Temecula Wine Country
Temecula Wine Country
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
Phone(951)9557436
Fax(951)9551811
[email protected]
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
Phone(951)9557436
Fax(951)9551811
[email protected]
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!
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
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
Phone(951)9557436
Fax(951)9551811
[email protected]
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
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, J une 24, 2012 3:50 PM
To: [email protected]; 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Adrian McGregor <[email protected]>
Subject: Box Please include all 55 pages below in sent form and from PDF files into Public Record
To: "Wine Country Adrian McGregor" <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
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.
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.
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, J uly 18, 2012 7:20 PM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, J uly 16, 2012 2:21 PM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 10, 2012 2:45 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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 <[email protected]>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
Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
Urban Regional Planner III
County of Riverside Planning Dept.
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).
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 10, 2012 6:28 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: Questions regarding Community Plan
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 17, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 17, 2012 3:25 PM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
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: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 17, 2012 9:22 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
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: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, J uly 17, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
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
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Sent: Wednesday, J uly 18, 2012 3:54 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Temecula Trails Plan
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 [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, J uly 11, 2012 5:19 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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
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;
EnvironmentalConsideration In/Out
FloodZone In,TemeculaCreek Streamline
HighFireArea
OutofHighFireArea; areawestofAnzaisoutofHighFireArea;areaeastofAnza
Rd.iswithinStateResponsibilityArea
Faultline Out,notwithin1/2mileofafault
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: [email protected]
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:
[email protected]
Group B-Exhibit A2
Mitra Mehta , Principal Planner
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Riverside County Administrative Center
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.
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.
July 02 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
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.
EnvironmentalConsideration In/Out
FloodZone Out
HighFireArea OutofHighFireArea; however,within StateResponsibilityArea
Faultline Out,notwithin1/2mileofafault
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
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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.
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.
May 21 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
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).
EnvironmentalConsideration In/Out
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 5:43 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: Temecula Property
Attachments: Temecula wine district choice.docx
May 1, 2012
To: County of Riverside Planning Dept
Attn: [email protected]
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 [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:11 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
Phayvanh..
Yourresponsewasverycomprehensive,answeredmyquestions,andIdoappreciateyoureffort.
ThankYouRonSmith
ThankyouMr.Smith,
Ihopethatthepagewashelpful.Ihaveprovidedanswersbelowinred.Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions.
Thankyou,
Phayvanh
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
HelloMr.Smith,
http://www.socalwinecountryplan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RwtMLxFsLrQ%3d&tabid=68
Thankyouforcontactingmebackthisafternoon.Theabovelinkistothecomparisonchartofallowableusesineach
proposeddistricts.Itwillgiveyouanideaofwhatisallowedineachzone,thetypeofapplicationforeachuseand
minimumacreages.Pleasereviewthechart,andwecandiscussanyconcernsyoumayhaveandyourpreferreddistrict
forthisparcel.
Ilookforwardtohearingbackfromyou,
Phayvanh
HelloMr.Smith:
1:23 PM10/13/2011 1:23 PM
3
IamforwardingyouremailtoMs.Phayvanhwhowouldbeabletocallyouat:9545654960todiscussyouroptions.
Youcouldprovideheryourrequestafterthatdiscussion.
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).
Hiagainandthanksforyourquickresponse.
DoesmyrequesteliminatemefromanythingIshouldbeawareof.
Doesthisequestriandesignationeliminatemefromhavingresidentialsubdivisionsinthefuture.Imadeanattempt
andspentmoneylastyeartohavemyzoningchangedtoresidential.Itwasdeniedbythecityduetocongestions
worriesatthattime.Idointendtopursuethisinthefutureandwouldnotwanttodoanythingthatwouldjeopardize
thateffortorchangetheclassificationofmypropertyinanyway.
Ifthisissopleasetakemynameoffthisrequest.IfhavinganequestriandesignationdoesnothamperfutureeffortsI
amokaywithit.
Idoliveoutoftownsoitismoredifficulttogettothefineprintonanyoftheseproposals.
Yourmentionofpeoplenotknowingwhattheysigngavemepauseforconcern.
WithGratitudeRonaldLSmith
GoodafternoonMr.Smith:
Thankyouforsendingmethisemail.IhaveapetitionthatsaidthatyouwanttoberemovedfromthisPlanBoundaryor
haveresidentialsubdivisions.WhenIreceivedthatpetition,Iwonderedifeveryonethatsignedthatpieceofpaperhad
understoodwhattheyweresigning.
Youarecorrect.IfyourpropertygetsadoptedfortheEquestrianDistrict,itwouldallowyoutohaveequestrianusesand
awineryperthecurrentproposal.
1:23 PM10/13/2011 1:23 PM
4
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).
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
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Equestrian designation VS wine designation for my property
FYI
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
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.
May 30 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
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.
EnvironmentalConsideration In/Out
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.
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.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
From: [email protected][mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:14 AM
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 [email protected]
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.
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.
May 16 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
IhopeyouknowthatIhavethetoughtaskofcomingupwithaplantoimplementSup.JeffStonesvisioninan
environmentallysensitivemanner.
Thankyouforyourunderstanding,
Mitra
Mitra
Thanksfortheinformationprovided.
Inregardstothe20acresminimumrequirements,myneighborsandIwereplanningonjoiningeffortsandputtingour
propertiestogethertomeetandexceedthe20acresrequired.Thewaterorsewerissuescanchangeintime,ifthe
locationiszonedforhotelswecanhandletheissuesaccordingly.
Iamverysorrythatthisisnotpossible,dealingwiththeplanningcommissionorBoardofsupervisorsmaybemore
difficulttogetanapproval,atthattimewheneveryanalysisiscomplete.Iwantedtocontributetothedevelopmentof
thearea,butperhapsistimeformetogiveup.IdonthaveJeffsemail,pleaseforwardthisemailstohimsoheis
awareofthecommunitydesires.
Thanks
JoseCartagena
5629655561cell
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
Mitra Mehta-Cooper, AICP
Principal Planner - Strategic Programs,
Riverside County Planning Department,
4080 Lemon St. 9th 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).
From: Cartagena, J ose [mailto:J [email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Barnes, Olivia
Cc: J ose Cartagena; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Subject: RE: Temecula Re-zoning
Olivia
Great!thanksforforwardingtheinformationtoMitra,IllappreciateifyouorMitracancallmeontheCellnumber
below,Ihavesomequestions.
