Agenda packet — Murrieta City Council, October 3, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

proposed co nstrained linkage #13 as defined by the MSHCP. A Joint Project Review was completed on October 26, 2007, determining the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of th e MSHCP with recommendations to implemen t certain measures. Th e City has required implementation of these measure s as conditions of approval. Therefore, the City determines the project is consistent with MSHCP.

SECTION 2. APPROVAL

The Amended Master Developmen t Plan for the Ivy House Project within the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (MDP 2021-2430), attached to t his ordinance as Exhibit A (“Ivy House MDP”), is hereby adopted and incorporated herein b y this reference. The City Clerk is directed to reflect the adoption of the Ivy House Amended MDP on the City of Mu rrieta Zoning Map , on file in the Of fice of the City Clerk.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTIO N. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption o f this ordinance and shall publish a summary of this ordinance and post a certified copy of the full ordinance in the office of the City Clerk at le ast five (5) days prior to the adoption of the proposed ordin ance; and within fifteen (15) days after adopti on of t he ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the ordinance with the names of the council members voting for and against the ordinance.

ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this _____ day of ____________, 2023.

______________________________
Lisa DeForest, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Tiffany Israel, City Attorney

317
Ordinance No. 597-23

Page 5 of 5 ends

I, Cristal Mc Donald, City C lerk of the City of Mu rrieta, California, her eby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting o f the City Council on the day of, 2023, and that thereafter the sai d ordinance was duly and regu larly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ____ day of ___________, 2023, by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal of the City of Murrieta, California this _____ day of __________, 2023.

____________________________
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
318
MDP-2021-2430 (MASTER DEVELOPMENT

PLAN) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

FOR IVY HOUSE
(EXHIBIT A)
(Modified by Planning Commission June 14, 2023)

Boundaries consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers:

906-193-001
906-200-001
906-200-002
906-212-001
906-221-001
906-221-002

Development Standards -

The project is subject to the development standards shown in the following table. For standards not specifically addressed herein, the standards applicable to the RS -1 zone of the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan would be applicable.

319

a. Additions - All additional building area proposed after the initial construction of each lot are subject to:
• Approval by the Homeowners Association or Property Owners Association , and • Administrative review, including architecture, by the Planning Director or his/her designee.

b. Landscape/Hardscape -
• All planter areas shall provide a minimum 5 feet wide planter area clear of curbs, concrete step-out strips, walkways, walls, footings, and overhead supports. If narrower landscape areas are necessary due to site constraints, the restricted width planters are to have naturally narrow growing sub-shrubs.

c. Parking -
• Parking within the Alley ROW is prohibited and will be enforced via Homeowners Association or Property Owners Association and will have no parking signs placed onsite.

d. Walls, Gates, and Fences -
• Gates separating the alley right of way and garage face are prohibited. • Outdoor Storage in an unfenced area is prohibited.

2 320
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 1 of 13 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 23-4707

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA

APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, AMENDED
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2021-2430, REVISED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 2021 -2428, AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT 2021-2429 FOR IVY HOUSE, A 22 -ACRE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED WITH 62 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS

FOR CIRCULATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND MURRIETA CREEK

LOCATED EAST OF MURRIETA CREEK, WEST OF NEW CLAY AVENUE, AND SOUTH OF “B” STREET WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-
FAMILY 1 (RS-1) ZONE OF THE DOWNTOWN MURRIETA SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA.

WHEREAS, the applicant, Diversified Pacific Development Group LLC. , (Permittee/Owner) submitted applications for an Amended Master Development Plan (MDP-2021-2430), Revised Tentative Tract Map (TTM -2021-2428) and Revised Development Plan Permit (RP -2021-2429) for the development and subdivision of 22 gross acres for 62 single -family detached and neotraditional residential units known as Ivy House (“Project”). The site has a Land Use Designation of Single Family in the General Plan and is zoned Residential Single Family 1 (RS - 1); and

WHEREAS, The project site is located in the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP) area and is subject to the requirements of the Residential Single-Family 1 (RS-1) zone. The RS-1 zone within the DMSP requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet but allows lots as small as 5,000 with the adoption of a Master Plan Overlay. The Master Development Plan development standards also would apply. The DMSP serves as a Master Plan Overlay pursuant to Section

16.16.010(C)(1). of the Murrieta Municipal Code (Development Code); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16.16. 010(C)(2) of the Development Code, a Master Plan Overlay shall be implemented by a Master Development Plan (in accordance with Chapter 16.64 of the Development Code); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) the Project is subject to review under CEQA, and the City of Murrieta as the lead agency, is responsible for assessing the environmental impacts, if any, which may result from the Project; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code. Regs. Title 14) Section 15164, an Addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared as none of the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has occurred; (1) there are no substantial changes to the Project that require major revisions to the MND due to new significant environmental effects, (2) there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under 321
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 2 of 13 ends

which the Project is considered that involve any new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and (3) no new information that shows the Project will have more significant effects not previously discussed, no new significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than previously shown, no new mitigation measures are necessary; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2023, by mailing a notice to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site on June 4, 2023, publishing the notice in The Press-Enterprise newspaper on June 4, 2023, and posting the Project site on June 4, 2023; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Development Code Section 16.64.040, the council is authorized to approve master development plans and amendments. The Planning Commission shall provide written recommendations to the council regarding master development plan adoption and amendments; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Murrieta held a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all written and oral reports of staff, public testimony on the matter, and written and oral testimony provided by the applicant, recommended the Cit y Council approve the Master Development Plan Amendment; Development Plan Revision, and Tentative Tract Map Revision; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the Project was held by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2023, at which time reports, recommendations, and public statements were considered; and

WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 14, 2023 , the Planning Commission used its independent judgment and considered all the reports, recommendations, and testimony set forth above , voted (5-0) recommending approval; and

WHEREAS, a hearing on the matter was duly noticed as provided in Development Code section

16.76 for the City Council meeting of October 3, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the facts presented in this case, including the written and oral staff reports on the Project, public testimony, and written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council approves and adopts the necessary ordinances to implement the Amended Master Development Plan 2021-2430 in accordance with the following findings pursuant to Chapter 16.64 of the Development Code:

