA RITA RD
C
R
U
Z
W
A
Y
SONGBI
R
D
D
R
S
T
R
A
T
T ON R D
AVENIDA DEL REPOSO
V
A
IL
LA
K
E
R
D
CALLE AR EVA
LO
RHINE
AV
E
C
A
L
L
E
VERDE
A
V
EN
I
D
A
A
L
T U
R
A
S
C
A
LLE
CAN
O
R
A
VIA CARMELO
EL PEQUITO
W
I L
E
Y
R
D
BENTON RD
WOLF STORE RD
CALAVERAS RD
NORTH LOOP RD
MADERA DE PLAYA
DR
V
IA LA LUNA
MONTE VE
R
D
E
R
D
SUNRISE RD
LOS CORRALITOS
RD
LOS
A
M
A
NTES RD
CALLE VECINA
SIER
RA
PADR
E
WAY
M
ENG-ASBURY
R
D
JULI AN
LN
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
V
IA
D
EL P
O
N
TE
R
E
ID
C
T
C
A
M
IN
O
D
E
L
V
IN
O
R
U
T
H
E
R
F
O
R
D
S
T
SUZI LN
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
P
K
W
Y
C
O
L
L
E
E
N
W
A
Y
PA
U
B
A
RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
ALCOBA
D
R
V
IA
P
UE
B
L
A
CAM
PANULA WAY
G
R
E
E
N
TR
E
E
R
D
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
P
K
W
Y
S
E
R
A
P
H
I N
A
R
D
J
A
G
U
A
R
W
A
Y
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
V
IA
J
A
C
A
W
IN
D
S
O
R
R
D
V
IA
S
AN
CARLOS HUPA DR
T
IO
G
A
S
T
E
N
C
A
N
T
O
R
D
ROSALES AVE
P
A
S
E
O
G
OLETA
ROPE RD
W
O
O
D
C
H
U
C
K
R
D
VA
R
D
O
N
DR
C
A
M
E
L
O
T
R
D
C
ROW
N
E
H
ILL
D
R
R
U
E
J
A
D
O
T
V
IA
E
L
G
R
ECO
C
E
B
U
D
R
HIDDEN LAKE R
D
SANDHILL
LN
L
O
M
A
LINDA RD
B
E
R
E
N
D
A
R
D
HISLOP WAY
C
A
MINO
MAREA
LEVI CT
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
D
C
A
L
LE BALAREZA
W
A
L
C
O
T
T
L
N
V
A
L
E
N
C
IA
W
A
Y
SUMMIT VIEW PL
B
E
L
L
A
V
IS
TA
RD
BRASSIE
LN
SAVO
N
A
S
T
SP
A
N
IS
H
O
A
K
S
DR
PEPPE
R
TREE ST
A
B
B
E
Y
R
D
SUNNY MEAD
O
W
S
D
R
A
M
A
R
IT
A
W
A
Y
C
H
A
P
A
R
R
A
L
D
R
T
E
M
E
K
U
D
R
C
L
A
S
S
IC
W
A
Y
E
X
A
E
L
Y
R
D
P
IO
P
IC
O
R
D
VAIL
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
FOX RD
M
O
N
T
E
L
E
G
R
O
W
A
Y
T
I B
U
R
C
IO
D
R
VIA
N
O
R
T
E
MESA RD
G
R
E
E
N
K
N
O
L
L
S
R
D
C
A
LLE
A
Y
O
R
A
R
E
M
U
D
A
D
R
C
A
LLE
C
A
N
C
IO
N
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
R
D
O
V
A
LIEFER RD
DUCLAIR RD
SANTA ANITA DR
G
R
E
E
N
O
A
K
S
D
R
PARA
DO DEL
S
O
L
D
R
BOREL RD
Y
A
H
M
C
T
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
K
A
T
E
R
IN
E
W
G
A
SA
PL
P
R
A
T
T
R
D
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
VIA DESTELL
O
AVENIDA LESTONNAC
LOS CABALLOS RD
LYLES D
R
C
A
L
L
E
D
E
V
E
L
A
R
D
O
A
V
E
N
I D
A
D
E
LA
REINA
LAKE SKINNER REC
R
E
A
T
IO
N
AR
E
A
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
S
T
PATERNO ST
A
V
E
N
IDA
O
R
TE
G
A
D
IE
G
O
D
R
V
I A
C
O
R
D
O
VA
VIA DE O
R
O
R
IO
R
D
B
U
C
K
R
D
R
U
T
H
R
D
M
A
N
ZA
N
O
D
R
A
N
C
H
O
R
D
V
IA
V
IE
W
M
IZE WAY
C
A
L
L
E
P
O
R
T
IL
L
O
ANZA
RD
WINSTON WAY
GRAY SQUIRREL RD
M
A
R
C
U
S
D
R
IN TREPID RD
CA LL
E
J
O
J
O
B
A
C
ALLE
LAS
LO
M
A
S
R
I O
L
IN
D
A
R
D
BOOTLEGG RD
VIA EL PA
IS
B
O
NITA
B
IL
L
Y
J
O
E
L
N
PULGAS
CREEK
RD
M
A
R
T
IN
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
S
P
R
IN
G
V
ALLEY
R
D
APPLEGATE
R
D
LAKE SKINN
E
R
P A R K
WACKER DR
RICE L
N
79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
Disclaimer: Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are
approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The
County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often
third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes
no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with
respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user.
REQUEST WINERY EXISTING ZONE
REQUEST INCLUSION TO
WINERY DISTRICT
REQUEST INCLUSION TO
EQUESTRIAN DISTRICT
REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM
WINE COUNTRY PROPOSAL
POLICY AREAS
CITIES
PARCELS
WATERBODIES
June 20 2012
J. CLARK/UPDATES BY P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.5 1 0.25
Miles
INDEX MAP
WINE COUNTRY
BOUNDARY
MODIFICATION
REQUESTS
WINE COUNTRY
COMMUNITY PLAN
DRAFT
\\ag
en
cy\tlm
ag
is\W
o
rksp
ace\K
an
g
\P
ro
ject-W
in
eC
o
u
n
tryB
o
u
n
d
aryM
o
d
ificatio
n
s\W
in
e_C
o
u
n
try_M
o
d
ificatio
n
s062012.m
xd
A
H
C
J
I
F
E
B
D
L
G
K
M
N
Group: A
RequestDate: June20,2011
NameofOwner(s):KaliP.Chaudhuri
CurrentProposedWineCountryDistrict:ResidentialDistrict
RequestbyOwner(s): ExcludeparcelsfromWineCountryCommunityPlan(GroupAExhibitA)
APN(s):915730007009,915740001003,915740006011,915740013,915740015017

JustificationfromOwner(s): ParcelsareassociatedwithGeneralPlanAmendmentNo.1000toamendthe
RuralFoundationComponenttoAgricultureFoundationComponent.

Opportunities/Constraints: CurrentLandUseDesignation:RuralResidential;CurrentZoningClassifications:
RA,RRandR5.
EnvironmentalConsideration In/Out
FloodZone Out
HighFireArea In
Faultline Out,notwithin1/2mileofafault
PaleontologicalSensitivity In,Lowsensitivityarea
Subsidence Out
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP In,CriteriaCellnos.6052,6054,6160,6158,6159,6151
Other Slopeisgreaterthan25%;WithinEasternMunicipalWaterDistrictServiceArea
ExistingandSurroundingUses: TheChaudhuriparcelsarecurrentlyvacant.Theexistingusesof surrounding

parcelsincludevacant,singlefamilyresidential,andmobilehome.

StaffRecommendation:GroupAExhibitB;DuetosteeptopographyandMSCHPpotential,staff
recommendsremovalofthisgroupfromtheCommunityPlanboundary.Staffalsorecommendsremovalofthe
followingparcelsalongDePortolaRoad:915120046,915530002003,915530005015,915540001006,
915540008011,915730001006,924140010,924140012014,924140016,924140025,924150007008,
924150010,924150014,924150017,924150020031,and924190004.

Group A-Exhibit A
GEISBAUER RD
CALLE AZURE
ANGORA LN
V
I
A

C
A
N
T
A
T
A
E BENTON RD
C
A
M
IN
O
NIG
UEL
L
A

V
I
S
T
A

P
L
C
A
L
L
E

B
R
E
V
E
JAND
A
C
T
NORBRO CT
CAMINO SIERRA RD
V
IS
T
A
D
A
W
N CT
C
A
L
L
E
A
N
G
O
S
T
A
L
U
C
E
R
O
D
R
CUM
BRE RD
BERLIE ST
PASO RO
B
L
E
S
VI A D
E
L
O
S
O
MESA RD
V
A
W
T
E
R

R
A
N
C
H

R
D
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
V
IA
M
A
R
IN
A
P
E
R
D
U
E
L
N
CALLE
C
O
N
E
J
O
C
A
L
L
E
D
E
T
O
R
R
E
S
V
I
A
E
S
T
A
D
O
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
H
R
IS
T
IN
A
R
D
C
H
A
T
H
A
M
L
N
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
R
D
O
V
A
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
YR
19.7
ac.
YR
19.76 ac.
YR
19.05 ac.
YR
19.8 ac.
YR
18.15
ac.
YR
8.14 ac.
YR
18.84 ac.
YR
19.58
ac.
YR
17.83 ac.
YR
19.14 ac.
YR
19.04 ac.
YR
19.36 ac.
YR
6.94
ac.
YR
17.83
ac.
YR
2.85 ac.
YR
17.83 ac.
MF
5.71 ac.
R1
5.08 ac.
R1
5.03 ac.
MF
5.35
ac.
R1
4.36
ac.
MF
3.89
ac.
MF
4.78
ac.
R1
5.02 ac.
MF
4.9 ac.
YR
4.85 ac.
YR
4.86
ac.
R1
5 ac.
YR
5.38
ac.
YR
0.6 ac.
YY
5.58
ac.
YR
19.79
ac.
R1
4.23 ac.
MF
4.68
ac.
R1
4.58 ac.
YR
4.61
ac.
YR
8.65 ac.
R1
9.49 ac.
YR
8.84 ac.
YR
9.3 ac.
YR
19.55
ac.
YR
19.51 ac.
YR
18.65
ac.
YR
18.99 ac.
YR
19.61 ac.
YR
19.25 ac.
R1
5.01
ac.
R1
4.95 ac.
R1
4.67 ac.
R1
4.66 ac.
R1
4.1 ac.
YY
9.69 ac.
R1
3.62 ac. R1
2.96 ac.
YR
1.8
ac.
YY
2.69 ac.
R1
1.51
ac.
R1
2.5 ac.
YY
0.85
ac.
MO
3.43 ac.
MR
2.16 ac.
MF
4.94 ac.
MF
2.32 ac.
MF
3.9 ac.
MF
1.96 ac.
R1
1.27
ac.
R1
2.31
ac.
R1
2.09
ac.
YY
0.91 ac.
AY
46.52
ac.
May 17 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.25 0.5 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP A
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupA.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group A
Staff Recommended Adjustments
Wine Country Policy Areas
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Proposed Circulation Element
Freeway
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arterial (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Mountain Arterial (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
WINE COUNTRY DISTRICT ADJUSTMENT REQUEST
AY - Vacant Agricultural
MF - Mobile Home with Foundation
MO - Assessed Mobile Home
MR - Non-assessed Mobile Home
R1 - Single Family Residential
YR - Vacant Residential
YY - Other Vacant
Group A-Exhibit B
Group: B
RequestDate: June20,2011andJanuary31,2012
NameofOwner(s): KaliP.Chaudhuri
CurrentProposedWineCountryDistrict:EquestrianandWineryDistricts
RequestbyOwner(s): Mr.ChaudhurirequestexclusionfromtheCommunityPlan(GroupBExhibitA1)and
Mr.ChavezrequestsinclusionintheWineryDistrict(GroupBExhibitA2)
APN(s): Mr.Chaudhuri:965450003,965450004,966080003;Mr.Chavez:927590001002
JustificationfromOwner(s): ThepropertiesidentifiedinMr.Chaudhurisletterarecurrentlydesignatedas
MediumDensityResidential.Thefollowingprojectswereassociatedwiththeseparcels:PAR00694/HANS01013
andPAR00612/HANS00829.Bothcaseswerewithdrawnin01/11/2008 and11/03/2007,respectfully.Mr.
ChavezownstwocontiguouspropertiesthatarelocatedindifferentWineCountryDistricts,whichwouldmake
itdifficulttoestablishaWinery.
Opportunities/Constraints: Mr.ChaudhurisparcelsaredesignatedMediumDensityResidential.Mr.
ChavezsparcelsaredesignatedRuralResidentialandCommercialTouristwithintheValleDeLosCaballosPolicy
Area.ThecurrentZoningClassificationforMr.ChaudhurisandMr.ChavezsparcelsisRR;
FloodZone In,TemeculaCreek Streamline
HighFireArea
OutofHighFireArea; areawestofAnzaisoutofHighFireArea;areaeastofAnza
Rd.iswithinStateResponsibilityArea
PaleontologicalSensitivity
In,majorityofGroupBiswithinaLowsensitivityarea;while,asmallareatothesouth
iswithinaHighAsensitivityarea.
Subsidence In
Liquefaction In,ModeratetoVeryHighliquefactionarea
MSHCP In,CriteriaCellnos.7192, 7275,7183,7184
Other
ExistingandSurroundingUses: TheparcelsidentifiedinMr.Chaudhurisletterarecurrentlyvacant.Mr.
Chavezsparcelsarecurrentlyusedforagriculturalresidentialpurposes.Thesurroundingparcelswithinthis
grouphaveseveralresidentialusesthatincludevacantresidential,singlefamilyresidential,andmobilehome
uses.Inadditionthereareseveralagriculturalusesthatexistwithinthegroup.Theagriculturalusesinclude
agriculturallivestock,agriculturalresidential,agriculturalstructuresandvacantagricultural.Theexistinguseofa
coupleoftheparcelswithinthisgroupiscommercial.
StaffRecommendation:GroupBExhibitB;duetoexistinganddesignatedurban/suburbantypeofuseswithin
GroupB,staffrecommendsremovaloftheparcelsidentifiedinMr.Chaudhurisletter(965450003,965450004,
and966080003)fromtheCommunityPlan;alsoexcludethefollowingparcelsinthisgroupthataredesignated
forCommunityDevelopment:927560001003,927560006008,927590004,965440001011,965450001002,
965450005006,965460001008,and966080004;ForMr.Chavezsparcels(927590001002),staffrecommends
EquestrianDistrictwhichwouldallowaWineryon10acres(totalacresforhisparcelsare25.44acres).
Group B-Exhibit A1

Northern California Office
3478 Buskirk Ave., Suite 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel (707) 509-8701
Southern California Office
43460 Ridge Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (951) 541-0220

Writers Email: michael@newcomb-law.com
J anuary 31, 2012
Mitra Mehta , Principal Planner
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Riverside County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502-1629
Re: Chavez Property - APN: 927590002 (9.1 Acres) and 927590001 (16.34 Acres)
Dear Mitra:
I represent Dale Chavez, who ownsthe above referenced property(Property). In reviewing
the Proposed Wine Country 20/20 Boundary Map, we discovered that the above referenced
properties reside within both the Equestrian District (927590002) and the Winery District
(927590001). See Map below.
Proposed Change
Obviously having the property zone in two separate districts would create difficulties down the
road if the property were to be developed as a winery.
My client requests the County include the 002 (9.1 Acres) within the Winery District by
adjusting the boundary map as reflected by the green lines. Thus, both the 001 and 002
properties would be within the proposed winery zone.
Via Email:
MMEHTA@rctlma.org
Group B-Exhibit A2
Re: Chavez Property - APN: 927590002 (9.1 Acres) and 927590001 (16.34 Acres)
J anuary 31, 2012
________________________ Page 2
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, do not hesitate to contact
me at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Newcomb
Attorney at Law
cc: Client
TEMECULA
NIGHTHAWK PASS
GALLER
O
N
S
T
SUMMIT VIEW PL
S
E
R
D
O
N
IS
S
T
W
IL
S
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
S
T
M
A
D
IG
A
N
S
T
TUSCAN CREEK W
AY
M
O
R
G
A
N
H
I
L
L
D
R
R
E
ID
E
L
S
T
P
H
E
L
P
S
S
T
DESANTE CT
H
O
U
R
G
L
A
S
S
S
T
V
IL
L
A
H
E
L
E
N
A
S
T
COLLIER
F
A
L
L
S
C
T
C
A
L
L
E

R
O
C
I
N
A
N
T
E
REGUSCI
C
T
M
A
R
C
E
L
I
N
A
C
T
REVAN
A
S
T
CALLE ARNAZ
L
A
M
B
O
R
N
S
T
MEKEEL RANCH RD
A
N
Z
A

R
D
C
A
R
E
F
R
E
E

D
R
CO
P
P
O
L
A
ST
MONTE VERDE RD
H
O
W
E
L
L
M
OUNTAIN
S
T
D
A
S
H

F
O
R

C
A
S
H

C
I
R
CALLE LINDA
DE PORTOLA RD
H
W
Y
7
9
CHAM
POUX
CT
L
O
S

C
A
B
A
L
L
O
S

R
D
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
79
AY
16.79 ac.
YY
9.26
ac.
YR
22.59
ac.
AR
9.1 ac.
R1
10.4
ac.
YR
0.23
ac.
R1
10.02
ac.
YR
11.18 ac. YR
12.14
ac.
YR
17.64
ac.
R1
4.46
ac.
MF
4.96 ac.
R1
9.43 ac.
AL
5.7 ac.
AR
5.69
ac.
R1
7.62
ac.
R1
1.82 ac.
YR
2.31 ac.
R1
4.14
ac.
AS
4.96
ac.
R1
4.96
ac.
YY
0.22 ac.
C1
3.02 ac.
AL
6.45
ac.
YY
0.24 ac.
YR
4.75 ac.
R1
2.22
ac.
MF
2.22
ac.
AS
9.09 ac.
CX
4.89 ac.
MO
5.27 ac.
MO
6.22
ac.
MR
4.68 ac.
YR
20.8
ac.
AR
16.34
ac.
July 02 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.2 0.4 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
GROUP B
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupB.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group B
Recommend Equestrian District
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
AL - Agricultural Livestock
AR - Agricultural Residential
AS - Agricultural Structure
C1 - Other Commercial
CX - Exceptional Commercial
YY - Other Vacant
Group B-Exhibit B
Group: C
RequestDate: November29,2010
NameofOwner(s): JohnCooper(representingvariousowners)
CurrentProposedWineCountryDistrict:WineryDistrict
RequestbyOwner(s): AdditiontoEquestrianDistrict(GroupCExhibitA)
APN(s):915370050*,915370015,915370019,915370024,915370029032,915370037,915370040,
915370042049,915370051052,915370055056,915370059070,915370075079
*indicatesparcelownedbyMr.Cooper
JustificationfromOwner(s):Mr.Cooperstatesinhisletterthatthisareaispredominatelyresidential;thereare
alsomanysmallhorseranches.Anearbyrockquarrywoulddeterfuturecommercialactivityrelatingtowinery/
hospitalityuses.Mr.Cooperisconcernedthevalueofhispropertywilldiminish,ashehasmadenumerous
equestrianimprovementstohisproperty.ThenumberofhorsesallowedunderWinery Districtwilldiscourage
hisvisiontobuildanonprofithorseranchforspecialneedschildren.Mr.Cooperclaimsthatadditionalwineries
wouldincreasetrafficandnoise.Mr.Cooperalsosuggestsallowingindoorentertainmentonlytoaddressissues
withnoise.
Opportunities/Constraints: CurrentLandUseDesignation:RuralResidential;CurrentZoningClassification:
RA5.ThecurrentzoningclassificationallowsfornoncommercialkeepingofhorsesandFarmsorestablishment
forselectiveorexperimentalbreeding.Thenumberofhorsesallowedis2per20,000squarefeet(0.46acres),2
horsesforeachadditionalacre.
FloodZone Out
HighFireArea OutofHighFireArea; however,within StateResponsibilityArea
PaleontologicalSensitivity In,LowandHighAsensitivityarea
Subsidence Out
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other WithintheEasternMunicipalWaterDistrictServiceArea
ExistingandSurroundingUses:Mr.Coopersparcelexistinguseisasinglefamilyresidentialwithahorsebarn.
InadditiontheexistinguseofthethreeotherparcelsthatMr.Cooperidentifiedasranchesarealsosinglefamily
residentialwithequestrianandagriculturaluses.Theexistingusesofsurroundingparcelsincludeagricultural
citrusgrove,agriculturalvineyard,agriculturalw/mobilehome,singlefamilyresidential,andvacant.
StaffRecommendation:GroupCExhibitB,theexistingequestrianusesmaycontinueoperatingwiththeir
existingzoningclassifications,iftheyarelegallyestablished.Theprojectwillnotchangetheirzoning
classifications;therefore,recommendkeepingparcelswithintheWineryDistrict.
J ohn Cooper
39099 Calle J ojoba
Temecula CA 92592
(949) 244-2778 cell
November 29, 2010
Re: Zoning Proposal for wine country
Pleaseconsider adjustingthe boundaries on the north east side of wine countryin the
proposed re-zoning map. The current proposed boundaries fromrevision 4, dated October
4
th
, 2010, show the corner of East BentonRoad and Bella Vista Rd, all the wayback to
the corner of, East Benton and Tucalota Hills Rd, now in hospitality. I am asking the
committee to please return the zoning of this area, back to the May 10
th
, 2010, revision 3,
for the following reasons:
First; 90%of the parcels on East Benton Road, from Bella Vista road to Tucalota Hills
Road, including our street, Calle J ojoba, are 5-acre parcels, with residents alreadyliving
onthe properties. There is approximately 1 home for sale now, and there is no area for
wineries or vine urns or any type of business in thisarea.
Next, there is a rock quarryowned by theCounty of Riverside located on East Benton
road, nearest and visible fromCalle J ojoba road. It is approximately 11 acres big, and is
used to get granite for roads in Riverside. It uses dynamiteto blow up rock for the
granite. Kelley Donovan, Riverside Road Supervisor, who runs all the roadrepairs, has
said he hasno idea how long this rock quarrywill be there or how much blasting there
will be in the future. I have personallyseen them use 500 AND700 lbs, of dynamite,
which has sent rock blastsand smoke 1000 feet wide and500 feet high andtremors
throughout the area. It looks like a bomb going off and sends tremendous clouds of thick
dark grey dust blowing towards Calle J ojoba Road. If they are not blowing up with
dynamite, they are operating a lot of heavy equipment, and there is a lot of large truck
traffic going in and out. It is loud, disturbing, and very dirty. The question is, why
would anyone want to put a commercial business, like a winery or hotel in this area?
They absolutely wouldnt. Therefore, I ask you to pleasechange thisareasboundaries to
equestrian, in the proposed new zoning districts, which would rezone our street on
Calle J ojoba to equestrian. This would mean the original boundariesfor hospitality,
would begin west of Belle Vista and East Bentonand down South. Maps are included.
This area has many small horse ranches already. It is an equestrian part of Temecula, and
it should be retained as such. Especially given the fact that the dirty, dynamite blasting,
rock quarry is here.
The proposed rezoning for our area ashospitality, and the subsequent proposed
restrictions that will be placed on our properties, will absolutely hurt our property value.
We have done numerous equestrian improvements to our property to build its value.
When we sell and attempt to reap this equity, wewill have to disclose to any potential
Group C-Exhibit A
buyers that the zoning has changed, and they cannot have as many horses or do what they
had hoped with the horses and the improvements. The reason I moved to east wine
country is for the equestrian draw. Our property has beautiful horse improvements.
There are lovely horse ranches in the area. We moved here for the rural freedom to have
and enjoy our horses, and this will all change with thefuture plansof the rezoning. We
also moved for the reason of our son who has Cerebral Palsy for Physical development to
make him stronger using this horse ranch, helping my son and others who have special
needs. Are goal was to Start a non-profit organization in the future for special needs
children for development over come there disabilities. With this plan of Hospitality
zoning will NOT allow for this to happen. It will shoot down all of these dreams. Please
understand this situation on why we want to keep it Equestrian.
Moreover, the planned 135 wineries, with hotels, amphitheaters andfuture concerts, will
result in severely increased traffic & noise, to mention just the obvious. Currently, the
noise from WilsonCreek Winery on concert nights can be heard from my house, which is
at least, one mile away. It sometimes keeps us awake, even with ear plugs in. Please
consider indoor entertainment (enclosed) areas for the environmental impact.
In closing, I want to say, my family and I absolutely love the local wineries, including
Wilson Creek Winery. We are members of wine clubs, and frequent the wineries
regularly, and the restaurants. We understand the vision for more wineries, but not an
exorbitant number; and absolutely not at the expense of the current residents, loss of our
property rights, and the values of our homes and improvements. Please consider the
people that live here, and the reasonswe bought here. Please hear us out. There are
pictures includedof our vision on this email.
Thank you very much for your consideration,
J ohn Cooper
From: J ohn Cooper
Subject: Wine Country/ Cooper
Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 8:55:45 AM
Attachments: scan0007.jpg
Hi Python, Here is the file on the wine area. I have marked the areas where all the
ranches are, thanks for doing this! Any questions call me. 949-244-2778 J ohn
Cooper
--
Coop
--
Coop
^_
^_
^_
^_
M
E
S
A
R
D
R
O
B
ER
TSO
N
W
AY
CALLE ARRUZA
A
V
E
N
ID
A
C
H
A
P
A
L
A
B
E
A
R
IN
G
C
IR
G
A
N
S
O
N

P
L
D
O
W
N
E
Y
R
D
G
I
O
C
I
R
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
R
D
C
E
L
I
T
A

C
I
R
CALLE JOJOBA
WINERY
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
R1
10.99 ac.
R1
4.44
ac.
R1
3.92
ac.
R1
4.77
ac.
R1
5.23 ac.
AC
0.59
ac.
R1
5.69
ac.
AC
3.13 ac.
R1
4.68
ac.
YR
0.02 ac.
AC
0.73 ac.
AM
10 ac.
R1
5 ac.
AY
15.08
ac.
R1
4.82 ac.
R1
4.83 ac.
R2
4.79
ac.
R1
8.11 ac.
R1
4.7 ac.
YR
4.78
ac.
YR
4.93 ac.
AV
4.86 ac.
AV
4.87 ac.
R1
4.88
ac.
R1
4.87
ac.
R1
4.85 ac.
R1
4.35 ac.
R1
4.21 ac.
R1
5.1 ac.
R1
4.32 ac.
YR
4.91 ac.
YR
5.06
ac.
YR
4.89
ac.
R1
4.86 ac.
YR
4.73
ac.
R1
5.32
ac.
R1
6.03 ac.
YY
5.16 ac.
YR
4.44 ac.
May 21 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.1 0.2 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP C
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupC.mxd
^_
Existing Ranch
Adjustment Request: Group C
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
AC - Agricultural Citrus Grove
AM - Agricultural w/Mobile Home
AV - Agricultural Vineyard
R2 - Residential w/2-3 Units
Group C-Exhibit B
Group: D
RequestDate: May1,2009
NameofOwner(s): SteveandLauraTurnbow,MaxineHeiller,representingvariousowners
CurrentProposedWineCountryDistrict:ResidentialDistrict
RequestbyOwner(s): ExclusionfromCommunityPlan(seeGroupDExhibitA)
APN(s):951140010*,951140030**,951030003,951030009012,951030052055,951040006009,951040014,
951050001007,951050009012,951050015017,951050020021,951070001002,951070005006,
951070008017,951070019020,951070022029,951080005,951080009013,951080018024,951080029,
951080031037,951080039040,951080044046,951090015,951090020022,951090025029,951090036
039,951090041,951110001011,951110018020,951110023028,951120017025,951130004017,
951140007009,951140011016,951140025026,951140028029,951140031038,951140046,951140052
053,951270001003,951270005006,951270008009,951270011015,951280001006
*indicatesparcelownedbySteveandLauraTurnbow,**indicatesparcelsownedbyMaxineHeiller
JustificationfromOwner(s): Mr.Turnbow,alongwithhisparcel,hasidentifiedthesurroundingparcels
listedaboveforexclusionsincethesmalllotsizesinthisareapreventswinery/resortestablishments.
Opportunities/Constraints: CurrentLandUseDesignations:AgricultureandRuralCommunity:Estate
DensityResidentialandiswithintheCitrusVineyardPolicyArea;CurrentZoningClassification:RA,RR,A1.
GroupDencompassesapproximately654acres.WineriesarenotanallowableuseundertheRAZone.They
areallowedunderRRzonewithaminimumlotsizeof0.5acre(5acremin.forRR5Zone)and ispermitted
withPPunderA1.GiventhecurrentLandUseDesignationandZoning, approximately65%ofGroupDmay
establishawinery;ofthosemorethanhalfmayestablishonaminimumof0.5acres(seeGroupDExhibitB).R
Azonealsoallowsforbeautyshop,publicparksandplayground,golfcoursesandcountryclubs.RRZone
alsoallowstheseuses,alongwithbarsandlounges,billiardhall,racetracks,guestranchesandmotels,
educationalinstitutions,animalhospitalsetc.AlistofallowableusesforRA,RRandWCRZonesisprovided;
pleaserefertoGroupDExhibitC.
FloodZone Out
HighFireArea OutofHighFireArea,however,within StateResponsibilityArea
Faultline In,within1/2mileofafault
PaleontologicalSensitivity In,HighAsensitivity
Subsidence In
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other
ExistingandSurroundingUses:TheexistingusesofMr.TurnbowandMrs.HeillerpropertyisSingleFamily
Residential.ThesurroundinguseswithinthisgroupincludeAgriculturalVineyard,VacantAgricultural,Mobile
Homew/Foundation,AssessedMobileHome,NonassessedMobileHome,SingleFamilyResidential,andvacant
(seeGroupDExhibitB).
StaffRecommendation:WCResidentialDistrictwillrestrictincompatiblecommercialusesallowedundertheR
RandRAzones;therefore,staffrecommendskeepingthisareawithintheCommunityPlan.
Group D-Exhibit A
(951140030)
(951140010)
From: Steve Turnbow
Subject: Re: Wine Country Community Plan
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:51:59 PM
Dear Phanyvanh,
I am having trouble delineating the subject area related to our petition dated May 9, 2009. The exact
area and parcels involved are those within the north side of Pauba, north and south sides of Madera De
Playa, between Butterfield Stage Road and Anza Road. I hope this will assist you in accurately
identifying the area. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me immediately. Once
again, I would like to thank you and Mehtra for your help with our petition.
Sincerely,
Steve Turnbow
Heiller Construction, Inc.
27475 Ynez Road, Suite 649
Temecula, CA 92591
(951) 694-8623
(951) 232-7862 Cell
(951) 694-8874 Fax
From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh <PNANTHAV@rctlma.org>
To: 'Ltturnbow@aol.com' <Ltturnbow@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2011 8:08 am
Subject: FW: Wine Country Community Plan

Subject: Wine Country Community Plan

http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/

Good morning Mr. Turndow,

Thank you for contacting me back this morning in regards to Wine Country. The link below is to
the most recent draft of the Wine Country Community boundary.
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=V22v3WYvvCI%3d&tabid=38

As discussed on the phone, please delineate on the map the area that is referenced in your
petition dated May 2009 (please see attachment). The objective of which is to accurately present
concerns the community may have to the decisions makers, that is to the Planning Commissioners
and then ultimately to the Board of Supervisors.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and help.

Best regards,
Phayvanh

951-955-6573

Please be advised that effective July 01, 2010, our business hours will be from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM (M-TH).

TEMECULA
RANCHO VI STA
R
D
LA SERENA WAY
VIA
D
E
L
P
O
N
TE
N
E
W
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
R
E
E
N
E
C
IR
A
D
ELANTE ST
R
I
V
E
R
A
D
R
CORBIE ST
V
E
R
M
O
N
T
R
D
S
A
G
E
CT
CORTE
P
A
R
A
D
O
PARAGUAY D
R
V
I
A
S
A
B
IN
O
D
O
D
A
R
O
D
R
V
IA
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
JO
L
L
E
C
T
V
I
A
V
A
S
Q
U
EZ
S
TO
NEFIELD LN
VIN
O
W
AY
T
IR
A
N
O
D
R
LINDA ROSEA RD
O
L
D
K
E
N
T
R
D
H
I
L
L
ST
C
A
M
P
O
D
R
DE PORTOLA RD
CALLE VISTA
V
IS
T
A
DEL
M
O
N
T
E
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
R
D
A
N
Z
A

R
D
D
R
E
N
N
O
N
C
T
T
I
E
M
P
O
CIR
VIA DEL MONTE
MON
T
E
C
T
D
E
N
N
O
N
C
T
S
P
E
R
R
Y
C
T
LOI LN
N
O
B
L
E
C
T
NORTHS
H
IR
E
C
IR
DAHL DR
W
Y
A
N
D
O
T
T
E
S
T
F
O
X
R
D
COTTA LN
J
E
R
E
Z
L
N
N
O
E
L

C
I
R
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
L
O
S
N
O
G
A
L
E
S
R
D
CALLE
ARNAZ
H
U
S
S
A
R
C
T
M
O
D
E
N
A
D
R
V
ALENCE CT
F
A
S
S
A
N
O
C
T
CORTE PALACIO
C
O
R
TE
YA
C
A
LE
E
N
A
W
A
Y
L
IS
A
R
D
B
E
R
G
A
M
O
CT
R
O
YAL CREST PL
CALAC RD
D
A
N
B
Y
R
D
C
O
R
T
E
ZAMORA
C
A
R
E
F
R
E
E

D
R
V
IS
T
A
D
E
O
R
O
VIA C
H
A
PPA
R
O
M
U
S
IL
E
K
P
L
T
Y
L
M
A
N
S
T
C
A
PITO
L ST
PAUBA
RD
G
A
L
A
T
IN
A
S
T
ANGE
L
O
D
R
L
I
N
D
A
V
IA
R
D
CALLE
B
E
L
L
A
LOMA
B
E
R
E
N
D
A
R
D
VIA A
LVA
R
O
C
A
L
L
E

C
A
L
E
T
A
ORLINDA DR
WO
L
F
E
S
T
C
E
E

C
E
E

R
D
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
S
A
N
D
A
K
RD
C
A
L
L
E
C
AMPO
M
ADERA
DE PLAYA DR
R
E
I D
C
T
A
L
T
A
N
O
S
R
D
C
A
L
A
B
R
O
S
T
F
E
R
M
O
C
T
H
A
R
W
IC
K
L
N
C
A
M
E
L
O
T
R
D
C
R
O
W
N
E
H
IL
L
D
R
B
E
A
M
E
R
C
T
S
A
V
O
N
A
S
T
F
A
B
E
R
C
T
L
A
R
R
Y
L
E
E
L
N
ROSA CT
ALCOBA D
R
K
AMPEN CIR
AVENIDA LESTONNAC
LY
L
E
S
D
R
SUNNY MEA
D
O
W
S
D
R
A
N
Z
A

R
D
MIZE
W
AY
B
I
L
L
Y
J
O
E
L
N
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
79
YY
MF
R1
R1
AV
R1
R2
R1
R1
MF
R1
R1
MF
R1
R1
R1
YY
MF
R1
R1
YR
R1
R1
R1
YR
R1
R1
YS
R1
MO
R1
R1
R1
MF
R1
MF
R1
MF
MY
R1
YS
YR
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
MF
R1
R1
R1
YS
MO
R1
R1
R1
MF
R1
R1
YS
R2
R1
MF
R1
R1
CX
R1
R1
R1
YY
R1
MF
YR
R1
R1
R1
R1
YR
MO
R1
YR
R1
R1
R1
YR
MF
R1
R1
R1
YR
R2
R1
R1
YY
R1
R1
AV
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
MR
MO
R1
R1
YY
R1
AV
YY
MO
MO
R1
YR
R1
R1
YR R2
R1
MF
R1
R1
R1
R1
MF YY
YY
MR
MO
R1
R1
MF
YY
R1
MF
YR
R1
R1
R1
R1
MO
R1
R1
R1
R1
YR
R1
R1
MF
R2
MO
R1
R1
R1
MO
R1
R1
MF
R1
R1
R1
MF
MF
R1
R1
R1
YY
R1
MR
MF
MR
R1
R1
R1
AY
R1
AV
R1
MF
R1
May 17 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.35 0.7 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP D
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupD_Zoning.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group D
< 2.5 acres
2.5 - 4.9 acres
5.0 - 9.9 acres
10.0 - 19.9 acrse
>= 20.0 acres
Agriculture Zoning
R-R Zoning
R-R-5 Zoning
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
MR - Non-assessed Mobile Home
R2 - Residential w/2-3 Units
YS - Vacant Land with Structure
YY - Other Vacant
Group D-Exhibit B

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

O
n
e

D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

U
n
i
t
*

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
s
,

g
r
o
v
e
s
,

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

l
a
n
d
s
,

e
t
c
*

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

K
e
e
p
i
n
g

o
r

b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g

o
f

h
o
r
s
e
s

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

f
a
r
m

l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
*

P

(
2

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
2

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
2

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

o
n

e
a
c
h

2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
t

u
p

t
o

1

a
c
r
e

&

2

s
u
c
h

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

G
r
a
z
i
n
g

o
f

s
h
e
e
p

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

O
u
t
d
o
o
r

s
t
o
r
a
g
e

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
*

P

P

P

P

P

P
P

P

P

P

P

C
o
t
t
a
g
e

I
n
n

(
1
-
5

h
o
t
e
l

r
o
o
m
s
)

P

P

P

P

C
o
t
t
a
g
e

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

P

P

P

P

P
(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

P

(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

P

(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

P

(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

W
i
n
e
g
r
o
w
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

E
v
e
n
t
s

P

P

E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

P

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
/
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g

f
a
r
m
s

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

F
u
t
u
r
e

F
a
r
m

o
f

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

o
r

4
-
H

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

P

P

P

P

P

P

B
e
d

&

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t

I
n
n

(
1
-
1
0

h
o
t
e
l

r
o
o
m
s
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

P
P

(
5

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

P
P

(
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

S
a
l
e
-
s
t
a
n
d

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

P

P

P

P

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

o
n
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

u
n
i
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

m
o
b
i
l
e

h
o
m
e

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

W
i
n
e
r
y

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

P
(
w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

C
U
P

Group D-Exhibit C

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

W
i
n
e

s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

r
o
o
m

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
w
i
t
h

W
i
n
e
r
y
)

P

R
e
t
a
i
l

w
i
n
e

s
a
l
e
/
g
i
f
t

s
a
l
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
w
i
t
h

W
i
n
e
r
y
)

P

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

P

P
o
l
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
,

h
o
r
s
e

s
h
o
w

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

P
e
t
t
i
n
g

z
o
o

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

W
e
s
t
e
r
n

s
t
o
r
e

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

-
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

-
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
-

d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

-
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

)

P
P

C
U
P

H
o
r
s
e

r
a
c
i
n
g

t
r
a
c
k
,

r
o
d
e
o

a
r
e
n
a

C
U
P

(
5
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

C
U
P

L
a
r
g
e

a
n
i
m
a
l

h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l

C
U
P

(
5
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

C
U
P

P

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

C
U
P

(
1
0
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.

w
/
v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
-
i
n
n

(
1
1
-
2
0

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c
r
e
s

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

r
o
o
m
s
)

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

m
i
n
.

w
/
v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

H
o
t
e
l

(
B
&
B
,

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
-
i
n
n
,

o
r

2
0
+

h
o
t
e
l

r
o
o
m
s
/
s
u
i
t
e
s
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

c
u
l
i
n
a
r
y

a
c
a
d
e
m
y

o
r

d
a
y

s
p
a
s

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

H
o
t
e
l
)

P
P

(
5

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

B
e
d

a
n
d

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t
)

P
P

(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

w
i
t
h

B
&
B
,

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

I
n
n
s
,

e
t
c
.
)

P
P

(
D
a
y

S
p
a
s
)

R
e
s
o
r
t

(
s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

l
a
r
g
e
-
s
c
a
l
e

l
o
d
g
i
n
g

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
)

C
U
P

(
4
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

F
a
r
m

l
a
b
o
r

c
a
m
p
s

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
l
u
s
t
e
r
e
d

S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
1
0

A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

l
a
n
d
)

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
1
0

A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

l
a
n
d
)

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
5
A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

L
a
n
d
)

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
5
A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

L
a
n
d
)

P
l
a
n
n
e
d

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

P

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
t

l
o
t

s
i
z
e

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)

P

(
0
.
5
-
a
c
r
e

l
o
t

s
i
z
e

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k
s

C
U
P

C
U
P

F
i
e
l
d

C
r
o
p
s

a
n
d

V
e
g
.

G
a
r
d
e
n

P

P
o
u
l
t
r
y
,

c
r
o
w
i
n
g

f
o
w
l

a
n
d

r
a
b
b
i
t
s
;

g
u
i
n
e
a

p
i
g
s
,

p
a
r
a
k
e
e
t
s

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

s
m
a
l
l

f
o
w
l
s
.

K
e
n
n
e
l
s

a
n
d

c
a
t
t
e
r
i
e
s

P

P

P

P

P
u
b
l
i
c

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

P
P

P

P

P
P

M
i
n
i
a
t
u
r
e

p
i
g
s

P

P

P

G
o
l
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

F
e
e
d

a
n
d

g
r
a
i
n

s
t
o
r
e

P
P

C
U
P

P

P
P

P
e
t

s
h
o
p

P
P

P
r
o
d
u
c
e

s
t
o
r
e
,

P
P

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

C
o
n
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
y

a
n
d

c
a
n
d
y

s
h
o
p
,

f
l
o
r
i
s
t
,

G
i
f
t

s
h
o
p
s
,

I
c
e

c
r
e
a
m

s
h
o
p
s
,

C
o
f
f
e
e

a
n
d

d
o
n
u
t

s
h
o
p
s

A
n
t
i
q
u
e

S
h
o
p
s
,

b
a
k
e
r
y

P
P

C
U
P

A
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
y
e
i
n
g

s
h
o
p
,

p
h
a
r
m
a
c
i
e
s
,

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

r
e
n
t
a
l
s
,

A
i
r
p
o
r
t
,

a
u
t
o

w
r
e
c
k
i
n
g

y
a
r
d
,

c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
,

g
a
s

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n

,

h
a
r
d
w
a
r
e

s
t
o
r
e
s
,

t
i
r
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

L
a
u
n
d
r
o
m
a
t
s
,

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

l
o
t
s

C
U
P

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

s
a
l
e
s

P
P

A
r
t
s
,

c
r
a
f
t
s

a
n
d

c
u
r
i
o

s
h
o
p
s

P
P

P
P

R
e
t
a
i
l

n
u
r
s
e
r
i
e
s
,

h
o
r
t
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

a
n
d

g
a
r
d
e
n

s
u
p
p
l
y

s
t
o
r
e
s

P
P

P

P

P

P

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
t
e

o
f
f
i
c
e

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

R
e
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

O
f
f
i
c
e

P
P

P

P
P

B
e
a
u
t
y

s
h
o
p

P
P

C
U
P

P

P
P

F
r
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

l
o
d
g
e
s

P
P

P

P
P

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

c
l
u
b

P
P

P
P

H
u
n
t
i
n
g

c
l
u
b
s

P
P

C
U
P

p
u
b
l
i
c

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

u
s
e
s

(
d
a
m
s
,

c
a
n
a
l
s
,

p
o
w
e
r

p
l
a
n
t
s
,

r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
s
,

t
v
/
r
a
d
i
o

b
r
o
a
d
c
a
s
t
i
n
g

P

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
t
)

L
a
n
d
i
n
g

s
t
r
i
p
/
h
e
l
i
p
o
r
t

C
U
P

M
i
n
i
n
g

P

P

P

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

T
o
u
r
i
s
t

i
n
f
o

c
e
n
t
e
r

P
P

C
U
P

B
a
r
s

a
n
d

c
o
c
k
t
a
i
l

l
o
u
n
g
e
,

b
i
l
l
i
a
r
d

h
a
l
l
s
,

l
i
q
u
o
r

s
t
o
r
e
,

r
e
f
r
e
s
h
m
e
n
t

s
t
a
n
d
s
,

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

o
f
f
i
c
e
s
,

C
U
P

R
i
f
l
e
,

p
i
s
t
o
l
,

s
k
e
e
t

o
r

t
r
a
p
s
h
o
o
t
i
n
g

r
a
n
g
e

C
U
P

C
U
P

M
e
a
t
-
p
a
c
k
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
t

C
U
P

P
P

F
o
o
d
,

p
o
u
l
t
r
y

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
,

f
r
o
z
e
n

f
o
o
d

l
o
c
k
e
r
s
,

f
r
u
i
t

a
n
d

v
e
g
.

p
a
c
k
i
n
g
,

U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

f
u
e
l

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

l
u
m
b
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

m
a
c
h
i
n
e

s
h
o
p
s

C
U
P

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

p
o
u
l
t
r
y

C
U
P

M
i
n
k

f
a
r
m
s

C
U
P

C
U
P

P

A
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
e
n
a
g
e
r
i
e
s
,

o
i
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

P
a
c
k
e
d

d
r
y

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

f
a
i
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

C
U
P

P

D
u
n
e

b
u
g
g
y

p
a
r
k
,

r
a
c
e

t
r
a
c
k
s
,

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
-
b
u
s
/
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
/
t
a
x
i
,

t
r
a
i
l

b
i
k
e

p
a
r
k
,

t
r
a
i
l
e
r

a
n
d

b
o
a
t

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
a
r
k
s

C
U
P

M
i
g
r
a
n
t

A
g
.

W
o
r
k
e
r

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k
s

C
U
P

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

l
a
k
e
s

P
P

G
u
e
s
t

R
a
n
c
h
,

M
o
t
e
l
s

P
P

M
u
s
e
u
m
s

P
P

P
P

S
e
w
a
g
e

s
l
u
d
g
e
/
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

w
a
s
t
e

c
o
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
,

L
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

s
a
l
e
s
,

C
U
P

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

A
b
a
t
t
o
i
r
s
,

H
o
g

R
a
n
c
h
e
s
,

P
e
n

F
e
d

B
e
e
f

E
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

P
o
u
l
t
r
y
,

D
a
i
r
y
,

T
r
u
c
k

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

s
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
g

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

C
a
n
n
i
n
g
-

f
r
e
e
z
i
n
g

p
a
c
k
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
s
,

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r

P
P

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
,

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
,

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

P
l
a
y

G
r
o
u
n
d

P
P

P
P

P

P
P

C
h
i
l
d

D
a
y

C
a
r
e

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

P

P
P

C
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
,

T
e
m
p
l
e
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

p
l
a
c
e
s

o
f

r
e
l
i
g
i
o
u
s

w
o
r
s
h
i
p

P
U
P

P

P
P

A

s
i
g
n
,

s
i
n
g
l
e

o
r

d
o
u
b
l
e

f
a
c
e

P

P

P

S
i
g
n
s
,

o
n

s
i
t
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g

P
P

P

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

A
g
.

S
t
a
n
d

P
P

P
P

P

m
e
a
n
s

P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

U
s
e
;

P
P

m
e
a
n
s

u
s
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

P
P
;

a
n
d

C
U
P

m
e
a
n
s

u
s
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
s
e

P
e
r
m
i
t
.

P
U
P

m
e
a
n
s

P
u
b
l
i
c

U
s
e

P
e
r
m
i
t

*

Z
o
n
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

m
a
y

n
o
t

b
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

u
s
e
s

i
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

z
o
n
e

a
l
l
o
w

f
o
r

t
h
e

u
s
e
.

Group: E
RequestDate: 9/17/10(petition)and4/7/10(dotsurvey)
NameofOwner(s): Variousowners
CurrentProposedWineCountryDistrict:WineryDistrict
RequestbyOwner(s): VariousincludingexclusionfromtheCommunityPlan,orinclusioninEquestrianDistrict,
ResidentialDistrictorWineryDistrict
APN(s):927180006,927180012015,927180021,927610004,966380010013,966380016020,966380022
032,966380034;
JustificationbyOwner(s):StaffreceivedapetitiontobeexcludedfromtheCommunityPlansignedbyvarious
propertyownersinDecember2010.ThepetitionincludedpropertieslocatedinthevicinityofAnzaRdandSanta
RitaRd(GroupEExhibitA).
Opportunities/Constraints: CurrentLandUseDesignations:Agriculture,RuralMountainousandRural
Residential,withtheValledeLosCaballosPolicyArea;CurrentZoningClassification:RA,R1,RR,andA1.
WineriesarenotallowedinRAZone,andareallowedinRRzonewithaminimumlotsizeof0.5acreandare
permittedwithPPunderA1Zone.RAZonealsoallowsforbeautyshop,publicparksandplayground,golf
coursesandcountryclubs.RRZonealsoallowstheseuses,alongwithbarsandlounges,billiardhall,race
tracks,guestranchesandmotels,educationalinstitutions,animalhospitalsetc.Pleaserefertotheattached
ZonesComparisonChartforalistofallowableuses(GroupEExhibitD).Adotsurveywasconductedbystaff
duringtheApril7,2010communitymeetingwiththelandowners(GroupEExhibitB).Someoftheseparcelsare
associatedwithGeneralPlanAmendmentproposalstochangetheirFoundationComponentsandtoincrease
theirlandusedensityfrom5acresminimumto8DU/AC(GroupEExhibitC).
FloodZone In,onlyapproximately2acres tothenorth iswithinaFloodZone.
HighFireArea OutofHighFireArea,however,within StateResponsibilityArea
Faultline In,within1/2mileofafault
PaleontologicalSensitivity In,HighAsensitivityarea
Subsidence In
Liquefaction
In,approximately30acrestothenorthiswithininmoderatetoveryhigh
liquefaction.Therestoftheplanningareaiswithinverylowliquefaction.
MSHCP
In.Onlyapproximately2acrestothenorthiswithinaFloodZonewithinaCriteria Cell
no.7183
Other
ExistingandSurroundingUses:Theexistinguseswithinthisgroupincludevacantlands,singlefamilyresidential,
mobilehomesandagriculturaluses.Agriculturalusesincludecitrusgrove,vineyardsandothercrops.Located
tothewestofGroupEisMorganHillsSpecificPlan.
StaffRecommendation:Landownersinthisareaarefairlydividedonthefutureofthissubregion.Thisarea
servesasthesouthernentrancetoWineCountry.Staffrecommendsacombinationofthreedistrictstoreflect
landownerspreferenceinlightoftheCommunityPlanobjectives(GroupEExhibitE).
Group E-Exhibit A
7:19 AM5/10/2012 7:19 AM
1
From: Ron & Lynda Smith [ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 5:43 AM
Subject: Temecula Property
Attachments: Temecula wine district choice.docx
May 1, 2012
To: County of Riverside Planning Dept
Attn: Phayvanh..PNANTHAV@rctima.orgc
Subject: Preferred Wine Country district for Parcel 966-380-010
Dear Phayvanh
Thank you for your follow-up on the Wine Country districts and your helpful information.
I personally feel that the creation of a Wine District in my area is unnecessary with no actual
benefit to the community but to create additional bureaucratic regulations which will have to be
funded and administered by higher taxes paid by you and me.
My vote would be to not be part of the wine Country designation at all. If I am forced to make a
different decision at a later date I can address the issue again at that time.
Should there be new information, or changes you feel I should know about, I would appreciate
hearing from you.
You have been very helpful with all the information you have given me.
Regards: Ron Smith
Ronald L Smith ttee.
954-565-4960
P.S. If you can confirm receipt of this I would appreciate it. Thanks
1:23 PM10/13/2011 1:23 PM
1
From: Ron & Lynda Smith [ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
Phayvanh..
Yourresponsewasverycomprehensive,answeredmyquestions,andIdoappreciateyoureffort.
ThankYouRonSmith
From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh [mailto:PNANTHAV@rctlma.org]

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:37 PM
To: 'Ron & Lynda Smith'
ThankyouMr.Smith,
Ihopethatthepagewashelpful.Ihaveprovidedanswersbelowinred.Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions.
Thankyou,
Phayvanh
From: Ron & Lynda Smith [mailto:ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]

Thankyou..Igotthepage..
LastyearIappliedforazoningchangetoallowresidentialunitsonmyproperty.Itwasacostlyexercise.Itwasturned
downatthelastminutebythecityastheirthinkingitwouldcausecongestionatthefreewayintersection.Thatstillis
mymainfocusandIwouldliketoapplyagainassoonasIcan.
IseethattheGeneralPlanAmendmentNo.986wastoamendthelandusedesignationfromRuralResidential(RR)to
MediumDensityResidential(MDR),toallowfor25dwellingunitsperacre,andthatthecasewaswithdrawn.Thenext
cycleforpropertyownerinitiatedFoundationComponentGeneralPlanAmendmentsisJanuary2016.Whetheryouare
withintheboundaryofTemeculaValleyWineCountryPolicyAreaornot,youwillneedtowaituntiltheapplication
windowisopenin2016toapplyforahigherdensitylandusedesignation.
Whichofthesedesignationswouldbemoretomyinterestforfutureapplicationsforthattypeofzoningchange?(Isee
thereisaWineCountryResidentialdistrict.)WouldthathaveanyinfluenceifIwasintheresidentialdistrict,ormaybe
mypropertyisnotintheareatobeclassifiedresidential.
TheResidentialDistrictpermitsclusteringdevelopmentwithminimumlotsizeofoneacreaslongastheoverallproject
densityyielddoesnotexceedonedwellingunitperfiveacres.Thisamountstothesamedwellingunitsastheparcels
1:23 PM10/13/2011 1:23 PM
2
originallandusedesignation(RR).EquestrianDistrictdoesnotpermitclusteringandthemaximumdwellingunitisone
dwellingunitpertenacres.
Again,ifyouwanttobeexcludedfromtheWineCountryCommunityPlaninthefutureandchangethelanduse
designationthenextGPAPropertyownerinitiatedrequestcycleisopeninJan.2016.Youmayrequesttobeexcluded
now,butyouwillstillneedtowaittillJan.2016totry yourapplicationagain.
IfImakearequestforaspecificdesignationdoesmypropertygetthatdesignationorisitavotetypeofthingwherethe
majorityrulesandallpropertiesgetthesamedesignation?
PlanningstaffwillpresentyourrequestalongwithallotherboundarymodificationrequeststothePlanning
Commission,andthePlanningCommissionwillprovidearecommendationtotheBoardofSupervisors.TheBoardof
Supervisorswilldecidewhatthefaithoftheparcelwillbe.Pleaseconsiderattendingthesepublichearingandvoicing
yourconcernsandpreferenceforyourproperty.
Alsowhenisthedeadlineformetomakemyofficialrequest?
Pleasesubmityourrequestassoonasyouarecomfortablewithyourdecision.Thefirstpublichearingforthisprojectis
anticipatedinSpringof2012.Afewweeksbeforethatdateisideal.Wedohavetimetodiscussanyconcernsyoumay
have.
SorryforalltherudimentaryquestionsbutImtryingtocatchupandunderstandthisthingassoonasIcan.
RegardsRon
From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh [mailto:PNANTHAV@rctlma.org]

Subject: FW: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
HelloMr.Smith,
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RwtMLxFsLrQ%3d&tabid=68
Thankyouforcontactingmebackthisafternoon.Theabovelinkistothecomparisonchartofallowableusesineach
proposeddistricts.Itwillgiveyouanideaofwhatisallowedineachzone,thetypeofapplicationforeachuseand
minimumacreages.Pleasereviewthechart,andwecandiscussanyconcernsyoumayhaveandyourpreferreddistrict
forthisparcel.
Ilookforwardtohearingbackfromyou,
Phayvanh

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:15 PM
Cc: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
HelloMr.Smith:
1:23 PM10/13/2011 1:23 PM
3
IamforwardingyouremailtoMs.Phayvanhwhowouldbeabletocallyouat:9545654960todiscussyouroptions.
Youcouldprovideheryourrequestafterthatdiscussion.
Thankyou,
Mitra
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)

Th).

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:20 AM
Hiagainandthanksforyourquickresponse.
DoesmyrequesteliminatemefromanythingIshouldbeawareof.
Doesthisequestriandesignationeliminatemefromhavingresidentialsubdivisionsinthefuture.Imadeanattempt
andspentmoneylastyeartohavemyzoningchangedtoresidential.Itwasdeniedbythecityduetocongestions
worriesatthattime.Idointendtopursuethisinthefutureandwouldnotwanttodoanythingthatwouldjeopardize
thateffortorchangetheclassificationofmypropertyinanyway.
Ifthisissopleasetakemynameoffthisrequest.IfhavinganequestriandesignationdoesnothamperfutureeffortsI
amokaywithit.
Idoliveoutoftownsoitismoredifficulttogettothefineprintonanyoftheseproposals.
Yourmentionofpeoplenotknowingwhattheysigngavemepauseforconcern.
WithGratitudeRonaldLSmith
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra [mailto:MMEHTA@rctlma.org]

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:17 PM
GoodafternoonMr.Smith:
Thankyouforsendingmethisemail.IhaveapetitionthatsaidthatyouwanttoberemovedfromthisPlanBoundaryor
haveresidentialsubdivisions.WhenIreceivedthatpetition,Iwonderedifeveryonethatsignedthatpieceofpaperhad
understoodwhattheyweresigning.
Youarecorrect.IfyourpropertygetsadoptedfortheEquestrianDistrict,itwouldallowyoutohaveequestrianusesand
awineryperthecurrentproposal.
1:23 PM10/13/2011 1:23 PM
4
Thankyou,
Mitra
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)

Th).

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:10 AM
Cc: ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net
Subject: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
MynameisRonaldL.Smith,,,,,
Mypropertyisparcel#966380010.
Itappearstomethatleavingmypropertyasanequestrianareawouldbeinthebestinterestofthosethatwouldliketo
beabletohaveahorseoperationratherthangrowwine.ThereareplentyofwineriesintheareasoIdontseewhy
leavinganareaforotherpurposesshouldhampertheoverallgrowthprojectionsofthearea.
Ifthereisavoteneededputmedownforhavingitdesignatedforequestrianuse.UnlessImwrongthatshouldnot
eliminatesomeonefromhavingawineoperationinthesamearea.
Seemslikethereshouldberoomforboth.Ifnot,maybesomeoneshouldrewritetheproposalsoitsfairandequalfor
allpropertyowners.
RegardsRonaldL.Smith
3:46 PM9/28/2011 3:46 PM
1
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:07 PM
Subject: FW: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
FYI

Cc: ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net
Subject: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
MynameisRonaldL.Smith,,,,,
Mypropertyisparcel#966380010.
Itappearstomethatleavingmypropertyasanequestrianareawouldbeinthebestinterestofthosethatwouldliketo
beabletohaveahorseoperationratherthangrowwine.ThereareplentyofwineriesintheareasoIdontseewhy
leavinganareaforotherpurposesshouldhampertheoverallgrowthprojectionsofthearea.
Ifthereisavoteneededputmedownforhavingitdesignatedforequestrianuse.UnlessImwrongthatshouldnot
eliminatesomeonefromhavingawineoperationinthesamearea.
Seemslikethereshouldberoomforboth.Ifnot,maybesomeoneshouldrewritetheproposalsoitsfairandequalfor
allpropertyowners.
RegardsRonaldL.Smith
R
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
e
x
c
l
u
d
f
r
o
m
C
o
m
u
n
i
P
l
a
n
Y
e
l
l
o
w
=
E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
G
r
e
e
n
=
W
i
n
e
r
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Group E-Exhibit B
TEMECULA
S
E
R
D
O
N
IS
S
T
M
A
D
IG
A
N
S
T
D
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
S
T
K
O
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
A
M
IC
I
S
T
C
OPPOLA
ST
N
IG
H
T
H
A
W
K
PASS
M
O
R
G
A
N
H
I
L
L
D
R
FRO
G
S
L
E
A
P
S
T
R
E
ID
E
L
S
T
P
H
E
L
P
S
S
T
S
A
N
S
I
M
E
O
N
S
T
VIA RIATA
H
O
U
R
G
L
A
S
S
S
T
V
IL
L
A
H
E
L
E
N
A
S
T
R
EVA
NA
S
T
C
A
R
E
F
R
E
E

D
R
CALLE ARNAZ
L
A
M
B
O
R
N
S
T
D
A
S
H

F
O
R

C
A
S
H

C
I
R
LA B
O
N
ITA
D
O
N
N
A
H
O
W
E
L
L
MO U
N
T
A
I N
S
T
M
O
N
T
E
V
E
R
D
E
R
D
CALLE LINDA
M
A
G
G
IE

W
E
E
D

L
N
BELLE
C
H
A
IN
E
L
O
O
P
SANTA RITA RD
LO
S
CO
RR
ALITOS RD
CHAMPO
UX CT
LOS CABALLOS RD
A
N
Z
A
R
D
R
I
O
L
I
N
D
A
R
D
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
79
AG
CITY
MDR
MDR
RR
RM
MDR
RR
OS-C
VLDR
MDR
OS-C
OS-R
OS-C
OS-C
RM
AG
AG
RR
VLDR
OS-C
IND
OS-RUR
CT
OS-C
CT
MDR
VLDR
CT
May 30 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.3 0.6 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP E
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupE_Landuse.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group E
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Landuse
Medium Density Residential
Commercial Tourist
Rural Residential
Rural Mountainous
Agriculture
Conservation
Open Space Recreation
Open Space Rural
CITY
GPA00920
GPA00986
GPA01026
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
WINE COUNTRY DISTRICT GENERAL PLAN LANDUSE
AM - Aricultural w/Mobile Home
AO - Agricultural w/Other Crops
CY - Vacant Commercial
PC - Agricultural Citrus Grove
PX - Non-Renewal Ag Preserve Contract
YY - Other Vacant
GPA 1026
AG and RR to LDR
GPA 986
RR to MDR
GPA 920
RR to MDR
Group E-Exhibit C

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

O
n
e

D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

U
n
i
t
*

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
s
,

g
r
o
v
e
s
,

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

l
a
n
d
s
,

e
t
c
*

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

K
e
e
p
i
n
g

o
r

b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g

o
f

h
o
r
s
e
s

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

f
a
r
m

l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
*

P

(
2

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
2

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
2

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

o
n

e
a
c
h

2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
t

u
p

t
o

1

a
c
r
e

&

2

s
u
c
h

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

P

(
5

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

p
e
r

a
c
r
e
)

G
r
a
z
i
n
g

o
f

s
h
e
e
p

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

O
u
t
d
o
o
r

s
t
o
r
a
g
e

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
*

P

P

P

P

P

P
P

P

P

P

P

C
o
t
t
a
g
e

I
n
n

(
1
-
5

h
o
t
e
l

r
o
o
m
s
)

P

P

P

P

C
o
t
t
a
g
e

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

P

P

P

P

P
(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

P

(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

P

(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

P

(
H
o
m
e

O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
)

W
i
n
e
g
r
o
w
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

E
v
e
n
t
s

P

P

E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

P

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
/
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g

f
a
r
m
s

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

F
u
t
u
r
e

F
a
r
m

o
f

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

o
r

4
-
H

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

P

P

P

P

P

P

B
e
d

&

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t

I
n
n

(
1
-
1
0

h
o
t
e
l

r
o
o
m
s
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

P
P

(
5

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

P
P

(
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

S
a
l
e
-
s
t
a
n
d

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

P

P

P

P

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

o
n
e

f
a
m
i
l
y

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

u
n
i
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

m
o
b
i
l
e

h
o
m
e

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

P
P

(
1

p
e
r

1
0

a
c
)

W
i
n
e
r
y

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

P
P

(
w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

P
(
w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

C
U
P

Group E-Exhibit D

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

W
i
n
e

s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

r
o
o
m

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
w
i
t
h

W
i
n
e
r
y
)

P

R
e
t
a
i
l

w
i
n
e

s
a
l
e
/
g
i
f
t

s
a
l
e

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
w
i
t
h

W
i
n
e
r
y
)

P

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

P

P
o
l
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
,

h
o
r
s
e

s
h
o
w

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

P
e
t
t
i
n
g

z
o
o

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

W
e
s
t
e
r
n

s
t
o
r
e

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

-
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

-
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
-

d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

-
d
r
i
v
e
-
t
h
r
u

n
o
t

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

)

P
P

C
U
P

H
o
r
s
e

r
a
c
i
n
g

t
r
a
c
k
,

r
o
d
e
o

a
r
e
n
a

C
U
P

(
5
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

C
U
P

L
a
r
g
e

a
n
i
m
a
l

h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l

C
U
P

(
5
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

C
U
P

P

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

C
U
P

(
1
0
0

a
c

m
i
n

w
i
t
h

C
o
m
.

E
q
u
.

E
s
t
.
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.

w
/
v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
-
i
n
n

(
1
1
-
2
0

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

P
P

(
1
0

a
c

m
i
n
.
)

P
P

(
1
0

a
c
r
e
s

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

r
o
o
m
s
)

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

m
i
n
.

w
/
v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
)

H
o
t
e
l

(
B
&
B
,

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
-
i
n
n
,

o
r

2
0
+

h
o
t
e
l

r
o
o
m
s
/
s
u
i
t
e
s
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

c
u
l
i
n
a
r
y

a
c
a
d
e
m
y

o
r

d
a
y

s
p
a
s

P
P

(
2
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

H
o
t
e
l
)

P
P

(
5

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

B
e
d

a
n
d

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t
)

P
P

(
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

w
i
t
h

B
&
B
,

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

I
n
n
s
,

e
t
c
.
)

P
P

(
D
a
y

S
p
a
s
)

R
e
s
o
r
t

(
s
e
l
f
-
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

l
a
r
g
e
-
s
c
a
l
e

l
o
d
g
i
n
g

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
)

C
U
P

(
4
0

a
c

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

w
i
n
e
r
y
)

F
a
r
m

l
a
b
o
r

c
a
m
p
s

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
l
u
s
t
e
r
e
d

S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
1
0

A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

l
a
n
d
)

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
1
0

A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

l
a
n
d
)

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
5
A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

L
a
n
d
)

P
M
/
T
M

(
1

D
U
/
5
A
c

w
i
t
h

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

v
i
n
e
y
a
r
d

o
r

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

L
a
n
d
)

P
l
a
n
n
e
d

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

P

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
t

l
o
t

s
i
z
e

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)

P

(
0
.
5
-
a
c
r
e

l
o
t

s
i
z
e

m
i
n
.

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d

d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k
s

C
U
P

C
U
P

F
i
e
l
d

C
r
o
p
s

a
n
d

V
e
g
.

G
a
r
d
e
n

P

P
o
u
l
t
r
y
,

c
r
o
w
i
n
g

f
o
w
l

a
n
d

r
a
b
b
i
t
s
;

g
u
i
n
e
a

p
i
g
s
,

p
a
r
a
k
e
e
t
s

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

s
m
a
l
l

f
o
w
l
s
.

K
e
n
n
e
l
s

a
n
d

c
a
t
t
e
r
i
e
s

P

P

P

P

P
u
b
l
i
c

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

P
P

P

P

P
P

M
i
n
i
a
t
u
r
e

p
i
g
s

P

P

P

G
o
l
f

c
o
u
r
s
e

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

F
e
e
d

a
n
d

g
r
a
i
n

s
t
o
r
e

P
P

C
U
P

P

P
P

P
e
t

s
h
o
p

P
P

P
r
o
d
u
c
e

s
t
o
r
e
,

P
P

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

C
o
n
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
y

a
n
d

c
a
n
d
y

s
h
o
p
,

f
l
o
r
i
s
t
,

G
i
f
t

s
h
o
p
s
,

I
c
e

c
r
e
a
m

s
h
o
p
s
,

C
o
f
f
e
e

a
n
d

d
o
n
u
t

s
h
o
p
s

A
n
t
i
q
u
e

S
h
o
p
s
,

b
a
k
e
r
y

P
P

C
U
P

A
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
y
e
i
n
g

s
h
o
p
,

p
h
a
r
m
a
c
i
e
s
,

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

r
e
n
t
a
l
s
,

A
i
r
p
o
r
t
,

a
u
t
o

w
r
e
c
k
i
n
g

y
a
r
d
,

c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
,

g
a
s

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n

,

h
a
r
d
w
a
r
e

s
t
o
r
e
s
,

t
i
r
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

L
a
u
n
d
r
o
m
a
t
s
,

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

l
o
t
s

C
U
P

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

s
a
l
e
s

P
P

A
r
t
s
,

c
r
a
f
t
s

a
n
d

c
u
r
i
o

s
h
o
p
s

P
P

P
P

R
e
t
a
i
l

n
u
r
s
e
r
i
e
s
,

h
o
r
t
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

a
n
d

g
a
r
d
e
n

s
u
p
p
l
y

s
t
o
r
e
s

P
P

P

P

P

P

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
t
e

o
f
f
i
c
e

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

R
e
a
l

E
s
t
a
t
e

O
f
f
i
c
e

P
P

P

P
P

B
e
a
u
t
y

s
h
o
p

P
P

C
U
P

P

P
P

F
r
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

l
o
d
g
e
s

P
P

P

P
P

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

c
l
u
b

P
P

P
P

H
u
n
t
i
n
g

c
l
u
b
s

P
P

C
U
P

p
u
b
l
i
c

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

u
s
e
s

(
d
a
m
s
,

c
a
n
a
l
s
,

p
o
w
e
r

p
l
a
n
t
s
,

r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
s
,

t
v
/
r
a
d
i
o

b
r
o
a
d
c
a
s
t
i
n
g

P

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
t
)

L
a
n
d
i
n
g

s
t
r
i
p
/
h
e
l
i
p
o
r
t

C
U
P

M
i
n
i
n
g

P

P

P

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

T
o
u
r
i
s
t

i
n
f
o

c
e
n
t
e
r

P
P

C
U
P

B
a
r
s

a
n
d

c
o
c
k
t
a
i
l

l
o
u
n
g
e
,

b
i
l
l
i
a
r
d

h
a
l
l
s
,

l
i
q
u
o
r

s
t
o
r
e
,

r
e
f
r
e
s
h
m
e
n
t

s
t
a
n
d
s
,

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

o
f
f
i
c
e
s
,

C
U
P

R
i
f
l
e
,

p
i
s
t
o
l
,

s
k
e
e
t

o
r

t
r
a
p
s
h
o
o
t
i
n
g

r
a
n
g
e

C
U
P

C
U
P

M
e
a
t
-
p
a
c
k
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
t

C
U
P

P
P

F
o
o
d
,

p
o
u
l
t
r
y

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
,

f
r
o
z
e
n

f
o
o
d

l
o
c
k
e
r
s
,

f
r
u
i
t

a
n
d

v
e
g
.

p
a
c
k
i
n
g
,

U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

f
u
e
l

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

l
u
m
b
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

m
a
c
h
i
n
e

s
h
o
p
s

C
U
P

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

p
o
u
l
t
r
y

C
U
P

M
i
n
k

f
a
r
m
s

C
U
P

C
U
P

P

A
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
e
n
a
g
e
r
i
e
s
,

o
i
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
U
P

P
a
c
k
e
d

d
r
y

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g

C
U
P

C
U
P

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

f
a
i
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

C
U
P

P

D
u
n
e

b
u
g
g
y

p
a
r
k
,

r
a
c
e

t
r
a
c
k
s
,

s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
-
b
u
s
/
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
/
t
a
x
i
,

t
r
a
i
l

b
i
k
e

p
a
r
k
,

t
r
a
i
l
e
r

a
n
d

b
o
a
t

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

p
a
r
k
s

C
U
P

M
i
g
r
a
n
t

A
g
.

W
o
r
k
e
r

M
o
b
i
l
e

H
o
m
e

P
a
r
k
s

C
U
P

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

l
a
k
e
s

P
P

G
u
e
s
t

R
a
n
c
h
,

M
o
t
e
l
s

P
P

M
u
s
e
u
m
s

P
P

P
P

S
e
w
a
g
e

s
l
u
d
g
e
/
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

w
a
s
t
e

c
o
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
,

L
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

s
a
l
e
s
,

C
U
P

W W
i i
n n
e e

C C
o o
u u
n n
t t
r r
y y

C C
o o
m m
m m
u u
n n
i i
t t
y y

P P
l l
a a
n n

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

W
C

Z
O
N
E
S

P
E
R
M
I
T
T
E
D

U
S
E

C
/
V

C
-
C
/
V

(
2

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
A

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

R
-
R

(
0
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
1

(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

A
-
2
(
2
0
,
0
0
0

s
q

f
e
e
t

m
i
n
.
)

W
C
-
W

W
C
-
W
E

W
C
-
E

W
C
-
R

A
b
a
t
t
o
i
r
s
,

H
o
g

R
a
n
c
h
e
s
,

P
e
n

F
e
d

B
e
e
f

E
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

P
o
u
l
t
r
y
,

D
a
i
r
y
,

T
r
u
c
k

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

s
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
g

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

C
a
n
n
i
n
g
-

f
r
e
e
z
i
n
g

p
a
c
k
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
s
,

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r

P
P

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
,

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
,

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

P
l
a
y

G
r
o
u
n
d

P
P

P
P

P

P
P

C
h
i
l
d

D
a
y

C
a
r
e

P
P

P
P

P
P

P
P

P

P
P

C
h
u
r
c
h
e
s
,

T
e
m
p
l
e
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

p
l
a
c
e
s

o
f

r
e
l
i
g
i
o
u
s

w
o
r
s
h
i
p

P
U
P

P

P
P

A

s
i
g
n
,

s
i
n
g
l
e

o
r

d
o
u
b
l
e

f
a
c
e

P

P

P

S
i
g
n
s
,

o
n

s
i
t
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g

P
P

P

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

A
g
.

S
t
a
n
d

P
P

P
P

P

m
e
a
n
s

P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

U
s
e
;

P
P

m
e
a
n
s

u
s
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

P
P
;

a
n
d

C
U
P

m
e
a
n
s

u
s
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
s
e

P
e
r
m
i
t
.

P
U
P

m
e
a
n
s

P
u
b
l
i
c

U
s
e

P
e
r
m
i
t

*

Z
o
n
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

m
a
y

n
o
t

b
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

u
s
e
s

i
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

z
o
n
e

a
l
l
o
w

f
o
r

t
h
e

u
s
e
.

UV
H
W
Y
7
9
E Q U E S T R I A N E Q U E S T R I A N
WI N E R Y WI N E R Y
E Q U E S T R I A N E Q U E S T R I A N
R E S I D E N T I A L R E S I D E N T I A L
R E S I D E N T I A L R E S I D E N T I A L
A
N
Z
A
H
W
Y
7
9
DE PORTOLA
L
O
S

C
A
B
A
L
L
O
S
SANTA RITA
A
M
IC
I F
R
O
G
S
L
E
A
P
R
I
O

L
I
N
D
A
R
E
ID
E
L
L
O
S

C
O
R
R
A
L
I
T
O
S
M
O
N
T
E

V
E
R
D
E
M
O
R
G
A
N

H
IL
L
M
A
D
IG
A
N
CO
PPO
LA
V
IA
C
E
R
R
O
V
IS
T
A
S
A
N
S
IM
E
O
N
B
E
L
L
E
C
H
A
IN
E
C
A
L
L
E
A
R
N
A
Z
S
T
A
R
P
O
IN
T
P
H
E
L
P
S
CALLE LINDA
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
M
A
G
G
IE
W
E
E
D
C
A
B
A
L
L
O
S
C
O
R
IS
O
N
C
A
R
E
F
R
E
E
N
IG
H
T
H
A
W
K
P
A
S
S
R
E
V
A
N
A
G
A
L
L
E
R
O
N
L
A
M
B
O
R
N
K
O
R
N
E
L
L
D
A
S
H

F
O
R

C
A
S
H
B
R
E
E
Z
E
W
A
Y
V
IL
L
A
H
E
L
E
N
A
SUMMIT VIEW
A
R
IE
T
A
D
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
CHAMPOUX
S
E
R
D
O
N
IS
LA B
O
N
ITA
D
O
N
N
A
MEKEEL RANCH
I
N
D
I
A
A
V
E
N
I
D
A

F
E
L
I
C
I
T
A
M
A
R
C
E
L
I
N
A
REGUSCI
VIA RIATA
DESANTE
AVENIDA PACIFICO
C
O
L
L
IE
R
F
A
L
L
S
C
A
L
L
E

R
O
C
I
N
A
N
T
E
R
I
S
T
O
W
PIO
CHO
C
O
S
E
N
T
IN
O
W
O
L
T
N
E
R
M
O
N
T
E
V
E
R
D
E
A
N
Z
A
M
O
R
G
A
N
H
IL
L
DRAFT
0 0.2 0.4 0.1
Miles
Map Created By: Josh Lee
Riverside County Planning Department
Date: 08/03/2011
\\agency\AgencyDFS\Traffic\Advanced Planning\
Data Exchange\WineCountry - Phil\79S
Wi n e Co u n t r y Co mmu n i t y P l a n : Wi n e Co u n t r y Co mmu n i t y P l a n :
Ar e a s Ar o u n d Hi g h wa y 7 9 S Ar e a s Ar o u n d Hi g h wa y 7 9 S
Op t i o n 2 : S t a f f Re c o mme n d e d Al t e r n a t i v e Op t i o n 2 : S t a f f Re c o mme n d e d Al t e r n a t i v e
Group E-Exhibit E
Group: F
RequestDate: 11/23/2010
NameofOwner(s): PeterSolomon
CurrentProposedWineCountryDistrict:EquestrianDistrict
RequestbyOwner(s): InclusionintoproposedWineryDistrict(seeGroupFExhibitA)
APN(s):927100058,927100067,and927100068
JustificationfromOwner:Mr.Solomonistheownerof150contiguousacres,whowishestoultimatelyhave
resorttypeofdevelopmentwithawineryontheseparcels.
Opportunities/Constraints: CurrentLandUseDesignations:RuralResidentialwiththeValledeLos
CaballosPolicyArea;CurrentZoningClassification:RA10andRR.CZ07010forAPN927100058wasapproved
on04/15/05tochangethezonefromRRtoRA10.
FloodZone In,southernhalf iswithinaFloodZone
HighFireArea OutofHighFireArea; however,within StateResponsibilityArea
Faultline Out,however, areaiswithin1 mileofafault
PaleontologicalSensitivity In,HighA andLow sensitivityareas
Subsidence In
Liquefaction In,southernhalfiswithinverylow toveryhigh liquefactionarea
MSHCP Out
Other
ExistingandSurroundingUses:TheexistingusesfortheparcelswithinthisgroupareAgriculturalLivestockand
VacantAgricultural(GroupFExhibitB).Thesurroundingusesintheimmediatevicinityoftheseparcelsinclude
horseranchesandestatelotresidential.SeveralsmallscalewineriesexistalongDePortolaRoad.

StaffRecommendation:ParcelsarelocatedatthecenteroftheexistingValledelosCaballosPolicyArea.
Therefore,stafforiginallyproposedthemfortheWineCountryEquestrianDistrict.Indiscussionswith
communitymembers,stafflearnedthatresidentsinthisregionarenotsupportiveoflargescalewinery
developmentsinthisarea.Similarly,equestriansaresupportiveofdevelopingthislandforequestrianactivities
inthefuture.Inaddition,roadnetworkandsewerinfrastructurethatwillbenecessaryforalargescalewinery
developmentisnotforeseeableinanearfuture.Therefore,staffrecommendsretainingthisgroupinthe
proposedWineCountryEquestrianDistrict.
Group F-Exhibit A
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
B
E
L
L
E
C
H
A
IN
E
L
O
O
P
R
E
N
A
L
D
O
W
A
Y
A
V
E
N
ID
A
V
E
R
D
E
PASEO DEL TRAZA
LINDA ROSEA RD
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
ABARCA, MANNY
ABARCA, FLORA
SOLOMON, PETER
AL
97.67 ac.
ABARCA, MANNY
ABARCA, FLORA
,
AY
27.61 ac.
ABARCA, MANNY
ABARCA, FLORA
,
AY
18.67 ac.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.1 0.2 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP F
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupF.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group F
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
AL - Agricultural Livestock
Group F-Exhibit B
Group:
Request Date:
G
10/13/2011

Name of Owner: Barry Yoder

Current Proposed Wine Country District: Not within the Community Plan boundary

Request by Owner: Expansion of the proposed Wine Country Policy Area and inclusion in the Winery District
(Group G-Exhibit A)

APN(s): 943190030

Justification from Owner: Mr. Yoder would like to establish a small Bed and Breakfast Inn (Cottage Inn
up to 5 rooms);

Opportunities/Constraints:
Environmental Consideration
Current Land Use Designations: Rural Community Estate Density Residential;
Current Zoning Classification: R-A; and the parcel is approximately 4.87 acres. The propertys current General
Plan land use designation or zoning classification do not allow for establishment of a small Bed & Breakfast Inn
now.
In/Out
Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area Not in a High Fire Area; however, area is within State Responsibility Area
Fault Zone/Line Not in a Fault Zone; however is within mile of a fault line
Paleontological Sensitivity In, High A Sensitivity Area
Subsidence Out
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other

Existing and Surrounding Uses: The existing use for this parcel is single family residential (Group G-Exhibit B).
The surrounding uses also include single family estate lot residential developments.

Staff Recommendation: Currently, the property is not within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area or C/V zone. In
addition, this area does not have large-lot parcel sizes to accommodate a winery related operations. Therefore,
this request does not meet any objective of the Community Plan and staff recommends denying this request for
inclusion in the proposed Policy Area or Winery District thereof.
11:10 AM10/13/2011 11:10 AM
1
From: Lee, Josh
To: Early, Kristina
Cc: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Subject: FW: Zone change
Pleaseaddhimtothelist.
From: yodbar@aol.com[mailto:yodbar@aol.com]
To: Lee, J osh
Subject: Zone change
Josh, Thanks for taking the time with me to understand the process of my zoning.
I am writing to be concidered in the new zoning changes to the general zone changes. My APN number is 943-190-030-
7. I am currently zoned RA-5. My property currently boarders wine country zoning and I wish to be included as WC-W
zoning for the purpose of a possible small bed and breakfast of up to 5 rooms. Thank You, Barry Yoder 909-234-
7683 yodbar@aol.com
Group G-Exhibit A
VIN
O
W
AY
P
A
T
A
G
O
N
IA
C
T
G
R
A
N
J
A
C
T
C
O
R
TE PRIVADA
VISTA DEL MONTE
C
A
L
L
E
D
E
L
V
IN
E
D
O
S
S
P
E
R
R
Y
C
T
C
A
L
L
E
C
A
B
E
Z
A
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
CALLE CABERNET
WINERY
DISTRICT
R1
4.87
ac.
May 16 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.05 0.1 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP G
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupG.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group G
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
Group G-Exhibit B
Group: H

Request Date:
Name of Owner(s):
03/02/11
Current Proposed Wine Country District:
Jose Renato Cartagena (Representing various owners)
Request by Owner(s):
Not within Community Plan (Policy Area)
APN(s):
Expansion of the Wine Country Policy Area and inclusion in the proposed Winery District
(see Group H-Exhibit A)
Justification from Owner(s):
915410019, 915410011, 915410012, 915410018, and 915410020
Mr. Cartagena would like to work with his neighbors and assemble adequate
acres to establish a hotel. Mr. Cartagena believes that he would gain the necessary 20 acre minimum by
combining contiguous parcels. He only owns one parcel (915410019) but states that his neighbors agree with
this vision.

Current Land Use Designation: Rural Residential; Current Zoning Classification:
R-A. Neither the General Plan land use designation nor the zoning classification currently allow for a hotel.
Environmental Consideration In/Out
Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area In a High Fire Area
Paleontological Sensitivity In, Low sensitivity area
Subsidence Out
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP In, Criteria Cell no. 5841, HANS00818
Other Within the Eastern Municipal Water District Service Area

Existing and Surrounding Uses:
Staff Recommendation:
The existing uses within this group include single family residential, mobile
home with foundation and vacant (see Group H-Exhibit B). The surrounding uses also include single family
residential large lot developments.
Currently, the property is not within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area or C/V zone. In
addition, this area does not have large-lot parcel sizes to accommodate a winery related operations. Therefore,
this request does not meet any objective of the Community Plan and staff recommends denying this request for
inclusion in the proposed Policy Area or Winery District.
5:09 PM10/20/2011 5:09 PM
1
From: Lee, Josh
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:55 PM
Subject: FW: Temecula Re-zoning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:40 AM
To: 'J ose Renato Cartagena'; 'Cartagena, J ose'; Barnes, Olivia
Cc: Lee, J osh
Subject: RE: Temecula Re-zoning
IhopeyouknowthatIhavethetoughtaskofcomingupwithaplantoimplementSup.JeffStonesvisioninan
environmentallysensitivemanner.
Thankyouforyourunderstanding,
Mitra
From: J ose Renato Cartagena [mailto:renato.car@verizon.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 1:16 PM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; 'Cartagena, J ose'; Barnes, Olivia
Cc: Lee, J osh
Mitra
Thanksfortheinformationprovided.
Inregardstothe20acresminimumrequirements,myneighborsandIwereplanningonjoiningeffortsandputtingour
propertiestogethertomeetandexceedthe20acresrequired.Thewaterorsewerissuescanchangeintime,ifthe
locationiszonedforhotelswecanhandletheissuesaccordingly.
Iamverysorrythatthisisnotpossible,dealingwiththeplanningcommissionorBoardofsupervisorsmaybemore
difficulttogetanapproval,atthattimewheneveryanalysisiscomplete.Iwantedtocontributetothedevelopmentof
thearea,butperhapsistimeformetogiveup.IdonthaveJeffsemail,pleaseforwardthisemailstohimsoheis
awareofthecommunitydesires.
Thanks
JoseCartagena
5629655561cell
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra [mailto:MMEHTA@rctlma.org]

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:52 PM
To: 'Cartagena, J ose'; Barnes, Olivia
Cc: J ose Cartagena; Lee, J osh
GoodafternoonMr.Cartagena:
Ididhaveachancetolookatyourpropertyanditssurroundingarea.
Group H-Exhibit A
5:09 PM10/20/2011 5:09 PM
2
Firstofall,Iwanttoadviseyouthatahotelisgoingtorequireaminimum20acres,andtherefore,noneoftheseparcels
(5acres)wouldqualifytoaccommodateahotelinthisarea.
Secondly,thisareaiswithintheMultipleSpeciesConservationHabitatPlanCriteriaCells.Whichmeansthatthisareais
criticalforhabitatassemblyintheWesternRiversideCounty.Ourgeneralapproachforplanningisnottoencroach
developmentinthesesensitiveareas.
Lastly,itismyunderstandingthatthisareadoesnothavewaterorsewercapacitytoaccommodateadditional
development(aftermanydiscussionswiththewateragenciesinthisarea).
Therefore,IamsorrytoinformyouthatIamnotinclinedtoaddthisareatotheproposedWineCountryboundaryor
theHospitalitydistrictthereof.Ofcourse,youhavetherighttomakeyourcaseinfrontofthePlanningCommissionor
BoardofSupervisors.
Shouldyouwant,IwouldaddyoutoourWineCountrymailinglist.Thisway,youcanremaininformedaboutthe
upcomingpublicmeetingsonthisproject.
Thankyou,andagain,sorryfortheinconvenience.
Mitra
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)

Th).
From: Cartagena, J ose [mailto:J ose.Cartagena@disney.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Barnes, Olivia
Cc: J ose Cartagena; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Olivia
Great!thanksforforwardingtheinformationtoMitra,IllappreciateifyouorMitracancallmeontheCellnumber
below,Ihavesomequestions.
Thanks
Jose R. Cartagena, P.E.

Manager - Design and Engineering
Project Support - Architecture & Facility
Engineering Services - Disneyland Resort
Office Phone :
Fax
Email josecaitagenauisneycom
Cell Phone :
5:09 PM10/20/2011 5:09 PM

3
From: Barnes, Olivia [mailto:OBBarnes@rcbos.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Cartagena, J ose
Cc: J ose Cartagena; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
HelloMr.Cartagena,
ThankyouforyourrequestforinclusionofyourpropertyintheWineCountryPlanboundaries.Iamforwardingyour
requesttoMitraforherconsiderationandinput.Mitraorherstaffwillcontactyouinthenearfuture.
Regards,
Olivia Barnes
LegislativeTeamMember
SupervisorJeffStone
ThirdDistrict
obbarnes@rcbos.org
Riverside:
Phone9519551033
Fax9519552194
FrenchValley
37600SkyCanyonDr.#505
Murrieta,CA92563
Ph.9516987326,Fax9516770669
TollFreeNo.(866)3832203
From: Cartagena, J ose [mailto:J ose.Cartagena@disney.com]

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:21 AM
To: Barnes, Olivia
Cc: J ose Cartagena; Cartagena, J ose
Subject: Temecula Re-zoning
DearOlivia
Iwouldliketotalktoyoumoreabouttherezoningofthewinecountryarea.
Itwasapleasuremeetingyesterdayatthewinecountryrezoningpresentation;thepresentationwasveryencouraging
andinformative,youcancountwithmysupportandthesupportofsomeofmyfriendsinthearea.
Iown5acresintheareabutisnotincludedinthemap,Iwouldlikeyourdepartmenttoconsidermysuggestedchanges.
PleaseseetheattachmentandIwouldliketodiscussthembyphoneorinperson.Ifbyiphonepleasecallmetothe
personalcel#5629655561,thanks.
Jose R. Cartagena, P.E.

5:09 PM10/20/2011 5:09 PM
4
Manager - Design and Engineering
Project Support - Architecture & Facility
Engineering Services - Disneyland Resort
Office Phone :
Fax
Email josecaitagenauisneycom
Cell Phone :
E BENTON RD
M
E
A
D
O
W
B
R
O
O
K
L
N
E
A
G
L
E
V
IE
W
P
L
S
O
N
G
B
IR
D
D
R
ERICKSON DR
SAGE BLOSSOM LN
C
A
R
OLBEE LN
M
E
A
D
O
W
B
R
O
O
K
L
N
M
A
R
IN
MEADO
W
R
D
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
D
P
E
R
D
U
E

L
N
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
HOLLADAY, KELLY
HOLLADAY, JENINE
MF
4.31 ac.
COURSEY, JARROD
COURSEY, CHERE
R1
4.8 ac.
STEINER, RODERICK
,
R1
8.34 ac.
CARTAGENA, JOSE
CARTAGENA, ZELENA
YR
4.84 ac.
SECRETARY HOUSING & URBAN DEV OF WASH D C,
,
MF
2.57 ac.
5840
5841
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.05 0.1 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP H
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupH.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group H
MSHCP Criteria Cells
Eastern Municipal Water District
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
YR- Vacant Residential
Group H-Exhibit B
Group: I

Request Date:
Name of Owner(s):
03/02/11
Danny and Kathryn Atwood
Equestrian District

APN(s):
Addition to the proposed Winery District (see Group I- Exhibit A)
Justification for Request:
927630011
Mr. Atwoods parcel is currently within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area and adjacent
to Keyways Winery; he would like to reserve the right to establish a Winery in the future.

Current Land Use Designations: Agriculture with the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area;
Current Zoning Classification: C/V.

Flood Zone In Flood Sensitive Area
High Fire Area In a High Fire Area
Paleontological Sensitivity In, High A sensitivity area
Subsidence In
Liquefaction In, Very Low to Very High
MSHCP In, Criteria Cell no. 6917
Other

Existing and Surrounding Uses: The existing uses for the parcels in this group are single family residential and
surrounding uses are single family residential and wineries.

The property is within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area and C/V zone, therefore, staff
recommends inclusion in the proposed Winery District for this parcel and the adjacent parcel which has similar
situation (APN - 927630013) (see Group I- Exhibit B).
11:22 AM12/7/2011 11:22 AM
1
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:22 AM
Subject: FW: Atwood Property
Attachments: Letter re Change of Boundry.pdf
PleaseseeenclosedforWineCountryMapchangerequest.
Mitra
From: Michael Newcomb [mailto:michael@newcomblawgroup.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Atwood Property
Seeenclosed.
MichaelW.Newcomb,Esq.
Newcomb Law Group
Business, Intellectual Property, Asset Protection and Beverage Law Attorneys
43460RidgeparkDr,Suite200,Temecula,CA92590
Tel:(951)5410220(SoCal)|(707) 509-8701(NoCal):Ext.101
Fax:(951)5419360
ThisEmailmessageandanyattachmentsmaycontainlegallyprivileged,confidentialorproprietaryinformation.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient(s),orthe
employeeoragentresponsiblefordeliveryofthismessagetotheintendedrecipient(s),beadvisedthatanydissemination,distributionorcopyingofthisEmail
messageisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror,pleaseimmediatelynotifythesenderanddeletethisEmailmessagefromyourcomputer.
Group I-Exhibit A
Northern California Office
3478 Buskirk Ave., Suite 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel (707) 509-8701
Southern California Office
43460 Ridge Park Drive, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
Tel: (951) 541-0220

Writers Email: michael@newcomb-law.com
December 5, 2011
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502-1629
Re: Atwood Property: 37104 De Portola Road, Temecula, CA 92592
APN: 927-630-011-1 (14.23 Acres)
Dear Mitra:
I represent Dan and Katie Atwood, who own the above referenced property(Property). In
reviewing the Proposed Wine Country 20/20 Boundary Map, we discovered that the property
resides within the Equestrian District and not the Winery District. See Map below(note solid
and dashed lines):
Proposed Change
My client requests the County
include the Atwood Property
within the Winery District by
adjusting the boundary map as
noted in the dashed lines
above. We believe this change
is appropriate for two reasons:
(1) the property is immediately
adjacent to Keyways Winery,
thus, the area has existing
winery uses in placeand is
comprised of an existing vineyard and is approximately 14 acres; and(2) my clients currently
own Atwood Estate Vineyard (http://www.atwoodwines.com/), producers of fine estate syrah
wine, which are sold at the Collective in Old Town Temecula. Because my clients own a winery
operating in the city limits, there is a possibility (and we want to retain the option) that my
clients may move their winery operations to the Property in the future (assuming appropriate
entitlements are secured through the Plot Plan process).
Via Email:
MMEHTA@rctlma.org
Re: Atwood Property: 37104 De Portola Road, Temecula, CA 92592
APN: 927-630-011-1 (14.23 Acres)
December 5, 2011
________________________ Page 2
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, do not hesitate to contact
me at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Newcomb
Attorney at Law
cc: Client
A
LTA
M
E
S
A
C
T
C
IB
O
L
A
C
IR
A
V
E
N
ID
A
M
A
D
E
R
A
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
C
O
N
Q
U
IS
TA
D
O
R
P
L
OAK MOUNTA
IN
R
D
WINNERS CIR
S
H
IR
A
Z
W
A
Y
A
V
E
N
ID
A
V
E
R
D
E
PASEO
DEL TRAZA
C
A
L
L
E
L
A
S
L
O
M
A
S
CALLE VERDE
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
ATWOOD, DANNY
ATWOOD, KATHRYN
R1
14.23 ac.
WELLS, ROBERT
WELLS, BETTY
R1
9.15 ac.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.1 0.2 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP I
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupI.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group I
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
Group I-Exhibit B
Group: J
Request Date:

01/30/12
Name of Owner(s):

Russell Man and Various Owners
Request from Owner(s):
Winery District
APN(s):
Inclusion in the proposed Equestrian District (see Group J-Exhibit A)
941150017- 019, 941150021, 941150023-025, 941150027-030, 941190030, 941190034, 941190036-
037
Mr. Mann and his neighbors propose a new "Bella Vista Equestrian Zone" to
ensure allowance of 5 animals/acre, private boarding, animal rescue, pony clubs, 4H/FFA, and small-scale
breeding programs.
Current Land Use Designations: Rural Residential and Rural Community Estate
Density Residential; Current Zoning Classification: R-A and R-R. R-A Zone allows two animals per 20,000 square
feet and two additional animals per acre; the R-R Zone allows five animals per acre. A five acre property with
the R-A Zone may have up to 12 horses; R-R Zone may have up to 25 horses. In addition, some of the desired
uses (pony clubs, animal rescue, etc.) are not currently allowed in the General Plan land use designations or
zoning classifications.
In/Out
Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area Out of High Fire Area; however, the area is within State Responsibility Area
Fault Zone/Line In
Subsidence In
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other

The existing uses in this group are single family residential and vacant
residential (see Group J-Exhibit B). The surrounding uses include single family residential, vacant parcels and
wineries.
The existing equestrian uses may continue operations if they are in compliance with the
parcels existing zoning classification and were established legally. The Community Plan (Project) does not
change their zoning classifications. Furthermore, a series of wineries are located in a close proximity to this
group, which may create land uses conflicts in the future if additional equestrian uses are allowed in this group.
Therefore, this request does not meet an objective of the Community Plan and staff recommends denying this
request for inclusion in the proposed Equestrian District.
1:54 PM1/30/2012 1:54 PM
1
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:40 PM
Subject: FW: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone follow up
Attachments: RE: **UL-JUNK** Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition; RE: Temecula Bella Vista
Equestrian Zone petition; Re: Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition; Re: Follow-up:
Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
FYI
From: Russ Mann [mailto:RMann@covario.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:15 AM
Cc: Rush, Adam
Subject: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone follow up
MitraandAdam:
HopeyouhadaniceThanksgiving.
FollowinguponmyemailtoMitraearlierthisweek,andmyemailstoAdamlastmonth,Inowhaveverbalconfirmation
fromover12residentsofBellaVista,ViaCacho,CalleAnita,BeaujolaisCt.andAveBrisathattheywantourareatobe
carvedoutandzonedwithEquestrianZonepermissions.
Asampleofemailsfromsomeofthesefolksareenclosedasattachments.
BelowisaparcelmapshowingBellaVistabetweenMonteDeOroandGlenOaks.Ihaveattemptedtomakethiseasy
andcoloritinforyou:
x ThedarkergreenparcelsaretheoneswhereIknowtheownerssupportanequestrianzoning.
x Thelightergreenparcelsareundeveloped/uninhabited/agriculturalonly(Iincludethistoshowhowmuchof
BellaVistafrontagehasnoreallocalresidentrepresentation).
Thisisafteronlytwoweeksofcampaigning,andtheseresidentsarestillreachingouttotheirneighborstogetmore
buyin.
Asitstandsthough,youcanseethatasignificantportionofBellaVistafrontageanditssidestreets(especiallythe
middlesection)wanttobezonedforEquestrian/hobbyranchingactivities.
IcanalsoletyouknowthatmostoftheseresidentshavenocurrentissueswiththeWineriesortheproposedwinery
zoningregulations,butlikemyself,theywanttoensurethe5animal/acreruleandtherighttodoprivateboarding,
animalrescue,ponyclubs,4H/FFA,smallscalebreedingprograms,etc.
Pleaseletmeknowspecificallyhowandwhenweshouldfollowupsothattheresidentsofthissmallareacan
appropriatelyworkwiththecountytogetthezoningcarveoutwewant.
Thanks.
Russ
Group J-Exhibit A
1:54 PM1/30/2012 1:54 PM
2
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
(linkedin) http://www.linkedin.com/in/russellmann
================================
3611 Valley Centre Drive, Ste. 500
San Diego, CA 92130
http://www.covario.com
The contents of this email are the confidential and proprietary information of Covario and/or its clients and customers. Interception
of this email is unlawful and access by persons to whom the email is not addressed is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the contents of this email may subject you to both criminal and civil penalties. IF
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE [858.397.1522] OR
RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THIS FILE/MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
1:55 PM1/30/2012 1:55 PM

1
From: Vince Carlson [vince.carlson@caltorque.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:53 PM
To: 'Russ Mann'
Subject: RE: **UL-JUNK** Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
VincentGCarlson
39235BellaVista
Temecula,CA.92592
IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditsside
streetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZonearea,includingbutnotlimitedtothe
abilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,
tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoningpermissions.
Vincent G Carlson
Director of Market Development
California Torque Products
626-320-1030
951-553-9339 cell

To: Vince.carlson@caltorque.com; Lance Sandon; Bill.pritchett@yahoo.com; Tim P LeFort; Lisa Bone
(edenspeach@yahoo.com); Ricky Gibson (gibadopt10@aol.com); teamtyler.susan@gmail.com; J ulie; jhfis@hotmail.com;
jesseroux@gmail.com; Rob Lionetti (Roblio@hotmail.com); J oanne Davis (davisranch214@yahoo.com); J ill
Subject: **UL-J UNK** Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
Folks:
Justaquickupdate:BillPritchettwholivesoffofCalleAnitahasbeengreatatgettingthewholeCalleAnitateam
involvedandsupportiveaswell,andtheyaresupportiveoftheideatocreateasmallEquestrianZoneinandaround
BellaVista.
Ireceivedsomerepliesfromacoupleofyou;couldeveryonepleaseemailmebackthefollowing:
x Yourname
x Yourstreetaddress
x Yourphonenumber
x Ihaveyouremail
x Justpastethisin:IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBella
VistafrontageanditssidestreetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZone
area,includingbutnotlimitedtotheabilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantfor
sale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoning
permissions.
Anyquestions,feelfreetogivemeacallat951.491.5360oremailmeback.
1:55 PM1/30/2012 1:55 PM
2
JillandImayhaveaneighborhoodgatheringinthenextcoupleofweekstomeetallofyouinpersontodiscussthis
issueandnextsteps.
Thankssomuchandhappyholidays!
RussMann
From: Russ Mann

Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 7:57 AM
To: 'Vince.carlson@caltorque.com'; 'Lance Sandon'; 'Bill.pritchett@yahoo.com'; 'Tim P LeFort'; Lisa Bone
(edenspeach@yahoo.com); Ricky Gibson (gibadopt10@aol.com); 'teamtyler.susan@gmail.com'; est@inland.net
Subject: Temecula Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
Importance: High
Lance,Susan,Vince,Bill,Tim,LisaandAaron,RickyandTomandJulie:
ThisemailisaboutmydiscussionswithyoualltohelpcreateasmallequestrianzoneonBellaVistawithintheproposed
WineCountryarea.
AllIneedrightnowisforyoutoreplywithyourstreetaddress(es)andphonenumbers,andthestatement:
AlsoifyoucangetanyofourneighborsonBellaVistaorthesidestreets(likeJayWalkerRanch,orJoanne,orother
folksyoumayknowintheneighborhood),thatwillhelpcementthecase.
Iwillgathertheseupandstartpushinghardtogetthisspecialzonesetupforus.
Ifyouareinterested,thepersonatthecountythatIamattemptingtoworkwithandwhoisbeingamenableisthis
person:
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)
MMEHTA@rctlma.org
Thanksforyourhelp.
Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
1:55 PM1/30/2012 1:55 PM
3
================================
San Diego, CA 92130
1:56 PM1/30/2012 1:56 PM

1
From: Julie [julie@storagecommander.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:13 PM
To: 'Russ Mann'
Subject: RE: Temecula Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
ThankyouRuss!
Towhomitmayconcern:
WewouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditsside
abilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,to
have4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoningpermissions.
Thankyou,Tom&JulieSmith
39640BellaVistaRoad
Temecula,CA92592
9516769388

To: 'J ulie@storagecommander.com'
Subject: Fw: Temecula Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
From: Russ Mann

To: Vince.carlson@caltorque.com <Vince.carlson@caltorque.com>; Lance Sandon <lsandon@packagingcorp.com>;
Bill.pritchett@yahoo.com <Bill.pritchett@yahoo.com>; Tim P LeFort <tim.lefort@ucr.edu>; Lisa Bone
(edenspeach@yahoo.com) <edenspeach@yahoo.com>; Ricky Gibson (gibadopt10@aol.com) <gibadopt10@aol.com>;
teamtyler.susan@gmail.com <teamtyler.susan@gmail.com>; est@inland.net <est@inland.net>
WineCountryarea.
1:56 PM1/30/2012 1:56 PM
2
person:
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)
Thanksforyourhelp.
Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
================================
San Diego, CA 92130
1:57 PM1/30/2012 1:57 PM

1
From: Susan Tyler [teamtyler.susan@gmail.com]
To: Russ Mann
Subject: Re: Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
I would like to see a Bella Vista Equestrian Zone created to zone all properties with Bella Vista frontage and its
side streets to have the same rights and privileges as the proposed Equestrian Zone area, including but not
limited to the ability to keep 5 animals per acre (not including offspring meant for sale), to operate commercial
boarding facilities, to have 4H/FFA project animals, and all other similar zoning permissions
Susan and Neil Tyler
39660 Via Cacho
Temecula, CA
931-551-4328
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Russ Mann <RMann@covario.com>wrote:
Folks:
J ust a quick update: Bill Pritchett who lives off of Calle Anita has been great at getting the whole Calle Anita
team involved and supportive as well, and they are supportive of the idea to create a small Equestrian Zone in
and around Bella Vista.
I received some replies from a couple of you; could everyone please email me back the following:
* Your name
* Your street address
* Your phone number
* I have your email
* J ust paste this in: "I would like to see a Bella Vista Equestrian Zone created to zone all properties with
Bella Vista frontage and its side streets to have the same rights and privileges as the proposed Equestrian Zone
area, including but not limited to the ability to keep 5 animals per acre (not including offspring meant for sale),
to operate commercial boarding facilities, to have 4H/FFA project animals, and all other similar zoning
permissions."
Any questions, feel free to give me a call at 951.491.5360 or email me back.
J ill and I may have a neighborhood gathering in the next couple of weeks to meet all of you in person to discuss
this issue and next steps.
Thanks so much and happy holidays!
-Russ Mann
From: Russ Mann
1:57 PM1/30/2012 1:57 PM
2
(edenspeach@yahoo.com); Ricky Gibson (gibadopt10@aol.com); 'teamtyler.susan@gmail.com';
est@inland.net
Importance: High
Lance, Susan, Vince, Bill, Tim, Lisa and Aaron, Ricky and Tom and J ulie:
This email is about my discussions with you all to help create a small equestrian zone on Bella Vista within the
proposed Wine Country area.
All I need right now is for you to reply with your street address(es) and phone numbers, and the statement:
"I would like to see a Bella Vista Equestrian Zone created to zone all properties with Bella Vista frontage and
its side streets to have the same rights and privileges as the proposed Equestrian Zone area, including but not
boarding facilities, to have 4H/FFA project animals, and all other similar zoning permissions."
Also- if you can get any of our neighbors on Bella Vista or the side streets (like J ay Walker Ranch, or J oanne,
or other folks you may know in the neighborhood), that will help cement the case.
I will gather these up and start pushing hard to get this special zone set up for us.
If you are interested, the person at the county that I am attempting to work with and who is being amenable is
this person:
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)
MMEHTA@rctlma.org<mailto:MMEHTA@rctlma.org>
Thanks for your help.
-Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
================================
[logo-cov]
1:57 PM1/30/2012 1:57 PM
3
San Diego, CA 92130
http://www.covario.com<http://www.covario.com/>
The contents of this email are the confidential and proprietary information of Covario and/or its clients and
customers. Interception of this email is unlawful and access by persons to whom the email is not addressed is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the contents of
this email may subject you to both criminal and civil penalties. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE [858.397.1522]
OR RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THIS FILE/MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
1:58 PM1/30/2012 1:58 PM
1
From: jesseroux@gmail.com
To: Russ Mann
Subject: Re: Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
J esse Roux
39646 calle anita
9517955918
I would like to see a Bella Vista Equestrian Zone created to zone all properties with Bella Vista frontage and its
side streets to have the same rights and privileges as the proposed Equestrian Zone area, including but not
boarding facilities, to have 4H/FFA project animals, and all other similar zoning permissions.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone
----- Reply message -----
From: "Russ Mann" <RMann@covario.com>
To: "Vince.carlson@caltorque.com" <Vince.carlson@caltorque.com>, "Lance Sandon"
<lsandon@packagingcorp.com>, "Bill.pritchett@yahoo.com" <Bill.pritchett@yahoo.com>, "Tim P LeFort"
<tim.lefort@ucr.edu>, "Lisa Bone (edenspeach@yahoo.com)" <edenspeach@yahoo.com>, "Ricky Gibson
(gibadopt10@aol.com)" <gibadopt10@aol.com>, "teamtyler.susan@gmail.com"
<teamtyler.susan@gmail.com>, "J ulie" <julie@storagecommander.com>, "jhfis@hotmail.com"
<jhfis@hotmail.com>, "jesseroux@gmail.com" <jesseroux@gmail.com>, "Rob Lionetti
(Roblio@hotmail.com)" <Roblio@hotmail.com>, "J oanne Davis (davisranch214@yahoo.com)"
<davisranch214@yahoo.com>, "J ill" <jill_mann@yahoo.com>
Subject: Follow-up: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
Date: Wed, Nov 30, 2011 15:57
Folks:
Justaquickupdate:BillPritchettwholivesoffofCalleAnitahasbeengreatatgettingthewholeCalleAnitateam
involvedandsupportiveaswell,andtheyaresupportiveoftheideatocreateasmallEquestrianZoneinandaround
BellaVista.
Ireceivedsomerepliesfromacoupleofyou;couldeveryonepleaseemailmebackthefollowing:
x Yourname
x Yourstreetaddress
x Yourphonenumber
x Ihaveyouremail
x Justpastethisin:IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBella
VistafrontageanditssidestreetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZone
area,includingbutnotlimitedtotheabilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantfor
sale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoning
permissions.
Anyquestions,feelfreetogivemeacallat951.491.5360oremailmeback.
1:58 PM1/30/2012 1:58 PM
2
JillandImayhaveaneighborhoodgatheringinthenextcoupleofweekstomeetallofyouinpersontodiscussthis
issueandnextsteps.
Thankssomuchandhappyholidays!
RussMann
From: Russ Mann

(edenspeach@yahoo.com); Ricky Gibson (gibadopt10@aol.com); 'teamtyler.susan@gmail.com'; est@inland.net
Importance: High
WineCountryarea.
person:
(951) 955 8514
(951) 955 0923 (Fax)
MMEHTA@rctlma.org
Thanksforyourhelp.
Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
1:58 PM1/30/2012 1:58 PM
3
================================
logo-cov
San Diego, CA 92130
1:59 PM1/30/2012 1:59 PM

1
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:41 PM
Subject: FW: One more: Bella Vista Equestrian Zone petition
FYI
OriginalMessage
From:RussMann[mailto:RMann@covario.com]
Sent:Tuesday,January10,20122:11PM
To:MehtaCooper,Mitra
Subject:Onemore:BellaVistaEquestrianZonepetition
Mitra:
Happynewyear,didyoureceivemyemailandpackage?
Hereisonemore,animportantoneasthesefolksareattheMonteDeOroendofBellaVista
andhaveabighorsesetup.
Thanks.
Russ
OriginalMessage
From:Christine[mailto:gibadopt10@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,January10,201211:52AM
To:RussMann
Subject:Re:PLEASEREPLY:BellaVistaEquestrianZonepetition
ChristineandRickyGIBSON39755BeaujolaisctTemecula9417606550
SentfrommyVerizonWirelesssmartphone
RussMann<RMann@covario.com>wrote:
>LisaandRicky,youarethelasttwoleft,pleaseemailmebackthefollowing:
>
>
>*Yourname
>
>*Yourstreetaddress
>
>*Yourphonenumber
>
>*Ihaveyouremail
>
>*Justpastethisin:"IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedto
zoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditssidestreetstohavethesamerights
andprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZonearea,includingbutnotlimitedtotheability
tokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercial
boardingfacilities,tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoning
permissions."
1:59 PM1/30/2012 1:59 PM
2
>
>
From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Mares, David
Cc: Lee, J osh; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: Update on MANN property zoning questions
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:01:53 PM
Mitra answered all my questions today, thanks.
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:ARUSH@rctlma.org]
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Russ Mann; Mares, David
Mitra,
I am available at my desk until 3pm and after 3:30
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:42 AM
To: 'Russ Mann'; Rush, Adam; Mares, David
Good morning Russ:
Would it be possible to speak to you sometimes today? I am available until my 4:00 PM meeting and
discuss this and other e-mail with you.
Otherwise, I am available tomorrow between 10.30-2:00 as well. Please propose a time and I will block
it on my calendar.
Mitra
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Rush, Adam; Mares, David
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: Update on MANN property zoning questions
Adam, Mitra, et al:
Adam:
Thanks for providing the link to the "standard change of zone plan" application in your last
correspondence.
I am hiring a real estate/zoning attorney to help me complete it appropriately and to hopefully expedite
this process.
Are there any particular firms or attorneys you recommend that are in good standing with the county to
help this happen.
It is curious as to why a change of zone for a single property takes 4-6 months- can you explain what
all has to happen that takes so long?
Mitra:
I am still very concerned about the overall Wine Country Community Plan for my area and how it seems
to be being railroaded through by Dan Stephenson, Bill Wilson and other interested parties.
It is also concerning that folks up in Riverside who may not have as much background in
rural/agricultural lifestyles don't seem to have taken a close look at the "interior" of Wine Country- so
again, I would reiterate that you are cordially invited for a behind-the-scenes tour with me. Next week
is wide open for me- do you have any days you are in Temecula that we could meet and I could show
you around.
Finally, can you please let me know what are the upcoming public dates to be aware of to discuss this,
as well as the dates of closed-door sessions that the public may not be invited to, but has a right to be
informed about.
Thanks so much.
-Russ
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:47 PM
To: Russ Mann
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
Dear Mr. Mann,
Thank you for your candor and practical application of your property. Your comments are definitely
insightful. In order to effectively advise you on how to process a zone change application it would be
very helpful to be able to take a look at your property via an APN or address.
A zone change application is definitely a possibility and I would like to take the opportunity to review the
specifics regarding your property and I can provide more specifics on the process.
Please let me know if there are any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Adam B. Rush, Principal Planner
Riverside CAC
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 955-6646
Cell Phone: (951) 833-0878
Fax: (951) 955-1811
________________________________________
From: Russ Mann [RMann@covario.com]
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Russ Mann
Thanks Adam.
My issue is that my property is zoned R-R for land use and R-A5 for zoning purposes. I would assume
that means I am limited to 2 animals/acre, whereas when I moved here I thought I had 5 animals/acre
plus the 3X that for sheep and goats.
I am not sure if any of you are animal people, but for someone who wants to run a small private
boarding facility, or even an amateur roper, cutter, or small livestock hobby rancher, 2 animals/acre is
not sufficient.
We currently have 5 acres with 3 horses and 12 goats, which means I am already out of compliance,
and I cant even use all the stalls and paddocks I have on my property, nor can anyone even see my
animals from the street.
At one point, we were boarding 8 horses, owned 3 of our own, and had 50 breeding goats. The
place was still immaculate, very efficiently used. It would have been in compliance under the R-R
rules, with room to spare, but not under R-A5, and we were cited.
So I want to know how to get my property zoned as R-R, permanently, for zoning purposes.
Can you please inform me how to do that? Do I hire a real estate attorney, do I put something in front
of you, the planning commission, or what is the process?
If I know I have R-R permissions to run my private boarding and breeding operations, or to keep cattle
for roping and cutting, then I will be much more able to support the overall plan.
Thanks for any advice.
-Russ
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Russ Mann
Dear Mr. Mann,
Thank you for your email and for contacting the Riverside County Planning Department. I am the Project
Manager for the Comprehensive Update to Ordinance No. 348 (the County's Land Use Ordinance). This
project is moving along and we are expected to be at Planning Commission for public hearings by the
end of the year.
This project has taken a comprehensive look at every zoning classification, which includes the Rural
Residential (R-R) and Residential Agriculture (R-A) zone.
With respect to animal keeping uses in both the R-A and R-R zones, there is no intention to remove the
authorization of any of these uses contained within these zones.
For your review and comment, I have attached the DRAFT public versions of the R-A and R-R zones. I
believe you will find the particular uses of concern to be retained within these draft versions. In order to
better understand these documents, please note that language in a Redline/Strikeout is being deleted,
language in black is existing and being retained, and language in red and underlined is newly proposed
language.
Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Adam Rush
Principal Planner - Advance Planning
Riverside County CAC
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
arush@rctlma.org
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:48 PM
To: Rush, Adam
Subject: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
Adam:
I am a wine country area resident and was forwarded a document listing you as in charge of a major
zoning re-write, especially as it relates to R-R and R-A zoning.
I have been in communication with Mitra on similar matters.
Can you please explain your role versus Mitra and who I should be talking to about my property which
is somehow zoned both R-R and R-A5 and I want to make sure is zoned R-R for animal keeping
purposes.
Thanks.
-Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
================================
[logo-cov]
San Diego, CA 92130
The contents of this email are the confidential and proprietary information of Covario and/or its clients
and customers. Interception of this email is unlawful and access by persons to whom the email is not
addressed is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution
of the contents of this email may subject you to both criminal and civil penalties. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE
[858.397.1522] OR RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THIS FILE/MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam; Mares, David
Subject: Update on MANN property zoning questions
Date: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:50:04 PM
Adam, Mitra, et al:
Adam:
Thanks for providing the link to the "standard change of zone plan" application in your last
correspondence.
I am hiring a real estate/zoning attorney to help me complete it appropriately and to hopefully expedite
this process.
Are there any particular firms or attorneys you recommend that are in good standing with the county to
help this happen.
It is curious as to why a change of zone for a single property takes 4-6 months- can you explain what
all has to happen that takes so long?
Mitra:
I am still very concerned about the overall Wine Country Community Plan for my area and how it seems
to be being railroaded through by Dan Stephenson, Bill Wilson and other interested parties.
It is also concerning that folks up in Riverside who may not have as much background in
rural/agricultural lifestyles don't seem to have taken a close look at the "interior" of Wine Country- so
again, I would reiterate that you are cordially invited for a behind-the-scenes tour with me. Next week
is wide open for me- do you have any days you are in Temecula that we could meet and I could show
you around.
Finally, can you please let me know what are the upcoming public dates to be aware of to discuss this,
as well as the dates of closed-door sessions that the public may not be invited to, but has a right to be
informed about.
Thanks so much.
-Russ
To: Russ Mann
Dear Mr. Mann,
Thank you for your candor and practical application of your property. Your comments are definitely
insightful. In order to effectively advise you on how to process a zone change application it would be
very helpful to be able to take a look at your property via an APN or address.
A zone change application is definitely a possibility and I would like to take the opportunity to review the
specifics regarding your property and I can provide more specifics on the process.
Sincerely,
Riverside CAC
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 955-6646
Cell Phone: (951) 833-0878
Fax: (951) 955-1811
________________________________________
To: Rush, Adam
Thanks Adam.
My issue is that my property is zoned R-R for land use and R-A5 for zoning purposes. I would assume
that means I am limited to 2 animals/acre, whereas when I moved here I thought I had 5 animals/acre
plus the 3X that for sheep and goats.
boarding facility, or even an amateur roper, cutter, or small livestock hobby rancher, 2 animals/acre is
not sufficient.
We currently have 5 acres with 3 horses and 12 goats, which means I am already out of compliance,
and I cant even use all the stalls and paddocks I have on my property, nor can anyone even see my
animals from the street.
Can you please inform me how to do that? Do I hire a real estate attorney, do I put something in front
of you, the planning commission, or what is the process?
If I know I have R-R permissions to run my private boarding and breeding operations, or to keep cattle
for roping and cutting, then I will be much more able to support the overall plan.
-Russ
To: Russ Mann
Dear Mr. Mann,
Thank you for your email and for contacting the Riverside County Planning Department. I am the Project
Manager for the Comprehensive Update to Ordinance No. 348 (the County's Land Use Ordinance). This
project is moving along and we are expected to be at Planning Commission for public hearings by the
end of the year.
With respect to animal keeping uses in both the R-A and R-R zones, there is no intention to remove the
authorization of any of these uses contained within these zones.
For your review and comment, I have attached the DRAFT public versions of the R-A and R-R zones. I
believe you will find the particular uses of concern to be retained within these draft versions. In order to
better understand these documents, please note that language in a Redline/Strikeout is being deleted,
language in black is existing and being retained, and language in red and underlined is newly proposed
language.
Sincerely,
Adam Rush
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
arush@rctlma.org
To: Rush, Adam
Adam:
I am a wine country area resident and was forwarded a document listing you as in charge of a major
zoning re-write, especially as it relates to R-R and R-A zoning.
Can you please explain your role versus Mitra and who I should be talking to about my property which
is somehow zoned both R-R and R-A5 and I want to make sure is zoned R-R for animal keeping
purposes.
Thanks.
-Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
================================
[logo-cov]
San Diego, CA 92130
The contents of this email are the confidential and proprietary information of Covario and/or its clients
and customers. Interception of this email is unlawful and access by persons to whom the email is not
addressed is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution
of the contents of this email may subject you to both criminal and civil penalties. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE
[858.397.1522] OR RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THIS FILE/MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:02:26 AM
Adam:

I greatly appreciate your consideration of my individual issues, when I know
you have 200,000 residents of Temecula and over 2 million in Riverside
County.