Thanks
HelloMr.Cartagena,
ThankyouforyourrequestforinclusionofyourpropertyintheWineCountryPlanboundaries.Iamforwardingyour
requesttoMitraforherconsiderationandinput.Mitraorherstaffwillcontactyouinthenearfuture.
Regards,
Olivia Barnes
LegislativeTeamMember
SupervisorJeffStone
ThirdDistrict
[email protected]
Riverside:
Phone9519551033
Fax9519552194
FrenchValley
37600SkyCanyonDr.#505
Murrieta,CA92563
Ph.9516987326,Fax9516770669
TollFreeNo.(866)3832203
DearOlivia
Iwouldliketotalktoyoumoreabouttherezoningofthewinecountryarea.
Itwasapleasuremeetingyesterdayatthewinecountryrezoningpresentation;thepresentationwasveryencouraging
andinformative,youcancountwithmysupportandthesupportofsomeofmyfriendsinthearea.
Iown5acresintheareabutisnotincludedinthemap,Iwouldlikeyourdepartmenttoconsidermysuggestedchanges.
PleaseseetheattachmentandIwouldliketodiscussthembyphoneorinperson.Ifbyiphonepleasecallmetothe
personalcel#5629655561,thanks.
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
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.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Mitra
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: [email protected]
December 5, 2011
Mitra Mehta , Principal Planner
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Riverside County Administrative Center
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:
[email protected]
Mitra Mehta , Principal Planner
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Riverside County Administrative Center
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.
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.
May 23 2012
P. PKANG
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
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.
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
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
Lance,Susan,Vince,Bill,Tim,LisaandAaron,RickyandTomandJulie:
ThisemailisaboutmydiscussionswithyoualltohelpcreateasmallequestrianzoneonBellaVistawithintheproposed
WineCountryarea.
AllIneedrightnowisforyoutoreplywithyourstreetaddress(es)andphonenumbers,andthestatement:
IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditsside
streetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZonearea,includingbutnotlimitedtothe
abilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,
tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoningpermissions.
AlsoifyoucangetanyofourneighborsonBellaVistaorthesidestreets(likeJayWalkerRanch,orJoanne,orother
folksyoumayknowintheneighborhood),thatwillhelpcementthecase.
Iwillgathertheseupandstartpushinghardtogetthisspecialzonesetupforus.
Ifyouareinterested,thepersonatthecountythatIamattemptingtoworkwithandwhoisbeingamenableisthis
person:
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)
[email protected]
Thanksforyourhelp.
Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
(linkedin) http://www.linkedin.com/in/russellmann
1:55 PM1/30/2012 1:55 PM
3
================================
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.
Towhomitmayconcern:
WewouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditsside
streetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZonearea,includingbutnotlimitedtothe
abilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,to
have4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoningpermissions.
Thankyou,Tom&JulieSmith
39640BellaVistaRoad
Temecula,CA92592
9516769388
ThisemailisaboutmydiscussionswithyoualltohelpcreateasmallequestrianzoneonBellaVistawithintheproposed
WineCountryarea.
AllIneedrightnowisforyoutoreplywithyourstreetaddress(es)andphonenumbers,andthestatement:
IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditsside
streetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZonearea,includingbutnotlimitedtothe
abilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,
tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoningpermissions.
AlsoifyoucangetanyofourneighborsonBellaVistaorthesidestreets(likeJayWalkerRanch,orJoanne,orother
folksyoumayknowintheneighborhood),thatwillhelpcementthecase.
1:56 PM1/30/2012 1:56 PM
2
Iwillgathertheseupandstartpushinghardtogetthisspecialzonesetupforus.
Ifyouareinterested,thepersonatthecountythatIamattemptingtoworkwithandwhoisbeingamenableisthis
person:
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)
Thanksforyourhelp.
Russ
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.
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
Lance,Susan,Vince,Bill,Tim,LisaandAaron,RickyandTomandJulie:
ThisemailisaboutmydiscussionswithyoualltohelpcreateasmallequestrianzoneonBellaVistawithintheproposed
WineCountryarea.
AllIneedrightnowisforyoutoreplywithyourstreetaddress(es)andphonenumbers,andthestatement:
IwouldliketoseeaBellaVistaEquestrianZonecreatedtozoneallpropertieswithBellaVistafrontageanditsside
streetstohavethesamerightsandprivilegesastheproposedEquestrianZonearea,includingbutnotlimitedtothe
abilitytokeep5animalsperacre(notincludingoffspringmeantforsale),tooperatecommercialboardingfacilities,
tohave4H/FFAprojectanimals,andallothersimilarzoningpermissions.
AlsoifyoucangetanyofourneighborsonBellaVistaorthesidestreets(likeJayWalkerRanch,orJoanne,orother
folksyoumayknowintheneighborhood),thatwillhelpcementthecase.
Iwillgathertheseupandstartpushinghardtogetthisspecialzonesetupforus.
Ifyouareinterested,thepersonatthecountythatIamattemptingtoworkwithandwhoisbeingamenableisthis
person:
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)
[email protected]
Thanksforyourhelp.
Russ
Russ Mann
CEO
(m) 951.491.5360
(o) 858.397.1522
(tweet) @mktgmann
(linkedin) http://www.linkedin.com/in/russellmann
1:58 PM1/30/2012 1:58 PM
3
================================
logo-cov
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.
OriginalMessage
From:RussMann[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Tuesday,January10,20122:11PM
To:MehtaCooper,Mitra
Subject:Onemore:BellaVistaEquestrianZonepetition
Mitra:
Happynewyear,didyoureceivemyemailandpackage?
Hereisonemore,animportantoneasthesefolksareattheMonteDeOroendofBellaVista
andhaveabighorsesetup.
Thanks.
Russ
OriginalMessage
From:Christine[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Tuesday,January10,201211:52AM
To:RussMann
Subject:Re:PLEASEREPLY:BellaVistaEquestrianZonepetition
ChristineandRickyGIBSON39755BeaujolaisctTemecula9417606550
SentfrommyVerizonWirelesssmartphone
RussMann<[email protected]>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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Russ Mann; Mares, David
Cc: Lee, J osh; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: Update on MANN property zoning questions
Mitra,
I am available at my desk until 3pm and after 3:30
-----Original Message-----
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:42 AM
To: 'Russ Mann'; Rush, Adam; Mares, David
Cc: Lee, J osh; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: Update on MANN property zoning questions
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Mann [mailto:[email protected]]
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:47 PM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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 County Planning Department
Riverside CAC
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 955-6646
Cell Phone: (951) 833-0878
Fax: (951) 955-1811
________________________________________
From: Russ Mann [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:23 PM
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Russ Mann
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
[email protected]
From: Russ Mann [mailto:[email protected]]
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
(linkedin) http://www.linkedin.com/in/russellmann
================================
[logo-cov]
3611 Valley Centre Drive, Ste. 500
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.