1. The proposed Master Development Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all elements of the general plan. 322
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 3 of 13 ends

FACTS: The proposed Amended Master Development Plan establishes standards consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, including Goal LU-17: Historic Murrieta as the City’s cultural, civic, and community center. Policy LU-

17.3 Encourage the location of civic, institutional, office uses, and other job-creating uses in Historic Murrieta. Supportive residential development should be encouraged. This project provides supportive residential development to implement Goal and Policy LU-17, LU-17.3. Goal ED -10: A revitalized and economically stable Historic Downtown Murrieta. Policy ED -10.5 Consider opportunities for the development of higher -density residential uses to support commercial development within the Historic Downtown . The standards for the Residential Single Family 1 (RS-1) zone, the site design, and architectural standards are in Section 5 .0. The Amended Master Development Plan identifies the distribution, location, and extent of land uses within a development site and iden tifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. The density is 3.5 d.u. per acre for the RS-1 zoned properties and is within the permitted range of this zone with the adoption of the Amended Master Development Plan. The proposed project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to Murrieta Creek and implements several components of the site design and architectural standards in Section 5.0 of the Downtown Specific Plan such as landscaped parkways, street trees for each lot, alleys and alley-loaded garages, and front porches.

2. The Master Development Plan adequately addresses the physical development characteristics of the subject site.

FACTS: The project site will be graded for proper drainage to Murrieta Creek and to comply with flood zone requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The proposed project design provides 40% of the project site as open space. The Project does not impact, and is found to be consistent with , the Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County Flood Control District Murrieta Creek Improvement project in regard to establishing the top of the bank and setbacks from ultimate improvements.

3. The development standards contained in the Master Development Plan serve to protect the public convenience, health, safety, and general welfare.

FACTS: The proposed Master Development Plan will contribute to the completion of links and improvements in the City’s circulation and trail system. The proposed project incorporates water quality management measures and furthers the objectives of the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan. Development standards are identified to be consistent with the Development Code to protect the public convenience, health, safety, and general welfare.

4. The Master Development Plan is consistent with all applicable requirements of local ordinances and state law.

323
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 4 of 13 ends

FACTS: The proposed Master Development Plan is consistent with the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, including the standards for the RS -1 zone. Pursuant to Section

16.16.010(C)(1) of the Development Code, a Master Plan Overlay shall be implemented by a Master Development Plan and the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan serves as the overlay. The Project has been subject to a joint project review and findings by the Regional Conservation Authority which found that the Project is consistent with the criteria of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. All permits relating to building permits, water quality management, regional drainage systems, and natural watercourses will be obtained.

5. The proposed Master Development Plan or amendment would be in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

FACTS: An addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The residential development is not proposing any substantial changes that will require any substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously certified since there will be no new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of any identified significant effects; there have been no new substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous certified MND; and no new information of substantial importance has been discovered. The Project is subject to the previous mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

6. The proposed master development plan amendment would not create internal inconsistencies within the master development plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the master development plan it is amending.

FACTS: The amended Master Development Plan is consistent with the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, including the standards for the RS -1 zone. Pursuant to Section

16.16.010(C)(1) of the Development Code, a Master Plan Overlay shall be implemented by a Master Development Plan and the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan serves as the overlay. The amended Master Development Plan replaces and voids the previous master development plan and would not create internal inconsistencies within the amended Master Development Plan. The project has been subject to a joint project review and findings by the Regional Conservation Authority which found that the project is consistent with the criteria of the Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

7. The proposed Master Development Plan would be in compliance with the provisions of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Page 5 of 13 ends

with the goals and policies of the MSHCP with recommendations to implement certain measures. The City has required implementation of these measures as conditions of approval. Therefore, the City determines the project is consistent with MSHCP.

SECTION 2. Findings of Approval for Revised Tentative Tract Map 2021 -2428 (TTM 34439) pursuant to Development Code Section 16.94:

1. The proposed revised Tentative Tract Map, design, or improvement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plans or master development plan, as specified by State Law.

FACTS: The revised Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan, the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, the Amended Master Development Plan (MDP), and all applicable provisions of the Development Code. The map is consistent with the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, the revised TTM is consistent with the standards for the RS-1 zone and the Amended MDP development standards. The density is consistent with the RS-1 base zone and within the permitted range for this zone. General Plan Goal LU -1 - Provide a complementary balance of land uses throughout the community that meets the needs of existing residents and businesses as well as anticipated growth and achieves the community’s vision. The Project implements this Goal by providing subdivided lots that will accommodate single-family residential uses for the City of Murrieta. The Project is consistent with Policies LU -1.2, LU-1.3, and LU -1.6 – Land use designations that will provide for a wide range of densities, ensure opp ortunities for all types of housing, and promote future patterns of development and land use that reduce infrastructure construction costs and make better use of existing and planned public facilities. As the Project is consistent with the General Plan des ignation, the Project implements these policies by implementing the land use pattern envisioned in the General Plan. The project would allow for more efficient delivery of infrastructure, transportation, and other public services to the site and the surrou nding area. The Project provides for halfway improvements, and full street improvements, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk to several streets that are part of the General Plan Circulation Element (e.g., B Street and New Clay Street).

Staff has analyzed the Project design, including conceptual street plans, grading plans, hydrology, stormwater, traffic, and the tentative tract map to ensure the Project provides for a consistent design for future public and private streets. GOAL CIR -1 A circulation system that serves the internal circulation needs of the City, while also addressing the inter-community or travel needs. This goal is achieved by the review of Engineering and CIP staff for the included public roads such as B Street and New Clay Street. As stated in the following policy, CIR -1.5 is to maintain a set of street standards and require that all 325
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 6 of 13 ends

new road facilities be constructed or upgraded, where feasible, to meet City standards.