My confusion comes from the two maps off the Riverside TLMA GIS (below) where
in one property I am R-R and in the next R-A5, with A-10 across the street
and R-R down the road.

The APN and address are : - 941-150-024 39651 VIA CACHO TEMECULA, CA. 92592 .
Other info I pulled from the GIS is below.
I pulled a satellite picture of the property and showed you what could be done (the unused part), and
what is currently being done (already out of compliance). 5 acres is a TON of room that one can do a
lot with, without overcrowding.
Perhaps of interest is our old website from when we offered boarding and breeding is here:
www.ranchopapagallo.com
And ironically, heres an article from the Press-Enterprise where my wife was
lauded for being part of the locally grown movement, with our organic
chicken eggs and goat breeding, and a picture of our old goat herd:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_food03.3f766d6.html
By the way, there are 26 goats in that picture using only about a quarter
of an acre in the dry pasture that is hidden from street view- yet we would
be considered out of compliance for that (as mentioned below, I have half as
many goats on 5 acres yet am already out of compliance right now).

Thanks for your thoughts and interest.

-Russ

APN(s):
Click on the APN to display the Assessor's Map
941-150-024-4
OWNER NAME:
- NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE
ADDRESS:
- 941-150-024
39651 VIA CACHO
TEMECULA, CA. 92592
MAI L TO NAME/ADDRESS:
- 941-150-024
- (SEE OWNER)
- 39651 VIA CACHO
- TEMECULA CA.. 92592
APN CAME FROM:
- 941-150-024
- CAME FROM: 941-150-008
LOT SI ZE:
- 941-150-024
- RECORDED LOT SIZE IS: 4.61 ACRES
PROPERTY CHARACTERI STI CS:
- 941-150-024
- WOOD FRAME, 3120 SQFT., 3 BDRM/ 2.5 BATH, 1 STORY, ATTACHED GARAGE(660 SQ. FT),
CONST'D 1990, TILE ROOF, CENTRAL HEATING, CENTRAL COOLING, POOL
ELEVATI ON MI N/MAX:
- 1562/1585 FEET
LEGAL DESCRI PTI ON:
- APN: 941150024
- RECORDED BOOK/PAGE: MB 115/24
- SUBDIVISION NAME: TR 11743-1
- LOT/PARCEL: 16, BLOCK: NOT AVAILABLE, Por.
- TRACT NUMBER: 11743
BASE YEAR ASSESSMENT:
- 941-150-024
- BASE YEAR: 2003
TOWNSHI P/RANGE:
- T7SR1W SEC 19
- T7SR1W SEC 20
CEMETERY DI STRI CTS:
- TEMECULA CEMETERY DISTRICT
CI TY:
- UNINCORPORATED AREA
CI TY SPHERE:
- NOT IN A CITY SPHERE
CI TY ANNEXATI ON DATE:
- NO DATE
COMMUNI TY:
- IN OR PARTIALLY WITHIN RANCHO CALIFORNIA. SEE MAP FOR MORE INFORMATION.
2001 SUPERVI SORI AL DI STRI CT:
- JEFF STONE, DISTRICT 3
as established by County Ordinance 813, August 14, 2001
AREA PLAN:
- SOUTHWEST AREA
WESTERN MSHCP FEE AREA:
Click here for more information about Ordinance 810.
- IN OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE WESTERN MSHCP FEE AREA. SEE MAP FOR MORE
INFORMATION.
COACHELLA VALLEY MSHCP AREA:
- NOT WITHIN THE COACHELLA VALLEY MSHCP AREA
WRCMSHCP AREAPLAN:
- NOT IN AN AREAPLAN
WRCMSHCP CELL GROUP:
- NOT IN A CELLGROUP
WRCMSHCP CELL NUMBER:
- NOT IN A CELL
IMPORTANT NOTICE: On October 7, 2003, the County of Riverside adopted a new General Plan. The
General Plan provides new land use designations for all parcels in the unincorporated area of
Riverside County. For any parcel, the General Plan may provide for a different type of land use than is
provided for under existing zoning. During the next one to two years, the County will undertake a
program to review all the zoning in the unincorporated area, and where necessary, change the zoning,
following advertised public hearings, to conform to the County's new General Plan. Until then, please
be advised that there may be a difference between the zoning and General Plan designations on any
parcel. This may result in, at a minimum, the need to change the zoning before desired development
may proceed. For further information, please contact the Riverside County Planning Department offices
in Riverside at (951) 955-3200, in Murrieta at (951) 600-6170, or in Indio at (760) 863-8277.:
LANDUSE DESI GNATI ON:
Click here for general plan/landuse descriptions.
- RR
CHECK MAP TO CONFIRM LANDUSE DESIGNATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT LANDUSE CODES, CALL THE COUNTY'S PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AT 951-955-3200.
ZONI NG CODE(S) ORD. 348:
Click here for zoning descriptions.
- R-A-5
CHECK MAP TO CONFIRM ZONING DESIGNATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ZONING CODES, CALL THE COUNTY'S PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AT 951-955-3200.
ZONI NG DI STRI CT/AREA:
- RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
OUTDOOR BI LLBOARDS:
- BILLBOARDS NOT PERMITTED BY ZONING
SPECI FI C PLAN:
- NOT WITHIN A SPECIFIC PLAN
NOTE: Non-mapped Policy Area issues may exist on this parcel. Please contact the Planning
Department at (951)955-3200 for more information.
MAPPED POLI CY AREAS:
- NONE
GENERAL PLAN POLI CY OVERLAY:
- NOT IN A GENERAL PLAN POLICY OVERLAY AREA
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT #:
- NOT IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AREA
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS:
- NOT IN A REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AGRI CULTURE PRESERVE:
- NOT IN AN AGRICULTURE PRESERVE
AI RPORT I NFLUENCE AREAS:
- NOT IN AN AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
AI RPORT COMPATI BLI TY ZONES:
- NOT IN AN AIRPORT COMPATIBILTY ZONE
PLANNI NG CASE(S):
- CZ03361
DESCRIPTION: NOT AVAILABLE
APPLIED DATE: 07/08/1998
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: NOTINLMS
THE LINKS BELOW MAY NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE
PLANNING CASE INFORMATION
PLANNING CASE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ALL PERMITS AND ACTIVITIES
DEV. I MP. FEE AREA ORD. 659:
- SOUTHWEST AREA
2000 CENSUS TRACT:
- 043203
1990 FARMLAND DESI GNATI ON:
- NOT A IN FARMLAND DESIGNATION
2000 CENSUS DESI GNATI ON:
- CENSUS DESIGNATION REPORT IS NOT AVAILABLE
I NDI AN TRI BAL LANDS:
- NOT IN A TRIBAL LAND
SCHOOL DI STRI CT:
- TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
ROAD & BRI DGE DI STRI CT:
- NOT IN A DISTRICT
ROADBOOK PAGE:
- 130
* BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATIONS. USE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SURVEY INFORMATION MUST BE
CONSULTED OR PREPARED TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY.
CETAP CORRI DORS:
- NOT IN A CETAP CORRIDOR.
CI RCULATI ON ELEMENT ULTI MATE RI GHT-OF-WAY ROADS:
- NOT IN A CIRCULATION ELEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY
EAST T.U.M.F. ORD. 673:
- NOT WITHIN THE EASTERN TUMF FEE AREA
WEST T.U.M.F. ORD. 824:
- IN OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THESE FEE AREAS. SEE MAP FOR MORE INFORMATION.
- SOUTHWEST
WATER DI STRI CT:
- EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (EMWD)
FLOOD CONTROL DI STRI CT:
- RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
FEMA FLOOD PLAI N:
- NOT IN A FLOOD ZONE
WATERSHED:
- SANTA MARGARITA
VEGETATI ON:
- NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND
- RESIDENTIAL/URBAN/EXOTIC
- RIVERSIDEAN SAGE SCRUB
SKR FEE AREA ORD. 663.10:
- IN OR PARTIALLY WITHIN A FEE AREA. SEE MAP FOR MORE INFORMATION.
FTL FEE AREA ORD. 457 & 460:
- NOT WITHIN A FEE AREA
FTL SAND SOURCE AREA:
- NOT IN A SAND SOURCE AREA
FTL PRESERVE:
- NOT INSIDE A FTL PRESERVE
HANS/ERP PROJ ECT:
- NONE
FAULT ZONE:
- NOT IN A FAULT ZONE
FAULTS:
- NOT WITHIN A 1/2 MILE OF A FAULT
LI QUEFACTI ON POTENTI AL:
- NO POTENTIAL FOR LIQUEFACTION EXISTS
SUBSI DENCE:
- NOT IN A SUBSIDENCE AREA
HI GH FI RE AREA ORD. 787:
- NOT IN A HIGH FIRE AREA
LI GHTI NG ORD. 655:
- ZONE B, 15.68 MILES.
COUNTY SERVI CE AREA:
- IN OR PARTIALLY WITHIN
WINE COUNTRY #149 -
ROAD MAINTAINANCE
BUI LDI NG PERMI T(S):
-353612
ELECTRICAL METER SET & GAS TEST
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: ISSUED
-353432
RENEWAL DWELL AND ATT GAR AIR490 R-3 R 2673 7484 DWELL490 R-3 WOOD 2673 135521
PRCH490 PR V-N 284 3663 PRIGR490 M-1 WOOD 900 16200
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: APPLIED
-242929
RESIDENTIAL GRADING (ONE LOT)
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: ISSUED
-241543
DWELL AND ATT GAR DWELLY R-3 WOOD 2673 73775 PRIGRY M-1 WOOD 900 8190 PRCHY1
PR V-N 284 1505 AIRY1 R-3 R 2673 6415
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: FINALED
-BSP030852
RESIDENTIAL POOL AND SPA W/HEATER
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: FINAL
THE LINKS BELOW MAY NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE
BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION
INFO FOR ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
INSPECTION HISTORY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLAN CHECK STATUS
FEE INFORMATION
BUILDING PERMIT VALUATIONS
ENVI RON. HEALTH CASE(S):
- EHS033076
DESCRIPTION: NOT AVAILABLE
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: APPLIED
TAX RATE AREA:
- 094-147
TAX ASSESSMENT DI STRI CTS:
- 094-147
COUNTY FREE LIBRARY
COUNTY STRUCTURE FIRE PROTECTION
COUNTY WASTE RESOURCE MGMT DIST
CSA 149
CSA 152
EASTERN MUN WATER IMP DIST B
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
ELS MURRIETA ANZA RESOURCE CONS
ELSINORE AREA ELEM SCHOOL FUND
FLOOD CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE 7
GENERAL
GENERAL PURPOSE
METRO WATER EAST 1301999
MT SAN JACINTO JUNIOR COLLEGE
RANCHO CAL WTR R DIV DEBT SV
RIV CO REG PARK & OPEN SPACE
RIV. CO. OFFICE OF EDUCATION
TEMECULA PUBLIC CEMETERY
TEMECULA UNIFIED
TEMECULA UNIFIED B & I
RCA AQUI SI TI ONS/GAI NS:
- NOT IN A RCA AQUISITIONS/GAINS AREA
RCA AGRI CULTURAL OPERATI ONS:
- NOT IN A RCA AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AREA
PUBLI C/QUASI PUBLI C CONSERVED LANDS:
- NOT IN PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC CONSERVED AREA
PROJ ECT LOSSES:
- NOT IN A PROJECT LOSS AREA
RCA CONSERVED LANDS:
- NOT IN A CONSERVED AREA
AREAPLAN SUBUNI T:
- NOT IN AN AREAPLAN SUBUNIT
ROUGHSTEP UNI T:
- 6
SURFACE MI NES:
- NO SURFACE MINES
PALEONTOLOGI CAL SENSI TI VI TY:
- HIGH SENSITIVITY (HIGH A).
BASED ON GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS OR MAPPABLE ROCK UNITS THAT ARE ROCKS THAT CONTAIN FOSSILIZED
BODY ELEMENTS, AND TRACE FOSSILS SUCH AS TRACKS, NESTS AND EGGS. THESE FOSSILS OCCUR ON OR
BELOW THE SURFACE.
COMMUNI TY FACI LI TY DI STRI CTS:
- NAME: NOT IN A COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT
- DISTRICT NUMBER: NOT AVAILABLE
SPECI AL NOTES:
- NO SPECIAL NOTES

To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, Josh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh

Dear Mr. Mann,

Thank you for your candor and practical application of your property. Your
comments are definitely insightful. In order to effectively advise you on how
to process a zone change application it would be very helpful to be able to
take a look at your property via an APN or address.

A zone change application is definitely a possibility and I would like to
take the opportunity to review the specifics regarding your property and I
can provide more specifics on the process.


Sincerely,

Riverside CAC
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 955-6646
Cell Phone: (951) 833-0878
Fax: (951) 955-1811
________________________________________
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, Josh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Russ Mann

Thanks Adam.

My issue is that my property is zoned R-R for land use and R-A5 for zoning
purposes. I would assume that means I am limited to 2 animals/acre, whereas
when I moved here I thought I had 5 animals/acre plus the 3X that for sheep
and goats.

I am not sure if any of you are animal people, but for someone who wants to
run a small private boarding facility, or even an amateur roper, cutter, or
small livestock hobby rancher, 2 animals/acre is not sufficient.

We currently have 5 acres with 3 horses and 12 goats, which means I am
already out of compliance, and I cant even use all the stalls and paddocks I
have on my property, nor can anyone even see my animals from the street.
At one point, we were boarding 8 horses, owned 3 of our own, and had 50
breeding goats. The place was still immaculate, very efficiently used.
It would have been in compliance under the R-R rules, with room to spare, but
not under R-A5, and we were cited.

So I want to know how to get my property zoned as R-R, permanently, for
zoning purposes.

Can you please inform me how to do that? Do I hire a real estate attorney,
do I put something in front of you, the planning commission, or what is the
process?

If I know I have R-R permissions to run my private boarding and breeding
operations, or to keep cattle for roping and cutting, then I will be much
more able to support the overall plan.


-Russ

To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, Josh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh

Dear Mr. Mann,

Thank you for your email and for contacting the Riverside County Planning
Department. I am the Project Manager for the Comprehensive Update to
Ordinance No. 348 (the Countys Land Use Ordinance). This project is moving
along and we are expected to be at Planning Commission for public hearings by
the end of the year.

This project has taken a comprehensive look at every zoning classification,
which includes the Rural Residential (R-R) and Residential Agriculture (R-A)
zone.

With respect to animal keeping uses in both the R-A and R-R zones, there is
no intention to remove the authorization of any of these uses contained
within these zones.

For your review and comment, I have attached the DRAFT public versions of the
R-A and R-R zones. I believe you will find the particular uses of concern to
be retained within these draft versions. In order to better understand these
documents, please note that language in a Redline/Strikeout is being deleted,
language in black is existing and being retained, and language in red and
underlined is newly proposed language.


Sincerely,

Adam Rush
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
arush@rctlma.org

To: Rush, Adam

Adam:

I am a wine country area resident and was forwarded a document listing you as
in charge of a major zoning re-write, especially as it relates to R-R and R-A
zoning.


Can you please explain your role versus Mitra and who I should be talking to
about my property which is somehow zoned both R-R and R-A5 and I want to make
sure is zoned R-R for animal keeping purposes.

Thanks.

-Russ

Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann

================================

[logo-cov]

San Diego, CA 92130
The contents of this email are the confidential and proprietary information
of Covario and/or its clients and customers. Interception of this email is
unlawful and access by persons to whom the email is not addressed is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of the contents of this email may subject you to
both criminal and civil penalties. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN
ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE [858.397.1522] OR RETURN E-
MAIL, AND DELETE THIS FILE/MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.

From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:23:58 PM
Thanks Adam.

My issue is that my property is zoned R-R for land use and R-A5 for zoning purposes. I would
assume that means I am limited to 2 animals/acre, whereas when I moved here I thought I had 5
animals/acre plus the 3X that for sheep and goats.

boarding facility, or even an amateur roper, cutter, or small livestock hobby rancher, 2
animals/acre is not sufficient.

We currently have 5 acres with 3 horses and 12 goats, which means I am already out of
compliance, and I cant even use all the stalls and paddocks I have on my property, nor can anyone
even see my animals from the street.


Can you please inform me how to do that? Do I hire a real estate attorney, do I put something in
front of you, the planning commission, or what is the process?

If I know I have R-R permissions to run my private boarding and breeding operations, or to keep
cattle for roping and cutting, then I will be much more able to support the overall plan.


-Russ

To: Russ Mann

Dear Mr. Mann,

Thank you for your email and for contacting the Riverside County Planning Department. I am the
Project Manager for the Comprehensive Update to Ordinance No. 348 (the Countys Land Use
Ordinance). This project is moving along and we are expected to be at Planning Commission for
public hearings by the end of the year.


With respect to animal keeping uses in both the R-A and R-R zones, there is no intention to remove
the authorization of any of these uses contained within these zones.

For your review and comment, I have attached the DRAFT public versions of the R-A and R-R zones.
I believe you will find the particular uses of concern to be retained within these draft versions. In
order to better understand these documents, please note that language in a Redline/Strikeout is
being deleted, language in black is existing and being retained, and language in red and underlined
is newly proposed language.

Sincerely,

Adam Rush
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
arush@rctlma.org

To: Rush, Adam

Adam:

I am a wine country area resident and was forwarded a document listing you as in charge of a
major zoning re-write, especially as it relates to R-R and R-A zoning.


Can you please explain your role versus Mitra and who I should be talking to about my property
which is somehow zoned both R-R and R-A5 and I want to make sure is zoned R-R for animal
keeping purposes.
Thanks.

-Russ

Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
================================
San Diego, CA 92130
The contents of this email are the confidential and proprietary information of Covario and/or its clients and
customers. Interception of this email is unlawful and access by persons to whom the email is not
addressed is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of
the contents of this email may subject you to both criminal and civil penalties. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED
THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE [858.397.1522] OR

K
A
Y
F
O
U
R
R
D
C
A
R
R
E
V
IS
T
A
B
E
A
U
JOLAIS
CT
A
N
N
A
B
E
L
L
E
L
N A
V
E
N
ID
A
B
R
IS
A
G
LE
N
O
A
K
S
R
D
CALLE ANITA
M
ENG-ASBURY RD
C
A
L
L
E
A
R
C
A
R
O
V
IA
C
A
C
H
O
B
E
L
L
A
V
I
S
T
A
R
D
WINERY
DISTRICT
CARLSON, VINCENT
CARLSON, DEBRA
R1
2.24 ac.
FOGLER, C
FOGLER, GAYLE
R1
4.98 ac.
PRITCHETT, WILLIAM
PRITCHETT, KAREN
R1
4.95 ac.
FEMIA, JOSEPH
FEMIA, JEAN
R1
4.64 ac.
WILLIAMS LESLIE G 2010 IRREV TRUST,
WILLIAMS, LESLIE
R1
4.76 ac.
SMITH, THOMAS
SMITH, JULIA
R1
4.75 ac.
MANN, RUSS
,
R1
4.61 ac.
SANDON, LANCE
BELL SANDON, TAMARA
R1
4.45 ac.
SANDON, LANCE
SANDON, TAMARA
R1
4.34 ac.
SANDON, LANCE
BELL SANDON, TAMARA
YR
4.72 ac.
ROBERTS, MARIA
,
R1
4.81 ac.
GIBSON, RICKY
GIBSON, CHRISTINE
R1
4.43 ac.
ROUX, JESSE
,
R1
4.9 ac.
DAVIS, JOANN
,
R1
4.81 ac.
ROWLAND, ROBERT
ROWLAND, JENNIFER
R1
2.1 ac.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.1 0.2 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP J
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupJ.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group J
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
Group J-Exhibit B
Group: K
Request Date:

Name of Owner(s):
03/15/12
Rueben Calixto Jr.
Winery District
APN(s):
Exclusion from the proposed Wine Country Policy Area and Winery District
943090017
Mr. Calixto is the owner of a 1.38 acre lot on the corner of Rancho California and
Butterfield Stage Roads (see Group K-Exhibit A) and wishes to propose an Information Center for Wine Country.

Current Land Use Designation: Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Rural Policy
Area; Current Zoning Classification: C/V.

Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area Out of High Fire Area; however, area is within State Responsibility Area
Fault Zone/Line Out
Subsidence In
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other

Existing and Surrounding Uses: The parcel is currently vacant (see Group K-Exhibit B). The surrounding uses
include single family residential, vacant, agriculture, wineries and a private school.


This parcel is ideally situated for a Tourist Information Center or Park and Ride Facility
at the entrance of the Temecula Valley Wine Country. The proposed Policy Area or zones do not allow for such
uses. Therefore, staff recommends exclusion of the parcel from the proposed Policy Area and Winery District
thereof.

8:07 AM5/23/2012 8:07 AM
1
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:17 PM
Cc: Early, Kristina
Subject: FW: REQUEST that ( APN 943-090-028,previous Apn943-090-0170) be excluded from the
Wine Country Plan
FYI
From: J ennifer Calixto [mailto:rjcalixto@msn.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:00 PM
Subject: REQUEST that ( APN 943-090-028,previous Apn943-090-0170) be excluded from the Wine Country Plan
Good afternoon Mitra
I am the owner of the 2+ acres property on the corner of Rancho California and Butterfield Stage Roads (APN 943-090-
028,previous APN#943-090-017).
I am requesting that my property be left outside the boundary of the Wine Country Plan.
THANK YOU for your assistance in this matter.
Rueben Calixto J r. (951 303-1020)

Group K-Exhibit A
TEMECULA
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
C
H
A
R
D
O
N
N
A
Y
H
IL
L
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
CALLE RESACA
CHEMIN LAURENT
P
L
A
C
E
R
B
E
LAIR
CO
RT
E
C
H
A
T
A
D
A
CERCLE BEAUREGARD
A
V
E
N
ID
A
LESTONNAC
C
H
E
M
IN
C
L
IN
E
T
A
R
M
A
D
A
P
L
C
O
R
T
E
S
A
N
V
IN
C
E
N
T
E
CORTE SANTA CATALINA
C
O
R
TE
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
O
A
V
E
N
I
D
A

B
I
O
N
A
C
E
R
C
L
E
L
A
T
O
U
R
WINERY
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
CALIXTO, RUEBEN
CALIXTO, JENNIFER
YR
1.38 ac.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.05 0.1 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP K
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupK.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group K
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
Group K-Exhibit B
Group:
Request Date:
L
09/08/11
Name of Owner(s):

Steve Lassley (Representing various owners)
Winery District
APN(s):
Exclusion from the proposed Wine Country Policy Area and Winery District
943050018, 943050006, 943050007, 943050008, 943050009, 943140011
Mr. Lassley and his neighbors would like to subdivide their property into 2.5 acre
lots in the future (see Group L- Exhibit A).

Current Land Use Designation: Rural Community Estate Density Residential;
Current Zoning Classifications: R-A-5 and R-A-20.

Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area Out of High Fire Area; however, the area is within a State Responsibility Area
Fault Zone/Line Not in a fault zone but within a mile of a fault zone
Subsidence In
Liquefaction Moderate
MSHCP Out
Other

Existing uses include vacant, agricultural residential, single family residential
(see Group L-ExhibitB). The surrounding uses include single family residential, agriculture, and wineries.

Currently, this group has Estate Density Residential land use designation, which would
allow these land-owners to subdivide their properties into 2.5 acre parcels per their desire. Due to their location
at the edge of the proposed Policy Area, staff recommends supporting exclusion from the proposed Wine
Country Policy Area and Winery District thereof.

Subject: FW: Meeting recap
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 1:13:06 PM
Attachments: regardingWCCPfinal.docx
FYI.

From: steve lassley [mailto:southridge8@msn.com]
To: Barnes, Olivia; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; lrm@markhamdmg.com; J on Epsten; Steve Lassley
Subject: Meeting recap
Good Morning,
J ust a brief recap of our meeting and my thoughts.
Thank You for your time.
Steve Lassley
Group L-Exhibit A
9/8/11
RegardingWineCountryCommunityPlan
DearBoardMembers,
ThisisarecapofameetingheldwithMitraMehtaCooper,RiversideCountyPlanningDepartment
(PrincipalPlanner)andOliviaBarnes(RiversideCountySupervisor,LegislativeTeamMember).Alsoin
attendancewasLarryMarkham(MarkhamDevelopmentManagementGroup),ShirleyLassleyand
myself.ThismeetingwasonlyregardingtheNorthsideofVistaDelMonteRoadintheproposed
WCCPthePlan.Ihavealwaysintendedonsplittingmyproperty,buthavewaiteduntilIcouldafford
todoso.Ihavealsoalwaystriedtobefiscallyresponsible,bynotgoingtoodeepintodebt.Neitherus,
noranyofourneighbors,knewofthisplan.ItwasonlyuponourcontactingMr.Markhamthatwe
learnedofit.
Myhomeiscurrentlyonthispropertyaswellas18acresofgrapes.Ibuiltmyhouseandplantedthis
vineyard.
GoingintothismeetingIwantedtomakemyconcernsclearabouttheadoptionofthisplan:
x Goingforwardwiththisplanwouldbefinanciallycatastrophicformyfamilyasourfuturewas
basedupontheconceptthatonedaywewouldsplitthelotasneeded
x WewouldnolongerbeaRuralcommunity.Thisiswhywebuiltourhomeandraisedour
familyhere.
x ProximitytoRoripaughandthenoiseissuesofwinerieswitheventsblastingdownintothat
Roripaughdevelopmentaloneshouldtakethisareaoutofthewinerydistrict.Thelabor
involvedforCodeEnforcementandtheSheriffsDepartmentwouldbeoverwhelming.
x Therearemorethan(24)lotsof5acresorlessontheNorthsideofVistaDelMonte,manyas
smallas2acres.Only(4)20acreparcelsareinthisarea,oneofwhichcouldneverbe
developedintoawinery.
x Ibelievethiswillbethe3
rd
/zonechangeinthe13yearssinceIhaveownedtheproperty.
Howcananyonemakeanyfinancialplansforthefuture?Ifeelthisisirresponsibleofthe
county.
x VistaDelMonteismostlyadirtroadandthepartthatispavedisnarrowandriddledwith
potholes.Eventtrafficonthisroadwouldbeextremelydangerous.
x WaterDistrictissues.Anychangetotheroadwouldbecostlyasthereisrunoffthatgoesinto
aSantaMargaritaRivertributary.
x SepticIssues.
Ibelievetheadoptionofthisplanconstitutesanillegal,unlawful,takingofmyproperty.Ipropose
thatthezoningbemaintainedasitiscurrently,Residential/Agricultural,withtheonlychangebeing
toreinstateitintotheC/Vareaasitoncewas.Itistheonlythingthatmakessenseforthisarea.
Sincerely,CaptainSteveLassley
Subject: FW:
Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 1:15:33 PM
FYI

From: steve lassley [mailto:southridge8@msn.com]
To: Barnes, Olivia; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; lrm@markhamdmg.com
Subject:
Dear Olivia, Mitra and Larry,
Thanks to all of you for taking time out of your busy schedules to meet with Shirley and I yesterday. It
was a very insightful meeting.
We will send you copy's of the petitions as soon as we get them signed, probably later today.
Thanks again.
Steve Lassley
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
A
V
E
N
ID
A
A
R
IZ
O
N
A
VISTA DEL MONTE
VISTA D
E
O
R
O
MIZE WAY
TEMECULA
WINERY
DISTRICT
MIZE, JOHN
MIZE, NANCY
R1
4.61 ac.
MIZE, JOHN
MIZE, NANCY
YY
4.79 ac.
MIZE, JOHN
MIZE, NANCY
YY
4.78 ac.
MIZE, JOHN
MIZE, NANCY
YY
4.98 ac.
LASSLEY, STEVEN
LASSLEY, SHIRLEY
AR
19.92 ac.
HADDAD, MICHAEL
HADDAD, HELEN
YR
2.26 ac.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.1 0.2 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP L
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupL.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group L
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
AR - Agricultural Residential
YY - Other Vacant
Group L-Exhibit B
Group: M
Request Date:

Name of Owner(s):
05/15/12
Saba and Shirley Saba
Winery District
APN(s):
Inclusion in the Winery Country - Winery Existing Zoning Classification
943090019, 943090020, 943090021, 943090022
Mr. Saba would like to establish a winery with restaurant in the future. However,
he is concerned that the proposed project increases the parcel sizes and he does not have 20 acres to do have
these uses (see Group M-Exhibit A).

Current Land Use Designation: Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Rural Policy
Area; Current Zoning Classification: C/V. The proposed Winery District will allow Mr. Saba to have a Winery on
10 acres (which he owns); however, it would require 20 acres in order to have a restaurant.
Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area Out of High Fire Area; however, the area is within the State Responsibility Area
Fault Zone/Line Out
Subsidence In
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other

The existing use for this group is agricultural vineyard (see Group M-Exhibit B).
Surrounding uses include single family residential, winery and a private school.

The Community Plan adoption may restrict some of the existing wineries to expand
their business operations as prescribed in the C/V Zone. Therefore, County staff has proposed the Wine Country
Winery Existing zone to allow expansion of these existing legal wineries according to their current
requirements of C/V Zone. This group does not have an existing or legally approved winery, and therefore, it
does not qualify to benefit from the Winery Existing zone. As a result, staff recommends denying this request to
be included in the Wine Country Winery Existing zone.

Group N-Exhibit A
TEMECULA
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
C
E
R
C
L
E
B
E
A
U
R
E
G
A
R
D
A
V
E
N
I
T
A

O
L
G
I
T
A
C
A
M
I
N
O
D
E
O
S
C
A
R
A
R
M
A
D
A
P
L
C
O
R
TE
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
O
A
V
E
N
I
D
A

B
I
O
N
A
C
E
R
C
L
E
L
A
T
O
U
R
WINERY
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
SABA, SABA
SABA, SHIRLEY
AV
1.76 ac.
SABA, SABA
SABA, SHIRLEY
AV
2.45 ac.
SABA, SABA
SABA, SHIRLEY
AV
2.45 ac.
SABA, SABA
SABA, SHIRLEY
AV
4.74 ac.
May 24 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.05 0.1 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
GROUP M
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupM.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group M
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
Group M-Exhibit B
Group:
Request Date:
N
05/23/2012
Name of Owner(s):

Stephen Corona
Winery District
APN(s):
Exclusion from Wine Country Community Plan (Group N-Exhibit A)
941160003-007 ; 965410001, 965420001-003, 965430001-003
Mr. Corona is concerned that the Community Plan adoption will result in down-
zoning of his property along Arroyo Seco Road. Please note that the parcels along Highway 79 (APNs -
965410001, 965420001-003, 965430001-003) are not within the proposed Community Plan boundary, thus are
not evaluated below.

Current Land Use Designation: Rural Community Estate Density Residential;
Current Zoning Classification: R-A.
In/Out
Flood Zone Out
High Fire Area Out of High Fire Area; however, the area is within State Responsibility Area
Fault line Out of Fault Zone, within 1/2 mile of a fault
Subsidence Out
Liquefaction Out
MSHCP Out
Other

Recommendation:
The existing use on Mr. Coronas parcels is agriculture (Group N-Exhibit B). The
existing uses of surrounding parcels include vacant lands, single family residential and wineries.

This group is surrounded by several existing wineries. Per this request, should the County
allow smaller lot residential subdivisions for this group, it may result in creating future land use conflicts in and
around this group. Therefore, this request does not meet an objective of the Community Plan and staff
recommends denying this request for exclusion from the proposed Policy Area or Winery District thereof.

Group N-Exhibit A
CALLE BELLAGIO
G
LE
N
O
A
K
S
R
D
V
IA
E
L
D
O
R
A
D
O
A
V
E
N
ID
A
B
R
A
V
U
R
A
A
N
D
R
O
S
S
T
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
CALLE
ANITA
M
O
NTE DE ORO RD
A
N
N
A
B
E
L
L
E
L
N
C
A
M
IN
O
A
R
R
O
Y
O
S
E
C
O
A
V
E
N
ID
A
B
R
IS
A
VIA DE LOS ARBOLES
C
H
A
P
A
R
R
A
L
D
R
M
E
N
G
-
A
S
B
U
R
Y
R
D
V
IA
C
A
C
H
O
C
O
LN
L
O
O
P
L
N
A
V
E
N
I
D
A

T
R
E
B
O
L
O
B
E
L
L
A

V
I
S
T
A

R
D
M
A
R
C
U
S

D
R
A
V
E
N
I
D
A

B
O
G
O
T
A
WINERY
DISTRICT
AC
18.88
ac.
AC
19.35 ac.
AC
20.44 ac.
YR
29.57
ac.
AC
19.2 ac.
June 21 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.1 0.2 Mile

79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
GROUP N
\\agency\tlmagis\Workspace\Kang\Project-WineCountryBoundaryModifications\PhayvanhRequests04182012\GroupN.mxd
Adjustment Request: Group N
Parcels
Cities
Waterbodies
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Collector (74' ROW)
Group N-Exhibit B
TEMECULA
VAIL LAKE
LAKE SKINNER
LA SERE
N
A
W
A
Y
R
IC
A
D
R
M
O
R
G
A
N
H
IL
L
D
R N
IG
H
T
H
A
W
K
PA
SS
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
LO
S
R
A
N
C
H
O
S
C
IR
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
C
HARDONNAY HILLS
SUMMITVILLE ST
L
E
O
N
R
D
V
A
N
G
A
A
L
E
L
N
T
E
H
A
C
H
A
P
I
PASS
VALENTINO WAY
DE
PORTOLA RD
GLENOAKS RD
C
A
L
L
E ARAGON
VIA RIO TEM
EC
U
L
A
M
U
IR
F
IE
L
D
D
R
CASSINO CT
OVERLAND TRL
C
A
M
IN
O
PIEDRA RO
JO
W
O
LF
VALLEY
RD
H
A
R
MONY L
N
VIA CORDOB
A
HWY 79
GEISBAUER RD
EL
C
H
IM
IS
A
L
R
D
JO
H
N
S
T
O
N
D
R
C
A
L
L
E
F
IE
S
T
A
RANCHO
VISTA
R
D
H
IG
H
V
I S
T
A
D
R
M
A
D
D
A
L
E
N
A
R
D
T
U
D
A
L
S
T
CALLE BARTIZON
TEMECULA CREEK RD
M
O
N
T
E
V
E
R
D
E
R
D
C
A
S
E
R
T
A
D
R
V
IA
R
A
M
I
D
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
ST
S
ERRENTO
D
R
TURTLE CREEK ST
C
A
L L E B
A
L
LENTINE
G
ALLERON
ST
CHANNEL ST
M
ILAT
S
T
PASEO
DE
LAS OLAS
R
I V
E
R
A
D
R
H
IC
K
O
RY PL
SAN
SI M
E
O
N
S
T
D
O
D
A
R
O
D
R
ROYAL CREST PL
M
A
D
IG
AN
S
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
L
VER
M
O
N
T
RD
S
AGE CT
OLD KE
N
T
R
D
COR
T
E
P
A
R
A
DO
BRONCO CI R
Y
A
R
DLEY
CT
CALLE
RESACA
V
IA
S
A
B
IN
O
VINO
WAY
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
OOD ST
V
IA
A
N
G
EL
E
S
COPPOLA ST
C
A
L
L
E

M
E
D
U
S
A
RENOIR RD
S
IE
R
R
A
G
R
O
V
E
D
R
WHITEDOVE
L
N
M
U
M
M
S
T
C
O
N
G
RESSIONAL DR
SKYLINE DR
FAVARA
D
R
A
M
IC
I ST
VINEYARD
AVE
C
A
L
L E NO
V
E
L
D
A
TULLEY RANCH RD
FROG
S
L
E
A
P
S
T
R
E
ID
E
L
S
T
VIA
CERRO V ISTA
PERIGORD RD
C
A
MINO NUNEZ
T
IR
A
N
O
D
R
R
IV
E
R
T
O
N
L
N
YUCCA
ST
IVEL RD
VIA SALTI O
J
E
F
F
R
E
Y
C
IR
B
IS
O
N
C
T
LIN
D
A
ROSEA RD
HEITZ LN
ESPLENDIDA WAY
BUNKER DR
M
A
R
G
E
P
L
P
H
E
L
P
S
S
T
P
O
U
R
R
O
Y
R
D
VIA SERON
A
H
ERN PL
CAMINO
V
E
R
D
E
CALLE NOPAL
CALLE
BELLAG
IO
BOREL
R
D
STA
R
PO
IN
T ST
CAMPO DR
A
P
IS
R
D
D
ENIS
E
R
D
CRYSTALAIRE DR
INDIAN KNOLL
R
D
CALLE VISTA
LOS NOGALES RD
BACCARA
T
R
D
REGINA DR
NIC
O
LAS RD
KAHWEA RD
V
I A
C
A
N
T
A
T
A
V
IS
TA
D
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
RD
LOR
R
A
IN
E
D
R
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
RD
E
L
M
P
L
V
I A
D
E
L
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
D
O
A
K
S
T
PA
M
P
E
R
O
W
A
Y
SANTIAGO RD
M
A
R
G
A
R
ITA
R
D
C
R
O
S
S
O
V
E
R
R
D
H
A
W
K
C
T
W
O
L
F
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
BUENA
V
E
NTURA RD
CALLE AZURE
NORTHSH
IR
E
C
IR
ANJA AVE
AVENIDA BRAVURA
PO
PPY ST
W
Y
A
N
D
O
T
T
E
S
T
JANDA C
T
AVENIDA TAXCO
OWL
VA
L LEY RD
S
E
A
G
U
L
L
W
A
Y
HONORS DR
R
EDH
AW
K
PKWY
AULD RD
JEDEDIAH
S
M
IT
H
R
D
LUNA DR
ARMOISE D
R
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
BUTTERFIELD COUN
TR
Y
R
V
PARK
Q
U
A
R
T
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
OAK
MOUN
T
A
I N
R
D
P
A
S
E
O
D
E
V
A
N
S
C
O
Y
K
ALTA MESA CT
C
IB
O
L
A
C
IR
CALLE ARNA
Z
TERA
M
O
S
T
M
O
DENA
D
R
WATTS RD
B
A
R
R
IN
G
TO
N
D
R
A
V
E
N
ID
A
A
R
IZ
O
N
A
P E
B
L
E
Y
C
T
CALL
E
R
IO
GRANDE
GUEVARA DR
LY
DIA CT
SPARROW WAY
CAREN
TAN
D
R
S
A
TTUI ST
A
LT
A
N
O
S
R
D
HOBBY HORSE RD
L
A
DERA VISTA DR
LISA
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
E
S
C
A
L
O
N
A
MAZOE ST
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
ID
G
E
R
D
D
E
P
U
T
Y
R
D
SCENIC RIDG
E
D
R
B
R
U
C
E

L
N
VIA LUISA
M
C
C
A
BE
DR
A
N
Z
A
R
D
KAARL
A
R
D
P
IA
S
A
N
O
P
L
CALLE CAMPO
C
AL
L
E
ANITA
V
IA
D
E
L
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
O
V
IA
FE
RNANDO
V
IA
L
O
B
A
T
O
LA
B
O
N
IT
A
ALLEN RD
PESCADO
DR
JA
M
E
S DR
SCANLON
R
D
M
U
S
IL
E
K
P
L
PRISCILL A ST
T
Y
L
M
A
N
S
T
DOTTIE CT
M
O
N
TE
DE ORO RD
CAPITOL ST
G
RAND
E
R
D
A
Z
U
S
A
S
T
V
IA
A
N
IT
A
GALATINA
ST
ANGELO
D
R
C
E
L
IT
A
C
IR
CALLE CAPRI
JOLYNN RD
V
IA
D
EL
TO
R
O
N
J
O
HEATHER RD
S
U
NN
IN
G
DALE D
R
RONALD RD
VIA ALVARO
RIPS WAY
ERICKSON DR
D
E
PORTOLA RD
DOROTH
Y
CT
V
I A
P
A
S
C
A
L
ORLINDA DR
ALADDI N CIR
CALLE
SEGOVIA
DEL RE
Y
R
D
T
E
M
E
C
U
LA
L
N
C
A
L
L
E
B
R
E
V
E
D
IC
K
S
O
N
BROWNING ST
WOLFE
ST
V
IA
C
ALINA
C
E
E
C
E
E
R
D
V
IA
ELENA
S
O
L
ID
A
G
O
R
D
M
O
N
TE
R
O
D
R
SOTELO
D
R
EMBASSY AVE
S
A
N
D
AK RD
H
IL
T
R
D
M
O
N
T
E
R
O
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
CABERNET
C
A
L
L
E
F
R
E
S
C
A
C
A
N
T
R
E
L
L
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
V
IA
D
EL OSO
CAMINO SIERRA RD
CALLE LINDA
W E L L
I N
G
T
O
N
CIR
HANOVER LN
MA
G
G
I E
W
EED
LN
L
O
R
I
W
A
Y
VIA QUITO
PASEO DEL T
R
A
Z
A
S
ANTA RITA RD
C
R
U
Z
W
A
Y
SONGBI
R
D
D
R
S
T
R
A
T
T ON R D
AVENIDA DEL REPOSO
V
A
IL
LA
K
E
R
D
CALLE AR EVA
LO
RHINE
AV
E
C
A
L
L
E
VERDE
A
V
EN
I
D
A
A
L
T U
R
A
S
C
A
LLE
CAN
O
R
A
VIA CARMELO
EL PEQUITO
W
I L
E
Y
R
D
BENTON RD
WOLF STORE RD
CALAVERAS RD
NORTH LOOP RD
MADERA DE PLAYA
DR
V
IA LA LUNA
MONTE VE
R
D
E
R
D
SUNRISE RD
LOS CORRALITOS
RD
LOS
A
M
A
NTES RD
CALLE VECINA
SIER
RA
PADR
E
WAY
M
ENG-ASBURY
R
D
JULI AN
LN
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
V
IA
D
EL P
O
N
TE
R
E
ID
C
T
C
A
M
IN
O
D
E
L
V
IN
O
R
U
T
H
E
R
F
O
R
D
S
T
SUZI LN
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
P
K
W
Y
C
O
L
L
E
E
N
W
A
Y
PA
U
B
A
RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
ALCOBA
D
R
V
IA
P
UE
B
L
A
CAM
PANULA WAY
G
R
E
E
N
TR
E
E
R
D
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
P
K
W
Y
S
E
R
A
P
H
I N
A
R
D
J
A
G
U
A
R
W
A
Y
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
V
IA
J
A
C
A
W
IN
D
S
O
R
R
D
V
IA
S
AN
CARLOS HUPA DR
T
IO
G
A
S
T
E
N
C
A
N
T
O
R
D
ROSALES AVE
P
A
S
E
O
G
OLETA
ROPE RD
W
O
O
D
C
H
U
C
K
R
D
VA
R
D
O
N
DR
C
A
M
E
L
O
T
R
D
C
ROW
N
E
H
ILL
D
R
R
U
E
J
A
D
O
T
V
IA
E
L
G
R
ECO
C
E
B
U
D
R
HIDDEN LAKE R
D
SANDHILL
LN
L
O
M
A
LINDA RD
B
E
R
E
N
D
A
R
D
HISLOP WAY
C
A
MINO
MAREA
LEVI CT
G
R
E
E
N
M
E
A
D
O
W
R
D
C
A
L
LE BALAREZA
W
A
L
C
O
T
T
L
N
V
A
L
E
N
C
IA
W
A
Y
SUMMIT VIEW PL
B
E
L
L
A
V
IS
TA
RD
BRASSIE
LN
SAVO
N
A
S
T
SP
A
N
IS
H
O
A
K
S
DR
PEPPE
R
TREE ST
A
B
B
E
Y
R
D
SUNNY MEAD
O
W
S
D
R
A
M
A
R
IT
A
W
A
Y
C
H
A
P
A
R
R
A
L
D
R
T
E
M
E
K
U
D
R
C
L
A
S
S
IC
W
A
Y
E
X
A
E
L
Y
R
D
P
IO
P
IC
O
R
D
VAIL
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
FOX RD
M
O
N
T
E
L
E
G
R
O
W
A
Y
T
I B
U
R
C
IO
D
R
VIA
N
O
R
T
E
G
R
E
E
N
K
N
O
L
L
S
R
D
C
A
LLE
A
Y
O
R
A
R
E
M
U
D
A
D
R
C
A
LLE
C
A
N
C
IO
N
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
R
D
O
V
A
LIEFER RD
DUCLAIR RD
SANTA ANITA DR
G
R
E
E
N
O
A
K
S
D
R
PARA
DO DEL
S
O
L
D
R
BOREL RD
Y
A
H
M
C
T
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
K
A
T
E
R
IN
E
W
G
A
SA
PL
P
R
A
T
T
R
D
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
VIA DESTELL
O
AVENIDA LESTONNAC
LOS CABALLOS RD
LYLES D
R
C
A
L
L
E
D
E
V
E
L
A
R
D
O
A
V
E
N
I D
A
D
E
LA
REINA
LAKE SKINNER REC
R
E
A
T
IO
N
AR
E
A
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
S
T
PATERNO ST
A
V
E
N
IDA
O
R
TE
G
A
D
IE
G
O
D
R
V
IA
C
O
R
D
O
VA
VIA DE O
R
O
R
IO
R
D
B
U
C
K
R
D
R
U
T
H
R
D
M
A
N
ZA
N
O
D
R
A
N
C
H
O
R
D
V
IA
V
IE
W
M
IZE WAY
C
A
L
L
E
P
O
R
T
IL
L
O
ANZA
RD
WINSTON WAY
GRAY SQUIRREL RD
M
A
R
C
U
S
D
R
IN TREPID RD
CA LL
E
J
O
J
O
B
A
C
ALLE
LAS
LO
M
A
S
R
I O
L
IN
D
A
R
D
BOOTLEGG RD
VIA EL PA
IS
B
O
NITA
B
IL
L
Y
J
O
E
L
N
PULGAS
CREEK
RD
M
A
R
T
IN
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
S
P
R
IN
G
V
ALLEY
R
D
APPLEGATE
R
D
LAKE SKINN
E
R
P A R K
WACKER DR
RICE L
N
79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
WINE COUNTRY DISTRICTS
CITIES
PARCELS
WATERBODIES
June 26 2012
J. CLARK/UPDATES BY P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.5 1 0.25
Miles
INDEX MAP
COUNTY
PREFERRED
WINE COUNTRY
BOUNDARY
MODIFICATION
WINE COUNTRY
COMMUNITY PLAN
DRAFT
\\ag
en
cy\tlm
ag
is\W
o
rksp
ace\K
an
g
\P
ro
ject-W
in
eC
o
u
n
tryB
o
u
n
d
aryM
o
d
ificatio
n
s\W
in
e_C
o
u
n
try_B
o
u
n
d
ary_M
o
d
ificatio
n
s.m
xd

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
P PR RO OP PO OS SE ED D W WI IN NE E C CO OU UN NT TR RY Y C CO OM MM MU UN NI IT TY Y P PL LA AN N A AD DV VI IS SO OR RY Y C CO OM MM MI IT TT TE EE E C CO ON NS SE EN NS SU US S P PA AP PE ER R

Page 1 June 2012

Supervisor Stone assembled an ad-hoc Advisory Committee in 2009 to assist County staff in the development of the Wine Country Community Plan. The
Advisory Committee is composed of a diverse group of nineteen (19) members that represent winegrower, equestrian, residential and environmental interests.
Over the last three years, the Advisory Committee has discussed various issues and offers the following recommendations for consideration by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.

History of the Advisory Committee:

An ad-hoc group was established in early 2009 to receive community input on the various matters that were being addressed by the Project. The original ad-hoc
group was composed of 6 members 4 representatives of the Winegrowers Association, 1 winery developer, and 1 wine country expert. Staff conducted
approximately 4 meetings with this group to help define a scope for this Project. As a part of this process, a Vision 20-20 survey was conducted; a mission
statement for the Project was developed; and Project objectives were established.

As the ad-hoc group worked with County staff in defining a Project boundary, it was apparent that the group needed to reach out to equestrian community within
the Valle de los Caballos region. In September 2009, some of the ad-hoc group members, as well as County staff, attended a town hall meeting for equestrian
stakeholders to discuss the Project vision. Subsequently, in December 2009, the ad-hoc group was expanded into the ad-hoc Wine County Advisory Committee
and 6 equestrian representatives were added. At the same time, two at-large members were also added to the Committee to bring a neutral perspective to the
planning process.

In February 2010, County staff conducted a tour of the region with the Advisory Committee and interested community members. During this tour, it was evident
that a significant amount of existing and future residential enclaves were being impacted by the Project proposal. Subsequently, 2 area residents were added in
April 2010, and 3 area residents got added in J uly 2010 to the Advisory Committee.

As a result of this evolution of the ad-hoc Advisory Committee over the course of a year, some of the following issues and their recommendations were discussed
for the first time with the Committee as it existed at the time. Since J uly 2010, the Committees composition has not changed. Over the last two years, the
Committee and community members have had adequate opportunities to rework issues and recommendations that were of specific concern to them.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 2 June 2012

#
Issue Discussion Points
Advisory Committee
Recommendation
Consensus
1 To expand Wine
Country further
beyond the existing
Citrus Vineyard Policy
Area
Staff considered conservation lands, approved cases, current uses,
parcel sizes, topography, existing General Plan designations, etc. to
prepare a proposal for the expansion of Wine Country.
As a result, the current Citrus Vineyard Policy Area is proposed to
expand fromapprox. 7,000 acres to 19,000 acres of the Wine
Country Policy Area. This expanded region would allow additional
areas for new wineries to materialize.
This proposal encompasses the Valle de los Caballos Policy Area.
The Community Plan proposes an implementing zone for this
valley of horses, which supports and promotes equestrian uses.
This proposal also encompasses existing residential enclaves and it
creates a specialized district, where future residential subdivisions
would be encouraged in seclusion fromthe commercial activity
cores of the Policy Area.
The Advisory Committee fully
supported staffs
recommendation of creating three
districts Winery, Equestrian,
and Residential. This approach
will encourage harmonious
coexistence among the three very
diverse, but potentially symbiotic
interest-groups.
Unanimous
2 To avoid making
existing uses non-
conforming upon the
Plan adoption
A consistency zoning effort (through applying proposed zones to all
parcels) with this Community Plan would have created many non-
conforming uses after the plan adoption.
Multiple uses currently exist within this region that are either legal
non-conforming uses or illegal uses that were legal when
established, but became illegal due to past consistency zoning
efforts.
The Advisory Committee was committed to ensure that the
Community Plan adoption would not make any existing uses non-
conforming, and amortize themout in the future.
supported staffs
recommendation of creating three
districts within the General Plan
Policy Area that dictate the
consistency zoning on a parcel-
by-parcel basis when a land use
proposal is submitted in the
future. This approach will allow
the existing uses to continue
operating under the current zones
of the parcels.
Unanimous

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 3 June 2012
3 To provide certainty
during the
implementation of the
Wine Country Policy
Area
Currently, the Riverside County General Plan allows individual
property owners to amend the Policy Areas on a quarterly basis.
As a result of multiple General Plan amendments, the vision,
boundary and policies of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de los
Caballos Policy Areas have changed.
The County and its stakeholders have spent countless hours in the
development of this Wine Country Policy Area proposal.
The Advisory Committee strongly felt that the Policy Area, upon its
adoption, should not be subject to change by an individual project
proponent.
supported staffs
recommendation that would
require amendments to this
Policy Area either through a
County-initiated process or
through a certainty system
review cycle (which occurs
every 8 years). Furthermore, the
Committee made the district
boundary changes subject to the
same requirement.
General support from
the Committee;
however, one winery
representative
preferred to allow
property owner
initiated quarterly
amendments.
4 To authorize small-
scale Production
Wineries on less than
10 acres
A few stakeholders strongly felt that small-scale wineries, that do not
have tasting rooms or retail wine shops, should be authorized in the
proposed Policy Area and its implementing zones.
The current Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area and C/V zone authorizes
processing and packing of fruits with the following language:
Vineyards; groves; equestrian lands; field crops; flower, vegetable,
and herb gardening; orchards; apiaries; the drying, processing and
packing (other than canning) of fruits, nuts, vegetables and other
horticultural products where such drying, processing or packing is
primarily in conjunction with an agricultural operation or an
incidental commercial use are permitted in the C/V Zone.
This language allows for wine production (without tasting rooms and
retail wine shops) as an agricultural operation.
supported staffs
recommendation to carry forward
this language of the C/V zone
into the proposed zones for the
Wine Country Policy Area.
Unanimous
5 To authorize Cottage
Inn (max. 5 rooms)
and Cottage Industry
in the Policy Area
Wine Country residents are currently renting their homes, or rooms
within their homes, for a short period of time.
Similarly, a lot of cottage industries are currently operating within
private-homes of the Wine Country region.
The Advisory Committee worked diligently with County staff in
drafting a definition for Cottage Inn and Cottage Industry to capture
these existing uses.
The Advisory Committee and
community members fully
supported staffs
recommendation to authorize
these uses by right in all four
implementing zones of this
Policy Area.
Unanimous

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 4 June 2012
6 To modify
implementing
language concerning
numbers of allowable
animals in various
Districts of the Policy
Area
For the Equestrian District and implementing Equestrian zone, 5
animals per acre was an acceptable proposal.
For the Residential District and implementing Residential zone, a
significant discussion occurred on whether to allow 5 or 2 animals
per acre.
For the Winery District and implementing Winery and Winery
Existing zones, due to anticipated high influx of tourist activities,
staff proposed to reduce allowable number of animals for future
uses to 2 animals per acre.
This proposal was received with complete support fromthe
winegrowers; however, initially the equestrian and residential
representatives were not supportive.
After realizing that this proposal would only impact new uses, and
not any existing uses, zones, or their animal keeping rights, a
general compromised was reached.
The Advisory Committee, after
significant discussions, supported
staffs recommendation for:
1. 5 animals per acre in the
Equestrian District; and
2. 5 Animals per acre in the
Residential District; and
3. 2 animals per acre in the
Winery District.
the Committee;
however, one
residential
representative
preferred to allow 5
animals per acre in
the Winery District.
7 To create an integrated
Trails Network that
allow multi-purpose
access to various
destinations
The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the General Plan currently
encompasses a Trails Network within the non-motorized
transportation network discussion.
However, it does not connect existing wineries and other tourist
destinations, such as Lake Skinner and Vail Lake, through
equestrian and multi-purpose trails system.
A Trails Sub-committee worked with the County Regional Parks
and Open Space District and Planning Staff in the development of a
trails network that was more conducive to this regions destination
places and users needs.
One of the biggest challenges for this proposal was to find a
compromise between equestrians, who prefer to ride on trails that
are separated fromthe roads, and winery owners, who do not prefer
equestrians riding through their winery operations.
The Advisory Committee reviewed the Trails Sub-committees
recommendations on multiple occasions, and provided feedback to
prepare an integrated trails network proposal.
multiple discussions, supported
the Trails Sub-committees
recommendations.
Unanimous

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 5 June 2012
8 To replace the
Citrus/Vineyard
Design Guidelines
with the Temecula
Valley Wine Country
Design Guidelines
The current Citrus/Vineyard Design Guidelines provide valuable
guidance for new developments regarding site design and planning
as well as architecture within the Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area.
These guidelines will need to be updated for the Temecula Valley
Wine Country Policy Area to accommodate equestrian and
residential interests.
In addition, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
recently approved streetscape guidelines for Rancho California
Road, and to a smaller degree, De Portola Road as recommended
by the Advisory Committee. Those guidelines will need to be
incorporated into the proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country
Design Guidelines.
Not applicable. Not applicable.
9 Winery District to
further refine
incidental commercial
uses per parcel sizes
Most of the current land use conflicts within the Wine Country
region are created when incidental commercial uses are established
next to residential enclaves.
The current C/V Zone allows incidental commercial uses Special
Occasion Facilities, Lodging Facilities and Restaurants on 10
acres. All of these uses are difficult to accommodate on 10 acre
parcels due to the 75% vineyard planting requirement.
In addition, these current regulations have promoted subdivision of
larger parcels into 10 acre parcels, which is threatening the existing
rural character and vision of Wine Country.
As a result, the Advisory Committee strongly suggested increasing
parcel sizes for these incidental commercial uses.
For new wineries, the Advisory
Committee supported the
following:
1. Winery with Tasting Room
and Retail Wine Shop on 10
acres; and
2. Special Occasion Facilities,
Lodging Facilities and
Restaurants on 20 acres; and
3. Resorts (with amphitheaters
etc.) on 40 acres.
Unanimous
allow existing
wineries to continue
operating per current
regulations
Some of the existing winery owners have purchased 10-20 acre
parcels for a winery and are operating their businesses under the
current C/V Zone requirements.
The Community Plan adoption may restrict some of their ability to
expand their business operations as prescribed in the C/V Zone.
Planning staff conducted an inventory of existing wineries to
identify wineries that would be impacted by this proposal.
The Advisory Committee recommended that staff work with
County Counsel to develop an approach that would Grandfather
in these existing wineries.
For existing wineries on less than
20 acres, the Advisory
Committee supported creation of
a fourth implementing zone for
the Winery District. This
approach would allow the 28
existing wineries to expand per
current regulations through
utilization of the Wine Country
Winery Existing zone.
Unanimous

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 6 June 2012
further regulate
Special Occasion
Facilities
The Advisory Committee has spent significant time in discussing
this controversial issue.
This is the most controversial use of this region due to potential
concerns associated with noise and traffic impacts.
The current requirements of the C/V Zone are more permissive and
do not have adequate enforceable standards for this use.
As a result, many code enforcement challenges, and subsequently,
high levels of frustration among residents, are on-going in this
community.
The majority of code complaints are generated as a result of noise
created by amplified music fromoutdoor facilities.
The County has created a special code enforcement teamthat is
addressing existing code violations over weekends and evenings.
The Advisory Committee has struggled to find a resolution
regarding this matter.
The Advisory Committee agreed
on the following compromise for
the Special Occasion Facilities:
1. Allowed with a winery only;
and
2. 20 acre min for a special
occasion facility with new
wineries; and
3. 5 guests per acre; and
4. Noise study required with
acoustical analysis for all
outdoor facilities; and
5. Good Neighbor Agreement
may be required; and
6. Amphitheaters allowed with
Resorts on 40 acres min.
the Committee;
however, a couple of
residential
representatives
preferred to restrict
this use further and a
few winery
representative felt
that 5 guests per acre
was very restrictive.
increase minimum
acreage requirement
for residential
subdivision, to require
clustering, and to
require more planting
Most of the future land use conflicts within the Wine Country
region are anticipated fromincidental commercial uses near
residential subdivisions.
As a result of these land use conflicts between residential and
commercial uses, future code enforcement challenges are also
foreseeable.
The Advisory Committee expressed a strong desire to expand
beyond staffs initial proposal to require additional planting to
avoid such future land use conflicts.
supported staffs
recommendation concerning
residential subdivisions:
1. 10 acre minimum; and
2. Clustering required; and
3. 75% planting or equestrian
lands with clustering.
Unanimous
allow golf courses
within resorts
Golf courses are currently allowed in the C/V Zone with 50%
planting requirement and no minimumparcel size.
The Planning Department has not received any applications for this
use at this time.
A few large land owners would prefer the option of developing a
golf course within their resort in the future.
The Advisory Committee was fairly divided on this proposal due to
its inconsistency with Wine Country vision, high water usage and
oversupply of this use in the Southwestern Riverside County.
By a 9-4 vote, the Advisory
Committee supported staffs
recommendation to allow golf
courses with resort application.
This proposal would allow staff
to consider golf courses on a site
specific project when an
application is submitted.
the Committee;
however, a few of
residential
representatives were
concerned about
water usage of this
use.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 7 June 2012
consider timeshares
within resorts
Currently, timeshares are neither permitted nor prohibited in the
C/V Zone.
For financing purposes, a few large land owners would like to have
the option of providing timeshares within their resort
establishments.
The Advisory Committee debated this issue on multiple occasions
to determine their viability in Wine Country.
The Advisory Committee
supported staffs
recommendation to neither
permit nor prohibit timeshares in
the Winery District. This would
allow staff to consider timeshares
on a site specific project when an
application is submitted.
the Committee;
representatives were
concerned about this
use.
allow olives to satisfy
ten percent (10%)
planting requirements
Currently, the C/V Zone requires 75% grapevine planting with a
winery and its incidental commercial uses.
Due to topography or other site specific constraints, some winery
proponents have struggled to meet this requirement.
The Advisory Committee was sympathetic to these concerns, and
directed staff to provide some flexibility in this planting
requirement.
supported staffs
recommendation to allow
planting of olives to satisfy 10%
of the planting requirement for
grapevines.
the Committee;
residential
representatives
preferred grapevines
only.
16 Winery District
proposal south of Hwy
79S.
Currently, areas south of 79S are designated as 5 acres or larger
land use designations in the General Plan.
This area has seen a flux of Foundation Amendment requests to
change Rural, Agriculture, or Open Space foundation components
to Community Development (5-8 DU/Ac).
The Advisory Committee has struggled to determine a future land
use scenario within this area, since the property owners (within and
surrounding this area) are fairly divided.
The City of Temecula, in a letter dated April 21, 2011 to Planning
Director, has expressed their desire to maintain this region for rural
preservation in the future.
The current proposal incorporates this area within the proposed
Community Plan boundary and designates it as the Winery District.
staff have not prepared a
recommendation on this
proposal. Instead, have agreed
that staff will provide multiple
alternatives for consideration by
the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors.
Unanimous support
for discussing this
issue at Planning
Commission.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 8 June 2012
17 Residential District
to prohibit small
wineries (with tasting
roomand retail wine
shop)
Currently, R-R, A-1, and R-A zones are prominent within the
proposed Residential Districts. These zones allow wineries and
other commercial uses on acre parcels.
The proposed Wine Country Policy Area and all four proposed
implementing zones allow small wineries on 10 acres with 75%
vineyard planting requirement.
Wine Country residents are very frustrated with noise generated
fromthe Special Occasion Facilities. Traditionally, these facilities
(and their negative impacts) are incidental uses to a winery.
Therefore, one residential representative has proposed to prohibit
small wineries in the Wine Country Residential District.
During the first meeting, the
Advisory Committee decided to
support small wineries in the
Residential District after a very
brief discussion.
the Committee;
residential
representatives
preferred to prohibit
wineries
18 Residential District
to increase minimum
acreage requirement
for residential
subdivision, to require
clustering, and to
require more planting
Currently, most of the areas proposed for the Residential District
fall within the Rural Community Foundation Component (0.5-2 Ac
min).
A few General Plan Amendments have been initiated, or are being
processed, that would authorize residential subdivision with smaller
parcel sizes.
To retain the rural character, the Advisory Committee strongly
suggested requiring larger parcel sizes, clustering and mandatory
planting requirements for the future residential subdivisions.
supported staffs
recommendation concerning
residential subdivisions:
1. 5 acre minimum; and
2. Clustering required; and
3. 75% planting or equestrian
lands with clustering.
Unanimous
19 Equestrian District
to create a comparable
zone that promotes
equestrian uses

Currently, there are many commercial equestrian operations or
establishments of various sizes in the Valle de los Caballos region.
Riverside County does not have an existing zone that supports and
promotes equestrian activities.
Staff could not find any other jurisdiction in the nation that has
adopted a comprehensive equestrian zone.
Therefore, the Advisory Committee struggled with staff in the
development of an equestrian zone that supports and promotes
these activities as well as encourages a consistent and comparable
character as the winery region.
many discussions, supported
staffs recommendation:
1. 10 acre minimumfor
incidental equestrian uses;
and
2. Scaling of incidental uses per
parcel sizes; and
3. 75% set-aside for equestrian
land; and
4. Larger set-backs frommajor
roads; and
5. Similar height standards.
Unanimous

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 9 June 2012
to legalize existing
commercial equestrian
uses
Currently, there are many commercial equestrian operations of
various sizes in the Valle de los Caballos region.
Some of these uses were legally established in the 1960s and 1970s.
As a result of the adoption and application of R-R, R-A, and A-1
zones in the late 1970s, these uses became legal non-conforming
uses with a 30-years amortization period.
In the 2000s, that 30-years amortization period ended for those
commercial equestrian operations.
As a result, these equestrian activities became illegal uses, subject
to code violation and enforcement.
The equestrian representatives of the Advisory Committee worked
closely with staff in reaching a compromised agreement for these
commercial equestrian uses.
For the purely horse related
equestrian uses (boarding,
nursing and/or training), the
Advisory Committee supported
staffs recommendation to
authorize themby right, as long
as those owners agree to adopt
the Wine Country Equestrian
zone. For the human intensive
equestrian uses (restaurants, polo
grounds and/or petting zoos), the
Committee agreed to authorize
themthrough a Plot Plan or
Conditional Use Permit process
under the proposed Equestrian
zone.
Unanimous
to prohibit clustering
with residential
subdivision
Currently, there is no requirement for clustering in the Valle de los
Caballos Policy Area for residential subdivisions.
Over the last few years, the Citrus/Vineyard region has benefited
fromclustering of residential lots since it is an important tool to
advance open/rural character.
Instead of allowing 5 acre or 10 acre parcels with no open space
commitment, clustering option restricts the density yield of the
residential subdivisions, while requiring large open space areas.
Due to their concern with smaller parcel sizes and higher density
residential subdivisions, some of the equestrian stakeholders and
representatives are not supportive of this concept.
The Advisory Committee has
agreed to support the wishes of
the equestrian representatives by
prohibiting clustering of
residential lots in the Equestrian
District and zone.
the Committee;
representatives
preferred clustering
for maintaining rural
character of this
region.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 10 June 2012
to allow Special
Occasion Facilities on
100 acre or larger
parcels
Some of the existing zones in the Valle de los Caballos Policy Area
allow for an application of Special Occasion Facility.
In discussing this use in the Winery District, the equestrian
representatives felt that some of the large owners in the Equestrian
District should be offered that option as well.
However, these representatives were concerned with allowing the
Special Occasion Facilities on 20 acre or larger parcels.
The Advisory Committee requested that this use be only considered
on 100 acres minimumwithin the Equestrian District.
This proposal would only allow up to five properties eligible to
apply for a Special Occasion Facility.
unanimously supported
authorizing the Special Occasion
Facilities on 100 acres minimum
with a Conditional Use Permit
process under the proposed
Equestrian zone.
the Committee;
however, one
residential
representative was
concerned about
noise and traffic
generated fromthese
uses.
to prohibit Lodging
Facilities (B&Bs,
country-inns, hotels
and resorts)
Some of the existing zones in the Valle de los Caballos Policy Area
allows for an application of Lodging Facility (hotel, motel).
In discussing this use in the Winery District, the equestrian
representatives felt that some of the large owners in the Equestrian
District may be offered that option as well.
However, these representatives were concerned about intensifying
the Equestrian District areas in where it would necessitate a sewer
extension into this rural community.
The Advisory Committee, upon the equestrian representatives
request, considered both allowing and prohibiting lodging facilities.
supported the equestrian
representatives recommendation
to prohibit Lodging Facilities
within the Equestrian District.
Unanimous
24 To further refine
Policy Area and
District boundaries
On multiple occasions, the Advisory Committee received requests
fromland owners to either annex or de-annex their properties into
the Policy Area.
In addition, multiple requests were made to modify the proposed
district boundaries within the Policy Area.
As a result, the Advisory Committee understands that further
refinements to the Policy Area and district boundaries are
foreseeable during the public hearing process.
staff have not prepared the final
recommendation for this issue at
this time. Instead, staff will
provide a map for consideration
by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors.
The Advisory
Committee
unanimously agreed
to address these
changes during the
Planning
Commission Hearing
process.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Page 11 June 2012
25 Relevant issues
discussed, but are not
a part of the
Community Plan
proposal
Hot Air Balloon Operations:

On multiple occasions, the Advisory
Committee debated regulating the hot air balloon operations
through these land use documents. This use is heavily regulated
through federal and state requirements. In addition, the Temecula
Valley Balloon Association is recently established to ascertain
some industry standards among the balloon operators at local level.
Therefore, the Advisory Committee decided not to address this
issue in this Community Plan process.
Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV):

On multiple occasions, the
Advisory Committee listened to the frustrations of area residents
due to off-highway vehicle operations. However, this is a County-
wide issue, which would require County-wide solutions. Therefore,
the Committee decided not to address it in this Community Plan.
Noise Ordinance:

Noise is an extensive code enforcement
challenge, primarily due to the OHV operations and special
occasion facilities. The Advisory Committee heard frustrating
accounts of the Noise Ordinance violations fromcurrent winery
owners and residents. As a result, the County has created a special
code enforcement teamthat addresses existing code violations over
weekends in this region. However, enforceability of the Noise
Ordinance is a County-wide issue. The Planning Department is
currently drafting a Noise Ordinance Amendment under a separate
Ordinance Amendment process.
Road Name Changes:
Not applicable
The winery representatives on the Advisory
Committee were interested in changing names of a few major roads
to reflect the Wine Country theme. On multiple occasions, this
issue was discussed. In the end, the Committee decided that this is
not a land use matter, and should be addressed outside the
Community Plan process.
Not applicable

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook

T Te em me ec cu ul la a V Va al ll le ey y W Wi in ne e C Co ou un nt tr ry y
G Gr re ee en nh ho ou us se e G Ga as s R Re ed du uc ct ti io on n W Wo or rk kb bo oo ok k
Pagei

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose.............................................................................................................................................................................................1
HowtousethisDocument................................................................................................................................................................2
Chapter 2: Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................... 3
ExistingConditions............................................................................................................................................................................3
RegulatoryDiscussion.......................................................................................................................................................................4
FederalRegulations............................................................................................................................................................................................4
StateRegulations...............................................................................................................................................................................................6
RegionalRegulations..........................................................................................................................................................................................8
RiversideCountywideRegulations.....................................................................................................................................................................9
Chapter 3: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Wine Country ......................... 11
TemeculaValleyWineCountryCommunityPlanEIR......................................................................................................................11
Thresholds........................................................................................................................................................................................................11
ResultsoftheGHGStudy.................................................................................................................................................................................12
CommunityPlanLevelEmissionsReductionStrategies..................................................................................................................13
ImplementingProjectLevelEmissionsReductionStrategies..........................................................................................................16
OptionTablesforAchievingGHGReductions..................................................................................................................................................16
OtherMechanismsforAchievingGHGReductions..........................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 4: Informational Resources ............................................................................................... 20

Appendix A: Wine Country Option Tables - GHG Reduction Implementation Measures.21
Page1
Chapter 1: Introduction

Air is a co mmon resource that is essential to the
health of our communiti es. It embo dies essential
components that sup port global ecosystem,
economy and social equity. Without stewardship,
an over overabundance of a ir pollutants will
degrade air quality causing mild to severe health
effect in humans and animals, lower visibility, lost
of agricultural commodities, and property damage.
The reduction of greenhouse gase s emitted from
combustion of fossil f uel and other activitie s is
equally important as it is linked to global warming.
Riverside County recognizes it s role in addressing
regional air quality issues and has made great
strides in r educing its share of emissions. This
document is designed specifically to provide
guidance to project proponents within the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to
further the Countys progress in reducing
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.

Purpose
Riverside County has developed a Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) as an extension of th e
General Plan, which e stablishes policies for d evelopment and conser vation within the entire
unincorporated County. The purpose of this SWAP is to address the specific requirements of
land uses in the Southwest region of the county with regard to long-term planning. Within th e
SWAP are policy areas, which ta ke into account locales which have a special significance to
residences in that part of the coun ty. More specifically, the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Policy Area of the SWAP seeks to address land uses specific to the region includi ng wineries,
equestrian, residential and other tourism related uses. Specific land use policies are contained
in the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area and are established to protect against land
uses which are incompatible with existing uses and to allow for growth. Specific policies
contained within the Po licy Area address diffe rent topics including transportation, land use,
population and employment, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
In order to ensure co nsistency with the General Plan a nd SWAP goals, the County has
developed this workbook to provide guidance a nd streamline CEQA review for implementin g
projects within the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area. Thi s document serves to
implement the greenhouse gas reduction policies and objectives of Riverside County.

Page2
How to use this Document*:

* Further details are available in Chapter 3. Nothing in this workbook shall be construed as limiting the Countys authority to require
a GHG study, to require an EIR, or to adopt a statement of overriding consideration for a project due to its significant GHG impacts.
Implementing Projects in Wine Country Policy Area
Review and Understand
Background Ch 1 & 2
Non - Exempt
(Potential GHG
Impacts)
Other Mechanisms
(with GHG study)
Option Tables
(Appendix A)
Projects Authorized
with CUP
May require
GHG study
Projects Authorized
with PP
No GHG study
required
Exempt
(No Potential GHG Impacts)
Plot Plan that are CEQA Exempt
Landscape Plans
Accesory Structures
Cell Towers
Lot Line Adjustments
Activities Statutorily CEQA
Exempt
Activities Categorically CEQA
Exempt
Page3

Chapter 2: Greenhouse Gases

Existing Conditions
The State of California recognized that anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions are contributing to changes in the gl obal climate, and that such change s are having
and will have adverse effects on the environment, the economy, and public health. These ar e
cumulative effects of past, present, and future actions worldwide. While worldwide contributions
of GHG emissions are expected to have widespread con sequences, it is not p ossible to link
particular changes to the environ ment of California or elsewhere to GHG e mitted from a
particular source or location. Thus, when considering a projects contribution to impacts from
climate change, it is possible to examine the q uantity of GHG emissions that would be emitte d
either directly from proj ect sources or indirectl y from othe r sources, such as pr oduction of
electricity as a result of activities or l and use development in the County. GHGs trap heat in the
atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are
emitted to the atmosphere through natural pro cesses, while others ar e created a nd emitted
solely through human a ctivities, primarily through the combustion of f ossil fuels. The State of
California has been at the forefront of dev eloping solutions to address global climate change
and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions.
State law defines GHG to in clude the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N
2
O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), pe rfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) (CEQA Guidelines, section 15364.5; Health an d Safety Code, sectio n
38505(g)). The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed
by methane and nitrous oxide. Because GHGs have variable potencies, a common metric of
carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) is used to re port their combined potency. The potency each
GHG has in the atmosphere is measured as a combination of the volume of its e missions and
its global warming potential (GWP)
1
, and is expressed as a function of the potency with respect
to the same mass of CO
2
. Methane, for example has a GWP of 21, while nitrou s oxide has a
GWP of 310. Thus, by multiplying the amount in me tric tons of each individual gas by the ir
respective GWP, all GHGs can be reported in the commo n unit of metric tons
2
of CO
2
e (MT
CO
2
e).
Due to the succe ssful global ban s on chloro fluorocarbons (primarily used as r efrigerants,
aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents), Riverside County does not generate significan t
emissions of these GHGs. The same has o ccurred for other synthesized gases such as
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) which have been banned and are no
longer available on the market. Because of the ban, Riverside County will not generate
additional emissions of these GHGs.
1
Thepotentialofagasoraerosoltotrapheatintheatmosphere.
2
Onemetricton(MT)equals1,000kilogramsor2,204pounds.Note,oneshorttonis2,000pounds.
Page4
Regulatory Discussion
Federal Regulations
a. Global Climate Change Programs
The United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA) is respon sible for implementing
federal policy to address global climate change. The federal government administers a wide
array of public-private partnerships to reduce GHG intensity generated by the United States.
These programs focus on energy e fficiency, renewable energy, methane and other non-CO2
gases, agricultural practices, and implementation of technol ogies to achieve GHG reductions.
The USEPA impleme nts several voluntary programs that substa ntially contribute to th e
reduction of GHG emissions including:
The State Climate an d Energy Partner Network that allows for the exchange of
information between federal and state agencies regarding climate and energy,
The Climate Leaders program for companies, the Energy Star labe ling system for
energy-efficient products, and
The Green Power Partnership for organizations interested in buying green power.
All of these programs play a significant role in encouraging voluntary reductions from large
corporations, consumers, industrial and co mmercial buildings, and many maj or industrial
sectors.
In Massachusetts v. Environmenta l Protection Agency (Docket No. 051120), the U.S.
Supreme Court held in April of 2007 that the USEPA ha s authority t o regulate greenhouse
gases, and the USEPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory
requirements. As such , the U.S. Supreme Co urt ruled that the USEPA should be required to
regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under Section 202(a)(1) of the federal
Clean Air Act (CAA).
The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October of 2009.
This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and
manufactures of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and veh icle engines, and requires annual
reporting of emissions. The Final Rule was effe ctive December 29, 2009, with data collect ion
beginning January 1, 2010, and the first annual reports due in March 2011. This rule does not
regulate the emission of GHGs; it only requires the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions for those sources above certain thresholds (USEPA 2009). USEPA adopted a Final
Endangerment Finding for the six defined GHGs on December 7, 2009. The Endangerment
Finding is required befor e USEPA can regulate GHG emissions under Section 202(a)(1) of the
CAA in fulfillment of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that esta blishes a common sense approach
to addressing greenhouse gas emission s from stationary sources under the CAA permitting
Page5
programs. In the first phase of the Rule (January 2011-June 2011), only sources currently
subject to t he New So urce Review Preventio n of Signifi cant Deterioration (PSD) permitting
program (i.e., those that are newl y-constructed or modified in a way that significantly increases
emissions of a pollutant other than GHGs) are subject to permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions under PSD. For these projects, only GHG increases of 75,000 tons per year (tp y)
CO2e or more need to determine the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for their GHG
emissions. This final rule sets a threshold of 75,000 tons per year for GHG emissions. Similarly
for the operating permit program, o nly sources currently subject to the program are subject to
Title V requirements for GHG. In the second phase of the rule (July 2011-June 2013) new
construction projects that exceed a threshold of 100,000 tpy and modifications of existing
facilities that increase emissions by at lea st 75,000 tpy will be subject to permitting
requirements. Additionally, operating facilit ies that emit at least 100,00 0 tpy will be subject to
title V permitting requirements (USEPA 2010a). New and e xisting industrial facilities that meet
or exceed that threshol d will requir e a permi t under the New Sourc e Review Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) an d Title V Operating Permit progra ms. This rule took effect
January 2, 2011.
b. Kyoto Protocol
The United States participated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) (signed on March 21, 1994). Th e Kyoto Protocol i s a treaty made under the
UNFCCC and was the first internat ional agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been
estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions
could be reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period
of 20082012 (UNF CCC 1997). It should be noted that although the United States is a
signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Congress has n ot ratified the Protocol and the United States is
not bound by the Protocols commitments.
In anticipation of providing an updated international treaty for the reduction of GHG emissions,
representatives from 170 countries met in Copenhagen in December 2009 to ratify an updated
UNFCCC agreement (Copenhagen Accord). The Copenhagen Accord, a voluntary agreement
between the United States, China, India, and Brazil, recognizes the need to keep global
temperature rise to below 2C an d obliges signatories t o establish measures to reduc e
greenhouse gas emissi ons and to prepare to provide help to poorer countries in adapting to
climate change. The countries met again in Cancun in December 2010 and adopted the Cancun
Agreements, which reinforces and builds upon the Copenhagen Accord. The nations agreed to
recognize country targets, develop low-car bon development plans and strategies, and report
inventories annually. In addition, a greements were made regarding financing for developing
countries and technology support and coordina tion among all nation s. The next conference of
the parties is scheduled for December 2011 in South Africa.
c. Climate Change Technology Program
The United States has opted for a voluntary an d incentive-based appr oach toward emissions
reductions in lieu of the Kyoto Protocols mandatory framework. The Cli mate Change
Page6
Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency research and development coordination eff ort
(which is led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce) that is charged with carrying out the
Presidents National Climate Change Technology Initiative.
State Regulations
a. California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board, a part of the California EPA (CalEPA), is responsible f or
the coordination and a dministration of both f ederal and state air po llution control programs
within California. In t his capacity, ARB conducts resea rch, sets st ate ambient air quality
standards (California Ambient Ai r Quality Standards, or CAAQS), compiles emissio n
inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of lo cal programs.
ARB establishes emissi ons standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products
(such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter flui d), and various types of commercial
equipment. It also set s fuel speci fications to further reduce vehicular emissions. ARB has
primary responsibility for the development of Cali fornias SIP, and works closely with the federal
government and the local air districts.
b. Assembly Bill 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, fo cusing on reducing GHG e missions in California. GHGs a s
defined under AB 32 i nclude carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 required CARB to ado pt rules and regulations
directing State actions that would achieve gr eenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1990
statewide levels by 2020. On or be fore June 30, 2007, CARB was required to pub lish a list of
discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures that would be implemented to be made
enforceable by 2010. The law f urther required that su ch measures achieve t he maximum
technologically feasible and cost e ffective reductions in GHGs from sources or categories of
sources to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit for 2020.
CARB published its F inal Report for Proposed Early Actions to Mitig ate Climate Change in
California in October 2007. This report describ ed recommendations f or discrete early action
measures to reduce GHG e missions as part of Californias AB 32 GHG reduction strategy.
Resulting from this are three new regulations proposed to meet the de finition of di screte early
action greenhouse gas reduction measures, including the following: a low carbon fuel standard;
reduction of HFC 134 a emissions from non-profession al servicing of motor vehicle air
conditioning systems; and improved landfill methane capture (CARB 2007d). CARB estimates
that by 202 0, the reductions from those three measures would range from 13 to 26 million
metric tons (MMT) CO2e.
Under AB 32, CARB has the pri mary responsibility for reducing GHG e missions. In 200 7,
CARB released a report, California 1990 GHG Em issions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit
(CARB 2007a), that determined the statewide l evels of GHG emissions in 1990 to be 427 MMT
CO2e. Additionally, in December 2008, CARB adopted t he Climate Change Scoping Plan,
Page7
which outlines the States strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG limit. Thi s Scoping Plan proposes
a comprehensive set o f actions d esigned to reduce overall greenho use gas e missions in
California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify energ y sources, save
energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The plan emp hasizes a cap-and-trade
program, but also includes the discrete early actions (CARB 2008).
c. Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), enacted in 2007, ame nded the California En vironmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to clearly establish that GHG e missions and the effects of GHG emi ssions are
appropriate subjects for CEQA a nalysis. It directed the California Office of Pl anning and
Research (OPR) to develop revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of GHG
emissions or the effects of GHG emissions a nd directed the Resources Agency t o certify and
adopt these revised State CEQA Guidelines by January 2010 (See PRC Sectio n 21083.05).
The revisions were codif ied into the California Code of Regulations and became full y effective
by July 2010. These revisions provide regulatory guidance for the analysis and mitigation of the
potential effects of GHG emissions.
d. Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 3 75), which establishes mechanisms for the development of regiona l
targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by the State on
September 30, 2008. On September 23, 201 0, CARB adopted the v ehicular greenhouse gas
emissions reduction tar gets that had been de veloped in consultation with the metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs); the targets re quire a 7 t o 8 percent reduction by 2020 and
between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance
of achieving signifi cant greenhouse gas reductions by working with cities and counties t o
change land use p atterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 37 5
process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of Govern ments (SCAG), which
includes Riverside County, will work with local j urisdictions in the development of sustainable
communities strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the
transportation network in a way that reduces gre enhouse gas emissions while meeting housing
needs and other regional planning objectives. The MPOs will prepare their first SCS according
to their respective regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule; to date, no region has
adopted an SCS. The first of the RTP updates with SCS strategies are expected in 2012.
e. CALGreen
In November 2008, the California Building Standards Commission established the California
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which set s performance standards for residential
and nonresidential development to reduce envir onmental impacts and encourage sustainabl e
construction practices. When the CALGreen code went into effect in 2009, compliance through
2010 was voluntary. As of Januar y 1, 2011, the CALGre en code is mandatory for all new
Page8
buildings constructed in the State. The CalGreen code addresses e nergy efficiency, water
conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality.
3

Regional Regulations
a. Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a council of governments for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. It is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for
regional issues relating to transportation, the economy an d community development, and the
environment.
Although SCAG is not an air qua lity management agency, it is re sponsible for developing
transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAGs
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provide growth forecasts that are used in the
development of air q ualityrelated land use and transportation control strategies by th e
SCAQMD. The RCPG is a framework for decis ion-making for local governments, assisting
them in meeting federal and state mandates for growth manag ement, mobility, and
environmental standards, while maintaining con sistency with regional goals regarding growth
and changes through the year 2015, and beyond. Policie s within the RCPG include
consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of
government. As the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the County of Riverside, SCAG is in
the process of implementing SB 375 with participation from the County and other local cities and
Counties. SCAGs reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and
13 percent by 2035 (CARB 2010b).
b. South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the agency princi pally responsible for co mprehensive air polluti on control i n
the SoCAB. To that end, the SCAQMD, wor ks directly with SCAG, county transportation
commissions, local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and state government
agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements,
inspects emissions sources, and enforces su ch measures though educational programs or
fines, when necessary.
SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile,
and natural sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series o f Air Quality
Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of these was adopted by the Go verning Board
of SCAQMD on June 1, 2007. T his AQMP, referred to as the 2007 AQMP, was prepared t o
comply with the federal and state Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to
reduce the high pollutant levels in the basins, to meet federal and st ate ambient air quality
standards, and to mini mize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local
economy. It identifies the control measures that will be implemented to reduce major sources of
3
California2010GreenBuildingStandardsCode,CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle24,Part11.
Page9
pollutants. These planning efforts have substantially decreased the populations e xposure to
unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within its
jurisdictional boundaries.
Riverside Countywide Regulations
a. General Plan
Public and private decisions regar ding land use, traffic circulation, a nd resource use can
influence the resultant air pol lutant and GHG emissions from, res pectively, development
patterns, vehicle u se and congestion, and alt ernative energy sources. Thus, many policie s
within the Countys General Plan under the Land Use, Circulation, and Multipurpose Open
Space Elements, are designed to encourage development of public and private lands that result
in less inte nsive energy use and emissions. For e xample, the Land Use Ele ment supports
concentrating growth near community centers, developing sites that capitalize upon multi-modal
transportation opportunities, and promoting co mpatible land use arrangements that reduce
reliance on the automobile. The Circulation Element, for example, supports tra nsit through
allowing higher densities, and encourages an d supports the development of projects tha t
facilitate and enhance the use of alternative modes of transportation , including pedestrian-
oriented retail and a ctivity centers, dedica ted bicycle l anes and paths, and mixed-use
community centers. T he Multipurpose Open S pace Element contains policies that support
implementation of the State Building Code a nd establishes mechanisms and incentives to
encourage architects and builders to exceed minimum the energy efficiency standards.
b. Air Quality Element and Climate Action Plan
As part of the General Plan, the Air Quality Element contains policies which assist the county in
meeting state and federal air qualit y guidelines and r educing pollutant emissions f rom mobile
and stationary sources. The Air Quality Element, similar to the Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements, account for growth wit hin the reg ion and ba lances the associated increase in
pollutant emissions. Some policies within the Air Quality Element address mobile and stationary
sources. With regard to mobile sources, th e Air Quality Element contains policies such as
encouraging use of mass transit, carpooling/ridesharing, and mixed-use development to reduce
vehicle miles travelled within the region. Wit h regard to stationary sources, su ch policies t o
reduce pollutant emissions include use of energy efficient building materials and use of energy
efficient appliances (boilers, air conditioning and water usage reductio n). In addit ion, the Ai r
Quality Element takes into account nearby sensitive receptors during construction of new land
uses to limit pollutant impacts to nearby existing sensitive uses (residential, school).
The County is currently (September 2011) developing an update to the Air Quality Element with
the General Plan Update. New information and policie s related to California laws and policies
related to g reenhouse gas (GHG) emission r eduction will be incorp orated into the revised
chapter. The proposed update to the Air Quality Element will also be the footing for the Countys
greenhouse gas emissi on reduction strategy. The Countys strategy will ali gn with the AB3 2
goal to reduce the States GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as well as it s implementation
Page10
mechanism, SB 375. These efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will not only benefit the
global climate, but improve the quality of life for Riverside County residents as well.
In addition, the County is currently (September 2011) developing the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
in conjunction with the General Plan Update. The CAP for Riverside County will include GHG
emission reduction goals and adopt implementation measures to achieve those goals through
policies and programs for new developments, county operations and existing communities.
Upon the adoption of t he General Plan Update, all indivi dual projects which ar e able to
demonstrate consistency with the revised Air Quality Elemen t and CAP will be able to undergo
streamlined CEQA review through tiering.