From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam; Mares, David
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:47 PM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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 County Planning Department
Riverside CAC
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 955-6646
Cell Phone: (951) 833-0878
Fax: (951) 955-1811
________________________________________
From: Russ Mann [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:23 PM
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Russ Mann
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
[email protected]
From: Russ Mann [mailto:[email protected]]
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
(linkedin) http://www.linkedin.com/in/russellmann
================================
[logo-cov]
3611 Valley Centre Drive, Ste. 500
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.
From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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:
Click here for more information about Ordinance 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:
Click here for more information about Ordinance 673.
- NOT WITHIN THE EASTERN TUMF FEE AREA
WEST T.U.M.F. ORD. 824:
Click here for more information about Ordinance 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:
Click here for more information about Ordinance 663.
- 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:
Click here for more information about Ordinance 458.
- 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
APPLIED DATE: 02/01/1993
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
APPLIED DATE: 01/26/1993
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: APPLIED
-242929
RESIDENTIAL GRADING (ONE LOT)
APPLIED DATE: 07/17/1989
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
APPLIED DATE: 08/31/1989
STATUS AS OF 08/17/2007: FINALED
-BSP030852
RESIDENTIAL POOL AND SPA W/HEATER
APPLIED DATE: 07/09/2003
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
APPLIED DATE: 07/09/2003
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:47 PM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, Josh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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 County Planning Department
Riverside CAC
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 955-6646
Cell Phone: (951) 833-0878
Fax: (951) 955-1811
________________________________________
From: Russ Mann [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:23 PM
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, Josh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Russ Mann
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, Josh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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.
Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Adam Rush
Principal Planner - Advance Planning
Riverside County CAC
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
[email protected]
From: Russ Mann [mailto:[email protected]]
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
(linkedin) http://www.linkedin.com/in/russellmann
================================
[logo-cov]
3611 Valley Centre Drive, Ste. 500
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.
From: Russ Mann
To: Rush, Adam
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh; Russ Mann
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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.
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
From: Rush, Adam [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Russ Mann
Cc: Lee, J osh; Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: RE: questions on the Temecula Wine Country zoning
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.
Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Adam Rush
Principal Planner - Advance Planning
Riverside County CAC
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92504
Office: (951) 955-6646
Cell: (951) 833-0878
FAX: (951) 955-1811
[email protected]
From: Russ Mann [mailto:[email protected]]
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
(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.
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.
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.
May 23 2012
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
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 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.
The Advisory Committee fully
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
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 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.
The Advisory Committee fully
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.
The Advisory Committee fully
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
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 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.
General support from
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.
The Advisory Committee, after
multiple discussions, supported
the Trails Sub-committees
recommendations.
Unanimous
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 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
10 Winery District to
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
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 6 June 2012
11 Winery District to
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.
General support from
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.
12 Winery District to
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.
The Advisory Committee fully
supported staffs
recommendation concerning
residential subdivisions:
1. 10 acre minimum; and
2. Clustering required; and
3. 75% planting or equestrian
lands with clustering.
Unanimous
13 Winery District to
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.
General support from
the Committee;
however, a few of
residential
representatives were
concerned about
water usage of this
use.
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 7 June 2012
14 Winery District to
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.
General support from
the Committee;
however, a couple of
representatives were
concerned about this
use.
15 Winery District to
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.
The Advisory Committee
supported staffs
recommendation to allow
planting of olives to satisfy 10%
of the planting requirement for
grapevines.
General support from
the Committee;
however, a couple of
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.
The Advisory Committee and
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
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 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.
General support from
the Committee;
however, a couple of
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.
The Advisory Committee fully
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.
The Advisory Committee, after
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
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 9 June 2012
20 Equestrian District
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
21 Equestrian District
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.
General support from
the Committee;
however, a couple of
representatives
preferred clustering
for maintaining rural
character of this
region.
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 10 June 2012
22 Equestrian District
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.
The Advisory Committee
unanimously supported
authorizing the Special Occasion
Facilities on 100 acres minimum
with a Conditional Use Permit
process under the proposed
Equestrian zone.
General support from
the Committee;
however, one
residential
representative was
concerned about
noise and traffic
generated fromthese
uses.
23 Equestrian District
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.
The Advisory Committee
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.
The Advisory Committee and
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
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 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
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
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.
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
Page2
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
Page11
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.
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
Page13
Page13
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.
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
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).
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
Page16
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
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
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
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
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).
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
Page20
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
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(5%>Title24)
1point
EnhancedWindowInsulation(15%>Title24)
3points
GreatlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(20%>Title24)
5points
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestlyEnhancedInsulation(5%>Title24)
1point
EnhancedInsulation(15%>Title24)
3points
GreatlyEnhancedInsulation(20%>Title24)
5points
Minimizingleaksinthebuildingenvelopeisasimportantastheinsulation
propertiesofthebuilding.Insulationdoesnotworkeffectivelyifthereisexcess
airleakage.
Title24standard(required)
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
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestDistributionLosses(5%>Title24)
1point
ReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
3points
GreatlyReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
5points
Title24standard(required)
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
Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficientLights(5%>Title24)
1point
HighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.15%>Title24)
3points
VeryHighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.20%>Title24)
5points
Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficientAppliances(5%>Title24)
1point
HighEfficiencyEnergyStarAppliances(15%>Title24)
3points
VeryHighEfficiencyAppliances(20%>Title24)
5points
E12MiscellaneousResidential
BuildingPlacement
North/Southalignmentofbuildingorotherbuildingplacementsuchthatthe
orientationofthebuildingsoptimizesnaturalheating,cooling,andlighting. 3points
E13MiscellaneousResidential
IndependentEnergyEfficiency
Calculations
Thisallowsinnovationbytheapplicanttoprovidedesignfeaturesthatincreases
theenergyefficiencyoftheprojectnotprovidedinthetable.Notethat
engineeringdatawillberequireddocumentingtheenergyefficiencyof
innovativedesignsandpointvaluesgivenbasedupontheprovenefficiency
beyondTitle24EnergyEfficiencyStandards.
05points
E14MiscellaneousResidential
ExistingResidentialRetrofits
Theapplicantmaywishtoprovideenergyefficiencyretrofitprojectstoexisting
residentialdwellingunitstofurtherthepointvalueoftheirproject.