The General Plan GOAL CIR-2 instructs to have a comprehensive circulation system that promotes safety. The Project design demonstrates, and the confirmed review by staff and certification by the applicant’s engineer of work, demonstrates consistency with policy CIR-2.9, to ensure new roadways and intersections provide adequate sight distance for safe vehicular movement. GOAL CIR -6 Alternative travel modes and facilities are available to serve residents and employers/employees and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The resultant lots that are created by the TTM will have subsequent entitlements and permits applied for, which will provide for job -related businesses to be near higher- density residential uses. This provides the opportunity for alternative commute options, including pedestrian and bicycle use. The circulation system provides for sidewalks and bicycle lanes, to continue the connection of alternative modes of transit within the downtown specific plan area . In addition, the Project relies upon VMT analysis, which shows consistency with policy CIR-6.15 Utilize VMT as the performance measure to be used for CEQA transportation analyses conducted in the City in order to be consistent with SB 743. VMT will be th e performance measure for both land development and transportation projects as of July 1, 2020.

The Project includes the construction of sewer, water, stormwater, sidewalks, pathways, and roads. In confirming conformance with the Infrastructure Element of the General Plan, staff and Applicant have coordinated with the respective water/sewer district to ensure the Project is conditioned to provide adequate services for future business and residential uses. The revised TTM design demonstrates consistency with GOAL INF -1 New development and redevelopment are coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure for water, sewer, stormwater, and energy. Also, INF -1.4 - Ensure that new development and redevelopment provide infrastructure for water, sewer, and stormwater that adequately serves the proposed uses, and that has been coordinated with affecte d infrastructure providers. Lastly, with analysis of the Water Quality Management Plan, the Project complies with stormwater regulations, for Policy INF -1.11 - Ensure sufficient levels of storm drainage service are provided to protect the community from flood hazards and minimize the discharge of materials into the storm drain system that is toxic, or which would obstruct flows. The proposed TTM is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act as specified by state law and implemented by the City. The proposed project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to Murrieta Creek.

2. The site is physically suitable for the type or density of development proposed.

Page 7 of 13 ends

compatible with the existing surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed project is easily accessible and served at its perimeter by existing public infrastructure that will be continued onto the project site. The proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and density (3.5 dwelling units per acre) of the proposed development and is in harmony, scale, height, bulk, density, and coverage with standards for neo -traditional residential neighborhoods.

3. The design of the proposed Tentative Tract Map and improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

FACTS: The proposed subdivision has preserved the most environmentally sensitive areas for open space and conservation. An addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in compliance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14).

The Project is subject to the previous mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All permits will be obtained as needed from the Western Riverside County Flood and Water Conservation District which manages compliance with water quality control and stormwater pollution prevention. Impacts to jurisdictional areas propose mitigation and appropriate permits will be obtained from applicable state or federal government agencies.

4. The design of the proposed Tentative Tract Map and improvements is unlikely to cause serious public health problems.

FACTS: The proposed subdivision is designed with adequate open space, safe circulation, and proper drainage. The proposed construction will comply with all applicable fire, building, and safety codes. Since a portion of the project site is located within the 100 - year and 500 -year flood hazard zones, the design also incorporates Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and General Plan requirements. The permittee has obtained a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.

5. The design of the subdivision of the type of improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

FACTS: The project will be dedicating property and easements which complete natural drainage systems, wildlife habitat, and linkage routes and other public improvements which satisfy overall public policy and goals for the public at large and/or specific regional concerns.

6. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

327
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 8 of 13 ends

FACTS: The City of Murrieta adopted the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) on September 16, 2003. The proposed development site is within Criteria Area #6314 and proposed constrained linkage #13 as defined by the MSHCP. A Joint Project Review was completed by the Western Riverside Conservation Authority (JPR-07-05-22- 04 on October 26, 2007, determining the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the MSHCP with recommendations to implement certain measures. The City has required the implementation of these measures as conditions of approval. Therefore, the City determines the project is consistent with MSHCP.

SECTION 3. Findings of Approval for Revised Permit Development Plan 2021-2429 pursuant to Development Code Section 16.56.040:

1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district and complies with all applicable provisions of the Murrieta Development Code.

FACTS: Modifications to development standards are permitted with the approval of an Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) City of Murrieta Development Code (Section

16.16.010). The proposed MDP for residential use establishes standards consistent with the City of Murrieta Development Code Chapter 16.64, and Section 16.16.010, and the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP). The MDP identifies the distribution, location, and extent of land use within a development site and identifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. The density is 3.5 for the RS-1 zoned properties and is within the permitted range of this zone. The Project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to Murrieta Creek and implements several components of the site design and architectural standards in Section 5.0 of the DMSP such as landscaped parkways, street trees for each lot, alleys and alley-loaded garages, and front porches. The use is allowed in the City of Murrieta DMSP (Section 4.0 Table 4-1) which allows for a single-family residential, with approval of a Development Plan permit.

2. The proposed use would be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

FACTS: The proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Development Plan (DP), together with the provisions for its design and improvements, are in conformance with the General Plan, the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP), and Amended Master Development Plan. The proposed Master Development Plan establishes standards consistent with the DMSP, including Goal LU-17: Historic Murrieta as the City’s cultural, civic , and community center. Policy LU-17.3 Encourage the location of civic, institutional, office uses, and other job-creating uses in Historic Murrieta. Supportive residential development should be encouraged. Goal ED -10: A revitalized and economically stable Historic Downtown Murrieta. Policy ED-10.5 Consider opportunities for the development of higher-density residential uses to support commercial development within the Historic 328
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 9 of 13 ends

Downtown. The standards for the Residential Single Family 1 (RS -1) zone, the site design, and architectural standards are in Section 5.0.

The Master Development Plan identifies the distribution, location, and extent of land uses within a development site and identifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. The density is 3.5 for the RS-1 zoned properties and is within the permitted range of this zone with the adoption of the amended Master Development Plan. The proposed project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to Murrieta Creek and implements several components of the site design and architectural standa rds in Section

5.0 of the DMSP such as landscaped parkways, street trees for each lot, alleys and alley- loaded garages, and front porches . The revised Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan are consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan, the DMSP, the Amended Master Development Plan, and all applicable provisions of the Development Code. The TTM and DP are consistent with the DMSP, the proposed TTM and DP are consistent with the standards for the RS -1 zone and the Amended Master Development Plan development standards. The density is consistent with the RS-1 base zone and within the permitted range for this zone. General Plan Goal LU-1 - Provide a complementa ry balance of land uses throughout the community that meets the needs of existing residents and businesses as well as anticipated growth and achieves the community’s vision. The Project implements this Goal by providing subdivided lots that will accommodat e residential uses for the City of Murrieta. The Project is consistent with Policies LU -1.2, LU-1.3, and LU-1.6 – Land use designations that will provide for a wide range of densities, ensure opportunities for all types of housing, and promote future patt erns of development and land use that reduce infrastructure construction costs and make better use of existing and planned public facilities. As the Project is consistent with the General Plan designation, the Project implements these policies by implementing the land use pattern envisioned in the General Plan.