Page11
Chapter 3: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Strategies for Wine Country

Pending adoption of an updated Air Quality El ement and a Climate Action Plan for Riverside
County, this section assesses the potential impacts of GHG emissions that could result from the
cumulative build-out potential of the Wine Country Community Plan and new d evelopments
authorized pursuant to the plans and policies of the Wine Country Community Plan (proposed
Project).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Lead Ag encies inform decision
makers and the public regarding the following: potential signifi cant environmental effects of
proposed projects; feasible ways that environmental damage can b e avoided or reduced
through the use of fea sible mitigation measures and/or p roject alternatives; and the reasons
why the Lead Agency approved a project if significant environmental effects are involved (CEQA
Guidelines 15002). CEQA also requires Lea d Agencies to evaluate potential e nvironmental
effects based to the fullest extent possible o n scientific and factual data (CEQA Guidelines
15064[b]). A determination of whether or n ot a parti cular environmental impact will be
significant must be b ased on substantial evidence, which inclu des facts, reasonable
assumptions predicated upon facts, and ex pert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines
15064f[5]).
Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan EIR
The County has prepared an Environmental Impact Rep ort (EIR No. 524) assessing th e
potential direct and in direct impacts result ing from the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Community Plan. The draft EIR an alyzed GHG impacts due to the construction an d operation
of public an d private improvements, such a s the proposed trails ne twork, roundabouts, and
various implementing projects (resi dences, wineries, resorts, equestrian facilities, etc.) to be
developed in accordance with the Community Plan. This EIR is programmatic in nature, and
may not provide suffici ent CEQA review for a specif ic implementing project. To the degree
feasible, some individual projects will be allowed to tier off the anal ysis contained in the EIR
thereby streamlining the CEQA process.
Thresholds
California law provides that climate change is an environmental effect subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines adopted i n
February 2010 require lead agencie s to consider the adverse effects of a projects cumulative
contribution to greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions on the environment and determine if a
projects climate change impact may be significant. As amended, CEQA encou rages lead
agencies to estimate the amount of GHG e missions resulting from a d evelopment project, but
also state t hat a lead agency retains the discretion to require a qualitative anal ysis. (State
CEQA Guideline, 15064.4.) The State CEQA Guidelines provide that signifi cance thresholds
may be qu antitative, qualitative, or in the form of performance-based standards. Various
Page12
agencies, including the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB), the Governors Office
of Planning and Research, and the South Coa st Air Quality Management District, have been
developing and drafting standards and guidelines for determining the cumulative significance of
a projects GHG e missions on global climate change. The deve lopment, adoption, and
application of GHG significance thresholds is in its infancy - there is currently no single accepted
industry practice or methodology for analyzing GHG impacts.
The County has determined that there are thr ee appropriate numeric thresholds to determine
significance of the proposed Project. Specifically, GHG emissions were compared to th e
following three thresholds:
Mass Emissions. A threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year is ado pted from the
recommended SCAQMDs Interim Thresholds document for commercial, residential ,
mixed use, and industri al development project s; projects b elow this th reshold are
considered less than significant.
Per Capita Average Emissions. A threshold of 4.1 MT per year per person, adopted
from the SCAQMD effici ency based standard, is most appl icable to larger projects,
such as su bdivisions and other projects of potential regional infl uence. The
threshold is calculated on an emission rate per population or employee (service
population) projected for Year 2035; developments which achieve emissions below
this threshold are considered less than significant.
Reductions Consistent with State Goals. A th reshold of 28.5% below Business As
Usual (BAU) emissions from future development projects. Project-specific emissions
shall be calculated and compared to similar hypothetical develo pment; if a n
implementing project achieves a re duction of at least 28.5% with incorporation of
mandatory and voluntary measures, it is considered less than significant.
Results of the GHG Study
The Wine Country Community Plan EIR analyzed GHG impacts resulting from full build-out and
operation of all impleme nting projects assumed in the Co mmunity Plan and proposed zoning.
Analysis included const ruction emissions fr om individual projects an d operational emission s
from mobile sources (visitors, empl oyees) and stationary sources (wine production, agricultural
uses).
The findings of the GHG analysis conducted for EIR No. 524 are as follows:
Construction of imple menting projects w ould result in temporary and incremental
increases in GHG emissions. Construction of multiple concurrent implementing projects
could result in GHG emissions in excess of annual mass emis sion significance
thresholds. However, SCAQMD recommen ds that construction emissions from
individual Implementing Projects be amortized and si gnificance be assessed in
conjunction with long-term operational GHG emissions.
Page13
Construction and operation of implementing projects woul d result in GHG emissions in

excess of the SCAQMD draft mass emission thresholds and the proposed per capita
threshold; therefore, full Build-out under the Community Plan would result in p otentially-
significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to global climate change.
Implementing projects designed and constructed with GHG reducing project fe atures
consistent with the Wine Country Policy Area GHG policies would be consistent with the
States GHG-reduction goals unde r AB 32, result ing in emissions at least 28.5% below
the BAU case. Compli ance with these requirements can be demonstrated by achi eving
the mandatory minimum points on the applicable Option Table (see Appendix A) or
demonstrated through other approved quantitative method.
Implementation projects which achieve the required reductions required under the Wine
Country Community Plan would be consistent with Global Climate Ch ange policies set
forth by the federal, state, regional and local plans.
As a result of the aforementioned findings, n othing in thi s workbook shall be construed a s
limiting the Countys authority to re quire a GHG study, to require an EIR, or adopt a statemen t
of overriding consideration for a project due to its significant GHG impacts.
Community Plan Level Emissions Reduction Strategies
The Temecula Valley Wine Country Co mmunity Plan proposes a nu mber of strategies at
regional level to the Southwest Area Plan (SW AP) that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through design features that are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles travelled.
a. Integrated Trails Network (Non-motorized Transportation including Pedestrian,
Bike and Equestrian trails)
The County of Riverside contains multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers, bi cyclists, and
equestrian users as an integral part of the Cou nty's circulation system. These facili ties serve
both as a means of c onnecting the unique communities and activity centers th roughout the
County and as a means of facilitating modes of transportation with no emission of air pollutants
and GHGs. Within the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), a network of trails is planned for the Wine
Country region to provi de pedestrians, visitors , equestrians, and bicyclist s with alternative
modes of tr avel and while providing attractive recreational opportunities. However, it does not
connect all the existing wineries and other touri st destinations, such as Lake Skin ner and Vail
Lake, through equestrian and multi-purpose trail s system. A Trails Sub-committee worked with
the County Regional Parks and Open Space District and Planning Staff in the development of a
trails network that was more conducive to this regions destination places and users needs. As
a result of their work-effort, Figure 8 (Trails and Bikeway Syste m Map) of the SWAP was
revised through GPA No. 1077 and the following policy was added to the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Policy Area.
SWAP 1.6 Develop and implement a trails network that carefully considers equestrian uses,
incidental commercial activities and agricultural operations, and includes, but is not
Page13
Construction and operation of implementing projects woul d result in GHG emissions in

excess of the SCAQMD draft mass emission thresholds and the proposed per capita
threshold; therefore, full Build-out under the Community Plan would result in p otentially-
significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to global climate change.
Implementing projects designed and constructed with GHG reducing project fe atures
consistent with the Wine Country Policy Area GHG policies would be consistent with the
States GHG-reduction goals unde r AB 32, result ing in emissions at least 28.5% below
the BAU case. Compli ance with these requirements can be demonstrated by achi eving
the mandatory minimum points on the applicable Option Table (see Appendix A) or
demonstrated through other approved quantitative method.
Implementation projects which achieve the required reductions required under the Wine
Country Community Plan would be consistent with Global Climate Ch ange policies set
forth by the federal, state, regional and local plans.
As a result of the aforementioned findings, n othing in thi s workbook shall be construed a s
limiting the Countys authority to re quire a GHG study, to require an EIR, or adopt a statemen t
of overriding consideration for a project due to its significant GHG impacts.
Community Plan Level Emissions Reduction Strategies
The Temecula Valley Wine Country Co mmunity Plan proposes a nu mber of strategies at
regional level to the Southwest Area Plan (SW AP) that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through design features that are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles travelled.
a. Integrated Trails Network (Non-motorized Transportation including Pedestrian,
Bike and Equestrian trails)
The County of Riverside contains multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers, bi cyclists, and
equestrian users as an integral part of the Cou nty's circulation system. These facili ties serve
both as a means of c onnecting the unique communities and activity centers th roughout the
County and as a means of facilitating modes of transportation with no emission of air pollutants
and GHGs. Within the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), a network of trails is planned for the Wine
Country region to provi de pedestrians, visitors , equestrians, and bicyclist s with alternative
modes of tr avel and while providing attractive recreational opportunities. However, it does not
connect all the existing wineries and other touri st destinations, such as Lake Skin ner and Vail
Lake, through equestrian and multi-purpose trail s system. A Trails Sub-committee worked with
the County Regional Parks and Open Space District and Planning Staff in the development of a
trails network that was more conducive to this regions destination places and users needs. As
a result of their work-effort, Figure 8 (Trails and Bikeway Syste m Map) of the SWAP was
revised through GPA No. 1077 and the following policy was added to the Temecula Valley Wine
SWAP 1.6 Develop and implement a trails network that carefully considers equestrian uses,
incidental commercial activities and agricultural operations, and includes, but is not
Page14
limited to, regional trails, combination trails, bike paths, open space trails, historic
trails, etc.
b. Roundabouts
Through the Wine Country Co mmunity Plan process, fiv e
roundabouts are proposed along Rancho California Roa d to
maintain rural chara cter of thi s region while allowing efficient
traffic calming and volume capacity. The roundabout at Rancho
California Road and Anza Road will be the first of five
roundabouts located at La Serena Way, Calle Contento Road,
Monte De Oro Road and Glenoaks Road. These roundabouts will
allow vehicular, equestrian, bicycl e and ped estrian traffic to
interact through the intersection more efficiently and safely while
keeping its natural wine county landscape. The roundabout will
accommodate the estimated 41,700 of dai ly vehicular traffic and
a peak hour vehicular traffic of over 4000.
c. Fair Share and Phasing Assessment
Through the Community Plan proce ss, the County has developed a tra ffic impact fee program
specifically to ensure timely construction of transportation improvements as outlined in the Wine
Country Fair Share and Phasing Assessment. T his program will coll ect fair share contributions
toward improvements within the Wine Country Policy Area and within the City of Temecula, and
the County will enter into an agreement with the City of T emecula to implement the identif ied
improvements. Additionally, implementing projects within the Wine Country Policy Area will be required
to prepare a focused traffic study that will assess the following to ensure consistency:
Trip generation comparison to estimates assumed in the WCP assessment
Parking assessment
Site access and on-site circulation assessment
Interaction of driveways with adjacent intersections (if appropriate)
Additional assessment deemed appropriate by the County of Riversid e Transportation
Department
In addition, EIR No. 524 include s the followi ng mitigation measures to mitigate air quality
impacts that assist the County in achieving the GHG reduction goals as well:
AQ-1 The County shall require new commercial and industrial implementing projects t o
develop a voluntary trip reductio n program that promotes commuter-choices,
employer transportation management, guaranteed rid e home programs and
commuter assistance and outreach-type programs intended to reduce commuter
vehicle miles traveled. The program shall be submitted as part of discretionary
review applications, and in place prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
Page15
AQ-2 The County shall condition all implementing projects to implement that Trails and
Bikeways Systems map (SWAP Figure 8) of the Project. This map is more conducive
to this regions destination places and multiple users (bikers, equestrian,
pedestrians, visitors, etc.) needs. Hence, changing the focus of land use from
automobile-centered transportation would result in a reduction in vehicle miles
traveled.
AQ-3 In addition, the County shall require implementing projects to incorporate bicycle
parking areas and horse hitching posts where applicable.
AQ-4 The County shall require implementing projects to incorporate a comprehensive
parking program for private parking lots where applicable, to promote ultra-low or
zero emission vehicle parking; provide larger parking spaces that can accommodate
vans and limousines; include adequate passenger waiting/loading areas; and provide
safe pedestrian/equestrian pathways through parking areas.
AQ-5 The County shall promote the exp anded use of renewable fuel and low-emission
vehicles within implementing projects. Implementing projects shall earn points in th e
GHG Mitigation Workbook Option Tables by making low-emissions or electric vehicle
use more accessible by including o ne or both of the following project components:
provide preferential par king for ul tra-low emission, zero-e mission, and alternative-
fuel vehicles; and provide electric vehicle charging stations within the development.
AQ-6 The County shall require implementing projects to prohibit idling of on and off-road
heavy duty diesel vehicles for more than five minutes. This measure shall be
implemented by new commercial and industrial project s with loading docks or
delivery trucks. Such pr ojects shall be required to post signage at all loading docks
and/or delivery areas directing drive rs to shut down their trucks after five minutes of
idle time. Also, employers who o wn and operate truck fl eets shall be required to
inform their drivers of the anti-idling policy.
AQ-7 The County shall work with the Winegrow ers Association and thei r partners to
promote alternative modes of transportation, such as shuttles, cable-cars, trolley, etc.
In addition, where feasible, the County shall work with the local transit provider
RTA by adding or modifying existing transit service to enhance service near the
Project site. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Unincorporated Riverside County hosts one Metrolink transit station;
the County shall collaborate with in the neighboring citie s to expand connections t o
this station as well as other Metrolink station s which will increase ridership and
decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Page16
Implementing Project Level Emissions Reduction Strategies

In addition to the strategies being implemented on a regional basis, the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Policy Area co ntains the following polic y to require that the implementing projects
achieve a reduction in GHG emissions.
SWAP 1.9 Pending adoption of an updated Air Quality Element and Climate Action Plan (CAP),
ensure that new development selects greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures
from the Option Tables to achieve the Countys GHG emission reduction thresholds
as set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook (workbook). Alternatively,
new developments may utilize other reduction mechanisms to achieve reduction
thresholds as prescribe in the workbook.
The County has deter mined that no analysis of GHG e missions is required for the followi ng
types of implementing projects be cause they will not result in any potentially significant
cumulative impact on global climate change:
Plot Plans that are CEQA exempt and not circulated and which meet the criteri a
of subdivision (a)(1) of Section 18.30 of Riverside County Ordinance 348.
Landscaping Plans pursuant to, and consistent with, the pr ovisions of Riverside
County Ordinance 859
Accessory Structures
Cellular Towers
Lot Line Adjustments
Any Activity Statutorily Exempt from CEQA
Any Activity Categorically Exempt fr om CEQA for which an Exception in State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 Does Not Apply
Projects not defined above, are th e projects or development activities that coul d potentially
create a cumulatively significant impact on global climate change. Those projects could elect to
utilize one of the following two options to achieve their fair share of GHG reductions.
Option Tables for Achieving GHG Reductions
The County of Riversid e has devel oped option tables to a ssist in the analysis of GHGs for
individual projects tiering off of the Wine Country Co mmunity Plan EIR, The option tables were
developed based on AB 32 targets and contain measures to reduce GHG e missions at least
28.5% below Business As Usual (BAU) emissions. Individu al projects have the option to use
these option tables in or der to demonstrate that GHG emissions from the project ar e less than
significant. The GHG reduction measures co ntained in t he option table are assi gned points.
Page17
Projects which implement enough r eduction measures and achieve a 100/70 point rating ar e
considered to be consistent with the Countys GHG reduction goals for the Wine Country region.
Two versions of the Opti on Table have been developed to assist the proj ect project proponents
of these pr ojects, one for residential projects and one for commercial projects. The Option
Tables are included in Appendix A of this workbook. As noted above the County has developed
a list of spe cific mitigation strategies applicable to certain i mplementing projects. The Option
Tables provide a menu of additional options that both insures consi stency in implementation of
the measures and flexibility on how future development projects will achieve an overall
reduction of GHG emissions, consistent with the reduction target established by the County in
the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan EIR.
Each Option Table assigns points for specific GHG reducing strategy incorporated into a project
whether by regulation, statute, or policy, as mitigation or a project design feature (collectively
referred to as feature). The point values co rrespond to the minimum emissions reduction
expected from each feature, includ ing those mandated as mitigation measures in t he countys
EIR No. 524 and by CALGreen Building Codes. The menu of features allo ws maximum
flexibility and options for how development projects can implement the GHG reducti on
measures. Residential projects in the SWAP that garner at least 70 points will be consistent
with the States overall GHG reduction goals. Co mmercial projects will need to garner at least
100 points. As such, those projects that garner the minimum specified points or greater would
not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consi stent with CEQA Guidelines,
such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative
impact for GHG emissions.
Mixed use projects p rovide additional oppo rtunities to reduce e missions by combining
complimentary land uses in a manner that can r educe vehicle trips. Mixed use projects al so
have the potential to complement energy efficient infra structure in a way that reduces
emissions. For mixed use projects f ill out both Option Table 1 and Ta ble 2, but proportion the
points identical to the proportioning of the mix of uses. As an example, a mixed use project that
is 50% commercial uses and 50% residential uses will show point f or each assigned point
value in Table 1 and Table 2. Add the points fro m both tables. Mixed use projects that garner at
least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities in the Countys GHG Plan and
are considered less than significant for GHG emissions.
Other Mechanisms for Achieving GHG Reductions
Those projects that do not garnish the minimum points using the Option Table s discussed
above (and presented in Append ix A) will requir e quantification of project specific GHG
emissions and will need to provid e mitigation measures to reduce GHG e missions at least
28.5% below Business As Usual (BAU) emissions.
A numerical analysis of GHG emissions and a discussion of impacts on global climate change is
required for Residential and/or Co mmercial projects, as d escribed below, and also for a ny
Page18
mixed use projects involving more than one type of use. This stud y is also required for
discretionary Agricultural projects.
1. The GHG study mu st quantify the GHG emissions for the project, and must also
include, at a minimu m, an analysis of GHG e missions for each type of GHG emission
identified in California Health & Safety Code 38505 for construction impacts, if any, and
operational impacts, if any.
a. GHGs to which this section applies include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen
trifluoride, per Health and Safety Code 38505 and any amendments thereto.
b. Analysis of GHGs must not only quantify e missions but also discu ss their
relative potential to affect global cl imate change. For exa mple, methane has a
global warming potential many times that of carbon dioxide, such that a give n
quantity of methane may have an equal or g reater effect on global climate
change than a lesser amount of carbon dioxide.
c. In quantifying GHG emissions, the analysis must address:
i) For construction: The total amount of GHGs e mitted by all construct ion
activities including, but not limited to, equipment and machinery usage,
energy usage, vehicle miles tra veled by constructi on employees,
emissions from architectural coati ngs, emissions from p aving or ro ad
construction activities, and other reasonably fore-seeable emissions.
ii) For oper ations: The total amount of GHGs emitted by all operatio nal
activities per year including, but not limited to, emissions from use of
electricity, use of natura l gas, and o ther energy consumption, emissions
resulting from water demand, vehicular emissio ns, and other reasonably
foreseeable emissions.
iii) For purposes of subdivisions 1 and 2, above, a rule of reason shall
apply requiring only tho se emissions that are reasonably foreseeable to
be quantified. If a parti cular emission is specu lative, the analysis shal l
discuss the issue quali tatively and explain the reasons why any furth er
analysis would be speculative and then conclude the analysis.
2. The GHG study must describe and analyze feasible mitigation measures for any
potentially significant GHG emissions. All feasible mitigation measures must be adopted
for potentially significant impacts. The types of mitigation measures that may be
considered and shall be imposed, if feasible, depend on the type o f project that is
proposed. A demonstration by the p roject applicant that the project has reduced GHG
emissions by 28.5% or more below a business
Page19
In connection with any of the above categories of projects, the Coun ty Planning Department
may impose any or all of the following Conditions of Approval to further reduce GHG emissions:
Use energy-efficient designs such a s those found in the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Ratings and/or comply with Title 24,
Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code.
Incorporate public transit into project design through siting, location, and transit links.
Include vehicle-reduction measures through carpooling, public transit incentives, and
linkages or electric shuttle services to public transit as well as, to the extent possible,
local and regional pedestrian and bike trails.
Retrofit the building for energy efficient purposes.
Use energy-efficient appliances and office equipment (e.g., Energy Star compliant).
Implement waste reduction and recycling measures.
Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (i.e., solar installations on rooftops),
and/or waste heat capt ure (for industrial projects to provide process and/or building
heat), and/or water reuse.
Install direct gas use or electricity projects to capture and use emitted methane
(applies to landfill projects).
Promote mixed-use, compact, and higher-density devel opment to reduce trip
distance, promote alternatives to vehicle travel, and promote efficiency in delivery of
services and goods (applies to planning documents).

Page20
Chapter 4: Informational Resources

California Air Resource Board:
o Assembly Bill 32
Scoping Plan http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
Reducing Emissions http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/programs.htm
o Regulating Agricultural Related Activities
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/ag.htm
o Land Preparations: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-4.pdf
o Emission Calculation FOOD & AGRICULTURE WINE FERMENTATION
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/arbindprofandag.htm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full5-1.pdf

Non-profit Organizations:
o Wine Institute Greenhouse Gas Protocol and accounting tool:
http://www.wineinstitute.org/ghgprotocol.
o The California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA) Sustainable Winegrowing
Program: http://www.sustainablewinegrowing.org/aboutcswa.php.

Page21

Appendix A:

Wine Country Option Tables GHG Reduction Implementation Measures

(Residential and Commercial Developments)
RiversideCountyWineCountryCommunityPlan
Table1: GHGReductionImplementationMeasuresforResidentialDevelopment
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
ImplementationMeasure:EnergyEfficiency
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestlyEnhancedInsulation(5%>Title24)
1point
EnhancedInsulation(15%>Title24)
3points
GreatlyEnhancedInsulation(20%>Title24)
5points
0points
ModestlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(5%>Title24)
1point
EnhancedWindowInsulation(15%>Title24)
3points
GreatlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(20%>Title24)
5points
0points
1point
3points
5points
Minimizingleaksinthebuildingenvelopeisasimportantastheinsulation
propertiesofthebuilding.Insulationdoesnotworkeffectivelyifthereisexcess
airleakage.
0points
ModestBuildingEnvelopeLeakage(5%>Title24)
1point
ReducedBuildingEnvelopeLeakage(15%>Title24)
3points
MinimumBuildingEnvelopeLeakage(20%>Title24)
5points
Thermalstorageisadesigncharacteristicthathelpskeepaconstant
temperatureinthebuilding.Commonthermalstoragedevicesinclude
strategicallyplacedwaterfilledcolumns,waterstoragetanks,andthickmasonry
walls.Note:Engineeringdetailsmustbeprovidedtosubstantiatetheefficiency
ofthethermalstoragedevice.
Thermalstoragedesignedtoreduceheating/coolingby5Fwithinthebuilding
3points
Thermalstoragetoreduceheating/coolingby10Fwithinthebuilding
6points
0points
ModestDistributionLosses(5%>Title24)
1point
ReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
3points
GreatlyReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
5points
0points
EfficiencyHVAC(5%>Title24)
1point
HighEfficiencyHBAC(15%>Title24)
3points
VeryHighEfficiencyHBAC(20%>Title24)
5points
E1BuildingEnvelope
Insulation
E2BuildingEnvelope
Windows
E3BuildingEnvelopeDoors
E4BuildingEnvelopeAir
Infiltration
E5BuildingEnvelopeThermal
StorageofBuilding
E6Heating/Cooling
DistributionSystem
E7IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
SpaceHeating/Cooling
Equipment
ResidentialDevelopment
Page1of3
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
E8IndoorSpace Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficienciesWaterHeaters EfficiencyWaterHeater(EnergyStarconventionalthatis5%>Title24)water
heaterthatis15%>
1point
HighEfficiencyWaterHeater(Conventionalwaterheaterthatis20%>Title24)
3points
HighEfficiencyWaterHeater(Conventionalwaterheaterthatis20%>Title24)
5points
SolarWaterHeatingSystem
7points
Daylightingistheabilityofeachroomwithinthebuildingtoprovideoutsidelight
duringthedayreducingtheneedforartificiallightingduringdaylighthours.
Allperipheralroomswithinthelivingspacehaveatleastonewindow(required)
0points
Allroomswithinthelivingspacehavedaylight(throughuseofwindows,solar
tubes,skylights,etc.)suchthateachroomhasatleast800lumensoflightduring
asunnyday
1points
Allroomsdaylightedtoatleast1,000lumens
3points
0points
EfficientLights(5%>Title24)
1point
HighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.15%>Title24)
3points
VeryHighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.20%>Title24)
5points
0points
EfficientAppliances(5%>Title24)
1point
HighEfficiencyEnergyStarAppliances(15%>Title24)
3points
VeryHighEfficiencyAppliances(20%>Title24)
5points
E12MiscellaneousResidential
BuildingPlacement
North/Southalignmentofbuildingorotherbuildingplacementsuchthatthe
orientationofthebuildingsoptimizesnaturalheating,cooling,andlighting. 3points
IndependentEnergyEfficiency
Calculations
Thisallowsinnovationbytheapplicanttoprovidedesignfeaturesthatincreases
theenergyefficiencyoftheprojectnotprovidedinthetable.Notethat
engineeringdatawillberequireddocumentingtheenergyefficiencyof
innovativedesignsandpointvaluesgivenbasedupontheprovenefficiency
beyondTitle24EnergyEfficiencyStandards.
05points
ExistingResidentialRetrofits
Theapplicantmaywishtoprovideenergyefficiencyretrofitprojectstoexisting
residentialdwellingunitstofurtherthepointvalueoftheirproject.
05points
Providecircuitandcapacityingaragesofresidentialunitsforinstallationof
electricvehiclechargingstations
1point
Installelectricvehiclechargingstationsinthegaragesofresidentialunits
8points
WoodBurning
AspartofRule445andtheHealthyHearthsinitiative,theSouthCoastAir
QualityManagementDistrictadoptedarulefornopermanentlyinstalledindoor
oroutdoorwoodburningdevicesinnewdevelopment.
Projectcontainsnowoodburningstovesorfireplaces
10points
Daylighting
ArtificialLighting
Appliances
ElectricVehicleRecharging
Page2of3
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
E17Photovoltaic SolarPhotovoltaicpanelsinstalledonindividualhomesorincollective
neighborhoodarrangementssuchthatthetotalpowerprovidedaugments:
SolarReadyHomes(sturdyroofandelectrichookups)
2points
10percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
4points
6points
8points
10points
12points
14points
16points
18points
20points
22points
Limitconventionalturfto<20%ofeachlot(required)
0points
Eliminateconventionalturffromlandscaping
3points
Eliminateturfandonlyprovidedroughttolerantplants
4points
Xeroscapingthatrequiresnoirrigation
6points
Dripirrigation
1point
Smartirrigationcontrolsystemscombinedwithdripirrigation(demonstrate20
reducedwateruse)
3points
W3Recycledgreywater Greywater(purplepipe)irrigationsystemonsite
5points
W4Showers Title24standard(required)
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyShowerheads(15%>Title24)
1points
W5Toilets Title24standard(required)
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyToilets(15%>Title24)
1points
W6Faucets Title24standard(required)
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyfaucets(15%>Title24)
1points
SW1Recycling Countyinitiatedrecyclingprogramdiverting80%ofwasterequirescoordination
inneighborhoodstorealizethisgoal.Thefollowingrecyclingfeatureswillhelp
theCountyfulfillthisgoal:
Providegreenwastecomposingbinsateachresidentialunit
4points
Multifamilyresidentialprojectsthatprovidededicatedrecyclingbinsseparated
bytypesofrecyclablescombinedwithinstructions/educationprogram
explaininghowtousethebinsandtheimportanceorrecycling.
3points
50%ofconstructionwasterecycled(required)
0points
Recycle55%ofdebris
2points
Recycle60%ofdebris
3points
Recycle65%ofdebris
4points
Recycle70%ofdebris
5points
Recycle75%ofdebris
6points
TotalPointsEarnedby
ResidentialProject:
70Pointsneeded 0
SW2Recyclingof
Construction/Demolition
Debris
ImplementationMeasure:WaterUse
ImplementationMeasure:SolidWasteforResidentialDevelopment
W1WaterEfficient
Landscaping
W2WaterEfficientirrigation
systems
Page3of3
RiversideCountyWineCountryCommunityPlan
Table2: GHGReductionImplementationMeasuresForCommercialDevelopment
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
0points
4points
8points
12points
0points
ModestlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(5%>Title24)
4points
EnhancedWindowInsulation(15%>Title24)
8points
GreatlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(20%>Title24)
12points
0points
4points
8points
12points
E4BuildingEnvelopeAir
Infiltration
Minimizingleaksinthebuildingenvelopeisasimportantastheinsulation
propertiesofthebuilding.Insulationdoesnotworkeffectivelyifthereis
excessairleakage.
0points
ModestBuildingEnvelopeLeakage(5%>Title24)
4points
ReducedBuildingEnvelopeLeakage(15%>Title24)
8points
MinimumBuildingEnvelopeLeakage(20%>Title24)
12points
Thermalstorageisadesigncharacteristicthathelpskeepaconstant
temperatureinthebuilding.Commonthermalstoragedevicesinclude
strategicallyplacedwaterfilledcolumns,waterstoragetanks,andthick
masonrywalls.Note:Engineeringdetailsmustbeprovidedtosubstantiate
theefficiencyofthethermalstoragedevice.
Thermalstoragedesignedtoreduceheating/coolingby5Fwithinthe
building 3points
Thermalstoragetoreduceheating/coolingby10Fwithinthebuilding
5points
0points
ModestDistributionLosses(5%>Title24)
4points
ReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
8points
GreatlyReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
12points
0points
EfficiencyHVAC(5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyHVAC(15%>Title24)
8points
VeryHighEfficiencyHVAC(20%>Title24)
12points
CommercialHeatRecovery
Systems
Heatrecoverystrategiesemployedwithcommerciallaundry,cooking
equipment,andothercommercialheatsourcesforreuseinHVACairintake
orotherappropriateheatrecoverytechnology.Pointvaluesforthesetypes
ofsystemswillbedeterminedbasedupondesignandengineeringdata
documentingtheenergysavings.
04points
E3BuildingEnvelopeDoors
ImplementationMeasure:EnergyEfficiency
E5BuildingEnvelope
ThermalStorageofBuilding
E2BuildingEnvelope
Windows
E1BuildingEnvelope
Insulation
Heating/CoolingDistribution
System
SpaceHeating/Cooling
Equipment
CommercialDevelopment Page1of4
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
0points
EfficiencyWaterHeater(EnergyStarconventionalthatis5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyWaterHeater(Conventionalwaterheaterthatis15%>Title
24)
HighEfficiencyWaterHeater(Conventionalwaterheaterthatis20%>Title
24) 12points
SolarWaterHeatingSystem
14points
Daylighting
Daylightingistheabilityofeachroomwithinthebuildingtoprovideoutside
lightduringthedayreducingtheneedforartificiallightingduringdaylight
hours.
Allperipheralroomswithinbuildinghaveatleastonewindoworskylight
1point
Allroomswithinbuildinghavedaylight(throughuseofwindows,solar
tubes,skylights,etc.)suchthateachroomhasatleast800lumensoflight
duringasunnyday
5points
Allroomsdaylightedtoatleast1,000lumens
7points
0points
EfficientLights(5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.15%>Title24)
6points
VeryHighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.20%>Title24)
8points
0points
EfficientAppliances(5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyEnergyStarAppliances(15%>Title24)
8points
VeryHighEfficiencyAppliances(20%>Title24)
12points
E13MiscellaneousBuilding
EfficienciesBuilding
Placement
North/Southalignmentofbuildingorotherbuildingplacementsuchthat
theorientationofthebuildingsoptimizesconditionsfornaturalheating,
cooling,andlighting. 4points
EfficienciesOther
Thisallowsinnovationbytheapplicanttoprovidedesignfeaturesthat
increasestheenergyefficiencyoftheprojectnotprovidedinthetable.
Notethatengineeringdatawillberequireddocumentingtheenergy
efficiencyofinnovativedesignsandpointvaluesgivenbaseduponthe
provenefficiencybeyondTitle24EnergyEfficiencyStandards.
08points
EfficienciesExisting
CommercialBuildingRetrofits
Theapplicantmaywishtoprovideenergyefficiencyretrofitprojectsto
existingresidentialdwellingunitstofurtherthepointvalueoftheirproject.
Retrofittingexistingresidentialdwellingunitswithintheunincorporated
Countyisakeyreductionmeasurethatisneededtoreachthereduction
goal.Thepotentialforanapplicanttotakeadvantageofthisprogramwill
bedecidedonacasebycasebasisandmusthavetheapprovalofthe
RiversideCountyPlanningDepartment.Thedecisiontoallowapplicantsto
abilitytoparticipateinthisprogramwillbeevaluated.
08points
E16ElectricVehicle
Recharging
Providecircuitandcapacityingarages/parkingareasforinstallationof
electricvehiclechargingstations. 2points/area
Installelectricvehiclechargingstationsingarages/parkingareas
8points/station
E17LandscapingEquipment Electric lawn equipment including lawn mowers, leaf blowers and vacuums,
shredders, trimmers, and chain saws are available. When electric landscape
equipment is used in place of conventional gaspowered equipment, direct
GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with indirect GHG
emissionsassociatedwiththeelectricityusedtopowertheequipment.
Projectprovideselectricaloutletsontheexteriorofallbuildingssothat
electriclandscapingequipmentiscompatiblewithallbuiltfacilities.
2points
WaterHeaters
ArtificialLighting
Appliances
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
E18Photovoltaic SolarPhotovoltaicpanelsinstalledoncommercialbuildingsorincollective
arrangementswithinacommercialdevelopmentsuchthatthetotalpower
providedaugments:
SolarReadyRoofs(sturdyroofandelectrichookups) 2points
10percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 8points
Limitconventionalturfto<20%ofeachlot(required)
0points
Eliminateconventionalturffromlandscaping
3points
Eliminateturfandonlyprovidedroughttolerantplants 4points
Xeroscapingthatrequiresnoirrigation
6points
Dripirrigation
1point
Smartirrigationcontrolsystemscombinedwithdripirrigation(demonstrate
20reducedwateruse)
5points
W3StormwaterReuse
Systems
Innovativeonsitestormwatercollection,filtrationandreusesystemsare
beingdevelopedthatprovidesupplementalirrigationwaterandprovide
vectorcontrol.Thesesystemscangreatlyreducetheirrigationneedsofa
project.Pointvaluesforthesetypesofsystemswillbedeterminedbased
upondesignandengineeringdatadocumentingthewatersavings.
04points
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyShowerheads(15%>Title24)
3points
W4PotableWaterToilets WaterlessUrinals(notethatcommercialbuildingshavingbothwaterless
urinalsandhighefficiencytoiletswillhaveacombinedpointvalueof6
points)
04points
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyfaucets(15%>Title24)
3points
0points
EPAHighEfficiencydishwashers(20%watersavings)
4points
ImplementationMeasure:WaterUse
W1WaterEfficient
Landscaping
W2WaterEfficientirrigation
systems
W3PotableWaterShowers
W5PotableWaterFaucets
W6CommercialDishwashers
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
0points
EPAHighEfficiencylaundry(15%watersavings)
3points
EPAHighEfficiencylaundryEquipmentthatcapturesandreusesrinsewater
6points
W8CommercialWater
OperationsProgram
Establishanoperationalprogramtoreducewaterlossfrompools,water
features,etc.,bycoveringpools,adjustingfountainoperationalhours,and
usingwatertreatmenttoreducedrawdownandreplacementofwater.
Pointvaluesforthesetypesofplanswillbedeterminedbasedupondesign
andengineeringdatadocumentingthewatersavings.
03points
W9RecycledWater Graywater(purplepipe)irrigationsystemonsite
5points
T1Parking Providereservedpreferentialparkingspacesforcarshare,carpool,and
ultraloworzeroemissionvehicles. 1point
Providelargerparkingspacesthatcanaccommodatevansorlimosusedfor
ridesharingprogramsandreservethemforvanpoolsandincludeadequate
passengerwaiting/loadingareas.
1point
ProvideBikeRacks
1point
ProvideHorseHitchingPosts
1point
ProvidesBike&HorseRenting/Sharing
1point
T2CommercialVehicleIdling
Restriction
Allcommercialvehiclesarerestrictedto5minutesorlesspertriponsite
andatloadingdocks.
2points(Requiredof
allCommercial)
T3PublicTransit Thepointvalueofaprojectsabilitytoincreasepublictransitusewillbe
determinedbaseduponaTransportationImpactAnalysis(TIA)orTraffic
ManagementPlandemonstratingdecreaseduseofprivatevehiclesand
increaseduseofpublictransportation.
115points
SW1Recycling Countyinitiatedrecyclingprogramdiverting80%ofwasterequires
coordinationwithcommercialdevelopmenttorealizethisgoal.The
followingrecyclingfeatureswillhelptheCountyfulfillthisgoal:
Provideseparatedrecyclingbinswithineachcommercialbuilding/floorand
providelargeexternalrecyclingcollectionbinsatcentrallocationfor
collectiontruckpickup
2points
Providecommercial/industrialrecyclingprogramsthatfulfillsanonsitegoal
of80%diversionofsolidwaste
5points
Recycle2%ofdebris(required)Recycle5%ofdebris 1point
Recycle8%ofdebris 2points
TotalPointsEarnedby
CommercialProject:
100Points
Needed
0
W7CommercialLaundry
Washers
SW2Recyclingof
Construction/Demolition
Debris
ImplementationMeasure:Transportation
ImplementationMeasure:SolidWaste

TEMECULA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4080 Lemon St. 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Hhttp://www.rctlma.org/Planning I H http://www.socalwinecountryplan.orgI
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
T TE EM ME EC CU UL LA A V VA AL LL LE EY Y W WI IN NE E C CO OU UN NT TR RY Y D DE ES SI IG GN N G GU UI ID DE EL LI IN NE ES S
Page 1
INTRODUCTION

The physical character of our communities cannot be aivorcea from the values they respect. Sooner or later,
these values manifest themselves in how our aevelopment aecisions are maae ana how those aecisions shape
our communities. Where our values ana actions are synchroni:ea, our communities prosper, where they are
in conflict, so are the communities.
(Riverside County Integrated Plan, 2002)
The Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area is a unique comm unity oI Riverside County that oIIers
boutique wine country embedded within rural and equestrian character oI the southwestern Riverside
County. Approximately IiIty wineries and other smaller wine operations, p roduce award-winning premium
quality wines, made possible by a uni que microclimate and well-drained decom posed granite soils oI this
region. In addition, this area oIIers rural liIestyle, horseback riding trails, stables and other equestrian
amenities within the Valle de los Caballos community. It is with much pride in their ranches and horses
that some oI the equestrian I acilities hold national and international competition events. The Temecula
Valley Wine Country Policy Area Design Guidelines (hereinaIter 'Guidelines) are intended to encourag e
rural type oI developm ents surrounded by large vineyards and equestrian Iacilities that enhance the
winemaking, equestrian and rural residential atmosphere oI the policy area.

These guidelines are provided to guide those propert y owners and project proponents that are submitting
development applications to the County Planning Department. These guidelines are generalized statem ents,
alternatives or illustrations oI what is expected a nd encouraged Ior developm ents within the policy area.
Upon approval, these guidelines will be applicable to all development proposals Ior a dwelling unit,
subdivision, winery, equestrian Iacility, and/or incidental commercial Iacility unless ot herwise speciIied in
the Iollowing sections. Depending upon the site characteristics and nature oI the pro posal, the Pl anning
Director will determine the degree oI compliance to these guidelines.

A. SITE DESIGN AND PLANNING.

The intent oI this section is to ensure that unique s ite characteristics, such as natural topography, soil quality,
drainage patterns, scenic vistas etc. ar e considered; that the created buildin g pads, roads or drivewa ys are
blended into the natural terrain; and t hat any physical or visual impact is mitigated through site de sign and
planning.

1. All buildings, building pads, roads, driveways, and hardscape should be located in existing disturbed
areas and the least environmentally sensitive location, to minimize their impacts on natural terrain oI
the project site.

Do this Dont do this
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 2

2. All buildings, building pads, roads, driveways, and hardscape should, to the Iullest extent practicable,
Iollow and utilize the natural contours oI the land to minimize disturbance.

3. Any increase in runoII resulting Irom a site development should be directed away Irom any
neighboring properties, into a newly improved street or public right-oI-way that is designated to carry
surIace drainage run-oII.
4. Mass grading should be avoided; however, iI grading is necessary , contoured slopes or rounded
slopes should be manuIactured.

5. Graded slopes and/or building pads should provide a variet y oI both slope percentages and slope
direction in a three-dimensional undulating pattern that is similar to the existing natural terrain rather
than leIt at a constant an gle and direction, which creates an unnatural and manuIactured appearance
Ior the site.

Sharp angles appear unnatural

Varied slopes resemble
natural topography
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 3

6. Graded slopes and/or building pads should be similar to the natural slopes oI the site and the angle oI
any exposed slope shoul d gradually transition to t he angle oI the natural slope to create a natural
look.


7. Graded slopes and/or building pads leIt by cu t and Iill operations should be given a rounded
appearance (in plan and i n elevation) that closely resembles the natural contours and landIorm oI the
project site.


8. Graded slopes and/or building pads should not be allowed within IiIty Ieet (50`) oI a natural peak or
knoll.
Graded slope and building set back from peak or knoll

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 4

9. The vertical distance oI a ny graded slope should not exceed IiIteen Ieet (15` ) at a 3:1 ra tio and ten
Ieet (10`) at a 2:1 ratio Irom the toe oI the slope to the top oI the slope.

10. A buIIer zone should be provided between building pads and viney ards and equestrian lands Ior an
easy transition Irom built areas to open spaces.

11. Due to their impact on natural terrain, oII-highway vehicles shall not be operated on commercial or
non-commercial basis within any portion oI the project site within the policy area.

B. ARCHITECTURE
The intent oI this section is to ensure that the visual impacts oI proposed development is mitigated through
architecture and building m assing by com patible architectural styles, by varied rooI-plains, by terraced
building pad, or by encouraging architectural elements.

1. All new developments along Rancho CaliIornia Road, and to a sm aller degree, De Portola Road,
should Iollow streetscapes as identiIied in the Design Guidelines and Signage Program (please reIer
to Appendix A).
2. All ancillary structures and incidental comm ercial uses should Iollow the architectural sty le oI the
primary use oI the site (e.g. dwelling unit or winery or equestrian Iacility).
3. Exposed metal surIaces, contrasting color sche mes, chain link Iences, as well as mirrored glass
should be prohibited, especially when they are visible Irom public view.
4. All buildings and their p ads should be designed t o conIorm to the natural topograph y and natural
contours oI the site. Their constructio n and conIiguration should use alternative techniques such as
split-level and terraced building pads rather than single level mass graded pads.
Building and pad that conform to natural terrain

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 5

5. All buildings should be designed to minimize mass and volume. Architectural elements that increase
visual prominence such as two-storied entries, la rge glass do ors and windows, turrets, and large
chimneys should be avoided; however, architectural elements that emphasize horizontal planes, such
as overhangs, projections, alcoves, varied rooI-plains, and building oIIsets should be used.


6. All buildings should use material and color o I natural or earthen tones. A variety oI materials,
textures, and architectural details compatible with winemaking or equestrian theme should be used to
mitigate the visual impacts oI building mass.

Compatible color, architecture and material

7. The slope oI the main rooI Ior all primary buildings (dwell ing units or wineries or equestrian
Iacilities) should generally be oriented in the same direction as the natural slope oI the terrain.

8. All building elevations and rooIlines should be br oken into smaller building elements to reIlect the
natural landIorm oI the site. No residential rooIline should extend Iorty Ieet (40`) horizontally
without an interruption or change in plane or direction.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 6
Roof forms should be kept small and reflect the surrounding

9. Landscaping Ior any project should careIully select plants that assure that the vineyards or equestrian
operations are not impacted due to t he invasion oI urban exotics (please reIer to Ordinance 859:
Water EIIicient Landscape Requirements Ordinance).
10. Arbors, trellises, or gazebos should be allowed in conjunction with a dwelling unit or a winery iI they
do not exceed ten Ieet (10`) in height, Iorty Ieet (40`) in length, and ten percent (10) oI the building
pad.
11. Fencing should be encouraged only around the building pads to maintain the open and rural character
oI the wine country. II Iencing on the perimeter oI a property is desired, it should be compatible with
the architectural style oI the primary use and wine country atmosphere.
12. The height oI any Ience and/or wall should not exceed Iour Ieet (4` ) except Ior the swimm ing pool
Iences and retaining walls.

13. All exterior lighting Iixtures should b e directed downward and properly aimed on the targeted areas
to maximize their eIIectiveness and minimize the total number oI lighting Iixtures.

Lighting should be directed downward Lighting should not illuminate large areas

C. SPECIAL OCCASION FACILITIES
1. All residential subdivisions shall be conditioned to provide a Noise Disclosure Notice to prospective
property buyers inIorming them about their noise exposure in the Wine Country. This notice should
identiIy all nearb y properties that may be a source oI periodic noise Irom the ou tdoor special
occasion Iacilities.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 7

2. All indoor or outdoor special occasion Iacilities should be located and oriented away Irom
neighboring residential units.

3. All indoor special occasion Iacilities should incorporate architectural solutions that reduce noise
emitted Irom the events on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Planning and the OIIice oI
Industrial Hygiene Department. For noise management, locate special event Iacilities and other
noise emitters away Irom neighboring residential units.

4. The Planning Department may require a Noise Management Plan on a case-by-case basis. This plan
shall be in conIormance with the Cou nty Ordinance No. 847 and provisions oI the County General
Plan. The Noise Management Plan shall include:
a) The number oI outdoor events per year, event dates, and hours oI operation.
b) A Noise Report to determine appropriate mitigation measures Ior stationary noise sources.
c) Noise Disclosure Notice to property owners within a determined proximity oI the Iacility.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Page 8

Appendix A: Streetscape and Signage program for Rancho California Road and De Portola Road

7
-
1
9
-
2
0
1
0
D
e
s
i
g
n

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
P
a
g
e

1
J
u
l
y

|

2
0
1
0
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

|

D
e
s
i
g
n

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
I
.

I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
h
i
s

i
s

t
h
e

r
s
t

p
h
a
s
e

o
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
,

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
.

I
t

i
s

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

t
o

d
e
s
i
g
n

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
s

o
n

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

R
o
a
d

a
n
d

t
o

a

s
m
a
l
l
e
r

d
e
g
r
e
e
,

o
n

D
e

P
o
r
t
o
l
a

R
o
a
d
.

T
h
e

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

D
e
s
i
g
n

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

i
s

t
o

r
e

e
c
t

t
h
e

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s

v
i
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
o

g
u
i
d
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

o
w
n
e
r
s
,

w
i
n
e
r
y

o
w
n
e
r
s
,

C
o
u
n
t
y

p
l
a
n
n
e
r
s

a
n
d

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
-
m
a
k
e
r
s

t
o
w
a
r
d

a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
i
n
g

t
h
e

v
i
s
i
o
n
.
A
s

a

r
s
t

p
h
a
s
e

w
i
t
h

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

b
u
d
g
e
t
,

t
h
i
s

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

B
o
o
k
l
e
t

i
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y

a

p
r
i
n
t
o
u
t

o
f

t
h
e

P
o
w
e
r
P
o
i
n
t

s
l
i
d
e

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

w
i
t
h

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

t
e
x
t
u
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.

F
u
t
u
r
e

p
h
a
s
e
s

w
i
l
l

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s

i
n
t
o

a

b
o
o
k

f
o
r
m
a
t

w
i
t
h

a
m
p
l
e

t
e
x
t
u
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

1
4
,

2
0
1
0
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

P
D
S

W
e
s
t

P
r
e

2
A
e
r
i
a
l

P
h
o
t
o

o
I

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
o
o
k
i
n
g

E
a
s
t
3
A
e
r
i
a
l

P
h
o
t
o

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
o
r
n
i
a

R
o
a
d

L
o
o
k
i
n
g

E
a
s
t
4
T
r
a
i
l
s

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
O
n

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
f
.

R
d
.

T
h
e
r
e

w
i
l
l

b
e

o
n
e

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
o
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
S
e
c
o
n
d
M
u
l
t
i
-
M
u
l
t
i
U
s
e

T
r
a
i
l

o
n

t
h
e

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
d
e

w
i
t
h

S
e
c
o
n
d

M
u
l
t
i
U
s
e

t
r
a
i
l

o
n

o
t
h
e
r

s
i
d
e
,

w
h
e
r
e

P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

.
M
a
i
n

M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e

T
r
a
i
l

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
a
v
e
d

w
i
t
h

C
o
l
o
r
e
d

,

R
u
b
b
e
r
i
z
e
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
W
o
r
k
s
w
i
t
h
B
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
H
o
r
s
e
s
R
u
b
b
e
r
i
z
e
d

A
s
p
h
a
l
t

W
o
r
k
s

w
i
t
h

B
i
k
e
s

a
n
d

H
o
r
s
e
s
T
r
a
i
l
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

b
y

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

R
a
i
l

F
e
n
c
e
A
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
D
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
R
d
T
r
a
i
l
s
a
n
d
A

d
e
s
i
g
n

f
o
r

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

D
e

P
o
r
t
o
l
a

R
d
.

T
r
a
i
l
s

a
n
d

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
,

b
u
t

m
u
s
t

w
a
i
t

t
o

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

t
h
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

u
n
t
i
l

F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

a
r
e

R
e
s
o
l
v
e
d

a
n
d

t
h
e

R
o
a
d

W
i
d
e
n
e
d
.

e
e
l
e
e
e
e
5
R
o
a
d

R
.
O
.
W
.

L
e
v
e
l

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
6
R
o
a
d

R
.
O
.
W
.

L
e
v
e
l

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
7
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

M
P

T
r
a
i
l
s

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
8
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

M
P

T
r
a
i
l
s

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
9
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

M
P

T
r
a
i
l
s

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
1
0
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

M
P

T
r
a
i
l
s

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
1
1
3
D

V
i
e
w

o
I

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
o
r
n
i
a

R
o
a
d
1
2
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

S
o
u
t
h

s
i
d
e

w
i
t
h

M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e

T
r
a
i
l
s

o
n

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
1
3
1
4
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

N
o
r
t
h

s
i
d
e

w
i
t
h

M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e

T
r
a
i
l
s

o
n

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
1
5
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

N
o
r
t
h

s
i
d
e

w
i
t
h

M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e

T
r
a
i
l
s

o
n

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
1
6
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
o
a
d
w
a
y

N
o
r
t
h

s
i
d
e

w
i
t
h

M
u
l
t
i
-
U
s
e

T
r
a
i
l
s

o
n

B
o
t
h

S
i
d
e
s
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

1

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

D
r
o
p
s

O
I
I

o
n

S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
1
7
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

1

S
a
m
e

A
r
e
a

L
o
o
k
i
n
g

B
a
c
k
1
8
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

1

T
r
a
i
l

c
l
i
m
b
s

a
l
o
n
g

b
a
n
k

t
o

t
o
p
1
9
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

#
2

S
l
o
p
e

U
p

o
n

N
.

S
i
d
e
2
0
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2

T
r
a
i
l

i
s

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

a
t

t
o
p

o
I

b
a
n
k

2
1
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

3

N
o

t
r
a
i
l

o
n

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

S
i
d
e

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
.

R
d
.

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

O
n
l
y
2
2
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

3

N
o

t
r
a
i
l

o
n

S
t
e
e
p

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

S
i
d
e

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
.

R
d
.

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

O
n
l
y
2
3
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

4

N
o

t
r
a
i
l

o
n

F
l
a
t

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

S
i
d
e

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
.

R
d
.

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

O
n
l
y
2
4
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

4

N
o

t
r
a
i
l

o
n

F
l
a
t

N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

S
i
d
e

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
.

R
d
.

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

O
n
l
y
2
5
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

4

S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t

S
i
d
e

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
.

R
d
.

C
l
i
m
b
s

i
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

R
.
O
.
W
.
2
6
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

4

S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t

S
i
d
e

o
I

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
.

R
d
.

C
l
i
m
b
s

i
n

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

R
.
O
.
W
.
2
7
T
r
a
i
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
I

R
o
a
d

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
2
8
2
9
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t

t
o

O
c
c
u
r

a
t

E
a
c
h

M
a
i
n

I
n
t
e
r
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
l
o
n
g

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
o
r
n
i
a

R
o
a
d
T
r
a
i
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

1
B
u
t
t
e
r
I
i
e
l
d

S
t
a
g
e

R
d
.

t
o

L
a

S
e
r
e
n
a

W
a
y
3
0
3
1
T
r
a
i
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

2
L
a

S
e
r
e
n
a

W
a
y

t
o

C
a
l
l
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
o
3
2
T
r
a
i
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

3
C
a
l
l
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t
o

t
o

A
n
z
a

R
o
a
d
3
3
T
r
a
i
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

4
A
n
z
a

R
o
a
d

t
o

M
o
n
t
e

D
e

O
r
o

R
o
a
d
3
4
T
r
a
i
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

5
M
o
n
t
e

D
e

O
r
o

R
o
a
d

t
o

G
l
e
n

O
a
k
s

R
o
a
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

t
h
e

L
o
g
o

I
o
r

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
3
5
I
c
o
n

1

T
h
e

W
i
n
e

B
a
r
r
e
l
3
6
I
c
o
n

2

T
h
e

G
r
a
p
e

C
l
u
s
t
e
r

w
i
t
h

L
e
a
v
e
s
3
7
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

t
h
e

L
o
g
o

I
o
r

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
3
8
L
o
g
o

(
L
o
g
o
t
y
p
e
)

b
y

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

V
i
s
i
t
o
r
s

B
u
r
e
a
u
3
9
Q
u
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
a
L
o
g
o
Q
u
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

o
f

a

L
o
g
o
S
i
m
p
l
e
&
C
l
e
a
n
S
i
m
p
l
e

&

C
l
e
a
n
D
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
v
e

I
d
e
n
t
i
t
y

(
R
u
r
a
l
W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
)
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
)
S
y
m
b
o
l
i
c

&

S
t
y
l
i
z
e
d

I
H
V
I
I
c
o
n
i
c

H
i
g
h

V
i
s
u
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
E
a
s
i
l
y

R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
a
b
l
e
A
d
a
p
t

T
o

M
a
n
y

U
s
e
s
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

t
h
e

L
o
g
o

I
o
r

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
4
0
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

&

V
i
s
i
t
o
r
s

B
u
r
e
a
u
L
o
g
o
t
y
p
e
4
1
B
o
l
d
e
r

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

S
t
y
l
i
z
e
d

V
i
n
e

A
d
d
e
d
4
2
R
e
v
e
r
s
e
d

F
i
g
u
r
e
-
G
r
o
u
n
d

I
o
r

M
o
r
e

V
i
s
u
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
4
3
B
a
r
r
e
l

E
n
d

A
d
d
e
d
4
4
E
v
o
l
v
e
d

L
o
g
o

w
i
t
h

T
V
C
V
B

L
o
g
o
t
y
p
e
4
5
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

w
i
t
h

L
o
g
o

a
n
d

L
o
g
o
t
y
p
e
4
6
4
7
S
i
g
n

L
o
g
o

t
o

H
a
v
e

H
o
r
s
e
s
h
o
e

a
l
o
n
g

D
e

P
o
r
t
o
l
a

R
o
a
d

a
n
d

t
h
e

V
a
l
l
e
y

o
I

t
h
e

H
o
r
s
e
s

4
8
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

I
s
s
u
e
s
V
i
s
u
a
l

C
l
u
t
t
e
r

o
f

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
g
e
L
a
c
k

o
f

C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y

a
m
o
n
g

S
i
g
n

T
y
p
e
s
D
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y

i
n

A
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

U
p
c
o
m
i
n
g

W
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

&

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
D
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
i
n
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
W
i
n
e
r
y
D
r
i
v
e
&
D
e
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
D
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y

i
n

F
i
n
d
i
n
g

W
i
n
e
r
y

D
r
i
v
e

&

D
e
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

t
o

s
a
f
e
l
y

t
u
r
n
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
z
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
v
e
n
t
B
a
n
n
e
r
s
/
S
i
g
n
s
a
d
d
t
o
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

E
v
e
n
t

B
a
n
n
e
r
s
/
S
i
g
n
s

a
d
d

t
o

C
l
u
t
t
e
r

a
n
d

O
v
e
r
p
o
w
e
r

W
i
n
e
r
y

M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t
s

4
9
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

I
s
s
u
e
s
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
g

B
a
i
l
y

W
i
n
e
r
y

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
S
i
g
n

C
l
u
t
t
e
r

a
t

B
a
i
l
y

W
i
n
e
r
y

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
5
2
S
i
g
n

C
l
u
t
t
e
r

a
t

C
a
l
l
a
w
a
y

W
i
n
e
r
y

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
5
3
A
t
t
e
m
p
t

t
o

A
l
e
r
t

V
i
s
i
t
o
r

t
o

U
p
c
o
m
i
n
g

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
V
i
s
u
a
l

C
l
u
t
t
e
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
z
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

O
v
e
r
p
o
w
e
r
s
5
5
S
i
g
n

C
l
u
t
t
e
r

a
t

F
o
o
t
e

P
r
i
n
t

W
i
n
e
r
y

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

a
n
d

W
i
n
e
r
y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
i
g
n
5
6
W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
5
7
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
5
8
3
-
D

V
i
e
w

S
h
o
w
i
n
g

W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
5
9
3
-
D

V
i
e
w

S
h
o
w
i
n
g

W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
6
0
V
i
e
w

o
I

W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

I
r
o
m

N
o
r
t
h

S
i
d
e
6
1
W
i
n
e
r
y

W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

W
i
t
h

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
6
2
W
i
n
e
r
y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
i
g
n
6
3
W
i
n
e
r
y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
i
g
n

o
n

A
n
z
a

a
t

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

R
a
n
c
h
o

C
a
l
i
I
o
r
n
i
a

R
o
a
d
6
4
W
i
n
e
r
y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
i
g
n

W
i
t
h

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
6
5
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

W
a
y
I
i
n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

W
i
t
h

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
6
6
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
i
g
n

W
i
t
h

D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
6
7
6
8
W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

E
v
e
n
t

B
a
n
n
e
r

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
6
9
W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

E
v
e
n
t

B
a
n
n
e
r
7
0
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p
7
1
S
i
g
n
a
g
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p
7
2
J
u
l
y

|

2
0
1
0
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

|

D
e
s
i
g
n

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A

V
A
L
L
E
Y

W
I
N
E

C
O
U
N
T
R
Y

S
I
G
N
A
G
E

P
R
O
G
R
A
M
T
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
g
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

i
s

a

m
o
d
i

e
d

v
e
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
i
g
n

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

w
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e
g
r
o
w
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
v
e
r
s

a
l
l

r
o
a
d

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

r
o
a
d

R
i
g
h
t
s

o
f

W
a
y

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

T
e
m
-
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

R
o
a
d

S
i
g
n
a
g
e
A
l
l

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

r
o
a
d

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

t
h
a
t

i
s

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i

c
a
l
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

r
e
m
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

R
o
a
d

S
i
g
n
a
g
e

i
s

d
e

n
e
d

a
s

a
l
l

s
i
g
n
s

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i

c
a
l
l
y

p
l
a
c
e
d

o
n

r
o
a
d
s

f
o
r

t
r
a
f

c

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

r
e
a
s
o
n

b
y

t
h
e

R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
D
O
T
)
.

T
h
i
s

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

b
u
t

n
o
t

b
e

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

t
o

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s
,

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,

b
e
d

&

b
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t
s
,

h
o
t
e
l
s
,

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
t
e
,

l
a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

e
t
c
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
i
g
n
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

p
l
a
c
e
d

o
n

o
w
n
e
r
s

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

t
h
a
t

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
e

n
a
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

a
r
e

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

(
s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

f
u
t
u
r
e

D
O
T

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
)
.

E
a
c
h

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t

t
o

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

u
p

t
o

t
w
o

(
2
)

s
u
c
h

s
i
g
n
s

i
n

f
r
o
n
t

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

m
a
k
e

s
u
r
e

t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s

a
r
e

a
w
a
r
e

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
.

E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

W
i
n
e
r
y

M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

B
e
d

&

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

n
u
r
s
e
r
y

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

F
a
r
m

P
r
o
d
u
c
e

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,

b
u
t

n
o

b
e

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

t
o
:

a

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

n
a
m
e

s
i
g
n
,

a
n

u
p
c
o
m
i
n
g

e
v
e
n
t

b
a
n
n
e
r
,

a

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t

o
n

p
r
e
m
i
s
e

s
i
g
n
,

e
t
c
.

T
h
e
s
e

s
i
g
n
s

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
f
o
r
m

i
n

s
i
z
e

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

d
e

n
i
n
g

M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t

S
i
g
n
s
.
N
e
w

R
o
a
d

S
i
g
n
a
g
e
F
o
r

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,

n
e
w

s
i
g
n
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
O
T

R
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
,

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

b
y

D
O
T
.

A
l
l

n
e
w

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
f
o
r
m

t
o

t
h
e
s
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

o
r

b
e

d
e
e
m
e
d

u
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d

a
n
d
,

a
s

s
u
c
h
,

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

t
o

P
a
g
e

7
3
J
u
l
y

|

2
0
1
0
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

|

D
e
s
i
g
n

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
t
h
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

f
o
r

r
e
m
o
v
a
l
.

A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

s
i
g
n
s

f
a
l
l

i
n
t
o

t
w
o

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
:

W
i
n
e
r
y

w
a
y

n
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
g
n
s

a
n
d

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

w
a
y

n
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
g
n
s
.

T
h
e
s
e

s
i
g
n
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

E
D
A

a
n
d

D
O
T

b
e
f
o
r
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
.

A
n
y

n
e
w

s
i
g
n
s

n
o
t

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e
s
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

d
e
s
i
g
n
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

d
e
e
m
e
d

u
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
.

A
n

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

i
s

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

D
e

P
o
r
t
o
l
a

W
i
n
e

T
r
a
i
l

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s
.

T
h
e
s
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

w
o
o
d

s
i
g
n
s

m
a
y

r
e
m
a
i
n

i
n

p
l
a
c
e

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

g
o
o
d

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.

N
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

w
o
o
d

s
i
g
n
s

m
a
y

b
e

p
l
a
c
e
d
.

W
h
e
n

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

i
n

n
e
e
d

o
f

r
e
p
a
i
r

o
r

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

t
h
e
y

m
u
s
t

b
e

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

s
i
g
n
s
.

I
f

t
h
e
y

r
e
m
a
i
n

i
n

p
l
a
c
e

a
f
t
e
r

t
h
e
i
r

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

h
a
s

d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
e
d
,

t
h
e
y

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

T
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

t
w
o

s
e
r
i
e
s

o
f

s
i
g
n
s

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
O
T

R
i
g
h
t
s

o
f

W
a
y
:

W
i
n
e
r
y

S
i
g
n
s

(
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

o
n
l
y

s
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

T
V
W
A

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
a
s
t
i
n
g

r
o
o
m
s
)

a
n
d

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

S
i
g
n
s

(
F
o
r

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y

u
s
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

o
r

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

e
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

a
s

d
e

n
e
d

a
n
d

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

P
o
l
i
c
y

Z
o
n
e
)
.
W
i
n
e
r
y

W
a
y

n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n

-

T
h
i
s

i
s

a

s
i
g
n

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
h
o
w
n

o
n

P
a
g
e
s

5
6
-
6
2
.

A
s

c
a
n

b
e

s
e
e
n
,

i
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
o
g
o

a
n
d

L
o
g
o

T
y
p
e

o
n

t
h
e

t
o
p

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
.

I
t
s

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

i
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
n
d

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

a
d
v
i
c
e

t
o

a
s
s
i
s
t

t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s

i
n

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

w
i
n
e
r
y

e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

t
u
r
n
o
f
f
s
.

E
a
c
h

s
i
g
n

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

t
h
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

t
o

l
i
s
t

u
p

t
o

6

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s
.

E
a
c
h

w
i
n
e
r
y

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

i
t
s

n
a
m
e
,

a
n

a
r
r
o
w

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
i
d
e

o
f

t
h
e

r
o
a
d

t
h
e

d
r
i
v
e

o
r

t
u
r
n
o
f
f

w
i
l
l

o
c
c
u
r

a
n
d

t
h
e

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

t
h
a
t

p
o
i
n
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

w
a
y

n
d
i
n
g

s
i
g
n

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

I
f

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

o
t
h
e
r

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e

n
a
l

w
i
n
e
r
y

o
n

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
,

t
h
e

l
a
s
t

e
n
t
r
y

o
n

t
h
e

s
i
g
n

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

a
n

a
r
r
o
w

p
o
i
n
t
i
n
g

a
h
e
a
d
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

a
l
l

s
i
g
n
s

i
s

t
h
e

s
h
a
r
e
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

w
h
o
s
e

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
.
W
i
n
e
r
y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
i
g
n

T
h
i
s

i
s

a

s
i
g
n

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
h
o
w
n

o
n

P
a
g
e
s

6
3
-
6
5
.

T
h
i
s

s
i
g
n

a
l
s
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

L
o
g
o

a
n
d

L
o
g
o

T
y
p
e

o
n

t
h
e

t
o
p

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
.

T
h
e

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

P
a
g
e

7
4

J
u
l
y

|

2
0
1
0
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

|

D
e
s
i
g
n

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A

V
A
L
L
E
Y

W
I
N
E

C
O
U
N
T
R
Y

S
I
G
N
A
G
E

P
R
O
G
R
A
M
T
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
g
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

i
s

a

m
o
d
i

e
d

v
e
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
i
g
n

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

w
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

b
y

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e
g
r
o
w
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

c
o
v
e
r
s

a
l
l

r
o
a
d

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

r
o
a
d

R
i
g
h
t
s

o
f

W
a
y

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

T
e
m
-
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

R
o
a
d

S
i
g
n
a
g
e
A
l
l

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

r
o
a
d

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

t
h
a
t

i
s

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i

c
a
l
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

i
n

t
h
i
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

r
e
m
o
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

R
o
a
d

S
i
g
n
a
g
e

i
s

d
e

n
e
d

a
s

a
l
l

s
i
g
n
s

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i

c
a
l
l
y

p
l
a
c
e
d

o
n

r
o
a
d
s

f
o
r

t
r
a
f

c

a
n
d

s
a
f
e
t
y

r
e
a
s
o
n

b
y

t
h
e

R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
D
O
T
)
.

T
h
i
s

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

b
u
t

n
o
t

b
e

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

t
o

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s
,

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,

b
e
d

&

b
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t
s
,

h
o
t
e
l
s
,

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
t
e
,

l
a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

e
t
c
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
i
g
n
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

p
l
a
c
e
d

o
n

o
w
n
e
r
s

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

t
h
a
t

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
e

n
a
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

a
r
e

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

(
s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

f
u
t
u
r
e

D
O
T

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
)
.

E
a
c
h

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t

t
o

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

u
p

t
o

t
w
o

(
2
)

s
u
c
h

s
i
g
n
s

i
n

f
r
o
n
t

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

m
a
k
e

s
u
r
e

t
r
a
v
e
l
e
r
s

a
r
e

a
w
a
r
e

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
.

E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

W
i
n
e
r
y

M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

B
e
d

&

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

n
u
r
s
e
r
y

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

F
a
r
m

P
r
o
d
u
c
e

s
i
g
n
a
g
e
,

e
t
c
.

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,

b
u
t

n
o

b
e

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

t
o
:

a

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

n
a
m
e

s
i
g
n
,

a
n

u
p
c
o
m
i
n
g

e
v
e
n
t

b
a
n
n
e
r
,

a

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t

o
n

p
r
e
m
i
s
e

s
i
g
n
,

e
t
c
.

T
h
e
s
e

s
i
g
n
s

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
f
o
r
m

i
n

s
i
z
e

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

d
e

n
i
n
g

M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t

S
i
g
n
s
.
N
e
w

R
o
a
d

S
i
g
n
a
g
e
F
o
r

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,

n
e
w

s
i
g
n
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
O
T

R
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
,

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

b
y

D
O
T
.

A
l
l

n
e
w

s
i
g
n
a
g
e

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
f
o
r
m

t
o

t
h
e
s
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

o
r

b
e

d
e
e
m
e
d

u
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d

a
n
d
,

a
s

s
u
c
h
,

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

t
o

P
a
g
e

7
5
J
u
l
y

|

2
0
1
0
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

|

D
e
s
i
g
n

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
e

W
a
y

n
d
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
s

w
i
l
l

h
e
l
p

t
h
e
m

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e
y

w
i
l
l

t
u
r
n

i
n
t
o

t
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

d
r
i
v
e
.

I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

a
l
l

s
i
g
n
s

i
s

t
h
e

s
h
a
r
e
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

w
h
o
s
e

n
a
m
e
s

a
r
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
.
S
i
g
n

A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

a
n
d

C
h
a
n
g
e
s
A
l
l

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

w
i
s
h
i
n
g

t
o

h
a
v
e

t
h
e
i
r

n
a
m
e

o
n

a

W
i
n
e
r
y

S
i
g
n

m
u
s
t

b
e

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
i
n
e
g
r
o
w
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
T
V
W
A
)
.

M
o
n
u
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e

s
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

w
i
n
e
r
i
e
s

m
u
s
t

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

f
o
r

s
u
c
h

s
i
n
g
s

b
y

R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

E
D
A

a
n
d

D
O
T
.

A
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

s
u
c
h

s
i
g
n
s

l
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

e
x
c
e
p
t

w
h
e
n

T
V
W
A
,

R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

E
D
A

o
r

D
O
T

h
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.

A
n
y

w
i
n
e
r
y

s
i
g
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
r
o
p
e
r

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
l
a
c
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

u
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d

l
i
s
t

a
n
d

b
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

r
e
m
o
v
a
l
.

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

w
i
s
h
i
n
g

t
o

h
a
v
e

t
h
e
i
r

n
a
m
e

o
n

a
n

I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

S
i
g
n

m
u
s
t

b
e

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

w
i
n
e
r
y
,

a
n
d

b
e

l
o
c
a
t
e
d

o
n

t
h
a
t

w
i
n
e
r
y
s

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

A
l
l

c
o
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

s
u
c
h

s
i
g
n
s

l
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

e
x
c
e
p
t

w
h
e
n

T
V
W
A
,

R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

E
D
A

o
r

D
O
T

h
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.

A
n
y

w
i
n
e
r
y

s
i
g
n

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
r
o
p
e
r

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

w
i
l
l

b
e

p
l
a
c
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

u
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d

l
i
s
t

a
n
d

b
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

r
e
m
o
v
a
l
.

P
a
g
e

7
6

7
7
7
8
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

S
t
r
e
e
t

S
i
g
n

i
s

C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

S
t
y
l
e
W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

S
t
r
e
e
t

S
i
g
n
7
9
8
0
W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

S
t
r
e
e
t

S
i
g
n
8
1
W
i
n
e

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

S
t
r
e
e
t

S
i
g
n
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

W
i
n
e
r
y

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
8
2
T
y
p
i
c
a
l

W
i
n
e
r
y

E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
8
3
V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
8
4
W
e
s
t

H
a
l
I

o
I

V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
8
5
E
a
s
t

h
a
l
I

o
I

t
h
e
V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
8
6
B
i
r
d
`
s

E
y
e

V
i
e
w

o
I

t
h
e

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
8
7
B
i
r
d
`
s

E
y
e

V
i
e
w

o
I

t
h
e

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
8
8
B
i
r
d
`
s

E
y
e

V
i
e
w

o
I

t
h
e

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
8
9
E
y
e
-
L
e
v
e
l

V
i
e
w

o
I

t
h
e

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
V
i
s
i
t
o
r

O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
I
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
9
0
9
1

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 348.4729

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 348 RELATING TO ZONING

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ordains as follows:
Section 1. A new Article XIVd is added to Ordinance No. 348 to read as follows:
ARTICLE XIVd
WINE COUNTRY ZONES (WC)
SECTION 14.90. INTENT. The Wine Country Zones are established to implement the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area of the Riverside County General Plan within the area shown
on Figure 4a attached hereto. The purpose of these zones is to encourage agricultural cultivation,
vineyards, wineries, equestrian uses, preserve the wine-making atmosphere, estate living, equestrian life-
style, and protect this area and its residents from incompatible uses which could result in reduced
agricultural productivity and increased urbanization within the policy area. Incidental commercial uses,
such as winery operations and equestrian establishments shall be authorized only when they are
secondary, and directly related, to the agricultural or equestrian operations. The intent of allowing the
incidental commercial uses is to provide economic viability to the principal agricultural or equestrian
operations.
SECTION 14.91. DEFINITIONS. As used in this article, the following terms shall
have the following meanings:
a. BED AND BREAKFAST INN. A dwelling unit or other facility with 10 or fewer
guest rooms, which provides lodging and breakfast for temporary overnight
occupants in return for compensation. In addition to a main kitchen, a Bed and
Breakfast Inn may contain one kitchenette. Cooking provisions, such as a stove or
grill, are prohibited in the guest rooms.

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION. Pursuant to the development standards of Section
14.96.c.herein, a development in which the allowed number of dwelling units
(density yield) are placed in closer proximity with the purpose of creating the
largest potential for vineyards or equestrian lands.
c. COMMERCIAL EQUESTRIAN ESTABLISHMENT. An equestrian
establishment where a minimum of twenty (20) enclosed stalls are used to board
horses in return for compensation.
d. COTTAGE INDUSTRY. A home-based occupation or service carried on by a
resident within his dwelling in return for compensation, provided such use,
occupation or service is incidental and secondary to the principal use of a dwelling
as a residence. Such activity is conducted in a manner not to give an outward
appearance or manifest any characteristics of a business. Cottage industry may
include, but not limited to, knitting, sewing, quilting, pottery, accounting, scrap
booking and cooking.
e. COTTAGE INN. A dwelling unit with 5 or fewer guest rooms, which provides
lodging and breakfast for temporary overnight occupants in return for
compensation and is solely owned and operated by the property owner. In addition
to a main kitchen, a Cottage Inn may contain one kitchenette. Cooking provisions,
such as a stove or grill, are prohibited in the guest rooms.
f. COUNTRY INN. A facility, which may be an extension of the main dwelling
unit, with 11 to 20 guest rooms that provides lodging and breakfast for temporary
overnight occupants in return for compensation. In addition to a main kitchen, a
Country Inn may contain one kitchenette per guest room. Cooking provisions, such
as a stove or grill, are prohibited in the guest rooms.
g. EQUESTRIAN ESTABLISHMENT. An equestrian facility where horses,
donkeys, mules and ponies are kept, sheltered, trained, nursed, or boarded in return
for compensation. An equestrian establishment may include enclosed stalls,

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
shelters, arenas, paddocks, pens, as well as associated appurtenant structures or
buildings, including but not limited to, barns, tack sheds, washing stations, hot
walkers or other equestrian exercise equipment storage areas, equestrian training
schools, small-scale animal hospitals, feed storage facilities, covered forage/hay
storage areas, equestrian trail riding areas and equestrian trailer parking areas.
h. EQUESTRIAN LAND. A fenced-in open area that is actively managed to control
weeds and used for, but not limited to, grazing of equestrians or other livestock,
equestrian holding areas, open corrals, exercise areas, riding area, or equestrian
racing rings. Buildings or structures shall not be allowed in such open area.
i. GUEST ROOM. A lodging room with bathroom access, which accommodates
one or two persons and contains basic furniture, such as one or two beds,
nightstands, dresser, desk, chair, wardrobe or built in closet and a television.
j. GUEST SUITES. A guest room with only one access that accommodates a
maximum of four persons and contains one bedroom, additional living space,
luxury bathroom, closet and may include a kitchenette.
k. HORSE SHOW FACILITY. A facility that holds a maximum of one hundred
(100) people, which provides a venue for judged exhibition events, training events,
competition of horses or equestrian sport activities.
l. HOTEL. A lodging facility with more than 20 guest rooms or guest suites, which
provides lodging and breakfast for temporary overnight occupants, in return for
compensation. In addition to a main kitchen, a hotel may have one kitchenette per
guest room. Cooking provisions, such as a stove or grill, are prohibited in guest
rooms and guest suites.
m. INCIDENTAL COMMERCIAL USE. A commercial use that is directly
related and secondary to the principal agricultural or equestrian use located on the
same parcel or project site.

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
n. KITCHENETTE. An area that may include a small counter, cabinets,
microwave, and mini refrigerator used for providing food and drinks for non-
monetary consumption to guests.
o. LODGING FACILITIES. Bed and Breakfast Inns, Country-inns, Hotels and
Resorts.
p. NET PROJ ECT AREA. The portion of a site that can actually be built upon.
The following are not included in the net project area: public or private road rights-
of-way, public open-space, and flood ways.
q. PRODUCTION LOT. A legal lot of twenty (20) gross acres or more that is set-
aside for planting vineyards through a deed restriction or other conservation
mechanism.
r. RESORT. A full-service hotel with guest rooms, guest suites, or free standing
villas or casitas, which provides lodging and meals for visitors, in return for
compensation. Such facility may provide additional commercial and recreational
uses such as spas, amphitheaters, conference rooms, golf-courses and banquet-halls
operated by one entity for the convenience of the resort guests.
s. SET ASIDE AREA. An area that is restricted for the specific use of planting
vineyards or equestrian lands.
t. SPECIAL OCCASION FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility, which may
include a gazebo, pavilion, amphitheater, auditorium, structures and buildings,
which is used on special occasions such as weddings, parties, concerts,
conferences, charity events and fundraiser events for a specific period of time in
return for compensation. An outdoor special occasion facility may include a
gazebo, pavilion, or amphitheater for wedding ceremonies, concerts or other
celebrations. An indoor special occasion facility shall include a building or
structure for wedding receptions, conferences or other celebrations conducted
entirely within the structure or building.

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
u. TEMECULA VALLEY WINEGROWERS ASSOCIATION EVENT. A
fundraising effort conducted by one or several member wineries of the Temecula
Valley Winegrowers Association, including but not limited to, region-wide barrel
tastings, where food and wine samplings are provided to participants. Such events
shall not include crushing events and shall be limited to eight (8) events per year.
v. VINEYARD. A farm where grapevines are planted, grown, raised or cultivated for
the purpose of producing grape wine.
w. WINERY. An agricultural facility designed and used to crush, ferment, and process
grapes into wine.
SECTION 14.92. AUTHORIZED USES. WINE COUNTRY WINERY (WC-W)
ZONE. The following provisions shall apply to the WC-W Zone:
a. ALLOWED USES:
(1) One-family dwelling.
(2) Cottage Inn.
(3) Cottage Industry.
(4) Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Event.
(5) Vineyards; groves; equestrian lands; field crops; flower, vegetable,
horticultural products where such drying, processing or packing is in
conjunction with an agricultural operation or an incidental
commercial use as defined in this ordinance.
(6) The grazing of sheep, goats or cattle where such grazing operation
is conducted on fields for the purpose of clearing stubble or
unharvested crops, without limit as to the number of animals per
acre, for a period of not more than 30 days within any six-month
period.

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(7) The non-commercial keeping, raising or boarding of horses, cattle,
sheep and goats on lots 20,000 square feet or larger and 100 feet in
width, provided they are kept not less than 50 feet from any
dwelling units other than a dwelling unit located on the same lot.
The number of such animals is not to exceed two (2) animals per
gross acre of all the land available; provided however, the
systematic rotation of animals with more than two (2) animals per
gross acre is permitted so long as the total number of permitted
animals is not exceeded.
(8) Future Farmers of America or 4-H projects.
(9) The on-site outside storage of materials used in conjunction with a
farm or equestrian land including irrigation equipment and farming
machinery is allowed as an accessory use to the farm or equestrian
land.
(10) The on-site outside storage of materials is allowed as an accessory
use on lots from one-half acre to one acre provided the amount is
limited to one hundred (100) square feet with a maximum height of
six feet (6) and is allowed as an accessory use on lots one acre or
larger provided the amount is limited to two hundred (200) square
feet with a maximum height of six feet (6).
b. CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES WITH A PLOT PLAN. Any
permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to
protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. The following uses
are permitted provided a plot plan has been approved pursuant to Section 18.30 of
this ordinance.
(1) In addition to the principal dwelling, a one-family dwelling may be
permitted for each ten (10) acres of a farm including mobile homes

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on permanent foundations. The total number of such additional
dwellings for any farm shall not exceed four.
(2) A temporary stand for the display and sale of agricultural products of
any authorized use that are produced on contiguous lots owned or
leased by the owner or occupant of the premises. The duration of
sales from the temporary stand shall not exceed a period of three
continuous months or a total of six months during any calendar year.
The stand shall not exceed 300 square feet and shall not include any
permanent building or structure. Off-street parking shall be
provided as required in Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348, except
that no paving shall be required.
(3) Winery, only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard and a
minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres.
(4) The following appurtenant and incidental commercial uses, only in
conjunction with a winery , an established on-site vineyard, and a
minimum gross parcel size of ten (10) acres:
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
c. Gift sales; and
d. Delicatessen
conjunction with a winery, an established on-site vineyard, and a
minimum gross parcel size of twenty (20) acre:
c. Gift sales;
d. Special occasion facility;

8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. Bed and Breakfast;
f. Country Inn;
g. Hotel;
h. Spa or professional culinary academy in conjunction with
hotel; and
i. Delicatessen or restaurant; drive-thru restaurants shall not be
permitted.
c. CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES WITH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been
approved pursuant to Section 18.28 of this ordinance:
(1) Farm employee housing.
minimum parcel size of forty (40) gross acres:
c. Gift sales;
d. Special occasion facility;
e. Resort;
f. Golf courses in conjunction with resorts;
g. Spa or professional culinary academy in conjunction with
resorts; and
h. Delicatessen or restaurant; drive-thru restaurants shall not be
permitted.

9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Clustered subdivision that complies with Ordinance No. 460 and the
development standards set forth in section 14.96.c.herein.
SECTION 14.93. AUTHORIZED USES. WINE COUNTRY WINERY EXISTING
(WC-WE) ZONE.
a. ALLOWED USES for the twenty-eight 28 existing wineries as set forth in
Figure 4a of the Wine Country Policy Area attached hereto:
(2) Cottage Inn.
(4) Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Event.
(6) The grazing of sheep, goats and cattle where such grazing operation
is conducted on fields for the purpose of clearing stubble or
acre, for a period of not more than 30 days within any six-month.
(7) The non-commercial keeping, raising or boarding of horses, cattle,
sheep, and goats on lots 20,000 square feet or larger and 100 feet in
dwelling units other than a dwelling unit located on the same lot.
The number of such animals is not to exceed two (2) animals per
gross acre of all the land available; provided however, the
systematic rotation of animals with more than two (2) animals per

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gross acre is permitted so long as the total number of permitted
animals is not exceeded.
land.
(10) The on-site outside storage of material is allowed as an accessory
are permitted provided a plot plan has first been approved pursuant to Section
18.30 of this ordinance.
(1) In additional to the principal dwelling, a one-family dwelling may
be permitted for each ten (10) acres of farm including mobile homes
(2) A temporary stand for the display and sale of agricultural products
of any authorized use that are produced on the lot where such stand
is located or are produced on contiguous lots owned or leased by the
owner or occupant of the premises. The duration of sales from the
temporary stand shall not exceed a period of three continuous

11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
months or a total of six months during any calendar year. The stand
shall not exceed 300 square feet and shall not include any permanent
building or structure. Off-street parking shall be provided as
required in Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348, except that no
paving shall be required.
(3) The following appurtenant and limited incidental commercial uses,
only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard and a
minimum parcel size of five (5) gross acres:
a. Bed and Breakfast Inn; and
b. Spa and cooking school only in conjunction with a Bed and
Breakfast Inn.
(4) The following appurtenant and limited incidental commercial uses,
only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard and a
minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres:
a. Special Occasion Facility; or
b. County Inn; and
c. Spa and cooking school in conjunction with a Country Inn.
minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acre:
c. Gift sales;
d. Special occasion facility; and
e. Bed and breakfast inns; or
f. Restaurant; however, drive-thru restaurants shall not be
permitted.

12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
minimum parcel size of fifteen (15) gross acre:
c. Gift sales;
d. Special occasion facility; and
e. Country-inn; or
f. Restaurant; however, drive-thru restaurants shall not be
permitted.
PERMIT. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as
shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been
approved pursuant to Section 18.28 of this ordinance:
(1) Farm employee housing
d. Clustered subdivision that complies with Ordinance No. 460 and the
development standards set forth in section 14.96.c.herein
SECTION 14.94. AUTHORIZED USES. WINE COUNTRY EQUESTRIAN (WC-E)
ZONE.
a. ALLOWED USES:
(2) Cottage Inn.
(4) Equestrian Establishment.

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(6) The grazing of sheep, goats or cattle where such grazing operation is
conducted on fields for the purpose of clearing stubble or
period.
(7) The noncommercial keeping, raising or boarding of horses, cattle,
sheep, goats on lots 20,000 square feet or larger and 100 feet in
width, provided they are not less than 50 feet from any dwelling unit
other than a dwelling unit located on the same lot. Two such
animals may be kept on each 20,000 square feet up to one acre and
two such animals for each additional acre. The number of such
animals is not to exceed five (5) animals per gross acre of all the
land available; provided however, the systematic rotation of animals
with more than five (5) animals per gross acre is permitted so long
as the total number of permitted animals is not exceeded.
(8) Farms or facilities for the selective or experimental breeding and
raising of horses, cattle, sheep, and goats subject to the limitations
set forth in subsection a.(7) herein..
use.

14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
six feet (6) and is also allowed as an accessory use on lots one acre
or larger provided the amount is limited to two hundred (200) square
feet with a maximum height of six feet (6) for parcels on one-half
(1/2) acre or more.
(1) In addition to the principal dwelling, a one-family dwelling may be
permitted for each ten (10) acres of a farm including mobile homes
of any authorized use that are produced on contiguous lots owned or
leased by the owner or occupant of the premises. The duration of
sales from the temporary stand shall not exceed a period of three
continuous months or a total of six months during any calendar year.
The stand shall not exceed 300 square feet and shall not include any
permanent building or structure. Off-street parking shall be
provided as required in section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348, except
that no paving shall be required.
(3) Winery, only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard
and a minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres.

15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conjunction with a winery , an established on-site vineyard, and a
c. Gift sales; and
d. Delicatessen
(5) Commercial Equestrian Establishment, only in conjunction with an
established onsite equestrian land and a minimum parcel size of ten
(10) gross acres.
(6) The following appurtenant and incidental equestrian uses only in
conjunction with a Commercial Equestrian Establishment, an
established on-site equestrian land, and a minimum parcel size of ten
(10) gross acres:
a. Petting Zoo; and
b. Polo-grounds; or
c. Horse show facility
conjunction with a commercial equestrian establishment, an
established on-site equestrian land, and a minimum parcel size of
twenty (20) gross acres:
a. Western style store, such as but not limited to, saddle and
harness shop, tack shop, feed and grain store, custom-crafted
equestrian goods shop, horse rental facility, and
b. Delicatessen or restaurant; drive thru restaurants shall not be
permitted.

16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERMIT. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as shall be
necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. The
following uses are permitted provided that a conditional use permit has first been
approved pursuant to Section 18.28 of this ordinance.
(1) Farm employee housing.
conjunction with a Commercial Equestrian Establishment, an
established on-site equestrian land, and a minimum parcel size of
fifty (50) gross acres:
a. Horse racing track or rodeo arena; and
b. Large-scale animal hospital provided that temporary
boarding facilities are established for the purposes of
boarding sick or injured animals.
(3) Special occasion facility in conjunction with a Commercial
Equestrian Establishment, an established on-site equestrian land, and
a minimum parcel size of hundred (100) gross acres.
SECTION 14.95. AUTHORIZED USES. WINE COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL (WC-R)
ZONE.
a. ALLOWED USES:
(2) Cottage Inn.
horticultural products where such drying, processing or packing in

17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(5) The grazing of sheep, goats or cattle where such grazing operation is
conducted on fields for the purpose of clearing stubble or
period.
(6) The noncommercial keeping, raising or boarding of horses, cattle,
sheep, and goats on lots 20,000 square feet or larger and 100 feet in
dwelling unit other than a dwelling unit located on the same lot. The
number of such animals is not to exceed five (5) animals per gross
acre of all the land available; provided however, the systematic
rotation of animals with more than five (5) animals per gross acre is
permitted so long as the total number of permitted animals is not
exceeded.
(7) Farms or establishments for the selective or experimental breeding
and raising of horses, cattle, sheep, and goats subject to the
limitations set forth in section 14.95.a.(7) herein.
land.

18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) In addition to the principal dwelling, a one-family dwelling
including mobile homes on permanent foundations for each ten (10)
acres of a farm. The total number of such additional dwellings for
any farm shall not exceed four.
of any authorized use that are produced on the lot where such stand
is located or are produced on contiguous lots owned or leased by
the owner or occupant of the premises. The duration of sales from
the temporary stand shall not exceed a period of three continuous
months or a total of six months during any calendar year. The stand
shall not exceed 300 square feet and shall not include any permanent
building or structure. Off-street parking shall be provided as
required in Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348, except that no
paving shall be required.
(3) Winery, only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard
and a minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres.

19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Gift sales; and
d. Delicatessen.
c. Clustered subdivision that complies with Ordinance No. 460 and the
development standards set forth in section 14.96.c. herein.
SECTION 14.96. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
a. General Standards. The following standards shall apply to all uses and development
in the WC Zones (WC-E, WC-R, WC-W and WC-WE):
(1) Lots shall have a minimum average width of two hundred feet (200).
(2) Site layouts and building designs shall minimize noise impacts on
surrounding properties and comply with Ordinance No. 847.
(3) Drainage channels shall be constructed to avoid undermining or eroding the
roadbed.
(4) Minimum road improvements shall be as follows: roads shall have a
minimum width of twenty-four feet (24) with four (4)-foot shoulders,
graded with road base material applied, and Arizona Crossings shall be
allowed for unpaved roads subject to review and approval by the Riverside
County Transportation and Fire Departments and compliance with
Ordinance Nos. 460 and 461.
(5) Curbs, gutters and streetlights shall be discouraged; if they are necessary,
they shall be constructed in accordance with Temecula Valley Wine
Country Design Guidelines.
(6) Site layout and design shall be consistent with existing and planned
recreational trails and bike paths set forth in the General Plan and the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines.

20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(7) All utilities shall be installed underground except electrical lines rated at
33kV or greater which may be installed above ground.
(8) All exterior lighting shall comply with applicable requirements of
Ordinance Nos. 655 and 915.
(9) All exterior lighting, including spotlights, floodlights, electric reflectors and
other means of illumination for signs, structures, landscaping, parking,
loading, unloading and similar areas, shall be focused, directed, and
arranged to prevent glare and direct illumination of streets or adjoining
property.
(10) On-site advertising signs shall be compatible with the rural atmosphere of
the area and comply with all applicable County signage requirements.
(11) Permanent buildings and structures used in conjunction with drying,
processing, and packing operations shall be located not less than fifty feet
(50) from the boundaries of the property line except when the site is
located next to Rancho California Road, Monte De Oro Road, Anza Road,
Glen Oaks Road, Pauba Road, De Portola Road, Buck Road, Borel Road,
Butterfield Stage Road, Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and
Highway 79 South where the minimum setback requirement shall be one
hundred feet (100).
(12) Additional one-family farm employee dwellings shall comply with all of the
following:
a. Dwelling shall be located on a lot being farmed and may be
occupied by the owner, operator or employee of the farming
operation.
b. Dwelling shall not be rented or offered for lease
c. Dwelling shall be located not less than fifty feet (50) from any
property line, except when the site is located next to Rancho

21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California Road, Monte De Oro Road, Anza Road, Glen Oaks Road,
Pauba Road, De Portola Road, Buck Road, Borel Road, Butterfield
Stage Road, Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and
Highway 79 South where the minimum setback requirement shall be
one hundred feet (100).
d. Dwelling shall be screened from view at the front property line by
shrubs or trees.
e. Dwelling, sanitary facilities and utilities shall conform with all
requirements of law including the County Public Health Department
and Building and Safety Department.
b. Residential Standards. In addition to the General Standards, the following
standards shall apply to all residential developments in the WC Zones. The
following standards shall not apply to residential tract and parcel maps tentatively
approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance nor shall they apply to final
maps recorded prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Such maps shall
comply with the development standards of their respective zoning classifications in
Ordinance No. 348.
(1) One (1) dwelling unit shall be allowed for every ten (10) gross acres in the
WC-W, WC-WE and WC-E Zones.
(2) One (1) dwelling unit shall be allowed for every five (5) gross acres in the
WC-R Zone.
(3) The minimum setback requirement for all buildings shall be fifty feet (50)
from the road right of way, except when the site is located next to Rancho
California Road, Monte De Oro Road, Anza Road, Glen Oaks Road, Pauba
Road, De Portola Road, Buck Road, Borel Road, Butterfield Stage Road,
Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and Highway 79 South
where the minimum setback requirement shall be three hundred feet (300).

22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4) The maximum height for a dwelling unit shall be thirty feet (30) except
where the project design incorporates terraced lots, then the maximum
height of the dwelling unit shall not exceed forty feet (40) when measured
from the lowest finished floor level.
(5) All residential developments shall record a Right-to-Farm covenant,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 625 to protect the vineyard uses from residential
encroachment and conflicting land uses.
c. Clustered Subdivision Development Standards
In addition to the General Standards and Residential Standards, the following
standards shall apply to clustered subdivision in the WC Zones:
(1) Site layout and design shall maximize unique site characteristics including,
but not limited to, the natural topography, scenic vistas, soil quality and
drainage patterns.
(2) One (1) dwelling unit shall be allowed for every five (5) gross acres in the
WC-R zone and ten (10) gross acres in the WC-W and WC-WE zones.
(3) The minimum lot size shall be one (1) gross acre.
(4) Prior to tentative approval of an applicable subdivision map, at least seventy
five percent (75%) of net project area shall be set-aside for planting
vineyards through production lots or deed restriction.
(5) Fifty percent (50%) of the set-aside area shall be planted prior to issuance of
the building permit for the first dwelling unit and twenty five percent (25%)
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit.
(6) A clustered subdivision consisting of forty (40) acres or more shall provide
at least one (1) production lot
(7) A production lot that provides 25 gross acres or more shall be allowed only
a winery facility. Incidental commercial uses such as eating, living, tasting,

23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lodging or special occasion facilities shall not be allowed in conjunction
with the winery.
(8) The set-aside areas shall be maintained for production of grapes in
perpetuity by any of the following: property owner, home owners
association or County Service Area.
(9) On-site improvements for clustered lots including, but not limited to, roads,
signage, parking, street furniture and exterior lighting shall be compatible
with the rural atmosphere of the area and comply with all applicable County
signage requirements.
(10) On-site improvements for production lots and deed restrictions including,
but not limited to, lighting, ingress and egress shall be limited to
improvements necessary to maintain the production lots and deed
restrictions.
d. Winery Standards. In addition to the General Standards, the following standards
shall apply to all wineries in the WC zones:
(1) The minimum lot size shall be ten (10) gross acres.
(2) A total of seventy-five percent (75%) of the net project area shall be planted
in vineyards prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final inspection,
whichever occurs first. Fifty percent (50%) of the vineyard requirement
shall be planted prior to issuance of building permit for the winery. The
remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the vineyard shall be planted prior
to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final inspection of the winery,
whichever occurs first.
(3) Ten percent (10%) of the seventy-five percent (75%) planting requirement
may include the planting of olive trees.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection d.(2) herein, the seventy-five
(75%) planting requirement shall not include water features, natural or

24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
manmade lakes or the planting of grapevines in parking lots, but may
include planting in the road right of way as may be approved by the
Director of Transportation or his designee.
(5) At least seventy-five (75%) of the grapes utilized in wine production and
retail wine sales shall be grown or raised on site or within the County
except when:
a. An exemption from this requirement may be requested for the first
three years from the permits effective date. After the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy, such exemption may only be extended
twice for a one year duration, for a total exemption period not to
exceed five years.
b. An exemption from this requirement may be requested when the
Board of Supervisors has declared an Agricultural Emergency for
the Temecula Valley Wine Country Area. Such request shall be for
a specific period of time and any winery within the Temecula Valley
Wine Country Area Policy Area may apply.
c. Such exemption requests shall be made on forms provided by the
County Planning Department and shall be filed with the Planning
Director, accompanied by the fee set forth in Ordinance No. 671.
(6) A Winery shall be at least fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet in size and
produce at least 3,500 gallons of wine annually.
(7) Buildings and structures shall be designed in a rural, equestrian or wine
country theme consistent with the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design
Guidelines.
(8) The minimum setback requirement for all buildings shall be fifty feet (50)
from the road right of way; except when the site is located next to Rancho

25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
where the the minimum setback requirement shall be one hundred feet
(100).
(9) No building or structure shall exceed fifty feet (50) in height.
(10) Automobile parking spaces shall comply with Section 18.12 of Ordinance
No. 348 and shall be consistent with the rural standards of the Temecula
Valley Wine Country Policy Area of the Riverside County General Plan and
the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines.
(11) Loading, trash, and service areas shall be screened by structures or
landscaping and shall be located and designed in such a manner as to
minimize noise and odor impacts to adjacent properties.
(12) Outside storage areas shall be screened from view by structures or
landscaping.
(13) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground
elevation view to a minimum sight distance of thirteen hundred twenty feet
(1,320).
e. Special Occasion Facility Standards. In addition to the General Standards, the
following standards shall apply to all special occasion facilities in the WC zones:
(1) The minimum lot size for special occasion facilities in conjunction with a
winery shall be twenty (20) gross acres in the WC-W zone and ten (10)
gross acres in conjunction with vineyards in the WC-WE zone.
(2) The minimum lot size for special occasion facilities in conjunction with a
commercial equestrian establishment shall behundred (100) gross acres in
the WC-E zone.
(3) A maximum of five (5) guests per gross acre shall be permitted for a special
occasion facility.

26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4) The minimum setback requirement for all buildings shall be one hundred
feet (100) from the road right of way; except when the site is located next
to Rancho California Road, Monte De Oro Road, Anza Road, Glen Oaks
Road, Pauba Road, De Portola Road, Buck Road, Borel Road, Butterfield
Stage Road, Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and Highway 79
South where the minimum setback shall be three hundred feet (300).
(5) The maximum height for a special occasion facility shall be thirty feet (30)
except where the project design incorporates terraced lots, then the
maximum height of the special occasion facility shall be forty feet (40)
when measured from the lowest finished floor level.
Guidelines.
No. 348 and shall be consistent with the rural standards of Temecula Valley
Wine Country Policy Area of the Riverside County General Plan and the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines.
(9) All special occasion facilities shall conduct a noise study or an acoustical
analysis if an outdoor facility is proposed. Based on such study or analysis,
the Planning Director may deny or require as a condition of approval that
the project applicant enter into a good neighbor agreement with the
surrounding neighbors.
(10) Outside storage areas and the material therein shall be screened with
structures or landscaping.

27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
elevation view to minimum sight distance of thirteen hundred twenty feet
(1,320).
f. Lodging Facility Standards. In addition to the General Standards, the following
standards shall apply to all lodging facilities as defined in this ordinance in the WC
zones:
(1) The minimum lot size for a Bed and Breakfast Inn, Country Inn and Hotel
in conjunction with a winery and established on-site vineyard in the WC-W
zone shall be twenty (20) gross acres.
(2) The minimum lot size for a Bed and Breakfast in the WC-WE zone in
conjunction with an established on-site vineyard shall be five (5) gross acres
and ten (10) gross acres with a winery and established on-site vineyard.
(3) The minimum lot size for a Country Inn in the WC-WE zone in conjunction
with an established on-site vineyard shall be ten (10) gross acres and fifteen
(15) gross acres with a winery and established on-site vineyard.
(4) The minimum lot size for a resort in conjunction with a winery and
established on-site vineyard in the WC-W zone shall be forty (40) gross
acres.
(5) A maximum of two (2) guest rooms per gross acre shall be permitted for a
lodging facility.
Guidelines.
(7) The minimum setback requirement for all buildings shall be fifty feet (50);

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
where the minimum setback requirement shall be one hundred feet (100).
(8) The maximum height for Country-Inns, Hotels and Bed and Breakfasts shall
be thirty feet (30) except where the project design incorporates terraced
lots, then the maximum height shall be forty feet (40) when measured from
the lowest finished floor level.
(9) Resorts shall be a maximum of three-stories high and shall not exceed fifty
feet (50) in height.
No. 348 and shall be consistent with the rural standards of the Temecula
(12) Outside storage areas and the material therein shall be screened with
structures or landscaping.
elevation view to a minimum sight distance of thirteen hundred twenty feet
(1,320).
g. Commercial Equestrian Establishment Standards. In addition to the General
Standards, the following standards shall apply to all commercial equestrian
establishments in the WC-E zone:
(1) The minimum lot size for a commercial equestrian establishment shall be
ten (10) gross acres.
(2) A commercial equestrian establishment shall have a minimum of twenty
(20) enclosed stalls.

29

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the net project area shall be set-aside
for permanent equestrian lands prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy
for the commercial equestrian establishment.
(4) The minimum setback requirement for all buildings shall be fifty feet (50);
where the minimum setback requirement shall be one hundred feet (100).
(5) The maximum height of a building or structure shall be thirty feet (30)
except where the project design incorporates terraced lots, then the
maximum height shall be forty feet (40) when measured from the lowest
finished floor level.
Guidelines and in a manner that provides a sanitary and healthful
environment for the horses.
(7) Enclosed commercial stalls shall provide a minimum of 12x12 space per
horse.
(8) Outdoor corrals shall provide a minimum of 12x12 space per horse or
animal and may be partially covered.
(9) Automobile parking spaces shall comply with Section 18.12 of this
ordinance and shall be consistent with the rural standards of the Temecula
(10) Corrals, exercise rings, arenas, and any other disturbed soil area shall be
regularly watered or otherwise treated to prevent the emanation of dust.

30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(11) Manure disposal shall be managed to discourage breeding grounds for flies
and pests.
(12) If on-site compositing can be achieved, the compost area shall be sited at
least fifty feet (50) from waterways and hundred feet (100) from existing
residential dwelling(s) or adjacent lot.

Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its adoption.

County of Riverside General Plan
Proposed Southwest Area Plan GPA No. 1077 November 2011 DRAFT

Policy Areas
policy area is a portion of an area plan that contains special or unique
characteristics that merit detailed attention and focused policies. The
location and boundaries for the Policy Areas in the Southwest planning
area are shown on Figure 4, Policy Areas, and are described in detail
below.

POLICY AREAS

Eleven Twelve policy areas are designated within the Southwest Area Plan.
They are important locales that have special significance to the residents of this
part of the County. Many of these policies derive from citizen involvement over
a period of decades in planning for the future of this area. In some ways, these
policies are even more critical to the sustained character of the Southwest
planning area than some of the basic land use policies because they reflect
deeply held beliefs about the kind of place this is and should remain. The
boundaries of these policy areas shown on the Policy Area Map are approximate
and may be interpreted more precisely as decisions are called for in these areas.
This flexibility, then, calls for considerable sensitivity in determining where
conditions related to the policies actually exist, once a focused analysis is
undertaken on a proposed project.

Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area

The Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area is located easterly of the City of
Temecula and westerly of Vail Lake. This region encompasses one of the most
important agricultural lands in the County. The many wineries and equestrian
uses here provide a significant tourist attraction to the region, which in turn
provides a continual economic benefit to the surrounding businesses. In
addition, the Temecula Valley Wine Country area is an important part of the
character of the Southwest Area Plan and has become ingrained in the culture
of the surrounding communities.

Three districts have been established for this policy area Winery, Equestrian
and Residential to ensure long-term viability of the wine industry while
protecting the communitys equestrian rural lifestyle. The overarching policies
for this region promote a strong identity for the Temecula Valley Wine Country.
Additional policies within each district provide for complimentary uses distinct
to the delineated areas. These policies protect against the location of activities
that are incompatible with existing residential and equestrian uses, which could
lead to land use conflicts in the future. These policies also establish a
framework for the implementing Wine Country (WC) Zones and Design
Guidelines, which have been established to further promote and preserve the
distinctive character of this unique area. The following policies are applicable
to the Temecula Valley Wine County Policy Area:

SWAP 1.1 Require boundary changes to the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Policy Area to be subject to the Foundation Component
Amendment process unless county-initiated amendment.

SWAP 1.2 Maintain distinct characters of the Winery, Equestrian, and
Residential Districts through implementing zones to promote
harmonious coexistence of these uses.

A

SWAP =Southwest Area Plan

A viewof one of the Temecula Vineyards


SWAP 1.3 Permit wineries that maintain on site vineyards on 10 acres or
more provided that at least:
75% of the project site is planted in vineyards;
75% of the grapes utilized in wine production and retail
wine sales are grown or raised within the county; and
The winery facility has a capacity to produce 3,500 gallons
of wine annually.

SWAP 1.4 Permit limited commercial uses such as wineries, sampling rooms,
and retail wine sales establishments on a minimum lot size of ten
(10) acres to promote viticulture potential of this region.

SWAP 1.5 Require a density of ten (10) acres minimum for tentative approval
of residential tract and parcel maps after (adoption date)
regardless of the underlying land use designation except in the
Wine Country Residential District where a density of five (5)
acres minimum shall apply.

SWAP 1.6 Allow small-scale cottage inns or cottage industries. Encourage
agricultural operations, equestrian activities and vineyard
planting with such uses to reflect the unique character of this
Policy Area.

SWAP 1.7 Develop and implement an integrated trails network that carefully
considers equestrian uses, incidental commercial activities and
agricultural operations, and includes, but is not limited to,
regional trails, combination trails, bike paths, open space trails,
historic trails, etc.

SWAP 1.8 Pending adoption of an updated Air Quality Element and Climate
Action Plan (CAP), ensure that new development selects
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures from the Option Tables
to achieve the Countys GHG emission reduction thresholds as set
forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook (workbook).
Alternatively, new developments may utilize other reduction
mechanisms to achieve reduction thresholds as prescribe in the
workbook.

Wine Country Winery District

The Wine Country Winery District generally encompasses the area formally
recognized as the Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area and includes additional areas to
the east and south. The primary purpose of the Winery District is to promote the
establishment of additional commercial activities that support tourism while
ensuring long-term viability of the wine industry. The secondary purpose of the
Winery District is to recognize, and allow the expansion of, existing wineries
that are integral part of the Temecula Valley Wine Country economy.

SWAP 1.9 Encourage new incidental commercial uses that promote tourist
related activities for the wine industry as described in the Wine
Country Winery (WC-W) Zone.

SWAP 1.10 Allow the (28) existing wineries shown on Figure 4a to expand as
described in the Wine Country Winery Existing (WC-WE) Zone.

SWAP 1.11 Allow incidental commercial uses such as special occasion
facilities, hotels, resorts, restaurants and delicatessens in
conjunction with wineries as defined in the implementing zones.


Wine Country Equestrian District

The Wine Country Equestrian District generally encompasses the area
formerly recognized as the Valle de los Caballos Policy Area. The purpose of
the Equestrian District is to protect and promote equestrian uses in the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to make this a unique Wine Country
in the nation.

SWAP 1.12 Encourage equestrian establishments that promote the equestrian
lifestyle as described in the Wine Country Equestrian (WC-E)
Zone.

SWAP 1.13 Permit incidental commercial uses such as western stores, polo
grounds, or horse racing tracks, petting zoos, event grounds, horse
auction facilities, horse show facilities, animal hospitals,
restaurants, delicatessens, and special occasion facilities in
conjunction with commercial equestrian establishments on lots
larger than 10 acres to encourage equestrian tourism in this
community.

Wine Country Residential District

The Wine Country Residential District is located in the central and
northeastern portions of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area. The
purpose of the Residential District is to encourage permanent estate lot
residential stock in this region to balance the tourism related activities.

SWAP 1.14 Encourage residential development that complements the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area as described in the
Wine Country Residential (WC-R) Zone.

SWAP 1.15 Encourage tentative approval of residential tract and parcel maps
to cluster development in conjunction with on-site vineyards or
equestrian land provided that the overall project density yield does
not exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. While the lot sizes
in a clustered development may vary, require a minimum lot size of
1 acre, with at least 75% of the project area permanently set-aside
as vineyards or equestrian land.

Citrus/Vineyard

The Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area, which applies to lands located easterly of the
City of Temecula northerly and southerly of Rancho California Road, has been
established as a distinct area to ensure the continuation of the rural lifestyle and
wine production in southwestern Riverside County. This policy area
encompasses one of the most important agricultural lands in the County. The
many wineries here provide a significant tourist attraction to the region, which
in turn provides a continual economic benefit to the surrounding businesses. Not
only that, the Citrus/Vineyard area also is an important part of the character of
the Southwest planning area and has become ingrained in the Aculture@ of the
surrounding communities. The Citrus/Vineyard policies also protect against the
location of uses that are incompatible with agricultural uses and which could
lead to conflicts with adjacent uses. The following policies are reflected in the
provisions of the Citrus/Vineyard (C/V) Zone, which was established to
preserve the distinctive character of this area.

Equestrian Establishment. An
equestrian facility where
horses are kept, sheltered,
trained, nursed, or boarded in
return for compensation. An
equestrian establishment may
include enclosed stalls, horse-
shelters, horse-arena,
paddocks, pens, as well as
associated appurtenant
structures or buildings,
including but not limited to,
barns, tack sheds, washing
stations, hot walkers or other
horse exercise equipment
storage areas, horse training
schools, small-scale animal
hospitals, feed storage
facilities, covered forage/hay
storage areas, equestrian trail
riding areas, horse trailer
parking areas, and other
similar type of facilities.


Policies:

SWAP 1.1 Maintain a rural and agricultural character in the Citrus/ Vineyard
area through continued implementation of the C/V zone and
judicious use of the C-C/V zone. These zones help achieve the
desired character by requiring that commercial buildings, wineries,
citrus processing operations, and bed and breakfast inns be
designed in a Arural@ or Awine-country@ theme and by discouraging
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street lights.

SWAP 1.2 Require a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres for new residential
tract maps and parcel maps.

SWAP 1.3 Encourage clustered developments in conjunction with onsite
provision of vineyards for new residential tract maps and parcel
maps where appropriate. In case of a clustered development, the
overall project density yield must not exceed one dwelling unit per
five (5) acres. While the lot sizes in a clustered development may
vary, require a minimum lot size of 1 acre, with at least 50% of the
project area set aside for permanent provision of vineyards

SWAP 1.4 Continue to provide for incidental commercial uses, such as retail
wine sales/sampling rooms, incidental gift sales, restaurants
excluding drive-through facilities, and delicatessens, in
conjunction with wineries on 10 acres or more provided that at
least:
of wine annually.

SWAP 1.5 Continue to provide for incidental commercial uses, such as bed
and breakfast inns on 5 acres or more, and country inns and special
occasion facilities on 10 acres or more, provided that at least 75%
of the project site is planted in vineyards.

SWAP 1.6 Continue to provide for incidental commercial uses, such as bed
and breakfast inns on 10 acres or more, country inns on 15 acres or
more, and hotels on 20 acres or more, in conjunction with wineries
provided that at least:
of wine annually.

Valle de los Caballos

This policy area is located easterly of the City of Temecula, and is very
generally bounded by Monte Verde Drive and Highway 79 South on the south,
Pauba Road and the Vail Lake area on the east, Linda Rosea Road on the north,
and Anza Road on the west. This is an area characterized by gently rolling hills
and equestrian, rural residential, and agricultural activities. Most of the land in
the area is in parcels of 10 acres or larger, which fosters a very low intensity,
rural lifestyle. In order to preserve opportunities to enjoy the type of rural

SWAP =Southwest Area Plan Policy


lifestyle offered in this area, it is appropriate to retain the area in 10-acre
minimum parcel sizes.

Policies:

SWAP 2.1 Require a 10-acre minimum lot size for residential development
within the Valle de los Caballos Policy Area, regardless of the
underlying land use designation.

*Renumber the SWAP policies accordingly.

Proposed Southwest Area Plan GPA No. 1077 September 2011 DRAFT

Table 2: Statistical Summary of the Southwest Area Plan
LAND USE
AREA STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS
1

Acreage

Dwelling Units

Population

Employment
SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE PLANNING AREAS
The following provides the acreages for each Overlay and/or Policy Area within the Area Plan. Overlays and Policy Areas are
districts that contain unique standards tailored to a local geographic area. In some instances, these Overlays and Policy Areas alter
the allowable uses and maximum densities/intensities within the particular district. In these cases, the buildout potential resulting
from the application of the Overlays and Policy Areas has been accounted for in the Base Land Use Designations above. Please see
the Area Plan for a description of the unique features contained within each Overlay or Policy Area.
OVERLAYS & POLICY AREAS
OVERLAYS

Community Development Overlay
120 18 54 0
Community Center Overlay 51 299 900 400
Rural Village Overlay 0 0 0 0

Rural Village Overlay Study Area 0 0 0 0

Specific Community Development Designation Overlays 0 0 0 0
Total Area Subject to Overlay 171 317 954 400

POLICY AREAS
Highway 79

16,253

---

---

---
Leon/Keller

162

---

---

---
Specific Plan Required

483

---

---

---

Diamond Valley Lake

5,025

---

---

---

Section 25 & 36

964

---

---

---

Citrus Vineyard

7,576

---

--- ---

Valle De Los Caballos

2,913

---

--- ---
Temecula Valley Wine Country 18,990 --- --- ---

Santa Rosa Plateau

36,312

---

---

---

Walker Basin

571

---

---

---

Vail Lake

8,069

---

---

---

North Skinner

2,237

---

---

---

French Valley Airport Influence Area

14,596

---

---

---

Keller Road South Side

20

---

---

---
Total Area Within Policy Areas
103,682
95,181

TOTAL AREA WITHIN SUPPLEMENTALS

103,853
95,352

NOTES:
a.
Statistics reflect the midpoint for the theoretical range of build-out projections. Reference Appendix E of the General Plan for
assumptions and methodology.
b.
Overlay figures reflect the additional dwelling units, population and employment permissible under this category.
c.
It is assumed that Commercial Retail designation will buildout at 40% Commercial Retail and 60% Medium Density
Residential.
d.
The acreage for the Overlays and Policy Areas have not been included in the acreage totals to avoid double counting.