05points
Providecircuitandcapacityingaragesofresidentialunitsforinstallationof
electricvehiclechargingstations
1point
Installelectricvehiclechargingstationsinthegaragesofresidentialunits
8points
E16MiscellaneousResidential
WoodBurning
AspartofRule445andtheHealthyHearthsinitiative,theSouthCoastAir
QualityManagementDistrictadoptedarulefornopermanentlyinstalledindoor
oroutdoorwoodburningdevicesinnewdevelopment.
Projectcontainsnowoodburningstovesorfireplaces
10points
E9IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
Daylighting
E10IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
ArtificialLighting
E11IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
Appliances
E15MiscellaneousResidential
ElectricVehicleRecharging
ResidentialDevelopment
Page2of3
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
E17Photovoltaic SolarPhotovoltaicpanelsinstalledonindividualhomesorincollective
neighborhoodarrangementssuchthatthetotalpowerprovidedaugments:
SolarReadyHomes(sturdyroofandelectrichookups)
2points
10percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
4points
20percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
6points
30percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
8points
40percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
10points
50percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
12points
60percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
14points
70percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
16points
80percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
18points
90percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
20points
100percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject
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
ResidentialDevelopment
Page3of3
RiversideCountyWineCountryCommunityPlan
Table2: GHGReductionImplementationMeasuresForCommercialDevelopment
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestlyEnhancedInsulation(5%>Title24)
4points
EnhancedInsulation(15%>Title24)
8points
GreatlyEnhancedInsulation(20%>Title24)
12points
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(5%>Title24)
4points
EnhancedWindowInsulation(15%>Title24)
8points
GreatlyEnhancedWindowInsulation(20%>Title24)
12points
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestlyEnhancedInsulation(5%>Title24)
4points
EnhancedInsulation(15%>Title24)
8points
GreatlyEnhancedInsulation(20%>Title24)
12points
E4BuildingEnvelopeAir
Infiltration
Minimizingleaksinthebuildingenvelopeisasimportantastheinsulation
propertiesofthebuilding.Insulationdoesnotworkeffectivelyifthereis
excessairleakage.
Title24standard(required)
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
Title24standard(required)
0points
ModestDistributionLosses(5%>Title24)
4points
ReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
8points
GreatlyReducedDistributionLosses(15%>Title24)
12points
Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficiencyHVAC(5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyHVAC(15%>Title24)
8points
VeryHighEfficiencyHVAC(20%>Title24)
12points
E8IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
CommercialHeatRecovery
Systems
Heatrecoverystrategiesemployedwithcommerciallaundry,cooking
equipment,andothercommercialheatsourcesforreuseinHVACairintake
orotherappropriateheatrecoverytechnology.Pointvaluesforthesetypes
ofsystemswillbedeterminedbasedupondesignandengineeringdata
documentingtheenergysavings.
04points
E3BuildingEnvelopeDoors
ImplementationMeasure:EnergyEfficiency
E5BuildingEnvelope
ThermalStorageofBuilding
E2BuildingEnvelope
Windows
E1BuildingEnvelope
Insulation
E6IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
Heating/CoolingDistribution
System
E7IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
SpaceHeating/Cooling
Equipment
CommercialDevelopment Page1of4
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficiencyWaterHeater(EnergyStarconventionalthatis5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyWaterHeater(Conventionalwaterheaterthatis15%>Title
24)
HighEfficiencyWaterHeater(Conventionalwaterheaterthatis20%>Title
24) 12points
SolarWaterHeatingSystem
14points
E10IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
Daylighting
Daylightingistheabilityofeachroomwithinthebuildingtoprovideoutside
lightduringthedayreducingtheneedforartificiallightingduringdaylight
hours.
Allperipheralroomswithinbuildinghaveatleastonewindoworskylight
1point
Allroomswithinbuildinghavedaylight(throughuseofwindows,solar
tubes,skylights,etc.)suchthateachroomhasatleast800lumensoflight
duringasunnyday
5points
Allroomsdaylightedtoatleast1,000lumens
7points
Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficientLights(5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.15%>Title24)
6points
VeryHighEfficiencyLights(LED,etc.20%>Title24)
8points
Title24standard(required)
0points
EfficientAppliances(5%>Title24)
4points
HighEfficiencyEnergyStarAppliances(15%>Title24)
8points
VeryHighEfficiencyAppliances(20%>Title24)
12points
E13MiscellaneousBuilding
EfficienciesBuilding
Placement
North/Southalignmentofbuildingorotherbuildingplacementsuchthat
theorientationofthebuildingsoptimizesconditionsfornaturalheating,
cooling,andlighting. 4points
E14MiscellaneousBuilding
EfficienciesOther
Thisallowsinnovationbytheapplicanttoprovidedesignfeaturesthat
increasestheenergyefficiencyoftheprojectnotprovidedinthetable.
Notethatengineeringdatawillberequireddocumentingtheenergy
efficiencyofinnovativedesignsandpointvaluesgivenbaseduponthe
provenefficiencybeyondTitle24EnergyEfficiencyStandards.
08points
E15MiscellaneousBuilding
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
E9IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
WaterHeaters
E11IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
ArtificialLighting
E12IndoorSpaceEfficiencies
Appliances
CommercialDevelopment Page2of4
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
E18Photovoltaic SolarPhotovoltaicpanelsinstalledoncommercialbuildingsorincollective
arrangementswithinacommercialdevelopmentsuchthatthetotalpower
providedaugments:
SolarReadyRoofs(sturdyroofandelectrichookups) 2points
10percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 8points
20percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 14points
30percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 20points
40percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 26points
50percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 32points
60percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 38points
70percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 44points
80percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 50points
90percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 56points
100percentofthepowerneedsoftheproject 62points
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
Title24standard(required)
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyShowerheads(15%>Title24)
3points
W4PotableWaterToilets WaterlessUrinals(notethatcommercialbuildingshavingbothwaterless
urinalsandhighefficiencytoiletswillhaveacombinedpointvalueof6
points)
04points
Title24standard(required)
0points
EPAHighEfficiencyfaucets(15%>Title24)
3points
Title24standard(required)
0points
EPAHighEfficiencydishwashers(20%watersavings)
4points
ImplementationMeasure:WaterUse
W1WaterEfficient
Landscaping
W2WaterEfficientirrigation
systems
W3PotableWaterShowers
W5PotableWaterFaucets
W6CommercialDishwashers
CommercialDevelopment Page3of4
Feature Description
AssignedPoint
Values
Implementing
ProjectPoints
Title24standard(required)
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
Recycle10%ofdebris 3points
Recycle12%ofdebris 4points
Recycle15%ofdebris 5points
Recycle20%ofdebris 6points
TotalPointsEarnedby
CommercialProject:
100Points
Needed
0
W7CommercialLaundry
Washers
SW2Recyclingof
Construction/Demolition
Debris
ImplementationMeasure:Transportation
ImplementationMeasure:SolidWaste
CommercialDevelopment Page4of4
TEMECULA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Riverside County Planning Department
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
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 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.