The project would allow for more efficient delivery of infrastructure, transportation, and other public services to the site and the surrounding area. The Project provides for halfway improvements, and full street improvements, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk to several streets that are part of the General Plan Circulation Element (e.g., B Street and New Clay Street). Staff has analyzed the Project design, including conceptual street plans, grading plans, hydrology, stormwater, and traffic reports, to ensure the Project provides a consistent design for future public and private streets. GOAL CIR-1 A circulation system that serves the internal circulation needs of the City, while also addressing the inter - community or travel needs. This goal is achieved by the review of Engineering and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) staff for the included public roads such as B Street and New Clay Street. As stated in the following policy, CIR -1.5 is to maintain a set of street standards and require that all new road f acilities be constructed or upgraded, where 329
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 10 of 13 ends

feasible, to meet City standards. The General Plan GOAL CIR -2 instructs to have a comprehensive circulation system that promotes safety. The Project design demonstrates, and the confirmed review by staff and certification by the applicant’s engineer of wo rk, demonstrates consistency with policy CIR-2.9, to ensure new roadways and intersections provide adequate sight distances for safe vehicular movement. GOAL CIR -6 Alternative travel modes and facilities are available to serve residents and employers/emplo yees and reduce VMT. The resultant lots that are created by the TTM will have subsequent entitlements and permits applied for, which will provide for job -related businesses to be near higher-density residential uses. This provides the opportunity for alternative commute options, including pedestrian and bicycle use. The circulation system provides for sidewalks and bicycle lanes, to continue the connection of alternative modes of transit within the downtown specific plan area. In addition, the Project relies upon VMT analysis, which shows consistency with policy CIR-6.15 - Utilize VMT as the performance measure to be used for CEQA transportation analyses conducted in the City to be consistent with SB 743. VMT is the performance measure for both land development and transportation projects as of July 1, 2020.

The TTM design demonstrates consistency with GOAL INF -1 - New development and redevelopment are coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastru cture for water, sewer, stormwater, and energy. Also, INF -1.4 - Ensure that new development and redevelopment provide infrastructure for water, sewer, and stormwater that adequately serves the proposed uses, and that has been coordinated with affected infr astructure providers. Lastly, with analysis of the Water Quality Management Plan, the Project complies with stormwater regulations, for Policy INF -1.11 - Ensure sufficient levels of storm drainage service are provided to protect the community from flood ha zards and minimize the discharge of materials into the storm drain system that are toxic, or which would obstruct flows. The proposed TTM and DP are consistent with the Subdivision Map Act as specified by state law and implemented by the City. The proposed Project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to Murrieta Creek.

3. The approval of the development plan for the proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and there will be no potentially significant negative impacts on environmental quality and natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored.

FACTS: An addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in compliance with Section s 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The residential development is not proposing any substantial changes that will require any substantial revisions to the certified MND due to 330
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 11 of 13 ends

the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of any identified significant effects; there have been no new substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous certified MND; and new information of substantial importance has not been discovered. The Project is subject to the previous Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

4. The location, size, design , and operating characteristics of the proposed use would be compatible with existing land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located.

FACTS: As conditioned, the proposed Project is compatible with the intensity of development for the current land use, and the existing surrounding land uses. The Project site is currently vacant. The proposed project is in an existing residential area and is physically compatible with the existing surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed project is easily accessible and served at its perimeter by existing public infrastructure that will be continued onto the project site. The proposed neo-traditional small lot development is consistent with the existing residential area and consistent with the previous 1884 land division. The bulk and scale of the residential use are compatible uses within the general area regarding size, design, and location.

5. The site is physically suitable for the type or density of development proposed.

FACTS: The project site will be graded for proper drainage to Murrieta Creek and to comply with flood zone requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The proposed project is in an existing rural residential area and is physically compatible with the existing surrounding and adjacent properties. The proposed project is easily accessible and served at its perimeter by existing public infrastructure that will be continued onto the project site. The proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type or density of the proposed development and is in harmony, scale, height, bulk, density, and coverage with standards for neo-traditional residential neighborhoods.

6. There are adequate provisions for sanitation, water , and public utilities and services to ensure public convenience, health, safety, and general welfare.

FACTS: The Project is designed with adequate common open space, safe circulation, and proper drainage. The site will be served by all necessary public utilities and infrastructure.

These provisions are available from existing on-site connections via B Street and New Clay Avenue. The proposed construction will comply with all applicable fire and building safety codes.

7. The proposed project is consistent with the Multi ple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

331
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 12 of 13 ends

SECTION 4 Murrieta Development Code Section 16.64.100 states that Master Development Plans may be adopted by Ordinance. The recommended Ordinance is attached as Attachment 1, Exhibit A.

SECTION 5. The applicant concurrently has filed applications for a revised Development Plan and revised Tentative Tract Map (#34439) which would implement the amended Master Development Plan. The Conditions of Approval proposed for adoption with those applications also would be applicable to the amended Master Development Plan. Any proposed change to the Development Plan or subdivision which would cause the conditions of approval to be modified would subject the Master Development Plan to a Periodic Review pursuant to Section 16.64.120 of the Development Code to ensure compliance and demonstrate consistency to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department Director.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to the above findings, the City Council of the City of Murrieta adopts the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 and approval of an Amended Master Development Plan (MDP-2021-2430), Revised Tentative Tract Map (TTM-2021-2428 #34439) and Revised Permit Development Plan (RP-2021-2429), subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit “B”, Exhibit “C,” and Exhibit “D”.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2023.