Leon/Kell er
Pol icy Area
Santa Rosa
Plateau
Pol icy Area
Citrus
Vi neyard
Rural Pol i cy Area
Highway 79
Pol icy Area
Diamond
Val ley Lake
Pol icy Area
Secti ons 25
And 36
Pol icy Area
North Ski nner
Pol icy Area
Val le De Los
Cabal l os
Pol icy Area
Vai l Lake
Pol icy Area
Wal ker Basin
Pol icy Area
Kel ler Road
South Side
Pol icy Area
DEVONSHIRE AVE
STETSON AVE
B
U
N
D
Y CANYON RD
S
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
TE
N
A
J
A
R
D
D
A
T
E
S
T
NEWPORT RD
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I T
H
R
D
MAYBERRY AVE
L
O
S
A
L
A
M
O
S
R
D
ETHANAC RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

T
R
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
S
T
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
S
R
D
SCOTT RD
D
E
L
U
Z
R
D
L
A
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
MC C
A
LL BLV
D
NICOLAS
RD
N
U
T
M
E
G
S
T
THOMPSON RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
RANCHO
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
O
E
T
Z
R
D
D
I
A
Z
R
D
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
S
A
G
E
R
D
DI A
M
O
N
D
DR
BENTON RD
OLIVE AVE
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
R
I
G
G
S

R
D
SIMPSON RD
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
RD
DOMENIG
O
N
I
P
KWY
S
T
A
T
E

S
T
M
A
R
G
A
R
I T
A RD
C
O
L
L
IE
R
A
V
E
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
M
E
N
I
F
E
E

R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
CITY
OF LAKE
ELSINORE
CITY OF
CANYON LAKE
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY
OF SAN
JACINTO
CITY OF
MENIFEE
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
215
15
15
74
74
79
79
106
184
213
238
265
284
286
307
310
312
313
DIAMOND
VALLEY
LAKE
LAKE
SKINNER
LITTLE
LAKE
CANYON
LAKE
VAIL
LAKE
LAKE
ELSINORE
COTTONWOOD LAKE
MARCH AIR RESERVE
BASE AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
PERRIS VALLEY
AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
HEMET-RYAN
AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
SKYLARK AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
FRENCH VALLEY
AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
Harvest
Val ley /
Winchester
REMAP
Mead
Val ley
Lakeview
/ Nuevo
San
Jacinto
Val ley
Sun City
/ Menifee
Val ley
Elsinore
COMMUNITY
OF
DELUZ
COMMUNITY
OF
RANCHO CAPISTRANO
COMMUNITY
OF
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU
COMMUNITY
OF
VALLE VISTA
COMMUNITY
OF
ROMOLAND
COMMUNITY
OF
HOMELAND
COMMUNITY
OF
GREEN ACRES
COMMUNITY
OF
WINCHESTER
COMMUNITY
OF
SEDCO HILLS
COMMUNITY
OF
LAKELAND VILLAGE
COMMUNITY
OF
QUAIL VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
GOOD HOPE
COMMUNITY
OF
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS
COMMUNITY
OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY
OF
SUN CITY
COMMUNITY
OF
MEADOWBROOK
COMMUNITY
OF
FRENCH VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
LA CRESTA
COMMUNITY
OF
TENEJ A
COMMUNITY
OF
PAUBA VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
DIAMOND VALLEY
Figure 4
[
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN
OVERLAYS AND
POLICY AREAS
0 4 2
Mil es
September 13, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
4
S
W
A
P
_
O
v
e
r
la
y
s
_
P
o
lic
y
A
r
e
a
s
.m
x
d
Communit y Development Overlay
Communit y Center Overlay
Ci trus Vineyard Rural Policy Area
Di amond Valley Lake Poli cy Area
Hi ghway 79 Policy Area
Keller Road South Side Policy Area
Leon/Keller Policy Area
North Skinner Policy Area
Santa Rosa Plateau Poli cy Area
Sections 25 And 36 Policy Area
Vail Lake Policy Area
Valle De Los Caballos Policy Area
Walker Basin Policy Area
Santa Ana
Mountains
Cleveland
National
Forest
County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third
party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no
legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with
Data Source: Ri versi de County
###
Supervi sori al Distri ct Boundary
Specifi c Pl ans
Ai rport Infl uence Areas
Area Pl an Boundary
Waterbodi es
Hi ghways
Ci ty Boundary
Leon/Kell er
Pol icy Area
Santa Rosa
Plateau
Pol icy Area
Proposed Temecul a Val l ey
Wi ne Country Pol icy Area
Highway 79
Pol icy Area
Diamond
Val ley Lake
Pol icy Area
Secti ons 25
And 36
Pol icy Area
North Ski nner
Pol icy Area
Vai l Lake
Pol icy Area
Wal ker Basin
Pol icy Area
Kel ler Road
South Side
Pol icy Area
DEVONSHIRE AVE
STETSON AVE
B
U
N
D
Y CANYON RD
S
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
TE
N
A
J
A
R
D
D
A
T
E
S
T
NEWPORT RD
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I T
H
R
D
MAYBERRY AVE
L
O
S
A
L
A
M
O
S
R
D
ETHANAC RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

T
R
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
S
T
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
S
R
D
SCOTT RD
D
E
L
U
Z
R
D
L
A
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
MC C
A
LL BLV
D
NICOLAS
RD
N
U
T
M
E
G
S
T
THOMPSON RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
RANCHO
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
O
E
T
Z
R
D
D
I
A
Z
R
D
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
S
A
G
E
R
D
DI A
M
O
N
D
DR
BENTON RD
OLIVE AVE
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
R
I
G
G
S

R
D
SIMPSON RD
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
RD
DOMENIG
O
N
I
P
KWY
S
T
A
T
E

S
T
M
A
R
G
A
R
I T
A RD
C
O
L
L
IE
R
A
V
E
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
M
E
N
I
F
E
E

R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
CITY
OF LAKE
ELSINORE
CITY OF
CANYON LAKE
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY
OF SAN
JACINTO
CITY OF
MENIFEE
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
215
15
15
74
74
79
79
106
184
213
238
265
284
286
307
310
312
313
DIAMOND
VALLEY
LAKE
LAKE
SKINNER
LITTLE
LAKE
CANYON
LAKE
VAIL
LAKE
LAKE
ELSINORE
COTTONWOOD LAKE
MARCH AIR RESERVE
BASE AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
PERRIS VALLEY
AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
HEMET-RYAN
AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
SKYLARK AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
FRENCH VALLEY
AIRPORT
INFLUENCE AREA
Harvest
Val ley /
Winchester
REMAP
Mead
Val ley
Lakeview
/ Nuevo
San
Jacinto
Val ley
Sun City
/ Menifee
Val ley
Elsinore
COMMUNITY
OF
DELUZ
COMMUNITY
OF
RANCHO CAPISTRANO
COMMUNITY
OF
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU
COMMUNITY
OF
VALLE VISTA
COMMUNITY
OF
ROMOLAND
COMMUNITY
OF
HOMELAND
COMMUNITY
OF
GREEN ACRES
COMMUNITY
OF
WINCHESTER
COMMUNITY
OF
SEDCO HILLS
COMMUNITY
OF
LAKELAND VILLAGE
COMMUNITY
OF
QUAIL VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
GOOD HOPE
COMMUNITY
OF
COMMUNITY
OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY
OF
SUN CITY
COMMUNITY
OF
MEADOWBROOK
COMMUNITY
OF
FRENCH VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
LA CRESTA
COMMUNITY
OF
TENEJ A
COMMUNITY
OF
PAUBA VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
DIAMOND VALLEY
Figure 4
[
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN
PROPOSED OVERLAYS
AND POLICY AREAS
0 4 2
Mil es
September 13, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
4
S
W
A
P
_
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
_
O
v
e
r
la
y
s
_
P
o
lic
y
A
r
e
a
s
.m
x
d
Communi ty Development Overlay
Communi ty Center Overlay
Wine Country Policy Area
Di amond Valley Lake Pol icy Area
Hi ghway 79 Policy Area
Keller Road South Side Policy Area
Leon/Keller Policy Area
North Skinner Policy Area
Santa Rosa Plateau Pol icy Area
Sections 25 And 36 Policy Area
Vail Lake Policy Area
Walker Basin Policy Area
Santa Ana
Mountains
Cleveland
National
Forest
Data Source: Ri versi de County
###
Supervi sori al Distri ct Boundary
Specifi c Pl ans
Ai rport Infl uence Areas
Area Pl an Boundary
Waterbodi es
Hi ghways
Ci ty Boundary
CITY OF
TEMECULA
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
M
O
R
G
A
N
H
I
L
L
D
R
LA SERENA WAY
C
A
M
PANULA W
AY
AULD RD
E
L
C
H
IM
IS
A
L
R
D
MONTE VERDE R
D
M
C
C
A
B
E
DR
LAKE
S
K
I
N
N
E
R
PA
R
K
M
O
N
T
E
L
E
G
R
O
W
A
Y
WO
O
DC
H
U
C
K
R
D
O
VERLA
ND TRL
A
P
I
S
R
D
VIA RIATA
LOS NOGALES RD
ROYAL C
REST PL
LEE
N
A
W
AY
F A
IR
V
IE
W
A
V
E
P
E
P
P
E
R
C
O
R
N
D
R
V
I
A
G
A
M
A
Y
C
R
O
W
N
E
H
IL
L
D
R
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
NIGH
T
H
A
W
K
P
A
S
S
R
A
N
CH
O
VISTA RD
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
LA
RD
A
N
Z
A
R
D
PAUBA RD
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
R
E
DHAWK PKW
Y
J
E
R
E
Z
L
N
SUNNY
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
D
R
OAK
M
O
U
N
T
A
I N
R
D
BOREL RD
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
P
K
W
Y
P
O
U
R
R
O
Y
R
D
VAIL RAN
C
H
P
K
W
Y
ANJ A A
V
E
DE PORTOLA RD
C
A
M
I
N
O
D
E
L
V
IN
O
S
H
IR
A
Z
W
A
Y
MARIUS AVE
LOS CABALLO
S
R
D
C
A
LL E
A
R
N
A
Z
C
A
B
A
L
L
O
S
D
R
VAIL
LA
K
E RD
J
A
M
E
S D
R
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
V
I
A
P
A
S
C
A
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
BUCK RD
A
N
ZA
RD
D
A
V
ID
S
T
C
A
LLE LIND
A
BENTON RD
MAG
G
I E
W
E
E
D
L
N
C
A
L
L
E L
A
S
L
O
M
A
S
SANTA RIT A
R
D
STATE
HIGHW
AY
79
C
A
L
L
E
C
A
N
O
R
A
WACKER DR
R
I O
L
IN
D
A
R
D
W
O
LF
STORE RD
N
O
RTH LOOP
RD
PULGAS
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
B
E
L
LE
C
H
A
IN
E
L
O
O
P
L
O
S
C
ORR
A
LITO
S
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
TE
N
T
O
LAK
E
S
KINN
E
R
R
EC
R
E
ATION AREA
H
W
Y
7
9
B
U
T
TE
R
F
I
E
L D
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
R
V
P
A
R
K
Figure 4A
[
PROPOSED TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY POLICY AREA
WITH DISTRICTS
0 1 0.5
Mil es
September 15, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
4
A
-
W
in
e
C
o
u
n
tr
y
P
o
lic
y
A
r
e
a
s
.
m
x
d
Highways
Waterbodies
Existing Wineries (Less than 20 Acres Gross)
City Boundary
Data Source: Ri versi de County 2011
Equestrian District
Residential District
Winery District
Winery District
Equestrian District
Winery District
CITY OF
TEMECULA
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
V
IA
P
A
S
C
A
L
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
LA
R
D
GLENOAKS RD
M
URRIETA
HOT
SPRINGS
RD
VIA RIO
TEMECU
L
A
V
IA
D
E
L
O
S
O
R
A
N
CHO
V
IS
TA RD
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
P
K
W
Y
W
A
L
C
O
T
T
L
N
W
O
L
F
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
BUT
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
STA
G
E
R
D
DENISE RD
REDH
A
W
K
PKW
Y
N
IC
O
LAS RD
BENTON RD
EAST
BENTON
R
D
P
E
P
P
E
R
C
O
R
N
D
R
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
EAST
B
ENTON RD
R
E
M
U
D
A
DR
BOREL RD
N
I
G
H
T
H
A
W
K
P
A
S
S
M
ONTE DE
ORO RD
VIA
D
E O
R
O
RANCHO
C
A
LIFORNIA R
D
PAUBA RD
MADERA DE PLAYA DR
E
L
C
H
IM
I
S
A
L
R
D
MONTE
DE ORO
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
D
E
E
R
H
O
L
L
O
W
W
A
Y
M
A
R
G
A
R
I
T
A
R
D
U
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
A
M
IN
O
D
E
L
V
I
N
O
DE PORTOLA RD
LOS
CABALLO
S
R
D
S
H
-
7
9
P
O
U
R
R
O
Y
R
D
C
A
M
IN
O
D
E
L
V
IN
O
AULD RD
VAIL RAN
C
H PKWY
RAN
C
H
O
CALIFO
R
N
I
A
R
D
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
R
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
THOMPSON RD
BUCK RD
LA SERENA
WAY
A
N
ZA
R
D
P
A
L
A
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
V
STR
E
ET
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
[
TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY
CURRENT CIRCULATION
0 1 0.5
Mil es
Freeway
Urban Arteri al (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arterial (110' ROW)
Coll ector (74' ROW)
Wine Country Community Plan Project Boundary
City Boundary
Waterbodies
September 12, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
7
b
a
lt -

S
W
A
P
-

c
u
r
r
e
n
t c
ir
c
u
la
t
io
n
.m
x
d
Data Source: Ri versi de County Transport ation
CITY OF
TEMECULA
GLENOAKS RD
C
A
L
L
E
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
O
R
D
PAUBA RD
PAUBA
RD
A
N
Z
A
R
D
EAST BENTO
N
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
M
O
N
TE
D
E
O
RO RD
RANCHO C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
M
ADERA DE PLAYA DR
BOREL RD
MONTE DE
ORO
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
U
S
T
R
E
E
T
DE PORTOLA RD
L
O
S CABALLO
S
R
D
C
A
M
IN
O
D
E
L
V
I
N
O
BUCK RD
LA SERENA WAY
A
N
Z
A
R
D
E
A
ST BENTON R
D
S
H
-7
9
V STREET
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
[
TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY
PROPOSED CIRCULATION
0 1 0.5
Mil es
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Rail
Moreno Vall ey to San Bernardino Corridor
Cajaclco Romona Corridor
SR-79 Re-al ignment Alternatives
Existing Interchange
Proposed Interchange
Wine Country Community Plan Project Boundary
City Boundary
Waterbodies
September 12, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
7
b
-

S
W
A
P
-

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
ir
c
u
la
tio
n
.
m
x
d
DRAFT
79
DEVONSHIRE AVE
STETSON AVE
B
U
N
D
Y CANYON RD
S
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
T
E
N
A
J
A
R
D
D
A
T
E
S
T
NEWPORT RD
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I
T
H
R
D
MAYBERRY AVE
L
O
S
A
L
A
M
O
S
R
D
ETHANAC RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

T
R
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
S
T
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
S
R
D
SCOTT RD
D
E
LUZ R
D
L
A
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
MC C
A
LL BLV
D
NICOLAS
R
D
N
U
T
M
E
G
S
T
THOMPSON RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
RANCHO
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
O
E
T
Z
R
D
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
S
A
G
E
R
D
DI A
M
O
N
D
DR
BENTON RD
OLIVE AVE
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
R
I
G
G
S

R
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
RD
DOMENIGONI P
K
W
Y
S
T
A
T
E

S
T
M
A
R
G
A
R
I
T
A RD
C
O
L
L
IE
R
A
V
E
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
M
E
N
I
F
E
E

R
D
DE PORTOLA RD
74
74
79
15
215
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
CITY
OF LAKE
ELSINORE
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY OF
PERRIS
CITY OF SAN
JACINTO
CITY OF
MENIFEE
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
DIAMOND
VALLEY
LAKE
LAKE
SKINNER
CANYON
LAKE
VAIL
LAKE
LAKE
ELSINORE
Lakeview /
Nuevo Area Plan
REMAP
Area Plan
San Jacinto
Val ley
Area Plan
Sun City /
Menif ee Valley
Area Plan
Elsinore
Area Plan
Sout hwest
Area Area
Plan
Mead Valley
Area Plan
Harvest Vall ey
/ Winchester
Area Plan
Lake Mathews
/ Woodcrest
Area Plan
Figure 7
[
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN
EXISTING CIRCULATION
0 4 2
Mil es
Freeway
Arteri al (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Col l ector (74' ROW)
Rail
Exi sti ng Interchange
Area Pl an Boundary
City Boundary
Waterbodies
July 7, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
7
-
S
W
A
P
-
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
ir
c
u
la
tio
n
.m
x
d
DEVONSHIRE AVE
STETSON AVE
B
U
N
D
Y CANYON RD
S
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
T
E
N
A
J
A
R
D
D
A
T
E
S
T
NEWPORT RD
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I
T
H
R
D
MAYBERRY AVE
L
O
S
A
L
A
M
O
S
R
D
ETHANAC RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

T
R
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
S
T
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
S
R
D
SCOTT RD
D
E
LUZ R
D
L
A
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
MC C
A
LL BLV
D
NICOLAS
R
D
N
U
T
M
E
G
S
T
THOMPSON RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
RANCHO
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
O
E
T
Z
R
D
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
S
A
G
E
R
D
DI A
M
O
N
D
DR
BENTON RD
OLIVE AVE
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
R
I
G
G
S

R
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
RD
DOMENIGONI P
K
W
Y
S
T
A
T
E

S
T
M
A
R
G
A
R
I
T
A RD
C
O
L
L
IE
R
A
V
E
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
M
E
N
I
F
E
E

R
D
DE PORTOLA RD
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
CITY
OF LAKE
ELSINORE
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY OF
PERRIS
CITY OF SAN
JACINTO
CITY OF
MENIFEE
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
215
15
15
74
74
79
DIAMOND
VALLEY
LAKE
LAKE
SKINNER
CANYON
LAKE
VAIL
LAKE
LAKE
ELSINORE
Lakeview /
Nuevo Area Plan
REMAP
Area Plan
San Jacinto
Val ley
Area Plan
Sun City /
Menif ee Valley
Area Plan
Elsinore
Area Plan
Sout hwest
Area Area
Plan
Mead Valley
Area Plan
Harvest Vall ey
/ Winchester
Area Plan
Lake Mathews
/ Woodcrest
Area Plan
Figure 7
[
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN
PROPOSED CIRCULATION
0 4 2
Mil es
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Rail
Existing Interchange
Area Plan Boundary
City Boundary
Waterbodies
September 12, 2011
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\
tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
t
s
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t
\F
ig
7
-
S
W
A
P
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

c
ir
c
u
la
tio
n
.m
x
d
DRAFT
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
CITY OF
TEMECULA
LAKE
SKINNER
PARK
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
A
LIFO
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
E
N
T
O
N
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal Trail
!
!!
!
!
Community Trail
!
!!
!
!
Combinat ion Trail (Regional / Cl ass 1 Bike Path)
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 2 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Open Space Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Design Gui deli nes Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Hi st oric Trail
!
!!
!
!
Non-County Publ ic and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trail s
!
!!
!
!
RCHA Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Pri vate Trail s
Wi ne Country Community Plan Proj ect Boundary
City Boundary
Area Pl an Boundary
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands
Mi scellaneous Public Lands
Waterbodi es
Highways
Data Source: Primarily Ri verside County Regional Park and Open Space Di strict,
with assistance from Riverside Count y TLMA/Transportation and Planning Departments,
Riverside County Economic Development Agency, and other local, st ate, and federal
recreational services agencies.
Note: Trails and bikeway maps are a graphic representat ion identifying the general location
and classification of existing and proposed trails and bikeways in the unincorporated ar ea
of the County. All questions regarding precise alignment or improvement st andards should
be referred to the Riversi de County Regional Park and Open Space District.
Note: Except for major regional facilit ies, trails and bikeways systems located wi thin ci ties
are generally not shown. Where trails and bi keways exist or ar e planned in the unincorporated
area in such a manner that ther e are opportunities for connecti ons with existing or planned
trails and bikeways within adjacent ci ties, an arrow symbol is used to show the approxi mate
location of the intended connection opportunity. The reader should cont act the appr opriate
city for all informat ion about that city' s exi sting or planned tr ails and bikeways systems.
[
TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY
CURRENT TRAILS AND
BIKEWAY SYSTEM 0 1 0.5
Miles
June 28, 2012
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
ts
\
P
la
n
n
in
g
\
F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t\
F
ig
8
b
a
lt
-
W
in
e
C
o
u
n
tr
y
C
u
r
r
e
n
tT
r
a
ils
.m
x
d
Data Source: Riverside County Parks
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CITY OF
TEMECULA
LAKE
SKINNER
PARK
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
A
LIFO
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
E
N
T
O
N
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal Trail
!
!!
!
!
Community Trail
!
!!
!
!
Hi st oric Trail
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal / Open Space Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 2 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 3 Bi ke Path
!
!
! !
Pri vate Trail s
Wi ne Country Community Plan Proj ect Boundary
City Boundary
Area Pl an Boundary
Waterbodi es
Highways
[
TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY
PROPOSED TRAILS AND
Miles
June 25, 2012
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
ts
\
P
la
n
n
in
g
\
F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t\
F
ig
8
b
a
lt
-
W
in
e
C
o
u
n
tr
y
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
T
r
a
ils
.m
x
d
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! #
!
! #
#
!
!
!
#
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
# #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
# !
! ! ! ! ! !
#
#
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
#
#
!
#
!
#
!
#
! #
! #
!
!
#
#
! ! !
#
! ! !
#
!
#
!
#
! #
SA
N
J
A
C
IN
T
O
R
IV
E
R
CANYON
LAKE
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL LAKE
LITTLE
LAKE
DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE
LAKE ELSINORE
CITY OF
PERRIS
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE
CITY OF
SAN JACINTO
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
MENIFEE
P
A
L
M
A
V
E
STETSON AVE
RANCHO
CALIFOR
N
IA
R
D
T
E
N
A
J
A
R
D
D
A
T
E
S
T
NEWPORT RD
C
L
I N
T
O
N
K
E
IT
H
R
D
MAYBERRY AVE
ETHANAC RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
M
IS
S
IO
N
T
R
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
P
A
LO
M
A
R
S
T
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I A
O
A
K
S
R
D
D
E
LUZ RD
M
CCALL
BLVD
N
U
T
M
E
G
ST
THOMPSON RD
RANCHO
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
O
E
T
Z
R
D
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
S
A
G
E
R
D
DIAMOND
D
R
BENTON RD
OLIVE AVE
SCOTT RD
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
R
IG
G
S
R
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
RD
DOMENIGONI P
K
W
Y
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
K
IR
B
Y
S
T
M
A
R
G
AR
IT
A
R
D
C
O
LLIE
R
AV
E
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
DE PORTOLA RD
KABIAN
PARK
LAKE
SKINNER
PARK
SANTA ROSA
PLATEAU
DOUBLE BUTTE
COUNTY PARK
215
15
74
74
79
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
COMMUNITY
OF
DELUZ
COMMUNITY
OF
RANCHO CAPISTRANO
COMMUNITY
OF
SANTA ROSAPLATEAU
COMMUNITY
OF
ROMOLAND
COMMUNITY
OF
HOMELAND
COMMUNITY
OF
GREENACRES
COMMUNITY
OF
WINCHESTER
COMMUNITY
OF
LAKELANDVILLAGE
COMMUNITY
OF
QUAIL VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
MURRIETAHOT SPRINGS
COMMUNITY
OF
SUN CITY
COMMUNITY
OF
MEADOWBROOK
COMMUNITY
OF
FRENCH VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
LA CRESTA
COMMUNITY
OF
TENEJ A
COMMUNITY
OF
PAUBAVALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
DIAMOND VALLEY
Figure 8
!
!!
!
!
Regional Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Communi ty Trail
!
!!
!
!
Combination Trai l (Regional Trai l / Cl ass 1 Bike Path)
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bike Path
!
!!
!
!
Hi storic Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Non-Count y Publi c and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trai ls
City Boundary
Area Plan Boundary
Mi scell aneous Publ ic Lands
Waterbodies
Highways
Data Source: Primarily Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space Distr ict,
with assistance f rom Riverside County TLMA/Transport ation and Planning Departments,
Riverside County Economic Development Agency, and other local, state, and f ederal
Note: Trails and bikeway maps ar e a gr aphic representation i dentif ying t he general locati on
and cl assifi cation of existing and proposed t rails and bi keways in t he unincor porated area
of the County. All questions regar ding precise alignment or improvement standards should
be ref erred to the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space Distr ict.
Note: Except for major regional facilities, trai ls and bikeways systems located withi n cities
are general ly not shown. Where tr ails and bikeways exi st or are planned in the unincorporated
area i n such a manner that t here are opportunities for connections with existing or planned
trails and bikeways wi thin adjacent citi es, an arrow symbol is used to show the approximate
location of the intended connection opportunity. The reader should contact the appropriate
city for all i nformation about that city' s existing or planned t rails and bi keways systems.
[
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN
TRAILS AND BIKEWAY
SYSTEM
0 4 2
Mil es
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
: \\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
ro
je
c
ts
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
8
- S
W
A
P
-T
ra
ils
.m
x
d
Data Source: Ri versi de County Parks
Santa Ana
Mountains
Cleveland
National
Forest
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
! ! ! !
!!! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
#
!
! #
#
!
!
!
#
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
# #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
!
#
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
#
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
#
!
#
!
#
!
#
!
#
!
#
!
!
#
#
! ! !
#
!
!
!
#
!
#
!
#
! #
S
A
N
J
A
C
I
N
T
O

R
I
V
E
R
CANYON
LAKE
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL LAKE
LITTLE
LAKE
DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE
LAKE ELSINORE
CITY OF
PERRIS
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE
CITY OF
SAN JACINTO
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
MENIFEE
P
A
L
M
A
V
E
STETSON AVE
R
A
N
CHO
C
A
LIFO
R
N
IA
R
D
T
E
N
A
J
A
R
D
D
A
T
E
S
T
NEWPORT RD
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
K
E
I
T
H
R
D
MAYBERRY AVE
ETHANAC RD
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

T
R
L
W
A
R
R
E
N
R
D
P
A
L
O
M
A
R
S
T
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
I
A
O
A
K
S
R
D
D
E
LUZ R
D
M
C
CALL
B
L
VD
N
U
T
M
E
G
S
T
THOMPSON RD
RANCHO
C
A
L
IF
O
R
N
IA
R
D
A
N
Z
A
R
D
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
G
O
E
T
Z
R
D
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
S
A
G
E
R
D
DIAMON
D
D
R
BENTON RD
OLIVE AVE
SCOTT RD
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
R
I
G
G
S

R
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
B
E
N
T
O
N
RD
DOMENIGONI P
K
W
Y
S
T
A
T
E

S
T
K
I
R
B
Y

S
T
M
A
R
G
A
R
I
T
A
R
D
C
O
L
L
IE
R
A
V
E
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
DE PORTOLA RD
KABIAN
PARK
LAKE
SKINNER
PARK
SANTA ROSA
PLATEAU
DOUBLE BUTTE
COUNTY PARK
215
15
74
74
79
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
COMMUNITY
OF
DELUZ
COMMUNITY
OF
RANCHO CAPISTRANO
COMMUNITY
OF
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU
COMMUNITY
OF
ROMOLAND
COMMUNITY
OF
HOMELAND
COMMUNITY
OF
GREEN ACRES
COMMUNITY
OF
WINCHESTER
COMMUNITY
OF
LAKELAND VILLAGE
COMMUNITY
OF
QUAIL VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
COMMUNITY
OF
SUN CITY
COMMUNITY
OF
MEADOWBROOK
COMMUNITY
OF
FRENCH VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
LA CRESTA
COMMUNITY
OF
TENEJ A
COMMUNITY
OF
PAUBA VALLEY
COMMUNITY
OF
DIAMOND VALLEY
Figure 8
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal Trail
!
!!
!
!
Community Trail
!
!!
!
!
Hi st oric Trail
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal / Open Space Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 2 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 3 Bi ke Path
!
!
! !
Pri vate Trail s
City Boundary
Area Pl an Boundary
Waterbodi es
Highways
[
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN
PROPOSED TRAILS AND
BIKEWAY SYSTEM
0 4 2
Miles
June 25, 2012
P
a
t
h
: \
\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
r
o
je
c
ts
\
P
la
n
n
in
g
\
F
o
r
R
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
r
t\
F
ig
8
-
S
W
A
P
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
T
r
a
ils
.m
x
d
Santa Ana
Mountains
Cleveland
National
Forest
LA PAZ
COUNTY, AZ
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
IMPERIAL
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
91
79
74
78
74
79
86
62
62
60
74
10
15
95
111
243
177
86S
111
111 371
215
215
SALTON
SEA
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure C-1
[
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
0 20 10
Mil es
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
: \\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
ro
je
c
ts
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
C
-1
C
irc
u
la
tio
n
E
le
m
e
n
t.m
x
d
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Maj or (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arteri al (110' ROW)
Col lector (74' ROW)
Rai lroad
Moreno Valley to San Bernardino Corri dor
Caj acl co Romona Corridor
SR-79 Re-ali gnment Alternati ves
Exi sting Interchange
Area Plan Boundary
Waterbodi es
Ci ty Boundary
10
79
15
15
LA PAZ
COUNTY, AZ
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
IMPERIAL
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
91
79
74
78
74
79
86
62
62
60
74
10
15
95
111
243
177
86S
111
111 371
215
215
SALTON
SEA
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure C-1
[
CIRCULATION ELEMENT -
PROPOSED
0 20 10
Mil es
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
: \\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
ro
je
c
ts
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
C
-1
P
ro
p
o
s
e
d
C
irc
u
la
tio
n
E
le
m
e
n
t.m
x
d
Freeway
Arterial (128' ROW)
Maj or (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arteri al (110' ROW)
Col lector (74' ROW)
Rai l
Moreno Valley to San Bernardino Corri dor
Caj acl co Romona Corridor
SR-79 Re-ali gnment Alternati ves
Exi sting Interchange
Area Plan Boundary
Waterbodi es
Ci ty Boundary
10
79
15
15
10
15
79
74
LA PAZ
COUNTY, AZ
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
IMPERIAL
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
91
79
74
78
79
86
62
62
60
74

10
15
95
111
177
243
86S
111
111 371
215
215
CITY OF
CORONA
CITY
OF LAKE
ELSINORE
CITY OF
BLYTHE
CITY OF
CALIMESA
CITY OF
BANNING
CITY OF
COACHELLA
CITY OF
LA QUINTA
CITY OF
INDIAN
WELLS
CITY OF
BEAUMONT
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY OF
PERRIS
CITY
OF SAN
JACINTO
CITY OF
EASTVALE
CITY OF
RANCHO
MIRAGE
CITY OF
RIVERSIDE
CITY OF
JURUPA
VALLEY
CITY
OF PALM
DESERT
CITY
OF PALM
SPRINGS
CITY OF
MENIFEE
CITY OF
INDIO
CITY OF
MORENO
VALLEY
CITY OF
NORCO
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
SALTON
SEA
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure C-7
[
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRAILS AND BIKEWAY SYSTEM
0 20 10
Mil es
Source: Riverside County
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
: \\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
ro
je
c
ts
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
u
re
C
-7
B
ik
e
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
T
ra
ils
.m
x
d
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Regi onal Trail
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Communi ty Trai l
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Combi nation Trai l (Regional Trail / Class 1 Bike Path)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Class 1 Bike Path
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Historic Trai l
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Non-County Publi c and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trail s
Area Pl an Boundary
City Boundary
Waterbodi es
Highways
10
15
79
74
LA PAZ
COUNTY, AZ
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
IMPERIAL
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
91
79
74
78
79
86
62
62
60
74

10
15
95
111
177
243
86S
111
111 371
215
215
CITY OF
COACHELLA
CITY OF
PERRIS
CITY
OF PALM
SPRINGS
CITY OF
WILDOMAR
CITY OF
BEAUMONT
CITY OF
MORENO
VALLEY
CITY OF
CALIMESA
CITY OF
JURUPA
VALLEY
CITY OF
RANCHO
MIRAGE
CITY OF
INDIO
CITY OF
NORCO
CITY OF
EASTVALE
CITY OF
TEMECULA
CITY OF
HEMET
CITY OF
MURRIETA
CITY OF
BLYTHE
CITY
OF PALM
DESERT
CITY OF
BANNING
CITY
OF LAKE
ELSINORE
CITY OF
LA QUINTA
CITY OF
RIVERSIDE
CITY
OF SAN
JACINTO
CITY OF
MENIFEE
CITY OF
INDIAN
WELLS
CITY OF
CORONA
SALTON
SEA
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Figure C-7
[
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROPOSED
TRAILS AND BIKEWAY SYSTEM
0 20 10
Mil es
Source: Riverside County
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
: \\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
ro
je
c
ts
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
u
re
C
-7
P
ro
p
o
s
e
d
B
ik
e
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
T
ra
ils
.m
x
d
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Combination Trail (Regional / Class 1 Bike Path)
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Class 1 Bike Path
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Regional Trail
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Community Trail
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Historic Trail
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Non-County Public and Quasi-Public Lands Trails
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Regional / Open Space Trail
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Class 2 Bike Path
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Class 3 Bike Path
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
Private Trails
Area Plan Boundary
Highways
Waterbodies
City Boundary

DRAFT Circulation Element- November 21, 2011

Chapter 4 Page C-1
NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
A well-planned and built trail system can provide for an improved quality of life
for Riverside County residents by providing a recreational amenity and by
providing a viable alternative to the automobile. Ideally, this system would
connect community centers, residential neighborhoods, recreational amenities,
employment centers, schools, shopping areas, and activity areas public spaces,
and public transit. Providing a safe user environment can encourage utilization
of trails within commercial, office, and residential areas. Use of trails within
recreation and natural open-space areas can be encouraged through proper
signage and publicity.

Policies:

C 15.1 Implement a two-tiered system of trails, and later expand it into an
effective non-motorized transportation system.

C 15.2 Seek financing to implement an effective non-motorized
transportation system. This funding can include such potential
sources things as state and federal grants, County transportation
funds, in-lieu fees, special assessments, redevelopment agency
funds, parking meter revenues, other public and non-profit
organization funds, developer contributions, and other sources. (AI
36)

C 15.3 Develop a trail system which connects County parks and recreation
areas while providing links to open space areas, equestrian
communities, local municipalities, and regional recreational facilities
(including other regional trail systems), and ensure that the system
contains a variety of trail loops of varying classifications and
degrees of difficulty and length.

C 15.4 Periodically Rreview and update the Trails and Bikeways Plan
(Figure C-7) Regional Trail Map in accordance with the review
procedures and schedule of the General Plan, in order to ensure
assure its compatibility with the other elements components of the
County General Plan, and with the similar plans of agencies such as
Western Riverside County Council of Governments, Coachella
Valley Association of Governments, Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Regional Conservation Authority,
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Authority and all
jurisdictions within and abutting Riverside County.

C 15.5 Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards will be assured so as to make the trails system user-
friendly, as much as reasonably where feasible.

C 4.8 15.6 Provide, Encourage, where feasible, the construction of overpasses
or undercrossings where trails intersect arterials, urban arterials,
expressways, or freeways.

A parkway is located in, along, or
adjacent to a stream=s floodplain.
Ordinarily it extends the length of the
streambut may be broken into
segments. Road and trailside parks
are part of a parkway.

Regional Trails are designed to
connect parks and provide linkage
opportunities between open space
areas and regional recreation areas.

Community Trails create linkages
similar to region trails, but are local
serving.


Page C-2 Chapter 4

Multipurpose Recreational Trails

The trails proposed for Riverside County are designed to serve several different
groups. They are intended for the use of equestrians, hikers, joggers, non-
motorized bikers, as well as the casual walker. Depending on where a the trail is
located and how it is designed and constructed will affect the type of use the
trail gets, but most all trails are open to a variety all of these uses.

Riverside County currently has one developed trail that it the Riverside County
Regional Park and Open Space maintains, the Santa Ana River Trail. The Santa
Ana River Trail is part of a planned regional trail extending across multiple
jurisdictions from the Pacific Ocean in Orange County to the San Bernardino
Mountains in San Bernardino County. Some communities have trails which are
built and are maintained by another entity such as a homeowners= association, a
community service area, or a local park and recreation district. These trails lack
connectivity to other parts of the County trail system, resulting in a fragmented
system. Providing connectivity between County trails and between County trails
and State and Federal trails, historic trails, and trails in other jurisdictions, will
be instrumental in creating a usable trail system.

The Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District has prepared and
adopted a Trails Development Standards Policy Manual, which is anticipated to
be the District in all trails planning, construction, and maintenance activities.

Riverside County has four several types of recreational trails and in addition,
several sub-classifications, and other categories of trails, as described below:

Regional Trails - These are the main primary long distance trails within the
County, and are usually designed to provide linkages between communities,
regional parks, and open space areas. They are generally maintained and
operated by the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District. They
are designed to eventually provide linkages between areas which could be quite
distant from each other. They are also designed to connect with trails in State
and Federal parks, forests, and recreational areas trails, as well as trails within
cities and other jurisdictions. Regional trails are designed to serve users needing
soft trail surfaces, including equestrians, pedestrians, joggers, and mountain
bikers. Regional trails will have a easement of 14 to 20 feet wide and a trail
width of 10 feet.

There are two types of Regional Trails. Regional Urban and Rural Trails are
the first type, and they primarily connect communities, parks, and open space
areas. They are built with 10 to 12 wide unpaved soft surfaces, and are
generally sited within 20 wide (width may be permitted to vary) easements.
Regional Urban and Rural Trails are usually intended to be maintained by the
Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, by the Transportation
Department through Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts, or by other
entities subject to approval by the County.

Regional Open Space Trails are intended for both open space areas
associated with private developments and for publicly and quasi-publicly
managed open space areas, where it is necessary to minimize both the impacts
of human usage on the landscape and the level of trail maintenance required.
These are generally existing trails, but some new trails may be built. These trails
have 2 to 4 wide unpaved surfaces, within easements that are typically 10


Chapter 4 Page C-1
wide. Regional Open Space Trails are usually intended to be maintained by the
Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, or by public or quasi-
public entities that either already own the open space areas that contain or
would contain the trails, or have agreed with the County to accept open space
areas and trails within them for maintenance.

(See Figure C-7 8 for Regional Trails cross sections and details)

Community Trails - These trails are designed to link areas of a community to
the regional trail system and to link areas of a community with each other. Such
trails are typically maintained and operated by a local parks and recreation
district or other governmental entities empowered and funded to maintain trails.
Community Trails are designed for trail users preferring a soft trail surface,
including equestrians, pedestrians, joggers, and mountain bikers. Community
Trails will be sited within have an easements or portions of road right-of-ways
(ROWs) of 10 to up to 14 feet wide. and a trail width of 8 feet. See Figure C-8
for Community Trails cross sections and details.

In addition to multipurpose recreational trails, the Riverside County
Transportation Department also plans and/or implements a countywide system
of bikeways. A system map may be found in Figure C-7. Policies in this section
focus on the refinement of the current countywide trails plan and seek to expand
implementation of the trail system.

Historic Trails B These trails are designated historic routes that recognize the
rich history of Riverside County. The Historic Trails designated on the on the
Bikeways and Trails Plan, Figure C-7, include: The Juan Bautista de Anza
National Historic Trail, the Southern Immigrant Trail, the Pacific Crest National
Scenic Trail, the California Riding and Hiking Trail, and the Bradshaw Route
Trail. The Historic Trails routes designations are graphical representations of the
general location of these historic routes and do not necessarily represent a
planned Regional, or Community, or other type of existing or planned Trail. In
some cases, these trails have more detailed planning documents which describe
interpretive routes for autos and/or non-motorized modes of Transportation.
There generally are Regional or Community Trail designations that could more
or less either follow or parallel these routes, thus providing opportunities to
recognize the historic significance of these routes and affording the prospect of
developing interpretive centers and signage.

Non-County Public Lands Trails National Forest and BLM TrailsB Trails within
the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests, Joshua Tree National
Park, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, public lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management, lands owned by the County of
Riverside, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, the
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, and other national, state, and
local public or private lands such as those owned by the Nature Conservancy,
Riverside Land Conservancy, and The Wildlands Conservancy, that are open to
public usage, National Forest and BLM Trails are also depicted on the Bikeways
and Trails Plan, Figure C-7. Such trails are managed and maintained by the
responsible - Federal, state, or other agencies. While the County has no
jurisdiction over such trails, they are shown on the County plan to indicate
connectivity. much as the trails within cities are shown.

Other Types of Trail Classifications: In order to accommodate local community
needs, some variances in purpose or design standards for certain local trails
may be appropriate. Trail plans shown in Design Guidelines documents adopted
See also the Land Use

Element, Circulation Section, for

additional policies


Page C-4 Chapter 4
by the County are types of localized trail classifications that may be appropriate
at the community-specific level.

Design Guidelines have been developed for several of the Countys
communities, and more may be adopted in the future. The Mecca, Thermal,
Vista Santa Rosa, Bermuda Dunes, Desert Edge, Lakeview/Nuevo, and
Temescal Valley Design Guidelines each contain some trail development
standards that are different from countywide trail standards, and that are
unique to those communities. These customized Design Guideline trail standards
were prepared with extensive local citizen input, and in close cooperation
between the County and special districts that would be involved in the
construction and/or maintenance of such trails.

Other, major trail corridors may have different types of designations along their
routes through Riverside County. For example, the Santa Ana River National
Recreation Trail contains components designated as Class I Bikeway, Regional
Trail, and Combination Trail in its course along the Santa Ana River, for the
most part along both sides of the river, connecting Riverside County to Orange
and San Bernardino Counties.

Policies:

C 16.1 Implement the County trail system as depicted in the Bikeways and
Trails Plan, Figure C-7. (AI 33)

C 16.2 Develop a multi-purpose recreational trail network with support
facilities which provide a linkage with regional facilities, and
require trailheads and staging areas that are equipped with adequate
parking, bicycle parking, restrooms, informative signage,
interpretive displays, maps, and rules of appropriate usage and
conduct on trails accessed from such facilities. (AI 35)


Chapter 4 Page C-1

Figure C- 1 Bikeways and Trails Plan
(See Separate Maps)


Page C-6 Chapter 4

Figure C- 2 Trails Types Classification Details


Chapter 4 Page C-1


Page C-8 Chapter 4
C 16.3 Require that trail alignments either provide access to or link scenic
corridors, schools, parks, bus stops, transit terminals, park and ride
commuter lots, and other natural areas and other areas of
concentrated public activity, where feasible.

a. Require that all development proposals located along a planned
trail or trails provide access to, dedicate trail easements or right-of-
way, and construct their fair share portion of the trails system.
Evaluate the locations of existing and proposed trails within and
adjacent to each development proposal and ensure that the
appropriate easements are established to preserve planned trail
alignments and trail heads.
a. Require that all specific plans and other large-scale
development proposals include trail networks as part of their
circulation systems, and that the trails connect with other
existing and planned trails, recreation areas, schools, and parks
near the development proposals.
i) b. Ensure that existing and new gated communities, and where
feasible, existing gated communities, do not preclude trails
accessible to the general public from traversing through their
boundaries.
c. Provide buffers between streets and trails, and between adjacent
residences and trails.
d. Make use of already available or already disturbed land where
possible for trail alignments.
b e. Require that existing and proposed trails within Riverside
County connect with those in other neighboring city, county,
state, and federal jurisdictional areas.

C 16.4 Identify all existing rights-of-way which have been obtained for trail
purposes through the land development process. (AI 33)
a. Once the above task has been accomplished, analyze the existing
rights of-way and determine the most expedient method for
connecting the parts.

C 16.5 Examine the use of public access utility easements for trail linkages
to the regional trails system and/or other open space areas. These
potential corridors include, but are not limited to, the rights-of-way
for:
a. water mains;
b. water storage project aqueducts;
c. irrigation canals;
d. flood control;
e. sewer lines; and
f. fiber optic cable lines,
g. gas lines,
h. electrical lines, and
i. fire roads, railroads, and bridges.

C 16.6 Adhere to the following trail-development guidelines when siting a
trail:
a. Permit urban trails to be located in or along transportation rights-
of-way in fee, utility corridors, and irrigation and flood control
waterways so as to mix uses, separate traffic and noise, and
provide more services at less cost in one corridor. Require,
where feasible, trails in urban areas to be located either outside


Chapter 4 Page C-1
of road rights-of-way or within road rights-of-way with
additional dedicated right-of-way in fee required, and/or co-
locate such trails in utility corridors, and adjacent to irrigation
and flood control waterways so as to mix uses, separate traffic
and noise, and provide more trail services at less cost in
(combined function corridors).
b. Secure separate rights-of-way for non-motorized trails when
physically, financially and legally feasible.
i) Where a separate right-of-way is not feasible, maintain
recreation trails within the County or Flood Control right-of-
way, where feasible.
c. Develop and implement Use trail design standards which will
minimize maintenance due to erosion or vandalism.
d. Maximize visibility and physical access to trails from
streets and other public lands.
e. Provide a trail surface material that is firm and unyielding to
minimize erosion and injuries.
d f. When a trail is to be reserved obtained through the development
approval process, base the precise trail alignments on the
physical characteristics of the property, assuring connectivity
through adjoining properties.
e g. Consider the use of abandoned rail lines as multipurpose Arail-
trails@ corridors through the Rails-to-Trails program. for
multi-purpose trails.
f h. Place all recreation trails a safe distances from the edges of
active aggregate mining operations and separate them by
physical barriers, such as fences, berms, and/or other effective
separation measures. i) Avoid placing a trail where it will cross
an active mined materials haul route.
g i. Install warning signs indicating the presence of a trail at
locations where regional or community trails cross public roads
with high amounts of traffic. Design and build trail crossings at
intersections with proper signs, signals, pavement markings,
crossing islands, and curb extensions to ensure safe crossings by
users. Install trail crossing signs at the intersections of trail
crossings with public roads to ensure safe crossings by users.
h j. Design and construct trails that properly account for Take into
consideration such issues as sensitive habitat areas, cultural,
flooding potentials, access to neighborhoods and open space,
safety, alternate land uses, and usefulness for both transportation
and recreation. when designing and constructing trails.
i k. Coordinate with other agencies and/or organizations (such as the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau
of Land Management, and the state Department of
Transportation) to encourage the development of multi-purpose
trails. Potential joint uses may include historic, cultural, and
environmental interpretation, access to fishing areas and other
recreational uses, opportunities for education, and access for the
disabled.
j l. Work with landowners to address concerns about privacy,
liability, security, and trail maintenance. (AI 3, 35, 36, 38, 39,
40, 41, 42).
m. Regional Urban, Regional Rural, and Regional Open Space
trails should be designed so as to be compatible with the
community contexts in which the trails are being sited.


Page C-10 Chapter 4
n. Driveway crossings by trails should be designed and surfaced in
a manner compatible with multipurpose trails usage. Except for
local, neighborhood-serving trails that are not intended as
primary community linkages, select routes for trails that
minimize driveway crossings.
o. Benches, fencing, water fountains, trees and shading, landscape
buffers, rest stops, restrooms, and other trail-related amenities
shall be provided where appropriate.
p. All trails along roadways shall be appropriately signed to
identify safety hazards, and shall incorporate equestrian
crossing signals, mileage markers, and other safety features, as
appropriate.
q. Information about the Countys trail system shall be provided at
the Riverside County Park and Open Space District and online
in order to make the public aware of the Countys trail system.
r. Trails designed to accommodate equestrians shall not be sited
along sound walls, project boundary walls, and other walls that
effectively obstruct visibility beyond the edge of a trail.
s. All trail surfacing shall be appropriate to an array of users of
the trail. Soft-surfaced trails shall have smooth, firm, slip-
resistant surfacing so as to minimize foot and ankle injuries.
t. Use already available or disturbed land for trails wherever
possible for new or extended trails.
u. Use pervious pavement or bio-swales along paved trails to assist
in maintaining water quality.
v. Offer consultation to local Native American tribes for any
proposed trails under the mandates of SB18 Traditional
Tribal Places Law.

C 16.7 Require the installation (where appropriate and pursuant to County
standards) of the appropriate styles of fencing along trail alignments
that separate trails from road right-of-ways (ROWs), or where trails
are located within road ROWs, that provide adequate separation
from road traffic, in order to adequately provide for public safety.
Examples of such fence types include simulated wood post and rail
fencing constructed of PVC material, wood round post and rail, and
wood-textured concrete post and rail fencing. a simulated split rail
fence with 2 to 3 rails constructed of white PVC material separating
road rights of way from adjacent trail easements. (AI 3)
Bikeways

Riverside County=s bikeway system is included as part of the County=s
circulation system Trails and Bikeways Plan mapping. Planned bicycle routes
are shown on the Bikeways and Trails Plan, Figure C-7. The County uses three
types of bike path classifications:

Class I - Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of
bicycles and pedestrians with cross-flow minimized. The right-of-way for Class
I Bikeways may be substantial, separated from roadways by landscaped strips
or other barriers. In some cases, where appropriate, Class I Bikeways may be
designed and signed to also permit golf carts.

Class II - Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class II Bikeways, or bike lanes, are intended for preferential use by bicycles,


Chapter 4 Page C-1
and are provided for within the paved areas of roadways. Bike lane pavement
striping and other markings, and bikeway signs are intended to promote an
orderly flow of traffic by establishing demarcations between lanes designated
for bicycles and lanes designated for motor vehicles. Bike lanes are one-way
facilities that follow the flow of motor vehicle movement.

Class III Bikeways: Class III Bikeways, or bike routes, are intended to provide
continuity within the bikeways system, usually by connecting discontiguous
segments of Class I and Class II Bikeways. Bike routes are shared facilities,
either with motor vehicles on roads or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and
bicycle usage of the facilities is considered secondary. Bike routes are not
marked on pavement but are supported by signs.

Class I Bike Path/Regional Trail (Combination Trail) - This functions as a
regional connector to link all of the major bodies of water in Western Riverside
County and to provide the opportunity for long-distance users to take advantage
of this system for long one-way or loop type trips. This system may also take
advantage of existing or planned Class I Bike Paths, Regional Trails, and/or
Community Trails for several combinations of easements, connections, or links.
Bicycles are also allowed on regional and community trails, which allow all
types of non-motorized use. However, Class I bike paths, and Class II bike
lanes, and Class III signed bike routes are designed for bicycle use only. As with
non-motorized trails, a connected system of bikeways is needed to encourage
this alternative transportation method among County residents.

Combination Class 1 Bikeway /Regional Trails

Combination Class I Bikeway/Regional Trails (Combination Trails) function
as regional connectors linking together the urban and rural communities and
major water bodies and parks in the County and provide opportunities for long-
distance users to take advantage of this system for long one-way or loop-type
trips. This system also links together existing and planned Class I Bikeways,
Regional Trails, and other types of trails to enhance County residents access to
the trail system.

Combination Class 1 Bikeway/Regional Trails (also called Combination Trails)
include both a Class 1 Bikeway, with a 20 wide paved surface, marked for two-
way traffic, for use primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians, and a Regional
Urban and Rural Trail, with a 10 12 wide soft surface, for use primarily by
equestrians and pedestrians, located either in tandem on one side of a street,
river, or other major linear feature, or in split fashion, with one function
(Class 1 Bikeway) of the Combination Trail located on one side of the street or
other linear geographical feature, and the other type (Regional Urban or Rural
Trail) located on the other side of the street or linear feature.

Combination Trails generally require 30 wide easements where both
components of the trails are situated in tandem on one side of a street or linear
feature. Where the trail components are split along a street or other linear
feature, the easements required will generally be the same as for Class 1
Bikeways (generally 20 wide) and Regional Urban and Rural Trails (generally
20 wide) when built separately. Unless maintained by a County Service Area
(CSA) or a special parks district, Combination Trails are usually maintained by
the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, or by the
Transportation Department through a Landscape and Lighting Maintenance
District.


Page C-12 Chapter 4

See Figure C-8 for Combination Trails cross-sections and details.

Policies:

C 17.1 Develop Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes and Class I Bike
Paths/Regional Trails (Combo Trails) as shown in the Trails Plan
(Figure C-7), to the design standards as outlined in the California
Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, adopted
County Design Guidelines (for communities that have them), the
Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space Trails Standards
Manual, and other County Guidelines. (AI 34, 41)

C 17.2 Require bicycle access between proposed developments and other
parts of the County trail system through dedication of easements and
construction of bicycle access ways.

C 17.3 Ensure that the bikeway system incorporates the following:
a. Interconnection throughout and between of cities and
unincorporated communities;
b. Provision of lanes to specific destinations such as state or
county parks;
c. Provision for recreational bicycle riding and bicycle touring; and
d. Encouragement of bicycle commuting. Encouragement of golf
cart commuting within a community.
e. Connect bikeways to all urban transit centers and systems (bus
stops and Metrolink stations).
f. Provide bicycle parking at transit stops and park-and-ride lots.

C 17.4 Ensure that alternative modes of motorized transportation, such as
buses, trains, taxi cabs, etc., plan and provide for transportation of
recreational and commuting bicyclists and bicycles on public
transportation systems. Coordinate with all transit operators to
ensure that bicycle facilities are provided along and/or near all
transit routes, whenever feasible. New land developments shall be
required to provide bicycle facilities due to existing or future planned
transit routes.

Acquisition, Maintenance, and Funding of
Multipurpose Trails and Bikeways

The implementation of a usable trail network in Riverside County will require a
combination of several strategies including land acquisition, trail maintenance,
and funding for trails. The following policies identify actions which will enable
the County to facilitate the creation and upkeep of these valuable facilities.

Policies:

C 18.1 ACQUISITION (AI 33)
a. Promote public/private partnerships for trail acquisition.
b. Seek ways to build a trail system affordably, and seek partners
in doing so within a reasonable time frame, possibly in stages, to
serve all trail communities, and upgrade the system of
linkages/destinations.


Chapter 4 Page C-1
b c. Determine which public and/or private agencies have existing
easements or existing, unused rights-of-way, which potentially
could be incorporated as trail linkages throughout Riverside
County. Such agencies may include the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, regional and local
parks districts and transportation agencies, various utility
companies/districts, and Railroad companies, leverage use
roads, dirt roads, as trails routes, to foster partnerships, get the
trails built and managed, etc.
c d. Evaluate the potential use of private-landowner tax credits for
acquiring necessary trail easements and/or rights-of-way. A
system such as this would allow a landowner to dedicate an
easement for trail purposes in exchange for having that portion
of the property assessed as open-space instead of a higher land-
use category.
e. Seek to connect existing cul-de-sacs to each other, and to trail
networks. In rare occasions, this may entail purchasing homes at
the ends of streets, constructing the connections, and reselling
the homes.
f. Wherever possible and to the extent consistent with overall trail
system objectives, use trail designs and locations that minimize
construction and maintenance costs.

C 18.2 MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
a. Implement maintenance options such as the use of volunteers,
associations, or private landowner maintenance agreements,
and/or adopt-a-trail programs sponsored by various groups,
b. Implement methods to discourage unauthorized use of trails by
motorized vehicles, which may cause trail deterioration, create
an unsafe environment, and/or disrupt the enjoyment of the trails
by legitimate trail users. These methods may include the
installation of gates and motorcycle barriers, posting signs
prohibiting unauthorized activities, or implementing educational
programs to encourage the proper use of trails.
c. Research the potential for, and consider establishing a
countywide trail management entity that will facilitate the
acquisition of adequate funds for trail maintenance.
d. Reseach the potential for, and consider establishing a separate
agency within the County to manage and maintain the Countys
trails system. .
e. Use trail designs that remove or limit injury/safety liability
concerns.
f. Use trail designs that minimize trail maintenance costs.


Page C-14 Chapter 4

C 18.3 FUNDING
a. Solicit all possible sources of funding to plan, acquire, and
construct recreational trails. Sources can include, but not be
limited to, development mitigation fees, private foundation grants,
and/or funds/assessments from local, regional, State, and Federal
government entities. (AI 36, 37)

b. Persuade local communities to finance their own community trail
systems through the use of special tax assessment districts. If
applicable, these districts should also provide adequate regulation
for the keeping of horses.

CITY OF
TEMECULA
VAIL LAKE
LAKE SKINNER
LA SERENA WAY
HERBSVILLE CT
RICA
DR
NIGHTHAWK
PASS
BUTTERFIELD
STAGE
RD
A R O
SA
ST
LOS RANCHOS CIR
P R O M
E N
ADE
CHARDONNAY HILLS
SUMMITVILLE ST
LEON RD
VAN GAALE LN
NEWTON
AVE
CENTRAL PARK
DR
LEENA WAY
TEHACHAPI PASS
CORTE ILLORA
VALENTINO WAY
DE PORTOLA RD
GLENOAKS RD
CA LLE ARAGON
VIA RIO TEMECULA
M
U I R FI ELD
DR
CASSINO CT
OVERLAND TRL
CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO
WOLF VALLEY RD
CALLE LOS MOCH
IS
H ARMONY LN
PASEO PARALLON
VIA CORDOBA
DARTOLO RD
HWY 79
GEISBAUER RD
TAYLOR LN
EL CHIMISAL RD
JOHNSTON DR
CALLE
FI E S T A
RANCHO VISTA RD
M
ADDALENA RD
L ILY LN
HI G
H
VISTA DR
SILVER
ROSE
ST
TUD A L
ST
MALLARD WAY
CALLE BARTIZON
TEMECULA CREEK RD
MONTE VERDE RD
SERDONIS ST
CASERTA
DR
ADELANTE ST
ROMERO DR
CORTE GUTIERREZ
PAINTED PONY RD
ALAGON ST
DRI VER LN
POURROY RD
BLUE WATER WAY
VIA
RAMI
CINDY CIR
CAMINO SAN JOSE
DESTINO
ST
VI A
P UERTA
SERRENTO
DR
STRIGEL CT
TURTLE CREEK ST
ORCHARD LN
JEREZ LN
SAN MARCO DR
CHAOTE ST
GALLERON ST
VIA CAMPANARIO
VIA
L UCIDO
CORISON ST
PINE CIR
CORBIE ST
W
ANDERING LN
CALA CARRASCO
CHANNEL ST
NORTH CREEK RD
SEMINOLE ST
MILAT ST
PASEO DE LAS OLAS
RI VE R A
DR
BANANAL WAY
HICKORY PL
ENFIELD LN
ROYAL CREST PL
M
ADIGAN ST
PRIS LN
VERMONT RD
SAGE CT
OLD KENT RD
CORTE PARADO
PARAGUAY DR
BRONCO CIR
SEV I L L A
AV E
CAM
I NO
ROMO
CORTE ALM
O
NTE
YAR
D LEY CT
CALLE RESACA
KORNELL ST
ROVATO ST
CALLE GIRASOL
V I A
SABINO
VIA BONILLA
VINO WAY
JUNIPER PL
VIA ANGELES
COPPOLA ST
CALLE M
EDUSA
CALLE ESPINOSA
PRIDE MOUNTAIN ST
CALA GERONA
CA M INITO OLITE
RENOIR RD
SIM
I CT
JOLLE CT
SIERRA
GR O V E
D R
WHITEDOVE LN
MUMM
ST
CONGRESSIONAL DR
VIA
SIERRA
SKYLINE DR
STONEFIELD LN
CORTE LOBOS
TRESTLE LN
COUNTRY VIEW RD
CALLE CANTU
SAINT TISBURY ST
FAVARA DR
AMICI ST
MORGAN
HILL
D R
VINEYARD AVE
CALLE NOVELDA
TULLEY RANCH RD
RIDEAU ST
CORTE
SANCHEZ
FROGS LEAP ST
CALLE VIMIANZO
R
E I D E L
ST
SEASTAR PL
VIA BENABARRE
PLACER BELAI R
VIA CERRO VISTA
R O SE
LN
PERIGORD RD
CAMINO NUNEZ
TIRANO
DR
VINTAGE
CIR
RIVERTON
LN
YUCCA ST
CAMINO CASANA
IVEL RD
VIA SALTIO
JEFFREY CIR
BISON
CT
LINDA ROSEA RD
HEITZ LN
ESPLENDIDA WAY
BUNKER DR
MARGE
PL
CHAUNCEY WAY
PHELPS ST
WINNERS CIR
POURROY RD
ROBERTSON WAY
VIA SERON
YUM
A LN
CULBERTSON LN
AHERN PL
PONDERO
S A
C T
HIL L
ST
CORTE MONTOYA
CALLE NOPAL
CAL LE
BE LL AG I O
M
A I Z
LN
BOREL RD
STARPOINT ST
CAMPO DR
CAMINO RUBI
CRYSTALAIRE DR
APIS RD
POCO
VIA
WHITECROWN DR
VERDE DR
DENISE RD
INDIAN KNOLL RD
BILTMORE
DR
CALLE VISTA
LOS NOGALES RD
REGINA DR
NICOLAS RD
KAHWEA RD
VIA CANTATA
CAMINO NIGUEL
VISTA DEL MONTE RD
ROYAL BIRKDALE DR
TOMMY LN
LORRAINE DR
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
P E N N A N T
CT
SW
OBODA
CT
HUPP DR
DANE CT
SH RE E
R D
GAROLI PASS
ELM
PL
M
EER A
CT
VIA DEL MONTE
EMERSON WAY
R E D
OAK
ST
PAMPE
RO
W
AY
SANTIAGO RD
LOCUST CT
MARGARITA
RD
VIA BENICIA
WOLF CREEK DR
CROSS OVER RD
HAWK CT
LOI LN
GREG
G
W
AY
NOBLE CT
BUENA
VENTURA RD
CALLE AZURE
GIO
CIR
NORTHSHIRE CIR
ANJA AVE
GATLIN
RD
CALLE CEDRAL
AVENIDA BRAVURA
POPPY ST
C A L LE
TOLEDO
W
YA N D O TTE
ST
CUPA LN
JANDA
CT
CAMINO CALIARI
AVENIDA TAXCO
OWL VALL EY RD
VIA MEDIA
SEAGULL WAY
HONORS DR
SANTANA DR
LOREN WAY
REDHAWK PKWY
PECHANGA PKWY
AULD RD
CALLE ROCOSA
JEDEDIAH SMITH RD
LUNA DR
VIA A Z A
LEA
ARMOISE DR
NOEL CIR
PROMONTORY
PKWY
E S M
E
RADO CT
BUTTERFIELD COUNTRY RV PARK
BLANC CT
QUARTER VALLEY RD
OAK
M
O U N T A I N
RD
DAHL DR
BENTON RD
PA SEO
D E
V A N
S C O Y K
VIA
ALHAMA
ALTA MESA CT
CIBOLA CIR
W
ILKS
W
AY
CALLE ARNAZ
TRAVIS CT
LEIGH LN
KIM
BERLY LN
H U S SAR
CT
TERAMO
ST
MODENA DR
O
TIS ST
WATTS RD
LARIN O
C T
BARRINGTON DR
AVENIDA
ARIZONA
P E R D
U E LN
CORTE FLORECI TA
CALLE
RIO
GRANDE
GUEVARA DR
ASHM
ILL CT
VIA BROZA
LYD IA CT
VALENCE CT
DOLCE
ST
FASSANO CT
CAMINO GUARDA
ANASAZI DR
SPARROW WAY
ARIETA ST
CARENTAN DR
CA LLE
ORILL A
CHENIN
BL ANC
CT
SHASTA
LN
CORTE YACA
STEW
ART DR
CAMINO
CARUNA
CALLE CHAPOS
SATTUI ST
LUCERO
DR
CUMBRE RD
HOBBY HORSE RD
VIA CARLOTTA
ANDROS
ST
LADERA VISTA DR
FREESI A WAY
VIA VERDE
LISA RD
CALLE ESCALONA
BERGAMO CT
BERLIE ST
CAMINO HERENCIA
MAZOE ST
MEADOW
RIDGE RD
DAVID LN
CALAC RD
DEPUTY RD
CAMINO RABAGO
OAK HILL DR
SCENIC RIDGE DR
BRUCE LN
VIA LUISA
V IA
VA R E LA
MCCABE DR
DANBY
RD
ANZA
R D
KAARLA RD
CORTE CARMONA
CALLE CAMPO
MARDE N
R D
VIA TAFALLA
CAREFREE DR
SHIRAZ WAY
CALLE ANITA
VIA
DEL CORONADO
PAS
O ROBLES
VIA FERNANDO
VIA LOBATO
LA BONITA
CH
EMIN COUTET
LONGFELLOW
AVE
MAR M
ION
CIR
ALLEN RD
CORTE ANZA
CORTE ARROYO VI STA
C A B A L L O S D R
ROCK
CREEK
CIR
PESCADO DR
A S H F I E L D L N
CA L LE
P OCO
DELGADO WAY
VISTA DE ORO
CAM
INO
AL AMOSA
JAMES DR
S O
NOMA LN
SCANLON RD
VIA CHAPPARO
CAROLBEE LN
MUSIL E K
PL
PRISCILLA ST
TYLMAN ST
DOTTIE CT
MONTE DE ORO RD
CALLE PUERTO BONITA
CAPITOL ST
CALA TORRENTE
CORTE ELDORADO
ANNABELLE LN
GRANDE RD
JEREMIAH RD
CORTE TALVERA
BUENOS WAY
SAN
FERMI N PL
PARADOR ST
AZUSA
S T
VIA ANITA
WATERFALL WAY
GALATINA ST
ANGELO DR
L IN DA
VIA
RD
AVENIDA VERDE
CORTE SALINAS
CAMINO SENECO
VIA
EL PRODUCTO
KAPALUA W
AY
CALLE CAPRI
JOLYNN RD
CELI TA
CIR
BONITA MESA ST
HEATHER RD PALA
VISTA
DR
AVENIDA
BRISA
VIA DEL TORONJO
SUNNINGDALE DR
RONALD RD
MILKWEED WAY
VAW
TER RANCH RD
VIA ALVARO
CA
M I N I T O OSUNA
CALLE CALETA
C A M
I N O
L ORA DO
D R
RIPS WAY
ERICKSON DR
V I A P A S C A L
DE PORTOLA RD
DOROTHY
CT
ORLINDA DR
ALADDIN CIR
CALLE SEGOVIA
DEL REY RD
GALWAY DOWNS DR
TEMECULA LN
CALLE BREVE
DICKSON
BROWNING ST
WOLFE ST
VIA CALINA
CEE CEE RD
VIA ELENA
SOLIDAGO
RD
MONTERO
DR
AMBERLEY CIR
CALLE DECKER
MAGEE HILLS RD
VISTA DEL MONTE
SOTELO
DR
EMBASSY AVE
SANDAK RD
CALLE TEQUI LA
HILT RD
MONTERO
RD
CALLE CABERNET
C A L L E
FR E SCA
CANTRELL RD
ANZA RD
VIA DEL OSO
CAMINO SIERRA RD
CALLE LINDA
VIA DE LOS ARBOLES
HANOVER LN
M
A G G I E WEED
LN
L O R I W
A Y
VIA QUITO
PASEO DEL TRAZA
SANTA RITA RD
CRUZ WAY
SONGBIRD
D R
ST RAT T ON RD
AVENIDA DEL REPOSO
VAIL LAKE RD
CALLE AREVALO
RHINE AVE
CALLE VERDE
AVENIDA
A L T U R A
S
CALLE CANORA
VIA CARMELO
EL PEQUITO
W
ILEY
RD
BENTON RD
WOLF STORE RD
CALAVERAS RD
NORTH LOOP RD
MADERA DE PLAYA DR
VIA LA LUNA
MONTE
VERDE
RD
SUNRISE RD
LOS CORRALITOS RD
LOS AMANTES RD
CALLE VECINA
SIERRA PADRE WAY
MENG-ASBURY
RD
JULIAN LN
CALLE
CONTENTO
VIA
DEL PONTE
R E I D CT
CAM
INO
DEL
VINO
SHADETREE
DR
RU T HERFORD
ST
SUZI LN
PAUBA RD
PAUBA
RD
MEADOW
S
PKW
Y
COL L E EN
WAY
ALTANOS
RD
ALCOBA DR
V IA PUEBLA
CAMPANULA WAY
GREEN TREE RD
MEADOW
S
P K W
Y
VAIL RANCH
PKWY
SERAPH I N A
R D
JAGUAR WAY
C H ALON CT
DE PORTOLA RD
VI A
JACA
BAYBERRY PL
W
INDSOR
RD
NIBLI CK RD
CORTE CA BRERA
VIA SAN CARLOS HUPA DR
TIOGA
ST
DELMONTE
S T
EN CANTO
RD
VINE
CLIFF ST
ROSALES AVE
W
OODCHUCK
RD
LUZON ST
PASEO GOLETA
ROYAL
O A K S
DR
ROPE RD
FERMO CT
VARDON DR
DODA RO
DR
HARW
ICK
LN
CAM
ELOT RD
CROWNE HILL DR
CALABRO ST
C O R TE
VILLOSA
CALLE REDONDELA
TERRAZA CT
SUMMERFIELD LN
RUE
JADOT
SASSARI ST
VIA EL
GRECO
CEBU
D R
CORTE CARMELA
HIDDEN LAKE RD
SANDHILL LN
LOMA LINDA RD
BERENDA RD
HISLOP WAY
COT TONWOOD ST
BEAMER CT
CAMINO MAREA
LEVI CT
GREEN
M
EADOW
RD
ALTON CT
CAMINO DEL ESTE
CALLE
BALAREZA
MONTEREY PL
W
ALCOTT LN
LAKE SKINNER PARK
VALENCIA WAY
SUMMIT VIEW PL
BELLA
VISTA
RD
BRASSIE LN
GARCIA
W
AY
EDGEMONT
DR
SAVONA
ST
PINE TREE CIR
SPANISH OAKS DR
PEPPER TREE ST
ABBEY RD
SUNNY MEADOW
S
D R
AMARITA WAY
TERRACE DR
CHAPARRAL DR
IRON CIR
W
O O L P ERT
L N
FABER
CT
CLASSIC WAY
TEMEKU
DR
EX A
E LY
R D
PIO PICO
RD
FOX RD
MONTELEGRO WAY
TIBURCIO DR
VIA NORTE
MESA RD G R E E N
KNOLLS RD
H A R V E S T D R
CORTE SOLEDAD
CALLE
AYORA
REMUDA
D
R
CALLE CANCION
RO UN DE R
RD
C A L L E C O R D O V A
LIEFER RD
CORTE
AL M
E R I A
ROSA CT
DUCLAIR RD
SANTA ANITA DR
GREEN
OAKS DR
PARADO DEL SOL DR
REDW
OOD
RD
BOREL RD
YAHM CT
B UT TE R FI E LD
STAGE
RD
CALLE
KATERINE
W GASA PL
PRATT RD
W
ARRE N
RD
VIA DESTELLO
CORTE RIMOLA
AVENIDA LESTONNAC
LOS CABALLOS RD
LYLES
DR
CALLE DE
VELARDO
AVENIDA DE LA REINA
LAKE SKINNER RECREATION
AREA
CORTE ROSARIO
W
ASHINGTON ST
PATERNO ST
HI DDE N
T R AIL
CT
AVENIDA ORTEGA
DIEGO DR
VIA
CORDOVA
V IA
D E
ORO
CORTE POSITAS
RIO RD
CORTE PADRERA
BUCK
RD
RUTH
RD
MARIN MEADOW R D
MANZANO
DR
A N CHO
RD
VIA
VIEW
MIZE WAY
ZINFAN DEL
AVE
W
I LLOWICK ST
CHATHAM
LN
CALLE DE MAYA
LOLI TA
RD
CALL E
P OR T IL L O
ANZA RD
WINSTON WAY
E X A
E
LY
RD
GRAY SQUIRREL RD
M
ARCUS
DR
INTREPID RD
CALLE
CAM
PO
CALLE JOJOBA
CALLE LAS
LOM
AS
RIO
LINDA
RD
BOOTLEGG RD
VIA EL PAIS BONITA
BILLY J OE LN
PULGAS CREEK RD
MARTIN
RANCH
R D
SPRIN G
VA LLE Y
R D
BELLE
CHAINE LOOP
APPLEGATE RD
WACKER DR
RICE LN
AB79
WINERY
DISTRICT
EQUESTRIAN
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WINERY
DISTRICT
EXISTING WINERIES
(<20 ACRES GROSS)
CITIES
PARCELS
JUNE 21, 2010
P. KANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
0 0.5 1 0.25
Miles
INDEX MAP
WINE COUNTRY
POLICY AREA MAP
AND EXISTING WINERIES
(<20 ACRES)
DRAFT
\\agency\tlm
agis\W
orkspace\Clark\PLANNING\M
itra\W
ine_Country_Aerial.m
xd
Wine Country Community Plan
Planning Commission Hearing July 25, 2012
Agenda Item No.3.1
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing

Mission Statement:

To preserve vineyard lands and to create an
environment that encourages development of wineries
with the goal of making the Temecula Valley Wine
Country known and respected worldwide, while
maintaining the quality of life for residential
communities and the equestrian lifestyle within and
around it.

July 25, 2012

Introduction Mr. George Johnson
Plan beyond Land Use Planning
Infrastructure Discussions
Economic Contribution
Public Private Partnership
Result-oriented Collaborative Process
Project Proposal Ms. Mitra Mehta-Cooper
Project Setting
Project Objectives
Infrastructure Discussion with Mr. Charlie Bachmann
Community Outreach
Project Proposal
Outstanding Issues
Program Environmental Impact Report 524 Mr. Kevin Thomas
PEIR Process
Draft PEIR Summary with Ms. Farah Khorashadi
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Alternatives
Comments and Reponses
Conclusion
Public Testimony

Wine Country Community Plan Hearing Outline
July 25, 2012

Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting
Heidi Rous, PCR
Jason Pack, Fehr and Peers
Farah Khorashadi, County Transportation
Mike Sanders, County Code Enforcement
John Watkins, County Environmental Health
Charlie Bachmann and Brian Powell, Eastern Municipal Water
District
Andy Webster, Rancho California Water District
Bill Wilson, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee
Peggy Evans, Executive Director, Temecula Valley
Winegrowers Association
John Kelliher and Kimberly Adams, Executive Director,
Temecula Valley Visitors and Convention Bureau
Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy, Team Member
Wine Country Community Plan In Attendance
July 25, 2012
Temecula Valley Wine Country Context
July 25, 2012

Community Plan Project Components:

General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 1077)
Southwest Area Plan

Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729

Program Environmental Impact Report No.
524 (PEIR No. 524)
Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
July 25, 2012

Community Plan GPA No. 1077:

Deletion of Two Policy Areas in the Southwest Area
Plan Citrus Vineyard Rural and Valle de los
Caballos

Addition of Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy
Area

Revision of Circulation Element Trails And
Bikeway Network and Text Amendment

Revision of Circulation Element Road Network

July 25, 2012

Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Addition of four new zones in the Zoning
Ordinance

Wine Country Winery
Wine Country Winery Existing
Wine Country Equestrian
Wine Country Residential

Wine Country Community Plan Ord. Amt. 348.4729
July 25, 2012

Wine Country Community Plan Ord. Amt. 348.4729
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012

Wine Industry Temecula Valley:

Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Award
Winning Wines

Over 200 Awards received thus far in 2012!

July 25, 2012

Wine Industry Temecula Valley:

Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Award
Winning Wines

Over 200 Awards received thus far in 2012!
p g p
2007 Private Collection Cab.
Sauvignon
Briar Rose Winery Gold
2004 Cabernet Franc Briar Rose Winery Gold
2003 Merlot Private Reserve Briar Rose Winery Gold
2008 WR Meritage Callaway Vineyard & Winery Gold
2010 Late Harvest Viognier Danza del Sol Winery Gold
2009 Estate Tempranillo Masia de Yabar Winery Gold
2010 Chardonnay Maurice Car'rie Vineyard & Winery Gold
2010 Sara Bella Maurice Car'rie Vineyard & Winery Gold
2010 Nostimo Monte De Oro Winery Gold
2008 Estate Syrah Monte De Oro Winery Gold
2009 Sangiovese Rose Mount Palomar Winery Gold
nv Solera Cream Sherry Mount Palomar Winery Gold
2010 Fume Blanc Oak Mountain Winery Gold
2010 Pinot Grigio Robert Renzoni Vineyards Gold
2008 Barbera Robert Renzoni Vineyards Gold
2010 Sauvignon Blanc Musque Clone South Coast Winery Gold
nv Blanc de Noir South Coast Winery Gold
2010 Viognier Van Roekel Winery Gold
2009 Estate Syrah Vindemia Vineyard & Estate
Winery
Gold
2009 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon Wiens Family Cellars Gold
2009 SS Viognier Callaway Vineyard & Winery Silver
2010 Le Blanc SV Danza del Sol Winery Silver
2009 Cabernert Franc Danza del Sol Winery Silver
2010 Sauvignon Blanc Hart Winery Silver
2008 Aleatico Hart Winery Silver
2010 Chardonnay Reserve Lorimar Vineyards & Winery Silver
nv Posh Port Maurice Car'rie Vineyard & Winery Silver
2009 Grenache Rose Miramonte Winery Silver
2007 Castelleto Trovato Mount Palomar Winery Silver
2008 Tre Fratelli Palumbo Family Vineyards &
Winery
Silver
2009 Tempranillo Robert Renzoni Vineyards Silver
2008 GSM Red Blend South Coast Winery Silver
2008 Syrah Leoness Cellars Bronze
2009 Meritage Lorimar Vineyards & Winery Bronze
2007 Synergy 65 Monte De Oro Winery Bronze
2009 Cabernet Sauvignon Oak Mountain Winery Bronze
2008 Merlot-Syrah Palumbo Family Vineyards &
Winery
Bronze
2010 Grenache Van Roekel Winery Bronze
2010 Viognier Wilson Creek Winery Bronze
2008 Late Harvest Zinfandel Wilson Creek Winery Bronze
L.A. International Competition 2012
2010 Viognier Van Roekel Winery Best of Class;
Gold
Monterey Wine Competition 2012
nv Black Jack Port South Coast Winery Best of Show
2011 Tempranillo Rose South Coast Winery Gold
2008 WHP Meritage South Coast Winery Gold

Temecula
Valley
Winegrowers
Association
Award
Winning
Wines

July 25, 2012

Tourism Industry Temecula Valley
Visitors and Convention Bureau:

Travel spending in 2010 - $556.8 million
9.4% increase over 2009

Growth in travel-generated employment
15.6% per year since 2000

Local Sales Tax Receipts in 2010 - $ 5.1 million

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Infrastructure Capacity:
Wineries and their incidental uses currently operate
on septic systems
Rancho California Water Districts study showed that groundwater
quality in the upper Temecula aquifer has exceeded the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards Basin Plan
Objective (500 mg/TDS)
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board had required
their review for projects generating 1200 GPD Wastewater flow
On weekend, some roads are backed up and cars
are speeding
Safety of motorists, pedestrians, bikers and equestrians is a
concern
Provide mobility of vehicles while preserving rural character
Trails are far and few in-between with not adequate
connectivity

July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

Code Enforcement Activities:

500+ complaints between 2008 & 2011

Code Violation Investigation for 46 Wineries or
Commercial Uses for operating without County
Approval

Currently, 100+ code complaints in process

July 25, 2012

County, under Sup. Stones leadership, initiated
a Community Plan in 2008 to ensure that:

Viticulture potential, rural lifestyle and equestrian activities are
protected

Appropriate level of commercial tourist activities are allowed

Future growth is coordinated to avoid land use conflicts

Appropriate level of public facilities, services and infrastructure
is provided with growth
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

PERMITTED USE CURRENT C/V ZONE PROPOSED WINERY ZONE
I NCI DENTAL USES (SPECI AL
OCCASI ON, LODGI NG &
RESTAURANT)
10 ACRES MI NI MUM 20 ACRES MI NI MUM
SPECI AL OCCASI ON FACI LI TY PERMI TTED WI TH VI NEYARD PERMI TTED WI TH WI NERY ONLY
SPECI AL OCCASI ON FACI LI TY NO NOI SE STUDY REQUI RED
NOI SE STUDY & ACOUSTI CAL ANALYSI S
REQUI RED I F OUTDOOR FACI LI TY I S
PROPOSED
SPECI AL OCCASI ON FACI LI TY
NO GOOD NEI GHBOR AGREEMENT
ENVI SI ONED
GOOD NEI GHBOR AGREEMENT MAY BE
REQUI RED
B&B AND COUNTRY I NNS PERMI TTED WI TH VI NEYARD PERMI TTED WI TH WI NERY ONLY
RESORT (AMPHI THEATER) 10 ACRES MI NI MUM LOT SI ZE 40 ACRES MI NI MUM LOT SI ZE
RESI DENTI AL DEVELOPMENT
5 ACRES WI TH CLUSTERI NG & 50%
PLANTI NG; 10 ACRES WI THOUT 50%
PLANTI NG.
10 ACRES WI TH CLUSTERI NG & 75%
PLANTI NG
ANI MAL KEEPI NG 5 ANI MALS PER ACRE 2 ANI MALS PER ACRE
18-HOLE GOLF COURSES
STAND ALONE PERMI TTED, NO MI NI MUM
LOT SI ZE
PERMI TTED ONLY I N CONJUNCTI ON WI TH
RESORT ON 40 ACRES MI NI MUM
ADDI TI ONAL SETBACKS
RANCHO CALI FORNI A RD. , MONTE DE
ORO RD. , ANZA RD. , PAUBA RD. , DE
PORTOLA RD. , BUCK RD. , BOREL RD. &
BUTTERFI ELD STAGE RD.
ALL AND GLEN OAKS RD, CALLE
CONTENTO RD. , CAMI NO DEL VI NO RD. &
HWY 79 S.
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

STANDARDS PROPOSED WINERY ZONE PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN ZONE
OPEN SPACE REQUI REMENT 75% VI NEYARD 75% PERMANENT EQUESTRI AN LANDS
STRUCTURE REQUI REMENTS 1, 500 SQUARE FEET, 3500 GALLONS 20 STALLS, 12 X12
HEI GHT 50 FEET MAX 50 FEET MAX
RESI DENTI AL SUBDI VI SI ONS 1 DU/ 10 AC WI TH CLUSTERI NG 1 DU/10 AC
PERMI TTED USES
COTTAGE I NN ( 1-5 GUEST ROOMS) ,
COTTAGE I NDUSTRY, WI NEGROWERS
ASSOCI ATI ON EVENTS
COTTAGE I NN ( 1-5 GUEST ROOMS) ,
COTTAGE I NDUSTRY, EQUESTRI AN
ESTABLI SHMENT
USES ON 10 ACRES WI TH PP
WI NERY WI TH TASTI NG ROOM AND
GI FT SHOP
WI NERY OR COMMERCI AL EQUESTRI AN
ESTABLI SHMENT, HORSE SHOW, POLO
GROUNDS, PETTI NG ZOO
USES ON 20 ACRES WI TH PP
WI NERY AND RESTAURANT, HOTELS,
SPECI AL OCCASI ON FACI LI TI ES
COMMERCI AL EQUESTRI AN
ESTABLI SHMENT AND RESTAURANTS,
WESTERN STORE
USES ON 40 ACRES WI TH CUP WI NERY AND RESORT -
USES ON 50 ACRES WI TH CUP -
ESTABLI SHMENT AND RESTAURANTS,
HORSE RACI NG ARENA, RODEO ARENA
USES ON 100 ACRES WI TH CUP -
ESTABLI SHMENT AND
SPECI AL OCCASI ON FACI LI TI ES
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

PERMITTED USE CURRENT R-A ZONE CURRENT R-R ZONE
PROPOSED WC-R
ZONE
AGRI CULTURAL / HORTI CULTURAL
OPERATI ONS & PROCESSI NG
20 FEET MI NI MUM FROM
BOUNDARI ES OF PREMI SES
ANI MAL KEEPI NG 2 ANI MALS PER ACRE 5 ANI MALS PER ACRE 5 ANI MALS PER ACRE
WI NERY NOT PERMI TTED
0. 5-ACRE LOT SI ZE
MI NI MUM
10-ACRE LOT SI ZE
MI NI MUM WI TH ON-SI TE
VI NEYARDS
BEAUTY SHOP, TEMPORARY REAL
ESTATE OFFI CE, GOLF COURSE &
COUNTRY CLUB
20, 000 SQ FT LOT SI ZE
MI NI MUM WI TH APPROVED
PLOT PLAN
0. 5-ACRE LOT SI ZE
MI NI MUM WI TH APPROVED
PLOT PLAN
NOT PERMI TTED
PUBLI C UTI LI TI ES ( DAMS, CANALS,
POWER PLANTS, RAI LROADS, TV/RADI O
STATI ONS)
NOT PERMI TTED
MI NI MUM
NOT PERMI TTED
AI RPORT, MI NI NG OPERATI ON,
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE,
COMMERCI AL FAI RGROUND, LI QUOR
STORE, TOURI ST I NFO CENTER &
PACKI NG PLANT
NOT PERMI TTED
0. 5-ACRE LOT SI ZE MI NI MUM
WI TH CUP
NOT PERMI TTED
( PLANNED) RESI DENTI AL SUBDI VI SI ON
MI NI MUM WI TH LAND
DI VI SI ON APPROVAL
WI TH LAND DI VI SI ON
APPROVAL
5-ACRE MI NI MUM WI TH
VI NEYARD OR
EQUESTRI AN LAND AND
LAND DI VI SI ON APPROVAL
GAS STATI ONS NOT PERMI TTED
WI TH CUP
NOT PERMI TTED
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

EXISTING
CONDITION
EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
PROPOSED
COMMUNITY PLAN
CURRENT WINERIES
40-50
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
170
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
105
CURRENT VISITORS +
EMPLOYEES
10,000
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
55,000
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
44,000
CURRENT HOMES
1000
BUILD-OUT DWELLING
UNITS
3000
BUILD-OUT DWELLING
UNITS
2000
July 25, 2012
2010
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
July 25, 2012

Groundwater Quality and Sewer

To maintain groundwater quality and secure necessary sewer
infrastructure

Coordination with Rancho California water District, Eastern
Municipal Water District , San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board and Winery Proponents

Eastern Municipal Water District conducted (Sewer)
Infrastructure Study

County has started conditioning projects for Sewer Connection
and Fees

County has committed $2M for Phase I with a total of $5M from
TOT for Sewer Improvements

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

Motorized and Non-motorized Transportation:

Five Roundabouts are proposed along Rancho
California Road to calm vehicular traffic, to provide
safety for pedestrians, bikers and equestrians, and
to move traffic volumes more efficiently
41,700 daily vehicular traffic with a peak hour traffic of 4000
vehicles

Number of lanes are reduced to retain rural
character

Signalization and Signs are provided for pedestrian
and equestrian safety

July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

1.98
2.56
3.35
2.73
2.83
2.31
1.98
2.41
2.33
1.31
2.02
1.36
1.57
0 1 2 3 4 5
Level of Importance
2a
2b2
2b4
2b6
2b8
2b10
c
Wine Country Survey 2009
1= High 5 = Low
Community Plan Outreach Vision 20-20 Survey
July 25, 2012

Community Plan Outreach Website
www.socalwinecountryplan.org

Approximately 30,000+ Users Visits this
website annually

Approximately 160+ Users have registered for
e-alerts
July 25, 2012

Community Plan Outreach Focused-group Meetings
Morgan Hills HOA 4/28/11
All-day Open House 9/9/10
Residents Town Hall Meeting 8/30/11
July 25, 2012

Coordination over three years

16 meetings held with the Committee

Composed of 19 members of diverse interest
groups

Meetings were open to public participation

Each meeting averaged at 30-50 participants

Community Plan Outreach Ad Hoc Committee
July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012

Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow small-scale Production Winery

Under Section 14.91 (Definitions) make the following changes:

COMMERCIAL WINERY. An agricultural facility designed and
used to crush, ferment, and process grapes into wine. Such facility
may operate appurtenant and incidental commercial uses such as
wine sampling rooms, retail wine sales, gift sale, delicatessens,
restaurants, lodging facilities and special occasion facilities.
PRODUCTION WINERY: An agricultural facility solely designed
and used to crush, ferment and process grapes into wine. The
facility may also bottle and distribute such wine. The facility does
not operate any appurtenant or incidental uses.
WINERY. An agricultural facility designed and used to crush,
ferment, and process grapes into wine.

July 25, 2012


Under Section 14.92 and 14.93 (Wine Country Winery and
Winery Existing Zoning Classifications), uses permitted with
Plot Plan add the following:
Production Winery only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard
and a minimum parcel size of five (5) gross acres.

Under Section 14.95 (Development Standards) add Production
Winery Development Standards Section as the following:
Production Winery Standards. In addition to the General Standards, the
following standards shall apply to all production wineries in the WC zones:
(2) The production winery shall be less than 1,500 square feet in size.
(3) A total of seventyfive percent (75%) of the net project area shall
be planted in vineyards prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final
inspection, whichever occurs first.

July 25, 2012

To ensure winery operations prior to
incidental commercial uses

Under Section 14.95 Commercial Winery Development
Standards add the following:
Prior to issuance of the building permit for any incidental
commercial uses, the commercial winery facility shall be
constructed.
Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any incidental
operational.

July 25, 2012

To allow limited wine-club events with a
winery on 10 acres or more

Plot Plan add the following underlined language:

Commercial Winery, only in conjunction with an established on-
site vineyard and a minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres.
Four (4) wine-club events per year, not to exceed 100 members,
may be considered with a commercial winery.

July 25, 2012

To allow 3 year exemption for use of 75%
local grapes

Standards delete the following:
An exemption from this requirement may be requested for the first
three years from the building permits effective date. After the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, such exemption may only
be extended twice for a one year duration, for a total exemption
period not to exceed five years.

July 25, 2012

To remove 5 guests/acre requirement for
Special Occasion Facilities

Under Section 14.95 Special Occasion Facilities
Development Standards delete the following:

A maximum of five (5) guests per gross acre shall be permitted for
a special occasion facility.

July 25, 2012

Land Use Policy Issues Not in support:

To ensure on-site wine production
To require larger production capacity from
larger wineries
To allow tasting room with Production Winery
To allow cooperative tasting rooms
To enforce that wineries use 75% local grapes
To use 300 buffer for all incidental commercial
uses on major roads

July 25, 2012

Project Areas Sub-regions:

Be added or removed from the Project Boundary

Be considered for a different district of the Policy
Area

July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group A
Property Owner: Kali P. Chaudhuri

Requests: To exclude parcels from Wine Country
Community Plan

Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A, R-5, R-R

Opportunities/Constraints: 25% slope

Staff Recommendation: Due to steep topography and
MSCHP potential, staff recommends removal of this
group from the Community Plan boundary.

Mr. & Mrs. Norris: Property owners support staff
recommendation to exclude parcels from the Wine
Country Community Plan.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chaudhuri)

Community Plan

Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Medium
Density Residential

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-R

Opportunities/Constraints: Existing urban/ suburban
type of uses surrounding parcels

Staff Recommendation: Due to the existing and
surrounding uses, Staff recommends excluding this
group from the Wine Country Community Plan.

Mr. Baida and Mr. Kazanjian: Property owners
support staff recommendation to exclude parcels from
the Wine Country Community Plan.

Mr. Chaudhuri
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chavez)
Property Owner: Dave Chavez

Requests: To add parcels in the Winery District

Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Commercial Tourism with the Valle de los Caballos
Policy Area


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing urban/suburban

Staff Recommendation: For Mr. Chavezs property,
staff recommends Equestrian District which would
allow a Winery on 10 acres (total acres for his parcels
are 25.44 acres).
Mr. Chavez
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group C
Property Owner: John Cooper, representing various
owners

Requests: To add parcels to Equestrian District

Residential

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A

Opportunities/Constraints: Existing Zoning
Classification allows for non-commercial horse
keeping.

Staff Recommendation: The existing equestrian use
may continue operation if it was established legally.
The project will not change their zoning classification;
therefore, recommend keeping parcels within the
Winery District.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group D
Property Owner: Steve and Laura Turnbow, and
Maxine Heiller, representing various land owners

Community Plan

Agriculture and Rural Community:Estate Density
Residential with Citrus Vineyard Policy Area

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A, R-R, A-1

Opportunities/Constraints: Current Zoning
Classifications allow for a variety of uses such as golf
courses, country clubs, bars and lounges, billiard
hall, race tracks, guest ranches and motels,
educational institutions, etc.

Staff Recommendation: Wine Country-Residential
District will prevent this area from incompatible
commercial uses allowed under the R-R and R-A
zones; therefore, Staff recommends keeping this area
within the Wine Country Community Plan.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group E
Property Owner: Various owners

Requests: Various including exclusion from the
Community Plan, or inclusion in Equestrian District,
Residential District or Winery District

Agriculture, Rural Mountainous and Rural
Residential

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A, R-1, R-R, A-1

Opportunities/Constraints: The Morgan Hill
Community is directly west of this area. Some of
these parcels are associated with General Plan
Amendments to increase density yields.

Staff Recommendation: Landowners in this area are
fairly divided on the future of this sub-region. This
area serves as the southern entrance to Wine
Country. Staff recommends a combination of three
districts to reflect landowners preference in light of
the Community Plan objectives.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group F
Property Owner: Peter Solomon

Requests: To add parcels within the Winery District

Rural Residential with the Valle de Los Caballos Policy
Area

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A and R-R

Opportunities/Constraints: Surrounding land uses
include horse ranches, estate lot residential and small
scale wineries.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining
this group in the proposed Wine Country-Equestrian
District due to its location within the existing Valle de
los Caballos Policy Area; large-scale winery
development is not supported by surrounding property
owners; and road-network and sewer infrastructure
that will be necessary for a large-scale winery
development is not foreseeable in a near future.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group G
Property Owner: Barry Yoder

Requests: Expansion of the proposed Wine Country
Policy Area and inclusion in the Winery District

Rural CommunityEstate Density Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing use for the parcel
is single family residential

Staff Recommendation: Currently, the property is not
within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area or C/V zone. In
addition, this area does not have large-lot parcel sizes
to accommodate a winery related operations.
Therefore, this request does not meet any objective of
the Community Plan and staff recommends denying
this request for inclusion in the proposed Policy Area
or Winery District thereof.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group H
Property Owner: Jose Renato Cartagena,
representing various owners

Requests: Expansion of the Wine Country Policy Area
and inclusion in the proposed Winery District

Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: In MSHCP Criteria Cell

or Winery District.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group I
Property Owner: Danny and Kathryn Atwood

Requests: To include this parcel in the Winery District

Agriculture with the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area

Existing Zoning Classifications: C/V

Opportunities/Constraints: Within the existing Citrus
Vineyard Policy Area

Staff Recommendation: The property is within the
existing Citrus Vineyard Policy Area and C/V zone;
therefore, staff recommends inclusion in the proposed
Winery District for this parcel and the adjacent parcel
which has similar situation.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group J
Property Owner: Russell Mann and various owners

Requests: To include these parcels in the Equestrian
District

Residential and Rural CommunityEstate Density
Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing zones allows for the
horse keeping; however, some of the desired uses are
not currently allowed in the General Plan land use
designations or zoning classifications. There are
existing Wineries surrounding this area.

Staff Recommendation: A series of wineries are located
in a close proximity to this group, which may create land
uses conflicts in the future if additional equestrian uses
are allowed in this group. Therefore, this request does
not meet an objective of the Community Plan and staff
recommends denying this request for inclusion in the
proposed Equestrian District.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group K
Property Owner: Rueben Calixto Jr.

Requests: To exclude parcel from the Wine Country
Community Plan



Opportunities/Constraints: Parcel is currently vacant
and is surrounded by single family residential, vacant,
agriculture, wineries and a private school.

Staff Recommendation: This parcel is ideally situated
for a Tourist Information Center or Park and Ride
Facility at the entrance of the Temecula Valley Wine
Country. The proposed Policy Area or zones do not
allow for such uses. Therefore, staff recommends
exclusion of the parcel from the proposed Policy Area
and Winery District thereof.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group L
Property Owner: Steve Lassley, representing various
owners

Requests: To exclude parcels from the Wine Country
Community Plan

CommunityEstate Density Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing uses include
vacant, agricultural residential, single family
residential. The surrounding uses include single
family residential, agriculture, and wineries.

Staff Recommendation: Currently, this group has
Estate Density Residential land use designation,
which would allow these land-owners to subdivide
their properties into 2.5 acre parcels per their desire.
Due to their location at the edge of the proposed
Policy Area, staff recommends supporting exclusion
from the proposed Wine Country Policy Area and
Winery District thereof.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group M
Property Owner: Saba and Shirley Saba

Requests: Inclusion in the Winery Country - Winery
Existing Zoning Classification

Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area


Opportunities/Constraints: The proposed Winery
District will allow Mr. Saba to have a Winery on 10
acres (which he owns); however, it would require 20
acres in order to have a restaurant.

Staff Recommendation: This group does not have an
existing or legally approved winery, and therefore, it
does not qualify to benefit from the Winery Existing
zone. As a result, staff recommends denying this
request to be included in the Wine CountryWinery
Existing zone.
July 25, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group N
Property Owner: Stephen Corona

Community Plan



Opportunities/Constraints: The existing use on Mr.
Coronas parcels is agriculture. The existing uses of
surrounding parcels include vacant lands, single
family residential and wineries.

Staff Recommendation: Per this request, should the
County allow smaller lot residential subdivisions for
this group, it may result in creating future land use
conflicts in and around this group. Therefore, this
request does not meet an objective of the Community
Plan and staff recommends denying this request for
exclusion from the proposed Policy Area or Winery
District thereof.
July 25, 2012
PUBLIC
LETTERS/TESTIMONY
REQUEST STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
LAURI E STAUDE
WOULD LI KE TO SPLI T 12 ACS I N 2
LOTS WI TH NO PLANTI NG
WI NE COUNTRY RESI DENTI AL DI STRI CT
WOULD ALLOW 2 LOTS WI TH 75%
PLANTI NG
RONALD MOSTERO
WOULD LI KE TO DO A PRI VATE
SCHOOL
CURRENT CI TRUS VI NEYARD RURAL
POLI CY AREA DOES NOT ALLOW ONE
DONALD LORENZI
WOULD LI KE TO BE RECOGNI ZED AS
WI NERY EXI STI NG
THI S WI NERY I S I DENTI FI ED AS WI NE
EXI STI NG ( BUT AS VI LLA TOSCANA)
PAT OMMERT
WOULD LI KE TO HAVE A SMALL CLI NI C WI NE COUNTRY EQUESTRI AN DI STRI CT
WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE
JOHN LAMAGNA
WOULD LI KE TO HAVE A WI NERY WI NE COUNTRY EQUESTRI AN
DI STRI CT ALLOWS WI NERI ES
TOM AND SUSANNE CAMPBELL
WOULD LI KE TO HAVE A SMALL GUEST
HOUSE AND TO I NVI TE GUESTS
WI NE COUNTRY WI NERY DI STRI CT
ALLOWS A COTTAGE I NN AND ALL
PRI VATE PARTI ES
KATHY SPANO (POTENTI AL
BUYER)
WOULD LI KE TO REQUEST WI NE
COUNTRY EQUESTRI AN
N/A
July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012

Evaluate impacts of the proposed Project
Broad, policy level analysis
Implementing Projects require separate CEQA
Recommend Mitigation Measures
Identify Alternatives
Allow for public input
Inform Decision Makers

Program EIR No. 524 - Purpose
July 25, 2012

Program EIR No. 524 - Process
July 25, 2012

IS/NOP
Released December 28, 2009
30-day public review
Draft EIR
Released December 1, 2011
60 day public review
Final EIR
Responses to Comments published June 11, 2012

Program EIR No. 524 - Milestones
July 25, 2012

Program EIR No. 524 Scope
Aesthetics, Light and Glare
Agricultural & Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Climate Change
Cultural & Paleontological
Resources
Geology, Soils & Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials

Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services, Recreation
and Utilities
Transportation and
Circulation
Cumulative Impacts
Growth
Alternatives
July 25, 2012

Public Input
NOP 30-day Review
NOP Scoping Meeting January 19, 2010
Draft EIR extended review to 60 days

Land Use Analyses

Technical Studies
Traffic Impact Study
Air Quality Study
Greenhouse Gas Study
Infrastructure Assessments
Program EIR No. 524 Methodology
July 25, 2012

Program EIR No. 524 Summary of Findings
Project
Existing Regs Features Mitigation Conclusion
Aesthetics, Light & Glare 54 22 3 LTSWM
Agriculture & Forestry 18 7 1 USI - P + C
Air Quality 85 10 13* USI - P + C
Biological Resources 32 5 1* LTSWM
Cultural & Paleontological 26 1 5* LTSWM
Geology, Soils, Seismicity 28 2 1* LTSWM
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 87 3 2 USI - P + C
Hazards & Hazardous Materials 32 see LU1 4 LTSWM
Hydrology & Water Quality 53 1 8* LTSWM
Land Use & Relevant Planning 62 2++ 1* LTSWM
Mineral Resources 10 2 1 LTSWM
Noise 48 11 7* USI - P + C
Public Services, Recreation & Utilities 51 4 18* USI - fire/library
Traffic & Circulation 56 3 5* USI - P + C
* = Modified by Responses to Comments
LTSWM = Less than Significant With Mitigation
USI - P + C = Unavoidable Significant Impact (Project + Cumulative)
Transportation Model and Assessment
Planning Commission Hearing July 25, 2012
Agenda Item No.3.1
July 25, 2012
2
July 25, 2012
3
Winery operations differ from Temecula Valley Wine
Country
Relatively minimal wineries permitted for special events
July 25, 2012
4
Establish weekday and weekend trip generation rates
for wineries categorized in the WCP by conducting
counts at several Temecula Valley wineries (June
2011)
Model the unique characteristics of the Temecula
Valley Wine Country Area including winery hopping
WCP projected to add 71,000 weekend daily trips
36,000 external trips and 35,000 internal trips
Reduction of approximately 60,000 trips from existing
General Plan
Utilize model data in traffic impact assessment and
identify mitigation measures
July 25, 2012
5
Existing WCP
July 25, 2012
6
Glen Oaks Road
Monte De Oro Road
Camino Del Vino
Pauba Road
Los Caballos Road
Calle Contento Road
Borel Road
Warren Road
Buck Road
Madera De Playa Road (2-lanes from Butterfield Stage Road to Anza Road, providing an additional east-
west route into the area)
Anza Road connection to I-15 excluded from the analysis a conservative assumption
Utilized the respective General Plan Networks from the City and County
Five roundabouts assumed in the WCP area to preserve rural area
Increase the capacity at intersections in the WCP area
July 25, 2012
7
July 25, 2012
8
Evaluated 60 intersections
Evaluated 87 roadway segments
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Future No Project Conditions (includes Existing City
and County General Plan Assumptions)
Future With Project Conditions (includes Buildout of
the WCP)
July 25, 2012
9
Available data from the City
Roadway segment counts conducted June 17-19,
2011
Intersection counts conducted August 20, 2011
Coordinate with City staff to respond to comments on
the DEIR/Draft Impact Assessment
Incorporates near-term capital improvements planned
in the City
July 25, 2012
10
July 25, 2012
11
Numerous meetings and discussions
Utilized City count database
Utilized City Synchro network for intersection assessment
Assisted in understanding visitor winery hopping
characteristics
Contacted Napa, Sonoma, San Luis Obispo Counties
Contacted several wineries in the Temecula Valley for
information on tasting room size, parking, special events,
business operation, etc.
July 25, 2012
12
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF)
County Developer Impact Fee (DIF)
WCP Fair Share Assessment
July 25, 2012

Program EIR No. 524 Alternatives
Considered but Rejected Alternatives

Pending GPA Applications
Alternative Location
One Policy Area
No Build
July 25, 2012

Program EIR No. 524 Alternatives (continued)
Existing General Plan (No Project)
58.4% more residential (over 3,000 DU)
25.4% more employees (over 55,000)
30,000 additional weekend daily trips
Reduced Density
Assumed at 25% (note Project is already reduced)
No change in Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Greater difficulty in meeting Project Objectives
County Preferred
July 25, 2012

60-day Draft EIR Review
Closed February 2, 2012
33 Comment letters received
Response to Comments issued on June 11, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing(s)
Board of Supervisor Hearing(s)
Consider proposed Final EIR
Findings
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Consider Project Approval

Program EIR No. 524 Current Process
July 25, 2012

Discuss and Continue Item to
August 8
th
or August 22
nd

Wine Country Community Plan Staff Recommendation
Thank you
Agenda Item: 3.1
Planning Commission: July 25, 2012


COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT


PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan (Project) was initiated by the County
Board of Supervisors in 2008 to ensure that the region develops in an orderly manner that
preserves Temecula Valleys viticulture potential and enhances its economic contribution to the
County over the long term. The purpose of this Project is to provide a blueprint for future growth
that ensures that future development activities will enhance, and not impede, the quality of life
for existing and future residents, while providing opportunities for continued preservation and
expansion of winery and equestrian operations. The Project has been developed to achieve the
following four objectives:

1. To preserve and enhance viticulture potential, rural lifestyle and equestrian activities;

2. To continue to allow for an appropriate level of commercial tourist activities that are
incidental to viticulture and equestrian operations;

3. To coordinate growth in a manner that avoids future land use conflicts; and

4. To ensure timely provision of appropriate public infrastructure and services that keeps
up with anticipated growth.

PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTINGS:

The Project is generally located in the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the General Plan in the
southwestern portion of unincorporated Riverside County. The Project covers approximately
18,990 acres of land located approximately three miles north of the San Diego County border,
east of the City of Temecula, south of Lake Skinner, and northwest of Vail Lake (Attachment A).

This area contains some of Riverside Countys prime agriculture lands within the Temecula
Valley. Previous efforts to guide development in the SWAP included the creation of two policy
areas in the Countys General Plan the Citrus Vineyard Rural Policy Area and the Valle de los
Caballos Policy Area intended to promote agricultural and equestrian uses respectively. In
response to the increased development activity that has occurred over the past decade, the
Project was developed after a comprehensive review of the regions vision and policies that are
outlined in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

Many of the existing uses within the Project area are composed of rural residential estate lots
(greater than one acre in size), vineyards, wineries and ancillary uses, citrus groves, equestrian
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN General Plan Amendment No. 1077, Ordinance
Amendment No. 348.4729, and Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 25, 2012
Page 2 of 17

establishments, residential uses with equestrian amenities (e.g., barns, arenas, stables, etc.),
and vacant undeveloped properties. At this time, a total of approximately 42 existing wineries
are located within the Project area. Ancillary uses to these wineries include bed and breakfast
inns, restaurants, and special occasion facilities which are used for events such as parties,
weddings, and other social gatherings.

Adjacent land uses to the Project area include urbanizing areas within the City of Temecula as
well as existing residential subdivisions, retail commercial, educational and office uses in the
vicinity of Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho California Road and Highway 79. Lake Skinner, Vail
Lake, Pechanga Casino, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, as well as related
recreational amenities are also located in the immediate vicinity of the Project area.