Do this Dont do this
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
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 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.
Do this Dont do this
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.
Do this Dont do this
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
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 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
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 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.
Do this Dont do this
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.
Do this Dont do this
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
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 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
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 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
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 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,
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 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
(5) 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 twenty (20) acre:
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
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.
(2) The following appurtenant and incidental commercial uses, only in
conjunction with a winery, an established on-site vineyard, and a
minimum parcel size of forty (40) gross acres:
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
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:
(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,
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 in
conjunction with an agricultural operation or an incidental
commercial use as defined in this ordinance.
(6) The grazing of sheep, goats and 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.
(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
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.
(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 material 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 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
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 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.
(5) The following appurtenant and incidental commercial uses, only in
conjunction with a winery, an established on-site vineyard, and a
minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acre:
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
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
(6) The following appurtenant and incidental commercial uses, only in
conjunction with a winery, an established on-site vineyard, and a
minimum parcel size of fifteen (15) gross acre:
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
c. Gift sales;
d. Special occasion facility; and
e. Country-inn; or
f. Restaurant; however, 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
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:
(1) One-family dwelling.
(2) Cottage Inn.
(3) Cottage Industry.
(4) Equestrian Establishment.
(5) Vineyards; groves; equestrian lands; field crops; flower, vegetable,
and herb gardening; orchards; apiaries; the drying, processing and
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
packing (other than canning) of fruits, nuts, vegetables and other
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.
(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..
(9) Future Farmers of America or 4-H projects.
(10) 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
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
(11) 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 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.
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 first 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
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.
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
(4) The following appurtenant and incidental commercial uses, only in
conjunction with a winery , an established on-site vineyard, and a
minimum parcel size of ten (10) gross acres:
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
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
(7) 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
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
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 that a conditional use permit has first been
approved pursuant to Section 18.28 of this ordinance.
(1) Farm employee housing.
(2) 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
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:
(1) One-family dwelling.
(2) Cottage Inn.
(3) Cottage Industry.
(4) 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 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
conjunction with an agricultural operation or an incidental
commercial use as defined in this ordinance.
(5) 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) The noncommercial 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 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.
(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
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
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 first been approved pursuant to Section
18.30 of this ordinance.
(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.
(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
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 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
a. Wine sampling room;
b. Retail wine sales;
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
California Road, Monte De Oro Road, Anza Road, Glen Oaks Road, Pauba
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
Road, De Portola Road, Buck Road, Borel Road, Butterfield Stage Road,
Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and Highway 79 South
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.
(6) Buildings and structures shall be designed in a rural, equestrian or wine
country theme consistent with the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design
Guidelines.
(7) 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.
(8) Automobile parking spaces shall comply with Section 18.12 of Ordinance
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
(11) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground
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.
(6) Buildings and structures shall be designed in a rural, equestrian or wine
country theme consistent with the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design
Guidelines.
(7) 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,
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
Calle Contento Road, Camino Del Vino Road, and Highway 79 South
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.
(10) 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.
(11) 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.
(12) Outside storage areas and the material therein shall be screened with
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).
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);
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 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.
(6) Buildings and structures shall be designed in a rural, equestrian or wine
country theme consistent with the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design
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
Valley Wine Country Policy Area of the Riverside County General Plan and
the Temecula Valley Wine Country Design Guidelines.
(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
County of Riverside General Plan
Proposed Southwest Area Plan GPA No. 1077 November 2011 DRAFT
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.
County of Riverside General Plan
Proposed Southwest Area Plan GPA No. 1077 November 2011 DRAFT
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.
County of Riverside General Plan
Proposed Southwest Area Plan GPA No. 1077 November 2011 DRAFT
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:
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 1.5 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:
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.
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
County of Riverside General Plan
Proposed Southwest Area Plan GPA No. 1077 November 2011 DRAFT
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.
County of Riverside General Plan
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Data Source: Ri versi de County 2011
Equestrian District
Residential District
Winery District
Winery District
Residential District
Equestrian District
Residential 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
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arteri al (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arterial (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' 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
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.
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
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arteri al (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arterial (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' ROW)
Coll ector (74' 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
Data Source: Ri versi de County Transport ation
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.
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
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arteri al (152' ROW)
Arteri al (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Mountain Arterial (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' ROW)
Col l ector (74' ROW)
Rail
Exi sti ng Interchange
Proposed 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
Data Source: Ri versi de County Transport ation
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.
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
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arteri al (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Major (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arterial (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' ROW)
Coll ector (74' ROW)
Rail
Existing Interchange
Proposed 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
Data Source: Ri versi de County Transport ation
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.
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
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.
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
!
!!
!
!
Combinat ion Trail (Regional / Cl ass 1 Bike Path)
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal Trail
!
!!
!
!
Community Trail
!
!!
!
!
Hi st oric Trail
!
!!
!
!
Non-County Publ ic and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trail s
!
!!
!
!
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
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
PROPOSED TRAILS AND
BIKEWAY SYSTEM 0 1 0.5
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
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.
Data Source: Riverside County Parks
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! #
!
! #
#
!
!
!
#
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
# #
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
# !
! ! ! ! ! !
#
#
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
#
#
!
#
!
#
!
#
! #
! #
!
!
#
#
! ! !
#
! ! !
#
!
#
!
#
! #
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
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands
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
recreational services agencies.
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
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.
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
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS
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
!
!!
!
!
Combinat ion Trail (Regional / Cl ass 1 Bike Path)
!
!!
!
!
Cl ass 1 Bi ke Path
!
!!
!
!
Regi onal Trail
!
!!
!
!
Community Trail
!
!!
!
!
Hi st oric Trail
!
!!
!
!
Non-County Publ ic and Quasi-Publ ic Lands Trail s
!
!!
!
!
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
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.
[
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
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.
Data Source: Riverside County Parks
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
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.