______________________________
Lisa DeForest, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

332
Resolution No. 23-4707

Page 13 of 13 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )§

CITY OF MURRIETA )

I, Cristal McDonald, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2 3-4707 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Murrieta at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of October, 2023, and was signed by the Mayor of the said City, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

____________________________
Cristal McDonald City Clerk

333

ORDINANCE NO. 597-23

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING AMENDED MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN MDP-2021-2430 ON A 22 -ACRE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED WITH 62 SINGLE -FAMILY DETACHED LOTS WITH RELATED

IMPROVEMENTS FOR CIRCULATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND MURRIETA

CREEK LOCATED EAST OF MURRIETA CREEK, WEST OF NEW CLAY
AVENUE, AND SOUTH OF “B” STREET WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE - FAMILY 1 (RS -1) ZONE OF THE DOWNTOWN MURRIETA SPECIFIC PLAN (DMSP) AREA (APN’s 906-193-001, 906-200-001, 002, 906-212-001, 906-221-001, 002)

WHEREAS, the applicant, Diversified Pacific Development Group LLC., (Permittee/Owner) submitted applications for an Amended Master Development Plan (MDP-2021-2430), Revised Tentative Tract Map (TTM-2021-2428) and Revised Development Plan Permit (RP -2021-2429) for the development and subdivision of 22 gross acres for 62 single -family detached and neotraditional residential units known as Ivy House (“Project”). The site has a Land Use Des ignation of Si ngle Family in the General Plan and is zoned Residential Single Family 1 (RS-1); and

WHEREAS, The project site is located in the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP) area and is subject to the requirements of the Re sidential Single-Family 1 ( RS-1) zone. The RS-1 zone within the DMSP requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet but allows lots as small as 5,000 with the adoption of a Master Plan Overlay. The Master Development Plan development standards also wo uld apply. The DMSP serves as a Master Plan Overlay pursuant to Section 16.16.10.C.1. of the Development Code; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2023, by mailing a notice to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site on June 4, 2023, publishing the notice in The Press-Enterprise newspaper on June 4, 2023, and posting the Project site on June 4, 2023; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Development Code section 16.64.040, the City Council is authorized to approve master development p lans and amendments. The Planning C ommission shall provide written recommendations to the council regarding master development plan adoption and amendments; and WHEREAS, on June 14 , 202 3, the Pla nning Commiss ion of the City of Murrieta held a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all written and oral reports of staff, public testimony on the matter, and written and oral testimony pr ovided by the applicant, recommended the City Council approve the Master Development Plan Amendment; Development Plan Revision and Tentative Tract Map Revision ; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the Project was held by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2023, at which time reports, recommendations, and public statements were considered; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 14, 2023, the Planning Commission used its independent judgment and considered all the reports, recommendations, and testimony set forth above , voted (5-0) recommending approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a hearing on the matter was duly noticed as provided in Development Code section 16.76 for the City Council meeting of October 3, 2023; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of October 17, 2023, for the Second Reading,
334
Ordinance No. 597-23

Page 2 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council has consider ed the facts presented in this case, including the written and oral staff reports on the Project, public testimony, and written and oral evidence presente d to the Planning Commission,

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS

Based upon the substantial evidence presented at the public hearing s on June 14, 2023, including written and oral staff reports and public and applicant written and oral testimony on the record from the Planning Commission public hearing, in accordance with Murrieta Development Code chapter 16. 64, the City Council of the City of Murrieta approves the Revised Master Development Plan MDP -2021-2430 in accordance with the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section16.64.110:

1. The proposed Master Development Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all elements of the general plan.

FACTS: The proposed amended Master Development Plan establishes standar ds consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, including Goal LU-17: Historic Murrieta as the City’s cultural, civic , and community center. Policy LU-17.3 Encourage the loc ation of civic, institutional, office, and other job-creating uses in Historic Murrieta. Supportive residential development should be encouraged. This project provides supportive residential development to implement Goal and Policy LU-17, LU-17.3. Goal ED-10: A revitalized and economically stable Historic Down town Mu rrieta. Policy ED-10.5 Consider opportunities for the development of higher-density residential uses to support commercial development within the Historic Downtown. The standards for the Residential Single Family 1 (RS -1) zone, the site design, and architectural standards are in Section 5.0. The revised Master Development Plan identifies the distribution, location, and extent of land uses within a development site and identifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. The density is 3.5 d.u. per acre for the RS-1 zoned properties and is within the permitted range of this zone with the adoption of the revised Master Development Plan. The Project preserves and dedicates nat ural resources rela ted t o Murrieta Creek and implements se veral c omponents of the site design and architect ural standards in Section 5.0 of the Downtown Specific Plan such as landscaped parkways, street trees for each lot, alleys and alley-loaded garages, and front porches.

2. The Master Development Plan ade quately addresses the physical development charac teristics of the subject site.

FACTS: The project site will be graded and include stormwater treatment and drainage facilities to comply with flood zone requireme nts of the Federal Emerg ency Management Age ncy (FEMA). The proposed project design preserves approximately 40% of the project site as open space. The project does not adversely impact and is found to be consistent with the Army Corps of Engineers and R iverside County Flood Control District Murri eta Creek Improvement project regarding establishing the top of the bank and setbacks from ultimate improvements. The Drainage Study, CLOMR, and grading plan show a design that can provide adequat e setbacks from the floodway of Murrieta Creek to provide a flood-free Project.

3. The development standards contained in the Master Development Plan serve to protect the pu blic convenience, health, safety, and general welfare.

335
Ordinance No. 597-23

Page 3 of 5 ends

FACTS: The revised Master Development Plan wi ll contribute to the compl etion of links and improvements in the City’s circulation and trail system. The proposed project incorporates water quality ma nagement measures and furthers the objectives of the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan. Development stan dards have be en evaluated and found to b e consi stent with the Development Code to protect the public convenience, health, safety, and general welfare.