PROJECT COMPONENTS:

The Project includes the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 1077, as well as the
accompanying Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 to ensure consistency between the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Project proposes a host of revisions to the Southwest
Area Plan of the current County General Plan to update existing policies, maps, and
implementation directions related to potential future development projects within the Project
area. Below is an outline of the various individual components that are covered under the
umbrella term of Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan (Attachment B):

1. General Plan Amendment No. 1077: An amendment of the existing Southwest Area
Plan (SWAP) and other elements of the General Plan including, but not be limited to:
a. Deletion of the policies of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy
Areas, specifically policies SWAP 1.1 through SWAP 2.1; and the addition of the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area;
b. Revisions to the SWAP Statistical Summary - Table 2;
c. Deletion of the boundaries of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy
Areas and addition of the boundary of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy
Area (SWAP Policy Areas Figure 4);
d. Revisions to the Circulation Network (SWAP Figure 7);
e. Revisions to the Trails and Bikeway Systems map (SWAP Figure 8);
f. Revisions to the General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Network (Figure C-1);
g. Revisions to the General Plan Circulation Element Trails Network (Figure C-7); and
h. Amendment to any other portions of the General Plan as necessary.

2. Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729: An amendment to the Riverside County Zoning
Ordinance No. 348 to add four new zoning classifications that implement the General
Plan: Wine Country - Winery; Wine Country - Winery Existing; Wine Country -
Residential; and Wine Country - Equestrian.

3. Replacement of the existing Citrus Vineyard Policy Area Design Guidelines with the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines and addition of the Greenhouse Gas
Emission Workbook.

Page 3 of 17

It should be noted that while the proposed Project represents an increase in new development
compared to existing conditions in Wine Country, it is considerably less dense than currently
allowed in the Countys General Plan policies and zoning classifications.

PROJECT MILESTONES:

The following is a list of significant events that have contributed to the processing of the Project.
This list is intended to illustrate events that the County staff has either initiated, or participated
in, prior to starting these Public Hearings.

March 2009 - The County Board of Supervisors approved funding to initiate the Project
J une-J uly 2009 - County staff mailed the Wine Country Vision 2020 Survey to all
property owners within the Project boundary
J uly 2009 - County staff introduced a land use concept that reflected Communitys Vision
before a smaller ad-hoc advisory group comprised of six vintners
September 2009 - Supervisor Stones office and County staff participated in a Valle de
los Caballos Town Hall meeting hosted at Galway Downs by equestrian stakeholders
October 2009 - Supervisor Stone and County staff participated in the Annual
Winegrowers Association Meeting, which was expanded for general participation to
discuss the Community Plan proposal
December 2009 - The ad-hoc advisory group was expanded into the ad-hoc Advisory
Committee to accommodate equestrian interest
December 2009 - Planning staff initiated environmental work required for the Project per
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and issued a Notice of Preparation for
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524 (PEIR No. 524)
J anuary-December 2010 - The ad-hoc Advisory Committee held monthly meetings to
discuss various issues associated with the Project proposal
J anuary 2010 - Planning staff held a Scoping Meeting for PEIR No. 524
February 2010 - County staff conducted a tour of the area to finalize a Project boundary
for the proposal
April 2010 - County staff held a Planning Commission Workshop to solicit the
Commissions input
J uly 2010 - The ad-hoc Advisory Committee was expanded further to include residential
EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED PROJECT
CURRENT WINERIES
40-50
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
170
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
105
CURRENT VISITORS +
EMPLOYEES
10,000
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
55,000
BUILD-OUT POTENTIAL
44,000
CURRENT HOMES
1000
BUILD-OUT DWELLING UNITS
3000
BUILD-OUT DWELLING UNITS
2000
Page 4 of 17

stakeholders
September 2010 - County staff conducted an entire day Open House at Wilson Creek
Winery to solicit input from residents, equestrians and winery proponents.
October 2010 - County staff held a Planning Commission Workshop to solicit the
Commissions input
December 2010 - The ad-hoc Advisory Committee met and decided to address specific
issues through focused group meetings
J anuary-September 2011 - County staff conducted a series of focused group meetings
as well as three (3) Advisory Committee meetings to address, and provide report on,
specific issues associated with Project proposal
J anuary 2011 - County staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to assist the County in
preparation of PEIR No. 524
J anuary-May 2011 - County staff reviewed RFP bids and hired RBF Consulting for
preparing PEIR No. 524
March 2011 - County staff held a Planning Commission Workshop to solicit the
Commissions input
April 2011 - County staff presented the Project proposal at the Morgan Hills Home
Owners Association Meeting
April 2011 - County staff held a Community Meeting at Temecula City Hall to discuss
areas around Hwy 79 S.
May 2011 - Supervisor Stone and County staff participated in a special community
meeting, hosted at Mt. Palomar Winery, to discuss the Project proposal
J uly 2011 - County staff held a Planning Commission Workshop to solicit the
Commissions input
August 2011 - County staff participated in a Town-hall forum to address the concerns of
residential property owners
September 2011 - The ad-hoc Advisory Committee held its last meeting
September-October 2011 - County staff reviewed the screen-check PEIR
December 2011 - County staff issued a Notice of Completion/Availability for the Draft
PEIR No. 524 and started the 60-day Public Review and Comment Period
February 2012 - County staff received 32 comment letters for the Draft PEIR No. 524
March-J une 2012 - County staff and EIR consultants prepared responses to comment
letters and the Final Draft PEIR
J uly 2012 - County staff sent out individual mailing notifications for Public Hearings to all
property-owners within the Project boundary, advertized the first hearing in two
prominent newspapers, and e-mailed notification to interested parties

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

In addition to public outreach as required by law, County staff has conducted a significant
amount of additional community outreach in conjunction with the Project as outlined in the
following sections. As a result, County staff has been successful in resolving many of the issues
associated with the Project and in obtaining the necessary input and consensus to make
informed choices about the Project proposal.

Page 5 of 17

Vision 2020 Survey:

At the onset of the Project, County staff conducted a survey of all area-residents to understand
their vision for the Temecula Valley Wine Country region. The Vision 2020 Survey was mailed to
all property owners within the Project boundary and it received a response rate of approximately
13%. Its results supported the Countys desire to comprehensively review the regions policies
and development standards to achieve the aforementioned objectives for the Project.

Website:

Subsequently, County staff developed a Project website to disseminate Project related
information: http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/. Since its inception, this site has been
frequently used by County staff to provide copies of available documents and maps of the
revised proposals, to update interested parties about upcoming meetings/ events, and to inform
stakeholders about associated activities such as roundabouts, a sewer study, design guidelines,
etc. To date, this web-site is being used by approximately 30,000 users annually.

Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Meetings:

Understanding that the Project area is composed of diverse interest groups, Sup. Stone has
organized an Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee to assure that the Project addresses the issues of
concern for residents, equestrians and winery owners in the area. The Committee is composed
of 19 members. For almost three years, the Committee has met regularly, with County staff
providing briefings and updates, and convening sub-committee meetings to address issues of
specific concern. The Committee meetings were open for public participation and were well-
attended with each meeting averaging at 30-50 participants. The Committee members and
participants have debated various issues related to the Project proposal and offered their
recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in
the Advisory Committee Consensus Paper (Attachment C).

Focused-group Meetings and Town-hall Forums:

Periodically, County staff met with focused groups, organizations, and key stakeholders to
discuss specific issues of their concern. A series of town-hall forums and focused group
meetings were held to discuss and address various interest groups concerns with the Project
proposal. To achieve this, County staff facilitated approximately 8-12 focused group meetings or
town-hall forums between 2009 and 2012, with each meeting specifically designed to target a
specific issue or interest group (i.e. trails alignments, sub-regional land use proposals, code
enforcement, etc).

Planning Commission Public Workshops:

In addition, County staff conducted a series of public workshops in front of the Planning
Commission to inform them about progress on the Project, to allow them to hear the
communitys concerns, and to receive their feedback during the Project development phase.
Starting in April 2010, County staff held four such workshops that lasted for more than 2 hours
Page 6 of 17

each. Issues that were discussed during these workshops (and some of them are subsequently
addressed in the Project proposal) involve but are not limited to the following:

1. To address off-highway vehicle operations through the Community Plan process;
2. To avoid or minimize creation of non-conforming uses or animal keeping rights through
Community Plan changes;
3. To define equestrian uses clearly (e.g. race track to avoid car or motorcycle races);
4. To allow small-scale commercial equestrian operations by right;
5. To approve the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines;
6. To provide better enforcement tools that ensure compliance with existing County
ordinances;
7. To develop enforceable requirements for special events noise;
8. To develop a well-integrated trails network for various interest groups;
9. To protect animal keeping rights for property owners;
10. To ensure that existing wineries are able to operate and expand in the future per their
current requirements;
11. To allow timeshares or golf-courses with resort applications in the future; and
12. To address groundwater quality issues.

INFRASTRUCTURE DISCUSSIONS:

Groundwater Quality and Sewer:

In the last decade, it was evident that the growth that is anticipated in the Wine Country region
may have an impact on groundwater quality, as various existing wineries and their ancillary
uses are currently using septic systems to treat wastewater onsite. Some of the treated
wastewater from these septic systems is being discharged into the Temecula aquifer. To further
the objectives of the Project, County staff started collaboration with the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), to:

1. Ensure that groundwater quality is maintained at its desirable level as set forth by the
SDRWQCB, and

2. Secure the necessary sewer infrastructure to keep up with the growth in Wine Country.

As a result of this partnership, RCWD prepared and published the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Groundwater Quality Assessment Report in February of 2012. This report concluded
that groundwater quality in the upper aquifer has exceeded the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Boards Basin Plan Objective (500 mg/TDS). This means that without sewer
infrastructure, the Project and its associated growth cannot be realized. Furthermore, EMWD
prepared and published the Wine Country (Sewer) Infrastructure Study in May of 2011. This
study relied upon the growth assumptions of the Project and utilized EMWDs sewer system
planning and design criteria for calculating wastewater generation rates. The study
recommended sewer infrastructure improvements for the Project build-out scenario through
three phases of growth, which covered the entire Project boundary.
Page 7 of 17

The County and EMWD staffs also conducted multiple meetings with winery proponents to
discuss various funding and financing options to pay for the necessary sewer improvements.
Subsequently, fifteen of the medium to large winery proponents have signed Letters of Intent to
financially participate in the sewer infrastructure improvements. In order to ensure adequate
funding for the construction of sewer infrastructure in Wine Country, on April 24, 2012 (Agenda
Item No. 3.2), the County Board of Supervisors have contributed $2M from the Transient
Occupancy Tax, which is generated in this region. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors
have directed staff to condition projects, that are located within the initial phases of the Sewer
Infrastructure Study, for sewer connection on April 24, 2012 (Agenda Item No. 3.3).

Motorized and Non-motorized Transportation:

The motorized transportation network in the Southwest Area Plan is anchored by Interstate 15
and Interstate 215. Access to the Project area is obtained via State Route 79 (South) or Rancho
California Road from Interstate 15 through the City of Temecula and via De Portola Road and
Sage Road from the City of Hemet.

The non-motorized transportation network in the Southwest Area Plan is implemented through
an existing Trails Network of the General Plan. However, it does not connect existing wineries
and other tourist destinations of the region, such as Lake Skinner and Vail Lake, through an
integrated equestrian and multi-purpose trails system. The Project proposes a trails network that
is more conducive to this regions destination places and users needs.

To further the objectives of the Project, County staff has partnered with the City of Temecula to
ensure regional connectivity of the motorized and non-motorized transportation network inside
and outside of the Project boundary. As a result of multiple coordination meetings, the Project
recommends innovative improvements, which would minimize/ reduce traffic impacts created by
implementing projects allowed pursuant to the Project. To achieve the Project objectives and to
ensure that transportation infrastructure is available in the region to allow implementation of the
Project, the County has begun implementation of the following:

Roundabouts Five roundabouts are proposed along Rancho California Road to
maintain rural character of this region while allowing efficient volume capacity and traffic
calming on this critical road. These roundabouts are designed to allow vehicular,
equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian traffic to all interact more efficiently and safely while
maintaining rural wine country landscape. The first roundabout at Rancho California
Road and Anza Road completed construction in J une 2012. Other four roundabouts are
located at La Serena Way, Calle Contento, Monte De Oro Road and Glenoaks Road;

Number of Lanes Several roadways have been downsized from the Countys
Circulation Element (such as Rancho California Road and De Portola Road) to maintain
the rural character of the Project area; and

Signalization/Signs The construction of traffic signals/signs for pedestrians, bikers, and
equestrians are proposed at strategic locations to promote non-motorized circulation
within the Project area. The recent installation of equestrian crossings at Anza Road and
Page 8 of 17

Los Nogales Road as well as Rancho California Road east of Anza Road are a few
examples of the Countys commitment to ensuring that transportation infrastructure is
available in the region to allow implementation of the Project.

OUTSTANDING PROJECT PROPOSAL ISSUES:

During, and subsequent to, the aforementioned outreach efforts, County staff has discussed
different land use scenarios for the Project areas various sub-regions and a series of land use
policy issues with the stakeholders. Although County staff has been successful in resolving
many of the issues associated with the Project proposal, staff wants to highlight the following
outstanding issues that the Planning Commission may hear during the Public Hearing process.
This list is not intended to be an all inclusive-list of the outstanding issues, rather they are the
issues that County staff is made aware of.

The development scenario described in todays staff proposal, and analyzed in the associated
Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR No. 524), is a foreseeable worst-case scenario
or most intense development potential scenario within the 18,990-acre Project area. This
scenario may be changed as a result of the Public Hearing process. If these changes result in
increasing the Project footprint and/or land use policy changes that would result in more intense
development than the current proposal, it may require the County to re-circulate the draft PEIR
No. 524.

Project Areas Sub-region:

During the previously described outreach efforts, and through the draft PEIR comment letters,
the Project stakeholders have expressed their desire to:

1. Be added or removed from the Project boundary; or

2. Be considered for a different district of the Policy Area, than the current Project proposal.

County staff has catalogued those suggested boundary changes for consideration and
deliberation by the Planning Commission (Attachment D).


Also during the outreach efforts, and through the draft PEIR comment letters, the Project
stakeholders have raised policy issues, which County staff wants to bring to the Commissions
attention:

1. To allow small-scale Production Winery by right on less than 10 acres This policy
suggestion would allow property-owners of smaller parcels to crush grapes and produce
wine without going through a Plot Plan process.

2. To allow a tasting room with the production winery This policy suggestion would allow
a tasting room with the aforementioned production winery on less than 10 acres.
Page 9 of 17

3. To allow for cooperative tasting rooms This policy suggestion would allow for
cooperative tasting rooms within the Project area.

4. To ensure winery operation prior to allowing operation of the incidental commercial uses
This policy suggestion would require that a winery is operational as the primary use
prior to allowing any operations of the incidental commercial uses such as tasting rooms,
retail wine sales, special occasion facilities, etc.

5. To ensure that wineries utilize 75% locally grown grapes This policy suggestion would
add language in the proposed zones that would ensure better enforcement of the 75%
locally grown grapes provision.

6. To allow limited wine-club events with a winery on 10 acres or more This policy
suggestion would allow a limited number of wine-club member events with a winery
(approved through a plot plan) on 10 acres or more.

7. To allow more than 5 guests/ acre for the Special Occasion Facility This suggestion
would eliminate a development standard for the special occasion facilities that would
allow a maximum of 5 guests per acre.

8. To provide enforceable provisions for noise This policy suggestion would provide
additional development standards for special occasion facilities and wineries to regulate,
and subsequently enforce those noise related regulations. This policy suggestion would
also require an amendment to County Ordinance No. 847, Noise Ordinance.

County staff has carefully considered the aforementioned policy suggestions and will be able to
provide their recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS:

The County of Riverside is the Lead Agency for the Project. Section 21001.1 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines finds that projects, to be carried out by public
agencies, must be subject to the same level of review and consideration as that of private
projects required to be approved by public entities. Therefore, the County of Riverside prepared
an Initial Study (IS) in the fall of 2009 for the Project, which determined that the Project has the
potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The County subsequently prepared a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR No.524)
and the 30-day review period began on December 28, 2009 in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15082. The NOP review period closed on J anuary 26, 2010.

Due to the nature of proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, it
was determined that the Project met the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206,
Projects of Statewide, Regional or Area-wide Significance. To comply with this section, County
staff conducted a public scoping meeting on J anuary 19, 2010 at the Riverside County Planning
Department (12th Floor Conference Room). The purpose of the meeting was to inform involved
agencies and the public of the nature and extent of the Project, and provide an opportunity to
Page 10 of 17

identify issues to be addressed in the EIR document. Issues raised during this meeting included
the following:

Water infrastructure issues including water supply and water use, region-wide water
issues, groundwater recharge zones, groundwater quality (salinity), and interagency
issues;
Sewer infrastructure issues including treatment plant capacity needs, impacts on existing
and currently planned facilities, estimates for total flows, and effects on outflows and
recharge;
Potential impacts to agricultural activities/ operations (i.e. farmers harvesting or spraying
sulfur at night, related noise and air quality impacts, etc.);
Relationship between land use planning and water usage;
Development constraint issues associated with installation costs for new vineyards,
development impact fees, and infrastructure funding;
Existing or planned land use issues for specific areas as well as land use issues
associated with policy area and zoning designations; and,
Accessibility issues associated with trails (public and equestrian access), security con-
cerns of farmers (i.e. theft) and other potential land use conflicts to be considered.

These issues were considered in the Initial Study and no new or previously unconsidered
impacts were raised at the Scoping Meeting that affected the Projects environmental analysis.

Draft Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524:

Staff wants to highlight that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project (PEIR No.
524) is a Program EIR, evaluating the broad-scale environmental impacts of the Project.
Program EIRs are typically prepared for an agency plan, program or series of actions that can
be characterized as one large project, such as the Project. A Community Plan Program EIR,
addressing the impacts of area-wide and local policy decision, can be thought of as a first tier
document (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15152). It evaluates the large-scale impacts on the
environment that can be expected to result from the revision of the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and Design Guidelines pursuant to the Project, but does not necessarily address the
site-specific impacts of each individual implementing project that will follow through
implementation phase of the Project. CEQA requires that each of those implementing projects
be evaluated for their particular site-specific impacts through second-tier documents, such as
subsequent EIRs, supplemental EIRs, focused EIRs, or Negative Declarations for individual
implementing projects subject to the Project. They typically evaluate the impacts of a single
activity undertaken to implement the overall Project.

Based upon the comments submitted during the NOP process and the public scoping meeting,
the Draft PEIR No. 524 analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the following
resource areas:

Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Section 4.1)
Agricultural and Forestry Resources (Section 4.2)
Air Quality (Section 4.3)
Biological Resources (Section 4.4)
Page 11 of 17

Cultural Resources (Section 4.5)
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Section 4.6)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 4.7)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 4.8)
Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.9)
Land Use and Relevant Planning (Section 4.10)
Mineral Resources (Section 4.11)
Noise (Section 4.12)
Public Services, Recreation and Utilities (Section 4.13)
Traffic and Transportation (Section 4.14)

Staff wants to advise the Commission that impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions were
addressed under the air quality section of the NOP/IS. However, since the publication of the
NOP/IS, a revised CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study Checklist was issued by the State
Clearinghouse, which included new checklist questions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
These additional questions were incorporated into the Draft PEIR No. 524 in Section 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

While the specific mitigation measures identified in the Draft PEIR will reduce the level of many
significant impacts to a less than significant level, it identified the following areas where, after
implementation of all feasible mitigation, the Project may nonetheless result in impacts which
cannot be fully mitigated to less than significant. Various benefits would accrue from
implementation of the Project, which must be weighed against the potential adverse effects of
Project implementation in deciding whether to approve the Project. It should be noted that the
proposed Project, while representing a substantial increase in new development compared to
existing conditions, the Project is considerably less dense than currently allowed in the Countys
General Plan Policies and zoning classifications.

Significant Project Impacts:

1. Agricultural and Forestry Resources

While the Project policies and zoning classifications would increase the acreage of designated
Agricultural land uses and may in turn increase the acreage of agricultural uses, it is possible
that implementing project sites could be located on Prime Farmland (or another designation
indicating agricultural suitability) and would allow development of up to 25 percent of the total
Project area based on proposed Policy SWAP 1.2.

Additionally, active agricultural land would be allowed to convert 25 percent of its land to non-
agricultural uses under the Project. Therefore, the Project could convert agriculturally suitable
farmland, such as Prime Farmland, and active agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. This
potential conversion would generate a significant, unavoidable impact on agricultural resources.

2. Air Quality

Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified for Project-level air quality impacts related
to construction and operations activities pursuant to the Project and its implementing projects
Page 12 of 17

(i.e., stationary and mobile source emissions) as well as air quality impacts on sensitive
receptors.

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Compliance with the proposed SWAP policies will ensure consistency with the numeric GHG-
reduction goals of AB 32 and be consistent with promulgated plans, polices, and regulations
governing the reduction of GHG emissions. Because the Project would meaningfully reduce
Project GHG emissions and is consistent with the state and local goals, the Project is supportive
of the States goals regarding global climate change. However, Project impacts to global climate
change at the Project-level are still potentially significant and unavoidable, due to the overall
increase in emissions as compared to existing conditions.

Implementation and compliance with the Project and its mitigation measures will ensure that
impacts from GHG emissions are minimized at Project level. However, construction and
operation of implementing projects would create an increase in GHG emissions that are above
South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD) draft mass emission thresholds and
CARBs per capita threshold.

4. Noise

Given that it is not possible to predict the specific nature, frequency or location of all of the
wineries or all of the special events, some stationary source activity may still represent
unacceptable noise exposure within Wine Country, particularly for existing sensitive receptors.
This unavoidable impact will be reduced through compliance with the General Plan policies,
development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-6
of the Draft PEIR, and will be implemented by the County on a project-by-project basis.

In addition, due to the amount of traffic trips that would be generated in association with the
proposed permitted land uses, mobile source noise impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.

5. Public Services and Utilities Fire Protection Services

Implementation of the Project would have a Project-level impact on the Fire Departments ability
to provide an acceptable level of service. Impacts include an increased number of emergency
and public service calls and a decreased level of service due to the increased presence of
structures, traffic, and population (including transient tourists).

The availability of sufficient funding to equip and staff new facilities may not be available over
the long term and the ability of the Department to negotiate for adequate funding for either
construction or long-term staffing with individual implementing projects is uncertain.
Accordingly, even with the implementation of the proposed mitigation, the Project could result in
an indirect, but considerable contribution to a potentially significant impact.

Public Services and Utilities Libraries

Page 13 of 17

Based on the current Riverside County standard, there are insufficient library facilities available
to provide the targeted level of service to the Project area and the balance of the service area of
the two existing libraries in Temecula. Therefore, implementing projects within the Project area
would make an indirect, but considerable contribution to that existing deficiency, resulting in a
potentially significant impact on library facilities and services.

6. Traffic

The Project would generally improve operations compared to the adopted General Plan;
however, long-term operational traffic resulting from operation of the Project would still
contribute to a potentially significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of levels of
service in the Project area.

The Project would contribute a fair share contribution toward a future financing plan, as well as
a fair share contribution to existing fee programs, which would allow certain segments and
intersections to operate at acceptable levels of service. However, since some segments and/or
intersections are controlled by the City of Temecula, the Pechanga Band of Luiseo Indians
and/or Caltrans, the County cannot guarantee implementation of the identified improvements.
In addition, remaining funding outside the Project boundary has not been guaranteed and there
is limited right-of-way to facilitate freeway and ramp expansion. Therefore, the levels of service
impacts are considered potentially significant and unavoidable.

7. Growth-inducing Impact

The Project will allow for various onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements that could
remove impediments to growth and/or provide for additional capacity. The Project could also
result in direct job growth through increased employment opportunities as a result of the
proposed update of the existing Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) and other elements of the
General Plan. Due to its size, its incremental implementation, its impact on infrastructure, and
the potential direct and indirect economic growth associated with it, the Project would be viewed
as growth-inducing pursuant to CEQA.

8. Cumulative Impacts Air Quality

Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified for cumulative air quality impacts related to
construction and operations activities pursuant the Project, in combination with existing
conditions and development outside the Project boundary (i.e., stationary and mobile source
emissions) as well as air quality impacts on existing and future sensitive receptors.

Cumulative Impacts Greenhouse Gases

Implementation and compliance with the Project policies and its mitigation measures will ensure
that cumulative impacts from GHG emissions are minimized. However, Project impacts to global
climate change, at the cumulative level, are still potentially significant and unavoidable, due to
the overall increase in emissions as compared to existing conditions. In addition, construction
and operation of implementing projects would create an increase in GHG emissions that are
above SCAQMDs draft mass emission thresholds and CARBs per capita threshold.
Page 14 of 17

Cumulative Impacts Noise

Build-out of the Project, in combination with existing conditions and development outside the
Project boundary, would result in potential cumulative noise level increases along major
roadways. Project implementation would result in significant cumulative noise impacts that could
not be mitigated with the implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures.
Thus, the Project would substantially contribute to cumulative mobile source noise impacts. It
may also be possible for multiple stationary sources such as special events or wineries to
operate concurrently and in close proximity, which could further add to cumulative noise
impacts. Therefore, the Project may result in significant stationary source impacts, even with
implementation of mitigation measures and applicable policies and ordinances.

Cumulative Impacts Public Services and Utilities

The Project, in combination with existing conditions and development outside the Project
boundary, may result in unavoidable significant cumulative impacts in the areas of fire protection
services and library services.

Cumulative Impacts Traffic

The Project, in combination with existing conditions and development outside the Project
boundary, may result in a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and level of service
degradation to unacceptable levels. The Project may result in significant traffic-related impacts,
even with implementation of mitigation measures and applicable policies and ordinances.

Project Alternatives:

Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that the Project alternatives be designed to
achieve the objectives and to minimize/reduce/alleviate identified environmental impacts. In
addition, some alternatives were discussed and specifically requested for consideration during
the Project development and PEIR preparation. This is a summary of the Project alternatives
described in Section 6.0, Alternatives, which contains a detailed discussion of the following
alternatives.

The Project alternatives considered in the Draft PEIR No. 524 are:

No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning Classifications Alternative; and

Reduced Density (25% Reduction) Alternative.
Alternatives rejected from further consideration in the Draft PEIR are:
Pending General Plan Amendments Approval Alternative;

Alternative Location Alternative;
Page 15 of 17

One Policy Area / One Zone Alternative; and

No Build Scenario/Existing Condition Alternative
The following table summarizes Comparison of Impacts Resulting from Project Alternatives as
Compared to the Project.

Environmental Issue
No Build
Scenario/
Existing
Condition
Alternative
No Project/
Existing
General Plan
Policies and
Zoning
Classifications
Alternative
Reduced
Density (25%)
Alternative
Aesthetics
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Less Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Air Quality
Less Greater Less
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same
Cultural Resources
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Geology/Soils
Less Slightly Greater Same
Less Slightly Greater Less
Hazardous Materials
Less Greater Same
Hydrology
Less Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Land Use
Greater Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Mineral Resources
Same
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Noise
Less Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Public Services, Recreation &
Utilities
Less Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Transportation/Circulation
Less Greater
Same/Slightly
Less

Draft PEIR No. 524 Comments and Reponses:

Upon completion of the Draft PEIR, the County of Riverside, as the lead agency, issued a
Page 16 of 17

Notice of Availability for the Draft PEIR No. 524 for the Project. The Draft PEIR was made
available for public review and comments for 60-days between December 5, 2011 and February
2, 2012. The County of Riverside received 32 comment letters during this period, followed by
one comment letter since then. The full draft of the Project, Draft PEIR No. 524, and all 33
comment letters were made available on the Project website: www.socalwinecountryplan.org.

As mentioned above, the County has sought to achieve the highest level of public participation
for the Project. Therefore, the Countys responses to the comment letters were mailed to the
comment-makers and posted on the aforementioned website approximately six (6) weeks in
advance of the first scheduled public hearing on the Project. County staff and EIR consultants
submit the Draft PEIR No. 524, 33 Comment Letters and the Countys responses to those
letters to the Commission for their review and consideration as Attachment E.

Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524:

Currently, County staff and EIR consultants are in the process of completing the Final Draft
PEIR No. 524 per Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states the following:

1. The Draft EIR or a version of the draft.
2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in
summary.
3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
4. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
5. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

RECOMMENDATION:

DISCUSS AND CONTINUE to August 8 or 22, 2012

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:

1. For information re: this Project, please visit: http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/

2. For information re: composition of, or representation on, the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee,
please visit:
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/AboutUs/AdHocAdvisoryCommittee/tabid/77/Default.as
px

3. For information re: any of the aforementioned outreach meetings, their agendas and
pertinent documents, staff presentations, newspaper articles, etc. please visit:
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/Outreach/tabid/86/Default.aspx

4. For information re: PEIR No. 524/any other CEQA process documents, please visit:
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/Planning/CEQA/tabid/70/Default.aspx
Page 17 of 17

5. For a letter dated J une 14, 2012 from the City of Temecula, please refer to Attachment F.

6. For additional information re: infrastructure matters, EIR process, or any other Project
specific questions, please contact:

P.O. Box 1409,
4080 Lemon Street, 12
th
Floor
Phone: (951) 955-8514

Planning Commission Hearing August 22, 2012
Agenda Item No.3.1
August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012


Southwest Area Plan


524 (PEIR No. 524)
August 22, 2012


protected



August 22, 2012

Presentation Outline:

Requirements to Regulate Noise;

Implementation of the Proposed Trails Network;

Application of Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729;
and

Allowance of Churches.

August 22, 2012

Experience with existing conditions:

Database to track all existing wineries and
associated activities

46 wineries or commercial uses were operating
without the appropriate County approvals

Code Enforcement notices and violations

Created weekend enforcement and dedicated
phone-line

Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012

Implementation of the Project:

General Plan Amendment No. 1077;

Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729; and

Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524

August 22, 2012

Implementation of General Plan Amendment
No. 1077:

Requires larger lot sizes for residential subdivisions (SWAP
1.5),

Promotes clustered development (SWAP 1.15), and

Reinforces wineries and equestrian establishments as the
primary use for all incidental commercial activities and
requires larger lot sizes for higher intensity incidental uses
(SWAP 1.4, 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13 ).

August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012

Implementation of Zoning Ordinance 348 (Amendment
No. 348.4729):

Establishes four Wine Country Zones to permit uses per their
parcel sizes, implement the General Plan and protect and
promote three distinct lifestyles:
Existing Wineries and Wine Industry;
Equestrian Uses; and
Residential Subdivisions.

Provides specific development standards, such as site layout
and design, setbacks and limiting rooms per acre, that are
anticipated to reduce the regions noise related conflicts.

August 22, 2012

Incidental commercial uses to a Winery in the
Wine CountryWinery Zone:

Section 14.92.b.5. allows special occasion facilities, bed and
breakfast inn, country inn, hotel and restaurant through a plot
plan on 20 acres minimum.

Section 14.92.c.2. allows resorts (with amphitheaters and golf
courses) through a conditional use permit on 40 minimum
acres.

August 22, 2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
W
i
n
e
r
y

(
S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

R
o
o
m
)

(
R
e
t
a
i
l

w
i
n
e

s
a
l
e
/
g
i
f
t

s
a
l
e
)

(
D
e
l
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
e
n
)

(
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
)

(
S
p
e
c
i
a
l

O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)

(
B
e
d

&

B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t
)

(
C
o
u
n
t
r
y

I
n
n
)

(
H
o
t
e
l
)

(
H
o
t
e
l
+
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

c
u
l
i
n
a
r
y

a
c
a
d
e
m
y

o
r

d
a
y

s
p
a
s
)

(
R
e
s
o
r
t
)

PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP CUP
Winery
Winery +
(Incidental
Commercial Use)
Wine Country-Winery District: Permitted Uses and Minimum Acreages
August 22, 2012

Incidental commercial uses with a Commercial Equestrian
Establishment in Wine CountryEquestrian Zone:

Section 14.94.b.5 allows commercial equestrian establishments
through a plot plan on 10 acres minimum.

Section 14.94.b.6 allows petting zoos, polo-grounds, and horse
show facilities through a plot plan on 10 acres minimum.

Section 14.94.b.7 allows western style stores and restaurants
through a plot plan on 20 acres minimum.

August 22, 2012

Incidental commercial uses with a Commercial Equestrian
Establishment in Wine CountryEquestrian Zone:

Section 14.94.c.2 allows horse racing tracks or rodeo arenas and
large scale hospitals through a conditional use permit on 50 acres
minimum.

Section 14.94.c.3 allows special occasion facilities through a
conditional use permit on 100 acres minimum.

August 22, 2012
Winery
Winery +
(Incidental
Commercial Use)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
W
i
n
e
r
y

(
W
i
n
e

S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

R
o
o
m
)

(
R
e
t
a
i
l

w
i
n
e

s
a
l
e
/
g
i
f
t

s
a
l
e
)

(
D
e
l
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
e
n
)

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

E
q
u
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

(
P
o
l
o

g
r
o
u
n
d
,

h
o
r
s
e

s
h
o
w

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
)

(
P
e
t
t
i
n
g

Z
o
o
)

(
W
e
s
t
e
r
n

S
t
o
r
e
)

(
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
)

(
H
o
r
s
e

r
a
c
i
n
g

t
r
a
c
k
,

r
o
d
e
o

a
r
e
n
a
)

(
L
a
r
g
e

A
n
i
m
a
l

H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
)

(
S
p
e
c
i
a
l

O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)

PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP PP CUP CUP CUP
Commercial
Equestrian
Establishment
Commercial
Equestrian
Establishment +
(Incidental
Commercial
Use)
Wine Country-Equestrian District: Permitted Uses and Minimum Acreages
August 22, 2012

Development Standards for Permitted Uses:

Section 14.96.a.1 requires site layout and design to minimize
noise impact and compliance with Ordinance No. 847.

Section 14.96.e.4 provides setback requirements for special
occasion facilities.

Section 14.96.e.7 ensures loading, trash, and service areas for
special occasion facilities are screened and are located and
designed in such a manner as to minimize noise impacts to
adjacent properties.

August 22, 2012

Development Standards for Permitted Uses:

Section 14.96.e.7 requires that all special occasion facilities conduct a
noise study or an acoustical analysis if an outdoor facility is proposed.
Based on such study or analysis, the Planning Director may deny or
require as a condition of approval that the project applicant enter into a
good neighbor agreement with the surrounding neighbors.

Section 14.97.f.5 limits two hotel rooms per gross acre for lodging
facilities.

Section 14.97.f.10 ensures that loading, trash, and service areas for
lodging facilities are screened by structures or landscaping and is
located and designed in such a manner as to minimize noise and odor
impacts to adjacent properties.

August 22, 2012

Implementation of Noise Mitigation Measures of Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524:

Provides Exhibit 4.12-2, which identifies Existing and
Anticipated Winery Sites with Special Occasion Facilities
potential.

It is speculative to predict the nature, frequency, scale, and
site-specific design feature of these future special occasion
facilities.

Provides Mitigation Measures to reduce noise impacts from
implementing projects, specifically noise from construction
activities, winery operations and special occasion facilities.

August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012

Noise Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1: Noise reduction measures during grading
and building activities including hours of operation,
nature and operation of construction equipment
construction activities and stationary sources

NOI-2: Requirement to respond to and track
complaints pertaining to construction noise

August 22, 2012


NOI-3: Review of a new winery or expansion of an existing
winery by the Riverside County Office of Industrial Hygiene:

The hours of operation for tasting rooms and shipping
associated with wineries shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country-
Winery District and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Sunday in the Wine Country-Equestrian and
Residential Districts.

Nature and operation of mechanical equipments (de-
stemming, crushing, and refrigeration), shipping facilities,
parking and access roads are outlined and possible design
features are suggested to address noise concerns.

August 22, 2012


NOI-4: Requirement of Noise Study or Acoustical
Analysis for all special occasion facility prior to
approval.

Review and comments by the Office of Industrial Hygiene

Develop conditions to address noise impacts

Receive permits for noise mitigations prior to the issuance
of any building permit

Construct/implement noise mitigation measures prior to
issuance of occupancy permit

August 22, 2012


NOI-6: Ensure proper enforcement of the County
requirements and project conditions:

After issuance of two Code Violation Notices for excessive
noise, perform noise measurements during the special
events by the Office of Industrial Hygiene.

Reconsider allowed hours of operation, number of guests,
amount of special events per year, or approval of the
specific facility if violations are found.

Require to pay fees assessed per the Department's hourly
rates

August 22, 2012


NOI-5: Requirements for a special occasion facility
operation by the Riverside County Office of
Industrial Hygiene

Provides guidance on vender notifications, clean-up
activities, operation of outdoor speakers and audio
equipments etc.

NOI-7: Address from elevated groundborne noise
and vibration levels

August 22, 2012

Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

Application of Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729

When is a zone change application required?

If the future proposed use for the property within the Wine
Country Policy Area is a use that is permitted by right under
both Ordinance 348.4729 and the zoning classification for the
property that was in place immediately before the adoption of
Ordinance No. 348.4729, then a change of zone application
would not be required.

However, if the proposed future use is permitted by right under
Ordinance No. 348.4729 but it was not permitted by right under
the zoning classification in place immediately before the
adoption of Ordinance No. 348.4729, then a change of zone
application would be required.

August 22, 2012

Allowance of Churches

Existing Conditions:

Churches, temples and other places of religious worship are
not permitted uses in the C/V zoning classification; however,
they are permitted in 27 of the Countys 38 zoning
classifications

The Projects boundaries apply to approximately 18,990 acres,
while the unincorporated area of Riverside County covers
approximately 4,121,114 acres. As a result, the Project applies
to less than 1% of the land within Riverside County, leaving
ample opportunity to locate churches, temples and other
places of worship elsewhere.

August 22, 2012


The Project:

On December 28, 2009, the County issued a Notice of
Preparation for the Wine Country Community Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report No. 524 (PEIR No. 524).

January 19, 2010, the County held a Scoping Meeting to
discuss the scope and content of the environmental
information for the PEIR No. 524.

In March of 2011, Calvary Church submitted a Plot Plan
application to expand its existing church that is operating as a
legal non-conforming use Public Use Permit No. 798 (PUP No.
798). PUP No. 798 was approved in 1999.

August 22, 2012


The Project:

In September of 2011, the Planning Department developed a
screen-check version of the PEIR No. 524, which established
the cut-off date for the proposed projects to be included in the
cumulative analysis. Since Calvary Church expansion
application was filed prior to this date, it was included in the
PEIRs cumulative analysis for the Project.

On December 05, 2011, the County issued a Notice of
Availability of the Draft PEIR No. 524 for 60-days public review
and comment period.

August 22, 2012


Issues of Consideration:

Alcohol Licensing Requirements for License #2 per California
Business and Professional Code Section 23358(d):

The department (ABC) may, if it shall determine for good
cause that the granting of any such privilege would be
contrary to public welfare or morals, deny the right to
exercise any on-sale privilege authorized by this section in
either a bona fide eating place the main entrance to which
is within 200 feet of a school or church, or on the licensed
winery premises, or both.

August 22, 2012



Alcohol Licensing Requirements for License #47 per California
Business and Professional Code Section 23789:

a) The department (ABC) is specifically authorized to refuse the
issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within the immediate vicinity of
churches and hospitals,

b) The department (ABC) is specifically authorized to refuse the
issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within at least 600 feet of schools and
public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not
limited to, facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire
Girls. This distance shall be measured pursuant to rules of the
department.

August 22, 2012



Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Requirements
for pesticide application in San Jacinto District:

No foliar applications of pesticides are allowed within
mile of a school in session; and

No aircraft applications of pesticides are allowed within
mile of a school in session.

August 22, 2012


Options for Consideration:

Option 1- Allow Churches in the Project

In the appropriate section of the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance incorporate language to allow churches,
temples and places of religious worship as permitted uses:
Treat them similar to Special Occasion Facilities
Allow them in Winery and Equestrian Districts
Add a Definition in Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Add them in Permitted Uses
Provide Development Standards for them

Additional analysis will be necessary, which may cause
recirculation of the Draft PEIR

August 22, 2012



Option 2-Remain with the existing Project Proposal

Continue to process current Project

Calvary Church continues to process the land use
applications it submitted to the Planning Department

August 22, 2012



Option 3- Exclusion of Calvary Church parcels from the Project
Boundary

GPA No. 1077: Figure 4 and 4a will be revised to remove
the Calvary Church parcels

Upon adoption of GPA No. 1077, Calvary Church parcels
will maintain existing land use designation and zoning
classification.

Thus, amendment to C/V Zone to allow places or
religious worship would be necessary.

May tier off the environmental analyses contained in
PEIR No. 524

August 22, 2012


Public Testimony/Letters for Consideration :

Approximately 2500 Petitions to allow churches and schools in
Wine Country Policy Area

Approximately 1600 Petitions to protect viticulture potential of
the area by prohibiting incompatible uses

Approximately 15 phone calls in support of churches

New letters and e-mails are provided

Thank you
August 22, 2012



Zoning Ordinance Section 18.29 may permit
Educational Institutes in any zone classification
provided that a public use permit is granted
pursuant to the provisions of this section:

Schools, colleges, or universities, supported wholly or in
part by public funds, and other schools, colleges and
universities giving general instructions, as determined by
the California State Board of Education.

August 22, 2012


Under Section 14.91 (Definitions) make the following changes:

COMMERCIAL WINERY. An agricultural facility designed and
used to crush, ferment, and process grapes into wine. Such facility
may operate appurtenant and incidental commercial uses such as
wine sampling rooms, retail wine sales, gift sale, delicatessens,
restaurants, lodging facilities and special occasion facilities.
PRODUCTION WINERY: An agricultural facility solely designed
and used to crush, ferment and process grapes into wine. The
facility may also bottle and distribute such wine. The facility does
not operate any appurtenant or incidental uses.
WINERY. An agricultural facility designed and used to crush,
ferment, and process grapes into wine.

August 22, 2012


Plot Plan add the following:
Production Winery only in conjunction with an established on-site vineyard
and a minimum parcel size of five (5) gross acres.

Under Section 14.95 (Development Standards) add Production
Winery Development Standards Section as the following:
Production Winery Standards. In addition to the General Standards, the
following standards shall apply to all production wineries in the WC zones:
(2) The production winery shall be less than 1,500 square feet in size.
(3) A total of seventyfive percent (75%) of the net project area shall
be planted in vineyards prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final
inspection, whichever occurs first.

August 22, 2012

To ensure winery operations prior to
incidental commercial uses

Standards add the following:
Prior to issuance of the building permit for any incidental
constructed.
Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for any incidental
operational.

August 22, 2012

To allow limited wine-club events with a
winery on 10 acres or more

Plot Plan add the following underlined language:

Commercial Winery, only in conjunction with an established on-
site vineyard and a minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres.
Four (4) wine-club events per year, not to exceed 100 members,
may be considered with a commercial winery.

August 22, 2012

To allow 3 year exemption for use of 75%
local grapes

Standards delete the following:
An exemption from this requirement may be requested for the first
three years from the building permits effective date. After the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy, such exemption may only
be extended twice for a one year duration, for a total exemption
period not to exceed five years.

August 22, 2012

To remove 5 guests/acre requirement for
Special Occasion Facilities

Under Section 14.95 Special Occasion Facilities
Development Standards delete the following:

A maximum of five (5) guests per gross acre shall be permitted for
a special occasion facility.

August 22, 2012

Land Use Policy Issues Not in support:

To ensure on-site wine production
To require larger production capacity from
larger wineries
To allow tasting room with Production Winery
To allow cooperative tasting rooms
To enforce that wineries use 75% local grapes
To use 300 buffer for all incidental commercial
uses on major roads

August 22, 2012

Project Areas Sub-regions:

Be added or removed from the Project Boundary

Be considered for a different district of the Policy
Area

August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group A

Community Plan

Residential

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A, R-5, R-R

Opportunities/Constraints: 25% slope

Staff Recommendation: Due to steep topography and
MSCHP potential, staff recommends removal of this
group from the Community Plan boundary.

Mr. & Mrs. Norris: Property owners support staff
recommendation to exclude parcels from the Wine
Country Community Plan.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chaudhuri)

Community Plan

Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Medium
Density Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing urban/ suburban

Staff Recommendation: Due to the existing and
surrounding uses, Staff recommends excluding this
group from the Wine Country Community Plan.

Mr. Baida and Mr. Kazanjian: Property owners
support staff recommendation to exclude parcels from
the Wine Country Community Plan.

Mr. Chaudhuri
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chavez)
Property Owner: Dave Chavez

Requests: To add parcels in the Winery District

Commercial Tourism with the Valle de los Caballos
Policy Area


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing urban/suburban

Staff Recommendation: For Mr. Chavezs property,
staff recommends Equestrian District which would
allow a Winery on 10 acres (total acres for his parcels
are 25.44 acres).
Mr. Chavez
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group C
Property Owner: John Cooper, representing various
owners

Requests: To add parcels to Equestrian District

Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing Zoning
Classification allows for non-commercial horse
keeping.

Staff Recommendation: The existing equestrian use
may continue operation if it was established legally.
The project will not change their zoning classification;
therefore, recommend keeping parcels within the
Winery District.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group D
Property Owner: Steve and Laura Turnbow, and
Maxine Heiller, representing various land owners

Community Plan

Agriculture and Rural Community:Estate Density
Residential with Citrus Vineyard Policy Area

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A, R-R, A-1

Opportunities/Constraints: Current Zoning
Classifications allow for a variety of uses such as golf
courses, country clubs, bars and lounges, billiard
hall, race tracks, guest ranches and motels,
educational institutions, etc.

Staff Recommendation: Wine Country-Residential
District will prevent this area from incompatible
commercial uses allowed under the R-R and R-A
zones; therefore, Staff recommends keeping this area
within the Wine Country Community Plan.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group E
Property Owner: Various owners

Requests: Various including exclusion from the
Community Plan, or inclusion in Equestrian District,
Residential District or Winery District

Agriculture, Rural Mountainous and Rural
Residential

Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A, R-1, R-R, A-1

Opportunities/Constraints: The Morgan Hill
Community is directly west of this area. Some of
these parcels are associated with General Plan
Amendments to increase density yields.

Staff Recommendation: Landowners in this area are
fairly divided on the future of this sub-region. This
area serves as the southern entrance to Wine
Country. Staff recommends a combination of three
districts to reflect landowners preference in light of
the Community Plan objectives.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group F
Property Owner: Peter Solomon

Requests: To add parcels within the Winery District

Rural Residential with the Valle de Los Caballos Policy
Area


Opportunities/Constraints: Surrounding land uses
include horse ranches, estate lot residential and small
scale wineries.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining
this group in the proposed Wine Country-Equestrian
District due to its location within the existing Valle de
los Caballos Policy Area; large-scale winery
development is not supported by surrounding property
owners; and road-network and sewer infrastructure
that will be necessary for a large-scale winery
development is not foreseeable in a near future.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group G
Property Owner: Barry Yoder

Requests: Expansion of the proposed Wine Country
Policy Area and inclusion in the Winery District

Rural CommunityEstate Density Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing use for the parcel
is single family residential

or Winery District thereof.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group H
Property Owner: Jose Renato Cartagena,
representing various owners

Requests: Expansion of the Wine Country Policy Area
and inclusion in the proposed Winery District

Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: In MSHCP Criteria Cell

or Winery District.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group I
Property Owner: Danny and Kathryn Atwood

Requests: To include this parcel in the Winery District



Opportunities/Constraints: Within the existing Citrus
Vineyard Policy Area

Staff Recommendation: The property is within the
existing Citrus Vineyard Policy Area and C/V zone;
therefore, staff recommends inclusion in the proposed
Winery District for this parcel and the adjacent parcel
which has similar situation.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group J
Property Owner: Russell Mann and various owners

Requests: To include these parcels in the Equestrian
District

Residential and Rural CommunityEstate Density
Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Existing zones allows for the
horse keeping; however, some of the desired uses are
not currently allowed in the General Plan land use
designations or zoning classifications. There are
existing Wineries surrounding this area.

Staff Recommendation: A series of wineries are located
in a close proximity to this group, which may create land
uses conflicts in the future if additional equestrian uses
are allowed in this group. Therefore, this request does
not meet an objective of the Community Plan and staff
recommends denying this request for inclusion in the
proposed Equestrian District.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group K
Property Owner: Rueben Calixto Jr.

Requests: To exclude parcel from the Wine Country
Community Plan



Opportunities/Constraints: Parcel is currently vacant
and is surrounded by single family residential, vacant,
agriculture, wineries and a private school.

Staff Recommendation: This parcel is ideally situated
for a Tourist Information Center or Park and Ride
Facility at the entrance of the Temecula Valley Wine
Country. The proposed Policy Area or zones do not
allow for such uses. Therefore, staff recommends
exclusion of the parcel from the proposed Policy Area
and Winery District thereof.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group L
Property Owner: Steve Lassley, representing various
owners

Community Plan



Opportunities/Constraints: Existing uses include
vacant, agricultural residential, single family
residential. The surrounding uses include single
family residential, agriculture, and wineries.

Staff Recommendation: Currently, this group has
Estate Density Residential land use designation,
which would allow these land-owners to subdivide
their properties into 2.5 acre parcels per their desire.
Due to their location at the edge of the proposed
Policy Area, staff recommends supporting exclusion
from the proposed Wine Country Policy Area and
Winery District thereof.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group M
Property Owner: Saba and Shirley Saba

Requests: Inclusion in the Winery Country - Winery
Existing Zoning Classification

Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area


Opportunities/Constraints: The proposed Winery
District will allow Mr. Saba to have a Winery on 10
acres (which he owns); however, it would require 20
acres in order to have a restaurant.

Staff Recommendation: This group does not have an
existing or legally approved winery, and therefore, it
does not qualify to benefit from the Winery Existing
zone. As a result, staff recommends denying this
request to be included in the Wine CountryWinery
Existing zone.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group N
Property Owner: Stephen Corona

Community Plan



Opportunities/Constraints: The existing use on Mr.
Coronas parcels is agriculture. The existing uses of
surrounding parcels include vacant lands, single
family residential and wineries.

Staff Recommendation: Per this request, should the
County allow smaller lot residential subdivisions for
this group, it may result in creating future land use
conflicts in and around this group. Therefore, this
request does not meet an objective of the Community
Plan and staff recommends denying this request for
exclusion from the proposed Policy Area or Winery
District thereof.
August 22, 2012
PUBLIC
LETTERS/TESTIMONY
REQUEST STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
LAURI E STAUDE
WOULD LI KE TO SPLI T 12 ACS I N 2
LOTS WI TH NO PLANTI NG
WI NE COUNTRY RESI DENTI AL DI STRI CT
WOULD ALLOW 2 LOTS WI TH 75%
PLANTI NG
RONALD MOSTERO
WOULD LI KE TO DO A PRI VATE
SCHOOL
CURRENT CI TRUS VI NEYARD RURAL
POLI CY AREA DOES NOT ALLOW ONE
DONALD LORENZI
WOULD LI KE TO BE RECOGNI ZED AS
WI NERY EXI STI NG
THI S WI NERY I S I DENTI FI ED AS WI NE
EXI STI NG ( BUT AS VI LLA TOSCANA)
PAT OMMERT
WOULD LI KE TO HAVE A SMALL CLI NI C WI NE COUNTRY EQUESTRI AN DI STRI CT
WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE
JOHN LAMAGNA
WOULD LI KE TO HAVE A WI NERY WI NE COUNTRY EQUESTRI AN
DI STRI CT ALLOWS WI NERI ES
TOM AND SUSANNE CAMPBELL
WOULD LI KE TO HAVE A SMALL GUEST
HOUSE AND TO I NVI TE GUESTS
WI NE COUNTRY WI NERY DI STRI CT
ALLOWS A COTTAGE I NN AND ALL
PRI VATE PARTI ES
KATHY SPANO (POTENTI AL
BUYER)
WOULD LI KE TO REQUEST WI NE
COUNTRY EQUESTRI AN
N/A
August 22, 2012
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group O
Property Owner: John LaMagna

Requests: To include parcel in the Wine Country-
Winery District

Residential-Valle de los Caballos Policy Area


Opportunities/Constraints: Mr. LaMagnas parcel is
approximately 10 acres and is currently vacant.

Staff Recommendation: The parcel is within the
existing Valle de Los Caballos Policy Area. In the
current proposal, the owner will qualify for a Winery
even within the Equestrian District; therefore, staff
recommends denying this request to include in the
Winery District.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group P
Property Owner: Kathy Spano

Requests: To include parcel in the Wine Country-
Equestrian District.

Residential


Opportunities/Constraints: Parcel is also a part of
Group E, where Staff recommends a combination of
three districts to reflect landowners preference in light
of the Community Plan objectives. For this parcel,
Staff recommended Residential District per the
request of the previous land owner.

Staff Recommendation: Since the new owner desired
use is a Commercial Equestrian Establishment and
the area is contiguous with the proposed Wine
Country-Equestrian District, staff recommends
including parcel within the Wine-Country-Equestrian
District.
August 22, 2012
Boundary Modification Request: Group Q
Property Owner: Dan Stephenson

Requests: To recognize existing wineries in the Wine
Country-Winery District

AgricultureCitrus Vineyard Policy Area


Opportunities/Constraints: The two of the three
approved wineries are located on less than 20 acres.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends including
two approved wineries to qualify for the Wine
Country-Winery Existing zone.
August 22, 2012
PUBLIC
LETTERS/TESTIMONY
REQUEST STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
MI CHELE A STAPLES,
REPRESENTI NG THE CORONA
FAMI LY LI MI TED PARTNERSHI P
WOULD LI KE TO I NCLUDE PROVI SI ONS
I N THE SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN THAT
ALLOWS FOR ESTATE DENSI TY ON
PARCELS THAT WERE PREVI OUSLY
DESI GNATED FOR SUCH, SPECI FI CALLY
FOR THE CORONA S PROPERTI ES OR
EXCLUDE PARCELS FROM THE
COMMUNI TY PLAN
STAFF WOULD MAI NTAI N THEI R
RECOMMENDATI ON FROM JULY 25,
2012 HEARI NG
MI CHAEL W. NEWCOMB,
REPRESENTI NG BELLA VI STA
HOBBY FARMER S GROUP
WOULD LI KE TO ESTABLI SH A MI NI
WI NE COUNTRY-EQUESTRI AN DI STRI CT
FOR THI S GROUP, AND REVI SI ON OF
NON-COMMERCI AL KEEPI NG OF
ANI MALS PROVI SI ON OF THE
PROPOSED ZONI NG PROVI SI ONS
STAFF WOULD MAI NTAI N THEI R
RECOMMENDATI ON FROM JULY 25,
2012 HEARI NG

DAVI D BRADLEY
WOULD LI KE CLARI FI CATI ON OF
EXI STI NG NON-CONFORMI NG USES
AND FUTURE OF SMALL WI NERI ES
STAFF WOULD EXPLAI N I N THE
HEARI NG
CHUCK TOBI N
WOULD LI KE CLARI FI CATI ON OF WHAT
CONSTI TUTE AS COMMERCI AL
EQUESTRI AN ESTABLI SHMENT
STAFF WOULD EXPLAI N I N THE
HEARI NG

W Wi in ne eC Co ou un nt tr ry yC Co om mm mu un ni it ty yP Pl la an n
PERMI TTED USE

PROPOSED WC ZONES
C/V
C- C/V
(2acres
min.)
R- A
(20,000sq
feetmin.)
R- R
(0.5acresmin.)
A- 1(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
A- 2(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
WC- W
WC- WE
WC- E
WC- R
OneDwellingUnit* P P P P P P P P P
Vineyards,groves,
equestrianlands,etc*
P P P P
P P P P
Keepingorboardingof
horsesorotherfarm
livestock*
P(2peracre) P(2peracre)
P(5per
acre)
P(5per
acre)
P(5per
acre)
P(2animals
oneach
20,000sqft
upto1acre&
2such
animalsfor
each
additional
acre)
P(5animals
peracre)
P(5animals
peracre)
P(5animals
peracre)
Grazingofsheep* P P P P P P P P P
Outdoorstorageof
materials*
P P P P P PP P P P P
CottageInn(15hotel
rooms)
P P P P
CottageIndustry P P P P
HomeOccupation
P(Home
Occupation)
P(Home
Occupation)
P(Home
Occupation)
P(Home
Occupation)
Winegrowers
AssociationEvents
P P
Equestrian
establishment
P
Selective/experimental
breedingfarms
P P P P P P P
FutureFarmofAmerica
or4Hprojects
P P P P P P
Bed&BreakfastInn
(110hotelrooms)
PP(20ac
min.)
PP(5acmin.)
PP(5acres
min.with
onsite
vineyard)

TemporarySalestand
agricultureproducts
PP PP PP PP P P P P
Additionalonefamily
swellingunit,including
mobilehome
PP(1per10
ac)
PP(1per10
ac)
PP(1per10
ac)
PP(1per10
ac)
PP(1per10
ac)
P(1per10
ac)
PP(1per10
ac)
P(1per10
ac)
PP(1per10
ac)
Winery
PP(10ac
min.with
PP(10acmin.
withonsite
PP(10ac
min.with
PP(10ac
min.with
PP(10ac
min.with

PP(withon
sitevineyard)
P(withon
site
CUP
Attachment C: Permitted Use Comparison Chart
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C
PERMI TTED USE

PROPOSED WC ZONES
C/V
C- C/V
(2acres
min.)
R- A
(20,000sq
feetmin.)
R- R
(0.5acresmin.)
A- 1(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
A- 2(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
WC- W
WC- WE
WC- E
WC- R
onsite
vineyard)
vineyard) onsite
vineyard)
onsite
vineyard)
onsite
vineyard)
vineyard)
Winesamplingroom
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10acmin.
withwinery)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)

PP(with
Winery)
P
Retailwinesale/gift
sale
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10acmin.
withwinery)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery)

PP(with
Winery)
P
Commercialequestrian
establishment

PP(10ac
min.)
CUP CUP CUP P
Pologround,horse
showfacility

PP(10ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.)

Pettingzoo
PP(10ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.)

Westernstore
PP(20ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.)

Restaurants
PP(20ac
min.with
winery
drivethru
not
permitted)
PP(10acmin.
withwinery
drivethrunot
permitted)
PP(20ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.drive
thrunot
permitted)
PP(10ac
min.with
winery
drivethru
not
permitted)
PP CUP
Horseracingtrack,
rodeoarena

CUP(50ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.)
CUP
Largeanimalhospital
CUP(50ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.)
CUP P
Specialoccasion
facilities
PP(20ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10acmin.)
CUP(100ac
minwith
Com.Equ.
Est.)
PP(10acres
min.
w/vineyard)

PERMI TTED USE

PROPOSED WC ZONES
C/V
C- C/V
(2acres
min.)
R- A
(20,000sq
feetmin.)
R- R
(0.5acresmin.)
A- 1(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
A- 2(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
WC- W
WC- WE
WC- E
WC- R
Countryinn(1120
rooms)
PP(20ac
min.with
winery)
PP(10acmin.)
PP(10acres
min.
w/vineyard)

Hotel(B&B,Country
inn,or20+hotel
rooms/suites)
PP(20ac
min.with
winery)

PP(20ac
min.with
winery)

Professionalculinary
academyordayspas
PP(20ac
min.with
Hotel)
PP(5acmin.
withBedand
Breakfast)

PP
(Established
withB&B,
CountryInns,
etc.)
PP(Day
Spas)

Resort(selfcontained
largescalelodging
facility)
CUP(40ac
min.with
winery)

Farmlaborcamps CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
ClusteredSubdivision
PM/TM(1
DU/10Ac
withonsite
vineyardor
equestrian
land)
PM/TM(1
DU/10Acwith
onsite
vineyardor
equestrian
land)
PM/TM(1
DU/5Acwith
onsite
vineyardor
equestrian
Land)
PM/TM(1
DU/5Acwith
onsite
vineyardor
equestrian
Land)

PlannedResidential
Development

P(20,000sq
ftlotsize
min.with
landdivision
approval)
P(0.5acrelot
sizemin.with
landdivision
approval)

MobileHomeParks CUP CUP
FieldCropsandVeg.
Garden
P
Poultry,crowingfowl
andrabbits;guinea
pigs,parakeetsor
othersmallfowls.
Kennelsandcatteries
P P P P
Publicutilityfacility PP P P PP
Miniaturepigs P P P
Golfcourse PP PP PP PP
Feedandgrainstore PP CUP P PP
Petshop PP
PERMI TTED USE

PROPOSED WC ZONES
C/V
C- C/V
(2acres
min.)
R- A
(20,000sq
feetmin.)
R- R
(0.5acresmin.)
A- 1(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
A- 2(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
WC- W
WC- WE
WC- E
WC- R
Producestore,
Confectionaryand
candyshop,florist,Gift
shops,Icecreamshops,
Coffeeanddonut
shops
PP
AntiqueShops,bakery PP CUP
Automobileservice
stations,Cleaningand
dyeingshop,
pharmacies,
equipmentrentals,
Airport,autowrecking
yard,cemetery,gas
station,liquid
petroleumservice
station,hardware
stores,tireservice
stations,Laundromats,
parkinglots
CUP
Agriculturalequipment
sales
PP
Arts,craftsandcurio
shops
PP PP
Retailnurseries,
horticulturaland
gardensupplystores
PP P P P P
Temporaryrealestate
office
PP PP PP PP
RealEstateOffice PP P PP
Beautyshop PP CUP P PP
Fraternallodges PP P PP
Countryclub PP PP
Huntingclubs PP CUP
publicutilityuses
(dams,canals,power
plants,railroads,
tv/radiobroadcasting
P(20,000sqft)
Landingstrip/heliport CUP
PERMI TTED USE

PROPOSED WC ZONES
C/V
C- C/V
(2acres
min.)
R- A
(20,000sq
feetmin.)
R- R
(0.5acresmin.)
A- 1(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
A- 2(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
WC- W
WC- WE
WC- E
WC- R
Mining P P P
Touristinfocenter PP CUP
Barsandcocktail
lounge,billiardhalls,
liquorstore,
refreshmentstands,
professionaloffices,
CUP
Rifle,pistol,skeetor
trapshootingrange
CUP CUP
Meatpackingplant CUP PP
Food,poultryproducts,
frozenfoodlockers,
fruitandveg.packing,
Undergroundfuel
storage,lumber
production,machine
shops
CUP
Commercialpoultry CUP
Minkfarms CUP CUP P
Auction,Menageries,
oilproduction
CUP CUP CUP
Packeddryfertilizer
storage,Commercial
breeding
CUP CUP
Commercialfairground CUP P
Dunebuggypark,race
tracks,stations
bus/railroad/taxi,trail
bikepark,trailerand
boatstorage,
recreationalvehicle
parks
CUP
MigrantAg.Worker
MobileHomeParks
CUP
Fishinglakes PP
GuestRanch,Motels PP
Museums PP PP
PERMI TTED USE

PROPOSED WC ZONES
C/V
C- C/V
(2acres
min.)
R- A
(20,000sq
feetmin.)
R- R
(0.5acresmin.)
A- 1(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
A- 2(20,000
sqfeetmin.)
WC- W
WC- WE
WC- E
WC- R
Sewagesludge/organic
wastecomposting,
Livestocksales,
Abattoirs,Hog
Ranches,PenFedBeef
CUP
ExpandedPoultry,
Dairy,Trucktransfer
stationforAg
operations,Canning
freezingpackingplans,
Commercialfertilizer
PP
Library,educational
institutions,Private
schools,
PP PP PP
PublicParksandPlay
Ground
PP PP P PP
ChildDayCare PP PP PP PP P PP
Churches,Templesand
otherplacesof
religiousworship
PUP P PP
Asign,singleordouble
face
P P P
Signs,onsite
Advertising
PP P
PermanentAg.Stand PP PP
PmeansPermittedUse;PPmeansusepermittedwithPlotPlan;andCUPmeansusepermittedwithConditionalUsePermit.PUPmeansPublicUsePermit
*ZoneChangeapplicationmaynotbenecessaryfortheseusesifthepropertysexistingzoneallowfortheuse.
CombinationTrails(ClassIBikeway/RegionalTrail)
Attachment B: Trail Classifications and Cross-sections
CombinationTrailsincludebothaClassI
BikewayandaRegionalTrail,whichsplit
betweentwosidesofthestreet.
CurrentProposal Approx.79,000Ln.Ft.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B
RegionalTrails
Theselongdistanceunpavedsoftsurface
trailsaredesignedtoprovidelinkages
betweencommunities,regionalparks,and
open space areas openspaceareas.
RegionalTrailsinOpenSpaceAreas
ThisisasubclassificationofRegional
Trails.Thesetrailsareusuallypreexisting
pathswithinopenspaceareas;thesedirt
surface trails require minimal maintenance surfacetrailsrequireminimalmaintenance.
CommunityTrails
Thesesoftsurfacetrailslink
communitiestoeachotherandtothe
regionaltrailssystem.
CurrentProposal Approx.138,000
Ln.Ft.
HistoricalTrails
Thegenerallocationofthehistoric
SouthernEmigrantTrailisshownonthe
GeneralPlanmapalongStateRoute79.
PrivateTrails
Thesetrailsareprovidedbyprivate
ownerstoencouragepatrons.
CurrentProposal Approx.15,000
Ln.Ft.
ClassIIIBikeway
ClassIIIBikePathsarenotmarkedonthe
pavements,butaresupportedbysignage.
Current Proposal Approx 59 000 Ln Ft CurrentProposal Approx.59,000Ln.Ft.
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN EIR
Existing and Anticipated Wineries with Special Occasion Facilities
Exhibit 4.12-2
!
0 1 0.5
Miles
Source: Temecula Valley Wine Country Special Occasion Facilities - Provided by Riverside County Planning 09/28/11
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A
Attachment A: Existing and Anticipated Wineries with Special Occasion Facilities
Agenda Item: 3.1
Planning Commission: August 22, 2012
Continued From: July 25, 2012


STAFF REPORT





east of the City of Temecula, south of Lake Skinner, and northwest of Vail Lake. The Project
includes General Plan Amendment No. 1077, Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729, and the
accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524.

ISSUES DISCUSSED IN FIRST HEARING:

This Project was discussed before the Planning Commission on J uly 25, 2012. After taking
public testimony from more than 50 members of the public, the Commission discussed specific
issues with the Project proposal and solicited additional information for consideration at the next
public hearing (August 22, 2012). Staff has organized those issues into the following broad
categories which will be explored in detail below:

1. Requirements to regulate noise;
2. Implementation of the proposed Trails Network;
3. Application of Ordinance No. 348.4729; and
4. Allowance of churches.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 22, 2012
Page 2 of 15

REQUIREMENTS TO REGULATE NOISE:

After hearing the public testimony, Commissioner Porras, Commissioner Roth and
Commissioner Snell raised concerns regarding noise generating from wineries (and their
incidental commercial uses) and its impact on existing and future residents of this region. The
Commissioners shared their specific ideas to regulate noise, some of which are addressed in
the current Project proposal.

During the Project development phase, similar concerns were raised regarding noise generating
from existing wineries. Many of these existing wineries and their commercial activities operated
without proper land use approvals. Therefore, the County engaged in a collaborative planning
and pro-active code enforcement approach to address the existing noise issues of the region.

The County staff created a database to identify all existing wineries and associated
commercial activities by conducting a comprehensive web-search of all businesses in
this region. This database identified that 46 wineries or other commercial uses were
operating without the appropriate County approvals.

The County Code Enforcement Department then provided advisory notices to these
businesses in order bring them in compliance with the appropriate County ordinances. If
those businesses had not applied for the appropriate County approval after 45-60 days,
they were cited with Code Violations and fines that increased with every citation. The
Department also created a specialized Wine Country Code Enforcement team to ensure
that the Code Officers were well-versed with code challenges unique to Wine Country.
Furthermore, the Department conducted weekend enforcement and provided a
dedicated phone-number to the area residents to file their complaints.

The aforementioned experience was used by the County staff and Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
as they engaged in developing a proposal for this Project. The following section outlines all the
various areas of the proposed Project, which are designed to regulate noise in this region and to
avoid land use conflicts in the future.

1) General Plan Amendment No. 1077:

The proposed General Plan Amendment No. 1077, through addition of the Temecula Valley
Wine Country Policy Area, requires larger lot sizes for residential subdivisions and incidental
commercial uses as well as promotes clustered development. These design features of the
proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area are anticipated to reduce noise related
conflicts in this region.

a) The proposed Policy Area policy SWAP 1.5 restricts residential density for subdivisions
regardless of their underlying land use designations. This requirement would decrease
the number of residential units that would be exposed to wineries and their commercial
activities as well as would encourage residential subdivisions in the Wine Country-
Residential District.

Page 3 of 15

SWAP 1.5 Require a density of ten (10) acres minimum for tentative approval of
residential tract and parcel maps after (adoption date) regardless of the
underlying land use designation except in the Wine Country Residential District
where a density of five (5) acres minimum shall apply.

b) The proposed Policy Area also promotes clustered development in a greater geographic
area (approximately 18,990 acres) than its proceeding policy area the Citrus Vineyard
Policy Area (approximately 7,576 acres). Furthermore, the proposed policy SWAP 1.15
requires that at least 75% of the project area be set aside as vineyards or equestrian
land compared to only 50% of the project area in the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area. These
implementing clustered developments are anticipated to provide contiguous open space
buffers between residential subdivisions and winery uses, which would reduce potential
land use conflicts in the future.

SWAP 1.15 Encourage tentative approvals of residential tract and parcel maps to
cluster development in conjunction with on-site vineyards or equestrian land
provided that the overall project density yield does not exceed one dwelling unit
per five (5) acres. While the lot sizes in a clustered development may vary,
require a minimum lot size of 1 acre, with at least 75% of the project area
permanently set-aside as vineyards or equestrian land.

c) The current Citrus Vineyard Policy Area allows for lodging and special occasion facilities
without a winery, which does not promote the areas viticulture potential as envisioned in
its intent. The proposed Policy Area reinforces the areas viticulture potential and rural
characteristics by requiring wineries and equestrian establishments as the primary use
for all incidental commercial activities. Furthermore, the higher intensity commercial uses
are proposed on larger lot sizes compared to the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de los
Caballos Policy Areas, which would further reduce potential land use conflicts in the
future.

and retail wine sales establishments on a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres to
promote viticulture potential of this region.
SWAP 1.11 Allow incidental commercial uses such as special occasion facilities,
hotels, resorts, restaurants and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries as
defined in the implementing zones.
lifestyle as described in the Wine Country Equestrian (WC-E) Zone.
grounds, or horse racing tracks, petting zoos, event grounds, horse auction
facilities, horse show facilities, animal hospitals, restaurants, delicatessens, and
special occasion facilities in conjunction with commercial equestrian
establishments on lots larger than 10 acres to encourage equestrian tourism in
this community.

Page 4 of 15

2) Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729:

To implement the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area, Ordinance Amendment No.
348.4729 proposes to create four Winery County Zones by adding Section 14.90 through
Section 14.96 in Ordinance No. 348. The following sections of the proposed Ordinance
Amendment No. 348.4729 through permitted uses section and their development standards are
anticipated to reduce noise related conflicts in this region:

a) Wine Country Winery Zone:

Section 14.92.b.5. allows special occasion facilities, bed and breakfast inns, country
inns, hotels and restaurants with an established winery through a plot plan on 20 acres
minimum.
Section 14.92.c.2. allows resorts, amphitheaters, and golf courses with an established
winery through a conditional use permit on 40 minimum acres.

b) Wine Country Equestrian Zone:

Section 14.94.b.5 allows a commercial equestrian establishment through a plot plan on
10 acres minimum.
Section 14.94.b.6 allows petting zoos, polo-grounds, and horse show facilities with a
commercial equestrian establishment through a plot plan on 10 acres minimum.
Section 14.94.b.7 allows western style stores and restaurants with a commercial
equestrian establishment through a plot plan on 20 acres minimum.
Section 14.94.c.2 allows horse racing tracks or rodeo arenas and large scale hospitals
with a commercial equestrian establishment through a conditional use permit on 50
acres minimum.
Section 14.94.c.3 allows a horse racing track or rodeo arena and large scale hospital
acres minimum.

c) Development Standards:

Section 14.96.a.1 requires site layouts and building designs to minimize noise impacts
on surrounding properties and to comply with Ordinance No. 847.
Section 14.96.e.4 requires minimum setbacks of hundred feet (100) and three hundred
feet (300) when the facility is located next to Rancho California Road, Monte De Oro
Road, Anza Road, Glen Oaks Road, Pauba Road, De Portola Road, Buck Road, Borel
Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and
Highway 79 South for special occasion facilities.
Section 14.96.e.7 ensures loading, trash, and service areas for special occasion facilities
are screened by structures or landscaping and are located and designed in such a
manner as to minimize noise and odor impacts to adjacent properties.
Section 14.96.e.7 requires that all special occasion facilities conduct a noise study or an
acoustical analysis if an outdoor facility is proposed. Based on such study or analysis,
Page 5 of 15

the Planning Director may deny or require as a condition of approval that the project
applicant enter into a good neighbor agreement with the surrounding neighbors.
Section 14.97.f.5 limits two hotel rooms per gross acre for lodging facilities.
Section 14.97.f.10 ensures that loading, trash, and service areas for lodging facilities are
screened by structures or landscaping and is located and designed in such a manner as
to minimize noise and odor impacts to adjacent properties.

3) Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 524 - Noise Mitigation
Measures:

The Draft PEIR No. 524 provides Exhibit 4.12-2 (Attachment A), which identifies Existing and
Anticipated Winery Sites with Special Occasion Facilities potential. However, it will be
speculative to predict the nature, frequency, scale, and site-specific design feature of these
future special occasion facilities. Instead, the PEIR provides the following carefully crafted
Mitigation Measures to reduce noise impacts from implementing projects, including noise from
construction activities, winery operations and special occasion facilities.

NOI-1 All implementing projects shall comply with the following noise reduction measures during grading
and building activities:
If construction occurs within one-quarter mile of an inhabited dwelling, construction activities
shall be limited to the daytime hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the months of June
through September, and to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the months of October through May.
To minimize noise from idling engines, all vehicles and construction equipment shall be
prohibited from idling in excess of three minutes when not in use.
Best efforts should be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging area as far as
practicable from existing residential dwellings.
Equipment and trucks shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved
mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) shall be hydraulically or
electronically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the
exhaust by up to about ten dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used
where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of five dBA. Quieter procedures shall be
used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as
possible, and they shall be muffled and incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to
the extent feasible.
NOI-2 Implementing project proponents shall submit a list of measures to respond to and track
complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or
construction. These measures may include the following:
A sign posted on-site pertaining the permitted construction days and hours and complaint
procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem. The sign may also include a listing of
both the County and construction contractors telephone numbers (during regular
construction hours and off-hours); and
Page 6 of 15

A pre-construction meeting may be held with the job inspectors and the general
contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise measures and practices (including
construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed.

NOI-3 All implementing projects involving a new winery or expansion of an existing winery shall be
reviewed by the Riverside County Office of Industrial Hygiene and include at least the following
conditions:
The hours of operation for tasting rooms associated with wineries shall be limited to 9:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country - Winery District and 10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country - Equestrian and Residential Districts.
Mechanical equipments including but not limited to, de-stemming, crushing, and refrigeration
equipment shall be enclosed or shielded for noise attenuation. Alternatively, the proponent
may submit a Noise Study prepared by a qualified acoustical analyst that demonstrates that
the unenclosed/unshielded equipment would not exceed the Countys allowable noise levels.
The hours of operation for shipping facilities associated with wineries shall be limited to 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country - Winery District and 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country - Equestrian and Residential
Districts.
Shipping facilities and parking areas which abut residential parcels shall be located away
from sensitive land uses and be designed to minimize potential noise impacts upon nearby
sensitive land uses.
Site-specific noise-attenuating features such as hills, berms, setbacks, block walls, or other
measures shall be considered for noise attenuation in noise-producing areas of future
wineries including, but not limited to, locations of mechanical equipment, locations of shipping
facilities, access, and parking areas.
NOI-4 All implementing projects involving a special occasion facility shall be required to conduct a
noise study prior to its approval. Similarly, all implementing projects involving an outdoor special
occasion facility shall be required to conduct an acoustical analysis (that shows the noise
contours outside the property boundary) prior to its approval.
The said noise study or acoustical analysis shall be submitted to the Office of Industrial
Hygiene for review and comments.
Based on those comments, the implementing project shall be conditioned to mitigate noise
impacts to the applicable County noise standards through site design and buildings
techniques.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the special occasion facility, those noise
mitigation measures shall have received the necessary permits from Building and Safety
Department.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the special occasion facility, those noise mitigation
measures shall be constructed/implemented.

NOI-5 All implementing projects involving a special occasion facility shall be reviewed by the Riverside
County Office of Industrial Hygiene and include at least the following conditions:
All special event venders (e.g. DJs, musical bands, etc.) shall be notified regarding noise
conditions of approval .
Outdoor special events and associated audio equipment, sound amplifying equipment, and/or
performance of live music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday
through Sunday.
Page 7 of 15

Noise levels shall be kept below levels prescribed in the Countys General Plan Noise
Element and County noise Ordinances No. 847 by using a decibel-measuring device to
measure music sound levels when amplified music is used.
Clean-up activities associated with special events shall terminate no later than midnight.
Outdoor speakers for all scheduled events shall be oriented toward the center of the property
and away from adjoining land uses.
Padding/carpeting shall be installed under music speakers for early absorption of music.
NOI-6 All implementing projects involving a special occasion facility shall include at least the following
conditions to ensure proper enforcement of the County Ordinances and project conditions:
After issuance of two Code Violation Notices for excessive noise, noise measurements shall
be performed by the Office of Industrial Hygiene for every event at the property line, to
determine if the Noise Ordinance and project conditions are being followed during the special
events.
If violations of the Noise Ordinance or project conditions are found, the County shall
reconsider allowed hours of operation, number of guests, amount of special events per year,
or approval of the specific facility.
The proponents shall be required to pay fees assessed per the Department's hourly rate
pursuant to Ordinance No. 671.
NOI-7 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, all implementing projects shall demonstrate
compliance with the following measures to reduce the potential for human annoyance and
architectural/structural damage resulting from elevated groundborne noise and vibration levels:
Pile driving within a 50-foot radius of occupied units or historic or potentially historic
structures shall utilize alternative installation methods where possible (e.g., pile cushioning,
jetting, pre-drilling, cast-in-place systems, resonance-free vibratory pile drivers).
If no alternative to pile driving is deemed feasible, the preexisting condition of all designated
historic buildings within a 50-foot radius of proposed construction activities shall be evaluated
during a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall determine conditions that
exist before construction begins for use in evaluating damage caused by construction
activities. Fixtures and finishes within a 50-foot radius of construction activities susceptible to
damage shall be documented (photographically and in writing) prior to construction. All
damage shall be repaired back to its preexisting condition.
Vibration monitoring shall be conducted prior to and during pile driving operations occurring
within 100 feet of the historic structures. Every attempt shall be made to limit construction-
generated vibration levels during pile driving and impact activities in the vicinity of the historic
structures.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED TRAILS NETWORK:

A significant amount of public testimony was regarding the proposed Trails Network. Most of the
testimony supported the current proposal and encouraged the Commission to consider
implementation aspects associated with this proposal. The Commission asked staff to provide
them with a clear understanding on the proposed Trails Network and its implementation
information. The following table outlines various trail classifications and their respective
implementation information as envisioned in the proposed GPA No. 1077. In addition,
Attachment B provides a map of each proposed trail classification and their respective cross-
sections as proposed in the Project.

Page 8 of 15

Trails
Classification
Characteristics Responsible Agency
Combination Trail
(Regional/Class 1
Bike Path):
Current Proposal
Approx. 79,000 Ln.
Ft.
Combination Trails include both a Class I
Bikeway and a Regional Trail, which split
between two sides of the street.

Class I Bike Path Characteristics: These
multi-use trails are paved surfaces for
two-way non-motorized traffic.

Class I Bike Path Users: Primarily used
by bicyclists, golf carts, personal
assistance vehicles and pedestrians

Class I Width: 10 to 12 wide

Regional Urban and Rural Trail
Characteristics: These soft surface trails
are located either in tandem or on one
side of a street, river, or other major
linear feature.

Regional Urban and Rural Trail Users:
Equestrians and pedestrians

Regional Urban and Rural Trail Width:
10 to 12 wide

Combination Trail Easement: 20 wide
easements on each side of the street

Acquisition: Trail easements will be negotiated
through the development review process with
the Riverside County Regional Park and Open
Space District (District) and approval from
Transportation Department.

Maintenance Entity: Trails are built when
contiguous trail segments are funded and
maintenance funding is secured. Once built,
these trails become a part of the District Trails
System and are maintained by the Riverside
County Regional Park and Open Space District
or another agency based on a negotiated
agreement.

The acceptance of any trail easement reserves
the right of the County/ District to develop a
trail. It DOES NOT provide the public any
implied right to use the easement for trail
purposes until the trail is fully planned and
developed.
Regional Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 175,000
Ln. Ft.
Characteristics: These long distance soft
surface* trails are designed to provide
linkages between communities, regional
parks, and open space areas.

(*Soft Surface means compacted and
stabilized Decomposed Granite)

Users: Equestrians, pedestrians, joggers,
and mountain bikers

Width: 10 to 12 wide

Easement: 20 wide

Space District.

the trails become a part of the District Trails
County Regional Park and Open Space
District.

developed.

Page 9 of 15

Trails
Classification
Regional/Open
Space Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 111,000
Ln. Ft.
Characteristics: This is a sub-
classification of Regional Trails. These
trails are usually pre-existing paths within
open-space areas; these dirt surface
trails require minimal maintenance.

and mountain bikers

Width: 2 to 4 wide

Easement: 10 wide
Space District.

Maintenance Entity: These trails require
minimal grading and maintenance. Once
contiguous trail segments and maintenance
funding are secured, these trails become a part
of the District Trails System and are maintained
by the Riverside County Regional Park and
Open Space District.

developed.

Community Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 138,000
Ln. Ft.
link communities to each other and to the
regional trails system.

Users: Equestrian, pedestrians, joggers
and mountain bikers

Width: 8 wide

Easement: Usually within easements or
portions of road right-of-ways; up to 14
wide

Acquisition and Maintenance Entity:
Community Trails may be acquired and
maintained by a local Parks and Recreation
Districts, other governmental entities, or non-
profit agencies. Until a responsible agency is
identified, the Riverside County Regional Park
and Open Space District or Transportation
Department (roadways only) may negotiate for
and accept the Community Trail easements
through the development review process. The
District will not develop or maintain Community
trail segments; it will only hold the easement.
Historic Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 11,000 Ln.
Ft.
Characteristics: The general location of
these historic routes is shown on the
General Plan maps; however, they do not
represent a planned regional, community
or other type of trail. There may be a
Regional or Community Trail on, or
parallel to, a historic route. They provide
opportunities to recognize these trails
and their significance in history through
interpretative centers, signage etc.

Acquisition and Maintenance Entity: Historic
routes are only graphically depicted on the
General Plan; thus, acquisition and
maintenance is not required.
Private Trails:
Current Proposal
Approx. 15,000 Ln.
Ft.
Characteristics: These trails are provided
by private owners to encourage patrons.
Acquisition and Maintenance Entity: The
acquisition and maintenance are negotiated
between private property owners and a non-
profit or private recreational group.

Page 10 of 15

Trails
Classification
Class III Bike
Path:
Current Proposal
Approx. 59,000 Ln.
Ft.
Characteristics: Class III Bike Paths are
not marked on the pavements, but are
supported by signage. These routes
share roads with motor vehicles or
sidewalks with pedestrians; in either case
bicycle usage is secondary. The Class III
Bike Paths are typically used by the more
experienced bicyclists.

Acquisition and Maintenance Entity: Based on
road suitability, Class III Bike Paths are
secured by the Riverside County Regional Park
and Open Space District and Transportation
Department through the development review
process.

APPLICATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 348.4729:

In the first public hearing, a few members of the public asked questions regarding which type of
activities will fall under the proposed Projects purview and will require a zone change
application to ensure parcel specific zoning consistency. It was evident that further clarification
on this subject was essential to ease stakeholders concerns now, and the Projects
implementation in the future. The following section offers staffs interpretation of the proposal on
this subject (Attachment C).

Ordinance No. 348.4729 is a text amendment to the Countys Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance
No. 348) that adds four new zoning classifications. The four new zoning classifications (Wine
Country Zones) are: Wine Country Winery Zone, Wine Country Winery Existing Zone, Wine
Country Equestrian Zone, and Wine Country Residential Zone. The Wine Country Zones
would allow the County to implement the goals and policies of the proposed Temecula Valley
Wine Country Policy Area of the Riverside County General Plan. If the Board of Supervisors
adopts Ordinance No. 348.4729, then all future requests for discretionary land use entitlements
and land divisions within the Policy Area will require a change of zone to bring the property's
zoning classification within one of the Wine Country zones to be consistent with the General
Plan and would update the County's zoning map accordingly.

If the future proposed use for the property within the Wine Country Policy Area is a use
that is permitted by right under both Ordinance 348.4729 and the zoning classification
for the property that was in place immediately before the adoption of Ordinance No.
348.4729, then a change of zone application would not be required.

However, if the proposed future use is permitted by right under Ordinance No. 348.4729
but it was not permitted by right under the zoning classification in place immediately
before the adoption of Ordinance No. 348.4729, then a change of zone application
would be required.

ALLOWANCE OF CHURCHES:

Approximately 25 members of the public commented on the County not allowing churches in the
Project proposal. After hearing public testimony, the Commission directed staff to provide them
options that would allow places of religious worship in the Project proposal.
Page 11 of 15

The following information is provided in response to that direction:

Existing Condition:

Currently, under Ordinance No. 348 churches, temples and other places of religious worship are
not permitted uses in the C/V zoning classification. However, churches, temples and other
places of religious worship are permitted in approximately 27 of the Countys 38 zoning
classifications. If churches, temples and other places of religious worship wish to locate in one
of these 27 zones, they would need to obtain a plot plan or public use permit for the use
depending on the zoning classification. Similar nonreligious uses such as educational
institutions, fraternal lodge halls and recreational facilities are also required to obtain a plot plan
or public use permit in the specific zoning classification.

Additionally, the Projects boundaries apply to approximately 18,990 acres, while the
unincorporated area of Riverside County covers approximately 4,121,114 acres. As a result, the
Project applies to less than 1% of the land within Riverside County, leaving ample opportunity to
locate churches, temples and other places of worship elsewhere.

The Project:

The current Citrus Vineyard Rural Policy Area and C/V zone, as well as the proposed Wine
Country Policy Area and its implementing Wine Country zones, are developed to preserve and
enhance the viticulture potential of this region. Furthermore, these regulating documents allow
for an appropriate level of commercial tourist activities that are necessary to support economic
viability of the viticulture operations.

On December 28, 2009, the County issued a Notice of Preparation for the Wine Country
Community Plan Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524 (PEIR No. 524). On
J anuary 19, 2010, the County held a Scoping Meeting to discuss the scope and content
of the environmental information for the PEIR No. 524. At this point in time, churches,
temples, and other places of religious worship were not allowed in this region.
Furthermore, no application was filed for a church that indicated otherwise, or no
comments were received at the Scoping Meeting that suggested otherwise.

In March of 2011, Calvary Church submitted a Plot Plan application to expand its
existing church that is operating as a legal non-conforming use Public Use Permit No.
798 (PUP No. 798). PUP No. 798 was approved in 1999.

In September of 2011, the Planning Department developed a screen-check version of
the PEIR No. 524, which established the cut-off date for the proposed projects to be
included in the cumulative analysis. Since Calvary Church expansion application was
filed prior to this date, it was included in the PEIRs cumulative analysis for the Project.
However, Calvary Churchs proposed use that is the subject of the application is not a
component of the Project. Calvary Churchs application for expansion is being processed
separately and it is not before the Commission at this time for consideration.

Page 12 of 15

On December 05, 2011, the County issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIR No.
524 for 60-days public review and comment period.


It should be stated that although a private school is a component of the Calvary Church
expansion proposal, public testimony at the first public hearing remained focused on the church
only. The Commission did not engage in any discussion regarding allowance of private schools
in the current Project proposal. However, staff wants to mention that private schools, like
churches, are not currently listed as a permitted use in the C/V zone, proposed Wine Country
zones, or Section 18.29 of Ordinance 348 through a Public Use Permit.

Alcohol Licensing Requirements:

Wineries in the Temecula Valley Wine Country generally receive #02 winegrower license,
which is a non-retail license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC). The California Business and Professional Code Section 23358 (d) provides the following
for Alcohol License #02:

The department (ABC) may, if it shall determine for good cause that the granting of any such
privilege would be contrary to public welfare or morals, deny the right to exercise any on-sale
privilege authorized by this section in either a bona fide eating place the main entrance to which
is within 200 feet of a school or church, or on the licensed winery premises, or both.

If a winery wishes to sell distilled spirits, the ABC would require a #47 license to sell such spirits.
This license is considered a retail license. As a result, the license would be subject to the
restrictions set-forth in the California Business and Professional Code Section 23789, which
provides the following:

a) The department (ABC) is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal
or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within the immediate vicinity
of churches and hospitals,
b) The department (ABC) is specifically authorized to refuse the issuance, other than renewal
or ownership transfer, of any retail license for premises located within at least 600 feet of
schools and public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not limited to,
facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire Girls. This distance shall be measured
pursuant to rules of the department.

Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Requirements:

The Temecula Valley Wine Country is located within the San J acinto District of the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioners jurisdiction. The Agricultural Commissioner has specific
standard requirements for pesticide use conditions within this district. Per those requirements,
no foliar applications of pesticides are allowed within mile and no aircraft applications of
pesticides are allowed within mile of a school in session. Although aircraft applications of
pesticides are only occasionally used in the Temecula Valley Wine Country, foliar applications
are absolutely critical in sustaining vineyards and other agricultural operations in this region.
Page 13 of 15


After considering various aspects associated with this issue, staff proposes the following three
options to the Commission for their consideration. The Commission may elect one of the three
options, or consider creating a new one by combining the various components set-forth in the
three staff proposals.

OPTION 1 Allow Churches in the Project:

In their concluding remarks for the first hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to
analyze and develop an option that includes places of religious worship in the Project proposal.
Option 1 takes that direction literally and proposes the following changes in the Project
proposal.

1. GPA No. 1077: In the proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area, a general
discussion regarding places of religious worship will be added. In addition, the proposed
SWAP 1.11 (under Wine Country Winery District) and SWAP 1.13 (under Wine
Country Equestrian District) will be revised to add churches, temples, and places of
religious worship as permitted uses in these districts.

2. Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729: The proposed Article XIVd will need to be revised
at multiple locations as follows:

a. Section 14.90 (Intent) A general discussion regarding places of religious will be
added.
b. Section 14.91 (Definitions) A definition for churches, temples, and places of
religious worship will be added.
c. Section 14.92b (Wine Country Winery Zone Conditionally Permitted Uses with
a Plot Plan) Churches, temples, and places of religious worship on a minimum
gross parcel size of twenty (20) acres will be added as the sixth permitted use.
d. Section 14.94c (Wine Country Equestrian Zone Conditionally Permitted Uses
with a Conditional Use Permit) Churches, temples, and places of religious
worship on a minimum gross parcel size of hundred (100) acres will be added as
the fourth permitted use.
e. Section 14.96e (Development Standards for Special Occasion Facilities) In the
introductory paragraph, a discussion for churches, temples, and places of

The development scenario described in the proposed Project, and analyzed in the associated
PEIR No. 524, has not accommodated the intensity of multiple churches, temples, and places of
religious worship in this region. Should the Commission recommends this option, additional
analyses will be necessary which may result in a recirculation of the Draft PEIR, including but
not be limited to, land use, transportation and circulation, air quality, agricultural resources, and
noise.

Page 14 of 15

OPTION 2 Remain with the existing Project Proposal:

In Option 2, the Commission recommends processing the current proposal for the Project and
Calvary Church continues to process the land use applications it submitted to the Planning
Department. No changes will be made to the proposed Project. The Calvary Church application
will be processed separately in the future, and it is not before the Commission at this time for
consideration.

OPTION 3 Exclusion of Calvary Parcels from the Project Boundary:

In Option 3, the Commission recommends to exclude both the Calvary Church parcels from the
proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area. The Project proposal will be changed as
follows:

1. GPA No. 1077: The proposed Southwest Area Plan Policy Area Figure 4 and 4a will be
revised to remove the two Calvary Church parcels (Assessors Parcel Numbers: 943-
250-021 and 943-250-018).

Upon adoption of the Project, the two Calvary Church parcels will be excluded from the Projects
boundary and will maintain their existing land use designation and zoning classification. A text
change amendment to Ordinance No. 348 will still be needed to allow churches, temples, and
other places of religions worship as permitted uses in the C/V zoning classification. Since the
parcels are being removed from the Project, such amendment would only apply to those two
parcels and it should be able to tier off the environmental analyses contained in PEIR No. 524.

RECOMMENDATION:

DISCUSS AND CONTINUE to August 29 or September 26, 2012


1. Staff has received approximately 20 letters, which vary in their content, and a standard
letter, with approximately 2500 signatories, generally in support of churches and school.
Please refer to the attached compact disk.

2. For additional information re: any Project specific questions, please contact:

P.O. Box 1409,
th
Floor
Phone: (951) 955-8514
Page 15 of 15

3. For additional information re: any parcel specific questions within the Project boundary,
please contact:

Ms. Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
P.O. Box 1409,
th
Floor
Email: pnanthav@rctlma.org
Phone: (951) 955-6573
Wine Country Community Plan: General Plan Amendment No. 1077,
Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 &

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION

Name Organization/Business Documentation Hearing Date
Veronica Langworthy
21227 Front Street
Wildomar, CA 92595
Resident Information shared at the J uly
25, 2012 hearing in favor of
churches
August 22, 2012
Lynn Mattocks Trails Commissioner,
Third Dist. And member
of the Wine Country
Community Plan Advisory
Council
Equestrian Issues and Trails
Implementation Issues in
Proposed Wine Country
Community Plan
August 22, 2012
Donald Douglas
40920 Anza Road
Temecula CA 92592
Resident Ord. 348.4729, Section
14.96.Development Standards
August 22, 2012
Scott Treadway
Lead Pastor/President
Rancho Community
Church and Schools
Letter in favor of churches August 22, 2012
Patricia Ommert
400 W. Riverside Dr.
#19
Burbank, CA 91506
Letter Regarding Trails
Easements
August 22, 2012
Lorraine Harrington Wine Country Community
Plan Advisory Council and
member of Board of
Directors, Rancho
California Horsemans
Assoc.
Equestrian Issues and Trails
Implementation Issues in
Proposed Wine Country
Community Plan
August 22, 2012
Malissa Hathaway
McKeith
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith Attorneys at Law
Response to Agenda Item 3.1
Staff Report Planning
Commission hearing regarding
inclusion of religious institutions
and ancillary schools in the
August 22, 2012
Laurie Staude
31 St. Michael Place
Dana Point, CA 92629
Map Rancho California
Highlands, Parcel 924-100-010
August 22, 2012
Sam Alhadeff Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith Attorneys at Law
On behalf of Redhawk
Investments, J to The 5
th
,
J onatkin Enterprises, &
Husmand Taghdri
August 22, 2012
Rick Mann
42370 Calle Capistrano
Temecula, CA
75 Riverside County schools
within Agriculture Productions
Sites
August 22, 2012
Andrew K. Rauch, Esq. Law Office of Andrew K.
Rauch
Objections of David b. and
J aleh Firooz to Proposed Wine
Country Community Plan
August 22, 2012
Wine Country Community Plan: General Plan Amendment No. 1077,
Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 &

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION

Name Organization/Business Documentation Hearing Date
Nichole S. Martin Citizens United for
Resources and the
Environment, Inc.
Summary of CURES Objections
to Proposed Wine Country
Community Plan
August 22, 2012
Calvary Presentation
Alcohol & Winegrowers Regulations- Michael W. Newcomb, Esq.

4815-4580-3792.2
221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: 213.250.1800
Fax: 213.250.7900
www.lbbslaw.com
MALISSAHATHAWAY MCKEITH
DIRECT DIAL: 213.580.6303
E-MAIL: MCKEITH@LBBSLAW.COM
August 21, 2012
File No.
32652.2
ATLANTA BEAUMONT CHARLESTON CHICAGO DALLAS FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LA QUINTA LAFAYETTE LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MADISON COUNTY
NEWORLEANS NEWYORK NEWARK ORANGE COUNTY PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO TAMPA TUCSON
VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Planning Commissioner John Roth
Planning Commissioner John Snell
Planning Commissioner John Petty
Planning Commissioner Jan Zuppardo
County of Riverside Administrative Center
P.O. Box 1409
Riverside, CA 92502
applejon@wildblue.net
john.s@inlandcorp.com
john@jdpdevelopment.com
jzuppardo@msn.com
Facsimile: (951) 955-1811
Re: Response to Agenda Item 3.1 Staff Report (Staff Report) for the August 22,
2012 Planning Commission hearing regarding inclusion of religious
institutions and ancillary schools in the Wine Country Community Plan.
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for your continued diligence to make the Wine Country Community Plan
(WCCP) a reality. We very much appreciate your willingness to take testimony and
consider the concerns of the Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship (Calvary) and its many
members regarding the need for the County to affirmatively establish in the WCCP that
religious institutions and ancillary schools are welcome and compatible with the goals and
objectives of the general plan amendments.
On August 16, 2012, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (LBBS) submitted
correspondence to the County Counsel proposing specific changes to the language of the
WCCP to include churches and ancillary schools. On August 21, 2012, we further
submitted a proposed resolution for your consideration that would direct staff to evaluate
inclusion of religious institutions and ancillary schools through a targeted recirculation of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Copies of this proposed resolution for
your consideration, and the August 16 letter are attached.
Planning Commissioners Roth, Snell, Petty and Zuppardo
August 21, 2012
Page 2
4815-4580-3792.2
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
The purpose of this letter is to respond in writing to certain factual inaccuracies in
the Staff Report and to clarify issues that warrant further explanation in advance of the
continued public hearing on August 22
nd
2012. It also sets forth the many concessions that
Calvary is willing to make in an effort to stave off more controversy over its continued
operation and expansion in the wine country. We believe the Wine Country Community
Plan is important for the long-term economic stability of the area and we support its
adoption as amended.
Based on prior litigation filed by the vintners and statements made to the Planning
Commission, it appears some wineries fear that the inclusion of churches and ancillary
schools as permitted uses in the WCCP will lead to an outbreak of new facilities that will
disrupt their operations and undermine the purpose of the WCCP. This fear is grossly
overstated insofar as the requirements of the WCCP (i.e., planting requirements; setbacks;
design standards and other requirements) will deter many facilities from locating in the
WCCP. And, any such facility has to comply with CEQA prior to it receiving a Public Use
Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, either of which can be properly conditioned.
Opponents of Calvary have raised additional substantive issues as reflected in the
Staff Report at page 12. Calvary responds as follows:
1. Alcohol licenses for wine sales. Staff notes that the majority of winegrowers
are issued a #02 license for non-retail wine sales from the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). (Staff Report, p. 12).
California law specifies that the ABC may deny the license to a premises
located within 200 feet of a school or church. (Staff Report, p. 12, citing Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code 23789). Use of the word may has lead several people
to argue that the ABC, in fact, will deny the license or that Calvary will object
to their issuance. Neither is a real threat here.
a. The proposed development standards already mandate a setback of
300 feet from Rancho California Road for Special Occasion Facilities
all Wine Country districts. (Ord. 348, Proposed Art. XIVd, Section
14.96(e)(4).) If that proposed zoning ordinance is amended to account
for religious institutions in this district, Calvarys expansion project will
be subject to as yet unspecified setback requirements as well, thus all
but eliminating the possibility that a #02 license will not be issued.
b. As shown in the on page 6 of the Calvary Press Release included in
the Staff Report (excerpt also attached hereto), Calvarys proposed
school is located more than 500 feet away from the Pinnacle
Restaurant to the northwest, and the Maurice Carrie winery to the
southeast.
August 21, 2012
Page 3
4815-4580-3792.2
2. Alcohol licenses for liquor. Staff goes on to state that, if a winery or affiliated
use desires to serve spirits, they must apply for a #47 retail liquor license.
The Business & Professions code states that these types of licenses may
be denied for good cause if located less than 600 feet from a school or
church, and that the measurement of 600 feet is determined by ABC rules.
(Staff Report, p. 12).
a. Calvary is willing to set back any school a sufficient distance from the
property line to help mitigate concerns about potential limitations on
issuance of either a winegrowers license or a retail liquor/spirits
license.
b. Calvary agrees not to raise any objections concerning alcoholic
beverages at the wineries including the installation of a full service bar
and application of #47 or #02 licenses. Calvarys acquiescence to
liquor licenses is a factor that ABC will consider in granting a liquor
license in the immediate vicinity of a church. (Martin v. Alcoholic
Beverage Control Appeals Board (1961) 55 Cal.2d 867 [holding that
one factor in favor of granting a license was that, although the
applicant was only 70 feet from a church, the church had not protested
the application.].)
c. Additionally, in a review of ABC appeals and related case law, the
distance to a school or church does not mandate denial and distance
is not necessarily a dispositive factor; there must generally be good
cause in addition to distance in order to deny a license under
23789. (See Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board,
supra, at 875: If mere proximity were as a matter of law good cause
for denial of a license the department would not be specifically
authorized to refuse the issuance; by contrast, it would be specifically
required to refuse it. Therefore, by the terms of the statute and the
Constitution, it is clear that in every such case the department is
bound to exercise a legal discretion in passing on the application.
[emphasis in original].) Finally, the ABC opinions suggest that close
proximity to a high school causes greater concern to the ABC than
proximity to an elementary school. (Protest of Buckley, et al. (1999)
AB-7249 at 14).
Realistically, many of the ABC rules were intended to prevent liquor
stores being located in the vicinity of schools so that teenagers did not
have ready access to alcohol. It is beyond credulity to image that the
kids from Calvary will be frequenting the wine bars at the local
August 21, 2012
Page 4
4815-4580-3792.2
vintners. Calvary believes that the Planning Commission should give
little or no weight to this ABC issue because it is more of a pretext to
keep the church out than a genuine concern.
3. Pesticides. Staff does raise some legitimate questions concerning the
compatibility of schools given the proximity of pesticide application in the
immediate vicinity. (Staff Report, p. 12). Without elaboration, staff points out
that foliar applications of pesticides is critical in sustaining vineyards and
other agricultural operations, and that ground rig pesticide application is not
permitted within mile of a school in session, while aircraft applications of
pesticides are not permitted within mile of a school in session.
a. Calvary acknowledges that the timing of and type of pesticide
application is not always predictable depending upon conditions in the
field. Nevertheless, this is a highly regulated area and rules have
already been adopted by the County Agricultural Commissioner to
accommodate the many schools located in agricultural areas.
b. In May 2011, the County Agricultural Commissioner provided a report
to the Planning Commissioners addressing the pesticide issue in
greater detail than the present Staff Report (a copy of which is
attached hereto and is also incorporated into the Staff Report at p. 13
of the Calvary Press Release attachment).
c. The school proximity restrictions are general conditions of pesticide
use implemented by Riverside County. In the May 19, 2011 report, the
Agricultural Commissioner stated that applications are permissible
within the stated distances if:
i. The application takes place outside of regularly scheduled class
times (even if it occurs during the school year), including
weekends, holidays and vacations; and
ii. The school and school grounds are not being used for an
event such as a public event, meeting, sports activity, etc.
(Agricultural Commission Report, p. 3).
d. To mitigate any adverse impact on its neighbor vineyards, Calvary
would agree to abide by any special orders of the Riverside County
Agriculture Commissioner requiring that school not be in session for
special spraying events.
August 21, 2012
Page 5
4815-4580-3792.2
e. Furthermore, Calvary would work directly with its neighbor vintners to
avoid conflicts with spraying schedules and any school activities once
the school is occupied.
4. Options for action. Staff presents the Planning Commissioners with three
options for consideration. (Staff Report, p. 13-14). Option (1) proposes
including religious institutions in both the Wine Country Winery district and
the Wine Country Equestrian district, and proposes making the required
changes to the general plan amendment and the zoning ordinances. Option
(2) is to do nothing and proceed with the WCCP as is without consideration of
religious institutions or schools. Option (3) is to carve out the Calvary
parcels from the WCCP, leaving it as an island remnant of the existing
Citrus/Vineyard zone which, as you know, also does not consider inclusion of
religious institution or ancillary schools. Staff does allow for flexibility, noting
that the Commissioners do not need to choose one of these options but can
instead create a new one.
a. Calvary suggests a fourth option, which is narrower in scope than
Option (1) but more inclusive (and conducive to the goals of the
WCCP) than Options (2) or (3). Calvary proposes that religious
institutions and ancillary schools be included in the Wine Country
Winery (WC-W) district only. Limiting churches and ancillary schools
to the district with the far greater number of Special Occasion Facilities
will focus and narrow the scope of the environmental impact inquiry
and will minimize changes necessary to the proposed general plan
and zoning ordinance amendments.
b. Calvary agrees to pay fifty percent (50%), up to $100,000, of the cost
to recirculate of the DEIR due to the evaluation of potential impacts
created by religious institutions and their ancillary schools. Calvary
understands that any cost sharing would need to be put into a written
agreement and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
c. To this end, Calvary has proposed a resolution for the Planning
Commissioners consideration on August 22, 2012, directing staff to
revise the DEIR to include the evaluation of potential environmental
impacts of religious institutions and ancillary school uses in the
proposed WC-W district and, thereafter to recirculate the DEIR or
portions thereof. An EIR evaluating Churches and ancillary schools
would identify impacts and appropriate mitigation and form as the
basis for the revisions to the WCCP and associated zoning that were
set forth in LBBS correspondence of August 16, 2012.
August 21, 2012
Page 6
4815-4580-3792.2
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you want to discuss this in advance of the
hearing tomorrow, although I am sure your plates are full this afternoon. Thank you again
for your hard work.
Very truly yours,
Malissa Hathaway McKeith of
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
MHM
Attachments:
1) Calvarys Proposed Planning Commission Resolution
2) Letter from LBBS to County Counsel, August 16, 2012
3) Agricultural Commissioners Report, May 19, 2011
4) Calvary radius illustration (p. 6 excerpt of Calvary Press Release)
cc: Mary Stark, Planning Commission Secretary
mcstark@rctlma.org
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4819-0762-7280.1
RESOLUTION2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDINGTHE RECIRCULATION
OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR No. 524, SCH No. 2009121076) FOR THE WINE COUNTRY
COMMUNITY PLAN IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS
CREATEDBY EXPRESSINCLUSIONOFRELIGIOUSINSTITUTIONS
ANDANCILLARY SCHOOLSINTHEWINECOUNTRY COMMUNITY
PLAN.
WHEREASthePlanningCommissionersdesiretoexpresslyincludereligiousinstitutions
andancillaryschoolsintheWineCountry-Winery(WC-W) district of theWineCountry
CommunityPlan(WCCP);
WHEREAStheinclusionof religiousinstitutionsandancillaryschoolsintheWC-W
district of theWCCP requiresrecirculationof theDraft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for theWCCP inorder tospecificallyaddressthepotential environmental impactsof traffic, noise,
potential exposuretopesticides, andanyother potential environmental impacts;
WHEREAStheCalvaryChapel BibleFellowship(Calvary) hasagreedtopayfifty
percent (50%) of thecost, uptoamaximumof $100,000, torecirculatetheDEIR or portions
thereof asit directlyrelatestoreligiousinstitutionsandancillaryschools;
WHEREASthePlanningCommissionwill takefurther testimonyontheexistingDEIR
issuesunrelatedtoreligiousinstitutionsandancillaryschoolsprior toclosingthismatter for public
hearingeither todayor at another publichearing;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4819-0762-7280.1 2
NOW, THEREFOR thePlanningCommissionDOESHEREBY DIRECT staff toevaluate
theenvironmental impactsof expresslyincludingreligiousinstitutionsandancillaryschoolsinthe
WCCP andtoreviseandamendtheDEIR accordingly; and, thereafter, torecirculatetheDEIR or
aportionthereof asnecessarytoallowfor adequateandmeaningful publicreviewontheissueof
religiousinstitutionsandancillaryschoolsintheWCCP, reservingtheright toincludeother issues
for recirculationfor whichCalvaryisnot involveddependinguponfuturetestimony.
__________________________________
Countyof RiversidePlanningCommission
Date: August 22, 2012
AYES:
NOES:
______________________

4815-5051-6752.2

221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: 213.250.1800
Fax: 213.250.7900
www.lbbslaw.com
MALISSA HATHAWAY MCKEITH
DIRECT DIAL: 213.580.6303
E-MAIL: MCKEITH@LBBSLAW.COM
August 16, 2012
File No.
32652.2

ATLANTA BEAUMONT CHARLESTON CHICAGO DALLAS FORT LAUDERDALE HOUSTON LA QUINTA LAFAYETTE LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MADISON COUNTY
NEW ORLEANS NEW YORK NEWARK ORANGE COUNTY PHOENIX SACRAMENTO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO TAMPA TUCSON

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FACSIMILE

Michelle Clack, Esq.
Deputy County Counsel
Office of Riverside County Counsel
3960 Orange Street, Suite 500
Riverside, CA 92501

E-Mail: mclack@co.riverside.us
Facsimile: (951) 955-6322

Re: Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowships (Calvary) proposed changes to the
proposed general plan and zoning ordinance language for the Wine Country
Community Plan (WCCP)

Dear Shellie:
I am sorry that you need to cancel our planned meeting on the 21
st
. As I mentioned
earlier today, I am available to meet any time (or to schedule a conference call) to go over
the issues in this letter hopefully in advance of the upcoming Planning Commission hearing
on August 22, 2012.
As you know, Calvary currently is processing a plot plan application (comprising
Project Case No. PP2248 and Change of Zone No. 7782) (Application). Based on past
opposition from the wineries, we fear that the Countys failure to expressly identify religious
institutions and ancillary educational facilities in the WCCP may prevent the County from
making a finding of general plan consistency in the future. At a minimum, such a finding
would be subject to challenge. Supervisor Stone has assured Calvary that he supports
churches and ancillary schools in the WCCP. The proposed minor changes set forth below
are intended to clarify this commitment and to eliminate any future uncertainty when
processing the Application.
Clarifying that religious institutions are welcome in the wine country can easily be
accomplished by adding one new policy in the policy section applicable to all districts

Shellie Clack
August 16, 2012
Page 2

4815-5051-6752.2
within the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area, as defined in the proposed general
plan amendment.
1
The new policy should state:

SWAP #__ Allow integration of places of religious worship as
appropriate provided that the facilities maintain the rural
character of the Winery, Equestrian and Residential districts by
conforming to planting and acreage requirements not
inconsistent with the goals of the Temecula Valley Wine
We further propose two modifications to the proposed zoning ordinance 348.4729
(which adds a new article, XIVd).
1. Definitions Section 14.91, subsection (t) defining Special Occasion
Facilities, should be amended as indicated by the underlined text:
An indoor or outdoor facility, which may include a
gazebo, pavilion, amphitheater, auditorium,
structures and buildings, which is used on special
occasions such as weddings, parties, concerts,
conferences, charity events and fundraiser events
for a specific period of time in return for
compensation, or which is used for religious
worship. An outdoor special occasion facility may
include a gazebo, pavilion, or amphitheater for
wedding ceremonies, concerts or other
celebrations. An indoor special occasion facility
shall include a building or structure for wedding
receptions, conferences, religious worship or
other celebrations conducted entirely within the
structure or building.
2. Section 14.92, describing authorized uses in the Wine Country-Winery (WC-
W) zone, specifically subsection (b), setting forth conditionally permitted uses
with a plot plan, which states that Any permit that is granted shall be subject
to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or
general welfare of the community. The following uses are permitted provided

1
At present, the policies applicable to all districts are numbered SWAP 1.1 through 1.9. We would
propose numbering the new policies as SWAP 1.10 and 1.11; but note that this would require re-numbing the
all subsequent SWAP policies in the current draft general plan amendment.