[
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
Data Source: Ri versi de County Transport ation
Freeway
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arterial (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Maj or (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arteri al (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' 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
Proposed 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
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.
[
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
Data Source: Ri versi de County Transport ation
Freeway
Expressway (220' ROW)
Urban Arterial (152' ROW)
Arterial (128' ROW)
Maj or (118' ROW)
Mountai n Arteri al (110' ROW)
Secondary (100' 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
Proposed 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
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.
[
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
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.
[
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
County of Riverside General Plan
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.
County of Riverside General Plan
DRAFT Circulation Element- November 21, 2011
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
County of Riverside General Plan
DRAFT Circulation Element- November 21, 2011
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
0 0.5 1 0.25
Miles
INDEX MAP
WINE COUNTRY
POLICY AREA MAP
WINE COUNTRY DISTRICTS
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.
Wine Country Community Plan
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan
Temecula Valley Wine Country Context
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan GPA No. 1077
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Ord. Amt. 348.4729
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Industry Temecula Valley:
Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Award
Winning Wines
Over 200 Awards received thus far in 2012!
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Industry Temecula Valley:
Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Award
Winning Wines
Over 200 Awards received thus far in 2012!
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Project Setting
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
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 -
COMMERCI AL EQUESTRI AN
ESTABLI SHMENT AND RESTAURANTS,
HORSE RACI NG ARENA, RODEO ARENA
USES ON 100 ACRES WI TH CUP -
COMMERCI AL EQUESTRI AN
ESTABLI SHMENT AND
SPECI AL OCCASI ON FACI LI TI ES
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
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
20 FEET MI NI MUM FROM
BOUNDARI ES OF PREMI SES
50 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
20, 000 SQ FT LOT SI ZE
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
20, 000 SQ FT LOT SI ZE
MI NI MUM WI TH LAND
DI VI SI ON APPROVAL
0. 5-ACRE LOT SI ZE MI NI MUM
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
0. 5-ACRE LOT SI ZE MI NI MUM
WI TH CUP
NOT PERMI TTED
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
2010
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Objectives
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Community Plan Outreach Ad Hoc Committee
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Community Plan Outreach Ad Hoc Committee
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Community Plan Outreach Ad Hoc Committee
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow small-scale Production Winery
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:
(1) The minimum lot size shall be five (5) gross acres.
(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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
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
commercial uses, the commercial winery facility shall be
operational.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow limited wine-club events with a
winery on 10 acres or more
Under Section 14.92 and 14.93 (Wine Country Winery and
Winery Existing Zoning Classifications), uses permitted with
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow 3 year exemption for use of 75%
local grapes
Under Section 14.95 Commercial Winery Development
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Project Areas Sub-regions:
Be added or removed from the Project Boundary
Be considered for a different district of the Policy
Area
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group A
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chaudhuri)
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Kali P. Chaudhuri
Requests: To exclude parcels from Wine Country
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chavez)
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
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
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-R
Opportunities/Constraints: Existing urban/suburban
type of uses surrounding parcels
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group C
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: John Cooper, representing various
owners
Requests: To add parcels to Equestrian District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group D
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Steve and Laura Turnbow, and
Maxine Heiller, representing various land owners
Requests: To exclude parcels from Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group E
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Various owners
Requests: Various including exclusion from the
Community Plan, or inclusion in Equestrian District,
Residential District or Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group F
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Peter Solomon
Requests: To add parcels within the Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group G
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Barry Yoder
Requests: Expansion of the proposed Wine Country
Policy Area and inclusion in the Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Rural CommunityEstate Density Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group H
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Jose Renato Cartagena,
representing various owners
Requests: Expansion of the Wine Country Policy Area
and inclusion in the proposed Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
Opportunities/Constraints: In MSHCP Criteria Cell
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.
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group I
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Danny and Kathryn Atwood
Requests: To include this parcel in the Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group J
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Russell Mann and various owners
Requests: To include these parcels in the Equestrian
District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential and Rural CommunityEstate Density
Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A and R-R
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group K
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Rueben Calixto Jr.
Requests: To exclude parcel from the Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Agriculture with the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area
Existing Zoning Classifications: C/V
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group L
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Steve Lassley, representing various
owners
Requests: To exclude parcels from the Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
CommunityEstate Density Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group M
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Saba and Shirley Saba
Requests: Inclusion in the Winery Country - Winery
Existing Zoning Classification
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area
Existing Zoning Classifications: C/V
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group N
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Stephen Corona
Requests: To exclude parcels from the Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
CommunityEstate Density Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Program EIR No. 524 - Process
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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)
Wine Country Community Plan
Transportation Model and Assessment
Planning Commission Hearing July 25, 2012
Agenda Item No.3.1
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
2
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
3
Winery operations differ from Temecula Valley Wine
Country
Relatively minimal wineries permitted for special events
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
5
Existing WCP
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
7
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
10
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
12
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF)
County Developer Impact Fee (DIF)
WCP Fair Share Assessment
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Program EIR No. 524 Alternatives
Considered but Rejected Alternatives
Pending GPA Applications
Alternative Location
One Policy Area
No Build
July 25, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Discuss and Continue Item to
August 8
th
or August 22
nd
Wine Country Community Plan Staff Recommendation
Thank you
Agenda Item: 3.1
Area Plan: Southwest
Zoning Area: Rancho California
Supervisorial District: Third/Third
Project Planner: Mitra Mehta-Cooper
Planning Commission: July 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
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN
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.
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 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
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 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.
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 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
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 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.
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 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
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 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).
Land Use Policy Issues:
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.
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 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
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 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)
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 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
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 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
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 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.
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 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;
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 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
Biological Resources
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same
Cultural Resources
Less
Same/Slightly
Greater
Same/Slightly
Less
Geology/Soils
Less Slightly Greater Same
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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
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 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
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 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:
Ms. Mitra Mehta-Cooper, AICP
Principal Planner (Project Manager)
P.O. Box 1409,
4080 Lemon Street, 12
th
Floor
Riverside CA 92502-1409
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (951) 955-8514
Wine Country Community Plan
Planning Commission Hearing August 22, 2012
Agenda Item No.3.1
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan
Temecula Valley Wine Country Context
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Presentation Outline:
Requirements to Regulate Noise;
Implementation of the Proposed Trails Network;
Application of Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729;
and
Allowance of Churches.
Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of the Project:
General Plan Amendment No. 1077;
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729; and
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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 ).