4. The Master De velopment Plan is consistent with all applicable requirements of local ordinances and state law.

FACTS: The proposed Master De velopment Plan is consistent with the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, including the standards for th e RS-1 zone (landscaping, setbacks, building heights) as well as lighting standards unique to the DMSP, and stormwater desig n. Purs uant to S ection

16.16.10 C. 1. of the Development Code, a Master Plan Ove rlay shall be imple mented by a Master Development Plan and the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan serves a s the overlay. The project has been subject to a joint projec t review and findi ngs by th e Regional Con servation Authority which found that the project i s consistent with t he criteria of the Multi ple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. All permits relating to building permits, water quality management, regional drainage systems, and natural watercourses will be obtained and are conditioned with the Project.

5. The proposed Master Development Plan or amendme nt would be in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

FACTS: An addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declara tion (MND) was prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the California Environm ental Quality Act. The residential development is not proposing any substantial cha nges that will require any significant revisions to the certified MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of any identified significant effects; there h ave been no new substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Projec t was u ndertaken which will require major revisions of the previous certified MND, and new information of substantial importance has not been discover ed. The Project is subject to the previous Mitigation Measures identified in t he Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

6. The pr oposed master development plan amendment would not create internal inconsistencies within the master development plan and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the master development plan it is amending.

FACTS: The Amended Master Developmen t Plan is consistent with the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan, including the standards for the RS -1 zone. Purs uant to Section 16.16.10 C. 1. of the Development Code, a Master Plan Overlay shall be im plemented by a Master Development Plan and the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan serves as the overlay. The amended Mast er Development Plan replaces and voids the previous master development plan and would not create internal inconsistencies within the mast er development plan. The project has been subject to a joint project review and findings by the Regional Conservatio n Authority which found that the project is consistent with the criteria of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

7. The proposed Master De velopment Plan would be in compliance with the provisions of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Page 4 of 5 ends

SECTION 2. APPROVAL

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption.

ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this _____ day of ____________, 2023.

______________________________
Lisa DeForest, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Tiffany Israel, City Attorney

337
Ordinance No. 597-23

Page 5 of 5 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal of the City of Murrieta, California this _____ day of __________, 2023.

____________________________
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
338
MDP-2021-2430 (MASTER DEVELOPMENT

PLAN) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

FOR IVY HOUSE
(EXHIBIT AWR2UGLQDQFH)
(Modified by Planning Commission June 14, 2023)

Boundaries consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers:

906-193-001
906-200-001
906-200-002
906-212-001
906-221-001
906-221-002

Development Standards -

339

c. Parking -
• Parking within the Alley ROW is prohibited and will be enforced via Homeowners Association or Property Owners Association and will have no parking signs placed onsite.

d. Walls, Gates, and Fences -
• Gates separating the alley right of way and garage face are prohibited. • Outdoor Storage in an unfenced area is prohibited.

2 340

Exhibit “A”

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT 2021-2429, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #34439 (TTM-2021-2428) AND
IMPLEMENTING MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MDP-2021-2430)
OCTOBER 3, 2023

PLANNING DIVISION

General:

1. Implementing Revised Permit Development Plan RP-2021-2429 (RP-2021-2429) and Tentative Tract Map 3 4439 ( TTM-2021-2428) shall not become effective until the effective date of Murrieta Ordinance No. X adopting Master Development Plan MDP - 2021-2430.

2. The permittee shall defend (with attorne ys approved by the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Murrieta, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, damages, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an a pproval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning this application. The City will promptly notify the permittee and property owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully in the defense.

3. Any fees due the City of Murrieta for processing this project shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of final action by the approval authority including consultant fees a nd additional noticing requireme nts. Failure to pay such outstanding fees within the time specified shall invali date any approval or conditional approval granted. No permits, site work, or other actions authorized by this action shall be processed by the City, nor permitted, authorized, or commenced until all outstanding fees are paid to the City.

4. The project appro val (Implementing Development Plan) is for the construction of 6 2 single-family units with detached garages , installation of necessary utilities, drainage, landscaping, and associated improvements. All construction plan s shall be in substantial conformanc e with the approved site plans, floor plans, elevations, material and color board(s), landscaping plans and grading plans date approved October 3 , 2023, as modified by these conditions of approval. The land division hereby permitted is to subdivide 21.96 acres into 62 residential lots, 4 open space lots, and associated road and drainage improvements . Any proposed change substantially different than the approved plan shall require an amendment to this approval in accordanc e with the Development Code.

5. The project shall be in substantial conformance with all adopted environmental mitigation measures, any written project proposal information and any verbal agreements or representations made to the decision-making body as part of its consideration of the project. Any proposed change substantially different than the approved project shall require an amendment to this approval in accordance with the Development Code.

6. Pursuant to Section 711.4 of the State of California Fish and Game Code, the permittee is required to pay a $2,406.75 handling fee and a $50.00 processing fee. Said fees shall be paid to the Clerk/Recorder of the County of Riverside at the time the Notice of Determination is filed pursuant to Section 21152 of the P ublic Resources Code. If this fee is not paid, the approval of this project shall not be operative, vested, or final. In 341
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 2 of 37 ends

order to comply with State mandated timelines for filing of a Notice of Determination the above fee must be delivered to th e Planning Division within two (2) working d ays after the Effective Date.

7. The development of these premises shall comply with the standards of the City’s Development Code , the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan and the Ivy House Master Development Plan (MDP 2021-2430) and all other applicable State and Federal codes.

8. Subsequent modifications of this approval, which do not intensify the use, including but not limited to reorientation of structures, alteration of parking and circulation design, minor changes to the conditions of approval, interpretation s of the conditions of approval relative to intent, necessity of, and timing, may be approved by the Planning Director, unless the Director requires a Substantial Conformance or Revised Permit application in accordance with the Development Code.

9. The permittee shall pay all applicable impact and/or mitigation fees or provide proof that all required fees have been paid in accordance with City policies and ordinances in effect at the time of permit issuance.

10. Any existing approval for the use of, or developme nt on, this property shall become null and void upon final approval of a grading or building permit by the City of Murrieta.

11. The permittee shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state , and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

12. The permittee shall obtain approval of all necessary plans for the construction of structures on the subject property in accordance with the Murrieta Development Code.