Shellie Clack
August 16, 2012
Page 3

4815-5051-6752.2
a plot plan has been approved pursuant to Section 18.30 of this ordinance.
We propose to add a subsection (6) as follows:
(6) The following non-commercial uses on a
minimum gross parcel size of twenty (20)
acres:
a. Places of religious worship.
Importantly, the inclusion of places of religious worship in the definition of special
occasion facility should not require recirculation of the draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR). The DEIR already has analyzed the environmental impacts that special occasion
facilities would create.
2
Impacts from commercial events versus religious gatherings are
largely indistinguishable. Moreover, the Planning Director will retain discretion to impose
reasonable conditions or mitigation on development appropriate to ensure consistency with
the objectives of the WCCP as each proposed project will continue to require its own
CEQA review prior to approval.
Calvary also has proposed a small school (under 200 students) as part of the
Application. Calvary therefore recommends adding language to the proposed addition of
subsection (6) to section 14.92 of the zoning ordinance authorizing uses in the WC-W zone
to include ancillary church uses, such as a small school. The proposed subsection (6)
would then read:

(6) The following non-commercial uses on a minimum gross
parcel size of twenty (20) acres:
a. Churches, temples or other places of
religious worship;
b. Uses ancillary to churches, temples or
places of religious worship, including
private schools.
As the WCCP currently reads, such a private school might be considered
inconsistent with the objectives of the general plan even though section 18.29(a)(1) of

2
See, e.g., DEIR Executive Summary at 1.0-32 to 1.0-34 and 1.0-40; Project Description at 3.0-18
to 3.0-20; and DEIR sections on Agricultural and Forestry Resources at 4.2-12 to 4.2-13; Biological
Resources at 4.4-10; Greenhouse Gas Emissions at 4.7-26; Land Use at 4.10-22, 4.10-24, and 4.10-31;
Noise at 4.12-36 to 4.12-48; Public Utilities, Recreation and Services at 4.13-2 and 4.13-16; and Traffic and
Circulation at 4.14-40 and 4.14-47.

Shellie Clack
August 16, 2012
Page 4

4815-5051-6752.2
Ordinance 348 permits educational institutions in any area. Again, to avoid unnecessary
litigation and delays later, Calvary believes the issue of ancillary religious schools be
openly addressed now so that the appropriate analysis and conditions can been adopted
as part of the WCCP.

The DEIR clearly does not address schools, and therefore Calvary requests that the
Planning Commission recommend recirculation on this one narrow issue. Calvary is willing
to pay the cost of this targeted analysis which should take under four months to
accomplish, and the CEQA Regulations permit such limited recirculation.
3

We appreciate that this matter has become controversial in light of the wineries past
litigation and blanket opposition to churches. The safer option for the County is to address
those issues prior to adoption of the WCCP. We look forward to working with you to ensure
that the continued operation of the Church is compatible with the goals of our surrounding
neighbors.

Very truly yours,

Malissa Hathaway McKeith of
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

MHM

3
If the revisions or additions triggering recirculation are limited to a few chapters or portions of the
draft EIR, the lead agency may circulate only the chapters or portions that were revised. 14 Cal. Code Regs.
15088.5(c);Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th
412, 449. Accordingly, the lead agency may also limit the scope of comments and responses by providing
notice identifying the significant revisions that were made and request that comments be confined to those
parts of the EIR. 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15088.5(f)(2).
Expansion Project
5
6
Citizens United for Resources and The Environment, Inc. ~ 2873 Rumsey Drive, Riverside, CA 92506 (951) 784-7628 www.curegroup.org
August 22, 2012
VlA EMAlL and FACSlMlLE
th
floor
P.O. Box 1409
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Mary Stark, Planning Commission Secretary
Email: mcstark@rctlma.org
Re: SUMMARY OF CURES' OBJECTlONS TO PROPOSED WlNE COUNTRY
COMMUNlTY PLAN
Dear Chairman Snell and Honorable Commissioners:
This public comment is submitted on behalf of Citizens United for Resources and
the Environment, lnc. ("CURE), a 501(c)(3) that supports sustainable agriculture through
long-term water management practices, habitat protection and environmental justice.
CURE was founded in 1997, and has weighed in on a number of issues directly related to
land use in Riverside County. CURE has been a strong proponent of the State of California
living up to its commitment to fund the Salton Sea. More recently, we have worked with the
Riverside County Farm Bureau and with the County Water Commission on a task force
addressing use of recycled water on citrus due to boron.
CURE has reviewed the Wine County Community Plan ("Plan) and related Draft
Environmental lmpact Report ("ElR) and raises the concerns stated herein. CURE
reserves the right to supplement these comments in the future and to respond to some of
the issues that the Planning Commission raised at the Planning Commission Hearing on
August 22, 2012.
1. lmpact to Water Supply.
CURE is concerned that the ElR does not adequately consider
water availability under today's current conditions. The ElR
calculations show there is a potential water demand increase of
approximately 10,336 acre-feet/year (38%) above current
demand. Table 7 shows the RCWD's water supply exceeds
August 22, 2012
Page 2
projected demand on average by 33,238 acre-feet. Appendix H,
ElR at 4.9-21, 22; Appen. H.
The ElR incorrectly assumes that the Project will have no
significant impact on water supplies due to reduced residential
and commercial water use. This analysis fails to account for the
significant increase in irrigation resulting from mandatory and
incentivized agriculture as a condition of residential land use on
the same property for WC zoned land. For example, 75% of
implementing projects on sites zones WC-W must be planted
with vineyards. SWAP 1.3; ElR at 4.2-11.
ln addition, the studies evaluated and referenced in Appendix H
include some dated materials from nearly a decade ago. A
proper assessment of the impact to water supply requires
updated and current data. Since the General Plan serves as the
foundation for all future development, ensuring that adequate
water is available should be addressed at the earliest time from
a CEQA perspective.
2. lmpact to Water Quality based on lncreased Nitrate Concentrations.
The ElR acknowledges that leaching of nitrate to groundwater
can be a threat to public health but fails to identify how this will
be mitigated to insignificance. ElR at 4.9.19. Recent studies
from the University of California, Davis outline best
management techniques that can be adopted to reduce
increased nitrate loads.
To protect against these long-term impacts to water quality,
management measures and recommended practices for
reducing nitrate to groundwater from crop operations should be
analyzed and implemented. Further, any infrastructure
development necessary for water supply should include
recycled water with sufficient treatment to eliminate additional
nitrates (such as reverse osmosis). The cost of such treatment
is not included in the ElR analysis.
3. lmpact of lncreased Labor Force.
The ElR and Project Plan did not address the availability of low
income or worker housing to accommodate the increased labor
force traditionally drawn to low pay agricultural or hospitability
August 22, 2012
Page 3
jobs. Workers must have affordable, accessible housing;
whether it is provided by employers or not. ln the absence of
policies designed to accommodate a greater labor force, labor
camps or tent cities may result. This was the case in Duroville
in the east Coachella Valley. We urge the Planning
Commission to contact the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments to draw upon their analysis and recommendation
for housing migrant labor.
The ElR did not take these environmental justice issues into
consideration For example, the Proposed Wine Country
Zoning allows for farm employee housing after a conditional
use permit ("CUP) is obtained. However, this plan depends on
the willingness of farm owners to proactively build housing that
rarely occurs.
CURE requests that the impact of increased labor be
considered and analyzed, and that the County draw upon
experiences in other areas such as Coachella Valley for
militating against the impacts of increased migrant workers in a
particular area.
As proposed, the Community Plan would result in significant adverse
environmental, social and health impacts that have not been adequately
identified, assessed or mitigated in the Environmental lmpact Report. CURE
requests that the County evaluate these impacts in more detail prior to
making a final environmental determination or proceeding with the Project
Plan.
Respectfully yours,
Nicole S. Martin
ClTlZENS UNlTED FOR RESOURCES AND
THE ENVlRONMENT, lNC.
Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship
Religious Land Use & Institutionalized
Persons Act
(RLUIPA)
From: Joseph Kraatz [mailto:plantnut@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 5:41 PM
To: Info Faith-Freedom
Subject: churches in wine country

There is absolutely no reason for churches in the wine
country. Forcing your religious beliefs on the pristine
wine country is disgusting. You have plenty of places to
build churches in Temecula. The wine country doesn't
need all your traffic. Go find someplace else to build
your church. Joe, Oceanside

RLUIPA
UNANUMOUSLY PASSED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ASSEMBLIES
MUST BE TREATED ON EQUAL TERMS TO NON
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ASSEMBLIES
42 USC 2000cc
LEONESS CELLARS WEDDING
COST $15,000.00
PONTE FAMILY ESTATE
COST $13,500.00
CALLAWAY VINEYARD & WINERY
COST $16,200.00
MOUNT PALOMAR WINERY
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL SUMMER EVENT
MISSION
SITV's mission is to build and maintain a classical
theatrical company of such excellence that it shall
overflow its local boundaries, thus creating a
renowned artistic center in the Temecula Valley;
strives to develop and preserve in our citizenry a
life-long need to cherish the arts; believes in
constantly seeking to present work of the highest
quality and in offering company members,
audiences and students the richest possible
learning experiences.
SHAKESPEARE IN THE VINES
MOUNT PALOMAR WINERY
MONTE DE ORO WINERY & VINEYARDS
LONGSHADOW RANCH WINERY
VARIETY OF ASSEMBLIES
MAURICE CARRIE VINEYARD &
WINERY
WILSON CREEK WINERY & VINEYARDS
THINGS TO REMEMBER
Equal Treatment/Equal Terms
Development and Design
Standards Control Aesthetics
Setbacks Limit Any Potential for
Conflicts
Waiver of Objections to ABC
Licenses
Impact of Incompatible Uses on Wine Country Plan
Federal State County
WINEGROWERS
Federal: TTB (Alc. & Tobacco Tax & Trade
Bureau)
Permits, Labeling & Excise Taxes

State:
Licensing, Marketing and Restrictions

County:
Zoning Restrictions
This division is for the protection of the
safety, welfare, health, peace, and morals of
the people of the State to promote
temperance in the use and consumption of
alcoholic beverages. It involves in the highest
degree the economic, social, and moral well-
being and the safety of the State and of all its
people. All provisions of this division shall be
liberally construed for the accomplishment of
these purposes.
WINEGROWERS
1. Schools
2. Churches
RETAIL LICENSEE
1. Schools
2. Hospitals
3. Public playgrounds
4. Nonprofit Youth
Facilities
5. Churches

Thou shall not be too close to
Location Restrictions
(d) The department may, if it shall
determine for good cause that the
granting of any such privilege would be
contrary to public welfare or morals,
deny the right to exercise any on-sale
privilege which is within 200 feet of a
school or church...
TYPE 20 LICENSE
Small & Virtual Wineries,
Wineries Just Starting or
Selling 3
rd
Party Wine.

Examples:
Wilson Creek (now 02)
Mapes Cellars
Cowper Family Vineyards &
Wine
Thornton Winery
TYPE 42, 47, 67 LICENSE
Hotels, Restaurants with
Full Bar, Bed & Breakfasts,
etc.

Examples:
Ponte Vineyard Inn (47)
Inn & Europa Village (67)
(a) The Department may refuse the issuance
of any retail license for premises located
within the immediate vicinity of churches
and hospitals.

400 Feet within immediate vicinity
Reimel v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
(App. 1 Dist. 1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 40

(b) refuse the issuance located
within at least 600 feet of schools and
public playgrounds or nonprofit youth
facilities, including, but not limited to,
facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy
Scouts, or Campfire Girls.
200
Churches
Schools
400
Hospitals
Churches
600
Schools
Youth Facilities
Playgrounds

The county agricultural commissioner
may apply Section 11503 to the
agricultural use of any pesticide for
agricultural production within one-
quarter mile of a school with respect to
the timing, notification, and method of
application.

no foliar applications of pesticides
are allowed within mile and no
aircraft applications of pesticides
are allowed within mile of a
school in session.

Riv. County. Ag Comm. Rule
VINEYARDS
EVENING - 11 AM
SCHOOLS
7 AM - 3 PM
Ag. Spraying

Mile =
125 Acres

Mile =
502 Acres

Federal Law Allows Restrictions
RLUIPA
Substantial Burden Clause
No individualized assessments.
Prohibition is only within Plan area.
Less than 1/2% of County affected.
Equal Protection Clause
Regulatory Purpose must be legitimate
Issuance of Liquor Licenses (Centro Familiar v. City of
Yuma)
Protection of Agriculture (Williamson Act)

Incidental commercial uses, such as
restaurants, delicatessens, hotels, resorts,
and special occasion facilities, shall be
authorized only when they are secondary,
and directly related to, winery operations as
defined in the following sections. [ADD] All
uses which would impair issuance of liquor
licenses under California law or agricultural
cultivation shall be prohibited.
PublicTestimonyforWineCountryCommunityPlan
ReceivedbetweenAugust21,2012(4:00PM)September24,2012(12:00PM)
DateReceived From Affiliation
SupportforCalvaryChurch/PlacesofreligiousworshipintheCommunityPlan
8/21/2012 AllysonSmith
8/21/2012 DrucillaMartin
8/21/2012 JoanPernicano
8/21/2012 Supt.JamesE.Mason,M.A ImaniTempleofTemeculaChurchof
GodofChrist
8/21/2012 Patrick&SherrieNalty
8/21/2012 SophiaNalty
8/21/2012 StephenE.Sioco
8/21/2012 TedLeavenworth
8/22/2012 BeverlyHatch
8/22/2012 CarolJones
8/22/2012 ClareMcGrew
8/22/2012 MelissaLandis,LandisFamily Resident
8/22/2012 RachelStevens
8/22/2012 SimonMelendres,Pastor TemploRocaFirme
8/23/2012 CynthiaKates
8/23/2012 ConnieH.
8/23/2012 IvetteCalhoun
8/23/2012 JanetWilber
8/23/2012 SusanEyerAnderson,D.V.M.
8/29/2012 Coppergirls
9/19/2012 ValBrowne
9/22/2012 ScottandLorieHolman
9/22/2012 KeithStill
8/21/12
9/19/12
Additional57signed petitions,emails,and
letters
ResidentsandCalvaryChurch
Members
SupportfortheproposedCommunityPlanandpreservingareafromincompatibleuses
8/21/12 CynthiaMcCoy Resident
8/21/12 MeriRosaPyrce Resident
8/21/12 JohnFalkstein
8/22/12 ChuckBrood
8/22/12 JonMcPherson MasterWinemaker,SouthCoast
Winery
8/22/12 SusanneandTomCampbell PropertyOwner
9/04/12 DavidBarnes,alsorequestadditional
languageforotheragricultureuses
CrowsPassFarm
9/17/12 ChuckandSallyWing Resident

9/20/12 RebeccaCrook MemberofRCHA
9/20/12 ChuckTobin VDCAdvisoryCommitteeMember
9/22/12 ElinMotherhead Equestrian/RidingClubMember
DevelopmentStandards
8/23/12,
9/18/12
LaurieStaude Resident
BoundaryModificationComments
DateReceived From Request
8/20/12 MicheleAStaples,JacksonDeMarcoTidus
&Peckenpaugh,ALawCorporation
representingtheCoronaFamilyLimited
Partnership
EstateDensityResidentialWinery
OverlayorexclusionfromCommunity
Plan
8/21/12 AndrewRauchrepresentingFiroozFamily ExclusionfromtheCommunityPlan
Boundary
8/21/12 RichardF.Jones,Jr ExclusionfromtheCommunityPlan
Boundaryandsuggestedrevisionsto
developmentstandard
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:14 AM
Subject: FW: Overturn the ban against churches and allow Calvary Chapel to expand
From: Allyson Smith [mailto:allysons@cox.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:11 PM
To: Stark, Mary; Buster, Bob; Tavaglione, J ohn; Stone, J eff; district4@rcbos.org; Ashley, Marion
Subject: Overturn the ban against churches and allow Calvary Chapel to expand

Dear Ms. Mary Stark and Riverside County Supervisors,

Please overturn the ban against churches in Riverside County and allow Calvary Chapel to expand. In expanding
Temecula Wine Country from 7,000 acres to over 18,990 acres, you certainly have room for many houses of worship. It is
entirely unfair, unAmerican, and prejudicial keep churches out of the wine country. Please do what is right and fair, and
uphold religious freedom by including churches in Temecula Wine Country.

If you do not, then I will avoid coming to the area in the future. I was just there in May but unaware of the ban. Now that I
am aware of it, if it continues to stand, I refuse to patronize any Temecula Wine Country vintners.

Sincerely,

Allyson Smith
El Cajon, CA
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW:
From: Drucilla Martin/Vendegna [mailto:drufaith@gmail.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject:

Please, think hard concerning this ruling.... We must not forget our freedoms in this great nation.... Let them
build their house of worship!!

dru
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Religious Freedom
From: J oan Pernicano [mailto:jpernicano@sbcglobal.net]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Religious Freedom

Thisbanisunconstitutional.ThisisNOTwhatourfoundingfatherswerethinkingaboutwhentheywanted
separationofchurchandstate.
ItwastoprotectchurchesFROMthestateNOTtheotherwayaround.IagreewithCCBF and Supervisor J eff
Stone when he stated in a letter written on J anuary 25, 2010,
houses of worship and schools are the backbone of any community. And I support churches locating in the
wine country and in fact, in any zone,
and will do everything in my power to see that this is overturned.
You have awakened the sleeping giant and we are not going to allow our religious freedom to be trampled on
by godless bureaucrats who have forgotten how they got into positions of power.
As Martin Luther King so famously said, we shall overcome and well start by throwing the bums out!
Every seat IS the peoples seat.
JoanPernicano
SanDiego,CA
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Proposed Wine Country Plan
From: PS Nalty [mailto:muspreach1@yahoo.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Cc: Buster, Bob; Tavaglione, J ohn; Stone, J eff; district4@rcbos.org; Ashley, Marion
Subject: Proposed Wine Country Plan

To: The Planning Commissioners of Riverside County
We understand that houses of worship and private schools are not included in the new Wine Country
Plan. We respectfully request that you add religious institutions and private schools to this plan.

Sincerely,

Patrick & Sherrie Nalty

31885 Silkvine Dr
Winchester CA 92596
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Proposed Wine Country Plan
From: Sophia Nalty [mailto:sophianalty@yahoo.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Cc: Buster, Bob; Tavaglione, J ohn; Stone, J eff; district4@rcbos.org; Ashley, Marion
Subject: Proposed Wine Country Plan

I understand that houses of worship and private schools are not included in the new
Wine Country
Plan. I respectfully request that you add religious institutions and private schools to this
plan.

Sincerely,

Sophia Nalty

31885 Silkvine Dr
Winchester CA 92596
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: New Wine Country Plan
From: rizty [mailto:riztys@gmail.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: New Wine Country Plan

Please include religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine Country Plan.

Thank you for your attention.

Stephen E. Sioco
34706 Foxberry Road
Winchester, CA 92596

--

" He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love
mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?"
Micah 6:8
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: New Wine Country plan
From: beverlyhatch@earthlink.net [mailto:beverlyhatch@earthlink.net]

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:07 AM
To: Stark, Mary
Subject: New Wine Country plan

Please include religious institutions and private schools in the new Wine Country plan. This will help the area prosper
economically as well as spiritually and culturally.

Beverly Hatch

1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: New Wine Country Plan
From: Ted Leavenworth [mailto:tedreliance@gmail.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: New Wine Country Plan

Attention Planning Commission:

Please include religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine Country Plan.

Respectfully,
Ted Leavenworth - South Temecula Resident
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Wine Country Freedom
From: Carol J ones [mailto:cjones0377@yahoo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:02 PM
To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Wine Country Freedom

Mr. Stark,

I saw this article on Air1.com and wonder - since I live in Southeast Texas, does my support count in
California?

Also, I am a Christain and even so, I am ashamed at how many other Christians treat people and respond to non
Christian circumstances. It is sad to think what Christians are doing to cause so many non Christians to despise
us. It's no wonder they don't want us around. We most certainly do not need to support things which are against
God, but we do not need to condemn either- that is not our place, and it pushes people away from God rather
than draw them near. I think this is just as an important issue to address as not being aloud to build Church
buildings and have house worship and private schools, do you agree?
Sincerely,
Carol Jones
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: please allow religious institutions and private schools in Temecula's winecountry.
From: Clare McGrew [mailto:clareshorses@gmail.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: please allow religious institutions and private schools in Temecula's winecountry.
Iamafraidofwhatinterestsareatplayhere.EnoughisenoughofantiChristianity.Ofcoursethewinecountrywasafter
thechurches.Whybanchurches,wherecommunitybecomesstrongandhealthyandchildrenlearnmorality.
PleaseThankyouClareMcGrew
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Temecula Wine Country "Community" Plan
From: Melissa Landis [mailto:melissalandis42@gmail.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Temecula Wine Country "Community" Plan

Dear Riverside County Planning Commission,
I am writing you to ask that you would please include religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine
Country Plan.
I am a resident of wine country, a mother of two boys, and PTA President at my youngest son's elementary
school. My husband is a firefighter. My children attend the youth group and children ministries at Calvary
Chapel Bible Fellowship. My husband and I attend services at Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship twice per week
and I attend a women's bible study once per week. As you can see, as residents of wine country, our house of
worship is an integral part of our family.
Our church is teaching us to be the kind of citizens that God would want us to be as we are taught from the
Bible each time we attend any type of service at Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship. I would think that a
community, as a whole, is better when you have citizens that are God fearing people residing in them. The
same citizens who faithfully pay their taxes, keep their property in compliance with all laws, and, in general,
abide by the laws set forth within the community. As a resident of this community, we deserve to have places
of worship included as they represent the institutions that are a vital to any true "community".
I ask again, that you would please include religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine Country
Plan.
Sincerely,
The Landis Family
Melissa Landis
36275 Alta Mesa Court
Temecula, CA 92592
(951) 302-8559
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Churches and religious freedom
OriginalMessage
From:RachelStevens[mailto:cuttingsoup@roadrunner.com]
Sent:Wednesday,August22,20128:38AM
To:Stark,Mary
Subject:Churchesandreligiousfreedom
Goodmorning,
Mayyoubetouchedthismorningatthehearinginarealway.Ipraythatyouwillrealize
theimportanceofchurchesinthecommunityandlifttheban.Morethanonegroupofpeople
shouldhaveasayaboutthecommunityinwhichtheylive.IstandwithTheBarnchurchAnd
supportreligiousfreedomespeciallyinWinecountry.
Best,
Rachel
SentfrommyiPhone
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: everyone likes wine
OriginalMessage
From:Cynthia[mailto:wsltitanic@earthlink.net]
Sent:Tuesday,August21,201211:25PM
To:Stark,Mary
Subject:everyonelikeswine
MynameisCynthiaKates
Mostpeoplelovewineandmostpeoplearereligious.Iamnotsurewhyyoufeelthatyou
shouldbeabletostopchurchesfrombeingbuilt
inthearea.Itsonethingifitwasprivateproperty,butitsnot.
Youareelectedbythepeopletoallowpeopletodothisthingstheywanttonottoprohibit.
Peopleshouldbeabletogettochurchwithinreasonfromwheretheyliveespeciallywithgas
pricesgettingsohighandsomanycitiesforcingpeopleoutoftheircars(sowecansave
thefrogsorwhatever).Itwouldbegoodforyoutoreconsiderthecitiespositiononthis
becauseyouknowthisisnotgoingtogoaway.Thesereligionshavebeenaroundlongbefore
youwereandlongafteryouwillbegone.Youdontwanttowasteyourtimefightingalosing
battledoyou?
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: wine country
From: Connie [mailto:connie_121@verizon.net]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: wine country

Hello Mary,

Too all who need to know , I am in disagreement to this appaling act of no other churches in Wine Countyor
schooling. This is not acceptable

Connie H.

1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Wine Country Freedom
From: Ivette Calhoun [mailto:uvacalhoun@yahoo.com]

To: Stark, Mary; Buster, Bob; Tavaglione, J ohn; Stone, J eff; district4@rcbos.org; Ashley, Marion
Subject: Wine Country Freedom

To whom it may concern:

Please include Religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine Country Plan.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks,
Ivette Calhoun
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:13 PM
Subject: Constituent Phone Call RE: Wine Country Community Plan
IreceivedacalltodayfromJanetWilber.Shewouldlikeyouto addher name in supportofchurhes
andschools.
Mary C. Stark
TLMA Commission Secretary
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 955-7436 Direct
(951) 955-1881 Fax
mcstark@rctlma.org

1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 7:09 AM
Subject: FW: Wine Country Plan
From: Susan Eyer-Anderson [mailto:drsues@directv.net]

Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:47 PM
To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Wine Country Plan

Mary Stark, Planning Commission Secretary
P.O. Box 1409,
Riverside, CA 92502

Could you please let the following Commissioners read this letter?

cc: Commissioner J ohn Roth, 1st District
Commissioner J ohn Snell, 2st District
Commissioner J ohn Petty, 3rd District
Commissioner J im Porras, 4th District
Commissioner J an Zuppardo, 5th District

RE: Proposed Wine Country Plan

9:48 AM8/27/2012 9:48 AM
2

I understand that houses of worship and private schools are not included in the new Wine Country
Plan. I respectfully request that you add religious institutions and private schools to this plan.
Okay...that was the canned part of the letter. (And it is a sincere request)....Here is the heartfelt,
blatant rest of the letter:

I was at the hearing yesterday on the 22
nd
. I sat through the whole thing...which really does give me
a lot of respect for the commissioners who have to do this on a regular basis.
I heard a lot of people...both winery owners and employees express anger and come up with
reasons as to why they do not want the Church... or its proposed school... included in the Wine
Country Plan. Mainly what I heard were 3 arguments:
1. The church and its school are incompatible uses and do not preserve the agriculture theme
2. The risk of lawsuit of insecticide spraying near a school is unacceptable
3. Concerns about increased traffic from the school
My thoughts:
1. Arent there churches in Europe that co-exist well among the wineries? In the Champagne
growing region in France I know of at least one instance where there was a church. It was also was
a winery.. (a monastery) that produced Dom Perringnon champagne. I believe it also had a school?
No, I think the church and its school are not "incompatible" with the wineries... especially if the
church plants 75% of its property with vineyards, and sells the grapes to the wineries.
2. The risk of insecticide spraying is mainly while "school is in session"... so why not have a
"spray day" so that the kids stay home if the insecticides have to be sprayed during school hours
(most of the spraying..if at all...has to be done at night, and before the winds pick up in the
morning). This "risk" argument does not really seem like a sound one to me..in that there are kids
and other people who live in the wine country and are there at night every night, all year round. If
the risks were really that significant...why are the residents not notified each time the wineries
spray? What about the winery employees and patrons of the wineries?? People driving by during
spraying?
There are set backs that the planners can require that could make this doable. I would suggest
having the church put the school "up front" by Rancho California road in the existing smaller
buildings (which would make it further away from Faulkner and further away from spraying)...and
9:48 AM8/27/2012 9:48 AM
3
have them build a beautiful sanctuary that looks like a winery on the area nearest Faulkner..that
would actually be a thing of beauty and only be used once a week or so. It could even be made to
look like an old European church or winery.
Getting back to the matter of risks... I heard that some of these wineries are actually allowing
people to come ride their horses there and drink wine...and actually condoning and encouraging it. I
find that absolutely unbelievable. I am a veterinarian. I advise against this practice. NOW. Alcohol
and horses do not mix. This is a recipe for disaster. I know of people personally who have been
killed doing this. Let me repeat myself. If you allow or condone people who have been
partaking of alcohol to get on horses and ride... you will have a fatality or life-changing injury
at some point within 5 years. You will also have a lawsuit. This is not a matter of "if" it is a
matter of "when". This is especially true for the general public who ride rental horses as wineries. I
cannot believe that the winery owners, and the county, and anyone else concerned, would even
dream of allowing this to occur on wine country property. The risk for a lawsuit in this situation is
exponentially higher than one from a possible spray incident at a church school. Hearing wineries
express fear of lawsuit from the church students, and turn a blind eye to this kind of risk is sadly
laughable. (I do believe that the trail network is a great project, and commend you on that
aspect...and plan on riding our horses on it someday...so please do not intertwine the two activities.
I am simply advising not to allow people to drink and ride...and the trails should avoid the general
winery public/traffic,,by at least 200 ft.. to minimize spooking the horses and showing a reasonable
attempt to protect the riders).
This brings me to my third topic...traffic.
3. The traffic that would come from the school..I believe.. is negligible (at 9:00am and again at
3:00pm weekdays) compared to the HUGE burden of traffic I have seen in the 20 years I have been
living in/near the wine country.
Lets also discuss the QUALITY of the traffic, vs quantity.
The traffic we see as residents or people commuting home via Rancho California rd is
HORRENDOUS, compared to how it used to be prior to all the wineries going in. And yes, people
ARE intoxicated when they are driving to and from wineries.
They drive erratically, do not signal, and are very very slow and inconsiderate. We as residents
know that there is a blind eye turned to this by the police and the county...and we think this is
because there is a lot at stake financially for these wineries, and they bring a lot of taxable revenue
in for the city and county. Therefore, we feel unprotected and without a voice. That is the
general consensus of the residents in the area. We simply avoid Rancho California rd on the
weekends for this reason. It is dangerous and very annoying. (Not to mention during the Balloon
and Wine festival). Let me ask you, though...arent the wineries legally responsible for these people
drinking and driving? Isnt that another lawsuit waiting to happen?
My husband had the unfortunate experience recently of pulling up behind a purple limousine at a
stop-sign on Rancho Calif rd....just in time to see the back window roll down and a woman vomit
9:48 AM8/27/2012 9:48 AM
4
out of it down the side of the limo. Isnt that lovely? Yes, the wineries do bring their flaws and
blemishes...but we residents also know that in these hard times, businesses need to survive, and we
support them anyway. Yes, in spite of all of this, I do support the wine country plan.
Well, I will leave you with that nice visual, and hope that this letter has somehow given you more
food for thought!
Thank you for your consideration :)
Sincerely,
Susan Eyer-Anderson, D.V.M.

_____________________________________
39201 San Ignacio rd
Hemet, Ca. 92544
(951)970-2252
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Wine Country vs. Calvary Chapel

From: coppergirls [coppergirls@verizon.net]
To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Wine Country vs. Calvary Chapel
To:JohnRoth,JohnSnell,JohnPetty,JimPorras,JanZuppardo
IattendedthemorningportionoftheWineCountryvsCalvaryChapelmeetingonAug22attheTemeculaCityHall.AllI
cansayISTHISAMERICA
IwasappalledthatapprovingaChristianSchoolisevenanissue.HowdaretheseWinerieshavethepowertodenya
ChristianSchool.Iwonder
whatwouldhavehappenedifthemuslimswantedtobuildamosqueintheirpreciousarea.
Howdarethewinerieshaveanypowertodenysomethingsosorelyneededinthiscountry.Youwouldliketothinkthey
wouldbeproudtosupportandbehonoredthattheCalvaryChapelwantstoinvestsomuchmoneyandeffortto
provideaChristianEducationto125children.Allthisefforttodeny125children,dowenothavemoreimportantissues
tobattle?Thepublicschoolsarenothingbutliberalinstitutionsrunbytheunionstobrainwashingouryouthandyet
theygetapproval.TheChristianvaluesarebeingattackedfromeveryangleandyetifitweremuslimswantingtobuild
amosqueeveryonewouldbekissingtheirasses.
AmericaisaChristianCountryandwemustfighttoprotectthatandfighttodestroythepowerholdoftheGangster
Unions,LiberalsandtraitorslikeObama.IhopeyoutellthegreedysinglemindedWineriestogoblowsand.Iwillno
longertakegueststothesewineries.
AVOID MONSTANTO POISENING GMO'S VOTE YES ON PROP 37

Beware the government snoops on your emails and phone calls. The exact size and scope of the
undercutting of our right to privacy, extends beyond your wildest imagination.
OBUMMER AND ALL HIS AMERICAN DESTROYING LIBERAL COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS
MUST BE DEFEATED. DEFEND AMERICA, DUMP HUSSEIN!
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
" Thomas Paine"
\SAVE AMERICA STOP AGENDA 21! Remove ICLEI - Smart Grids & Fema Camps are being built
now!
WATCH! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Click to give free food and care with just a click - http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Sir Winston Churchill "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyses the social development of those who follow it".
www.obsessionthemovie.com
www.christianaction.org For truth about the terrorsim from Islam in America.
2:48 PM8/29/2012 2:48 PM
2
http://www.islamreview.com/ The Islamic Strategies and The Christian
Response.
Political correctness is a suppression of free speech.
THE BATTLE TO TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT OVER
GreatestmaninHistory,namedJesus,hadnoservants,yettheycalledHimMaster.
Hadnodegree,yettheycalledHimTeacher.Hadnomedicines,yettheycalledHim
Healer.Hehadnoarmy,yetkingsfearedHim.Hewonnomilitarybattles,yethe
conqueredtheworld.Hecommittednocrime,...yetheycrucified....Him.Hewasburied
inatomb,yetHelivestoday.
1
From: Stark, Mary
Cc: Coyle, Frank
Subject: Wine Country Constituent Phone Call
IreceivedaphonecallonSeptember19,2012at4:55p.m.fromValeBrownewholivesinMurrieta.Shewantedto
verballycommentinsupportofCalvaryChapelandtheirschool.Shemadethefollowingpoints:
Keepchildrensschoolsinthesameareaastheparentsandtheirhomes.
Thechurchhasbeenthereforsolong,whyshouldtheymove.
Shehascheckedotheragriculturalareasandtheyhaveschools.
Shedoesntseethepotentialhazardstotheschool.
Shedoesntseeotherchurchescomingintothearea.
Ingeneral,thePlanningCommissionshouldallowthechurchandschoolinthearea.
Mary C. Stark
CountyAdministrativeCenter
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:13 AM
Subject: FW: In Care of Mary Stark: New Wine Country Plan
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Scott Holman [mailto:godspeedevents@verizon.net]

Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Stark, Mary
Subject: In Care of Mary Stark: New Wine Country Plan

Mary,
Please consider including religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine Country Plan.
Thank you for this consideration.
Scott and Lorie Holman
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: wine country freedom
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Keith Still [mailto:music.guy77@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Buster, Bob; Tavaglione, J ohn; Stone, J eff; district4@rcbos.org; Ashley, Marion
Cc: Stark, Mary; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Subject: wine country freedom

Hello,

I am writing to express my strong conviction regarding Temecula Wine Country's bann against the building of
churches and private schools. I believe this to be a violation of our constitutional freedom. Please include
religious institutions and private schools in the New Wine Country Plan. Thank you for your consideration of
this matter.

Keith Still
1
From: Cindy [czomccoy@gmail.com]
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Subject: Wine Country Preservation
DO NOT INCLUDE
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN THE NEW WINE COUNTRY PLAN.

The Wine Country Community Plan states:

"Mission Statement

The mission and vision of the Riverside County Wine Country Community Plan is to preserve vineyard lands
and to create an environment that encourages development of wineries with the goal of making the Temecula
Valley Southern California Wine Country known and respected worldwide, while maintaining the quality of life
for residential communities and the equestrian lifestyle within and around it."
I do not support the expansion of Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship. This development does not encourage
preservation of vineyard lands that are unique to The Inland Empire for Temecula Wine Country. I am a
resident of Temecula and have enjoyed this unique enviroment since 1995.
Calvary Chapel has aquired land to meet the goals of their agenda that does not include the best interest of the
environment and the community. I am disgusted by the proganda and the petition statements presented by
supporters of this religious institution that fails to present the facts about this issue. I am a resident of this
community and I am aware of the facts, especially as a supporter of the Christian Faith and The Bible.
Thank you,
Cynthia McCoy
31350 Congressional Dr., Temecula CA 92591

1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Letter for Planning Committee - Wine Country Church Expansion
Attachments: Letter Regarding Calvary Expansion 8-21-2012.docx
From: Meri Rosa-Pyrce [mailto:merirosa@verizon.net]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Letter for Planning Committee - Wine Country Church Expansion
Hello Ms. Stark,

Can you please see that my attached letter gets forwarded to each of the members of the Planning Committee.

I appreciate your time and effort. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thank you.

Warmest Regards,

Meri Rosa-Pyrce
951-677-3617 home
951-551-6374 cell
Church Expansion

My name is Meri Rosa-Pyrce. I am not a winery owner nor am I a parishioner of the Calvary
Bible Chapel Fellowship Church. I am just an average citizen that has no monetary affiliation
with the parties that are in dispute. I am, however, a very faithful and spiritual individual and
teach my children to be the same. I believe and worship God every day. I am by no means anti-
God or anti-worship. Please understand this, as this is very important.

My husband and I own property in the Temecula Wine Country. We purchased our land for our
family (we have 2 children, ages 15 and 13) because we absolutely adore and appreciate the
beauty, quaintness and stress-relief Wine Country has to offer. Whenever we travel down
Rancho California Road and pass Butterfield Road, I automatically get a sense of peace and
tranquility as I set my eyes on the vines and their beauty and breathe in the aromas of the
vineyards. For me, it is pure joy and such a wonderful feeling that takes me away from the
hustle and bustle of everyday life. What a glorious treasure we have in our own backyard. We
are very fortunate.

I write to you today in opposition of allowing the Calvary Bible Chapel Fellowship Church to
expand its current facility in Wine Country. I have no idea why a church would want to have its
place of worship located in the middle of an area that is designated for wine production and
clientele that drink alcohol. It doesnt appear to be a perfect fit, but more of an obvious oddity.
It is not called "Amusement Park Country", "Sports Country", "School Country", "Suburbia
Country", "Church Country" or "Corporate Country. It is called "Wine Country", and it is
called this for a reasonfor the rolling hills of planted vines and wineries scattered throughout.
This is what makes the area so precious, unique and desirable. The wineries fit in. It is the
wineries that spend a lot of money to maintain the vines, which in turn keeps the beauty of the
area alive and vibrant. It is the wineries that make the wine that attracts people from all over the
world who want to go wine tasting, have a good time and look forward to enjoying the ambiance
that Wine Country has to offer. Lastly, it is the wineries that put Wine Country on the map. The
last thing Wine Country needs are non-fitting establishments that take away from, not add to, the
beautiful setting and ambiance it offers. There are many areas to build and expand a church. I
dont believe Wine Country was intended to be that area. In addition, the traffic congestion that
this expansion will create will do no justice to any of the residents that live in the area. The two-
lane Rancho California road is already faced with negative traffic situations, and this expansion
will only make matters worse. And, if a school is allowed, this will only build upon the already
problematic traffic congestion that the residents are faced with daily. It is not a viable situation.

To end, if you allow this expansion, the requests for non-fitting establishments will not end. You
will be setting a precedence here. Your decision should not be taken lightly, as it can
undoubtedly have a negative effect on Wine Country and potentially destroy the vision that was
planned for the area. Please protect Wine Country from those who have other agendas and do
not want to follow what is in the original Mission Statementto preserve vineyard lands and to
create an environment that encourages development of wineries with the goal of making the
Temecula Valley Southern California Wine Country known and respected worldwide." Why
have a Mission Statement if you dont uphold it? God made Wine Country a diamond of
richness and splendor, and we need to preserve what God has given to us.

Respectfully Submitted,
Meri Rosa-Pyrce
951-677-3617 home
951-551-6374 cell

1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Temecula wine country Please DO NOT let more churches in the valley!
From: BB4you2@aol.com [mailto:BB4you2@aol.com]

To: Buster, Bob; Tavaglione, J ohn; Stone, J eff; district4@rcbos.org; Ashley, Marion; info@faith-freedom.com; Stark,
Mary; taige@ccbf.net; bb4you2@aol.com
Subject: Temecula wine country Please DO NOT let more churches in the valley!

To whom it may concern, I live in the diamond valley and have since 1995. I feel there are more then enough churches in
our area. Please leave the law the way it is. We or they do not need anymore. Once they get in there they are going to
push things on us. If and when I want to go to church there are many choices I have. Please for the freedom of the people
all the people in the valley. What is the REAL reason they want to get in there? There is more to the story that they are not
telling. When I noticed that Chic-Fil-la was going to be providing free lunch for them, that was more then enough for me to
send out this email.

Thank you for reading this.

Chuck Brood
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Open Letter to the Riverside Planning Commissioners
Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission.docx
From: J on McPherson [mailto:jmcpherson@wineresort.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Open Letter to the Riverside Planning Commissioners
Mary
Iwasnotabletoattendtodayshearingduetoworkrelatedduties.Iwouldappreciateitifyouwouldseethateachof
thecommissionersreceiveacopyofmyletterandthatmyletterbecomeapartoftherecordconcerningthismatter.
Thankyouverymuch,
JonMcPherson

First, I would like to thank each of you for allowing me the opportunity to
speak with you via letter since I am unable to attend the hearing in person. As
a winemaker, I am tied closely to the harvest, and today, August 22
nd
, 2012, we
are harvesting Viognier from one of our estate vineyards. I am sending this
letter via email to each of you asking that you consider the following points
regarding the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy.
The CV Zone is now, and has always been an area of contention. Ever since I
first came to the Temecula Valley in 1985, development pressure has been
ever- present. The safeguards that were put in place back in the 80s and early
90s to keep uncontrolled growth in check, have, over time, been realized as
either short-sighted or in need of revision to counter the ever changing wine
market. The efforts of numerous individuals have been monumental in
maintaining the constraints that make wine country what it is today.
To this point, the business scope of wineries and vineyards which comprise
wine country has grown to include restaurants and hotels as compatible,
ancillary uses. When speaking about compatible uses, a restaurant
complements a winery, its wine. A hotel complements the destination
environment that wine country wants to imbue. Yet, the fact of the matter is
that without agriculture, none of this would be possible. Vineyards help to give
Wine Country its country atmosphere, and without land that is available to
plant grapes on, there will be no vineyards. And of course, No vineyards
translates into No wine. This is certainly a scenario that the Cucamonga Valley
(just 50 miles north of here) demonstrates very well. The loss of arable lands to
the industrialization and development of the greater Ontario area has seen a
once prominent viticultural area become little more than a tribute to an era
gone by. It may start slowly at first, a housing tract here, a gas station there,
but when non-compatible uses are allowed in an agricultural zone, it is
precedent setting. The restrictive zoning that allowed Temecula wine country
to flourish is the very zoning that will insure wine countrys long-term survival.
Secondly, the tax revenues that are generated by winery properties are
significant. Not only are property taxes part of the mix, so are sales taxes,
excise taxes, payroll taxes and room taxes which are a continual source of
income for the city, county, and state jurisdictions. This revenue stream
cannot be realized without the land needed for grape growing. No grapes, No
wine, No tax revenue.
You may have heard testimony to the effect that the Temecula wineries are
anti-religion or anti-church. To the contrary, I would assert my own beliefs
here, but the reality is this is a land use argument, and not a freedom of
religion issue. What religion any of us may believe in is a moot point, especially
when discussing land use issues. The proposed Calvary Chapel expansion
project goes beyond the scope of what the original country church set out to
embody. The issues that are tied to a project of this size are numerous, and
ultimately, are all in conflict with the original CV Zone Policy. The discussion
of allowing only this church in the valley, should this expansion project be
allowed to proceed, will bring forth RLUIPA lawsuits (under the Equal Terms
and Exclusion Provisions of RLUIPA) by other institutions that would like to
make a home in wine country.
Honestly, Wine Country is about wineries and vineyards. Other uses that do
not enhance or compliment this dichotomy need to be relegated to the
surrounding communities and areas which are zoned for and can better
accommodate those uses.
Thank you for the chance to speak with you in regards to my perspective on
this matter.

Sincerely,

Jon C McPherson
Master Winemaker
South Coast Winery

1
From: crowspassfarm@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:34 PM
Pleaseconsideraddingverbagewithintheplanthatstressesotheragriculturaluses,not
justwineryoperations.Foodproductionisveryimportantaswellascomplimentaryin
creatingafullyrespectedwineculture.Inaddition,wecandirectlyaddcredenceandwell
organizedpoliticalinfluencefromalargerscopeinprotectingtheagriculturalenvironment
oftheTemeculaWineCountryPlan.
DavidandTinaBarnes
CrowsPassFarm
www.crowspassfarm.comSubmittedBy:TinaBarnes

Schools in Wine Country, Beware of What you Wish For:

Here in the Temecula Valley we have one of the finest agricultural areas in the world. While the wine is
well documented, the produce that comes from this valley is some of the best available. Temecula is
rapidly becoming a hotbed for foodies throughout Southern California. The Temecula Farmers Market is
known throughout the Southland as a great place to shop. Cooking schools have expressed interest in
locating here because of the produce. We are one of the few places in Southern California where kids
and adults can visit a real working farm. A private school in Wine Country will only benefit those
families who can attend it, while Wine Country in general is a benefit to everyone in Riverside County.
The preservation of the Temecula Wine Country is paramount to the future of agriculture in this area.
Without the ability to grow, Wine Country becomes houses.
Agriculture is only pretty from a distance. Up close its dirty, dusty, noisy, and smells like chemicals or
compost. Successful agriculture takes space and neighbors who are understanding. Schools and
agriculture are not a good fit as neighbors. Schools have too much impact on what can happen on the
adjoining properties with regards to spray applications, fertilizers, and the ability to sell wine. Advisors
from the Riverside Agriculture Dept. have said it should not happen. One school will lead to more
schools and threaten the ability of their neighbors to grow grapes, sell wine and produce food. Without
grapes, Wine Country disappears and so do the wineries and the tourism they create. The local hotels
and restaurants will be empty and many more people are out of work. Take away the agriculture and
Temecula has no more tourism.
Agritourism was one of the main arguments against the Liberty Quarry. Without Wine Country and the
jobs, tourism and tax base it creates, the Supervisors decision about the quarry may be different next
time.
Be careful what you wish for! While what you want is a campus in Wine Country, what you may end up
with is a campus surrounded by houses downwind from a quarry.
David Barnes
Owner
Crows Pass Farm

1
From: Coyle, Frank
Subject: FW: Church Options and the Wine Country Plan
Attachments: Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001.pdf
Fyi...
FrankL.Coyle,REAI
DeputyDirector,AdvancedPlanningDivisionRiversideCountyPlanningDepartment
Riverside,CA92501
fcoyle@rctlma.org
P:951.955.2706
C:951.201.6947
OriginalMessage
From:ChuckTobin[mailto:ctobin@burrtec.com]
Sent:Thursday,September20,20124:46PM
To:john@jpddevelopment.com;Johnson,George;Coyle,Frank
Cc:lfh415@yahoo.com;rkellerhouse@galwaydowns.com;mrichgar@yahoo.com
Subject:ChurchOptionsandtheWineCountryPlan
John,
MerewordscannotexpresshowprofoundlydisappointedthemembersoftheValledelos
Caballos(VDC)AdvisoryCommittee,andthegeneralequestriancommunity,areinthePlanning
Commission'sapparentdecisiontopursueOption#1regardingthequestionofwhethertoallow
churchesintheWineCountyPlanstudyarea.WeallfeltthatOption#3wasfarandawaythe
superioralternativetohandlingthisissue,butweneversawanydiscussiononthepartof
theCommissionastowhythisalternativewasrejected.Instead,allofthepodiumtimewas
monopolizedbytheproponentsofthechurchexpansion,andalternativevoiceswerenever
giventheiropportunitytoaddresstheCommission.
WeareaskingfortheCommissiontoreconsiderthedecision,andgivegreaterconsideration
totheabsolutemeritsofOption#3.Option#3wascarefullydesignedbyRiversideCounty
stafftofocusexclusivelyonthemeritsoftheexpansionofCalvaryChurchitself,andnot
tangleuptheprocessingofthegreaterWineCountyPlanitself.IftheCommissiongoeswith
Option#1,weseethatasignificantamountoftimewillbespentontheshearlogisticsof
selectingtheconsultantfortheamendment,writingtheamendment,circulatingtheamendment,
debatingtheamendment,andultimatelytheappealbythe"losing"sideoftheamendmentto
theBoardofSupervisorswherethewholeprocesswillbefoughtalloveragain.Inthe
meantime,theentireremainingWineCountyPlandevelopmentwillbevirtuallyplacedonhold,
pendingtheoutcomeofthechurchfight.
WebelievethatasubstantialportionofthisangstcanbeavoidedbytheCommissionadopting
Option#3instead.ThispathwayfocusesexclusivelyontheexistingCVZareaanddoesnot
draginanyotherportionsofWineCountry.Itwillactuallyworktothebenefitofthe
Churchasitcanbeprocessedmuchquickerunderthispathwaythanaddingtheissueintothe
greaterWineCountryPlan.Infact,itisourunderstandingthatthePlanningCommission
triedthisrouteoncebefore,butforsomereasonplacedprocessingalternativeonhold.If
8:07 AM9/24/2012 8:07 AM
2
theCommissionchoosestogowithOption#3,andiftheCVZisamendedtoallowchurchesasa
permitteduse,thenCalvaryChurchcanhaveitsapplicationprocessesthroughthatzoning
classification,which,ifapproved,willbeautomaticallyincorporatedintothefinalWine
CountyPlan.PleaserememberthatallexistingzoningandapprovalintheWineCountyarea
willbeleft"asis"
evenifthenewPlanisultimatelyadoptedbytheBoardofSupervisors,andtherewillbeno
effortmadetoachieve"zoningconsistency"betweenthecurrentzoningandapprovals,andthe
newlyadoptedWineCountryPlan.
ItisforthesereasonsthatwebelievethatOption#3ispreferabletoOption#1.
IfwecannotconvinceyouandyourfellowCommissionersofthebenefitsofusingOption#3to
handletheChurchissue,andyouarestillcommittedtogoingdowntheOption#1route,then
wewouldrespectivelyrequestthatthe"equestrianzone"bedeletedfromthestudyareaof
theamendmentwhenyouconsiderthescopeofworkatyournextCommissionmeeting.Wewould
notethatthestaffreportlanguageinOption#1alreadyseemstodeletethe"residential
zone"fromthechurchstudyareaamendment,andwewouldaskforthesameconsiderationfor
the"equestrianzone":takeitout,please.
TheVDCAdvisoryCommittee,andthegeneralequestriancommunityhavebeenloyalpartners
withtheCountyinthedraftingoftheWineCountyPlan.
Thisisthefirsttimewhenwehavehadaseriousissuewiththedirectionthatthe
CommissionispotentiallyproposingtotakewiththePlan,andweareabsolutelyseriouswhen
wesaythattheCommissionneedstostopandthinkaboutthepotentialconsequencesofit
actionsifitchoosestheOption#1pathway.Wewouldliketohavetheopportunitytoaddress
theCommissionatyournextmeetingwhenyoupotentiallyconsiderafinalpathwayforthis
issue,aswebelievethattheCommissionwouldbenefitfromwhatwewouldhavetosay.
Thankyouforyourconsiderationofourrequests.Allofushavespentmanyyearstryingto
gettheWineCountryPlantothispoint,andwewouldhatetoseeallofthattimeandeffort
founderonthewrongcoursechoseninconsideringthechurchissue.Welookforwardtoseeing
youatthenextPlanningCommissionmeeting.
ChuckTobin
VDCAdvisoryCommitteeMember
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Wine Country Policy Plan & Equestrian Trails network
MaryC.Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
OriginalMessage
From:ElinsVerizon[mailto:elinmotherhead1@verizon.net]
Sent:Saturday,September22,20129:09PM
To:Stark,Mary
Subject:WineCountryPolicyPlan&EquestrianTrailsnetwork
DearComissioners,
IamwritingtoyouaboutthePlanningCommissionmeetinginTemeculaatCityHallonSept26
at9am.
ThemeetingistomakeadecisionabouttheTemeculaValleyWineCountryPolicyArea.Work
onthisplanhasbeengoingonforyears.Therehavebeencompromisesandagreementsonboth
sidesbetweencitizens,wineriesandofficials.Thewinecountryequestriantrailssystemis
setwithmany,manyyearsoftime,moneyandeffortputforthbytheequestriangroupsand
thewineriesandtheCounty.AllprocessesseemedtobeontrackforapprovaluntilCalvary
Chapelrequestedtobuildaschoolandtheywanttohold"hostage"thenewWineCountry
PolicyPlan,hopingtopressureofficialsintoanagreement.
Itmakesmewonderwhattypeof"christianchurch"thisis,totrytointerruptyearsofwork
bydedicatedpeopleinwinecountry,justtotrytoputpressureonCity&Countyofficials
inordertogettheirwayregardingaschool.CalvaryChapelwouldhavetogothroughthe
samelegalapprovalprocesswhetheritwasundertodayscurrentPlanorthenewPlan.So
approvetheWineCountryPolicyPlanandmakeCalvaryChapeldealwiththeirschoolissue
seperately..
CalvaryChapelsfuturehopesforaschoolshouldbeseperatedfromthenewWineCountryPlan
andtheyshouldbemadetogothroughthesameprocessasanyotherdevelopmentthatwantsa
changeinzoning.CalvaryChapelknowsthatitcouldtakeyearsforaschoolapproval.They
knowitwouldtakeanEnvironmentalImpactReportandpossiblyaCequaand/ormanyother
studies,plustheCity&Countyapprovalprocess.
Pleasedon'tletthemuseholdinguptheNewTemeculaValleyWineCountryPolicyPlanasa
waytotrytogettheirhopedforschoolapprovedinafasttrackprocess.Don'tletthemget
awaywithruiningsomanyotherwinecountrypeoplesyears&yearsofeffort.Please
approvethenewWineCountryPlanandmakeCalvaryChapelgothroughthenormaldevelopment
processfortheirschool.
8:11 AM9/24/2012 8:11 AM

2
ElinMotherhead
AnEquestrianandmemberof2RidingClubsinTemecula.
1
To: Coyle, Frank; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Wine Country Proposal and my 12 acres (parcel 924200010-1)
Attachments: Rancho California Highlands 10.doc
Frank,
IamsendingthislettertoPhayvanhtodocument.JustFYI.
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: grandylss@aol.com [mailto:grandylss@aol.com]

Subject: Re: Wine Country Proposal and my 12 acres (parcel 924200010-1)

Dear Ms.Mehta-Cooper:

I hope you are in receipt of my letter of August 23, stating my position for not planting
grapes in the Rancho California Highlands residental area.

Commissioner Petty has led me to believe that he will write into the proposal that
my 12 acres will not be subjected to the planting of grapes.

I have summarized my understandings in the enclosed attached letter to Commissioner Petty,
a letter on which I "cc"ed you.

If there is any thing more I need to do for my cause, will you please let me know by phone or by
e mail? When and how will I know that my property is indeed excluded from the demand to plant
grapes, in the event that I lot-split?

Thank you very much for your help.
Laurie Staude (949-496-3628)

LAURIE STAUDE
31 St. Michael Place
Dana Point, California 92629
(949) 496-3628
email: GrandyLSS@aol.com

Commissioner J ohn Petty, Vice Chairman
P.O. Box 1409
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, California 92502

Re: Wine Country Proposal
Parcel 924200010-1 (north side of Camino Sierra Road) 12 acres
Request NOT to be required to plant 75% in grapes

September 17, 2012

Dear Vice Chairman, Commissioner Petty:

This letter is to follow up my phone call to Mary Stark and to you on
Thursday, September 6. I believe you are in receipt of my letter of August 23
requesting not to have to plant my 12 acres in the Rancho California Highlands,
in the event that I or a future owner lot-splits into 2 parcels.

Thank you for understanding my concerns and for fighting for my cause.
In the phone call I requested an appointment with you. My understanding is that
Ms. Stark spoke with you and you replied to her that such an appointment would not
be necessary since you would try to write, into the proposal, terms so that my parcel
would not be subjected to the requirement to plant grapes.

If my understandings of your communication are different from yours, will you
please let me know by email or by phone call?

In the midst of so many requests from so many people, I do not want to fall
through the cracks. Is there anything more I need to do to support my cause? How and
when will I know that my parcel will not be subjected to the requirement to plant grapes?
Thank you and all the Commissioners for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Laurie Staude
Cc: Chairman J ohn Snell
Ms. Mitra Mehta-Cooper, Project Manager

1
From: Andrew Rauch [andrewkrauch@gmail.com]
To: Stark, Mary
Cc: jfirooz@iesnet.com; davidfirooz@yahoo.com; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Mehta-
Cooper, Mitra
Subject: Opposition of Firooz Family to Plan
Attachments: Letter re Plan 082112 SKMBT_36312082206430.pdf
Please see attached letter.

Andrew K. Rauch
Attorney at Law
12526 High Bluff Drive
Suite #300
San Diego, California 92130
Telephone: (858) 792-3408
Facsimile: (858) 792-3409

*****************************************************************************************
*********************************
This email communication and any attachments contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT and is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this
communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or
copying of this communication, and any attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication, and any
attachments, and destroy all copies.
*****************************************************************************************
******
ReceivedbetweenSeptember24,2012(4:00PM)September25,2012(4:00PM)
9/24/12
9/15/12
Additional2signedpetitions ResidentsandCalvaryChurch
Members
SupportfortheproposedCommunityPlanandpreservingareafromincompatibleuses
9/25/12 SherryTurner RCHABoardMember
9/25/12 JuanitaKoth TemeculaEqWineRidersPresident

1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Wine Country Plan
ForWineCountry.
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Sherry Turner [mailto:sherry@teamturner.com]

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: Wine Country Plan
MaryStark,PlanningCommissioner
IamwritingasaboardmemberoftheRanchoCaliforniaHorsemanAssociationandamunableto
appearatthenextmeetingonthe26
th
butwantedtoaskthatyoupleaseseparatethe
church/schoolissuefromtherestoftheWineCountryPlansotheplancanmoveforward.The
amountoftime,energyandmoneythathasgoneintothatplanshouldnotbestoppedduetoa
singlepropertyownersrequesttochangetheirzoning.
Respectfully,
SherryTurner
RCHA
1
From: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Separate the Issues on Wednesday
MorecommentsforWineCountryPlanningCommission.
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Coyle, Frank

To: Stark, Mary
Subject: FW: Separate the Issues on Wednesday

Seebelow.Canyouforwardtothecommissioners.
FrankL.Coyle,REAI
DeputyDirector,AdvancedPlanningDivision
RiversideCountyPlanningDepartment
Riverside,CA92501
fcoyle@rctlma.org
P:951.955.2706
C:951.201.6947
From: lorraine harrington [mailto:lfh415@yahoo.com]

To: Coyle, Frank
Cc: J ohn Petty
Subject: Fw: Separate the Issues on Wednesday

Frank forwarding this for a local equestrian leader. Please send it on to the other commissioners as well. Thank
you

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: J uanita Koth <jkoth@dslextreme.com>
To: Lorraine RCHA Harrington <lfh415@yahoo.com>
Subject: Separate the Issues on Wednesday

5:10 PM9/24/2012 5:10 PM
2
Lorraine,
EverytimeItrytosendthistotheemailsinyourRCHAemailblasttheycomebackundeliverable??Canyouplease
forwardtotheappropriatecommissioners?Thankyou,Juanita

DearTemeculaWineCountryPlanningCommission,

Asanavidtrailrider,WineCountryresidentandPresident/cofounderoftheTemeculaEqWineRiders/Memberof
RanchoCaliforniaHorsemenAssociationandCaliforniaStateHorsemenAssociation,Iamsaddenedtohearthatthe
approvaloftheWineCountryTrailsNetworkProposalisdelayedyetagain!Itseemstherearejusttoomany
componentstotheWineCountryPlanthatarereallyunrelated,otherthantheirgeography.Thetrailsnetwork
proposal,withitsmanyfacets,hasbeenaHUGEundertakingbymanylocalresidents,trailsenthusiasts,horseowners
andcity/countyofficialsforyears.WewerefinallymakingsomeprogressPLEASEconsiderseparatingtheissues
(fromthechurchsissuesrequiringanewcostlyandtimeconsumingenvironmentalstudytobedone)andallowour
muchneededandlongoverduetrailsnetworkforTemeculaWineCountrytheapprovaltomoveforward.

Alocalcowgirlsdream:OnedayIdliketoridemyhorsetoCalvaryChurchonaSunday,alongasafetrailsnetworkand
afterwardsdineatWilsonCreeksCreeksideGrilleRestaurantnowthatsalittletasteofCowgirlHeaven!Dream
untilyourdreamcomestrue

Respectfully
J uani ta Koth, Presi dent
Temecula Eq-"Wi ne" Ri ders
951-515-9964
Good friends ri di ng horses!

Agenda Item: 3.1


STAFF REPORT









Page 2 of 15










Page 3 of 15




future.

this community.

Page 4 of 15




minimum.


10 acres minimum.
acres minimum.
acres minimum.


Page 5 of 15


Measures:


Page 6 of 15


conditions:
Districts.
techniques.
Department.

through Sunday.
Page 7 of 15

events.
structures.


Page 8 of 15

Trails
Classification
Combination Trail
(Regional/Class 1
Bike Path):
Current Proposal
Approx. 79,000 Ln.
Ft.




linear feature.


10 to 12 wide



agreement.

developed.
Regional Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 175,000
Ln. Ft.


and mountain bikers


Easement: 20 wide

Space District.

District.

developed.

Page 9 of 15

Trails
Classification
Regional/Open
Space Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 111,000
Ln. Ft.

and mountain bikers

Width: 2 to 4 wide

Easement: 10 wide
Space District.


developed.

Community Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 138,000
Ln. Ft.

and mountain bikers

Width: 8 wide

wide

Historic Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 11,000 Ln.
Ft.

Private Trails:
Current Proposal
Approx. 15,000 Ln.
Ft.

Page 10 of 15

Trails
Classification
Class III Bike
Path:
Current Proposal
Approx. 59,000 Ln.
Ft.

process.





would be required.


Page 11 of 15


Existing Condition:



The Project:





Page 12 of 15










Page 13 of 15




proposal.



added.

noise.

Page 14 of 15


consideration.


follows:

250-021 and 943-250-018).


RECOMMENDATION:





P.O. Box 1409,
th
Floor
Phone: (951) 955-8514
Page 15 of 15

please contact:

P.O. Box 1409,
th
Floor
Phone: (951) 955-6573

Chapter 1.0
Executive Summary

Riverside County Planning Department December 1, 2011
Wine Country Community Plan Program EIR No. 524 Page | 1.0-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In 2008, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) directed County staff to undertake the
development of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan (Project) in an effort to both
preserve Temecula Valleys distinct rural character and enhance its economic contribution to the County
over the long term.
The Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan includes the adoption of General Plan Amendment
No. 1077, as well as the accompanying Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 (Project), which
will ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Project proposes a host of
revisions to the Southwest Area Plan of the current County General Plan to update existing policies,
maps, and implementing directions related to potential implementing projects within the Project area.
Refer to Section 3.0 for a detailed description of the various Project characteristics.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the Project is to provide a blueprint for growth to ensure that future development
activities will enhance, not impede, the quality of life for existing and future residents, while providing
opportunities for continued development and expansion of winery and equestrian operations within this
part of the County.
The Project has been developed to achieve the following goals:
Ensure that the Wine Country region develops in an orderly manner that maximizes the areas
viticulture and related uses, and balances the need to protect existing rural lifestyles in the area.
Ensure that the Riverside County General Plan and its supporting regulatory documents, such as
the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines, provide a comprehensive blueprint that will
achieve the communitys vision.
Ensure adequate provisions for the establishment of wineries and equestrian operations,
associated auxiliary uses, and other compatible uses, as deemed appropriate.
To achieve these goals, the Project incorporates the following objectives:
To preserve and enhance the Wine Country regions viticulture potential, rural life style and
equestrian activities.
To continue to allow for an appropriate level of commercial tourist activities that is incidental to
viticulture activities.
To coordinate where, and under what circumstances, future growth should be accommodated.
To develop provisions to ensure that future growth is balanced and coordinated with the
appropriate public services, infrastructure and other basic necessities for a healthy, livable
community.

1.0 Executive Summary

1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project includes the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 1077, as well as the accompanying
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729, and Design Guidelines. Below is an outline of the various
individual Project components:
a) An amendment of the existing Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) and other elements of the
General Plan including, but not be limited to:
Deletion of the policies of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy Areas,
specifically policies SWAP 1.1 through SWAP 2.1; and the addition of the Temecula
Valley Wine Country Policy Area;
Revisions to the SWAP Statistical Summary. Table 2;
Deletion of the boundaries of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy Areas
(SWAP Policy Areas Figure 4) and addition of the boundary of the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Policy Area [refer to Exhibit 3.0-4];
Revisions to the Circulation Network (SWAP Figure 7) [refer to Exhibit 3.0-7];
Revisions to the Trails and Bikeway Systems map (SWAP Figure 8) [refer to Exhibit 3.0-
8];
Revisions to the General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Network (Figure C-1) [refer
to Exhibit 3.0-7];
Revisions to the General Plan Circulation Element Trails Network (Figure C-7) [refer to
Exhibit 3.0-8]; and
Amendment to any other portions of the General Plan reflecting changes arising from
the proposed SWAP amendments.
b) An amendment to the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348 to add four new Zoning
Classifications that implement the General Plan: Wine Country - Winery; Wine Country - Winery
Existing; Wine Country - Residential; and Wine Country - Equestrian.
c) Replacement of the existing Citrus Vineyard Policy Area Design Guidelines with the Temecula
Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines.
1.4 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is generally located in the Southwest Area Plan in the southwestern portion of
unincorporated Riverside County, approximately three miles north of the border with San Diego County
(refer to Exhibit 3.0-1, Regional Location Map). The Project covers approximately 18,990 acres of land
located east of the City of Temecula, south of Lake Skinner, and northwest of Vail Lake (refer to Exhibit
3.0-2, Policy Area Map). This area contains some of Riverside Countys prime agriculture lands within
the Temecula Valley.
1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table is a summary of impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project as
identified in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 524). Due to the programmatic
nature of this EIR, some of the mitigation measures are designed to minimize, reduce or alleviate


identified environmental impacts through implementing project (discretionary and ministerial)
authorized pursuant to the Project. Refer to Section 4.2 through 4.14 and 5.0 for a detailed description
of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project.
Table 1.0-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Statement Significance Mitigation Measure
Impact 4.1-1: Scenic Highways
and Scenic Resources
a) Would the project have a
substantial effect upon a scenic
highway corridor within which it
is located?
b) Would the project
substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings and unique or
landmark features; obstruct any
prominent scenic vista or view
open to the public; or result in
the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public
view?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AES-1 The County shall work with utility and infrastructure
providers to make sure that all sewer, water, and storm
drain infrastructure improvements located along the
Highway 79 South corridor do not significantly detract
from the scenic quality of this area, or affect the
Countys ability to designate this roadway as a County
Scenic Highway at a later date.
AES-2 All implementing projects shall provide a signage plan
for the project area prior to approval. This plan shall
include the location of onsite buildings and structures,
the location of existing buildings and structures within
surrounding properties, the distance between existing
buildings and structures and proposed signage, and
other details of the proposed signage (i.e. type, size,
lighting, and architectural design) during each phase of
project development. No off-site signage shall be
considered for an implementing project during any
phase of project development without prior approvals
per Article XIX of County Ordinance 348.
Impact 4.1-2: Mt. Palomar
Observatory
Would the project interfere with
the nighttime use of the Mt.
Palomar Observatory, as
protected through Riverside
County Ordinance No. 655?
Less than
Significant
No additional mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.1-3: Other Lighting
Issues
a) Would the project create a
new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
b) Would the project expose
residential property to
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AES-3 All implementing projects shall provide a lighting plan
buildings and structures and proposed light sources,
and other details of the proposed lighting (i.e., type,
size, wattage, lumens, shielding type, etc.) during each
phase of project development.


unacceptable light levels?
Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in
cumulative impacts associated
with implementation of the Wine
Country Community Plan?
Less than
Significant
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Conversion of
Designated Farmland
Would the Project convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant
to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency (and
as shown in Exhibit 4.2-1
Farmland Resources), to non-
agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact; no mitigation proposed.
Impact 4.2-2: Encroachment and
Conflicts with Existing
Agriculture
Would the Project conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AG-1 Prior to project approval and in accordance with County
Resolution No. 84-526, all implementing projects within
an agricultural preserve shall cancel the applicable land
conservation contract where incidental commercial
uses are proposed within the Equestrian or Winery
Districts or where clustered lots are proposed in the
Residential District. All implementing projects shall also
diminish or disestablish the subject site from the
boundaries of such agricultural preserve prior to
issuance of a grading permit for any of these uses.
Impact 4.2-3: Other
Environmental Changes
Would the Project involve other
changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.
Less than
Significant
Cumulative Impacts
Less than


Would the Project result in
Significant
Air Quality
Impact 4.3-1: Air Quality
Management Plan
or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AQ-1 The County shall require new commercial and industrial
implementing projects to develop a trip reduction
program that promotes commuter-choices, employer
transportation management, guaranteed ride home
programs and commuter assistance and outreach-type
programs intended to reduce commuter vehicle miles
traveled. The program shall be submitted as part of
Projects implementing projects discretionary review
applications, and in place prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
AQ-2 The County shall condition all implementing projects to
implement the Trails and Bikeways Systems map (SWAP
Figure 8) of the Project. This map is more conducive to
this regions destination places and multiple users
(bikers, equestrian, pedestrians, visitors, etc.) needs.
Hence, changing the focus of land use from automobile-
centered transportation would result in a reduction in
vehicle miles traveled.
AQ-3 In addition, the County shall require implementing
projects to incorporate bicycle parking areas and horse
hitching posts where applicable.
AQ-4 The County shall require implementing projects to
incorporate a comprehensive parking program for
private parking lots where applicable, to promote ultra-
low or zero emission vehicle parking; provide larger
parking spaces that can accommodate vans and
limousines; include adequate passenger
waiting/loading areas; and provide safe
pedestrian/equestrian pathways through parking areas.
AQ-5 The County shall promote the expanded use of
renewable fuel and low-emission vehicles within
implementing projects. Implementing projects may
earn points in the GHG Mitigation Workbook Option
Tables by making low-emissions or electric vehicle use
more accessible by including one or both of the
following project components: provide preferential


parking for ultra-low emission, zero-emission, and
alternative-fuel vehicles; and provide electric vehicle
charging stations within the development.
prohibit idling of on- and off-road heavy duty diesel
vehicles for more than five minutes. This measure shall
be implemented by new commercial and industrial
projects with loading docks or delivery trucks. Such
projects shall be required to post signage at all loading
docks and/or delivery areas directing drivers to shut
down their trucks after five minutes of idle time. Also,
employers who own and operate truck fleets shall be
required to inform their drivers of the anti-idling policy.
AQ-7 The County shall work with the Winegrowers
Association and their partners to promote alternative
modes of transportation, such as shuttles, cable-cars,
trolley, etc. In addition, where feasible, the County shall
work with the local transit provider RTA by adding
or modifying existing transit service to enhance service
near the Project site. This will encourage the use of
transit and therefore reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). Unincorporated Riverside County hosts one
Metrolink transit station; the County shall collaborate
with in the neighboring cities to expand connections to
this station as well as other Metrolink stations which
will increase ridership and decrease vehicle miles
traveled (VMT).
Standards
Would the Project violate any air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
comply with the following SCAQMD Applicable Rule 403
Measures:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers' specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive
for ten days or more).
Water active sites at least three times daily.
(locations where grading is to occur will be
thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose
materials are to be covered, or should maintain at
least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the
requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space


between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet
onto the site from main road.
Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be
reduced to 15 mph or less.
Stockpiled dirt may be covered with a tarp to
reduce the need for watering or soil stabilizers.
comply with the following additional SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook Dust Control Measures:
Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
All excavating and grading operations shall be
suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil
materials are carried to adjacent streets
(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed
water).
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks
and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
comply with the following Mitigation Measures for
Construction Equipment and Vehicles Exhaust
Emissions:
The County shall require implementing projects to
select construction equipment to be used on site
based on low emission factors (equipment which
releases little atmospheric pollutants) and high
energy efficiency (equipment which requires less
energy to do the same work). Examples of low
emission and high energy efficiency equipment
include use of EPA Tier 2 (or better) emission
compliant construction equipment and use of
alternative fueled construction equipment (natural
gas) if available.
include a statement on grading plans that all
construction equipment will be tuned and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.


utilize electric- or diesel-powered equipment, in
lieu of gasoline-powered engines, where feasible.
include a statement on grading plans that work
crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
During smog season (May through October), the
overall length of the construction period will be
extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area
prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
time construction activities so as to not interfere
with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of
through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if
necessary, a flag person shall be retained to
maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
use EPA-rated engines of Tier 3 or better.
As soon as electric utilities are available at
construction sites, the County shall require
implementing projects to supply the construction
site with electricity from the local utility and all
equipment that can be electrically operated shall
use the electric utility rather than portable
generators.
retain on site dust generated by the development
activities, and keep dust to a minimum by following
the dust control measures listed below:
a) During clearing, grading, earthmoving,
excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems
shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the
site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler
systems shall be used to keep all areas of
vehicle movement damp enough to prevent
dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this
would watering at least three times per day
which include wetting down such areas in the
late morning, mid-day after work is completed
for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15
miles per hour. Soil stabilizers may also be


used instead of watering.
c) Immediately after clearing, grading,
earthmoving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated
until the area is paved or otherwise developed
so that dust generation will not occur.
d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be
covered, kept moist, or treated with soil
binders to prevent dust generation.
e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill
materials, and/or construction debris to or
from the site shall be tarped from the point of
origin.
AQ-11 Where applicable, the County shall require
implementing projects to apply Conservation
Management Practices for Confined Animal Facilities:
1) Manure Handling
a) Cover manure prior to removing material off-
site; and
b) Spread the manure before 11:00 AM and when
wind conditions are less than 25 miles per hour;
and
c) Utilize coning and drying manure management
by removing manure at laying hen houses at
least twice per year and maintain a base of no
less than 6 inches of dry manure after clean
out; or in lieu of complying with conservation
management practice (1c) comply with
conservation management practice (1d).
d) Utilize frequent manure removal by removing
the manure from laying hen houses at least
every seven days and immediately thin bed dry
the material.
2) Feedstock Handling
a) Utilize a sock or boot on the feed truck auger
when filling feed storage bins.
3) Disturbed Surfaces
a) Maintain at least 70 percent vegetative cover
on vacant portions of the facility; or
b) Utilize conservation tillage practices to manage
the amount, orientation and distribution of
crop and other plant residues on the soil
surface year-round, while growing crops (if
applicable) in narrow slots or tilled strips; or


c) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient
concentrations and frequencies to maintain a
stabilized surface.
4) Unpaved Roads
a) Restrict access to private unpaved roads either
through signage or physical access restrictions
and control vehicular speeds to no more than
15 miles per hour through worker notifications,
signage, or any other necessary means; or
b) Cover frequently traveled unpaved roads with
low silt content material (i.e., asphalt, concrete,
recycled road base, or gravel to a minimum
depth of four inches); or
c) Treat unpaved roads with water, mulch,
chemical dust suppressants or other cover to
maintain a stabilized surface
5) Equipment Parking Access
d) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity
and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface;
or
e) Apply material with low silt content (i.e.,
asphalt, concrete, recycled road base, or gravel
to a depth of four inches).
AQ-12 Proponents of non-residential implementing projects
shall prepare appropriate air quality studies which
demonstrate that emissions resulting from project
construction and operation do not result in significant
localized impacts, or are mitigated to the extent
feasible.
Impact 4.3-3: Sensitive
Receptors
Would the Project expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-11 above. No
additional mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.3-4: Objectionable
Odors
Would the Project create
objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.3-3: Cumulative
Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Unavoidable Impact.


Would the Project result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the Project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Impact additional mitigation is proposed.
Impact 4.4-1: Conflict with any
Conservation Plan
Would the project conflict with
the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state conservation
plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 below. No additional
mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.4-2: Adverse Effect on
Endangered or Threatened
Species
Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any
endangered, or threatened
species, as listed in Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations
Section 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title
50 Code of Federal Regulations
(Section 17.11 or 17.12)?
Less than
Significant
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special
Status Species
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
Less than
Significant


species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Impact 4.4-4: Interfere with the
Movement of Migratory Species
Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement
of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
Less Than
Significant
Riparian or Sensitive Natural
Communities
substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Federally Protected Wetlands
substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.4-7: Conflict with Local
Policies or Ordinances
any local policies or ordinances
Less than
Significant


protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance.
Cumulative Impacts

Less than
Significant
Cultural Resources
Impact 4.5-1: Historical
Resources
Would the Project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 below.
CUL-1 For all implementing projects, the necessary
archeological field surveys/studies/monitoring shall be
required as part of the Countys permitting approval
process. Prior to discretionary project approval or
issuance of a grading permit for ministerial projects, the
County Archaeologist and/or architectural historian
shall do the following:
Review, and if evidence suggests the potential for
historic resources on a future implementing project
site, require a County-certified qualified
archaeologist (retained by the future project
applicant) to conduct a field survey for historical
resources on specific sites not previously surveyed
for cultural resources.
archaeologist to conduct an appropriate records
search to obtain information on historical property
records.
Review, and if evidence suggests that potential for
subsurface cultural deposits, consider
archaeological monitoring during grading,
trenching, and related construction activities, to
facilitate appropriate mitigation treatment.
Consider Tribal observation and consultation during
archaeological monitoring when requested by local
tribal government(s) or individual(s) recognized by
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
when that entity provides specific information
suggesting the potential for subsurface cultural


deposits may be present. Tribal monitoring shall
not replace archaeological monitoring as they serve
different purposes and have different
responsibilities under different authorities.
sacred land or cultural places resources, contact the
Native American Heritage Commission.
Evaluate the significance and integrity of all
historical resources identified on implementing
project sites within the Project area, using criteria
established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources (eligibility for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]),
and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Propose recommended mitigation measures and
conditions of approval for implementing projects (if
a local government action is required) to reduce
adverse project effects on significant, important,
and/or unique historical resources, following
appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 guidelines.
Require from the designated project-specific
County-certified Project Archaeologist
documentation of all required mitigation
treatments and the results of those treatments for
previously known and inadvertent finds according
to current County reporting requirements to
document environmental mitigation compliance.
CUL-2 If previously unknown unique cultural resources are
identified during grading activities associated with the
implementing projects, the following procedures shall
be followed. For this Project, unique cultural resources
are defined as being multiple artifacts in close
association with each other, but may include fewer
artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of
significance due to its sacred or cultural importance.
All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of
the discovered cultural resources shall be halted
until a meeting is convened between the developer,
the archaeologist, the Native American tribal
representative and the Planning Director to discuss
the significance of the find.
At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries


shall be discussed and after consultation with the
Native American tribal representative and the
archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the
concurrence of the Planning Director, as to the
appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery,
avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
Grading of further ground disturbance shall not
resume within the area of the discovery until an
agreement has been reached by all parties as to the
appropriate mitigation.
Impact 4.5-2: Archaeological
Resources
significance of an archaeological
resource?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 below and CUL-1 through
CUL-2 above. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.5-3: Human Remains
Would the Project disturb any
human remains, including those
interned outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
CUL-3 If previously unknown cultural resources, including
human remains, are identified during grading activities
associated with implementing projects, a County-
certified qualified archaeologist shall be retained to
assess the nature and significance of the find. If human
remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the
landowner or his/her authorized representative, the
MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD
shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of
notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American
burials. The MLD may recommend reburial somewhere
within the Project boundaries where they can be
protected in perpetuity.
Cumulative Impacts (Cultural
Less than
Significant
Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through CUL-3 above. No


Resource)
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.5-4: Paleontological
Resources
Would the Project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
paleontological field surveys/studies/monitoring would
be required as part of the permitting approval process.
Prior to grading for ministerial projects, and prior to
approval of discretionary projects, the County Geologist
Review and, if evidence suggests the potential for
paleontological resources on a future implementing
project site, require a County-certified qualified
paleontologist (retained by the future project
applicant) to conduct a field survey for
paleontological resources on specific sites not
previously surveyed for paleontological resources.
paleontologist to conduct an appropriate records
search to obtain information on paleontological
resource records.
Review and, if evidence suggests that potential for
subsurface paleontological deposits, consider
paleontological monitoring during grading,
paleontological resources identified on
implementing project sites within the Project area,
using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for
important paleontological resources.
recommend conditions of approval for
implementing projects (if a local government action
is required) to reduce adverse project effects on
significant, important, and/or unique
paleontological resources.
County-certified Project Paleontologist


CUL-5 If previously unknown paleontological resources are
be followed:
the discovered paleontological resources shall be
halted until a meeting is convened between the
developer, the project paleontologist, and the
Planning Director to discuss the significance of the
find.
paleontologist, a decision shall be made, with the
avoidance, etc.) for the paleontological resources.
resume within the area of the discovery until the
fossil has been properly recovered/removed from
the area to be graded and/or the fossil has been
determined to be insignificant.
Cumulative Impacts
(Paleontological Resource)
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-4 and CUL-5 above. No
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Impact 4.6-1: Fault Rupture,
Ground Shaking, Ground Failure
and Landslides
Would the project expose people
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
Less than
Significant


Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated in the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault;
Strong Seismic Ground
Shaking
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
GEO-1 All implementing projects shall prepare a site-specific
assessment as determined by the County Geologist to
ascertain all site-specific geologic/geotechnical
information, including, but not limited to, ground
shaking potential, liquefaction potential, fault rupture
potential and landslide/slope instability potential. This
assessment and report shall be prepared by a
California-licensed geologist and/or geotechnical
engineer and shall be submitted to the County
Geologist for review and approval prior to approval of
the implementing project. This report shall include site-
specific measures such as grading recommendations,
foundation design recommendations, slope stability
recommendations, and the alternative siting of
structures, as appropriate, to reduce the significance of
potential geologic and/or geotechnical hazards
associated with the proposed implementing project.
Seismic-Related Ground
Failure, Including Liquefaction
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 below and GEO-1 above.
Landslides
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.6-2: Soil Erosion/Loss
of Topsoil
substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.6-3: Landslide, Lateral Less than
Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 above.


Spreading, Subsidence,
Liquefaction, or Collapse
Would the project be located on
a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.6-4: Expansive Soils
expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or
property?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.6-5: Soils Incapable of
Supporting Wastewater Disposal
Systems
Would the project have soils
incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
Less than
Significant
Refer to Mitigation Measures PSU SEWER 1 through 2. No
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.7-1: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Would the project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment, based on any
applicable threshold of
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
GHG-1 All implementing projects shall use the following
mitigation measures to reduce impacts from
construction activities as related to construction
equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions:
use low-emission and high energy efficiency


significance? construction equipment on site. Examples of low-
alternative-fuel construction equipment (natural
gas), if available.
specifications.
The County shall require implementing project to
crews shall shut off equipment when not in use.
overall length of the construction period shall be
use EPA-rated engines of Tier 3 or better for
construction equipment.
generators.
GHG-2 Individual implementing projects shall have the option
to use the Option Tables or project-specific GHG
analysis in order to demonstrate that GHG emissions
from the implementing project are less than significant.
Implementing projects which implement enough


reduction measures from the Option Tables and
achieve a 100/70 points shall be considered to be
consistent with the Countys GHG reduction goals
for the Project area. Refer to Temecula Valley
Wine Country Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Workbook (refer to Appendix E of this Draft EIR).
Those implementing projects that do not garnish
the minimum points using the Option Tables
(presented in the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook, Appendix A
[refer to Appendix E of this Draft EIR]) shall require
quantification of project-specific GHG emissions
and shall provide mitigation measures to reduce
GHG emissions at least 28.5% below Business As
Usual (BAU) emissions.
Impact 4.7-2: Consistency with
Applicable Plans, Policies, and
Regulations
any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted
for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. No additional
Cumulative Impacts
Would implementation of the
proposed Wine Country
Community Plan result in
cumulative impacts?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable Impact.
mitigation is proposed.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-1: Transport of
Hazardous Materials
Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal
of hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HAZ-1: During development of implementing projects, if
underground storage tanks (UST) or other potential
environmental concerns associated with the
implementing project site are encountered, these areas
of concern shall be handled as follows:
The contractor/property owner shall retain all
responsibility associated with activities surrounding
the safe and legal removal of the tank(s);
The contractor/ property owner shall notify the
local Fire Department jurisdiction prior to removal
of the UST as local fire restrictions may be more
stringent than County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH), Hazardous Materials


Management Division requirements;
The contractor (licensed in accordance with the
requirements of the State Contractors License
Board) shall submit an Underground Storage Tank
Closure by Removal completed permit application
(or similar permit application as deemed
appropriate) to the County Hazardous Materials
Management Division along with applicable closure
fees;
The contractor shall submit a work plan (with the
permit application) to the Hazardous Materials
Management Division prior to UST removal, which
shall demonstrate compliance with the required
closure procedures as set forth in the UST closure
application currently in effect; and
The Division will inspect the tank removal, as
necessary, evaluate all sample results, determine
whether or not an unauthorized release has
occurred, and determine if any further corrective
actions are required.
Impact 4.8-2: Release of
Hazardous Materials into the
Environment
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials in the environment?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.8-3: Emergency
Response or Evacuation Plan
Would the project impair
implementation of, or physically
interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.8-4: School Safety
Would the project emit
hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above. No additional


within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
Impact 4.8-5: Hazardous
Materials Site
Would the project be on a site
which is included on a list of
hazardous materials site
complied pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HAZ-2 All implementing projects located within a one-mile
radius of the Temecula Bomb Site 107 shall be required
to perform an Unexploded Ordnance Survey to verify
presence/ absence of unexploded ordnance prior to any
earth disturbing activities (including preliminary site
studies such as geotechnical investigations and
biological surveys). Upon completion of this survey, the
results will be provided to the Riverside County
Planning Department and Riverside County Fire
Department (Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Team), and appropriate pre-construction measures will
be incorporated into the implementing projects
grading and development plans, including removal of
any identified hazards.
HAZ-3 If unexploded ordinances are identified during earth
disturbance activities associated with implementing
projects, the Riverside County Fire Department
(Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team) will
be notified and all safety and remediation actions
contained within the U.S. Department of Defense
Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards (U.S.
Department of Defense 2004) will be implemented.
Impact 4.8-6: Wildland Fires
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HAZ-4 During the entitlement process, all implementing
projects located within areas of wildfire susceptibility
shall be evaluated by the Fire Department to determine
whether the Departments Urban-Wildland Interface
requirements should be implemented as part of the
development. If the Department determines that either
an interim or permanent condition of high fire risk
would be present, a Fuel Modification Plan that meets
the current requirements of the Fire Department shall
be prepared and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to approval of the implementing
project.
Cumulative Impacts

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 through HAZ-4 above. No


Impact 4.9-1: Water Quality
Standards
Would the project violate any
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 and PSU SEWER 1 through 2
below.
HYD-1 All implementing projects shall utilize the Countys
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) checklist to
determine if a project-specific WQMP is required. All
implementing projects, regardless of the need for a
WQMP, shall incorporate the appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain
conformance to the Countys active MS4 permit.
Depending upon the location of the implementing
project and whether it is considered a Significant
Redevelopment or New Development, the County
shall require the project proponent to submit the
necessary additional information and condition those
project accordingly.
HYD-2 All implementing projects exceeding a discharge of
average aggregate wastewater flow that exceeds the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB) threshold shall be required to connect to
sewer services when it is made available by the Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Most single-family
residences may be exempted from average aggregate
wastewater flow requirements regardless of family
units.
HYD-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, implementing
projects shall prepare the necessary Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and comply with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit
from the State Water Resources Control Board.
HYD-4 Infiltration may be utilized by implementing projects for
maintaining water quality standards. However, any
implementing projects proposing onsite stormwater
runoff infiltration shall conduct individual percolation
tests, prepared by a soils engineer, to determine the
feasibility of using infiltration onsite, as well as to
provide design recommendations for the chosen BMPs.
If infiltration is not feasible based on a specific sites
soils properties, some form of on-site detention should
be considered to mitigate any additional stormwater
runoff that exceeds the existing calculated flows. In this


case other BMPs should be evaluated to meet the
water quality requirements for the project. Maintaining
the use of existing roadside swales in compliance with
the current MS4 permit is also recommended to help
maintain existing drainage patterns and help with water
quality.
HYD-5 All implementing projects shall include measures
designed to increase infiltration and reduce impacts to
water quality within the upper aquifer. Depending
upon project location, the applicable measures shall
include the following:
Require that all wastewater discharges conform to
the Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin
Plan groundwater quality objectives.
Requires the use of cisterns and infiltrators to
capture and reuse rainwater as a water conserving
system (Riverside County Policy OS 2.1).
Require the use of natural drainage systems,
permeable parking bays and porous parking lots to
provide rainwater detention (Riverside County
Policy OS 2.2 and 4.4).
Require that adequate aquifer water recharge areas
are preserved and protected and that rainwater is
used to recharge the aquifers (Riverside County
Restrict pollutant discharge into the drainage
systems and aquifer (Riverside County Policy OS
3.3).
Prohibit the use of fertilizing, manure spreading,
pesticide application, and runoff from animal/horse
corrals within all drainage courses, especially
Temecula Creek.
Impact 4.9-2: Groundwater
Supplies
Would the project substantially
deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HYD-6 All implementing projects shall provide a plan of service
analysis in determining the needs for water distribution,
fire protection, service pressures and connection into
the Rancho California Water Districts (RCWD) master
planned system. These plans must show requirements
of off-site transmission mains to be constructed to
serve certain areas of the project. It will be the
responsibility of each implementing project proponent
to ensure water system reliability/redundancy for
domestic, irrigation, and emergency needs, as
determined appropriate through the Countys


to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been
granted)?
discretionary review process, and RCWD staff review.
Impact 4.9-3: Erosion or Siltation
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation
on- or offsite?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HYD-7 All implementing projects that fall within the Murrieta
Creek Area Drainage Plan shall be subject to Area
Drainage Plan (ADP) fees, as enforced by the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFCWCD).
HYD-8 All implementing projects shall consider the following
flood control measures and shall use them, as
applicable:
Minimize encroachment into floodplains and
watercourses to the satisfaction of the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District prior to applicable plan/permit approval.
Phase so that 100-year flood protection is ensured
in all areas of development. Provide protection
against flooding, erosion, siltation, and water
quality impacts through interim improvements
(such as temporary debris basins, earthen
channels/berms, check dams, sand bag barriers, or
other temporary BMPs and flood control protection
measures).
Keep building pad construction from flood hazard
for the 100-year frequency storm by elevating
finished floor elevations above the 100-year level of
flood protection.
Detain any incremental increase in drainage within
the implementing projects boundaries. For the
portion of the project site within the Murrieta
Creek Area Drainage Plan (ADP), detain incremental
increases in drainage until the Murrieta Creek ADP
is fully implemented downstream of the
implementing project site.
Impact 4.9-4: Surface Runoff
pattern of the Site or area,
or substantially increase the rate
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-7 through HYD-8 and LU-1.


or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in
flooding onsite or offsite?
Impact 4.9-5: Stormwater
Would the project create or
contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
From Public Utilities:
Would the project require or
result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-1 through HYD-5, HYD-7, and
HYD-8. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Would the project otherwise
substantially degrade water
quality?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-1 through HYD-5. No
Impact 4.9-7: Flooding and
Housing
Would the project place housing
within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-8 and LU-1. No additional
Structures
Would the project place
structures within a 100-year
flood hazard area that would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.9-9: Flooding Risk
Less than
Significant
with


or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or
dam (dam inundation area)?
Mitigation
Impact 4.9-10: Seiche, Tsunami,
or Mudflow
Would the project be inundated
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact No additional mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Land Use and Relevant Planning
Impact 4.10-1: Divide a
Community
Would the project physically
divide an established
community?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.10-2: Plan Consistency
any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
LU-1 All implementing projects (ministerial and
discretionary) within the Project boundary shall be
required to:
Apply for and obtain a Change of Zone (CZ) to
benefit from the implementing zones of the Wine
Country Policy Area. As part of the review process,
the County shall conduct a project-specific CEQA
analysis for the CZ Application. Depending upon
the location of the implementing project, Planning
staff shall require the project proponent to conduct
the necessary studies (e.g., Archeology, Geology,
Biology, Hydrology, etc.). Depending upon the
findings of those studies, Planning staff shall
recommend that a restrictive zoning classification
(such as an open space zone) be placed on areas
where sensitive resources require protection.
Apply for and obtain the necessary grading permit.
Such grading permit shall go through the
appropriate environmental analysis and identify
the necessary mitigations, if any (e.g., cultural
monitoring during grading, biological restoration,


etc.), prior to approval of the grading permit.
Apply for and obtain the necessary building permit.
The County shall ensure the necessary reviews of
building permits by the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFCWCD), Environmental Programs Division
(EPD), County Archeologist, County Geologist, etc.
Impact 4.10-3: Habitat Plan
Consistency
any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 above.
Cumulative Impacts
cumulative impacts?
Less than
Significant
Mineral Resources
Impact 4.3-1: Loss of Availability
of Known Mineral Resources
Would the project result in the
loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MIN-1 Pursuant to Public Resources Code, the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act, Chapter 9, Article 4, Section
2762(e), prior to approval of a future implementing
project on lands classified by the State Geologist as
MRZ-3, the County Geologist shall make a site-specific
determination as to the sites potential to contain or
yield important or significant mineral resources of value
to the region and the residents of the State of
California.
If it is determined by the County Geologist that
lands classified as MRZ-3 have the potential to yield
significant mineral resources which may be of
regional or statewide significance and the
proposed use is considered incompatible (as
defined by Section 3675 of Title 14, Article 6 of the
California Code of Regulations) and could threaten
the potential to extract said minerals, the project
proponent shall prepare an evaluation of the area
in order to ascertain the significance of the mineral
deposit located therein. This site-specific mineral
resources study shall be performed to, at a
minimum, document the sites known or inferred
geological conditions; describe the existing levels of


development on or near the site which might
preclude mining as a viable adjacent use; and
analyze the State standards for designating land as
having regional or Statewide significant under the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The results of
such evaluation shall be transmitted to the State
Geologist and the State Mining and Geological
Board (SMGB).
Should significant mineral resources be identified,
future implementing projects shall either avoid said
resource or shall incorporate appropriate findings
subject to a site-specific discretionary review and
CEQA process.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure MIN-1 above. No additional
Noise
Impact 4.12-1: Temporary Noise
Increases
Would the project result in a
substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
NOI-1 All implementing projects shall comply with the
following noise reduction measures during grading and
building activities:
If construction occurs within one-quarter mile of an
inhabited dwelling, construction activities shall be
limited to the daytime hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. during the months of June through
September, and to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during
the months of October through May.
To minimize noise from idling engines, all vehicles
and construction equipment shall be prohibited
from idling in excess of three minutes when not in
use.
Best efforts should be made to locate stockpiling
and/or vehicle staging area as far as practicable
from existing residential dwellings.
Equipment and trucks shall utilize the best available
noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts,
engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating
shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement
breakers, and rock drills) shall be hydraulically or
electronically powered wherever possible to avoid


noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. However, where use
of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
muffler shall be used; this muffler can lower noise
levels from the exhaust by up to about ten dBA.
External jackets on the tools themselves shall be
used where feasible, and this could achieve a
reduction of five dBA. Quieter procedures shall be
used, such as drills rather than impact equipment,
whenever feasible.
Stationary construction noise sources shall be
located as far from adjacent receptors as possible,
and they shall be muffled and incorporate
insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent
feasible.
NOI-2 Implementing project proponents shall submit a list of
measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining
to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition,
grading, and/or construction. These measures may
A sign posted on-site pertaining the permitted
construction days and hours and complaint
procedures and who to notify in the event of a
problem. The sign may also include a listing of both
the County and construction contractors telephone
numbers (during regular construction hours and
off-hours); and
A pre-construction meeting may be held with the
job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site
project manager to confirm that noise measures
and practices (including construction hours,
neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are
completed.
Impact 4.12-2: Permanent Noise
Increases
substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
NOI-3 All implementing projects involving a new winery or
expansion of an existing winery shall be reviewed by the
Riverside County Office of Industrial Hygiene and
include at least the following conditions:
The hours of operation for tasting rooms associated
with wineries shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country -
through Sunday in the Wine Country - Equestrian


and Residential Districts.
Mechanical equipments including but not limited
to, de-stemming, crushing, and refrigeration
equipment shall be enclosed or shielded for noise
attenuation. Alternatively, the proponent may
submit a Noise Study prepared by a qualified
acoustical analyst that demonstrates that the
unenclosed/unshielded equipment would not
exceed the Countys allowable noise levels.
The hours of operation for shipping facilities
associated with wineries shall be limited to 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the
Wine Country - Winery District and 10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine
Country - Equestrian and Residential Districts.
Shipping facilities and parking areas which abut
residential parcels shall be located away from
sensitive land uses and be designed to minimize
potential noise impacts upon nearby sensitive land
uses.
Site-specific noise-attenuating features such as
hills, berms, setbacks, block walls, or other
measures shall be considered for noise attenuation
in noise-producing areas of future wineries
including, but not limited to, locations of
mechanical equipment, locations of shipping
NOI-4 All implementing projects involving a special occasion
facility shall be required to conduct a noise study prior
to its approval. Similarly, all implementing projects
involving an outdoor special occasion facility shall be
required to conduct an acoustical analysis (that shows
the noise contours outside the property boundary)
prior to its approval.
The said noise study or acoustical analysis shall be
submitted to the Office of Industrial Hygiene for
review and comments.
Based on those comments, the implementing
project shall be conditioned to mitigate noise
impacts to the applicable County noise standards
through site design and buildings techniques.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the
special occasion facility, those noise mitigation


measures shall have received the necessary permits
from Building and Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the

facility shall be reviewed by the Riverside County Office
of Industrial Hygiene and include at least the following
conditions:
All special event venders (e.g. DJs, musical bands,
etc.) shall be notified regarding noise conditions of
approval .
Outdoor special events and associated audio
equipment, sound amplifying equipment, and/or
performance of live music shall be limited to the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through
Sunday.
Noise levels shall be kept below levels prescribed in
the Countys General Plan Noise Element and
County noise Ordinances No. 847 by using a
decibel-measuring device to measure music sound
levels when amplified music is used.
Clean-up activities associated with special events
shall terminate no later than midnight.
Outdoor speakers for all scheduled events shall be
oriented toward the center of the property and
away from adjoining land uses.
Padding/carpeting shall be installed under music
speakers for early absorption of music.
facility shall include at least the following conditions to
ensure proper enforcement of the County Ordinances
and project conditions:
After issuance of two Code Violation Notices for
excessive noise, noise measurements shall be
performed by the Office of Industrial Hygiene for
every event at the property line, to determine if the
Noise Ordinance and project conditions are being
followed during the special events.
If violations of the Noise Ordinance or project
conditions are found, the County shall reconsider
allowed hours of operation, number of guests,


amount of special events per year, or approval of
the specific facility.
The proponents shall be required to pay fees
assessed per the Department's hourly rate pursuant
to Ordinance No. 671.
Impact 4.12-3: Local Noise
Standards
Would the project expose
persons to or result in the
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1
through NOI-6, above.
Impact 4.12-4: Groundborne
Noise and Vibration
exposure of persons to or
generation excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
NOI-7 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, all
implementing projects shall demonstrate compliance
with the following measures to reduce the potential for
human annoyance and architectural/structural damage
resulting from elevated groundborne noise and
vibration levels:
Pile driving within a 50-foot radius of occupied units
or historic or potentially historic structures shall
utilize alternative installation methods where
possible (e.g., pile cushioning, jetting, pre-drilling,
cast-in-place systems, resonance-free vibratory pile
drivers).
If no alternative to pile driving is deemed feasible,
the preexisting condition of all designated historic
buildings within a 50-foot radius of proposed
construction activities shall be evaluated during a
preconstruction survey. The preconstruction
survey shall determine conditions that exist before
construction begins for use in evaluating damage
caused by construction activities. Fixtures and
finishes within a 50-foot radius of construction
activities susceptible to damage shall be
documented (photographically and in writing) prior
to construction. All damage shall be repaired back
to its preexisting condition.
Vibration monitoring shall be conducted prior to
and during pile driving operations occurring within
100 feet of the historic structures. Every attempt
shall be made to limit construction-generated


vibration levels during pile driving and impact
activities in the vicinity of the historic structures.
Cumulative Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities
Impact 4.13-1: Law Enforcement
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered law enforcement
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.13-2: Fire Protection
Services
altered fire protection facilities,
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
PSU FIRE - 1 All implementing projects requiring a traffic
impact analysis (TIA) shall analyze the project-related
traffics impact on emergency service response times.
Implementing projects shall participate in a land
acquisition and fire facility construction program, as
necessary, to ensure adequate response times, as
determined by the Riverside County Fire Department
(RCFD).
PSU FIRE - 2 All implementing projects shall participate in a
fire mitigation fee program pursuant to County
Ordinance No. 659, Development Impact Fees, which
would allow one-time capital improvements such as
land and equipment purchases (e.g,. fire suppression
equipment) and construction development.
PSU FIRE - 3 Prior to the approval of any implementing
project for lands adjacent to open space areas, a fire
protection/vegetation management plan (fuel
modification plan) shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for review and approval. Provision shall
be made as part of the development entitlement


process for a Home Owners Association (HOA) or other
appropriate management entity to be responsible for
maintaining the elements of the plan, including the
power to assess HOA fees or other fees required to
fund the maintenance activity.
PSU FIRE - 4 Flag lots will not be permitted without
adequate secondary access or alternative measures as
deemed appropriate by the Fire Chief.
PSU FIRE - 5 For those residential areas planned for rural
residential estate lots, the proponent of the
implementing project shall ensure the construction of
water lines and hydrants (and maintain sufficient water
pressure) per current applicable fire code to ensure
adequate fire protection.
Impact 4.5-3: Public Education
altered school facilities, the
construction of which could
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.13-4: Libraries
altered library facilities, the
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impacts. No mitigation proposed.
Impact 4.13-5: Parks and
Recreation
Would the Project increase the
Less than
Significant
with
PSU REC-1 All implementing projects within the Project
area shall participate in any future trails phasing and
financing plan being developed by the County.


use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Mitigation PSU REC-2 Prior to the approval of any implementing
project within the Project area, a park and recreational
facilities dedication plan or fee-in-lieu shall be
submitted to the County Regional Recreation and Parks
District for review and approval. This includes at
minimum the half-width dedication of trail right-of-
way (ROW) for any trails bordering a proposed
implementing project, and full dedication and/or
construction of trails traversing a proposed
implementing project. Where private recreational
facilities are proposed, provision shall be made as part
of the development entitlement process for a HOA or
other appropriate management entity to be
responsible for maintaining the elements of the plan,
including the power to assess HOA fees or other fees
required to fund the maintenance activity.
PSU REC-3 To the extent feasible, the County Regional
Recreation and Park District should work to negotiate
joint use agreements with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District for the joint use of school recreational
facilities including playing fields, to contribute to the
supply of public parks located within reach of residents
of the Project area.
Impact 4.13-6: Water and Water
Supply
Would the Project have sufficient
water supplies available to serve
the project with existing
entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Or
Would the Project require or
water treatment facilities or the
effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
PSU WATER-1 All implementing projects shall be required to
use graywater as a water conserving system (Riverside
County Policy OS 2.1).
use California-friendly, drought-resistant landscaping
and landscape irrigation improvements consistent with
County Ordinance No. 859 and Riverside County Policy
OS 2.3 in consideration of Rancho California Water
District Budget Based Tiered Rate Program.
use graywater advanced water conservation pursuant
to the intent of Riverside County Policy OS 2.5 through
implementation of at least the following best
management practices:
Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained,
and managed to meet or exceed an irrigation
system efficiency of 80%.
The capacity of the irrigation system shall not
exceed peak system capacity to meet crop-specific
water requirements, water meter capacity, and


backflow preventer device capacity.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent
runoff, overspray, and low-head drainage.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to ensure the
dynamic pressure at each emission device is within
the manufacturers recommended pressure range
for optimum performance.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to include a
device(s), which provides site-specific soil moisture
and/or evapotranspiration data that can be used to
schedule irrigation events effectively.
Care shall be taken to design irrigation systems so
that irrigation blocks are contained within areas of
uniform soil texture and solar orientation.
Irrigation shall be scheduled to apply water at or
below crop-specific water requirements.
Crops with different water needs shall be irrigated
separately.
Impact 4.13-7: Wastewater
wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities,
effects?
Or
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves
or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve
the projects projected demand
in addition to the providers
existing commitments?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-2 above.
PSU SEWER-1 Interim to sewer services in this region, all
implementing projects proposed for construction in the
Project area shall provide onsite wastewater treatment
to meet compliance with the Basin Plan Groundwater
Quality Objectives, as well as, additional conditions for
salinity management to the satisfaction of the County
Department of Environmental Health and the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB).
PSU SEWER-2 All implementing projects shall make a fair
share contribution toward proposed sewer
improvements, as set forth in the phasing and financing
plan being developed by EMWD. In addition, all
implementing projects shall be responsible for
extending sewer lines from available trunk lines as a
condition of approval for the project.
Impact 4.13-8: Solid Waste
Would the project be served by a
landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal
needs?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
PSU WASTE-1 All implementing project proponents shall
make every effort feasible to recycle, reuse, and/or
reduce the amount of construction and demolition
materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) generated
by implementing projects of the Project that would
otherwise be taken to a landfill. This diversion of waste
must exceed a 50 percent reduction by weight. The


project shall complete the Riverside County Waste
Management Department Construction and Demolition
Waste Diversion Program Form B or and Form C
process as evidence to ensure compliance. Form B
(Recycling Plan) must be submitted and approved by
the Riverside County Waste Management Department
and provided to the Department of Building and Safety
prior to the issuance of building permits. Form C
(Reporting Form) must be approved by the Riverside
County Waste Management Department and
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy/final
inspection.
dispose of any hazardous wastes, including paint, used
during construction and grading at a licensed facility in
accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines.
PSU WASTE-3 All implementing projects with a residential
Homeowners Association (HOA) shall establish green
waste recycling through its yard maintenance or waste
hauling contracts. Green waste recycling includes such
things as grass recycling (where lawn clippings from a
mulching-type mower are left on the lawn) and on- or
off-site composting. This measure shall be
implemented to reduce green waste going to landfills.
If such services are not available through the yard
maintenance or waste haulers in the area, the
implementing projects HOA shall provide individual
homeowners with information about ways to recycle
green waste individually and collectively and provisions
shall be included in the CC&Rs.
PSU WASTE-4 Prior to issuance of Building Permits for any
commercial or agricultural facilities, clearance from the
Riverside County Waste Management Department is
needed to verify compliance with California Solid
Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 1327),
which requires the local jurisdiction to require
adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable
materials.
PSU WASTE-5 Prior to implementing project approval,
applicant(s) shall submit for review and approval
landscape plans that provide for the use of xeriscape
landscaping to the extent feasible and consistent with


the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
Design Guidelines and provide for the use of drought
tolerant low maintenance vegetation in all landscaped
areas of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures PSU FIRE 1
through 3; PSU REC 1 through 3; PSU WATER 1 through 3; PSU
SEWER 1 through 2; and PSU WASTE 1 through 5; above.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact 4.15-1: Conflict with an
Applicable Plan, Ordinance, or
Policy
an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation
system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact. Refer to mitigation measures TRF-1
through TRF-3, below.
Impact 4.15-2: Conflict with
Congestion Management
Program
an applicable congestion
management program, including,
but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency
for designated roads or
highways?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
TRF-1 Proposed implementing projects within the Project area
shall be required to complete a comprehensive
transportation impact assessment consistent with
County Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines.
To be consistent with the Project, all analyses shall
utilize the Wine Country Traffic Demand Forecasting
(TDF) model to forecast cumulative impacts associated
with the implementing projects.
TRF-2 The County shall require wineries and equestrian
facilities to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP)
for Countys review and approval for large special
events, including but not limited to weddings, concerts,


festivals, and equestrian events. The TMP shall provide
detail such as traffic management strategies (such as
traffic coordinators, event signage, staggered
arrival/departure times, etc) for events that cause a
substantial increase of vehicles entering or exiting the
Project during a small period of time. The TMP may
also be required to include parking strategies to aid
traffic management such as a drop-off/pick-up zone
and/or offsite shuttle arrangements, including potential
use of the City of Temeculas old town parking structure
on Main Street.
TRF-3 The County shall implement a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
Program for the Project area. This Program shall collect
fair share contributions toward identified mitigation
measures (as outlined in the WCP Fair Share and
Phasing Assessment conducted by Fehr and Peers)
within the Project area and within the City of Temecula,
and the County shall enter into an agreement with the
City of Temecula to implement the identified
improvements. Implementing projects shall also make
fair share contributions to revise the Adaptive Traffic
Signal Timing Program through the above-mentioned
TIF as well, for those intersection locations that would
experience improved levels of service with
implementation of this Program. In addition,
implementing projects shall also make fair share
contributions for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) Program for those facilities that are eligible
for improvements through the TUMF Program.
Although participation in these Programs would reduce
the impacts to most locations to a less than significant
level, some measures are considered infeasible, and the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The
specific locations, impact levels, identified
improvements, and basis for those locations that would
experience significant and unavoidable impacts, are
described below.
Roadways
Impacts to the following roadways would be less than
significant following implementation of the identified
improvements:
Anza Road south of Rancho California Road (widen


from two to four lanes)
The following roadway segment improvements are also
recommended; however, these were found to be
potentially infeasible as discussed above in Impact 4.14-
2, and therefore, impact levels would remain significant
and unavoidable:
Rancho California Road West of Anza (widen from
two to four lanes); however, widening would be
inconsistent with policy and plan direction for the
Project.
Rancho California Road East of Anza (widen from
Project.
I-15 from south of SR-79 to north of Rancho
California Road (freeway expansion); however,
remaining funding has not yet been identified and
there is limited right-of-way in the corridor for
freeway expansion.
I-15 Freeway ramps to Rancho California
(northbound on and off ramps/southbound off
ramp); however, the remaining funding has not yet
been identified and there is limited right-of-way in
the corridor for ramp expansion.
Intersections
Impacts to the following intersections would be less
than significant following implementation of the
identified improvements:
Winchester Road at Ynez Road (optimize cycle
length and signal timing splits)
Temecula Parkway at I-15 Southbound Ramps
(optimize cycle length and signal timing splits for
LOS D, and add second southbound left- and right-
turn lanes for LOS C)
Margarita Road at Rancho Vista Road (add a second
westbound through lane)
Margarita Road at Pauba Road (add a second
Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way (install a
traffic signal)
Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road
(install a large roundabout, two to three lanes per


approach with bypass right-turn lanes, or widen
intersection)
Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho Vista Road (install
traffic signal)
Butterfield Stage Road at Pauba Road (optimize
signal timings)
Butterfield Stage Road at Temecula Parkway (re-
stripe the southbound approach to include two left-
turn lanes, add a westbound right-turn lane with
overlap right-turn phase)
La Serena Way at Rancho California Road (install a
two-lane roundabout)
Calle Contento at Rancho California Road (install a
Anza Road at Borel Road (future) (install a traffic
signal)
Anza Road at Buck Road (future) (install traffic
signal)
Anza Road at Rancho California Road (install a large
roundabout with a minimum of two lanes on each
approach)
Anza Road at Madera de Playa (install a traffic
signal and widen the intersection)
Anza Road at Pauba Road (install a traffic signal and
widen the intersection)
Anza Road at De Portola Road (install a traffic signal
and widen the intersection)
Anza Road at Temecula Parkway (install a traffic
Rancho California Road at Camino del Vino (install a
traffic signal and add a southbound left-turn lane,
or install a single-lane roundabout)
Rancho California Road at Monte De Oro (install a
The following intersection improvements are also
potentially infeasible as discussed above in Impact
4.14-2, and therefore, impact levels would remain
significant and unavoidable:
Winchester Road at Nicolas Road (widen
Winchester Road to an 8-lane facility; add a second
southbound left-turn lane; add a northbound and
southbound dedicated right-turn lane; and provide
an overlap right-turn phase for the northbound and


westbound right-turn movements); however, there
is development on all four quadrants of this
intersection which limits the ability to widen the
roadway.
Rancho California Road at Ynez Road (two left-turn
lanes, three through lanes and a right-turn lane at
the northbound approach; two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and dual right-turn lanes [with
overlap right-turn phasing] at the southbound and
westbound approaches; and three left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and a right-turn lane [with
overlap right-turn phasing] at the eastbound
approach); however, there is development on all
four quadrants of this intersection resulting in
limited right-of-way, and the improvements would
encroach onto the adjacent pond/park on the
southwest quadrant.
Winchester Road at I-15 Northbound Ramps (signal
modifications to allow free westbound right-turn
movement; and add a second dedicated
northbound right-turn lane); however, the
remaining funding outside of the TIF has not been
guaranteed. In addition, this ramp is controlled by
Caltrans and is in the City of Temecula; as such, the
County cannot guarantee implementation of this
improvement.
Margarita Road at Rancho California Road (add two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a dedicated
right-turn lane); however, this intersection is
controlled by the City of Temecula and the County
cannot guarantee implementation of this
improvement.
Los Caballos Road at Temecula Parkway (install a
traffic signal); however, given the rural nature of
this area, this intersection will remain unsignalized
in the future.
Camino del Vino at Glen Oaks Road (install a traffic
signal); however, given the rural nature of this area,
this intersection will remain unsignalized in the
future.
Camino del Vino at Monte De Oro (install a traffic
future.
De Portola Road at Pauba Road (install a traffic


future.
Pauba Road at Temecula Parkway (install a traffic
future.
Impact 4.15-3: Air Traffic
Patterns
change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in
location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.15-4: Design Features
increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
TRF-4 All future transportation related improvements in the
Project area shall be consistent with the County
ordinances (i.e. Ordinance No. 348, 460, 461, 499, 512,
585 etc.) and the Project (i.e., revised SWAP Figure 7
Circulation Network, development standards of the
implementing zones, Temecula Valley Wine Country
Design Guidelines, etc.). All implementing project
designs, including site access points, turning lanes, etc.
shall be reviewed by the County Transportation
Department staff to determine that proposals are
consistent with appropriate design standards.
Access
inadequate emergency access?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
TRF-5 All implementing projects in the Project area shall be
reviewed by appropriate emergency services personnel
to ensure adequate emergency access is provided, as
part of the Countys discretionary application review
process.