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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)
Requirements to Regulate Noise
Wine Country-Winery District: Permitted Uses and Minimum Acreages
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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)
Requirements to Regulate Noise
Wine Country-Equestrian District: Permitted Uses and Minimum Acreages
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Noise Mitigation Measures:
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.
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Noise Mitigation Measures:
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
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Noise Mitigation Measures:
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
Requirements to Regulate Noise
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Requirements to Regulate Noise
Noise Mitigation Measures:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Implementation of Proposed Trails Network
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
Issues of Consideration:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
Issues of Consideration:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
Options for Consideration:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
Options for Consideration:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Allowance of Churches
Issues of Consideration:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow small-scale Production Winery
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:
(1) The minimum lot size shall be five (5) gross acres.
(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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
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
commercial uses, the commercial winery facility shall be
operational.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow limited wine-club events with a
winery on 10 acres or more
Under Section 14.92 and 14.93 (Wine Country Winery and
Winery Existing Zoning Classifications), uses permitted with
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
To allow 3 year exemption for use of 75%
local grapes
Under Section 14.95 Commercial Winery Development
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Land Use Policy Issues:
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.
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Project Areas Sub-regions:
Be added or removed from the Project Boundary
Be considered for a different district of the Policy
Area
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group A
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
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.
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chaudhuri)
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Kali P. Chaudhuri
Requests: To exclude parcels from Wine Country
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
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group B (Mr. Chavez)
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
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
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-R
Opportunities/Constraints: Existing urban/suburban
type of uses surrounding parcels
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group C
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: John Cooper, representing various
owners
Requests: To add parcels to Equestrian District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
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.
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group D
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Steve and Laura Turnbow, and
Maxine Heiller, representing various land owners
Requests: To exclude parcels from Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group E
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Various owners
Requests: Various including exclusion from the
Community Plan, or inclusion in Equestrian District,
Residential District or Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group F
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Peter Solomon
Requests: To add parcels within the Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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.
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group G
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Barry Yoder
Requests: Expansion of the proposed Wine Country
Policy Area and inclusion in the Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Rural CommunityEstate Density Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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.
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group H
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Jose Renato Cartagena,
representing various owners
Requests: Expansion of the Wine Country Policy Area
and inclusion in the proposed Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
Opportunities/Constraints: In MSHCP Criteria Cell
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.
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group I
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Danny and Kathryn Atwood
Requests: To include this parcel in the Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
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.
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group J
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Russell Mann and various owners
Requests: To include these parcels in the Equestrian
District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential and Rural CommunityEstate Density
Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A and R-R
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group K
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Rueben Calixto Jr.
Requests: To exclude parcel from the Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Agriculture with the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area
Existing Zoning Classifications: C/V
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group L
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Steve Lassley, representing various
owners
Requests: To exclude parcels from the Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
CommunityEstate Density Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group M
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Saba and Shirley Saba
Requests: Inclusion in the Winery Country - Winery
Existing Zoning Classification
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
Agriculture within the Citrus Vineyard Policy Area
Existing Zoning Classifications: C/V
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group N
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Stephen Corona
Requests: To exclude parcels from the Wine Country
Community Plan
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
CommunityEstate Density Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
August 22, 2012
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group O
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: John LaMagna
Requests: To include parcel in the Wine Country-
Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential-Valle de los Caballos Policy Area
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group P
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Kathy Spano
Requests: To include parcel in the Wine Country-
Equestrian District.
Existing General Plan Land Use designation: Rural
Residential
Existing Zoning Classifications: R-A
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
Planning Commission Hearing
Boundary Modification Request: Group Q
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
Property Owner: Dan Stephenson
Requests: To recognize existing wineries in the Wine
Country-Winery District
Existing General Plan Land Use designation:
AgricultureCitrus Vineyard Policy Area
Existing Zoning Classifications: C/V
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
Planning Commission Hearing
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
Wine Country Community Plan Outstanding Issues
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
CurrentProposal Approx.175,000Ln.Ft.
RegionalTrailsinOpenSpaceAreas
ThisisasubclassificationofRegional
Trails.Thesetrailsareusuallypreexisting
pathswithinopenspaceareas;thesedirt
surface trails require minimal maintenance surfacetrailsrequireminimalmaintenance.
CurrentProposal Approx.111,000Ln.Ft.
CommunityTrails
Thesesoftsurfacetrailslink
communitiestoeachotherandtothe
regionaltrailssystem.
CurrentProposal Approx.138,000
Ln.Ft.
HistoricalTrails
Thegenerallocationofthehistoric
SouthernEmigrantTrailisshownonthe
GeneralPlanmapalongStateRoute79.
CurrentProposal Approx.11,000Ln.Ft.
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
Area Plan: Southwest
Zoning Area: Rancho California
Supervisorial District: Third/Third
Project Planner: Mitra Mehta-Cooper
Planning Commission: August 22, 2012
Continued From: July 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
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN
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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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 August 22, 2012
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.
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 1.11 Allow incidental commercial uses such as special occasion facilities,
hotels, resorts, restaurants and delicatessens in conjunction with wineries as
defined in the implementing zones.
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 COMMUNITY PLAN General Plan Amendment No. 1077, Ordinance
Amendment No. 348.4729, and Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 22, 2012
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
with a commercial equestrian establishment through a conditional use permit on 100
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,
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 August 22, 2012
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
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 August 22, 2012
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.
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 August 22, 2012
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.
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 August 22, 2012
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
Acquisition: Trail easements will be negotiated
through the development review process with
the Riverside County Regional Park and Open
Space District.
Maintenance Entity: Trails are built when
contiguous trail segments are funded and
maintenance funding is secured. Once built,
the trails become a part of the District Trails
System and are maintained by the Riverside
County Regional Park and Open Space
District.
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.
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 August 22, 2012
Page 9 of 15
Trails
Classification
Characteristics Responsible Agency
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.
Users: Equestrians, pedestrians, joggers,
and mountain bikers
Width: 2 to 4 wide
Easement: 10 wide
Acquisition: Trail easements will be negotiated
through the development review process with
the Riverside County Regional Park and Open
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.
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.
Community Trail:
Current Proposal
Approx. 138,000
Ln. Ft.
Characteristics: These soft surface trails
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.
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 August 22, 2012
Page 10 of 15
Trails
Classification
Characteristics Responsible Agency
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.
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 August 22, 2012
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.
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 August 22, 2012
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.
Issues of Consideration:
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.
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 August 22, 2012
Page 13 of 15
Options for Consideration:
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
religious worship will be added.
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.