Such plans include, but are not limited to, site plans, floor plans , building elevations, grading plans, and landscaping plans.

13. The Implementing Development Plan approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date or prior to the expiration of TTM-2021-2428 (January 17, 2026), otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. “Used,” means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or to the actual occupancy of existing buildings or la nd under the terms of the authorized use, in accordance with Development Code 16.80.

14. This approval/use shall be used/established within three (3) years of the Effective Date, otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. “Used,” me ans implementation of the authorized use, in its entirety, in accordance with these conditions of approval.

15. The project shall be developed in compliance with all applicable requirements and standards identified within the City’s Development Code for Residential Single-Family 1 (RS-1), Master Development Plan 2021-2430, and the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP).

16. All residential lots shall meet the minimum lot size and the Development Standards required by the applicable zoning district, unless amended by MDP-2021-24230. The minimum lot size sha ll be exclusive of any easements for Public Works or Community Services Department purposes.
342
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 3 of 37 ends

a. Prior to precise grade plan approval, all units shall be reviewed to comply with Master Development Plan 2021-2430.

17. The City is located within the Mt. Palomar Sp ecial Lighting Area, as defined in Section

16.18.110 of the Development Code, low pressure sodium vapor lighting or overhead high pressure sodium vapor lighting with shields or cut off luminaries, shall be utilized.

18. All parking lot light s and other outdoo r lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Division of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Development Code Section 16.18.100 -Lighting and 16.18.110 - Mt Palomar Lighting Standards.

19. There shall be no offsite signage associated with this land division, except as otherwise provided by the City’s Development Code Section 16.38. Violation of this condition of approval may result in no fur ther permits of any type being issued for this subdivisi on until the unpermitted signage is removed.

20. Tentative Tract Map No. 34439 shall record within two (2) years from the date of the approval or it shall become null and void unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to City regulations.

21. This land division shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all requirements of the City’s Development Code, unless modified by the conditions listed herein.

22. The effective City Council approval date of the original tenta tive map occurred on July 17, 2008 (30 days after adoption of Ordinance for master Development Plan) . All determinations of whether the land division is eligible for an extension of time shall be based on this original approval date.

23. The permittee, or an y successor-in-interest to the land divider, shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, trail easements, landscaped areas and irrigation systems within the land division until such time as those ope rations are the responsibility of the individual home ow ners, a home owners association, or any other successor -in- interest.

24. The permittee shall comply and implement all mitigation measures identified in the mitigated negative declaration’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Prior to issuance of grading permits:

25. Construction of this project may be done progressively in phases provided a phasing plan is submitted (with appropriate fees) to the Planning Division and approved prior to issuance of any grading permits.

26. Parcels/lots that have a rear yard facing/abutting a City designated Arterial Street shall not be allowed to take any access onto such street.

27. All grading for proposed new dwellings and/or accessory buildings shall occu r within the approved building pad sites as identified on the approved Tentative Map.

343
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 4 of 37 ends

28. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project permittee shall comply with the provisions of any existing City ordinance that has been established as a mitigatio n measure for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. These ordinances may include fee schedules, mechanisms for protecting habitat, or a combination thereof.

29. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Planning D ivision shall determine if the deposit based fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the permittee/developer prior to issuance of grading permits.

30. Prior to grading permit issuance, the permittee shall submit an arborist report in accordance with Developm ent Code Section 16.42. The report shall identi fy all trees that qualify for preservation/relocation with appropriate recommendations, including mitigation recommendations for replacement of qualified mature trees.

31. The project shall comply with the provi sions pertaining to construction activity as sta ted in Section 16.30.130 of the City of Murrieta Municipal Code:

(a) The operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work is prohibited between the weekd ay hours of 7 P.M. and 7 A.M., or at any time on Sundays or holidays.

(b) Construction activities must be conducted in a manner that the maximum noise levels at the affected structures would not exceed those listed in Table 3 -6 of the noise ordinance.

(c) All mobile or stationary internal combustion e ngine p owered equi pment or machinery shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and air -intake silencers in proper working order.

Prior to final map recordation:

32. After approval of the Tentative Map and prior t o the expiration of the map, the permittee shall cause the real property included within the Tentative Map, or any pert thereof, to be surveyed and a Final Map be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval.

33. The Planning and Engineerin g Department’s shall review any final map to ens ure compliance wit h approved Tentative Map. All lot sizes and dimensions shall be in conformance with the development standards of Master Development Plan 2021-2430 and the Downtown Specific Plan.

34. An application for street naming shall be submitted to th e P lanning Departm ent for review and approval (allow for a minimum of 30-days for review by city staff).

35. Permittee/Developer shall prepare a statement to be provided to the potential purchases of each subdivided lot, and included in escrow for the sale th ereof, indicating the General Plan and zone designations for all properties abutting the Map boundaries, with direction to contact the City of Murrieta with questions concerning potential uses of undeveloped property and indicating that zoning may be subje ct to future change. The form of the letter shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Murrieta as a condition of Final Map approval.
344
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 5 of 37 ends

36. The permittee shall, when applicable , provide a note on the final map or prepare an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) to identify any issues of concern that need to be noted as affecting this map.

a. The City is located within the Mt. Palomar Special Lighting Area, as defined in Section 16.18.110 of the Devel opment Code, low pressure sodium vapor lighting or overhead h igh pressure sodiu m vapor lighting with shields or cut off luminaries, shall be utilized.
b. The project site is located within the City’s Flood Hazard Zone area. A drainage report (dated March 23, 2007) and Flood Mitigation Study (dated July 26, 2006) is on file with the Planning Department for mitigation and grading requirements.

37. The subdivider/permittee shall submit the following documents to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney . A Homeowner’s Association or Property Owners Association shall be established for maintenance of private streets/alleys, drainage, and other common areas. Prior to the sale of any lot, the Property Owner Associat ion shall be dissolved and a Homeowner’s Association shall be established for maintenance of private streets/alleys, drainage, and other common areas.

A declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; and

A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit, which provides that, the CC&Rs are incorporated therein by reference.