Impact 4.15-6: Public Transit
adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance of safety of
such facilities?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation


Cumulative Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.


1.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
While the specific mitigation measures summarized above would reduce the level of many significant
impacts to a less than significant level, the Draft EIR identified the following areas where, after
implementation of feasible mitigation, the Project may nonetheless result in impacts which cannot be
fully mitigated. Various benefits would accrue from implementation of the Project, which must be
weighed against the potential adverse effects of Project implementation in deciding whether to approve
the Project. These potential benefits will be set forth in a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
which is required by CEQA prior to approving a project with unavoidable significant impacts. In addition,
as discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project, while representing a substantial increase in new
development compared to existing conditions, it is considerably less dense than currently allowed in the
Countys General Plan Policies and zoning classifications.
PROJECT IMPACTS
While the Project policies and implementing zoning classifications would increase the acreage of
designated Agricultural land uses and may in turn increase the acreage of agricultural uses, it is possible
that implementing project sites could be located on Prime Farmland (or another designation indicating
agricultural suitability) and would allow development of up to 25 percent of the total Project area based
on proposed Policy SWAP 1.2 which allows up to 25 percent of a subject site to be developed with
winery and other associated facilities (e.g., delicatessens, tasting rooms, special event facilities, etc.).
Additionally, under the Project, active agricultural land would be allowed to convert 25 percent of its
land to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the Project could convert agriculturally suitable farmland, such
as Prime Farmland, and active agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. As such, this potential
conversion would generate a significant, unavoidable impact on agricultural resources.
Air Quality
Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified for Project-level and cumulative air quality impacts
related to construction and operations activities (i.e., stationary and mobile source emissions) as well as
air quality impacts on sensitive receptors.
Implementation and compliance with the Countys policies will ensure that impacts from GHG emissions
are minimized. However, construction and operation of implementing projects would create an
increase in GHG emissions that are above South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD)
draft mass emission thresholds and CARBs per capita threshold.
Compliance with proposed County of Riverside SWAP policies will ensure consistency with the numeric
GHG-reduction goals of AB 32 and be consistent with promulgated plans, polices, and regulations
governing the reduction of GHG emissions. Because these features and measures would meaningfully
reduce Project GHG emissions and are consistent with the state and local goals, the Project is supportive
of the States goals regarding global climate change. However, Project impacts to global climate change,
both at the Project level and cumulative level, are still potentially significant and unavoidable, due to the
overall increase in emissions as compared to existing conditions.


Noise
Given that it is not possible to predict the specific nature, frequency or location of all of the wineries or
all of the special events, some stationary source activity may still represent unacceptable noise exposure
within the Wine Country, particularly for existing sensitive receptors. This unavoidable impact will be
reduced through compliance with policies, ordinances and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-6
noted above, and will be implemented by the County on a project-by-project basis.
In addition, due to the amount of traffic trips that would be generated in association with the proposed
permitted land uses, mobile source noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Public Services and Utilities
Fire Protection Services
Implementation of the Project would have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Departments ability
to provide an acceptable level of service. Impacts include an increased number of emergency and public
service calls and a decreased level of service due to the increased presence of structures, traffic, and
population (including transient tourists).
The availability of sufficient funding to equip and staff new facilities may not be available over the long
term and the ability of the Department to negotiate for adequate funding for either construction or
long-term staffing with individual developers is uncertain. Accordingly, even with the implementation of
the proposed mitigation, the Project could result in an indirect, cumulatively considerable contribution
to a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Libraries
Based on the current Riverside County standard, there are insufficient library facilities available to
provide the targeted level of service to the Project area and the balance of the service area of the two
existing libraries in the Temecula area. Therefore, implementing projects within the Project area would
make an indirect but cumulatively considerable contribution to that existing deficiency, resulting in a
potentially significant cumulative impact on library facilities and services.
Traffic
The Project would generally improve operations compared to the adopted General Plan; however, long-
term operational traffic resulting from operation of the Project would still contribute to a potentially
significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of levels of service in the Project area.
The Project would contribute a fair share contribution toward improving affected roadway segments
and intersections through a Community Facilities District (CFD) financing plan, as well as a fair share
contribution, which would allow the segments and intersections to operate at acceptable levels of
service. However, since some segments and/or intersections are controlled by the City of Temecula, the
Pechanga Band of Luiseo Indians and/or Caltrans, the County cannot guarantee implementation of the
identified improvements. In addition, remaining funding outside the CFD has not been guaranteed and
there is limited right-of-way to facilitate freeway and ramp expansion. Therefore, the levels of service


Growth-inducing Impact
The Project will allow for various onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements that could remove
impediments to growth and/or provide for additional capacity. The Project could also result in direct job
growth through increased employment opportunities as a result of the proposed update of the existing
Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) and other elements of the General Plan. Due to its size, its incremental
implementation, its impact on infrastructure, and the potential direct and indirect economic growth
associated with it, the Project would be viewed as growth-inducing pursuant to CEQA.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Air Quality
air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. If the County of Riverside approves the Project, the County
shall be required to adopt findings of fact in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, as
well as adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Greenhouse Gases
increase in GHG emissions that are above SCAQMDs draft mass emission thresholds and CARBs per
capita threshold. Compliance with proposed County of Riverside SWAP policies will ensure consistency
with the numeric GHG-reduction goals of AB 32 and be consistent with promulgated plans, polices, and
regulations governing the reduction of GHG emissions. Because these features and measures would
meaningfully reduce Project GHG emissions and are consistent with the state and local goals, the Project
is supportive of the States goals regarding global climate change. However, Project impacts to global
climate change, both at the Project level and cumulative level, are still potentially significant and
unavoidable, due to the overall increase in emissions as compared to existing conditions.
Noise
Buildout of the Project would result in potential cumulative noise level increases along major roadways.
Project implementation would result in significant cumulative noise impacts that could not be mitigated
with the implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures. Thus, the Project would
substantially contribute to cumulative mobile source noise impacts.
It may also be possible for multiple stationary sources such as special events or wineries to operate
concurrently and in close proximity, which could further add to cumulative noise impacts. The Project
may result in significant stationary source impacts, even with implementation of mitigation measures
and applicable policies and ordinances.
The Project may, in combination with existing conditions and other future implementing projects, result
in unavoidable significant cumulative impacts in the areas of fire protection services and library services.


Traffic
in a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system and level of service degradation to unacceptable levels. The
Project may result in significant traffic-related impacts, even with implementation of mitigation
measures and applicable policies and ordinances.
1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This is a summary of the Project alternatives described in Section 6.0, Alternatives, which contains a
detailed discussion. The Project alternatives have been designed to achieve the Project objectives and to
minimize/reduce/alleviate identified environmental impacts, or were specifically requested for
consideration during the preparation of the EIR.
The Project alternatives considered in EIR No. 524 are:
No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning Classifications Alternative
Reduced Density (25% Reduction) Alternative
Alternatives rejected from further consideration:
Pending General Plan Amendments Approval Alternative (Pending Amendments Alternative)
Alternative Location Alternative
One Policy Area / One Zone Alternative
Descriptions of the first three rejected alternatives (i.e., Pending General Plan Amendments Approval,
Alternative Location, and One Policy/One Zone Alternatives) are provided in Section 6.4 of this Draft EIR.
However, a description of the No Build Scenario/Existing Condition Alternative is provided, as it
describes the CEQA baseline against which the Project is analyzed (an alternative in which only existing
development occupies the site).
NO BUILD SCENARIO/EXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Scenario/Existing Condition Alternative (No Build Scenario) assumes that the future
implementing projects envisioned under the Project would not occur, and the Project site would remain
in its existing condition. This alternative assumes the breakdown of land use acreages listed in Table
3.0-1, Existing Land Use Acreages, provided in the Project Description. Essentially, this alternative
assumes that only the existing development that is presently on the ground would occupy the Project
site into the future.
No additional implementing projects would be considered/approved/developed within the Project site.
The existing wineries, residential, equestrian and vacant, open space would remain, and property
owners may continues to utilize their parcel as they are currently being used.
It is important to note that this alternative does not reflect the future growth envisioned in the
Southwest Area Plan, existing Citrus Vineyard Policy Area, or the Project objectives. The site is currently


designated for development in a manner relatively similar to the Project (albeit with more development
intensity and density and more incompatibility in land uses). The Countys General Plan reflects this
designation, and there have been no indications by County staff, elected officials or the public through
the EIR scoping process that there is a desire to preserve the site in its current state and without
additional infrastructure support.
The No Build Alternative does not meet many of the basic Project objectives because it does not
implement a comprehensive and cohesive plan for the physical and economic development of the
Project area, does not enhance the Wine Country regions viniculture potential, rural lifestyle and
equestrian activities, does not continue to allow for an appropriate level of commercial tourist activities,
does not coordinate where and under what circumstances future growth should be accommodated, and
does not develop provisions to ensure that future growth is balanced and coordinated with appropriate
public services, infrastructure and other basic necessities for a healthy, livable community.
It does not provide for adequate water distribution, sewer, flood control, circulation, and water quality
improvements. The No Build Alternative would also be inconsistent with the County General Plan,
would fail to provide increased revenue, employment and entertainment opportunities within the
County, and would not provide the various infrastructure and service improvements associated with the
Project. For these reasons, this Alternative is not under consideration by the County.
NO PROJECT/EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property
or set of properties consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section
15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the Guidelines states that, when the project is the revision of an existing land use or
regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the
existing plan... For purposes of this analysis, the No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning
Classifications Alternative (No Project Alternative) assumes this condition. Accordingly, the No Project
Alternative assumes that development of implementing projects as allowed under the Project would not
occur, and that the Project site would instead remain subject to the provisions contained within the
current, non-amended General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Each parcel within the site would be subject
to the requirements of its corresponding General Plan land use designation for those properties outside
of the Citrus/Vineyard and Valle de los Caballos Policy Area. For parcels within these Policy Areas, the
General Plan land use designation would apply, in conjunction with the applicable zoning classifications.
This alternative also assumes that most of the entitlements applications currently on file with the
County would be approved and constructed as proposed within the Project site.
The existing General Plan and Policy Areas (i.e., No Project Alternative) in their current state are
anticipated to provide a mix of uses which would include a larger number of acres within the Rural and
Rural Community Foundation Components (as displayed in Table 3.0-3). However, with these existing
regulations, the build-out of the Project area is anticipated to include less acres under the Agriculture
and Open Space Foundation Components. The existing General Plan would not establish the proposed
three Districts (i.e., Winery, Residential, and Equestrian) as proposed under the Project and, thus, would
not ensure to the same degree the long-term viability of the wine industry and would not serve to
protect the communitys equestrian and rural lifestyle.
The existing General Plan in its current state (i.e., pursuant to the existing Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area)
would require incidental commercial uses for wineries on a minimum of 10 acres. The Project would


require a minimum of 10 acres only for these uses on existing wineries identified in the SWAP (Figure
4a). For all other wineries incidental commercial uses a 20-acre minimum lot size would be required.
Based on the existing land uses designation and Policy Areas within the Project area, this alternative
would result in a 58.4% increase in dwelling units and population, while generating a 25.4% increase in
employment/other (which is the category used to quantify the number of employees and tourists
anticipated to visit the Project area) compared to the Project.
The existing General Plan would not include the circulation improvements identified in the traffic study
prepared for the Project (i.e., traffic signalization, re-striping, addition of lanes, dedication of lanes,
creation of intersections, creation of new roadway linkages). While nothing in the existing General Plan
or zoning would preclude these improvements from developing at a later data with the appropriate
permits and approvals (e.g., GPA), this alternative does not propose or plan for these updates to the
circulation network. The General Plan, Trails and Bicycle System map (Figure 8) would also remain as is,
meaning compared to the Project, the Project area would not provide the same level of pedestrian,
equestrian, and bicycle circulation options.
This Alternative, due to its substantially greater density than the proposed Project, would result in
substantially greater impacts in nearly all environmental topical areas, particularly for traffic, air quality,
noise, aesthetics, and public services and utilities. A detailed quantitative comparison of the No Project
Alternative with the proposed Project is provided below in Table 1.0-2 of this Draft EIR, and in Appendix
J of this Draft EIR. For these reasons, this Alternative is not under consideration by the County.
Table 1.0-2
Comparison of Land Uses between the No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning
Classifications Alternative and the Project
1
Land Use Designation by
Foundation Component
No Project Alternative Proposed Wine Country Land Uses

Acres DU
Populatio
n
Employees
2 Acres DU
Populatio
n
Employees
/ Others
AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Agriculture (AG) 6167 308 929 308 9,644 482 1,452 482
Agriculture Foundation Sub-
Total:
6167 308 929 308 9,644 482 1,452 482
RURAL FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Rural Residential (RR) 6,457 969 2,917 NA 3,102 465 1,401 NA
Rural Mountainous (RM) 589 29 89 NA 370 19 56 NA
Rural Desert (RD) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Rural Foundation Sub-Total: 7,046 998 3,005 0 3,472 484 1,457 0
RURAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Estate Density Residential (RC-
EDR)
3,287 1,150 3,465 NA 2,714 950 2,861 NA
Very Low Density Residential
(RC-VLDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Low Density Residential (RC-
LDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Rural Community Foundation 3,287 1,150 3,465 0 2,714 950 2,861 0


Sub-Total:
OPEN SPACE FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA
Open Space-Conservation
Habitat (OS-CH)
444 NA NA NA 985 NA NA NA
Open Space-Water (OS-W) 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA
Open Space-Recreation (OS-R) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Open Space-Rural (OS-RUR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Open Space-Mineral Resources
(OS-MIN)
0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Open Space Foundation Sub-
Total:
444 0 0 0 985 0 0 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Estate Density Residential (EDR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
(VLDR)
6 5 14 NA 0 0 0 NA
Low Density Residential (LDR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
(MDR)
164 574 1,729 NA 0 0 0 NA
Medium-High Density
Residential (MHDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
High Density Residential (HDR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Very High Density Residential
(VHDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Highest Density Residential
(HHDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Commercial Retail2 (CR) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Commercial Tourist (CT) 1,876 NA NA 54,889 2,175 NA NA 43,522
Commercial Office (CO) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Light Industrial (LI) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Business Park (BP) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Public Facilities (PF) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Community Center (CC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mixed Use Planning Area
(MUPA)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD Foundation Sub-Total: 2,046 579 1,742 54,899 2,175 0 0 43,522
Sub-total for All Foundation
Uses
18,990 3,035 9,141 55,207 18,990 1,916 5,770 44,004
Notes:
DU dwelling units
Popn Population
Emp/Others Employment/Others (category used to quantify the number of employees and tourists anticipated to visit the
Project area)
[1] No Project Alternative scenario in Winery District assumes business as usual development pattern, thus converting AG into
CTs while other land use designations reflect current General Plan land use designations.
[2] No Project Alternative does not take into account the tourist generated by this alternative as does the Projects figures.
Source: Draft EIR Appendix J, General Plan Land Use Build-Out Analysis


REDUCED DENSITY (25% REDUCTION) ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the Reduced Density Alternative is to reduce impacts from the Project related to the
number of units developed and the intensity of commercial development, including wineries. Under
this alternative, the total number of residential dwelling units anticipated is assumed to be reduced
from 1,916 to 1,437 representing a reduction of 479 units, or approximately 25%. In addition, it is
anticipated that commercial square footage would be reduced by 25% under this alternative.
This reduced density alternative may not have the same design features as the Project, and therefore,
the impacts of this alternative could be greater than or less than the impacts of the Project with regard
to specific issue areas. As a variation of this alternative, the site could be developed with higher density
product in a cluster development fashion, leaving increased natural open space and reducing the
extent and cost of infrastructure improvements and site grading.
The Reduced Density Alternative may not require the same level of circulation, water, sewer, flood
control and other infrastructure improvement based on a reduction in population, employment, and
tourists within the Project site (due to the lower allowable intensity of use in the Project site).
This alternative may partially accomplish the objectives enumerated for the Project. However, the
future growth of the Project area would be reduced compared to the Project. The level of commercial
tourist activities envisioned under the current General Plan and this Project would not be reached as
effectively through implementation of this alternative, due to less density and interactive synergy
produced by the Projects balance of wineries/commercial tourism, equestrian and residential uses.
Feasibility and funding of required infrastructure would also be more challenging under this Alternative
due to a reduced development base from which to derive fees and other funding sources, and much of
this infrastructure would be similar to that required for the Project. Finally, it should be noted that the
Project already represents a reduced density from what is currently allowed in the General Plan and
Policy Areas.
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Table 1.0-3, Comparison of Impacts Resulting from Project Alternatives as Compared to the Project,
compares the potential impacts of the Project with each of the alternatives evaluated in this EIR. A side-
by-side comparison of the issues as evaluated in the EIR is provided in Table 1.0-3 for each of the
following Project alternatives.


Table 1.0-3
Comparison of Impacts Resulting from Project Alternatives as Compared to the Project
Environmental Issue
No Build
Scenario/
Existing
Condition
Alternative
No Project/
Existing General
Plan Policies and
Zoning
Classifications
Alternative
Reduced Density
(25%) Alternative
Aesthetics
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly Less
Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
Air Quality Less Greater Less
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same
Cultural Resources
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly Less
Geology/Soils Less Slightly Greater Same
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazardous Materials Less Greater Same
Hydrology Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
Land Use Greater Greater Same/Slightly Less
Mineral Resources
Same
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly Less
Noise Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
Public Services,
Recreation & Utilities
Transportation/Circulation Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to the Project
shall identify one alternative to the project as the environmentally superior alternative. Table 1.0-3
below provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts associated with the Project with the
impacts of each of the proposed alternatives. Of the alternatives analyzed in this EIR, the Reduced
Density (25%) Alternative is considered environmentally superior overall. Even with a 25% reduction,
there would still be significant and unavoidable project impacts associated with air, greenhouse gas
emissions, agricultural resources, noise, traffic, and growth-inducing impacts.
1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123 (b)(2) and (3) requires that the EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the
lead agency, issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved, including the choice
among alternatives and whether, or how to, mitigate significant adverse physical impacts. Based on


County staffs review of available information and comments received from the general public and other
public agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation and public scoping meetings (Appendix A), the
following issues may be either controversial or require further resolution:
Total Dissolved Solids (salinity) in basin groundwater, which is currently limiting new
development
Specific timing and funding for infrastructure is in the process of development for wastewater
and transportation, and is yet to be developed for potable/reclaimed water and drainage.
Noise impacts, both from existing operations and potential future operations, particularly
related to special event noise.
Traffic impacts, on both a local community level and a regional level.
There are numerous development proposals currently in various stages of County review, some
of which may be approved prior to the new Wine Country Community Plan zoning taking effect.
The ultimate timing, location and nature of future development in the Wine Country is
uncertain. County staff has made estimates of future land uses based on detailed review of
parcel data using County GIS technologies and community participation.
These issues have been considered in this EIR, where applicable.

Chapter 3.0
Project Description

3.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
Refer to Section 3.6 below for a detailed description of the various Project characteristics.
3.3 EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USES/ ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
The existing General Plan land uses within the Project area currently consist of a mixture of Agriculture:
Agriculture (AG:AG)
1
, Rural: Rural Residential (R:RR) and Rural Mountainous (R:RM), Rural Community:
Estate Density Residential (RC:EDR), and Community Development: Commercial Tourist (CD:CT) and
Medium Density Residential (CD:MDR).
In addition, the zoning for the Project area primarily includes Citrus/Vineyard (C/V), Commercial
Citrus/Vineyard (C-C/V), Light Agriculture (A-1), Heavy Agriculture (A-2), Rural Agriculture (R-A), and
Rural Residential (R-R) classifications with varying lot size requirements (ranging from to 20 acre
minimums).
EXISTING LAND USES
Many of the existing uses within the Project area are composed of rural residential, single-family lots
(greater than one acre in size), vineyards and wineries and auxiliary uses, citrus groves, equestrian uses
including residential uses with equestrian amenities (e.g., barns, arenas, stables, etc.), and vacant
undeveloped properties. At this time there are a total of approximately 42 existing wineries located
within the Project area. Ancillary uses to the wineries include bed and breakfast inns, restaurants, and
special occasion facilities which are used for events such as parties, weddings, and other social
gatherings. Table 3.0-1, Existing Land Use Acreages, below includes a summary of the existing land uses
in the Project area.

1
General Plan land use designations are listed in the following format - Foundation Component: General Plan Land Use
Designation.

3.0 Project Description

Table 3.0-1
Existing Land Use Acreages
Land Use Description Acreage
1

Residential 387
Rural Residential, Low-Density 3,801
Office/ Commercial Uses
2
880
Public/ Non-Governmental Facilities 79
Industrial/ Manufacturing Uses (includes Mineral
Extraction
3
) 159
Utilities/ Miscellaneous Uses 493
Agricultural Uses 4,992
Equestrian Uses 958
Vacant Land 6,090
Roadways (assumed) 1,151
Total 18,990
1
Acreage assumptions are based on parcel acreages with aerial interpretation
analysis and assessor parcel records.
2
Existing winery acreages haven divided into agricultural and commercial tourism
and to a lesser extent manufacturing.
3
According to SCAG Land Use categories, approximately 15 acres of the Project
area contains mineral extraction-related uses.
Source: Riverside County Planning Department
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Temecula Valley Wine Country region of Riverside County is surrounded by the urbanizing cities of
Temecula and Murrieta to the west, San Diego County to the south, and the unincorporated community
of Sage to the east. Land uses within the Project area include agricultural and natural open spaces, rural
communities and estate lots, to vacant land designated for future residential and commercial
developments, existing residential and commercial development associated with wineries depending on
their locations. Adjacent land uses include all of the foregoing and also include existing residential
subdivisions, retail commercial, educational and office uses in the vicinity of Butterfield Stage Road,
Rancho California Road and Highway 79. Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, campgrounds and RV parks, and related
3.4 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR should include a statement of objectives
sought by the proposed Project. The purpose of the Project is to provide a blueprint for growth to
ensure that future development activities will enhance, not impede, the quality of life for existing and
future residents, while providing opportunities for continued development and expansion of winery
operations within this part of the County.



community.
3.5 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Project is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County and is covered by the Southwest
Area Plan (SWAP) of the Countys General Plan. This area contains some of the most important
agricultural lands in the County. In response to the increased development activity that has occurred in
the area over the past decade, County staff is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the
regions vision, policies and development standards as part of the Countys General Plan update,
initiated in 2008. Previous efforts to guide development in the SWAP included the creation of two policy
areas intended to promote agricultural and equestrian uses described below.
CITRUS VINEYARD POLICY AREA
In 1989 the County recognized the special character of a portion of the Project area by creating the
Citrus Vineyard Policy Area within the Southwest Area Plan. This Policy Area encompasses a majority
of the agricultural uses within the Project area (east of Temecula and north/south of Rancho California
Road as depicted on Exhibit 3.0-3, Existing Policy Area Overlay). The Citrus Vineyard Policy Area
included specific policies to ensure the protection of the communitys distinct character and to ensure
continuation of its rural lifestyle along with the continued development of wine production in
southwestern Riverside County. The wineries that dot this Policy Area are both a significant tourist
attraction and an economic engine that provides significant benefit to the County and surrounding
municipalities. The policies of the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area are also intended to protect against the
development of uses that are incompatible with agriculture and which could lead to conflicts with
adjacent uses. The following policies have been established for the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area:
SWAP 1.1 Maintain a rural and agricultural character in the Citrus/Vineyard area through
continued implementation of the C/V zone and judicious use of the C-C/V zone.


These zones help achieve the desired character by requiring that commercial
buildings, wineries, citrus processing operations, and bed and breakfast inns be
designed in a rural or wine-country theme and by discouraging curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and street lights.
SWAP 1.2 Require a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres for new residential tract maps and
parcel maps.
SWAP 1.3 Encourage clustered developments in conjunction with onsite provision of
vineyards for new residential tract maps and parcel maps where appropriate. In
case of a clustered development, the overall project density yield must not
exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. While the lot sizes in a clustered
development may vary, require a minimum lot size of 1 acre, with at least 50%
of the project area set aside for permanent provision of vineyards.
SWAP 1.4 Continue to provide for incidental commercial uses, such as retail wine
sales/sampling rooms, incidental gift sales, restaurants excluding drive-through
facilities, and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries on 10 acres or more
75% of the grapes utilized in wine production and retail wine sales are
grown or raised within the county; and
The winery facility has a capacity to produce 3,500 gallons of wine annually.
SWAP 1.5 Continue to provide for incidental commercial uses, such as bed and breakfast
inns on 5 acres or more, and country inns and special occasion facilities on 10
acres or more, provided that at least 75% of the project site is planted in
vineyards.
inns on 10 acres or more, country inns on 15 acres or more, and hotels on 20
acres or more, in conjunction with wineries provided that at least:
VALLE DE LOS CABALLOS POLICY AREA
This Policy Area is located east of the City of Temecula, west of the Vail Lake Policy Area and south of
the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area (Exhibit 3.0-3, Existing Policy Area Overlay). The Valle de los Caballos
area is characterized by gently rolling hills and equestrian, rural residential, and agricultural activities.
Most of the land in the area is subdivided into parcels of 10 acres or more, which fosters a very low
intensity, rural lifestyle. The primary policy established for this area is as follows:
SWAP 2.1 Require a 10-acre minimum lot size for residential development within the Valle
de los Caballos Policy Area, regardless of the underlying land use designation.


3.5.3 WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN HISTORY
development of the Project in an effort to both preserve the areas distinct rural character and enhance
its economic contribution to the County over the long term. The BOS approved funding for the Project in
March 2009. As presently envisioned, the Project incorporates the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area, the Valle
de los Caballos Policy Areas and additional, adjacent unincorporated areas with similar characteristics.
Since its initiation, the Project has achieved the following milestones:
June 2009 - County staff initiated the Wine Country Vision 2020 survey, which sought input from
the Wine Country residents/property owners within the Project area to refine the vision for the
Temecula Valley Wine Country, regarding this unique communitys future.
July 2009 - Planning staff introduced a land use proposal to reflect Supervisor Stones vision to a
smaller Advisory Committee comprised of vintners.
December 2009 - The Advisory Committee expanded to include equestrian interests and
environmental work efforts in support of the Project was initiated pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Components of the Project included General Plan
Amendment No. 1077 - Southwest Area Plan (Policy Area, Circulation and Trails Networks), an
amendment to the Countys Zoning Ordinance No. 348 to create the Citrus Vineyard (C-V) and
commercial Citrus Vineyard (C/C-V) zones, and revisions to the adopted Citrus Vineyard Policy
Area Design Guidelines.
January 2010 - The Advisory Committee began holding monthly meetings to discuss issues
associated with the Project.
July 2010 - The Committee expanded further to include residential stakeholders and requested
assistance for a Real Use Inventory of properties within the Project area.
October 2010 - Following an open house, County staff addressed the issue of non-conforming
uses within the Project area by changing focus on the General Plan.
January 2011 County staff initiated the process of retaining an environmental consultant to
assist with the preparation of the Program EIR.
May 2011 to Present Beginning in May, County staff has been working closely with several
stakeholders (including public agencies and other interested parties) as well as their consultants
to complete the preparation of the Draft Program EIR. This process has included numerous
meetings with County staff, other public agency staff, the environmental consultants, and
technical consultants and the preparation of studies in support of the Program EIRs
environmental analysis. Working together this group prepared the Draft Program EIR for
release for public review.
3.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
OUTLINE OF INDIVIDUAL WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN (PROJECT) COMPONENTS
The Project, which requires the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 1077 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 348.4729, includes the following components:


8];
to Exhibit 3.0-7];
Exhibit 3.0-8]; and
Note that the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (2009) for the Project included a review and
update of the existing County Ordinance including Ordinance No. 348 and a Change of Zone No.
7711, which was intended to include parcel specific zoning map changes to ensure consistency
between the General Plan and County Ordinance No. 348. However, through the collaborative process
of Project development with the Advisory Committee, it was determined that consistency would be
better implemented on a project-by-project basis in accordance with the proposed amendment to
Zoning Ordinance No. 348. Therefore, Change of Zone No. 771 is no longer being proposed as part of
this Project. The Project still includes the amendment to Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348
under Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 as described above.
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USES
The Project is intended to prepare for future controlled growth within southwestern Riverside County
and to achieve the following four objectives within the Project area:
Increase viticulture potential;
Protect rural lifestyle and equestrian activities;
Allow appropriate levels of commercial tourist activities; and
Ensure that future growth within the Project area is coordinated to avoid land use conflicts and
provide appropriate levels of public facilities, services, and infrastructure.
Unlike the parcel-specific land use designations of the usual General Plan Land Use Plans, the Project
makes use of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to depict the regions three distinct


districts: Winery, Residential, and Equestrian. As such, these Districts require unique methodologies for
determining population, dwelling unit and employment/winery projections.
Table 3.0-2, Wine Country Planning Assumptions provides a typical land use breakdown for each District.
The following are general guidelines intended to indicate an anticipated mix of uses and to provide a
means for calculating estimated build out projections. In the course of Project implementation, the
actual land use breakdown will be determined on a case-by-case basis as implementing projects occur
and is expected to differ somewhat from the assumptions below. As described above, the Winery
impact generation for commercial land uses in the Winery District differs from the commercial land use
assumptions of the Residential and Equestrian Districts. Residential and Equestrian Districts use
combination of assumptions in General Plan and Winery, since the two Districts could potentially have
other commercial uses different from the Winery District, especially in the Equestrian District.
Table 3.0-2
Wine Country Planning Assumptions
Land Use Winery Residential Equestrian
Agriculture 54% 30% 75%
Rural Residential 9% 30% 16%
Rural Mountainous - 5% 3%
Estate Density Residential (RC) 9% 33% -
Open Space-Conservation Habitat 10% - -
Commercial Tourist (General Plan) - - 4%
Commercial Tourist 1 (Small) 3% 2% 2%
Commercial Tourist 2 (Medium) 6% - -
Commercial Tourist 3 (Large) 9% - -
Acreage Total 100% 100% 100%

As previously noted, the Project covers approximately 18,990 acres of land proposed for winery, rural
residential and equestrian uses in the unincorporated areas east of the City of Temecula (Exhibit 3.0-4,
Wine Country Community Plan Area). The land uses that would be allowed by the Project are similar to
the existing uses currently allowed by the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance No. 348; however,
the apportionment of these uses would be altered. Refer to Table 3.0-3, Land Use Designations by
Foundation Components. Foundation Components are a grouping of similar land uses designations. The
General Plan Land Use Map consists of five broad Foundation Component land uses: Agriculture, Rural,
Rural Community, Open Space, and Community Development.


Table 3.0-3
Land Use Designations by Foundation Components

Acres
Dwelling
Units Population
Employment/
Other
Agriculture Foundation Component
Agriculture (AG) 9,644 482 1,452 482
Agriculture Foundation Sub-Total: 9,644 482 1,452 482
Rural Foundation Component
Rural Residential (RR) 3,102 465 1,401 NA
Rural Mountainous (RM) 370 19 56 NA
Rural Foundation Sub-Total: 3,472 484 1,457 0
Rural Community Foundation Component
Estate Density Residential (RC-EDR) 2,714 950 2,861 NA
Rural Community Foundation Sub-Total: 2,714 950 2,861 0
Open Space Foundation Component
Open Space-Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) 985 NA NA NA
Open Space Foundation Sub-Total: 985 0 0 0
Community Development Foundation Component
Commercial Tourist (CT) 2,175 NA NA 43,522
CD Foundation Sub-Total: 2,175 0 0 43,522
SUB-TOTAL FOR ALL FOUNDATION USES: 18,990 1,916 5,770 44,004
Source: Draft EIR Appendix J, Land Use Buildout Analysis

Based on the land use assumptions for the Project, the County is anticipating that implementation of the
Project, at full build-out, will result in approximately 1,916 dwelling units resulting in a population of
5,770 residents. In addition to this, approximately 44,004 employees and visitors are anticipated to
work/ visit the Project area at buildout. It is anticipated that a majority of new implementing projects
that occur will be focused on the vacant and agricultural lands within the Project area, which are
scattered throughout the three Districts. The anticipated development is consistent with the primary
objectives of the Project, which seeks to ensure that future growth is balanced and coordinated in such
a way that the rural lifestyle, viticulture, and equestrian activities in the Project area are preserved and
enhanced.
County-Preferred Land Use Alternative
During the development of the Project, County staff developed different land use scenarios for the
Project areas various sub-regions. The development scenario described above, and analyzed in the
Program EIR, is considered the worst-case scenario or most intense potential scenario within the
18,990-acre Project area. However, County staff has identified potential areas that may ultimately be
excluded from the Project due to environmental issues and/or land use conflicts. CEQA requires the
Program to base its impact analysis on the projected worst-case buildout scenario; however, the
Program EIR environmental analysis and public hearing process is expected to result in the identification
of a County-Preferred Land Use Alternative that would provide for the development of a modified
plan that reduces identified impacts as compared to those analyzed in this Program EIR. This potential


reduction could result in a reduced Project footprint and/or land use changes that would result in less
intense development than presently proposed in the worst-case development scenario. Refer to
Exhibit 3.0-5, Wine Country Policy Area with Districts. This alternative may be considered and approved
by the Board of Supervisors and incorporated into the identified Project implementation documents
noted above.
TEMECULA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY POLICY AREA
As depicted in Exhibit 3.0-5, Wine Country Policy Area with Districts, the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Policy Area is divided into three Districts Winery, Equestrian and Residential to ensure the long-term
viability of the areas wine industry while protecting the communitys equestrian rural lifestyle. Each
District of the Policy Area has a corresponding implementing zone, except the Winery District, which has
two implementing zones: one for existing wineries (Wine Country - Winery Existing [WC-WE]) and
another for proposed wineries (Wine Country - Winery [WC-W]).
The overarching policies for this region promote a strong identity for the Temecula Valley Wine Country.
Additional policies applying to each District provide for complimentary uses distinct to the delineated
District. These policies are intended to protect against the development of uses that would be
incompatible with existing agricultural and equestrian uses, so as to avoid future land use conflicts.
These policies would also establish the basis for future land use decisions and a framework for the Wine
Country (WC) Zones and Design Guidelines, which have been established to further promote and
preserve the distinctive character of the area. The following policies are applicable to the Temecula
Valley Wine Country Policy Area:
SWAP 1.1 Require boundary changes to the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to be
subject to the Foundation Component Amendment process unless county-
initiated amendment.
SWAP 1.2 Maintain distinct characters of the Winery, Equestrian, and Residential Districts
through implementing zones to promote harmonious coexistence of these uses.
SWAP 1.3 Permit wineries that maintain established on site vineyards on 10 acres or more
75% of the grapes utilized in wine production and retail wine sales are grown or
raised within the county; and
SWAP 1.4 Permit limited commercial uses such as wineries, sampling rooms, and retail wine
sales establishments on a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres to promote
viticulture potential of this region.
SWAP 1.5 Require a density of ten (10) acres minimum for tentative approval of residential
tract and parcel maps after (adoption date) regardless of the underlying land use
designation except in the Wine Country Residential district where a density of
five (5) acres minimum shall apply.


SWAP 1.6 Allow small-scale cottage inns or cottage industries. Encourage agricultural
operations, equestrian activities and vineyard planting with such uses to reflect
the unique character of this Policy Area.
SWAP 1.7 Develop and implement an integrated trails network that carefully considers
equestrian uses, incidental commercial activities and agricultural operations, and
includes, but is not limited to, regional trails, combination trails, bike paths, open
space trails, historic trails, etc.
SWAP 1.8 Pending adoption of an updated Air Quality Element and Climate Action Plan
(CAP), ensure that new development selects greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
measures from the Option Tables to achieve the Countys GHG emission reduction
thresholds as set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook (workbook).
Alternatively, new developments may utilize other reduction mechanisms to
achieve reduction thresholds as prescribe in the workbook.
The Wine Country Winery District generally encompasses the area formerly covered by the
Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area and includes additional areas to the east and south. This District primarily
consists of wineries and auxiliary uses, such as wine tasting rooms, hospitality accommodations,
restaurants, and special facilities for weddings or other events. The primary purpose of the Winery
District is to promote the establishment of additional commercial activities that support tourism
associated with viticulture while ensuring long-term viability of the wine industry in the area. The
secondary purpose of the Winery District is to recognize, and allow the expansion of, existing wineries
that are an integral part of the Temecula Valley Wine Country economy. Policies proposed for the
Winery District include:
SWAP 1.9 Encourage new incidental commercial uses that promote tourist related activities
for the wine industry as described in the Wine Country Winery (WC-W) Zone.
SWAP 1.10 Allow the 28 existing wineries shown on Figure 4a to expand as described in the
Wine Country Winery Existing (WC-WE) Zone.
SWAP 1.11 Allow incidental commercial uses such as special occasion facilities, hotels,
resorts, restaurants and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries on lots larger
than 20 acres for WC-W zone and on lots larger than 10 acres for WC-WE zone.
The Wine Country Equestrian District generally encompasses the area formerly covered by the Valle de
los Caballos Policy Area. This District consists primarily of large estate lots with custom home site, large
commercial horse ranches, small independent ranches, stables, and other equestrian service facilities
and amenities including facilities which hold national and international competition events. The
purpose of the Equestrian District is to ensure continuation of and encourage future development of
equestrian uses in the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to make this community a destination
that would be unique in the nation. Policies specific to the Equestrian District include:


SWAP 1.12 Encourage equestrian establishments that promote the equestrian lifestyle as
described in the Wine Country Equestrian (WC-E) Zone.
SWAP 1.13 Permit incidental commercial uses such as western stores, polo grounds, or horse
racing tracks, petting zoos, event grounds, horse auction facilities, horse show
facilities, animal hospitals, restaurants, delicatessens, and special occasion
facilities in conjunction with equestrian establishments on lots larger than 10
acres to encourage equestrian tourism in this community.
The Wine Country Residential District is located in the central and northeastern portions of the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area. This District consists of both small and large ranch estate
communities, vineyards, and groves. The purpose of the Residential District is to encourage permanent
residential estates in this region to balance the tourism related activities. Policies specific to the
Residential District include:
SWAP 1.14 Encourage residential development that complements the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Policy Area as described in the Wine Country Residential (WC-R) Zone.
SWAP 1.15 Encourage residential tracts and parcel maps to cluster development in
conjunction with on-site vineyards or equestrian land provided that the overall
project density yield does not exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. While
the lot sizes in a clustered development may vary, require a minimum lot size of 1
acre, with at least 75% of the project area permanently set aside as vineyards or
equestrian land.
EXISTING WINERIES
Currently, there are currently approximately 42 wineries operating within the Project area (Exhibit 3.0-6,
Existing Wineries). These wineries are categorized as small, medium, or large based on the amenities
offered onsite. Small winery operations typically have vineyards and tasting rooms, whereas medium
wineries have vineyards, tasting rooms, and a combination of one or two additional ancillary uses such
as restaurants, special occasion facilities, or lodging facilities. Large-size wineries typically include
vineyards, tasting rooms, and resort-type uses (such as lodging, special occasion facilities, restaurants,
spas, etc).
PROJECT CIRCULATION
The vehicular circulation system in the Southwest Area Plan is anchored by Interstate 15 and Interstate
215, which run north towards the Cities of Corona and Moreno Valley, respectively. I-215 merges with I-
15, in the City of Temecula. Access to the Project area is obtained via State Route 79 (South) or Rancho
California Road from Interstate 15. The Project area can also be accessed from Winchester Road (State
Route 79 North) where it intersects with Washington Street/Scott Road in French Valley and heads
south changing its name to Buck and then to Borel Road at the northwest corner of the Project area
before becoming Rancho California Road. Access from the northeast can also occur via DePortola Road
and Sage Road, which connect the Project area to the southeastern portion of the City of Hemet.
Rancho California and De Portola Roads are considered Mountain Arterials (110 ROW), generally run
southwest to northeast through the Project area serving the rural areas east of Temecula. Major (118


right-of-way (ROW)) and Collector (74 ROW) roads branch off from these major roadways in a generally
north-south direction and provide access to local neighborhoods. Due to the rolling topography of the
Project area, the roadway network is less complex than found in more urbanized areas. Details of the
proposed circulation system and roadway/traffic control improvements can be found in Section 4.14 of
this Program EIR, Transportation and Traffic, and on Exhibit 3.0-7, Proposed Circulation Map. The
following is a summary of existing circulation and proposed improvements.

The traffic study prepared for the Project recommends innovative street improvements, which would
minimize/ reduce traffic impacts created by implementing projects allowed pursuant to the Project.
These improvement include, but are not limited to:
Roundabouts Five roundabouts are proposed along Rancho California Road to maintain rural
character of this region while allowing efficient volume capacity and traffic calming on this
critical road. The roundabout at Rancho California Road and Anza Road will be the first of five
roundabouts located at La Serena Way, Calle Contento, Monte De Oro Road and Glenoaks
Road. These roundabouts will allow vehicular, equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian traffic to
interact through the intersection more efficiently and safely while keeping its natural wine
county landscape.
Traffic Signalization/Signs the construction of traffic signals/signs for pedestrians, bikers, and
equestrians are proposed at strategic locations to promote non-motorized circulation in the
Project area;
Re-striping re-striping of intersections/ roadways to accommodate additional traffic,
additional turn lanes, or increase traffic flow;
Number of Lanes several roadways have been downgraded from the Countys Circulation
Element (as shown on Exhibit 3.0-7 and described in Section 6 of the TIA, Appendix I) to
maintain the rural character of the Project area;
Dedication of Lanes dedication of lanes to particular uses, such as right turn only or left turn
only lanes;
Creation of Intersections the creation of new signalized intersections or the creation of
roundabouts to allow for greater vehicle movement within the Project area;
Creation of new roadway linkages the creation of new roadways within the Project area
allowing for vehicular movement in areas where movement was previously unavailable.
With these improvements, the Project area circulation would become more efficient and accommodate
additional traffic anticipated to result from the buildout of the Project area. It should be noted that
many of the anticipated improvements associated with the Project could occur in areas outside of the
Project area (i.e., Offsite Improvements). Such offsite improvements would be critical components of
the overall circulation system and would help ensure that impacts associated with Project-facilitated
development located outside of the Project area would be reduced and minimized. Implementation of
these proposed roadway improvements may require the payment of fees and assessments to the
affected jurisdictions or physical construction of the improvements by or in connection with future
Project area development to ensure that Project-related traffic impacts are reduced/ minimized as
Project area development proceeds over time.
In addition to the construction of physical improvements, the County is also proposing implementation
of Traffic Demand Management strategies to reduce traffic impacts within the Project area and
surrounding areas. The purpose of implementing these strategies would be to reduce the total number


of vehicles traveling through the Project area, while maintaining or increasing the number of people
visiting the winery related establishments. These strategies may include development of park-and-ride
facilities, bus tour facilities, and/or designated businesses that provide shuttle service to the wineries
within the Project area.
Non-Vehicular Circulation
The County of Riverside contains multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers, bicyclists, and
equestrian users as an integral part of the County's circulation system. These facilities serve both as a
means of connecting the unique communities and activity centers throughout the County and as a
means of facilitating modes of transportation with no emission of air pollutants or GHGs. Within the
SWAP, a network of trails is planned for the Wine Country region to provide pedestrians, visitors,
equestrians, and bicyclists with alternative modes of travel while providing attractive recreational
opportunities. However, it does not connect all the existing wineries and other tourist destinations,
such as Lake Skinner and Vail Lake, through equestrian and multi-purpose trails system. A Trails Sub-
committee worked with the County Regional Parks and Open Space District and Planning Staff in the
development of a trails network that was more conducive to this regions destination places and users
needs. As a result of their work effort, Figure 8 (Trails and Bikeway System Map) of the SWAP would be
revised through GPA No. 1077. Exhibit 3.0-8, Proposed Trails Network, illustrates the revisions
proposed under GPA No. 1077 to the current SWAP Trails and Bicycle System map (Figure 8).
Circulation Improvement Funding
As this Program EIR is being prepared, the County is weighing the various options to fund the proposed
circulation system improvements needed to address potential impacts to the area circulation system
that would be created by the incremental implementation of development permitted pursuant to the
Project. The County currently imposes development impact fees on projects located within the
Southwest Area Plan. As part of an ongoing process, the County would review the adequacy of these
fees to cover the costs associated with proposed street improvements designed to mitigate the
anticipated traffic. At the time of this writing, the County is investigating the feasibility of such funding
mechanisms as the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), the use of a Community Service
Area (CSA) assessment, individual assessments and fee imposed on implementing projects as conditions
of approval.
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
Domestic Water Distribution
The majority of the Project area is served by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), which
provides water service for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta and adjacent unincorporated areas. A
detailed discussion of water supply and water supply infrastructure for the Project area is contained in
Section 4.13 of this Program EIR, Public Services, Recreation and Utilities.
At full buildout, assuming the worst-case development scenario possible pursuant to the Project,
there would be an approximately 38 percent increase in water demand within the Project area as
compared to the demand anticipated pursuant to the current General Plan land use designations (but
not taking into account the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de los Caballos Policy Areas).
RCWDs Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) includes master planned facilities (pipelines, pump
stations and reservoirs) to be built throughout the Districts service area. Facilities within the Project


area are shown on Exhibit 3.0-9, WFMP Proposed Facilities. These facilities include the major
infrastructure components anticipated for the Project area. The sizing of the master planned facilities as
well as the distribution pipelines would require analysis when a future implementing project requests
water service to ensure redundancy, hydraulic availability and constructability.
Wastewater (Sewer) System
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which currently provides sewer service to the City of
Temecula, a portion of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated area in Riverside County within the
EMWDs Temecula Valley service area, would be expected to provide sanitary sewer service and
wastewater treatment to the Project area. In May 2011, EMWD completed the Wine Country
Infrastructure Study (WCIS) to assess the potential projected service needs of existing uses within the
Project area as well as anticipated growth that would be facilitated by the adoption and subsequent
implementation of the Project. Details of the proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities
that are planned to serve the Project area are provided in Section 4.13 of this Program EIR.
EMWD identified potential alternatives to accommodate Project sewer flows. Descriptions of these
alternatives from the WCIS are provided below.
2
Note that this study is currently being refined by
EMWD. In discussing these alternatives, it is helpful to differentiate the three subareas within the
boundary of the Project area: Lower Wine Country (Lower WC) is the western portion of the Project area
that generally can be connected to the existing Rancho California Road sewer without pumping; Upper
Wine Country (Upper WC) is the northern portion of the Project area that would require pumping to
connect to the existing system; and the Highway 79 area is the southern portion of Wine Country that is
generally tributary to the existing sewer in Highway 79.
Alternative A is considered the base alternative where Lower WC is served by the
Rancho California Road sewer, Upper WC is served by the Nicolas Road sewer, and the
Highway 79 area is served by the Highway 79 sewer. Lower WC is naturally tributary to
Ranch California Road and the Highway 79 area is generally tributary to the Highway 79
sewers. Upper WC will require pumping to route Project wastewater flows to the
existing collection system along Nicolas Road. A network of regional facilities would be
required to provide sewer service to the Project area for Alternative A. These regional
facilities are defined in the EMWD Wine Country Infrastructure Study (WCIS).
Alternative B (the Nicolas Road Alternative) routes both Upper WC and Highway 79 area
flows to the Nicolas Road sewer. The Lower WC area remains served by the Rancho
California Road sewer, as in Alternative A. Alternative B routes flows from the Highway
79 area, through the Upper WC area, and ultimately towards the Nicolas Road sewers. A
lift station located along Highway 79 (South Calle Contento Lift Station) would intercept
the Highway 79 flow and deliver it via a force main to a proposed sewer in Upper WC.
From that point, new sewers and a new lift station along Calle Contento, north of
Rancho California Road, are needed to deliver the combined Highway 79 and Upper WC
flows to the existing Nicolas Road sewer.
Alternative C, proposes that all flows are routed to the Rancho California Road sewer
from the Project area. To accomplish this, Alternative C requires that both the Highway

2
Eastern Municipal Water District, Wine Country Infrastructure Study, pgs. 5-1 through 5-14 (May 2011). Note that this study
is currently in draft form.


79 and Upper WC areas be pumped to Lower WC. Alternative C routes flows from the
Highway 79 area, via a lift station and force main along Butterfield Stage Road. Upper
WC is routed to Lower WC, via a lift station and force main along Rancho California
Road, just west of Calle Contento.
EMWD developed flow scenarios for their analysis assuming that at buildout 4.21 million gallons per day
(mgd) of total effluent will be generated by the Project area. Based on the analysis conducted by
EMWD, it was determined that each alternative could accommodate anticipated flows.
Septic Facilities
Numerous properties within the Project area currently utilize septic systems for wastewater disposal. At
this time, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is concerned about the use of
onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) within the Project area due to groundwater quality
concerns. In response to this, RWQCB has requested that all commercial implementing projects
proposing OWTS with an average aggregate (total) wastewater flow greater than 1,200 gallons per day
(gpd) must be referred to them for assessment of compliance with water quality standards.
3
Note that
the 1,200 gallon per day standard is under review by RWQCB and may not remain in place throughout
the life of the Project. Residential projects would be limited to the 1,200 gpd average aggregate
wastewater flow regardless of the number of family units. It is possible that future implementing
projects within the Project area Country may include OWTS as the wastewater solution (refer to Section
4.13, Public Services and Utilities for additional details).
Drainage Facilities
As build out of the Project occurs, incremental onsite drainage improvements would be constructed to
control any increased flows above the natural condition and the need for additional major public storm
water management infrastructure improvements is not anticipated. The onsite detention and slow
release of incremental flows would be expected to prevent any increase in downstream erosion or
sediment load. Preservation of existing natural drainages and their associated habitat is anticipated as
implementing projects within the Project area are proposed due to the continued enforcement of
existing federal, State, and regional/local regulations. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology & Water Quality
for additional discussion.
3.7 PROJECT PHASING
Build out of the Project area is anticipated to occur in year 2035 and would be driven by market demand
and conditioned by the availability of infrastructure capacity. For planning purposes, a build-out
projection was performed by County staff. Table 3.0-4, Wine Country Buildout Projection, illustrates a
potential development pattern for wineries based on the Project-wide land use capacity pursuant to the
Project. Based on this analysis, a total of 56 new wineries of various sizes would be constructed and
added to the existing 32 wineries operating in the Winery District. Currently there is one existing winery
in the Residential District (Briar Rose Winery) and no wineries in the Equestrian District. To calculate the
number of wineries, a land use study was conducted that:

3
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Temecula Valley Wine Country Memorandum. Submitted to Mr. Steve Van
,Stockum, Director of Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (May 27, 2010).


1. Analyzed existing and proposed winery uses to determine the appropriate proportion of
commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing uses;
2. Inventoried parcel sizes in the area to determine the land use capacity based on acreages; and
3. Examined existing and proposed winery records maintained by the County Planning Department
and Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association (TVWA) to determine the development trend in
the area for forecasting purposes.
As Table 3.0-4, Wine Country Buildout Projection, indicates, the total available land for development of
wineries would accommodated approximately 88 wineries, inclusive of those already in operation as of
the date of the study, with a mix consisting of 21 large, 37 medium, and 30 small-sized operations in the
Winery District and approximately 105, with 21 large, 37 medium and 47 small-sized operation for the
entire Project area. It should be noted that this study was conducted at a time when 32 wineries existed
within the Project area. Since that time 8 additional wineries have been identified and currently operate
within the Project area. At this time it is anticipated that 65 additional wineries will be developed in the
Project area based on the buildout analysis prepared by the County and the number of existing wineries
currently in operation.
Table 3.0-4
Wine Country Buildout Projection

As noted in Table 3.0-4 above, the land capacity for wineries at buildout is approximately 6 and 11 in the
Equestrian and Residential District, respectively. All wineries in these Districts would be small sized
wineries. In addition, at buildout the projected total amounts of dwelling units in the Equestrian and
Residential Districts are 199 and 978, respectively. Within the Winery District 739 units are anticipated.
The amount of residential and non-residential development in any given year would depend on a variety
of factors, including the cyclical nature of the housing and non-residential markets, funding, and
regulatory process.
PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project Design Features have either been incorporated into the Project or have been
otherwise stipulated by the County. These following features are considered in each impact section
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
2035
(build-
out)
Existing
Wineries
in Winery
District
Proposed
Wineries
in Winery
District
Total
Wineries
in Winery
District
Small 20 6 4 0 0 0 20 10 30
Medium 8 5 5 5 6 8 8 29 37
Large 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 17 21
TOTAL 32 14 14 8 9 11 32 56 88
Note:
Small Size Wineries = Vineyard and tasting room
Medium Size Wineries = Vineyards, tasting room, and combination of one or two more uses such as restaurants, special occasion
facilities, or lodging facilities,
Large Size Wineries = Vineyard, tasting room and resort type of uses
105 Total Wineries have been assumed for the entire Project area (47 Small, 37 Medium, 21 Large). 88 in Winery, 6 in Equestrian,
and 11 in Residential. All wineries in Equestrian and Residential Districts are small size wineries.
Refer to Appendix J for detailed information and assumptions.


(i.e., Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of the EIR) and either avoid, reduce, offset, or otherwise minimize
identified potential adverse impacts of the Project or serve as betterments providing significant
benefit to the community and/or to the physical environment:
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
1. The Project will require that implementing projects adhere to the new development standards
proposed under the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. This will include additional setbacks on
major roadways, consistent allowable maximum height requirements, etc.
2. The Project will require that implementing projects comply with the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Policy Area Design Guidelines which provides recommendation and design guidance for
implementing projects and expansion of roadways and trail facilities within the Project area.
3. The Project will require 75% of implementing project on future winery sites be planted with
vineyards on 10 acres or more (revised SWAP Policy 1.3 and 1.4). This minimum planting
requirement will effectively reduce building mass, increase open space, and promote the rural
agricultural feel of the Project site.
4. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.5) will require a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres for new
residential tract maps and parcel maps except in the Wine Country Residential District. This
large lot size requirement will preserve and enhance the rural feel in the Project area.
5. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.6) will encourage agricultural operations, equestrian
activities and vineyard planting which will reflect the unique character of this Policy Area.
6. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.2) will maintain distinct rural, agricultural and equestrian
characters in the Project area through implementation of the Wine Country Districts and
corresponding zones.
7. The Project (proposed SWAP Policy 1.11) will allow incidental commercial uses such as special
occasion facilities, hotels, resorts, restaurants and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries on
lots larger than 20 acres for WC-W zone and on lots larger than 10 acres for WC-WE zone, which
will effectively reduce building mass, increase open space, and promote the agricultural feel of
the Wine Country Wine District.
8. The Project (proposed SWAP Policy 1.12) will encourage equestrian establishments and permit
incidental commercial uses that compliment existing equestrian establishments on lots larger
than 10 acres. This will promote the equestrian and rural nature of the Wine Country
9. The Project (proposed SWAP Policy 1.15) will encourage residential tract and parcel maps with
an overall project density yield not to exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. This large lot
size requirement will preserve and enhance the rural feel in the Wine Country Residential
District.
10. The Circulation Element Amendment is anticipated to reduce average daily trips while
maintaining the rural feel of Wine Country through adherence to the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Design Guidelines. In addition, the Proposed Circulation Map (refer to Exhibit 3.0-7)
shows several roadways would be downgraded from the current Countys Circulation Element,
and several intersections would be improved through the creation of roundabouts which would
enhance or maintain the rural character of the Project area.
11. The Project through the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area Design Guidelines would
recommend that all exterior lighting fixtures be directed downward and properly aimed at
targeted areas, which will minimize light spillover. The Guidelines would also recommend that,
if grading is necessary, contoured slopes or rounded slopes should be manufactured and buffer


zones should be provided between buildings and vineyards for an easy transition from built
areas to grapevines.
Air Quality
1. The Projects amendment to County Zoning Ordinance No. 348 will require that the minimum lot
size for special occasion facilities be 10 acres in the WC-WE zone, 20 acres in the WC-W zone,
and 100 acres in the WC-E zone and a maximum of 5 guests shall be permitted per gross acre for
these facilities. This would greatly reduce air quality impacts on neighboring properties.
2. Refer to Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Project Design Features #3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 above which will
require large minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres and a minimum vineyard planting or
equestrian land requirement of 75%. This will reduce the overall land use density and intensity
of the Project site, resulting in fewer average daily trips which will in turn decrease air quality
impacts in the Project area and surrounding communities.
Agricultural Resources
1. The Project will require 75% of implementing projects on future winery sites be planted with
2. Within the Winery District, implementing project which propose incidental commercial uses will
be allowed only on winery sites larger than 20 acres for the WC-W zone and 10 acres for the
WC-WE zone.
3. Within the Equestrian District, implementing project which propose incidental commercial uses
will be allowed only on equestrian establishments on lots larger than 10 acres.
4. The Project will require 75% of implementing projects involving commercial equestrian
establishments be set aside for permanent equestrian lands (proposed Draft Wine Country
Zone, Development Standard F.2).
5. Within the Residential District, implementing projects which propose residential tracts or parcel
maps will be required to cluster development in conjunction with onsite vineyards or equestrian
land such that the overall project density yield does not exceed one dwelling unit per five (5)
acres. At least 75% of the implementing project area will be permanently set aside as vineyards
or equestrian land.
6. At buildout, the Project is anticipated to result in a total of 9,644 acres of land designated for
agriculture-related uses, including equestrian lands.
7. The proposed Wine Country Equestrian (WC-E) and Residential (WC-R) zones would allow as a
permitted use the grazing, keeping or boarding of horses, cattle, sheep, goats, or other farm
stock, in addition to other similar agriculture-promoting uses.


the Wine Country Winery District.
incidental commercial uses that complement existing equestrian establishments on lots larger
5. The Project (proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729) within the Wine Country
Equestrian (WC-E) Zone will allow the following uses related to biological resources:
commercial equestrian establishments;
the grazing, keeping or boarding of horses, cattle, sheep, goats or other farm stock,
excluding hogs;
selective or experimental breeding and raising of horses, cattle, sheep, and goats
petting zoo;
polo grounds or horse show facility;
horse racing track or rodeo arena;
large animal hospital provided that temporary boarding facilities are established for the
purposes of boarding sick or injured animals.
Cultural Resources
1. Refer to Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Project Design Features #3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 above, which will
require large minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres. This would make it reasonable to preserve
more open space and reduce the amount of deep excavation and grading within the Project site,
reducing the potential for impacts to cultural resources. This would allow more physical space
to design to avoid and preserve cultural resources.
1. As part of the Wine Country Infrastructure Study (WCIS), EMWD identified potential alternatives
to accommodate Project sewer flows, reducing reliance on onsite septic treatment facilities.
Descriptions of these alternatives are provided above.
2. On-site drainage improvements would be made at the time implementing projects occur to
control any increased flows and ensure erosion of downstream environments do not occur.
2. Refer to Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Project Design Features #3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 (refer to Chapter
3.0 Project Description), which will require large minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres and a
minimum vineyard planting or equestrian land requirement of 75%. This will reduce the overall
land use density and intensity of the Project site, resulting in fewer average daily trips which will
in turn decrease air quality impacts in the Project area and surrounding communities.
3. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.8) will require that pending adoption of an updated Air


Quality Element and Climate Action Plan (CAP), the County will ensure that new development
selects greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures from the Option Tables to achieve the
Countys GHG emission reduction thresholds as set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Workbook (workbook). Alternatively, new developments may utilize other reduction
mechanisms to achieve reduction thresholds as prescribe in the workbook.
There are no Project Design Features that have been developed with specific respect to hazards and
hazardous materials.
1. The Project includes requirements to limit the intensity and density of implementing projects,
including retention of at least 75% of all winery project acreage as agricultural production, and
requiring minimum lot sizes in the Winery, Winery-Existing, and Equestrian Districts, thereby
reducing impervious surfaces and associated stormwater runoff.
1. The Plan would establish three distinct Districts within the General Plan Policy Area to maximize
the areas viticulture and related uses, and balance the need to protect existing rural lifestyles in
the area.
2. The Project is itself self mitigating in that it provides additional policies, land use controls, and
design guidelines that are estimated to result in substantially reduced overall land use density
and intensity, as well as better coordinated land use planning that allows all three primary land
uses to function with minimal conflict.
Mineral Resources
1. The Project reduces the overall density of development in the Project area, thereby reducing the
permanent footprint of structures and roads, preserving the option for future mineral
extraction;
2. Within the Winery District, the proposed Project requires a minimum of 75% of land set aside
for agricultural production (viticulture). This land would remain available for potential future
mineral extraction.
Noise
these facilities. This would greatly reduce noise impacts on neighboring properties.
of the Project site, resulting in fewer average daily trips which will in turn decrease ambient
traffic-generated, operational, and site development noise in the Project area and surrounding
communities.
3. The Project will require special occasion facilities that propos indoor events to conduct a Noise
Study prior to Plot Plan/CUP approval. Similarly, special occasion facilities that propose outdoor


events will be required to conduct an Acoustical Analysis prior to Plot Plan/CUP approval.
Public Services, Recreation and Utilities
1. The Project proposes the expansion of roadways and trail facilities within the Project area as
illustrated in Exhibit 3.0-7 and 3.0-8.
to accommodate Project sewer flows. Descriptions of these alternatives are provided above.
3. As stated in the Final Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Upper Santa
Margarita Watershed Planning Region, RCWD is planning to improve groundwater recharge
facilities and construct up to 18 new groundwater wells to increase water supply and
conjunctive use storage for its service area.
4. RCWDs Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) includes master planned facilities (pipelines, pump
stations and reservoirs) to be built throughout the Districts service area. Facilities within the
Project area are shown on Exhibit 3.0-8, WFMP Proposed Facilities.
2. The Project will design and develop the vehicular roadway system per Figure 7 (Circulation) of
the SWAP, and in accordance with the functional classifications and standards specified in the
General Plan Circulation Element.
3. The Project will maintain the Countys roadway Level of Service standards as described in the
Level of Service section of the General Plan Circulation Element.
3.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
PERMITS/APPROVALS CURRENTLY BEING SOUGHT
The County of Riverside exercises discretionary authority over the Project and is, therefore, the Lead
Agency pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the Project could require the following permits and
approvals from the County. The following list is not exhaustive and is based on the best data available at
the time of Draft Program EIR was prepared.
Adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 1077 (GPA 1077), which includes revisions, updates,
and additions to the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the Riverside County General Plan,
including but not limited to:
o Deletion of policies of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy Areas,
specifically policies SWAP 1.1 through SWAP 2.1;
o Addition of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area and applicable policies.
o Revision to Statistical Summary Table 2 of the SWAP
o Deletion of the boundaries of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy Areas
and the addition of the boundary of Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to SWAP
Policy Areas Figure 4
o Revision to SWAP Circulation Network Figure 7
o Revision to SWAP Trails and Bikeway Systems Figure 8


o Revision to General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Network Figure C- 1
o Revision to General Plan Circulation Element Trails Network Figure C- 7
o Amendment of any other portions of the General Plan or SWAP required to reflect
changes arising from the proposed SWAP amendments and various Project components.
Adoption of revisions to the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348.4729 to add four new
Zoning Classifications that would implement the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area:
Wine Country Winery; Wine Country Winery Existing; Wine Country Residential; and Wine
Country Equestrian.
Approval / Amendments to supporting regulatory or advisory documents, such as replacing the
Citrus Vineyard Design Guidelines with the proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country Design
Guidelines.
Current Wine Country Proposals
In addition to the permits/ approvals currently being sought, there are approximately 67 existing
planning cases for projects located within the Project area that are currently under review by the County
Planning Department (refer to Section 4.0, Overview of EIR Methodology). The types of cases being
reviewed include: Conditional Use Permits, General Plan Amendments, Parcel Maps, Plot Plans, and
Tentative Tract Maps. These pending planning cases are in various stages of the process ranging from
the initial submittal of applications to projects that have been tentatively approved and are awaiting
final approval by County staff. Some of these implementing projects may conflict with the Project and
would require special consideration, especially if these conflicts generate impacts to surrounding uses.
Potential Future Permit/Approvals
Future site-specific implementing projects will require subsequent discretionary review and approval by
the County of Riverside. As part of this review it is anticipated that these implementing projects would
require a variety of future permits and approvals. Table 3.0-5, Potential Future Permits and Approvals,
summarizes some of the anticipated requirements for these future implementing projects.


Table 3.0-5
Potential Future Permits and Approvals
Changes of Zone Approvals (implementing projects would require a Change of Zone to
comply with their respective proposed underlying zoning classification [i.e., WC-W, WC-
WE, WC-E, or WC-R])
Land Use Planning Approvals (Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, Conditional
Use Permits, Plot Plans, etc.)
Subdivision Mapping Approvals (Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, etc.)
Engineering Plan Approvals (Grading, Building and Infrastructure Plans/Permits
Biological Resources Permitting (MSHCP consistency analysis, Section 404 Permit,
California Endangered Species Act permitting [if necessary], Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement)
Water Quality Plans and Permits (Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP], National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
[NPDES] permits)
Air quality permits
Compliance with this Program EIR No. 524 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and related Conditions of Approval



This page was intentionally left blank.




Wine Country Community Plan EIR
Policy Area Map
Exhibit 3.0-2
!
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan Project Boundary - Image provided by Riverside County Planning, June 30, 2011




R B F C O N S U L T I N G 0 8 / 0 4 / 1 1 J N 1 5 - 1 0 2 3 5 2








Wine Country Policy Area with Districts
Exhibit 3.0-5
!
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: Wine Country Policy Area With Districts - Image provided by Riverside County Planning, July 5, 2011
District
District
District




Existing Wineries
Exhibit 3.0-6
!
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: Temecula Valley Wine Country Existing Wineries - provided by Riverside County Planning, July 7, 2011








!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
TY OF
ECULA
LAKE
SKINNER
PARK
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA RD
A
N
Z
A
R
D
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
E
N
T
O
N
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
!
!!
!
!
Combination Trai l (Regional / Cl ass 1 Bike Pat h)
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bike Path
!
!!
!
!
Regional Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Communi ty Trail
!
!!
!
!
Hi storic Trai l
!
!!
!
! Non-Count y Publi c and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trai ls
!
!!
!
!
Regional / Open Space Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 2 Bike Path
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 3 Bike Path
!
! ! ! Pri vate Trai ls
City Boundary
Area Plan Boundary
Waterbodies
Highways
[
TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY
PROPOSED TRAILS AND
Mil es
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
:
\\a
g
e
n
cy\tlm
a
g
is\P
ro
je
cts\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
8
b
a
lt
-
W
in
e
C
o
u
n
try
P
ro
p
o
s
e
d
T
ra
ils
.m
xd
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
TY OF
ECULA
LAKE
SKINNER
PARK
79
LAKE
SKINNER
VAIL
LAKE
R
A
N
C
H
O
C
ALIFO
R
NIA
RD
A
N
Z
A
R
D
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
IE
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
E
N
T
O
N
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
D
E
P
O
R
T
O
L
A
R
D
BOREL RD
P
A
U
B
A
R
D
!
!!
!
!
Combination Trai l (Regional / Cl ass 1 Bike Pat h)
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bike Path
!
!!
!
!
Regional Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Communi ty Trail
!
!!
!
!
Hi storic Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Non-Count y Publi c and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trai ls
!
!!
!
!
Regional / Open Space Trai l
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 2 Bike Path
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 3 Bike Path
!
!
! !
Pri vate Trai ls
City Boundary
Area Plan Boundary
Waterbodies
Highways
[
TEMECULA VALLEY
WINE COUNTRY
PROPOSED TRAILS AND
Mil es
September 14, 2011
P
a
th
:
\\a
g
e
n
c
y
\tlm
a
g
is
\P
ro
je
c
ts
\P
la
n
n
in
g
\F
o
rR
B
F
\S
ta
ffR
e
p
o
rt\F
ig
8
b
a
lt
-
W
in
e
C
o
u
n
try
P
ro
p
o
s
e
d
T
r
a
ils
.m
x
d
Proposed Trails Network
Exhibit 3.0-8
!
Not To Scale
R
B
F

C
O
N
S
U
L
T
I
N
G

1
0
/
1
1
/
1
1

J
N

1
5
-
1
0
2
3
5
2

Source: Temecula Valley Wine Country Proposed Trails and Bikeway System 8B - provided by Riverside County Planning, 11/28/11




R
B
F

C
O
N
S
U
L
T
I
N
G

0
8
/
2
4
/
1
1

J
N

1
5
-
1
0
2
3
5
2




Chapter 4.0
Environmental Analysis


INTRODUCTION
The following subsections of the EIR contain a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions,
Project impacts (including direct and indirect, short-term and long-term), recommended mitigation
measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated, where these are identified. This
EIR analyzes those environmental issue areas identified in the Notice of Preparation (Appendix A, NOP
and NOP Comment Letters) where potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of Project
implementation, based on information gathered throughout the EIR process. The EIR examines the
following environmental issue areas outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental
Checklist:
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Each environmental issue is addressed in a separate sub-section of Section 4 of the EIR (with the
exception of Population and Housing which is addressed in Sections 5.0, Growth-Inducing Impacts, and
8.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant), and is organized under the following headings:
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental Setting provides a description of the existing physical conditions on and in the vicinity
of the Project site to provide a baseline condition against which Project-related impacts are compared.
The baseline condition is generally the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published
(December 22, 2009). The baseline for transportation/traffic, air quality, and noise is the date of the
traffic counts, which occurred in June and July 2011. Data that are not sensitive to change, either
because of the nature of the information (e.g., a resource that does not change readily, such as geology,
or general background information that is not date-sensitive, such as definitions or general descriptions
of regulations) or because no changes have occurred (e.g., physical site conditions or site history) may
also be used as background information, and may have a date prior to December 2009.

4.0 Environmental Analysis


REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Regulatory Framework provides a summary of regulations, plans, policies, and laws that are relevant
to each environmental issue area. The Countys General Plan goals and policies and relevant sections of
the Countys Ordinances are listed as appropriate in the individual technical sections. The laws,
ordinances, and regulations cited in each section are current as of publishing of this Draft EIR.
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Significance Threshold Criteria provides the thresholds that are the basis of conclusions of significance,
which are primarily the criteria in the 2011 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist.
Major sources used in crafting criteria include: the CEQA Guidelines; local, State, federal, or other
standards applicable to an impact category; and officially established significance thresholds. Section
15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, an ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible
because the significance of any activity may vary with the setting. Principally, a substantial, or
potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the
project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic
significance, constitutes a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).
IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
Project impacts are potential changes to the existing physical environment that could occur if the
Project is implemented. Evidence, based on factual and scientific data, is presented to show the cause-
and-effect relationship between the Project and the potential changes in the environment. The exact
magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, range, or other parameters of a potential impact are
ascertained, to the extent possible, to determine whether impacts could be significant; potential direct
and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects are considered to the extent feasible.
The Level of Significance identifies the impact significance level with implementation of the Project.
Impacts are classified as follows:
No Impact This determination is made when, due either to the nature or the scope of the
Project, no impact would occur.
Less than Significant This determination is made when the impact does not exceed the
defined threshold(s) of significance or can be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant
level through compliance with existing local, State, and/or federal laws and regulations and/or
Project requirements and Project Design Features.
Less than Significant with Mitigation This determination is made when a potentially
significant impact can be reduced, avoided, or offset to a less than significant level by
incorporating EIR mitigation measures.
Potentially Significant Impact As required by Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, this
is used when a residual impact that would cause a substantial adverse effect on the
environmentwhich may or may not be reduced somewhatcould not be reduced to a less-
than-significant level through any feasible mitigation measure(s). This designation is similar in
effect to a Significant Irreversible Change under NEPA [40 CFR 1502.16 and Public Resources



Code 21100(b)(2)(B)]. This determination requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093), which would be adopted by the County of
Riverside prior to approving the Project. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency is
required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in
determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project are found to outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered
acceptable and the project approved (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]).
GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES
General Plan Mitigation Measures are those measures identified in General Plan EIR No. 441 to
mitigate impacts associated with buildout of the Countys General Plan. These have been incorporated
into this EIR, where applicable.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures are those Project-specific measures that would be required of the Project to
avoid a significant adverse impact; to minimize a significant adverse impact; to rectify a significant
adverse impact by restoration; to reduce or eliminate a significant adverse impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations; or to compensate for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environment.
1

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative Impacts describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that
may occur with the Project together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved
future projects.
Basis for Cumulative Impact Analysis
Section 15355 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines cumulative impacts
as:
two or more individual effects which when considered together are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as follows:
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impacts from several projects are the change in the environment, which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result
from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

1
The measures presented in this EIR are either project design features (those that would be implemented as
part of project design) or mitigation measures (those that would mitigate project impacts above and beyond
any reduction in impacts accomplished by project design features).



Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to
other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines
cumulative impacts to be, ... two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Section 15130 of the CEQA
Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states
that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but
not in as great a level of detail as would be necessary for the project alone.
Section 15130(b)(1) of the Guidelines states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative
impacts should come from one of two sources:

1. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or
2. A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document
designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.

The cumulative impacts analyses contained in this Draft EIR uses a blended approach to ensure
adequate analysis. Relative to the list method, Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Projects, provides a list of
known development projects within the Project area.
2
This list of projects has been used to provide
general context for overall cumulative conditions, noting that the actual density, timing and nature of
these projects is uncertain given the long build-out timeframe for the Project. Also, refer to Exhibit 4.0-
1, Active Planning Cases, which shows the location of the land development projects listed in Table 4.0-
1, Cumulative Projects.
3

The types of cases being reviewed include: Conditional Use Permits, General Plan Amendments, Parcel
Maps, Plot Plans, and Tentative Tract Maps. These pending planning cases are in various stages of the
process ranging from the initial submittal of applications to projects that have been tentatively
approved and are awaiting final approval by County staff. Some of these proposed developments may
conflict with the proposed Project and would require special consideration, especially if these conflicts
generate impacts to surrounding uses.

Relative to the adopted plan method, the Project area encompasses two Policy Areas intended to
promote agricultural and equestrian uses within Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the County General
Plan. The Citrus Vineyard Policy Area encompasses a majority of the agricultural uses within the Project
area, and the Valle de los Caballos Policy Area supports an area characterized by equestrian, rural
residential, and agricultural activities. The Project area also encompasses adjacent unincorporated
areas with similar characteristics. The Project does not result in a substantive change in overall density
or nature compared to what is allowed as part of the General Plan SWAP. In fact, implementation of the
Project would result in a reduction in overall density and intensity. Accordingly, the Projects overall
density and nature of development would be consistent with regional growth projections reflected in
the Riverside County General Plan and those of applicable regional, State and Federal agencies.
Therefore, on both a local and regional level, the Projects cumulative impacts have been accounted for
in the Riverside County General Plan EIR No. 441, as well as in the various population-dependent
regional plans adopted by such agencies as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),

2
The list of cumulative projects was compiled by County Planning Department staff in September 2011.
3
Note that these projects are in various stages of entitlement or construction.



the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD).
Table 4.0-1
Cumulative Projects
Proposed
Project
Case No.
District Project Description Case
Status
CUP02872R3 Residential Change Condition of Approval 20 Planning 2 to extend the life of the
CUP.
DRT
GPA00821/
PM34906
Winery GPA: Change existing land use designation from Medium Density
Residential (MDR) to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR).
PM: Subdivide 4.75 acres into four (4) residential parcels.
Tent.
Approval as
Recommend
ed (at BOS
on 3/11/08)
GPA00920 Winery Change existing land use designation from Rural Residential (RR)
and Rural Mountainous (RM) to MDR.
BOS
GPA00933 Residential Change existing Foundation Component from Agriculture (AG) to
Rural Community: Very Low Density Residential (RC:VLDR).
BOS
GPA01000 Residential Change existing land use designation from Rural: Rural Residential
(R:RR) to Specific Plan (SP), changing from Rural (R) Foundation
Component to Community Development (CD) Foundation.
PC
GPA01041 Winery Change existing Foundation Component from Rural Community:
Estate Density Residential (RC:EDR) to Agriculture: Agriculture
(AG:AG).
Approved
(at BOS on
2/24/09)
GPA01099 Residential Change existing Foundation Component from Rural Community (RC)
to Community Development (CD) and amend the land use
designation from Estate Density Residential (EDR) to Medium High
Density Residential (MHDR).
Approved
(at BOS on
6/29/10)
GPA01107 Winery Remove the subject property from the Valle de los Caballos Policy
Area and add it to the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area.
Approved
(at BOS on
2/8/11).
PM30298 Winery Subdivide 12.18 acres into four (4) residential parcels. Approved
(at DH on
4/11/11)
PM32981M1 Residential Minor change to alter Transportation Condition of Approval
requiring roadway improvements
DH
PM33657 Residential Subdivide 6.32 acres into 3 parcels. DRT
PM34007 Winery Subdivide 5 acres into 2 parcels. DRT
PM34547 Winery Subdivide 5.21 acres into 2 parcels. DRT
PM35164 Winery Subdivide 6.23 acres into two. DRT
PP18776R1 Winery Add 65x50 metal storage building to winery. DH
PP18776S4 Winery Permit a special event to winery. Applied
PP20246 Winery Second unit permit land use inspection. Applied
PP21375
Winery Permit a winery, tasting room, and special event. DRT
PP22242 Equestrian Inspections for BXX068900 and BNR060227. Applied



Proposed
Project
Case No.
Status
PP22271 Winery Permit a winery, tasting room, catering and special occasion facility.
The project proposes to host 50 special events per year with
approximately 50-100 guests.
PC
PP22372S2 Winery Permit floor plan and elevation change to 3,640 SF wine tasting
room with deli area and approximately 600 SF outside wood deck.
Wine tasting room originally approved with 2,530 SF.
Approved
(on 7/7/11)
PP23017 Winery Permit a winery and resort consisting of 21 buildings with 42 casitas
totaling 29,760 SF, a 5,800 SF wine tasting building, and a 1,200 SF
housekeeping and pool building.
DRT
PP23092 Residential Permit a sales trailer for TR32982 located on Lot 27. Applied
PP23285R1 Winery Modify condition regarding days and hours of operation and allow
limo parking by appointment only.
DH
PP23339 Residential Permit landscape and entry monument plans. Tent.
Approval
(3/9/09)
PP23385 Winery Permit winery with attached tasting room restaurant DRT
PP23458 Winery Permit landscape and irrigation plans for PP22515. Tent.
Approval
(on 6/26/08)
PP23506 Equestrian Permit an existing commercial horse stable. Applied
PP23572S1 Winery Add three monument walls at the entry. Applied
PP23642 Residential Install T-Mobile wireless facility disguised as monopalm. The
related equipment will be located at the base of the facility within
a lease area that is fully screened by a decorative block wall.
Approved
(at PC on
5/18/11)
PP23648 Winery Permit landscaping and irrigation plans for Palumbo Winery. Tent.
Approval
(on 11/5/08)
PP23786 Winery Install 50-foot monopine wireless facility with 12 panel antennas. DRT
PP23819S1 Winery Revise monument sign/landscape and loading/crusher dock. Permit
screen wall on north side of the property. Replace decomposed
granite path with concrete.
Tent
Approval
(on
11/22/10)
PP23896 Winery Convert an existing 6,983 SF residence into a winery and tasting
room with a gift shop, along with hosting special events and
proposing 72 parking spaces.
Approved
(at BOS on
6/7/11)
PP24131 Winery Landscape improvement plans for Delateo PP 19998 and Grading
Permit BGR080332.
Tent.
Approval
(on 11/3/09)
PP24279 Winery Permit 2,278 SF of existing building as winery/tasting
room/production and storage room and 2,874 SF of existing
building as residence.
Approved
(at BOS on
6/28/11)
PP24330 Winery Install 50-foot monopine wireless facility with equipment shelter. DRT
PP24342 Winery Permit landscape plans for PP23819 (Miramonte Winery). Tent.
Approval
(on
12/24/09)
PP24413 Residential Permit construction without permit (CWP) of 1,393 SF storage
building.
DRT



Proposed
Project
Case No.
Status
PP24456 Winery Permit 1,920 SF garage attached to existing guesthouse dwelling. Applied
PP24550 Residential Permit construction without permit (CWP) of 4,051 SF auxiliary
building.
Applied
PP24694 Winery Install 45-foot faux water tank with 18 antennas and 12-by-16
equipment shelter.
Approved
(at DH on
4/25/11)
PP24711 Winery Permit special occasion facility. A portion of residence and existing
accessory building will be converted to wedding reception area,
buffet area, and bridal dressing area. Ceremony area will be in
existing court yard.
DH
PP24713 Winery Permit Minor Plot Plan for Class I Kennel on 9.11 acres. Applied
PP24751 Winery Permit landscape plans for wine tasting room, patio, and garden Tent.
Approval
(on 11/9/10)
PP24752 Equestrian Install a multi-use grass field for existing equestrian facility. The
subject property is used as a major equestrian facility (Galway
Downs) pursuant to approved CUP2303-W.
DRT
PP24760 Residential Install a 50-foot faux water tank with 12 antennas, equipment
shelter and generator.
DRT
PP24771 Winery Permit a winery, wine tasting room, and special event center.
Ancillary uses include kitchens, banquet hall, storage rooms, offices,
and conference rooms totaling approximately 21,000 SF.
DRT
PP24815 Residential Permit construction without permit (CWP) for 1,152 SF barbeque
patio, 2,392 SF pool house, 183 SF gazebo, and two lattice trellises.
DRT
PP24847 Winery Permit landscaping plans for PP24047. Applied
PP24863 Winery Permit landscaping plans for PP23376. Tent.
Approval
(on 3/30/11)
PP24880 Winery Permit Verizon cell tower site, which proposed a faux water tower
and equipment cabinets.
DRT
PP24883 Winery Permit a church and daycare/preschool through 8
th
grade school on
25% of the property acreage, and agricultural operation on the
remaining 75% of the property acreage. The facility will consist of
an approximately 50,000 SF two-story sanctuary building and an
approximately 32,000 SF two-story school building. This is an
expansion of the existing church facility.
DRT
PP24884 Residential Permit construction of a 1,764 SF detached barn with breezeway. DRT
PP24907 Winery Permit landscaping plans for PP16891R2. Applied
PP24955 Winery Permit construction of a 1,440 SF horse barn and construction
without permit (CWP) for a 240 SF shelter.
Approved
(at DH on
7/11/11)
PP24956 Residential Permit construction of a 2,119 SF shedrow barn. Approved
(at DH on
7/11/11)
TR31445 Winery Subdivide 95.7 acres into 19 single-family residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 5 acres.
PC
TR32564 Winery Subdivide 19.9 acres into 10 single-family residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 2 acres.
DRT



Proposed
Project
Case No.
Status
TR33356 Residential Subdivide 42.4 acres into 19 single-family residential lots, ranging in
size from 0.75 acres to 5 acres.
BOS
TR35924 Winery Subdivide 178.8 acres into 20 single-family residential lots ranging
in size from 1.2 acres to 90.4 acres.
Tent.
Approval (at
BOS on
11/9/10)
Notes:
BNR Non-Residential Permit
BOS Board of Supervisors
BXX Miscellaneous
DH Directors Hearing
DRT Land Development Committee
PC Planning Commission
PM Tentative Parcel Map
PP Plot Plan
SF Square Feet
TR Tentative Tract Map

Active Planning Cases
Exhibit 4.0-1
!
0 .5 1
Miles
R
B
F

C
O
N
S
U
L
T
I
N
G

J
N
1
5
-
1
0
2
3
5
2

Source: Temecula Valley Wine Country In-Process Cases - Provided by Riverside County Planning 06/07/11




Planning Commission Hearing September 26, 2012
Agenda Item No.3.1
September 26, 2012
Wine Country Community Plan Project Area
September 26, 2012
Mission Statement:
To preserve vineyard lands and to create an
environment that encourages development of
wineries with the goal of making the
Temecula Valley Southern California Wine
Country known and respected worldwide,
while maintaining the quality of life for
residential communities and the equestrian
lifestyle within and around it.
September 26, 2012
protected
September 26, 2012
Southwest Area Plan
524 (PEIR No. 524)
September 26, 2012
Planning Commission Hearings:
The Proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country
Community Plan (Project) was discussed on J uly 25,
2012 and August 22, 2012
Due to the abundance of public testimony
concerning the inclusion of churches and private
schools in the Community Plan, Planning
Commission directed staff to develop options that
would include such uses in the Project
September 26, 2012
Since the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area and Project
description did not include churches and private
schools, PEIR No. 524 did not analyze these types
of land uses.
Thus, the Commission also directed Staff to develop
the Project options and scopes of services required
to re-circulate PEIR No. 524.
At this time, staff is still in the process of evaluating
the two options, scopes of services, fee schedules
and time frames for the EIR.
September 26, 2012
Scope of Work for PEIR No. 524
CONTINUE FOR 60 DAYS with no discussion to
further evaluate options.
Thank you

Agenda Item: 3.1
Planning Commission:
September 26, 2012
Continued From: July 25, 2012,
and August 22, 2012

General Plan Amendment No. 1077,
Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729,
and Program Environmental
Impact Report No. 524

STAFF REPORT





accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524 (PEIR No. 524).

PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND ISSUES DISCUSSED DURING FIRST TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS:

The Project was discussed before the Planning Commission on July 25, 2012 and August 22,
2012. At the two public hearings, the Commission received an extensive amount of public
testimony and letters regarding the Project on a variety of topics. This includes the following:

Requirements to regulate noise;
Implementation of the proposed trails network;
Application of Ordinance No. 348.4729;
Allowance of churches and other places of religious worship;

WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN General Plan Amendment No. 1077,
Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729, and Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 26, 2012
Page 2 of 2

Allowance of private schools;
Preservation of vineyards and other agricultural uses;
Tourism associated with winery and equestrian uses;
Recognition of other agricultural operations;
Requests for modification of the proposed Wine Country Community Plan boundaries;
Proposed development standards;
Water quality and supply assessment; and
Farm worker housing.

The majority of the public testimony focused on the inclusion of churches and private schools
within the Project. Since the Project description did not include churches and private schools,
the PEIR No. 524 did not analyze these types of land uses. It is staffs understanding that the
Commission did not feel comfortable moving forward with a recommendation on the Project due
to the amount of public testimony to include churches and private schools. Thus, it was the
position of the Commission to revise the Project description to include churches which would
therefore require a re-circulation of the PEIR No. 524.

Thus, at the conclusion of the August 22, 2012 hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff
to develop options that would include churches, and other places of religious worship in the
Project description and report back to the Planning Commission. The Commission also directed
staff to schedule a meeting with the consultant team and the temporary Ad Hoc Subcommittee
consisting of Commissioner Petty and Commissioner Zuppardo to develop the Project options
and scope of services required to re-circulate PEIR No. 524. Additionally, the Commission
closed the public hearing to further public testimony. The public hearing remained open for all
other matters.

Meetings regarding Project options and scope of services were conducted on September 4,
2012 and September 11, 2012. Based on the two meetings, two options were being developed.
The first option would include a full re-circulation of the PEIR with the inclusion of churches only
in the Project description. The second option would include a full re-circulation of the PEIR with
the inclusion of churches and private schools in the Project description.

At this time, staff is still in the process of evaluating the two options, scopes of services, fee
schedules and time frames. Thus, staff is recommending a 60 day continuance with no
discussion to further evaluate options.

RECOMMENDATION:

CONTINUE FOR 60 DAYS with no discussion to further evaluate options.

ReceivedbetweenSeptember25,2012(4:00PM)November29,2012(12:00PM)
CommunityPlanComments
8/20/12 ChrisMcHenry
8/22/12 CommissionerRoth PlanningCommissioner
DevelopmentStandards
9/26/12,
11/13/12
DonDouglas Resident
9/26/12 ShawnBeckman Resident
11/19/12 AdrianMcGregor Resident
10/23/2012 ChurchPetition(2signed)
ProtectWineCountryPetition
11/15/12 ProtectWineCountryPetition(1signed) Visitor
7:41 AM10/10/2012 7:41 AM

1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:33 AM
Subject: FW: RELIGION AS A WEAPON
ForWineCountry
Mary C. Stark
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
mcstark@rctlma.org
From: Ronald D Swall [mailto:doorknob1@live.com]

Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:24 PM
To: Stark, Mary
Subject: RELIGION AS A WEAPON

People have the freedom in this country to worship not only how they wish, but wherever they wish. So, why should you
complain. The ban was put into place in 1999 so it isn't something new, something you didn't know. You have the
freedom to live wherever you wish, so live somewhere that doesn't already have this on the books. This country needs
jobs and your county has kept (so far) the Liberty Plant from going forward. I am a Trucker (material hauler) who lost
my work when the housing market went south. Some of the people fighting this plant haven't lived in the area as long as
we've been trying to get this business going. So, once again, why are you complaining. You want to worship wherever
you want? Gee, where have you been worshipping up until now? Keep going there. Chris McHenry
Agenda Item: 3.1


STAFF REPORT









Page 2 of 15










Page 3 of 15




future.

this community.

Page 4 of 15




minimum.


10 acres minimum.
acres minimum.
acres minimum.


Page 5 of 15


Measures:


Page 6 of 15


conditions:
Districts.
techniques.
Department.

through Sunday.
Page 7 of 15

events.
structures.


Page 8 of 15

Trails
Classification
Combination Trail
(Regional/Class 1
Bike Path):
Current Proposal
Approx. 79,000 Ln.
Ft.




linear feature.


10 to 12 wide



agreement.

developed.
Regional Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 175,000
Ln. Ft.


and mountain bikers


Easement: 20 wide

Space District.

District.

developed.

Page 9 of 15

Trails
Classification
Regional/Open
Space Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 111,000
Ln. Ft.

and mountain bikers

Width: 2 to 4 wide

Easement: 10 wide
Space District.


developed.

Community Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 138,000
Ln. Ft.

and mountain bikers

Width: 8 wide

wide

Historic Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 11,000 Ln.
Ft.

Private Trails:
Current Proposal
Approx. 15,000 Ln.
Ft.

Page 10 of 15

Trails
Classification
Class III Bike
Path:
Current Proposal
Approx. 59,000 Ln.
Ft.

process.





would be required.


Page 11 of 15


Existing Condition:



The Project:





Page 12 of 15










Page 13 of 15




proposal.



added.

noise.

Page 14 of 15


consideration.


follows:

250-021 and 943-250-018).


RECOMMENDATION:





P.O. Box 1409,
th
Floor
Phone: (951) 955-8514
Page 15 of 15

please contact:

P.O. Box 1409,
th
Floor
Phone: (951) 955-6573

Chapter 1.0
Executive Summary

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
development of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan (Project) in an effort to both
preserve Temecula Valleys distinct rural character and enhance its economic contribution to the County
over the long term.
Refer to Section 3.0 for a detailed description of the various Project characteristics.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the Project is to provide a blueprint for growth to ensure that future development
activities will enhance, not impede, the quality of life for existing and future residents, while providing
opportunities for continued development and expansion of winery and equestrian operations within this
part of the County.
community.


1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project includes the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 1077, as well as the accompanying
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729, and Design Guidelines. Below is an outline of the various
individual Project components:
8];
to Exhibit 3.0-7];
Exhibit 3.0-8]; and
1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following table is a summary of impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project as
identified in this Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 524). Due to the programmatic
nature of this EIR, some of the mitigation measures are designed to minimize, reduce or alleviate


identified environmental impacts through implementing project (discretionary and ministerial)
authorized pursuant to the Project. Refer to Section 4.2 through 4.14 and 5.0 for a detailed description
of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project.
Table 1.0-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.1-1: Scenic Highways
and Scenic Resources
a) Would the project have a
substantial effect upon a scenic
highway corridor within which it
is located?
b) Would the project
substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings and unique or
landmark features; obstruct any
prominent scenic vista or view
open to the public; or result in
the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public
view?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AES-1 The County shall work with utility and infrastructure
providers to make sure that all sewer, water, and storm
drain infrastructure improvements located along the
Highway 79 South corridor do not significantly detract
from the scenic quality of this area, or affect the
Countys ability to designate this roadway as a County
Scenic Highway at a later date.
AES-2 All implementing projects shall provide a signage plan
buildings and structures and proposed signage, and
other details of the proposed signage (i.e. type, size,
lighting, and architectural design) during each phase of
project development. No off-site signage shall be
considered for an implementing project during any
phase of project development without prior approvals
per Article XIX of County Ordinance 348.
Impact 4.1-2: Mt. Palomar
Observatory
Would the project interfere with
the nighttime use of the Mt.
Palomar Observatory, as
protected through Riverside
County Ordinance No. 655?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.1-3: Other Lighting
Issues
a) Would the project create a
new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
b) Would the project expose
residential property to
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AES-3 All implementing projects shall provide a lighting plan
buildings and structures and proposed light sources,
and other details of the proposed lighting (i.e., type,
size, wattage, lumens, shielding type, etc.) during each
phase of project development.


unacceptable light levels?
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.2-1: Conversion of
Designated Farmland
Would the Project convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant
to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency (and
as shown in Exhibit 4.2-1
Farmland Resources), to non-
agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact; no mitigation proposed.
Impact 4.2-2: Encroachment and
Conflicts with Existing
Agriculture
existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AG-1 Prior to project approval and in accordance with County
Resolution No. 84-526, all implementing projects within
an agricultural preserve shall cancel the applicable land
conservation contract where incidental commercial
uses are proposed within the Equestrian or Winery
Districts or where clustered lots are proposed in the
Residential District. All implementing projects shall also
diminish or disestablish the subject site from the
boundaries of such agricultural preserve prior to
issuance of a grading permit for any of these uses.
Impact 4.2-3: Other
Environmental Changes
Would the Project involve other
changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.
Less than
Significant
Cumulative Impacts
Less than


Significant
Air Quality
Management Plan
or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
AQ-1 The County shall require new commercial and industrial
implementing projects to develop a trip reduction
program that promotes commuter-choices, employer
transportation management, guaranteed ride home
programs and commuter assistance and outreach-type
programs intended to reduce commuter vehicle miles
traveled. The program shall be submitted as part of
Projects implementing projects discretionary review
applications, and in place prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
AQ-2 The County shall condition all implementing projects to
implement the Trails and Bikeways Systems map (SWAP
Figure 8) of the Project. This map is more conducive to
this regions destination places and multiple users
(bikers, equestrian, pedestrians, visitors, etc.) needs.
Hence, changing the focus of land use from automobile-
centered transportation would result in a reduction in
vehicle miles traveled.
AQ-3 In addition, the County shall require implementing
projects to incorporate bicycle parking areas and horse
hitching posts where applicable.
incorporate a comprehensive parking program for
private parking lots where applicable, to promote ultra-
low or zero emission vehicle parking; provide larger
parking spaces that can accommodate vans and
limousines; include adequate passenger
waiting/loading areas; and provide safe
pedestrian/equestrian pathways through parking areas.
AQ-5 The County shall promote the expanded use of
renewable fuel and low-emission vehicles within
implementing projects. Implementing projects may
earn points in the GHG Mitigation Workbook Option
Tables by making low-emissions or electric vehicle use
more accessible by including one or both of the
following project components: provide preferential


parking for ultra-low emission, zero-emission, and
alternative-fuel vehicles; and provide electric vehicle
charging stations within the development.
prohibit idling of on- and off-road heavy duty diesel
vehicles for more than five minutes. This measure shall
be implemented by new commercial and industrial
projects with loading docks or delivery trucks. Such
projects shall be required to post signage at all loading
docks and/or delivery areas directing drivers to shut
down their trucks after five minutes of idle time. Also,
employers who own and operate truck fleets shall be
required to inform their drivers of the anti-idling policy.
AQ-7 The County shall work with the Winegrowers
Association and their partners to promote alternative
modes of transportation, such as shuttles, cable-cars,
trolley, etc. In addition, where feasible, the County shall
work with the local transit provider RTA by adding
or modifying existing transit service to enhance service
near the Project site. This will encourage the use of
transit and therefore reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). Unincorporated Riverside County hosts one
Metrolink transit station; the County shall collaborate
with in the neighboring cities to expand connections to
this station as well as other Metrolink stations which
will increase ridership and decrease vehicle miles
traveled (VMT).
Standards
Would the Project violate any air
quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
comply with the following SCAQMD Applicable Rule 403
Measures:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers' specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive
for ten days or more).
Water active sites at least three times daily.
(locations where grading is to occur will be
thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose
materials are to be covered, or should maintain at
least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the
requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space


between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet
onto the site from main road.
Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be
reduced to 15 mph or less.
Stockpiled dirt may be covered with a tarp to
reduce the need for watering or soil stabilizers.
comply with the following additional SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook Dust Control Measures:
Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
All excavating and grading operations shall be
suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil
materials are carried to adjacent streets
(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed
water).
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks
and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
comply with the following Mitigation Measures for
Construction Equipment and Vehicles Exhaust
Emissions:
select construction equipment to be used on site
based on low emission factors (equipment which
releases little atmospheric pollutants) and high
energy efficiency (equipment which requires less
energy to do the same work). Examples of low
alternative fueled construction equipment (natural
gas) if available.
specifications.


crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
overall length of the construction period will be
use EPA-rated engines of Tier 3 or better.
generators.
retain on site dust generated by the development
activities, and keep dust to a minimum by following
the dust control measures listed below:
a) During clearing, grading, earthmoving,
excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems
shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the
site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b) During construction, water trucks or sprinkler
systems shall be used to keep all areas of
vehicle movement damp enough to prevent
dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this
would watering at least three times per day
which include wetting down such areas in the
late morning, mid-day after work is completed
for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15
miles per hour. Soil stabilizers may also be


used instead of watering.
c) Immediately after clearing, grading,
earthmoving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated
until the area is paved or otherwise developed
so that dust generation will not occur.
d) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be
covered, kept moist, or treated with soil
binders to prevent dust generation.
e) Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill
materials, and/or construction debris to or
from the site shall be tarped from the point of
origin.
AQ-11 Where applicable, the County shall require
implementing projects to apply Conservation
Management Practices for Confined Animal Facilities:
1) Manure Handling
a) Cover manure prior to removing material off-
site; and
b) Spread the manure before 11:00 AM and when
wind conditions are less than 25 miles per hour;
and
c) Utilize coning and drying manure management
by removing manure at laying hen houses at
least twice per year and maintain a base of no
less than 6 inches of dry manure after clean
out; or in lieu of complying with conservation
management practice (1c) comply with
conservation management practice (1d).
d) Utilize frequent manure removal by removing
the manure from laying hen houses at least
every seven days and immediately thin bed dry
the material.
2) Feedstock Handling
a) Utilize a sock or boot on the feed truck auger
when filling feed storage bins.
3) Disturbed Surfaces
a) Maintain at least 70 percent vegetative cover
on vacant portions of the facility; or
b) Utilize conservation tillage practices to manage
the amount, orientation and distribution of
crop and other plant residues on the soil
surface year-round, while growing crops (if
applicable) in narrow slots or tilled strips; or


c) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient
concentrations and frequencies to maintain a
stabilized surface.
4) Unpaved Roads
a) Restrict access to private unpaved roads either
through signage or physical access restrictions
and control vehicular speeds to no more than
15 miles per hour through worker notifications,
signage, or any other necessary means; or
b) Cover frequently traveled unpaved roads with
low silt content material (i.e., asphalt, concrete,
recycled road base, or gravel to a minimum
depth of four inches); or
c) Treat unpaved roads with water, mulch,
chemical dust suppressants or other cover to
maintain a stabilized surface
5) Equipment Parking Access
d) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity
and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface;
or
e) Apply material with low silt content (i.e.,
asphalt, concrete, recycled road base, or gravel
to a depth of four inches).
AQ-12 Proponents of non-residential implementing projects
shall prepare appropriate air quality studies which
demonstrate that emissions resulting from project
construction and operation do not result in significant
localized impacts, or are mitigated to the extent
feasible.
Impact 4.3-3: Sensitive
Receptors
Would the Project expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Impact 4.3-4: Objectionable
Odors
Would the Project create
objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.3-3: Cumulative
Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Unavoidable Impact.