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 August 22, 2012
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
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
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:
Ms. Mitra Mehta-Cooper, AICP
Principal Planner (Project Manager)
P.O. Box 1409,
4080 Lemon Street, 12
th
Floor
Riverside CA 92502-1409
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (951) 955-8514
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 August 22, 2012
Page 15 of 15
3. For additional information re: any parcel specific questions within the Project boundary,
please contact:
Ms. Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
Urban Regional Planner III
P.O. Box 1409,
4080 Lemon Street, 12
th
Floor
Riverside CA 92502-1409
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (951) 955-6573
Wine Country Community Plan: General Plan Amendment No. 1077,
Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4729 &
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524
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
Wine Country Community Plan
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 &
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 524
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: [email protected]
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
Riverside County Planning Commission
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
P.O. Box 1409
Riverside, CA 92502
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
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.
Planning Commissioners Roth, Snell, Petty and Zuppardo
August 21, 2012
Page 3
4815-4580-3792.2
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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
Planning Commissioners Roth, Snell, Petty and Zuppardo
August 21, 2012
Page 4
4815-4580-3792.2
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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.
Planning Commissioners Roth, Snell, Petty and Zuppardo
August 21, 2012
Page 5
4815-4580-3792.2
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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.
Planning Commissioners Roth, Snell, Petty and Zuppardo
August 21, 2012
Page 6
4815-4580-3792.2
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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
[email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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
Country Policy Area.
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
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP www.lbbslaw.com
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
Riverside County Planning Commission
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 12
th
floor
P.O. Box 1409
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Mary Stark, Planning Commission Secretary
Email: [email protected]
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
Riverside County Planning Commission
August 22, 2012
Page 2
Citizens United for Resources and The Environment, Inc. ~ 2873 Rumsey Drive, Riverside, CA 92506 (951) 784-7628 www.curegroup.org
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
Riverside County Planning Commission
August 22, 2012
Page 3
Citizens United for Resources and The Environment, Inc. ~ 2873 Rumsey Drive, Riverside, CA 92506 (951) 784-7628 www.curegroup.org
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:[email protected]]
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...
Location Restrictions
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
Location Restrictions
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)
PolicyRelatedComments
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
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
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Overturn the ban against churches and allow Calvary Chapel to expand
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
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:18 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Proposed Wine Country Plan
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 8:33 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: please allow religious institutions and private schools in Temecula's winecountry.
Iamafraidofwhatinterestsareatplayhere.EnoughisenoughofantiChristianity.Ofcoursethewinecountrywasafter
thechurches.Whybanchurches,wherecommunitybecomesstrongandhealthyandchildrenlearnmorality.
PleaseThankyouClareMcGrew
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:19 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Temecula Wine Country "Community" Plan
OriginalMessage
From:RachelStevens[mailto:[email protected]]
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
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:17 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: everyone likes wine
OriginalMessage
From:Cynthia[mailto:[email protected]]
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
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:13 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: wine country
Mary C. Stark
TLMA Commission Secretary
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 955-7436 Direct
(951) 955-1881 Fax
[email protected]
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 7:09 AM
To: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra; Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Wine Country Plan
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.
GreatestmaninHistory,namedJesus,hadnoservants,yettheycalledHimMaster.
Hadnodegree,yettheycalledHimTeacher.Hadnomedicines,yettheycalledHim
Healer.Hehadnoarmy,yetkingsfearedHim.Hewonnomilitarybattles,yethe
conqueredtheworld.Hecommittednocrime,...yetheycrucified....Him.Hewasburied
inatomb,yetHelivestoday.
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
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
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:13 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: In Care of Mary Stark: New Wine Country Plan
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
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: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: Questions regarding Community Plan
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
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:05 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Church Options and the Wine Country Plan
Attachments: Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001.pdf
Fyi...
FrankL.Coyle,REAI
DeputyDirector,AdvancedPlanningDivisionRiversideCountyPlanningDepartment
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
[email protected]
P:951.955.2706
C:951.201.6947
OriginalMessage
From:ChuckTobin[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Thursday,September20,20124:46PM
To:[email protected];Johnson,George;Coyle,Frank
Cc:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]
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
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:15 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Wine Country Policy Plan & Equestrian Trails network
MaryC.Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
OriginalMessage
From:ElinsVerizon[mailto:[email protected]]
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.
1
From: Mehta-Cooper, Mitra
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:56 PM
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
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
PublicTestimonyforWineCountryCommunityPlan
ReceivedbetweenSeptember24,2012(4:00PM)September25,2012(4:00PM)
PolicyRelatedComments
DateReceived From Affiliation
SupportforCalvaryChurch/PlacesofreligiousworshipintheCommunityPlan
9/24/12
9/15/12
Additional2signedpetitions ResidentsandCalvaryChurch
Members
SupportfortheproposedCommunityPlanandpreservingareafromincompatibleuses
9/25/12 SherryTurner RCHABoardMember
9/25/12 JuanitaKoth TemeculaEqWineRidersPresident
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:59 AM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Wine Country Plan
ForWineCountry.
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
MaryStark,PlanningCommissioner
IamwritingasaboardmemberoftheRanchoCaliforniaHorsemanAssociationandamunableto
appearatthenextmeetingonthe26
th
butwantedtoaskthatyoupleaseseparatethe
church/schoolissuefromtherestoftheWineCountryPlansotheplancanmoveforward.The
amountoftime,energyandmoneythathasgoneintothatplanshouldnotbestoppedduetoa
singlepropertyownersrequesttochangetheirzoning.
Respectfully,
SherryTurner
RCHA
1
From: Stark, Mary
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:00 PM
To: Nanthavongdouangsy, Phayvanh
Subject: FW: Separate the Issues on Wednesday
MorecommentsforWineCountryPlanningCommission.
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]
FrankL.Coyle,REAI
DeputyDirector,AdvancedPlanningDivision
RiversideCountyPlanningDepartment
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
[email protected]
P:951.955.2706
C:951.201.6947
PublicTestimonyforWineCountryCommunityPlan
ReceivedbetweenSeptember25,2012(4:00PM)November29,2012(12:00PM)
PolicyRelatedComments
DateReceived From Affiliation
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
SupportforCalvaryChurch/PlacesofreligiousworshipintheCommunityPlan
10/23/2012 ChurchPetition(2signed)
ProtectWineCountryPetition
11/15/12 ProtectWineCountryPetition(1signed) Visitor
Mary C. Stark
TLMACommissionSecretary
CountyAdministrativeCenter
4080LemonStreet,12thFloor
Riverside,CA92501
(951)9557436
[email protected]