Would the Project result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the Project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Impact additional mitigation is proposed.
Impact 4.4-1: Conflict with any
Conservation Plan
the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state conservation
plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Endangered or Threatened
Species
modifications, on any
endangered, or threatened
species, as listed in Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations
Section 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title
50 Code of Federal Regulations
(Section 17.11 or 17.12)?
Less than
Significant
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special
Status Species
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
Less than
Significant


species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Impact 4.4-4: Interfere with the
Movement of Migratory Species
Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement
of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
Less Than
Significant
Riparian or Sensitive Natural
Communities
substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Federally Protected Wetlands
substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.4-7: Conflict with Local
Policies or Ordinances
any local policies or ordinances
Less than
Significant


protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance.
Cumulative Impacts

Less than
Significant
Cultural Resources
Impact 4.5-1: Historical
Resources
significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
archeological field surveys/studies/monitoring shall be
required as part of the Countys permitting approval
process. Prior to discretionary project approval or
issuance of a grading permit for ministerial projects, the
County Archaeologist and/or architectural historian
archaeologist (retained by the future project
applicant) to conduct a field survey for historical
resources on specific sites not previously surveyed
for cultural resources.
archaeologist to conduct an appropriate records
search to obtain information on historical property
records.
Review, and if evidence suggests that potential for
subsurface cultural deposits, consider
archaeological monitoring during grading,
Consider Tribal observation and consultation during
archaeological monitoring when requested by local
tribal government(s) or individual(s) recognized by
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
when that entity provides specific information
suggesting the potential for subsurface cultural


deposits may be present. Tribal monitoring shall
not replace archaeological monitoring as they serve
different purposes and have different
responsibilities under different authorities.
sacred land or cultural places resources, contact the
Native American Heritage Commission.
historical resources identified on implementing
project sites within the Project area, using criteria
established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources (eligibility for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]),
and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
conditions of approval for implementing projects (if
a local government action is required) to reduce
adverse project effects on significant, important,
and/or unique historical resources, following
appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 guidelines.
County-certified Project Archaeologist
CUL-2 If previously unknown unique cultural resources are
be followed. For this Project, unique cultural resources
are defined as being multiple artifacts in close
association with each other, but may include fewer
artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of
significance due to its sacred or cultural importance.
the discovered cultural resources shall be halted
until a meeting is convened between the developer,
the archaeologist, the Native American tribal
representative and the Planning Director to discuss
the significance of the find.


Native American tribal representative and the
archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the
avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
resume within the area of the discovery until an
agreement has been reached by all parties as to the
appropriate mitigation.
Impact 4.5-2: Archaeological
Resources
significance of an archaeological
resource?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 below and CUL-1 through
CUL-2 above. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.5-3: Human Remains
Would the Project disturb any
human remains, including those
interned outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
CUL-3 If previously unknown cultural resources, including
human remains, are identified during grading activities
associated with implementing projects, a County-
certified qualified archaeologist shall be retained to
assess the nature and significance of the find. If human
remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner
shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the
landowner or his/her authorized representative, the
MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD
shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of
notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American
burials. The MLD may recommend reburial somewhere
within the Project boundaries where they can be
protected in perpetuity.
Cumulative Impacts (Cultural
Less than
Significant
Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through CUL-3 above. No


Resource)
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.5-4: Paleontological
Resources
Would the Project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
paleontological field surveys/studies/monitoring would
be required as part of the permitting approval process.
Prior to grading for ministerial projects, and prior to
approval of discretionary projects, the County Geologist
paleontologist (retained by the future project
applicant) to conduct a field survey for
paleontological resources on specific sites not
previously surveyed for paleontological resources.
paleontologist to conduct an appropriate records
search to obtain information on paleontological
resource records.
Review and, if evidence suggests that potential for
subsurface paleontological deposits, consider
paleontological monitoring during grading,
paleontological resources identified on
implementing project sites within the Project area,
using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for
important paleontological resources.
recommend conditions of approval for
implementing projects (if a local government action
is required) to reduce adverse project effects on
significant, important, and/or unique
paleontological resources.
County-certified Project Paleontologist


CUL-5 If previously unknown paleontological resources are
be followed:
the discovered paleontological resources shall be
halted until a meeting is convened between the
developer, the project paleontologist, and the
Planning Director to discuss the significance of the
find.
paleontologist, a decision shall be made, with the
avoidance, etc.) for the paleontological resources.
resume within the area of the discovery until the
fossil has been properly recovered/removed from
the area to be graded and/or the fossil has been
determined to be insignificant.
Cumulative Impacts
(Paleontological Resource)
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-4 and CUL-5 above. No
Impact 4.6-1: Fault Rupture,
Ground Shaking, Ground Failure
and Landslides
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
Less than
Significant


Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated in the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault;
Strong Seismic Ground
Shaking
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
GEO-1 All implementing projects shall prepare a site-specific
assessment as determined by the County Geologist to
ascertain all site-specific geologic/geotechnical
information, including, but not limited to, ground
shaking potential, liquefaction potential, fault rupture
potential and landslide/slope instability potential. This
assessment and report shall be prepared by a
California-licensed geologist and/or geotechnical
engineer and shall be submitted to the County
Geologist for review and approval prior to approval of
the implementing project. This report shall include site-
specific measures such as grading recommendations,
foundation design recommendations, slope stability
recommendations, and the alternative siting of
structures, as appropriate, to reduce the significance of
potential geologic and/or geotechnical hazards
associated with the proposed implementing project.
Seismic-Related Ground
Failure, Including Liquefaction
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Landslides
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.6-2: Soil Erosion/Loss
of Topsoil
substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.6-3: Landslide, Lateral Less than
Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 above.


Spreading, Subsidence,
Liquefaction, or Collapse
a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.6-4: Expansive Soils
expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or
property?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.6-5: Soils Incapable of
Supporting Wastewater Disposal
Systems
Would the project have soils
incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
Less than
Significant
Refer to Mitigation Measures PSU SEWER 1 through 2. No
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.7-1: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Would the project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment, based on any
applicable threshold of
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
GHG-1 All implementing projects shall use the following
mitigation measures to reduce impacts from
construction activities as related to construction
equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions:
use low-emission and high energy efficiency


significance? construction equipment on site. Examples of low-
alternative-fuel construction equipment (natural
gas), if available.
specifications.
The County shall require implementing project to
crews shall shut off equipment when not in use.
overall length of the construction period shall be
use EPA-rated engines of Tier 3 or better for
construction equipment.
generators.
GHG-2 Individual implementing projects shall have the option
to use the Option Tables or project-specific GHG
analysis in order to demonstrate that GHG emissions
from the implementing project are less than significant.
Implementing projects which implement enough


reduction measures from the Option Tables and
achieve a 100/70 points shall be considered to be
consistent with the Countys GHG reduction goals
for the Project area. Refer to Temecula Valley
Wine Country Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Workbook (refer to Appendix E of this Draft EIR).
Those implementing projects that do not garnish
the minimum points using the Option Tables
(presented in the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook, Appendix A
[refer to Appendix E of this Draft EIR]) shall require
quantification of project-specific GHG emissions
and shall provide mitigation measures to reduce
GHG emissions at least 28.5% below Business As
Usual (BAU) emissions.
Impact 4.7-2: Consistency with
Applicable Plans, Policies, and
Regulations
any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted
for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Cumulative Impacts
cumulative impacts?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable Impact.
mitigation is proposed.
Impact 4.8-1: Transport of
Hazardous Materials
the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal
of hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HAZ-1: During development of implementing projects, if
underground storage tanks (UST) or other potential
environmental concerns associated with the
implementing project site are encountered, these areas
of concern shall be handled as follows:
The contractor/property owner shall retain all
responsibility associated with activities surrounding
the safe and legal removal of the tank(s);
The contractor/ property owner shall notify the
local Fire Department jurisdiction prior to removal
of the UST as local fire restrictions may be more
stringent than County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH), Hazardous Materials


Management Division requirements;
The contractor (licensed in accordance with the
requirements of the State Contractors License
Board) shall submit an Underground Storage Tank
Closure by Removal completed permit application
(or similar permit application as deemed
appropriate) to the County Hazardous Materials
Management Division along with applicable closure
fees;
The contractor shall submit a work plan (with the
permit application) to the Hazardous Materials
Management Division prior to UST removal, which
shall demonstrate compliance with the required
closure procedures as set forth in the UST closure
application currently in effect; and
The Division will inspect the tank removal, as
necessary, evaluate all sample results, determine
whether or not an unauthorized release has
occurred, and determine if any further corrective
actions are required.
Impact 4.8-2: Release of
Hazardous Materials into the
Environment
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials in the environment?
Less than
Significant
Response or Evacuation Plan
Would the project impair
implementation of, or physically
interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.8-4: School Safety
Would the project emit
hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above. No additional


within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
Impact 4.8-5: Hazardous
Materials Site
Would the project be on a site
which is included on a list of
hazardous materials site
complied pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HAZ-2 All implementing projects located within a one-mile
radius of the Temecula Bomb Site 107 shall be required
to perform an Unexploded Ordnance Survey to verify
presence/ absence of unexploded ordnance prior to any
earth disturbing activities (including preliminary site
studies such as geotechnical investigations and
biological surveys). Upon completion of this survey, the
results will be provided to the Riverside County
Planning Department and Riverside County Fire
Department (Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Team), and appropriate pre-construction measures will
be incorporated into the implementing projects
grading and development plans, including removal of
any identified hazards.
HAZ-3 If unexploded ordinances are identified during earth
disturbance activities associated with implementing
projects, the Riverside County Fire Department
(Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team) will
be notified and all safety and remediation actions
contained within the U.S. Department of Defense
Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards (U.S.
Department of Defense 2004) will be implemented.
Impact 4.8-6: Wildland Fires
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HAZ-4 During the entitlement process, all implementing
projects located within areas of wildfire susceptibility
shall be evaluated by the Fire Department to determine
whether the Departments Urban-Wildland Interface
requirements should be implemented as part of the
development. If the Department determines that either
an interim or permanent condition of high fire risk
would be present, a Fuel Modification Plan that meets
the current requirements of the Fire Department shall
be prepared and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to approval of the implementing
project.
Cumulative Impacts

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 through HAZ-4 above. No


Standards
Would the project violate any
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 and PSU SEWER 1 through 2
below.
HYD-1 All implementing projects shall utilize the Countys
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) checklist to
determine if a project-specific WQMP is required. All
implementing projects, regardless of the need for a
WQMP, shall incorporate the appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain
conformance to the Countys active MS4 permit.
Depending upon the location of the implementing
project and whether it is considered a Significant
Redevelopment or New Development, the County
shall require the project proponent to submit the
necessary additional information and condition those
project accordingly.
HYD-2 All implementing projects exceeding a discharge of
average aggregate wastewater flow that exceeds the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB) threshold shall be required to connect to
sewer services when it is made available by the Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Most single-family
residences may be exempted from average aggregate
wastewater flow requirements regardless of family
units.
HYD-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, implementing
projects shall prepare the necessary Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and comply with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit
from the State Water Resources Control Board.
HYD-4 Infiltration may be utilized by implementing projects for
maintaining water quality standards. However, any
implementing projects proposing onsite stormwater
runoff infiltration shall conduct individual percolation
tests, prepared by a soils engineer, to determine the
feasibility of using infiltration onsite, as well as to
provide design recommendations for the chosen BMPs.
If infiltration is not feasible based on a specific sites
soils properties, some form of on-site detention should
be considered to mitigate any additional stormwater
runoff that exceeds the existing calculated flows. In this


case other BMPs should be evaluated to meet the
water quality requirements for the project. Maintaining
the use of existing roadside swales in compliance with
the current MS4 permit is also recommended to help
maintain existing drainage patterns and help with water
quality.
HYD-5 All implementing projects shall include measures
designed to increase infiltration and reduce impacts to
water quality within the upper aquifer. Depending
upon project location, the applicable measures shall
Require that all wastewater discharges conform to
the Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin
Plan groundwater quality objectives.
Requires the use of cisterns and infiltrators to
capture and reuse rainwater as a water conserving
system (Riverside County Policy OS 2.1).
Require the use of natural drainage systems,
permeable parking bays and porous parking lots to
provide rainwater detention (Riverside County
Require that adequate aquifer water recharge areas
are preserved and protected and that rainwater is
used to recharge the aquifers (Riverside County
Restrict pollutant discharge into the drainage
systems and aquifer (Riverside County Policy OS
3.3).
Prohibit the use of fertilizing, manure spreading,
pesticide application, and runoff from animal/horse
corrals within all drainage courses, especially
Temecula Creek.
Impact 4.9-2: Groundwater
Supplies
deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HYD-6 All implementing projects shall provide a plan of service
analysis in determining the needs for water distribution,
fire protection, service pressures and connection into
the Rancho California Water Districts (RCWD) master
planned system. These plans must show requirements
of off-site transmission mains to be constructed to
serve certain areas of the project. It will be the
responsibility of each implementing project proponent
to ensure water system reliability/redundancy for
domestic, irrigation, and emergency needs, as
determined appropriate through the Countys


to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been
granted)?
discretionary review process, and RCWD staff review.
Impact 4.9-3: Erosion or Siltation
pattern of the site or area,
in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation
on- or offsite?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
HYD-7 All implementing projects that fall within the Murrieta
Creek Area Drainage Plan shall be subject to Area
Drainage Plan (ADP) fees, as enforced by the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFCWCD).
HYD-8 All implementing projects shall consider the following
flood control measures and shall use them, as
applicable:
Minimize encroachment into floodplains and
watercourses to the satisfaction of the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District prior to applicable plan/permit approval.
Phase so that 100-year flood protection is ensured
in all areas of development. Provide protection
against flooding, erosion, siltation, and water
quality impacts through interim improvements
(such as temporary debris basins, earthen
channels/berms, check dams, sand bag barriers, or
other temporary BMPs and flood control protection
measures).
Keep building pad construction from flood hazard
for the 100-year frequency storm by elevating
finished floor elevations above the 100-year level of
flood protection.
Detain any incremental increase in drainage within
the implementing projects boundaries. For the
portion of the project site within the Murrieta
Creek Area Drainage Plan (ADP), detain incremental
increases in drainage until the Murrieta Creek ADP
is fully implemented downstream of the
implementing project site.
Impact 4.9-4: Surface Runoff
pattern of the Site or area,
or substantially increase the rate
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-7 through HYD-8 and LU-1.


or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in
flooding onsite or offsite?
Impact 4.9-5: Stormwater
Would the project create or
contribute runoff water, which
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
From Public Utilities:
storm water drainage facilities or
effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-1 through HYD-5, HYD-7, and
HYD-8. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Would the project otherwise
substantially degrade water
quality?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-1 through HYD-5. No
Housing
Would the project place housing
within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Structures
Would the project place
structures within a 100-year
flood hazard area that would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.9-9: Flooding Risk
Less than
Significant
with


or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or
dam (dam inundation area)?
Mitigation
Impact 4.9-10: Seiche, Tsunami,
or Mudflow
Would the project be inundated
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact No additional mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Impact 4.10-1: Divide a
Community
Would the project physically
divide an established
community?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.10-2: Plan Consistency
any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
LU-1 All implementing projects (ministerial and
discretionary) within the Project boundary shall be
required to:
Apply for and obtain a Change of Zone (CZ) to
benefit from the implementing zones of the Wine
Country Policy Area. As part of the review process,
the County shall conduct a project-specific CEQA
analysis for the CZ Application. Depending upon
the location of the implementing project, Planning
staff shall require the project proponent to conduct
the necessary studies (e.g., Archeology, Geology,
Biology, Hydrology, etc.). Depending upon the
findings of those studies, Planning staff shall
recommend that a restrictive zoning classification
(such as an open space zone) be placed on areas
where sensitive resources require protection.
Apply for and obtain the necessary grading permit.
Such grading permit shall go through the
appropriate environmental analysis and identify
the necessary mitigations, if any (e.g., cultural
monitoring during grading, biological restoration,


etc.), prior to approval of the grading permit.
Apply for and obtain the necessary building permit.
The County shall ensure the necessary reviews of
building permits by the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFCWCD), Environmental Programs Division
(EPD), County Archeologist, County Geologist, etc.
Impact 4.10-3: Habitat Plan
Consistency
any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure LU-1 above.
Cumulative Impacts
cumulative impacts?
Less than
Significant
Mineral Resources
Impact 4.3-1: Loss of Availability
of Known Mineral Resources
loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MIN-1 Pursuant to Public Resources Code, the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act, Chapter 9, Article 4, Section
2762(e), prior to approval of a future implementing
project on lands classified by the State Geologist as
MRZ-3, the County Geologist shall make a site-specific
determination as to the sites potential to contain or
yield important or significant mineral resources of value
to the region and the residents of the State of
California.
If it is determined by the County Geologist that
lands classified as MRZ-3 have the potential to yield
significant mineral resources which may be of
regional or statewide significance and the
proposed use is considered incompatible (as
defined by Section 3675 of Title 14, Article 6 of the
California Code of Regulations) and could threaten
the potential to extract said minerals, the project
proponent shall prepare an evaluation of the area
in order to ascertain the significance of the mineral
deposit located therein. This site-specific mineral
resources study shall be performed to, at a
minimum, document the sites known or inferred
geological conditions; describe the existing levels of


development on or near the site which might
preclude mining as a viable adjacent use; and
analyze the State standards for designating land as
having regional or Statewide significant under the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The results of
such evaluation shall be transmitted to the State
Geologist and the State Mining and Geological
Board (SMGB).
Should significant mineral resources be identified,
future implementing projects shall either avoid said
resource or shall incorporate appropriate findings
subject to a site-specific discretionary review and
CEQA process.
Cumulative Impacts
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure MIN-1 above. No additional
Noise
Impact 4.12-1: Temporary Noise
Increases
substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
NOI-1 All implementing projects shall comply with the
following noise reduction measures during grading and
building activities:
If construction occurs within one-quarter mile of an
inhabited dwelling, construction activities shall be
limited to the daytime hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. during the months of June through
September, and to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during
the months of October through May.
To minimize noise from idling engines, all vehicles
and construction equipment shall be prohibited
from idling in excess of three minutes when not in
use.
Best efforts should be made to locate stockpiling
and/or vehicle staging area as far as practicable
from existing residential dwellings.
Equipment and trucks shall utilize the best available
noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts,
engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating
shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement
breakers, and rock drills) shall be hydraulically or
electronically powered wherever possible to avoid


noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. However, where use
of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
muffler shall be used; this muffler can lower noise
levels from the exhaust by up to about ten dBA.
External jackets on the tools themselves shall be
used where feasible, and this could achieve a
reduction of five dBA. Quieter procedures shall be
used, such as drills rather than impact equipment,
whenever feasible.
Stationary construction noise sources shall be
located as far from adjacent receptors as possible,
and they shall be muffled and incorporate
insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent
feasible.
NOI-2 Implementing project proponents shall submit a list of
measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining
to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition,
grading, and/or construction. These measures may
A sign posted on-site pertaining the permitted
construction days and hours and complaint
procedures and who to notify in the event of a
problem. The sign may also include a listing of both
the County and construction contractors telephone
numbers (during regular construction hours and
off-hours); and
A pre-construction meeting may be held with the
job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site
project manager to confirm that noise measures
and practices (including construction hours,
neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are
completed.
Impact 4.12-2: Permanent Noise
Increases
substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
NOI-3 All implementing projects involving a new winery or
expansion of an existing winery shall be reviewed by the
Riverside County Office of Industrial Hygiene and
include at least the following conditions:
The hours of operation for tasting rooms associated
with wineries shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine Country -
through Sunday in the Wine Country - Equestrian


and Residential Districts.
Mechanical equipments including but not limited
to, de-stemming, crushing, and refrigeration
equipment shall be enclosed or shielded for noise
attenuation. Alternatively, the proponent may
submit a Noise Study prepared by a qualified
acoustical analyst that demonstrates that the
unenclosed/unshielded equipment would not
exceed the Countys allowable noise levels.
The hours of operation for shipping facilities
associated with wineries shall be limited to 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the
Wine Country - Winery District and 10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday in the Wine
Country - Equestrian and Residential Districts.
Shipping facilities and parking areas which abut
residential parcels shall be located away from
sensitive land uses and be designed to minimize
potential noise impacts upon nearby sensitive land
uses.
Site-specific noise-attenuating features such as
hills, berms, setbacks, block walls, or other
measures shall be considered for noise attenuation
in noise-producing areas of future wineries
including, but not limited to, locations of
mechanical equipment, locations of shipping
facility shall be required to conduct a noise study prior
to its approval. Similarly, all implementing projects
involving an outdoor special occasion facility shall be
required to conduct an acoustical analysis (that shows
the noise contours outside the property boundary)
prior to its approval.
The said noise study or acoustical analysis shall be
submitted to the Office of Industrial Hygiene for
review and comments.
Based on those comments, the implementing
project shall be conditioned to mitigate noise
impacts to the applicable County noise standards
through site design and buildings techniques.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the


measures shall have received the necessary permits
from Building and Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the

facility shall be reviewed by the Riverside County Office
of Industrial Hygiene and include at least the following
conditions:
All special event venders (e.g. DJs, musical bands,
etc.) shall be notified regarding noise conditions of
approval .
Outdoor special events and associated audio
equipment, sound amplifying equipment, and/or
performance of live music shall be limited to the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through
Sunday.
Noise levels shall be kept below levels prescribed in
the Countys General Plan Noise Element and
County noise Ordinances No. 847 by using a
decibel-measuring device to measure music sound
levels when amplified music is used.
Clean-up activities associated with special events
shall terminate no later than midnight.
Outdoor speakers for all scheduled events shall be
oriented toward the center of the property and
away from adjoining land uses.
Padding/carpeting shall be installed under music
speakers for early absorption of music.
facility shall include at least the following conditions to
ensure proper enforcement of the County Ordinances
and project conditions:
After issuance of two Code Violation Notices for
excessive noise, noise measurements shall be
performed by the Office of Industrial Hygiene for
every event at the property line, to determine if the
Noise Ordinance and project conditions are being
followed during the special events.
If violations of the Noise Ordinance or project
conditions are found, the County shall reconsider
allowed hours of operation, number of guests,


amount of special events per year, or approval of
the specific facility.
The proponents shall be required to pay fees
assessed per the Department's hourly rate pursuant
to Ordinance No. 671.
Impact 4.12-3: Local Noise
Standards
Would the project expose
persons to or result in the
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Impact 4.12-4: Groundborne
Noise and Vibration
exposure of persons to or
generation excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
NOI-7 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit, all
implementing projects shall demonstrate compliance
with the following measures to reduce the potential for
human annoyance and architectural/structural damage
resulting from elevated groundborne noise and
vibration levels:
Pile driving within a 50-foot radius of occupied units
or historic or potentially historic structures shall
utilize alternative installation methods where
possible (e.g., pile cushioning, jetting, pre-drilling,
cast-in-place systems, resonance-free vibratory pile
drivers).
If no alternative to pile driving is deemed feasible,
the preexisting condition of all designated historic
buildings within a 50-foot radius of proposed
construction activities shall be evaluated during a
preconstruction survey. The preconstruction
survey shall determine conditions that exist before
construction begins for use in evaluating damage
caused by construction activities. Fixtures and
finishes within a 50-foot radius of construction
activities susceptible to damage shall be
documented (photographically and in writing) prior
to construction. All damage shall be repaired back
to its preexisting condition.
Vibration monitoring shall be conducted prior to
and during pile driving operations occurring within
100 feet of the historic structures. Every attempt
shall be made to limit construction-generated


vibration levels during pile driving and impact
activities in the vicinity of the historic structures.
Cumulative Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities
Impact 4.13-1: Law Enforcement
altered law enforcement
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.13-2: Fire Protection
Services
altered fire protection facilities,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
PSU FIRE - 1 All implementing projects requiring a traffic
impact analysis (TIA) shall analyze the project-related
traffics impact on emergency service response times.
Implementing projects shall participate in a land
acquisition and fire facility construction program, as
necessary, to ensure adequate response times, as
determined by the Riverside County Fire Department
(RCFD).
PSU FIRE - 2 All implementing projects shall participate in a
fire mitigation fee program pursuant to County
Ordinance No. 659, Development Impact Fees, which
would allow one-time capital improvements such as
land and equipment purchases (e.g,. fire suppression
equipment) and construction development.
PSU FIRE - 3 Prior to the approval of any implementing
project for lands adjacent to open space areas, a fire
protection/vegetation management plan (fuel
modification plan) shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for review and approval. Provision shall
be made as part of the development entitlement


process for a Home Owners Association (HOA) or other
appropriate management entity to be responsible for
maintaining the elements of the plan, including the
power to assess HOA fees or other fees required to
fund the maintenance activity.
PSU FIRE - 4 Flag lots will not be permitted without
adequate secondary access or alternative measures as
deemed appropriate by the Fire Chief.
PSU FIRE - 5 For those residential areas planned for rural
residential estate lots, the proponent of the
implementing project shall ensure the construction of
water lines and hydrants (and maintain sufficient water
pressure) per current applicable fire code to ensure
adequate fire protection.
Impact 4.5-3: Public Education
altered school facilities, the
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.13-4: Libraries
altered library facilities, the
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impacts. No mitigation proposed.
Impact 4.13-5: Parks and
Recreation
Would the Project increase the
Less than
Significant
with
PSU REC-1 All implementing projects within the Project
area shall participate in any future trails phasing and
financing plan being developed by the County.


use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Mitigation PSU REC-2 Prior to the approval of any implementing
project within the Project area, a park and recreational
facilities dedication plan or fee-in-lieu shall be
submitted to the County Regional Recreation and Parks
District for review and approval. This includes at
minimum the half-width dedication of trail right-of-
way (ROW) for any trails bordering a proposed
implementing project, and full dedication and/or
construction of trails traversing a proposed
implementing project. Where private recreational
facilities are proposed, provision shall be made as part
of the development entitlement process for a HOA or
other appropriate management entity to be
responsible for maintaining the elements of the plan,
including the power to assess HOA fees or other fees
required to fund the maintenance activity.
PSU REC-3 To the extent feasible, the County Regional
Recreation and Park District should work to negotiate
joint use agreements with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District for the joint use of school recreational
facilities including playing fields, to contribute to the
supply of public parks located within reach of residents
of the Project area.
Impact 4.13-6: Water and Water
Supply
Would the Project have sufficient
water supplies available to serve
the project with existing
entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Or
Would the Project require or
water treatment facilities or the
effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
use graywater as a water conserving system (Riverside
County Policy OS 2.1).
use California-friendly, drought-resistant landscaping
and landscape irrigation improvements consistent with
County Ordinance No. 859 and Riverside County Policy
OS 2.3 in consideration of Rancho California Water
District Budget Based Tiered Rate Program.
use graywater advanced water conservation pursuant
to the intent of Riverside County Policy OS 2.5 through
implementation of at least the following best
management practices:
Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained,
and managed to meet or exceed an irrigation
system efficiency of 80%.
The capacity of the irrigation system shall not
exceed peak system capacity to meet crop-specific
water requirements, water meter capacity, and


backflow preventer device capacity.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent
runoff, overspray, and low-head drainage.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to ensure the
dynamic pressure at each emission device is within
the manufacturers recommended pressure range
for optimum performance.
Irrigation systems shall be designed to include a
device(s), which provides site-specific soil moisture
and/or evapotranspiration data that can be used to
schedule irrigation events effectively.
Care shall be taken to design irrigation systems so
that irrigation blocks are contained within areas of
uniform soil texture and solar orientation.
Irrigation shall be scheduled to apply water at or
below crop-specific water requirements.
Crops with different water needs shall be irrigated
separately.
Impact 4.13-7: Wastewater
wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities,
effects?
Or
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves
or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve
the projects projected demand
in addition to the providers
existing commitments?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measure HYD-2 above.
PSU SEWER-1 Interim to sewer services in this region, all
implementing projects proposed for construction in the
Project area shall provide onsite wastewater treatment
to meet compliance with the Basin Plan Groundwater
Quality Objectives, as well as, additional conditions for
salinity management to the satisfaction of the County
Department of Environmental Health and the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB).
PSU SEWER-2 All implementing projects shall make a fair
share contribution toward proposed sewer
improvements, as set forth in the phasing and financing
plan being developed by EMWD. In addition, all
implementing projects shall be responsible for
extending sewer lines from available trunk lines as a
condition of approval for the project.
Impact 4.13-8: Solid Waste
Would the project be served by a
landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal
needs?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
make every effort feasible to recycle, reuse, and/or
reduce the amount of construction and demolition
materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) generated
by implementing projects of the Project that would
otherwise be taken to a landfill. This diversion of waste
must exceed a 50 percent reduction by weight. The


project shall complete the Riverside County Waste
Management Department Construction and Demolition
Waste Diversion Program Form B or and Form C
process as evidence to ensure compliance. Form B
(Recycling Plan) must be submitted and approved by
the Riverside County Waste Management Department
and provided to the Department of Building and Safety
prior to the issuance of building permits. Form C
(Reporting Form) must be approved by the Riverside
County Waste Management Department and
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy/final
inspection.
dispose of any hazardous wastes, including paint, used
during construction and grading at a licensed facility in
accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines.
PSU WASTE-3 All implementing projects with a residential
Homeowners Association (HOA) shall establish green
waste recycling through its yard maintenance or waste
hauling contracts. Green waste recycling includes such
things as grass recycling (where lawn clippings from a
mulching-type mower are left on the lawn) and on- or
off-site composting. This measure shall be
implemented to reduce green waste going to landfills.
If such services are not available through the yard
maintenance or waste haulers in the area, the
implementing projects HOA shall provide individual
homeowners with information about ways to recycle
green waste individually and collectively and provisions
shall be included in the CC&Rs.
PSU WASTE-4 Prior to issuance of Building Permits for any
commercial or agricultural facilities, clearance from the
Riverside County Waste Management Department is
needed to verify compliance with California Solid
Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 1327),
which requires the local jurisdiction to require
adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable
materials.
PSU WASTE-5 Prior to implementing project approval,
applicant(s) shall submit for review and approval
landscape plans that provide for the use of xeriscape
landscaping to the extent feasible and consistent with


the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
Design Guidelines and provide for the use of drought
tolerant low maintenance vegetation in all landscaped
areas of the Project.
Cumulative Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact. Refer to Mitigation Measures PSU FIRE 1
through 3; PSU REC 1 through 3; PSU WATER 1 through 3; PSU
SEWER 1 through 2; and PSU WASTE 1 through 5; above.
Impact 4.15-1: Conflict with an
Applicable Plan, Ordinance, or
Policy
an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation
system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact. Refer to mitigation measures TRF-1
through TRF-3, below.
Impact 4.15-2: Conflict with
Congestion Management
Program
an applicable congestion
management program, including,
but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency
for designated roads or
highways?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.
TRF-1 Proposed implementing projects within the Project area
shall be required to complete a comprehensive
transportation impact assessment consistent with
County Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines.
To be consistent with the Project, all analyses shall
utilize the Wine Country Traffic Demand Forecasting
(TDF) model to forecast cumulative impacts associated
with the implementing projects.
TRF-2 The County shall require wineries and equestrian
facilities to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP)
for Countys review and approval for large special
events, including but not limited to weddings, concerts,


festivals, and equestrian events. The TMP shall provide
detail such as traffic management strategies (such as
traffic coordinators, event signage, staggered
arrival/departure times, etc) for events that cause a
substantial increase of vehicles entering or exiting the
Project during a small period of time. The TMP may
also be required to include parking strategies to aid
traffic management such as a drop-off/pick-up zone
and/or offsite shuttle arrangements, including potential
use of the City of Temeculas old town parking structure
on Main Street.
TRF-3 The County shall implement a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
Program for the Project area. This Program shall collect
fair share contributions toward identified mitigation
measures (as outlined in the WCP Fair Share and
Phasing Assessment conducted by Fehr and Peers)
within the Project area and within the City of Temecula,
and the County shall enter into an agreement with the
City of Temecula to implement the identified
improvements. Implementing projects shall also make
fair share contributions to revise the Adaptive Traffic
Signal Timing Program through the above-mentioned
TIF as well, for those intersection locations that would
experience improved levels of service with
implementation of this Program. In addition,
implementing projects shall also make fair share
contributions for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) Program for those facilities that are eligible
for improvements through the TUMF Program.
Although participation in these Programs would reduce
the impacts to most locations to a less than significant
level, some measures are considered infeasible, and the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The
specific locations, impact levels, identified
improvements, and basis for those locations that would
experience significant and unavoidable impacts, are
described below.
Roadways
Impacts to the following roadways would be less than
significant following implementation of the identified
improvements:
Anza Road south of Rancho California Road (widen


from two to four lanes)
The following roadway segment improvements are also
potentially infeasible as discussed above in Impact 4.14-
2, and therefore, impact levels would remain significant
and unavoidable:
Rancho California Road West of Anza (widen from
Project.
Rancho California Road East of Anza (widen from
Project.
I-15 from south of SR-79 to north of Rancho
California Road (freeway expansion); however,
remaining funding has not yet been identified and
there is limited right-of-way in the corridor for
freeway expansion.
I-15 Freeway ramps to Rancho California
(northbound on and off ramps/southbound off
ramp); however, the remaining funding has not yet
been identified and there is limited right-of-way in
the corridor for ramp expansion.
Intersections
Impacts to the following intersections would be less
than significant following implementation of the
identified improvements:
Winchester Road at Ynez Road (optimize cycle
length and signal timing splits)
Temecula Parkway at I-15 Southbound Ramps
(optimize cycle length and signal timing splits for
LOS D, and add second southbound left- and right-
turn lanes for LOS C)
Margarita Road at Rancho Vista Road (add a second
Margarita Road at Pauba Road (add a second
Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way (install a
traffic signal)
Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road
(install a large roundabout, two to three lanes per


approach with bypass right-turn lanes, or widen
intersection)
Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho Vista Road (install
traffic signal)
Butterfield Stage Road at Pauba Road (optimize
signal timings)
Butterfield Stage Road at Temecula Parkway (re-
stripe the southbound approach to include two left-
turn lanes, add a westbound right-turn lane with
overlap right-turn phase)
La Serena Way at Rancho California Road (install a
Calle Contento at Rancho California Road (install a
Anza Road at Borel Road (future) (install a traffic
signal)
Anza Road at Buck Road (future) (install traffic
signal)
Anza Road at Rancho California Road (install a large
roundabout with a minimum of two lanes on each
approach)
Anza Road at Madera de Playa (install a traffic
Anza Road at Pauba Road (install a traffic signal and
widen the intersection)
Anza Road at De Portola Road (install a traffic signal
and widen the intersection)
Anza Road at Temecula Parkway (install a traffic
Rancho California Road at Camino del Vino (install a
traffic signal and add a southbound left-turn lane,
or install a single-lane roundabout)
Rancho California Road at Monte De Oro (install a
The following intersection improvements are also
potentially infeasible as discussed above in Impact
4.14-2, and therefore, impact levels would remain
significant and unavoidable:
Winchester Road at Nicolas Road (widen
Winchester Road to an 8-lane facility; add a second
southbound left-turn lane; add a northbound and
southbound dedicated right-turn lane; and provide
an overlap right-turn phase for the northbound and


westbound right-turn movements); however, there
is development on all four quadrants of this
intersection which limits the ability to widen the
roadway.
Rancho California Road at Ynez Road (two left-turn
lanes, three through lanes and a right-turn lane at
the northbound approach; two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and dual right-turn lanes [with
overlap right-turn phasing] at the southbound and
westbound approaches; and three left-turn lanes,
three through lanes and a right-turn lane [with
overlap right-turn phasing] at the eastbound
approach); however, there is development on all
four quadrants of this intersection resulting in
limited right-of-way, and the improvements would
encroach onto the adjacent pond/park on the
southwest quadrant.
Winchester Road at I-15 Northbound Ramps (signal
modifications to allow free westbound right-turn
movement; and add a second dedicated
northbound right-turn lane); however, the
remaining funding outside of the TIF has not been
guaranteed. In addition, this ramp is controlled by
Caltrans and is in the City of Temecula; as such, the
County cannot guarantee implementation of this
improvement.
Margarita Road at Rancho California Road (add two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a dedicated
right-turn lane); however, this intersection is
controlled by the City of Temecula and the County
cannot guarantee implementation of this
improvement.
Los Caballos Road at Temecula Parkway (install a
traffic signal); however, given the rural nature of
this area, this intersection will remain unsignalized
in the future.
Camino del Vino at Glen Oaks Road (install a traffic
future.
Camino del Vino at Monte De Oro (install a traffic
future.
De Portola Road at Pauba Road (install a traffic


future.
Pauba Road at Temecula Parkway (install a traffic
future.
Impact 4.15-3: Air Traffic
Patterns
change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in
location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Less than
Significant
Impact 4.15-4: Design Features
increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
TRF-4 All future transportation related improvements in the
Project area shall be consistent with the County
ordinances (i.e. Ordinance No. 348, 460, 461, 499, 512,
585 etc.) and the Project (i.e., revised SWAP Figure 7
Circulation Network, development standards of the
implementing zones, Temecula Valley Wine Country
Design Guidelines, etc.). All implementing project
designs, including site access points, turning lanes, etc.
shall be reviewed by the County Transportation
Department staff to determine that proposals are
consistent with appropriate design standards.
Access
inadequate emergency access?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
TRF-5 All implementing projects in the Project area shall be
reviewed by appropriate emergency services personnel
to ensure adequate emergency access is provided, as
part of the Countys discretionary application review
process.

Impact 4.15-6: Public Transit
adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance of safety of
such facilities?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation


Cumulative Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unavoidable impact.


1.6 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
While the specific mitigation measures summarized above would reduce the level of many significant
impacts to a less than significant level, the Draft EIR identified the following areas where, after
implementation of feasible mitigation, the Project may nonetheless result in impacts which cannot be
fully mitigated. Various benefits would accrue from implementation of the Project, which must be
weighed against the potential adverse effects of Project implementation in deciding whether to approve
the Project. These potential benefits will be set forth in a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
which is required by CEQA prior to approving a project with unavoidable significant impacts. In addition,
as discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project, while representing a substantial increase in new
development compared to existing conditions, it is considerably less dense than currently allowed in the
Countys General Plan Policies and zoning classifications.
PROJECT IMPACTS
While the Project policies and implementing zoning classifications would increase the acreage of
designated Agricultural land uses and may in turn increase the acreage of agricultural uses, it is possible
that implementing project sites could be located on Prime Farmland (or another designation indicating
agricultural suitability) and would allow development of up to 25 percent of the total Project area based
on proposed Policy SWAP 1.2 which allows up to 25 percent of a subject site to be developed with
winery and other associated facilities (e.g., delicatessens, tasting rooms, special event facilities, etc.).
Additionally, under the Project, active agricultural land would be allowed to convert 25 percent of its
land to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the Project could convert agriculturally suitable farmland, such
as Prime Farmland, and active agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. As such, this potential
conversion would generate a significant, unavoidable impact on agricultural resources.
Air Quality
air quality impacts on sensitive receptors.
increase in GHG emissions that are above South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD)
draft mass emission thresholds and CARBs per capita threshold.
Compliance with proposed County of Riverside SWAP policies will ensure consistency with the numeric
GHG-reduction goals of AB 32 and be consistent with promulgated plans, polices, and regulations
governing the reduction of GHG emissions. Because these features and measures would meaningfully
reduce Project GHG emissions and are consistent with the state and local goals, the Project is supportive
of the States goals regarding global climate change. However, Project impacts to global climate change,
both at the Project level and cumulative level, are still potentially significant and unavoidable, due to the
overall increase in emissions as compared to existing conditions.


Noise
Given that it is not possible to predict the specific nature, frequency or location of all of the wineries or
all of the special events, some stationary source activity may still represent unacceptable noise exposure
within the Wine Country, particularly for existing sensitive receptors. This unavoidable impact will be
reduced through compliance with policies, ordinances and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-6
noted above, and will be implemented by the County on a project-by-project basis.
In addition, due to the amount of traffic trips that would be generated in association with the proposed
permitted land uses, mobile source noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Fire Protection Services
Implementation of the Project would have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Departments ability
to provide an acceptable level of service. Impacts include an increased number of emergency and public
service calls and a decreased level of service due to the increased presence of structures, traffic, and
population (including transient tourists).
The availability of sufficient funding to equip and staff new facilities may not be available over the long
term and the ability of the Department to negotiate for adequate funding for either construction or
long-term staffing with individual developers is uncertain. Accordingly, even with the implementation of
the proposed mitigation, the Project could result in an indirect, cumulatively considerable contribution
to a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Libraries
Based on the current Riverside County standard, there are insufficient library facilities available to
provide the targeted level of service to the Project area and the balance of the service area of the two
existing libraries in the Temecula area. Therefore, implementing projects within the Project area would
make an indirect but cumulatively considerable contribution to that existing deficiency, resulting in a
potentially significant cumulative impact on library facilities and services.
Traffic
The Project would generally improve operations compared to the adopted General Plan; however, long-
term operational traffic resulting from operation of the Project would still contribute to a potentially
significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of levels of service in the Project area.
The Project would contribute a fair share contribution toward improving affected roadway segments
and intersections through a Community Facilities District (CFD) financing plan, as well as a fair share
contribution, which would allow the segments and intersections to operate at acceptable levels of
service. However, since some segments and/or intersections are controlled by the City of Temecula, the
Pechanga Band of Luiseo Indians and/or Caltrans, the County cannot guarantee implementation of the
identified improvements. In addition, remaining funding outside the CFD has not been guaranteed and
there is limited right-of-way to facilitate freeway and ramp expansion. Therefore, the levels of service


Growth-inducing Impact
The Project will allow for various onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements that could remove
impediments to growth and/or provide for additional capacity. The Project could also result in direct job
growth through increased employment opportunities as a result of the proposed update of the existing
Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) and other elements of the General Plan. Due to its size, its incremental
implementation, its impact on infrastructure, and the potential direct and indirect economic growth
associated with it, the Project would be viewed as growth-inducing pursuant to CEQA.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Air Quality
air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. If the County of Riverside approves the Project, the County
shall be required to adopt findings of fact in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, as
well as adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Greenhouse Gases
increase in GHG emissions that are above SCAQMDs draft mass emission thresholds and CARBs per
capita threshold. Compliance with proposed County of Riverside SWAP policies will ensure consistency
with the numeric GHG-reduction goals of AB 32 and be consistent with promulgated plans, polices, and
regulations governing the reduction of GHG emissions. Because these features and measures would
meaningfully reduce Project GHG emissions and are consistent with the state and local goals, the Project
is supportive of the States goals regarding global climate change. However, Project impacts to global
climate change, both at the Project level and cumulative level, are still potentially significant and
unavoidable, due to the overall increase in emissions as compared to existing conditions.
Noise
Buildout of the Project would result in potential cumulative noise level increases along major roadways.
Project implementation would result in significant cumulative noise impacts that could not be mitigated
with the implementation of the proposed policies and mitigation measures. Thus, the Project would
substantially contribute to cumulative mobile source noise impacts.
It may also be possible for multiple stationary sources such as special events or wineries to operate
concurrently and in close proximity, which could further add to cumulative noise impacts. The Project
may result in significant stationary source impacts, even with implementation of mitigation measures
and applicable policies and ordinances.
in unavoidable significant cumulative impacts in the areas of fire protection services and library services.


Traffic
in a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system and level of service degradation to unacceptable levels. The
Project may result in significant traffic-related impacts, even with implementation of mitigation
measures and applicable policies and ordinances.
1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This is a summary of the Project alternatives described in Section 6.0, Alternatives, which contains a
detailed discussion. The Project alternatives have been designed to achieve the Project objectives and to
minimize/reduce/alleviate identified environmental impacts, or were specifically requested for
consideration during the preparation of the EIR.
The Project alternatives considered in EIR No. 524 are:
No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning Classifications Alternative
Reduced Density (25% Reduction) Alternative
Alternatives rejected from further consideration:
Pending General Plan Amendments Approval Alternative (Pending Amendments Alternative)
Alternative Location Alternative
One Policy Area / One Zone Alternative
Descriptions of the first three rejected alternatives (i.e., Pending General Plan Amendments Approval,
Alternative Location, and One Policy/One Zone Alternatives) are provided in Section 6.4 of this Draft EIR.
However, a description of the No Build Scenario/Existing Condition Alternative is provided, as it
describes the CEQA baseline against which the Project is analyzed (an alternative in which only existing
development occupies the site).
NO BUILD SCENARIO/EXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Scenario/Existing Condition Alternative (No Build Scenario) assumes that the future
implementing projects envisioned under the Project would not occur, and the Project site would remain
in its existing condition. This alternative assumes the breakdown of land use acreages listed in Table
3.0-1, Existing Land Use Acreages, provided in the Project Description. Essentially, this alternative
assumes that only the existing development that is presently on the ground would occupy the Project
site into the future.
No additional implementing projects would be considered/approved/developed within the Project site.
The existing wineries, residential, equestrian and vacant, open space would remain, and property
owners may continues to utilize their parcel as they are currently being used.
It is important to note that this alternative does not reflect the future growth envisioned in the
Southwest Area Plan, existing Citrus Vineyard Policy Area, or the Project objectives. The site is currently


designated for development in a manner relatively similar to the Project (albeit with more development
intensity and density and more incompatibility in land uses). The Countys General Plan reflects this
designation, and there have been no indications by County staff, elected officials or the public through
the EIR scoping process that there is a desire to preserve the site in its current state and without
additional infrastructure support.
The No Build Alternative does not meet many of the basic Project objectives because it does not
implement a comprehensive and cohesive plan for the physical and economic development of the
Project area, does not enhance the Wine Country regions viniculture potential, rural lifestyle and
equestrian activities, does not continue to allow for an appropriate level of commercial tourist activities,
does not coordinate where and under what circumstances future growth should be accommodated, and
does not develop provisions to ensure that future growth is balanced and coordinated with appropriate
public services, infrastructure and other basic necessities for a healthy, livable community.
It does not provide for adequate water distribution, sewer, flood control, circulation, and water quality
improvements. The No Build Alternative would also be inconsistent with the County General Plan,
would fail to provide increased revenue, employment and entertainment opportunities within the
County, and would not provide the various infrastructure and service improvements associated with the
Project. For these reasons, this Alternative is not under consideration by the County.
NO PROJECT/EXISTING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property
or set of properties consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section
15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the Guidelines states that, when the project is the revision of an existing land use or
regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the
existing plan... For purposes of this analysis, the No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning
Classifications Alternative (No Project Alternative) assumes this condition. Accordingly, the No Project
Alternative assumes that development of implementing projects as allowed under the Project would not
occur, and that the Project site would instead remain subject to the provisions contained within the
current, non-amended General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Each parcel within the site would be subject
to the requirements of its corresponding General Plan land use designation for those properties outside
of the Citrus/Vineyard and Valle de los Caballos Policy Area. For parcels within these Policy Areas, the
General Plan land use designation would apply, in conjunction with the applicable zoning classifications.
This alternative also assumes that most of the entitlements applications currently on file with the
County would be approved and constructed as proposed within the Project site.
The existing General Plan and Policy Areas (i.e., No Project Alternative) in their current state are
anticipated to provide a mix of uses which would include a larger number of acres within the Rural and
Rural Community Foundation Components (as displayed in Table 3.0-3). However, with these existing
regulations, the build-out of the Project area is anticipated to include less acres under the Agriculture
and Open Space Foundation Components. The existing General Plan would not establish the proposed
three Districts (i.e., Winery, Residential, and Equestrian) as proposed under the Project and, thus, would
not ensure to the same degree the long-term viability of the wine industry and would not serve to
protect the communitys equestrian and rural lifestyle.
The existing General Plan in its current state (i.e., pursuant to the existing Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area)
would require incidental commercial uses for wineries on a minimum of 10 acres. The Project would


require a minimum of 10 acres only for these uses on existing wineries identified in the SWAP (Figure
4a). For all other wineries incidental commercial uses a 20-acre minimum lot size would be required.
Based on the existing land uses designation and Policy Areas within the Project area, this alternative
would result in a 58.4% increase in dwelling units and population, while generating a 25.4% increase in
employment/other (which is the category used to quantify the number of employees and tourists
anticipated to visit the Project area) compared to the Project.
The existing General Plan would not include the circulation improvements identified in the traffic study
prepared for the Project (i.e., traffic signalization, re-striping, addition of lanes, dedication of lanes,
creation of intersections, creation of new roadway linkages). While nothing in the existing General Plan
or zoning would preclude these improvements from developing at a later data with the appropriate
permits and approvals (e.g., GPA), this alternative does not propose or plan for these updates to the
circulation network. The General Plan, Trails and Bicycle System map (Figure 8) would also remain as is,
meaning compared to the Project, the Project area would not provide the same level of pedestrian,
equestrian, and bicycle circulation options.
This Alternative, due to its substantially greater density than the proposed Project, would result in
substantially greater impacts in nearly all environmental topical areas, particularly for traffic, air quality,
noise, aesthetics, and public services and utilities. A detailed quantitative comparison of the No Project
Alternative with the proposed Project is provided below in Table 1.0-2 of this Draft EIR, and in Appendix
J of this Draft EIR. For these reasons, this Alternative is not under consideration by the County.
Table 1.0-2
Comparison of Land Uses between the No Project/Existing General Plan Policies and Zoning
Classifications Alternative and the Project
1

Acres DU
Populatio
n
Employees
2 Acres DU
Populatio
n
Employees
/ Others
AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Agriculture (AG) 6167 308 929 308 9,644 482 1,452 482
Agriculture Foundation Sub-
Total:
6167 308 929 308 9,644 482 1,452 482
RURAL FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Rural Residential (RR) 6,457 969 2,917 NA 3,102 465 1,401 NA
Rural Mountainous (RM) 589 29 89 NA 370 19 56 NA
Rural Desert (RD) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Rural Foundation Sub-Total: 7,046 998 3,005 0 3,472 484 1,457 0
RURAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Estate Density Residential (RC-
EDR)
3,287 1,150 3,465 NA 2,714 950 2,861 NA
(RC-VLDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Low Density Residential (RC-
LDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Rural Community Foundation 3,287 1,150 3,465 0 2,714 950 2,861 0


Sub-Total:
OPEN SPACE FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA
Open Space-Conservation
Habitat (OS-CH)
444 NA NA NA 985 NA NA NA
Open Space-Water (OS-W) 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA
Open Space-Recreation (OS-R) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Open Space-Rural (OS-RUR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Open Space-Mineral Resources
(OS-MIN)
0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Open Space Foundation Sub-
Total:
444 0 0 0 985 0 0 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION COMPONENT
Estate Density Residential (EDR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
(VLDR)
6 5 14 NA 0 0 0 NA
Low Density Residential (LDR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
(MDR)
164 574 1,729 NA 0 0 0 NA
Medium-High Density
Residential (MHDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
High Density Residential (HDR) 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Very High Density Residential
(VHDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Highest Density Residential
(HHDR)
0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
Commercial Retail2 (CR) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Commercial Tourist (CT) 1,876 NA NA 54,889 2,175 NA NA 43,522
Commercial Office (CO) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Light Industrial (LI) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Business Park (BP) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Public Facilities (PF) 0 NA NA 0 0 NA NA 0
Community Center (CC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mixed Use Planning Area
(MUPA)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD Foundation Sub-Total: 2,046 579 1,742 54,899 2,175 0 0 43,522
Sub-total for All Foundation
Uses
18,990 3,035 9,141 55,207 18,990 1,916 5,770 44,004
Notes:
DU dwelling units
Popn Population
Emp/Others Employment/Others (category used to quantify the number of employees and tourists anticipated to visit the
Project area)
[1] No Project Alternative scenario in Winery District assumes business as usual development pattern, thus converting AG into
CTs while other land use designations reflect current General Plan land use designations.
[2] No Project Alternative does not take into account the tourist generated by this alternative as does the Projects figures.
Source: Draft EIR Appendix J, General Plan Land Use Build-Out Analysis


REDUCED DENSITY (25% REDUCTION) ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the Reduced Density Alternative is to reduce impacts from the Project related to the
number of units developed and the intensity of commercial development, including wineries. Under
this alternative, the total number of residential dwelling units anticipated is assumed to be reduced
from 1,916 to 1,437 representing a reduction of 479 units, or approximately 25%. In addition, it is
anticipated that commercial square footage would be reduced by 25% under this alternative.
This reduced density alternative may not have the same design features as the Project, and therefore,
the impacts of this alternative could be greater than or less than the impacts of the Project with regard
to specific issue areas. As a variation of this alternative, the site could be developed with higher density
product in a cluster development fashion, leaving increased natural open space and reducing the
extent and cost of infrastructure improvements and site grading.
The Reduced Density Alternative may not require the same level of circulation, water, sewer, flood
control and other infrastructure improvement based on a reduction in population, employment, and
tourists within the Project site (due to the lower allowable intensity of use in the Project site).
This alternative may partially accomplish the objectives enumerated for the Project. However, the
future growth of the Project area would be reduced compared to the Project. The level of commercial
tourist activities envisioned under the current General Plan and this Project would not be reached as
effectively through implementation of this alternative, due to less density and interactive synergy
produced by the Projects balance of wineries/commercial tourism, equestrian and residential uses.
Feasibility and funding of required infrastructure would also be more challenging under this Alternative
due to a reduced development base from which to derive fees and other funding sources, and much of
this infrastructure would be similar to that required for the Project. Finally, it should be noted that the
Project already represents a reduced density from what is currently allowed in the General Plan and
Policy Areas.
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
Table 1.0-3, Comparison of Impacts Resulting from Project Alternatives as Compared to the Project,
compares the potential impacts of the Project with each of the alternatives evaluated in this EIR. A side-
by-side comparison of the issues as evaluated in the EIR is provided in Table 1.0-3 for each of the
following Project alternatives.


Table 1.0-3
Comparison of Impacts Resulting from Project Alternatives as Compared to the Project
Environmental Issue
No Build
Scenario/
Existing
Condition
Alternative
No Project/
Existing General
Plan Policies and
Zoning
Classifications
Alternative
Reduced Density
(25%) Alternative
Aesthetics
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly Less
Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality Less Greater Less
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same
Cultural Resources
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly Less
Geology/Soils Less Slightly Greater Same
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazardous Materials Less Greater Same
Hydrology Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
Land Use Greater Greater Same/Slightly Less
Mineral Resources
Same
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly Less
Noise Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
Public Services,
Recreation & Utilities
Transportation/Circulation Less Greater Same/Slightly Less
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to the Project
shall identify one alternative to the project as the environmentally superior alternative. Table 1.0-3
below provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts associated with the Project with the
impacts of each of the proposed alternatives. Of the alternatives analyzed in this EIR, the Reduced
Density (25%) Alternative is considered environmentally superior overall. Even with a 25% reduction,
there would still be significant and unavoidable project impacts associated with air, greenhouse gas
emissions, agricultural resources, noise, traffic, and growth-inducing impacts.
1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123 (b)(2) and (3) requires that the EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the
lead agency, issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved, including the choice
among alternatives and whether, or how to, mitigate significant adverse physical impacts. Based on

Chapter 3.0
Project Description

3.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
Refer to Section 3.6 below for a detailed description of the various Project characteristics.
3.3 EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USES/ ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
The existing General Plan land uses within the Project area currently consist of a mixture of Agriculture:
Agriculture (AG:AG)
1
, Rural: Rural Residential (R:RR) and Rural Mountainous (R:RM), Rural Community:
Estate Density Residential (RC:EDR), and Community Development: Commercial Tourist (CD:CT) and
Medium Density Residential (CD:MDR).
In addition, the zoning for the Project area primarily includes Citrus/Vineyard (C/V), Commercial
Citrus/Vineyard (C-C/V), Light Agriculture (A-1), Heavy Agriculture (A-2), Rural Agriculture (R-A), and
Rural Residential (R-R) classifications with varying lot size requirements (ranging from to 20 acre
minimums).
EXISTING LAND USES
Many of the existing uses within the Project area are composed of rural residential, single-family lots
(greater than one acre in size), vineyards and wineries and auxiliary uses, citrus groves, equestrian uses
including residential uses with equestrian amenities (e.g., barns, arenas, stables, etc.), and vacant
undeveloped properties. At this time there are a total of approximately 42 existing wineries located
within the Project area. Ancillary uses to the wineries include bed and breakfast inns, restaurants, and
special occasion facilities which are used for events such as parties, weddings, and other social
gatherings. Table 3.0-1, Existing Land Use Acreages, below includes a summary of the existing land uses
in the Project area.

1
General Plan land use designations are listed in the following format - Foundation Component: General Plan Land Use
Designation.


County staffs review of available information and comments received from the general public and other
public agencies in response to the Notice of Preparation and public scoping meetings (Appendix A), the
following issues may be either controversial or require further resolution:
Total Dissolved Solids (salinity) in basin groundwater, which is currently limiting new
development
Specific timing and funding for infrastructure is in the process of development for wastewater
and transportation, and is yet to be developed for potable/reclaimed water and drainage.
Noise impacts, both from existing operations and potential future operations, particularly
related to special event noise.
Traffic impacts, on both a local community level and a regional level.
There are numerous development proposals currently in various stages of County review, some
of which may be approved prior to the new Wine Country Community Plan zoning taking effect.
The ultimate timing, location and nature of future development in the Wine Country is
uncertain. County staff has made estimates of future land uses based on detailed review of
parcel data using County GIS technologies and community participation.
These issues have been considered in this EIR, where applicable.


Table 3.0-1
Existing Land Use Acreages
Land Use Description Acreage
1

Residential 387
Rural Residential, Low-Density 3,801
Office/ Commercial Uses
2
880
Public/ Non-Governmental Facilities 79
Industrial/ Manufacturing Uses (includes Mineral
Extraction
3
) 159
Utilities/ Miscellaneous Uses 493
Agricultural Uses 4,992
Equestrian Uses 958
Vacant Land 6,090
Roadways (assumed) 1,151
Total 18,990
1
Acreage assumptions are based on parcel acreages with aerial interpretation
analysis and assessor parcel records.
2
Existing winery acreages haven divided into agricultural and commercial tourism
and to a lesser extent manufacturing.
3
According to SCAG Land Use categories, approximately 15 acres of the Project
area contains mineral extraction-related uses.
Source: Riverside County Planning Department
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Temecula Valley Wine Country region of Riverside County is surrounded by the urbanizing cities of
Temecula and Murrieta to the west, San Diego County to the south, and the unincorporated community
of Sage to the east. Land uses within the Project area include agricultural and natural open spaces, rural
communities and estate lots, to vacant land designated for future residential and commercial
developments, existing residential and commercial development associated with wineries depending on
their locations. Adjacent land uses include all of the foregoing and also include existing residential
subdivisions, retail commercial, educational and office uses in the vicinity of Butterfield Stage Road,
Rancho California Road and Highway 79. Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, campgrounds and RV parks, and related
3.4 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR should include a statement of objectives
sought by the proposed Project. The purpose of the Project is to provide a blueprint for growth to
ensure that future development activities will enhance, not impede, the quality of life for existing and
future residents, while providing opportunities for continued development and expansion of winery
operations within this part of the County.



community.
3.5 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Project is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County and is covered by the Southwest
Area Plan (SWAP) of the Countys General Plan. This area contains some of the most important
agricultural lands in the County. In response to the increased development activity that has occurred in
the area over the past decade, County staff is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the
regions vision, policies and development standards as part of the Countys General Plan update,
initiated in 2008. Previous efforts to guide development in the SWAP included the creation of two policy
areas intended to promote agricultural and equestrian uses described below.
CITRUS VINEYARD POLICY AREA
In 1989 the County recognized the special character of a portion of the Project area by creating the
Citrus Vineyard Policy Area within the Southwest Area Plan. This Policy Area encompasses a majority
of the agricultural uses within the Project area (east of Temecula and north/south of Rancho California
Road as depicted on Exhibit 3.0-3, Existing Policy Area Overlay). The Citrus Vineyard Policy Area
included specific policies to ensure the protection of the communitys distinct character and to ensure
continuation of its rural lifestyle along with the continued development of wine production in
southwestern Riverside County. The wineries that dot this Policy Area are both a significant tourist
attraction and an economic engine that provides significant benefit to the County and surrounding
municipalities. The policies of the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area are also intended to protect against the
development of uses that are incompatible with agriculture and which could lead to conflicts with
adjacent uses. The following policies have been established for the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area:
SWAP 1.1 Maintain a rural and agricultural character in the Citrus/Vineyard area through
continued implementation of the C/V zone and judicious use of the C-C/V zone.


These zones help achieve the desired character by requiring that commercial
buildings, wineries, citrus processing operations, and bed and breakfast inns be
designed in a rural or wine-country theme and by discouraging curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and street lights.
SWAP 1.2 Require a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres for new residential tract maps and
parcel maps.
SWAP 1.3 Encourage clustered developments in conjunction with onsite provision of
vineyards for new residential tract maps and parcel maps where appropriate. In
case of a clustered development, the overall project density yield must not
exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. While the lot sizes in a clustered
development may vary, require a minimum lot size of 1 acre, with at least 50%
of the project area set aside for permanent provision of vineyards.
SWAP 1.4 Continue to provide for incidental commercial uses, such as retail wine
sales/sampling rooms, incidental gift sales, restaurants excluding drive-through
facilities, and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries on 10 acres or more
inns on 5 acres or more, and country inns and special occasion facilities on 10
acres or more, provided that at least 75% of the project site is planted in
vineyards.
inns on 10 acres or more, country inns on 15 acres or more, and hotels on 20
acres or more, in conjunction with wineries provided that at least:
VALLE DE LOS CABALLOS POLICY AREA
This Policy Area is located east of the City of Temecula, west of the Vail Lake Policy Area and south of
the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area (Exhibit 3.0-3, Existing Policy Area Overlay). The Valle de los Caballos
area is characterized by gently rolling hills and equestrian, rural residential, and agricultural activities.
Most of the land in the area is subdivided into parcels of 10 acres or more, which fosters a very low
intensity, rural lifestyle. The primary policy established for this area is as follows:
SWAP 2.1 Require a 10-acre minimum lot size for residential development within the Valle
de los Caballos Policy Area, regardless of the underlying land use designation.


3.5.3 WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN HISTORY
development of the Project in an effort to both preserve the areas distinct rural character and enhance
its economic contribution to the County over the long term. The BOS approved funding for the Project in
March 2009. As presently envisioned, the Project incorporates the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area, the Valle
de los Caballos Policy Areas and additional, adjacent unincorporated areas with similar characteristics.
Since its initiation, the Project has achieved the following milestones:
June 2009 - County staff initiated the Wine Country Vision 2020 survey, which sought input from
the Wine Country residents/property owners within the Project area to refine the vision for the
Temecula Valley Wine Country, regarding this unique communitys future.
July 2009 - Planning staff introduced a land use proposal to reflect Supervisor Stones vision to a
smaller Advisory Committee comprised of vintners.
December 2009 - The Advisory Committee expanded to include equestrian interests and
environmental work efforts in support of the Project was initiated pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Components of the Project included General Plan
Amendment No. 1077 - Southwest Area Plan (Policy Area, Circulation and Trails Networks), an
amendment to the Countys Zoning Ordinance No. 348 to create the Citrus Vineyard (C-V) and
commercial Citrus Vineyard (C/C-V) zones, and revisions to the adopted Citrus Vineyard Policy
Area Design Guidelines.
January 2010 - The Advisory Committee began holding monthly meetings to discuss issues
associated with the Project.
July 2010 - The Committee expanded further to include residential stakeholders and requested
assistance for a Real Use Inventory of properties within the Project area.
October 2010 - Following an open house, County staff addressed the issue of non-conforming
uses within the Project area by changing focus on the General Plan.
January 2011 County staff initiated the process of retaining an environmental consultant to
assist with the preparation of the Program EIR.
May 2011 to Present Beginning in May, County staff has been working closely with several
stakeholders (including public agencies and other interested parties) as well as their consultants
to complete the preparation of the Draft Program EIR. This process has included numerous
meetings with County staff, other public agency staff, the environmental consultants, and
technical consultants and the preparation of studies in support of the Program EIRs
environmental analysis. Working together this group prepared the Draft Program EIR for
release for public review.
3.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
OUTLINE OF INDIVIDUAL WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN (PROJECT) COMPONENTS
The Project, which requires the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 1077 and Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 348.4729, includes the following components:


8];
to Exhibit 3.0-7];
Exhibit 3.0-8]; and
Note that the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (2009) for the Project included a review and
update of the existing County Ordinance including Ordinance No. 348 and a Change of Zone No.
7711, which was intended to include parcel specific zoning map changes to ensure consistency
between the General Plan and County Ordinance No. 348. However, through the collaborative process
of Project development with the Advisory Committee, it was determined that consistency would be
better implemented on a project-by-project basis in accordance with the proposed amendment to
Zoning Ordinance No. 348. Therefore, Change of Zone No. 771 is no longer being proposed as part of
this Project. The Project still includes the amendment to Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348
under Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 as described above.
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USES
The Project is intended to prepare for future controlled growth within southwestern Riverside County
and to achieve the following four objectives within the Project area:
Increase viticulture potential;
Protect rural lifestyle and equestrian activities;
Allow appropriate levels of commercial tourist activities; and
Ensure that future growth within the Project area is coordinated to avoid land use conflicts and
provide appropriate levels of public facilities, services, and infrastructure.
Unlike the parcel-specific land use designations of the usual General Plan Land Use Plans, the Project
makes use of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to depict the regions three distinct


districts: Winery, Residential, and Equestrian. As such, these Districts require unique methodologies for
determining population, dwelling unit and employment/winery projections.
Table 3.0-2, Wine Country Planning Assumptions provides a typical land use breakdown for each District.
The following are general guidelines intended to indicate an anticipated mix of uses and to provide a
means for calculating estimated build out projections. In the course of Project implementation, the
actual land use breakdown will be determined on a case-by-case basis as implementing projects occur
and is expected to differ somewhat from the assumptions below. As described above, the Winery
impact generation for commercial land uses in the Winery District differs from the commercial land use
assumptions of the Residential and Equestrian Districts. Residential and Equestrian Districts use
combination of assumptions in General Plan and Winery, since the two Districts could potentially have
other commercial uses different from the Winery District, especially in the Equestrian District.
Table 3.0-2
Wine Country Planning Assumptions
Land Use Winery Residential Equestrian
Agriculture 54% 30% 75%
Rural Residential 9% 30% 16%
Rural Mountainous - 5% 3%
Estate Density Residential (RC) 9% 33% -
Open Space-Conservation Habitat 10% - -
Commercial Tourist (General Plan) - - 4%
Commercial Tourist 1 (Small) 3% 2% 2%
Commercial Tourist 2 (Medium) 6% - -
Commercial Tourist 3 (Large) 9% - -
Acreage Total 100% 100% 100%

As previously noted, the Project covers approximately 18,990 acres of land proposed for winery, rural
residential and equestrian uses in the unincorporated areas east of the City of Temecula (Exhibit 3.0-4,
Wine Country Community Plan Area). The land uses that would be allowed by the Project are similar to
the existing uses currently allowed by the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance No. 348; however,
the apportionment of these uses would be altered. Refer to Table 3.0-3, Land Use Designations by
Foundation Components. Foundation Components are a grouping of similar land uses designations. The
General Plan Land Use Map consists of five broad Foundation Component land uses: Agriculture, Rural,
Rural Community, Open Space, and Community Development.


Table 3.0-3
Land Use Designations by Foundation Components

Acres
Dwelling
Units Population
Employment/
Other
Agriculture Foundation Component
Agriculture (AG) 9,644 482 1,452 482
Agriculture Foundation Sub-Total: 9,644 482 1,452 482
Rural Foundation Component
Rural Residential (RR) 3,102 465 1,401 NA
Rural Mountainous (RM) 370 19 56 NA
Rural Foundation Sub-Total: 3,472 484 1,457 0
Rural Community Foundation Component
Estate Density Residential (RC-EDR) 2,714 950 2,861 NA
Rural Community Foundation Sub-Total: 2,714 950 2,861 0
Open Space Foundation Component
Open Space-Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) 985 NA NA NA
Open Space Foundation Sub-Total: 985 0 0 0
Community Development Foundation Component
Commercial Tourist (CT) 2,175 NA NA 43,522
CD Foundation Sub-Total: 2,175 0 0 43,522
SUB-TOTAL FOR ALL FOUNDATION USES: 18,990 1,916 5,770 44,004
Source: Draft EIR Appendix J, Land Use Buildout Analysis

Based on the land use assumptions for the Project, the County is anticipating that implementation of the
Project, at full build-out, will result in approximately 1,916 dwelling units resulting in a population of
5,770 residents. In addition to this, approximately 44,004 employees and visitors are anticipated to
work/ visit the Project area at buildout. It is anticipated that a majority of new implementing projects
that occur will be focused on the vacant and agricultural lands within the Project area, which are
scattered throughout the three Districts. The anticipated development is consistent with the primary
objectives of the Project, which seeks to ensure that future growth is balanced and coordinated in such
a way that the rural lifestyle, viticulture, and equestrian activities in the Project area are preserved and
enhanced.
County-Preferred Land Use Alternative
During the development of the Project, County staff developed different land use scenarios for the
Project areas various sub-regions. The development scenario described above, and analyzed in the
Program EIR, is considered the worst-case scenario or most intense potential scenario within the
18,990-acre Project area. However, County staff has identified potential areas that may ultimately be
excluded from the Project due to environmental issues and/or land use conflicts. CEQA requires the
Program to base its impact analysis on the projected worst-case buildout scenario; however, the
Program EIR environmental analysis and public hearing process is expected to result in the identification
of a County-Preferred Land Use Alternative that would provide for the development of a modified
plan that reduces identified impacts as compared to those analyzed in this Program EIR. This potential


reduction could result in a reduced Project footprint and/or land use changes that would result in less
intense development than presently proposed in the worst-case development scenario. Refer to
Exhibit 3.0-5, Wine Country Policy Area with Districts. This alternative may be considered and approved
by the Board of Supervisors and incorporated into the identified Project implementation documents
noted above.
TEMECULA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY POLICY AREA
As depicted in Exhibit 3.0-5, Wine Country Policy Area with Districts, the Temecula Valley Wine Country
Policy Area is divided into three Districts Winery, Equestrian and Residential to ensure the long-term
viability of the areas wine industry while protecting the communitys equestrian rural lifestyle. Each
District of the Policy Area has a corresponding implementing zone, except the Winery District, which has
two implementing zones: one for existing wineries (Wine Country - Winery Existing [WC-WE]) and
another for proposed wineries (Wine Country - Winery [WC-W]).
The overarching policies for this region promote a strong identity for the Temecula Valley Wine Country.
Additional policies applying to each District provide for complimentary uses distinct to the delineated
District. These policies are intended to protect against the development of uses that would be
incompatible with existing agricultural and equestrian uses, so as to avoid future land use conflicts.
These policies would also establish the basis for future land use decisions and a framework for the Wine
Country (WC) Zones and Design Guidelines, which have been established to further promote and
preserve the distinctive character of the area. The following policies are applicable to the Temecula
Valley Wine Country Policy Area:
SWAP 1.1 Require boundary changes to the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to be
subject to the Foundation Component Amendment process unless county-
initiated amendment.
SWAP 1.2 Maintain distinct characters of the Winery, Equestrian, and Residential Districts
through implementing zones to promote harmonious coexistence of these uses.
SWAP 1.3 Permit wineries that maintain established on site vineyards on 10 acres or more
75% of the grapes utilized in wine production and retail wine sales are grown or
raised within the county; and
SWAP 1.4 Permit limited commercial uses such as wineries, sampling rooms, and retail wine
sales establishments on a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres to promote
viticulture potential of this region.
SWAP 1.5 Require a density of ten (10) acres minimum for tentative approval of residential
tract and parcel maps after (adoption date) regardless of the underlying land use
designation except in the Wine Country Residential district where a density of
five (5) acres minimum shall apply.


SWAP 1.6 Allow small-scale cottage inns or cottage industries. Encourage agricultural
operations, equestrian activities and vineyard planting with such uses to reflect
the unique character of this Policy Area.
SWAP 1.7 Develop and implement an integrated trails network that carefully considers
equestrian uses, incidental commercial activities and agricultural operations, and
includes, but is not limited to, regional trails, combination trails, bike paths, open
space trails, historic trails, etc.
SWAP 1.8 Pending adoption of an updated Air Quality Element and Climate Action Plan
(CAP), ensure that new development selects greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
measures from the Option Tables to achieve the Countys GHG emission reduction
thresholds as set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workbook (workbook).
Alternatively, new developments may utilize other reduction mechanisms to
achieve reduction thresholds as prescribe in the workbook.
The Wine Country Winery District generally encompasses the area formerly covered by the
Citrus/Vineyard Policy Area and includes additional areas to the east and south. This District primarily
consists of wineries and auxiliary uses, such as wine tasting rooms, hospitality accommodations,
restaurants, and special facilities for weddings or other events. The primary purpose of the Winery
District is to promote the establishment of additional commercial activities that support tourism
associated with viticulture while ensuring long-term viability of the wine industry in the area. The
secondary purpose of the Winery District is to recognize, and allow the expansion of, existing wineries
that are an integral part of the Temecula Valley Wine Country economy. Policies proposed for the
Winery District include:
SWAP 1.9 Encourage new incidental commercial uses that promote tourist related activities
for the wine industry as described in the Wine Country Winery (WC-W) Zone.
SWAP 1.10 Allow the 28 existing wineries shown on Figure 4a to expand as described in the
Wine Country Winery Existing (WC-WE) Zone.
SWAP 1.11 Allow incidental commercial uses such as special occasion facilities, hotels,
resorts, restaurants and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries on lots larger
than 20 acres for WC-W zone and on lots larger than 10 acres for WC-WE zone.
The Wine Country Equestrian District generally encompasses the area formerly covered by the Valle de
los Caballos Policy Area. This District consists primarily of large estate lots with custom home site, large
commercial horse ranches, small independent ranches, stables, and other equestrian service facilities
and amenities including facilities which hold national and international competition events. The
purpose of the Equestrian District is to ensure continuation of and encourage future development of
equestrian uses in the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to make this community a destination
that would be unique in the nation. Policies specific to the Equestrian District include:


SWAP 1.12 Encourage equestrian establishments that promote the equestrian lifestyle as
described in the Wine Country Equestrian (WC-E) Zone.
SWAP 1.13 Permit incidental commercial uses such as western stores, polo grounds, or horse
racing tracks, petting zoos, event grounds, horse auction facilities, horse show
facilities, animal hospitals, restaurants, delicatessens, and special occasion
facilities in conjunction with equestrian establishments on lots larger than 10
acres to encourage equestrian tourism in this community.
The Wine Country Residential District is located in the central and northeastern portions of the
Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area. This District consists of both small and large ranch estate
communities, vineyards, and groves. The purpose of the Residential District is to encourage permanent
residential estates in this region to balance the tourism related activities. Policies specific to the
Residential District include:
SWAP 1.14 Encourage residential development that complements the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Policy Area as described in the Wine Country Residential (WC-R) Zone.
SWAP 1.15 Encourage residential tracts and parcel maps to cluster development in
conjunction with on-site vineyards or equestrian land provided that the overall
project density yield does not exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. While
the lot sizes in a clustered development may vary, require a minimum lot size of 1
acre, with at least 75% of the project area permanently set aside as vineyards or
equestrian land.
EXISTING WINERIES
Currently, there are currently approximately 42 wineries operating within the Project area (Exhibit 3.0-6,
Existing Wineries). These wineries are categorized as small, medium, or large based on the amenities
offered onsite. Small winery operations typically have vineyards and tasting rooms, whereas medium
wineries have vineyards, tasting rooms, and a combination of one or two additional ancillary uses such
as restaurants, special occasion facilities, or lodging facilities. Large-size wineries typically include
vineyards, tasting rooms, and resort-type uses (such as lodging, special occasion facilities, restaurants,
spas, etc).
PROJECT CIRCULATION
The vehicular circulation system in the Southwest Area Plan is anchored by Interstate 15 and Interstate
215, which run north towards the Cities of Corona and Moreno Valley, respectively. I-215 merges with I-
15, in the City of Temecula. Access to the Project area is obtained via State Route 79 (South) or Rancho
California Road from Interstate 15. The Project area can also be accessed from Winchester Road (State
Route 79 North) where it intersects with Washington Street/Scott Road in French Valley and heads
south changing its name to Buck and then to Borel Road at the northwest corner of the Project area
before becoming Rancho California Road. Access from the northeast can also occur via DePortola Road
and Sage Road, which connect the Project area to the southeastern portion of the City of Hemet.
Rancho California and De Portola Roads are considered Mountain Arterials (110 ROW), generally run
southwest to northeast through the Project area serving the rural areas east of Temecula. Major (118


right-of-way (ROW)) and Collector (74 ROW) roads branch off from these major roadways in a generally
north-south direction and provide access to local neighborhoods. Due to the rolling topography of the
Project area, the roadway network is less complex than found in more urbanized areas. Details of the
proposed circulation system and roadway/traffic control improvements can be found in Section 4.14 of
this Program EIR, Transportation and Traffic, and on Exhibit 3.0-7, Proposed Circulation Map. The
following is a summary of existing circulation and proposed improvements.

The traffic study prepared for the Project recommends innovative street improvements, which would
minimize/ reduce traffic impacts created by implementing projects allowed pursuant to the Project.
These improvement include, but are not limited to:
Roundabouts Five roundabouts are proposed along Rancho California Road to maintain rural
character of this region while allowing efficient volume capacity and traffic calming on this
critical road. The roundabout at Rancho California Road and Anza Road will be the first of five
roundabouts located at La Serena Way, Calle Contento, Monte De Oro Road and Glenoaks
Road. These roundabouts will allow vehicular, equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian traffic to
interact through the intersection more efficiently and safely while keeping its natural wine
county landscape.
Traffic Signalization/Signs the construction of traffic signals/signs for pedestrians, bikers, and
equestrians are proposed at strategic locations to promote non-motorized circulation in the
Project area;
Re-striping re-striping of intersections/ roadways to accommodate additional traffic,
additional turn lanes, or increase traffic flow;
Number of Lanes several roadways have been downgraded from the Countys Circulation
Element (as shown on Exhibit 3.0-7 and described in Section 6 of the TIA, Appendix I) to
maintain the rural character of the Project area;
Dedication of Lanes dedication of lanes to particular uses, such as right turn only or left turn
only lanes;
Creation of Intersections the creation of new signalized intersections or the creation of
roundabouts to allow for greater vehicle movement within the Project area;
Creation of new roadway linkages the creation of new roadways within the Project area
allowing for vehicular movement in areas where movement was previously unavailable.
With these improvements, the Project area circulation would become more efficient and accommodate
additional traffic anticipated to result from the buildout of the Project area. It should be noted that
many of the anticipated improvements associated with the Project could occur in areas outside of the
Project area (i.e., Offsite Improvements). Such offsite improvements would be critical components of
the overall circulation system and would help ensure that impacts associated with Project-facilitated
development located outside of the Project area would be reduced and minimized. Implementation of
these proposed roadway improvements may require the payment of fees and assessments to the
affected jurisdictions or physical construction of the improvements by or in connection with future
Project area development to ensure that Project-related traffic impacts are reduced/ minimized as
Project area development proceeds over time.
In addition to the construction of physical improvements, the County is also proposing implementation
of Traffic Demand Management strategies to reduce traffic impacts within the Project area and
surrounding areas. The purpose of implementing these strategies would be to reduce the total number


of vehicles traveling through the Project area, while maintaining or increasing the number of people
visiting the winery related establishments. These strategies may include development of park-and-ride
facilities, bus tour facilities, and/or designated businesses that provide shuttle service to the wineries
within the Project area.
Non-Vehicular Circulation
The County of Riverside contains multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers, bicyclists, and
equestrian users as an integral part of the County's circulation system. These facilities serve both as a
means of connecting the unique communities and activity centers throughout the County and as a
means of facilitating modes of transportation with no emission of air pollutants or GHGs. Within the
SWAP, a network of trails is planned for the Wine Country region to provide pedestrians, visitors,
equestrians, and bicyclists with alternative modes of travel while providing attractive recreational
opportunities. However, it does not connect all the existing wineries and other tourist destinations,
such as Lake Skinner and Vail Lake, through equestrian and multi-purpose trails system. A Trails Sub-
committee worked with the County Regional Parks and Open Space District and Planning Staff in the
development of a trails network that was more conducive to this regions destination places and users
needs. As a result of their work effort, Figure 8 (Trails and Bikeway System Map) of the SWAP would be
revised through GPA No. 1077. Exhibit 3.0-8, Proposed Trails Network, illustrates the revisions
proposed under GPA No. 1077 to the current SWAP Trails and Bicycle System map (Figure 8).
Circulation Improvement Funding
As this Program EIR is being prepared, the County is weighing the various options to fund the proposed
circulation system improvements needed to address potential impacts to the area circulation system
that would be created by the incremental implementation of development permitted pursuant to the
Project. The County currently imposes development impact fees on projects located within the
Southwest Area Plan. As part of an ongoing process, the County would review the adequacy of these
fees to cover the costs associated with proposed street improvements designed to mitigate the
anticipated traffic. At the time of this writing, the County is investigating the feasibility of such funding
mechanisms as the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD), the use of a Community Service
Area (CSA) assessment, individual assessments and fee imposed on implementing projects as conditions
of approval.
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
Domestic Water Distribution
The majority of the Project area is served by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), which
provides water service for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta and adjacent unincorporated areas. A
detailed discussion of water supply and water supply infrastructure for the Project area is contained in
Section 4.13 of this Program EIR, Public Services, Recreation and Utilities.
At full buildout, assuming the worst-case development scenario possible pursuant to the Project,
there would be an approximately 38 percent increase in water demand within the Project area as
compared to the demand anticipated pursuant to the current General Plan land use designations (but
not taking into account the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de los Caballos Policy Areas).
RCWDs Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) includes master planned facilities (pipelines, pump
stations and reservoirs) to be built throughout the Districts service area. Facilities within the Project


area are shown on Exhibit 3.0-9, WFMP Proposed Facilities. These facilities include the major
infrastructure components anticipated for the Project area. The sizing of the master planned facilities as
well as the distribution pipelines would require analysis when a future implementing project requests
water service to ensure redundancy, hydraulic availability and constructability.
Wastewater (Sewer) System
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which currently provides sewer service to the City of
Temecula, a portion of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated area in Riverside County within the
EMWDs Temecula Valley service area, would be expected to provide sanitary sewer service and
wastewater treatment to the Project area. In May 2011, EMWD completed the Wine Country
Infrastructure Study (WCIS) to assess the potential projected service needs of existing uses within the
Project area as well as anticipated growth that would be facilitated by the adoption and subsequent
implementation of the Project. Details of the proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities
that are planned to serve the Project area are provided in Section 4.13 of this Program EIR.
EMWD identified potential alternatives to accommodate Project sewer flows. Descriptions of these
alternatives from the WCIS are provided below.
2
Note that this study is currently being refined by
EMWD. In discussing these alternatives, it is helpful to differentiate the three subareas within the
boundary of the Project area: Lower Wine Country (Lower WC) is the western portion of the Project area
that generally can be connected to the existing Rancho California Road sewer without pumping; Upper
Wine Country (Upper WC) is the northern portion of the Project area that would require pumping to
connect to the existing system; and the Highway 79 area is the southern portion of Wine Country that is
generally tributary to the existing sewer in Highway 79.
Alternative A is considered the base alternative where Lower WC is served by the
Rancho California Road sewer, Upper WC is served by the Nicolas Road sewer, and the
Highway 79 area is served by the Highway 79 sewer. Lower WC is naturally tributary to
Ranch California Road and the Highway 79 area is generally tributary to the Highway 79
sewers. Upper WC will require pumping to route Project wastewater flows to the
existing collection system along Nicolas Road. A network of regional facilities would be
required to provide sewer service to the Project area for Alternative A. These regional
facilities are defined in the EMWD Wine Country Infrastructure Study (WCIS).
Alternative B (the Nicolas Road Alternative) routes both Upper WC and Highway 79 area
flows to the Nicolas Road sewer. The Lower WC area remains served by the Rancho
California Road sewer, as in Alternative A. Alternative B routes flows from the Highway
79 area, through the Upper WC area, and ultimately towards the Nicolas Road sewers. A
lift station located along Highway 79 (South Calle Contento Lift Station) would intercept
the Highway 79 flow and deliver it via a force main to a proposed sewer in Upper WC.
From that point, new sewers and a new lift station along Calle Contento, north of
Rancho California Road, are needed to deliver the combined Highway 79 and Upper WC
flows to the existing Nicolas Road sewer.
Alternative C, proposes that all flows are routed to the Rancho California Road sewer
from the Project area. To accomplish this, Alternative C requires that both the Highway

2
Eastern Municipal Water District, Wine Country Infrastructure Study, pgs. 5-1 through 5-14 (May 2011). Note that this study
is currently in draft form.


79 and Upper WC areas be pumped to Lower WC. Alternative C routes flows from the
Highway 79 area, via a lift station and force main along Butterfield Stage Road. Upper
WC is routed to Lower WC, via a lift station and force main along Rancho California
Road, just west of Calle Contento.
EMWD developed flow scenarios for their analysis assuming that at buildout 4.21 million gallons per day
(mgd) of total effluent will be generated by the Project area. Based on the analysis conducted by
EMWD, it was determined that each alternative could accommodate anticipated flows.
Septic Facilities
Numerous properties within the Project area currently utilize septic systems for wastewater disposal. At
this time, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is concerned about the use of
onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) within the Project area due to groundwater quality
concerns. In response to this, RWQCB has requested that all commercial implementing projects
proposing OWTS with an average aggregate (total) wastewater flow greater than 1,200 gallons per day
(gpd) must be referred to them for assessment of compliance with water quality standards.
3
Note that
the 1,200 gallon per day standard is under review by RWQCB and may not remain in place throughout
the life of the Project. Residential projects would be limited to the 1,200 gpd average aggregate
wastewater flow regardless of the number of family units. It is possible that future implementing
projects within the Project area Country may include OWTS as the wastewater solution (refer to Section
4.13, Public Services and Utilities for additional details).
Drainage Facilities
As build out of the Project occurs, incremental onsite drainage improvements would be constructed to
control any increased flows above the natural condition and the need for additional major public storm
water management infrastructure improvements is not anticipated. The onsite detention and slow
release of incremental flows would be expected to prevent any increase in downstream erosion or
sediment load. Preservation of existing natural drainages and their associated habitat is anticipated as
implementing projects within the Project area are proposed due to the continued enforcement of
existing federal, State, and regional/local regulations. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology & Water Quality
for additional discussion.
3.7 PROJECT PHASING
Build out of the Project area is anticipated to occur in year 2035 and would be driven by market demand
and conditioned by the availability of infrastructure capacity. For planning purposes, a build-out
projection was performed by County staff. Table 3.0-4, Wine Country Buildout Projection, illustrates a
potential development pattern for wineries based on the Project-wide land use capacity pursuant to the
Project. Based on this analysis, a total of 56 new wineries of various sizes would be constructed and
added to the existing 32 wineries operating in the Winery District. Currently there is one existing winery
in the Residential District (Briar Rose Winery) and no wineries in the Equestrian District. To calculate the
number of wineries, a land use study was conducted that:

3
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Temecula Valley Wine Country Memorandum. Submitted to Mr. Steve Van
,Stockum, Director of Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (May 27, 2010).


1. Analyzed existing and proposed winery uses to determine the appropriate proportion of
commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing uses;
2. Inventoried parcel sizes in the area to determine the land use capacity based on acreages; and
3. Examined existing and proposed winery records maintained by the County Planning Department
and Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association (TVWA) to determine the development trend in
the area for forecasting purposes.
As Table 3.0-4, Wine Country Buildout Projection, indicates, the total available land for development of
wineries would accommodated approximately 88 wineries, inclusive of those already in operation as of
the date of the study, with a mix consisting of 21 large, 37 medium, and 30 small-sized operations in the
Winery District and approximately 105, with 21 large, 37 medium and 47 small-sized operation for the
entire Project area. It should be noted that this study was conducted at a time when 32 wineries existed
within the Project area. Since that time 8 additional wineries have been identified and currently operate
within the Project area. At this time it is anticipated that 65 additional wineries will be developed in the
Project area based on the buildout analysis prepared by the County and the number of existing wineries
currently in operation.
Table 3.0-4
Wine Country Buildout Projection

As noted in Table 3.0-4 above, the land capacity for wineries at buildout is approximately 6 and 11 in the
Equestrian and Residential District, respectively. All wineries in these Districts would be small sized
wineries. In addition, at buildout the projected total amounts of dwelling units in the Equestrian and
Residential Districts are 199 and 978, respectively. Within the Winery District 739 units are anticipated.
The amount of residential and non-residential development in any given year would depend on a variety
of factors, including the cyclical nature of the housing and non-residential markets, funding, and
regulatory process.
PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project Design Features have either been incorporated into the Project or have been
otherwise stipulated by the County. These following features are considered in each impact section
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
2035
(build-
out)
Existing
Wineries
in Winery
District
Proposed
Wineries
in Winery
District
Total
Wineries
in Winery
District
Small 20 6 4 0 0 0 20 10 30
Medium 8 5 5 5 6 8 8 29 37
Large 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 17 21
TOTAL 32 14 14 8 9 11 32 56 88
Note:
Small Size Wineries = Vineyard and tasting room
Medium Size Wineries = Vineyards, tasting room, and combination of one or two more uses such as restaurants, special occasion
facilities, or lodging facilities,
Large Size Wineries = Vineyard, tasting room and resort type of uses
105 Total Wineries have been assumed for the entire Project area (47 Small, 37 Medium, 21 Large). 88 in Winery, 6 in Equestrian,
and 11 in Residential. All wineries in Equestrian and Residential Districts are small size wineries.
Refer to Appendix J for detailed information and assumptions.


(i.e., Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of the EIR) and either avoid, reduce, offset, or otherwise minimize
identified potential adverse impacts of the Project or serve as betterments providing significant
benefit to the community and/or to the physical environment:
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
1. The Project will require that implementing projects adhere to the new development standards
proposed under the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. This will include additional setbacks on
major roadways, consistent allowable maximum height requirements, etc.
3. The Project will require 75% of implementing project on future winery sites be planted with
5. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.6) will encourage agricultural operations, equestrian
activities and vineyard planting which will reflect the unique character of this Policy Area.
6. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.2) will maintain distinct rural, agricultural and equestrian
characters in the Project area through implementation of the Wine Country Districts and
corresponding zones.
the Wine Country Wine District.
incidental commercial uses that compliment existing equestrian establishments on lots larger
9. The Project (proposed SWAP Policy 1.15) will encourage residential tract and parcel maps with
an overall project density yield not to exceed one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. This large lot
size requirement will preserve and enhance the rural feel in the Wine Country Residential
District.
10. The Circulation Element Amendment is anticipated to reduce average daily trips while
maintaining the rural feel of Wine Country through adherence to the Temecula Valley Wine
Country Design Guidelines. In addition, the Proposed Circulation Map (refer to Exhibit 3.0-7)
shows several roadways would be downgraded from the current Countys Circulation Element,
and several intersections would be improved through the creation of roundabouts which would
enhance or maintain the rural character of the Project area.
11. The Project through the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area Design Guidelines would
recommend that all exterior lighting fixtures be directed downward and properly aimed at
targeted areas, which will minimize light spillover. The Guidelines would also recommend that,
if grading is necessary, contoured slopes or rounded slopes should be manufactured and buffer


zones should be provided between buildings and vineyards for an easy transition from built
areas to grapevines.
Air Quality
2. Refer to Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Project Design Features #3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 above which will
of the Project site, resulting in fewer average daily trips which will in turn decrease air quality
impacts in the Project area and surrounding communities.
Agricultural Resources
2. Within the Winery District, implementing project which propose incidental commercial uses will
be allowed only on winery sites larger than 20 acres for the WC-W zone and 10 acres for the
WC-WE zone.
3. Within the Equestrian District, implementing project which propose incidental commercial uses
will be allowed only on equestrian establishments on lots larger than 10 acres.
4. The Project will require 75% of implementing projects involving commercial equestrian
establishments be set aside for permanent equestrian lands (proposed Draft Wine Country
Zone, Development Standard F.2).
5. Within the Residential District, implementing projects which propose residential tracts or parcel
maps will be required to cluster development in conjunction with onsite vineyards or equestrian
land such that the overall project density yield does not exceed one dwelling unit per five (5)
acres. At least 75% of the implementing project area will be permanently set aside as vineyards
or equestrian land.
6. At buildout, the Project is anticipated to result in a total of 9,644 acres of land designated for
agriculture-related uses, including equestrian lands.
7. The proposed Wine Country Equestrian (WC-E) and Residential (WC-R) zones would allow as a
permitted use the grazing, keeping or boarding of horses, cattle, sheep, goats, or other farm
stock, in addition to other similar agriculture-promoting uses.


the Wine Country Winery District.
incidental commercial uses that complement existing equestrian establishments on lots larger
5. The Project (proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729) within the Wine Country
Equestrian (WC-E) Zone will allow the following uses related to biological resources:
commercial equestrian establishments;
the grazing, keeping or boarding of horses, cattle, sheep, goats or other farm stock,
excluding hogs;
selective or experimental breeding and raising of horses, cattle, sheep, and goats
petting zoo;
polo grounds or horse show facility;
horse racing track or rodeo arena;
large animal hospital provided that temporary boarding facilities are established for the
purposes of boarding sick or injured animals.
Cultural Resources
require large minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres. This would make it reasonable to preserve
more open space and reduce the amount of deep excavation and grading within the Project site,
reducing the potential for impacts to cultural resources. This would allow more physical space
to design to avoid and preserve cultural resources.
to accommodate Project sewer flows, reducing reliance on onsite septic treatment facilities.
Descriptions of these alternatives are provided above.
2. On-site drainage improvements would be made at the time implementing projects occur to
control any increased flows and ensure erosion of downstream environments do not occur.
2. Refer to Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Project Design Features #3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 (refer to Chapter
3.0 Project Description), which will require large minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres and a
minimum vineyard planting or equestrian land requirement of 75%. This will reduce the overall
land use density and intensity of the Project site, resulting in fewer average daily trips which will
in turn decrease air quality impacts in the Project area and surrounding communities.
3. The Project (revised SWAP Policy 1.8) will require that pending adoption of an updated Air


Quality Element and Climate Action Plan (CAP), the County will ensure that new development
selects greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures from the Option Tables to achieve the
Countys GHG emission reduction thresholds as set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Workbook (workbook). Alternatively, new developments may utilize other reduction
mechanisms to achieve reduction thresholds as prescribe in the workbook.
There are no Project Design Features that have been developed with specific respect to hazards and
hazardous materials.
1. The Project includes requirements to limit the intensity and density of implementing projects,
including retention of at least 75% of all winery project acreage as agricultural production, and
requiring minimum lot sizes in the Winery, Winery-Existing, and Equestrian Districts, thereby
reducing impervious surfaces and associated stormwater runoff.
1. The Plan would establish three distinct Districts within the General Plan Policy Area to maximize
the areas viticulture and related uses, and balance the need to protect existing rural lifestyles in
the area.
2. The Project is itself self mitigating in that it provides additional policies, land use controls, and
design guidelines that are estimated to result in substantially reduced overall land use density
and intensity, as well as better coordinated land use planning that allows all three primary land
uses to function with minimal conflict.
Mineral Resources
1. The Project reduces the overall density of development in the Project area, thereby reducing the
permanent footprint of structures and roads, preserving the option for future mineral
extraction;
2. Within the Winery District, the proposed Project requires a minimum of 75% of land set aside
for agricultural production (viticulture). This land would remain available for potential future
mineral extraction.
Noise
these facilities. This would greatly reduce noise impacts on neighboring properties.
of the Project site, resulting in fewer average daily trips which will in turn decrease ambient
traffic-generated, operational, and site development noise in the Project area and surrounding
communities.
3. The Project will require special occasion facilities that propos indoor events to conduct a Noise
Study prior to Plot Plan/CUP approval. Similarly, special occasion facilities that propose outdoor


events will be required to conduct an Acoustical Analysis prior to Plot Plan/CUP approval.
1. The Project proposes the expansion of roadways and trail facilities within the Project area as
illustrated in Exhibit 3.0-7 and 3.0-8.
to accommodate Project sewer flows. Descriptions of these alternatives are provided above.
3. As stated in the Final Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Upper Santa
Margarita Watershed Planning Region, RCWD is planning to improve groundwater recharge
facilities and construct up to 18 new groundwater wells to increase water supply and
conjunctive use storage for its service area.
4. RCWDs Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) includes master planned facilities (pipelines, pump
stations and reservoirs) to be built throughout the Districts service area. Facilities within the
Project area are shown on Exhibit 3.0-8, WFMP Proposed Facilities.
2. The Project will design and develop the vehicular roadway system per Figure 7 (Circulation) of
the SWAP, and in accordance with the functional classifications and standards specified in the
General Plan Circulation Element.
3. The Project will maintain the Countys roadway Level of Service standards as described in the
Level of Service section of the General Plan Circulation Element.
3.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
PERMITS/APPROVALS CURRENTLY BEING SOUGHT
The County of Riverside exercises discretionary authority over the Project and is, therefore, the Lead
Agency pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the Project could require the following permits and
approvals from the County. The following list is not exhaustive and is based on the best data available at
the time of Draft Program EIR was prepared.
Adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 1077 (GPA 1077), which includes revisions, updates,
and additions to the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the Riverside County General Plan,
including but not limited to:
o Deletion of policies of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy Areas,
specifically policies SWAP 1.1 through SWAP 2.1;
o Addition of the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area and applicable policies.
o Revision to Statistical Summary Table 2 of the SWAP
o Deletion of the boundaries of the Citrus Vineyard and Valle de Los Caballos Policy Areas
and the addition of the boundary of Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area to SWAP
Policy Areas Figure 4
o Revision to SWAP Circulation Network Figure 7
o Revision to SWAP Trails and Bikeway Systems Figure 8


o Revision to General Plan Circulation Element Circulation Network Figure C- 1
o Revision to General Plan Circulation Element Trails Network Figure C- 7
o Amendment of any other portions of the General Plan or SWAP required to reflect
changes arising from the proposed SWAP amendments and various Project components.
Adoption of revisions to the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348.4729 to add four new
Zoning Classifications that would implement the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area:
Wine Country Winery; Wine Country Winery Existing; Wine Country Residential; and Wine
Country Equestrian.
Approval / Amendments to supporting regulatory or advisory documents, such as replacing the
Citrus Vineyard Design Guidelines with the proposed Temecula Valley Wine Country Design
Guidelines.
Current Wine Country Proposals
In addition to the permits/ approvals currently being sought, there are approximately 67 existing
planning cases for projects located within the Project area that are currently under review by the County
Planning Department (refer to Section 4.0, Overview of EIR Methodology). The types of cases being
reviewed include: Conditional Use Permits, General Plan Amendments, Parcel Maps, Plot Plans, and
Tentative Tract Maps. These pending planning cases are in various stages of the process ranging from
the initial submittal of applications to projects that have been tentatively approved and are awaiting
final approval by County staff. Some of these implementing projects may conflict with the Project and
would require special consideration, especially if these conflicts generate impacts to surrounding uses.
Potential Future Permit/Approvals
Future site-specific implementing projects will require subsequent discretionary review and approval by
the County of Riverside. As part of this review it is anticipated that these implementing projects would
require a variety of future permits and approvals. Table 3.0-5, Potential Future Permits and Approvals,
summarizes some of the anticipated requirements for these future implementing projects.


Table 3.0-5
Potential Future Permits and Approvals
Changes of Zone Approvals (implementing projects would require a Change of Zone to
comply with their respective proposed underlying zoning classification [i.e., WC-W, WC-
WE, WC-E, or WC-R])
Land Use Planning Approvals (Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, Conditional
Use Permits, Plot Plans, etc.)
Subdivision Mapping Approvals (Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, etc.)
Engineering Plan Approvals (Grading, Building and Infrastructure Plans/Permits
Biological Resources Permitting (MSHCP consistency analysis, Section 404 Permit,
California Endangered Species Act permitting [if necessary], Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement)
Water Quality Plans and Permits (Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP], National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
[NPDES] permits)
Air quality permits
Compliance with this Program EIR No. 524 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and related Conditions of Approval







Policy Area Map
Exhibit 3.0-2
!
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan Project Boundary - Image provided by Riverside County Planning, June 30, 2011





Temecula Wine Country

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Temecula Wine Country

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Testimony for Wine Country Community Plan

Policy Related Comments

4:49 PM7/23/2012 4:49 PM

From: Peggy [mailto:peggy@temeculawines.org]

7:49 AM7/23/2012 7:49 AM

9:07 AM7/23/2012 9:07 AM

From: Wendell Cole [mailto:drcole79@verizon.net]

From: GOH Residential Representative [mailto:resgrp2020-wc@yahoo.com]

From: J uanita Koth [mailto:jkoth@dslextreme.com]

12:48 PM7/23/2012 12:48 PM

From: Anne4Property [mailto:info@Anne4Property.com]

Visit my website at: www.Anne4Property.com - Search the MLS in over 10 counties.

8:38 AM7/23/2012 8:38 AM

From: Faddoul Baida [mailto:faddoulbaida@yahoo.com]

12:50 PM7/23/2012 12:50 PM

From: Susanne Campbell [mailto:suzanochka@sbcglobal.net]

Ms. Mitra Mehta-Cooper, AICP

8:50 AM7/24/2012 8:50 AM

Freeways/Express Ways: Butterfield Stage Rd. Plans approved in

3:30 PM7/17/2012 3:30 PM

From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh

From: grandylss@aol.com [mailto:grandylss@aol.com]

From: J ana Dorr [mailto:janadorr@gmail.com]

From: Nancy Bennett [mailto:nbjbennett@yahoo.com]

ExistingandSurroundingUses: TheChaudhuriparcelsarecurrentlyvacant.Theexistingusesof surrounding

0 0.25 0.5 Mile

0 0.2 0.4 Mile

0 0.1 0.2 Mile

0 0.35 0.7 Mile

From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh [mailto:PNANTHAV@rctlma.org]

From: Ron & Lynda Smith [mailto:ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]

From: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh [mailto:PNANTHAV@rctlma.org]

From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra

From: Ron & Lynda Smith [mailto:ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]

From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra [mailto:MMEHTA@rctlma.org]

From: Ron & Lynda Smith [mailto:ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]

From: Ron & Lynda Smith [mailto:ronlyndasmith@bellsouth.net]

0 0.3 0.6 Mile

0 0.1 0.2 Mile

0 0.05 0.1 Mile

From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra

From: J ose Renato Cartagena [mailto:renato.car@verizon.net]

From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra [mailto:MMEHTA@rctlma.org]

Jose R. Cartagena, P.E.

5:09 PM10/20/2011 5:09 PM

From: Cartagena, J ose [mailto:J ose.Cartagena@disney.com]

Jose R. Cartagena, P.E.

0 0.05 0.1 Mile

From: Michael Newcomb [mailto:michael@newcomblawgroup.com]

0 0.1 0.2 Mile

From: Russ Mann [mailto:RMann@covario.com]

1:55 PM1/30/2012 1:55 PM

From: Russ Mann [mailto:RMann@covario.com]

From: Russ Mann

1:56 PM1/30/2012 1:56 PM

From: Russ Mann [mailto:RMann@covario.com]

From: Russ Mann

1:57 PM1/30/2012 1:57 PM

From: Russ Mann

1:59 PM1/30/2012 1:59 PM

0 0.1 0.2 Mile

From: J ennifer Calixto [mailto:rjcalixto@msn.com]

0 0.05 0.1 Mile