The CC&Rs submitted for review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishment of a property owners association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common ar ea by either the property owners association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim:

i. Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply:

ii. The pr operty owners association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the private streets, and common areas, and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment.

iii. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of the assessment or other docum ent creating the assessment lien.

iv. This declaration shall not be terminated or substantially amended without prior written consent of the Development Services Director of the City of Murrieta or the City’s successor-in-interest.

v. A proposed amendment shall be considered substantial if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the private streets, common areas, and drainage.

345
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 6 of 37 ends

vi. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners associ ation Rules and Regulations, if any, this declaration shall control.
.
vii. Third Party Beneficiary. All conditions, covenants and restrictions imposed by the City of Murrieta per TTM -2021-2428 and DP0-2021-2430 which are contained in these CC&Rs shall be c ovenants running with the land, and shall, in any event, and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be, to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, binding for the benefit and the favor of, and enforceable by the City of Murrieta, and its successors and assigns. Although the City of Mur rieta shall be a beneficiary of these specific conditions, covenants and restrictions and shall have the right to enforce them, the City shall not be obligated hereunder to exer cise such rights of enforcement

The CC&Rs shall provide a me thod for the maintenance of the common areas privately maintained slopes, and drainage course within the final map, and shall provide to the extent they are not adequately enforced as to the requ irements in these conditions of approval the City shall have the right there up on to enforce them, at the cost of the owner(s). Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded.

38. The CC&Rs shall address the following items:
a. The u se o f chemicals or bi -products, such as manure and landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water qualit y shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of su ch chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area.
b. Incorporate the Master Development Plan setbacks .
c. The Home Owners Associa tion (HO A) or Property Owners Association (POA) shall maintain adequate alleyway and home address lighting thro ughout the project. Added by staff at Planning Commission direction

Project specific:

39. The color of a ll street and trail furniture (benches, and trash receptacles), and street lighting shall be RAL6009, Tannengrun, Fir green, Vert sapin.

40. The design of the street furniture (benches and trash receptacles) shall be a craftsman’s style (solduraproducts.com) and must match the style and model of the furniture at Town Square Park.

41. All street lighting and trail lighting shall be consistent with the attached lighting detail.

42. The Permittee/Owner shall provide a Cost Estimate prepared, signed, and stamped, by a registered architect. The cost estimat e shall include all costs but not limited to plan preparation, plan check fees, permit fees, bonding, product costs, etc.

43. Security bonds, for the replacement costs as outlined in the final cost estimate(s), shall be in the form of a cash deposit, as approved by the City Planner.

346
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 7 of 37 ends

44. The permittee shall install lighting to illuminate addresses on each home fronting a s treet and/or alleyway. Property addresses shall be visible and illuminated during dark hours.

Added by staff at Planning Commission direction

45. The permittee shall install alleyway lighting as follows: buildings located on the alleyway shall have a light on the building illuminating the alleyway ; buildings set back from the alleyway shall have a bollard light to provide adequate lighting . Added by staff at Planning Commission direction

46. A taller streetlight style light, consistent with the attached exhibits, shall be located at the corner of the alleyway and public street . Added by staff at Planning Commission direction

Prior to building permit issuance:

47. If a model home complex is proposed, an application for a model home complex must be submitted in conformance with the City’s submittal requirements for review and approval prior to grading permit issuance.

48. A clearance letter from the Waste Management Distr ict shall be provided to the Cit y’s Planning Division verifying acceptance of service.

49. The permittee/property owner, prior to any construction/development on a lot(s) shall post a notice on the site in a location accessible to the public. The notice sh all include the contact information of whom to contact with the permittee/contractor and the City Of Murrieta. This shall be made available to the public to address concerns with construction activities related to the development of this project, includin g but not limited to: noise, dust control, construction traffic.

50. Prior to building permit is suance, evidence of a recorded final map shall be provided to the Planning Division.

51. Prior to building permit issuance, the permittee shall obtain approval for t he project’ s addressing.

52. Roof gutters and downspouts are not permitted on the exterior of the building unles s satisfactorily integrated into the architecture as determined by Planning Department review prior to building permit issuance.

53. All lighting fi xtures shal l be designed with shielding or cut -off fixtures to project in a downward manner to minimize glare and to not shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of-way. A detailed lighting study (photometric) shall be provided prior to building permit issuance to demonstrate compliance with this condition.

54. Address numbers shall be installed on the garage frontage for each unit.

55. A wall sconce light shall be located on each garage front capable of illuminating the address numbers.

56. Prior to building permit issuance, three (3) sets of a final fence and wall plan shall be submitted for review and approval. The plan shall address the following items:
347
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 8 of 37 ends

a. Plan must be consistent with the conceptual fence and wall plan, subject to maintenance responsibilities.
b. The plans must include proposed design and location of all proposed fence and walls including along the project perimeter.
c. Identify/note anti-graffiti coatings on fences and walls, where applicable. d. A wall/fence shall be constructed to preve nt unauthor ized access into the conservation area along the project frontage, subject to appr oval by the CSD, Engineering, and Planning Division.

Prior to Final Inspection:

57. Unless otherwise indicated, all conditions, mitigation measures and other require ments shall be fully constructed and implemented pr ior to final inspection of the building an d/or site improvements.

If the project has been phased, all facilit ies (landscaping and irrigation) meant to serve the completed phase of development shall be ins talled in a usable condition prior to final Inspection.

LANDSCAPING

Prior to the issuance of grading permits:

58. Three printed copies and one digital copy of lan dscape construction plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division. A licensed Landscape Ar chitect shall prepare the plans.

59. The landscape con struction plans shall be in substantial co nformance with the preliminary landscape plans as approved by the Ci ty’s Landscape Architect, City Administrative Staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council. Notes, details, and specifications shall be included.

60. It is the responsibility of the landsc ape architect to be aware of and comply with the requirements and st andards of Title 16.28 of the Murrieta Municipal Code, the City’s current policies, and current State of California water efficient landscape requirements.

61. It is the responsibility of the applicant and owner’s design team to be aware of and comply with th e requirements of Title 16.42 Tree Preservation. The findings of the tree survey report and the proposed mitigation measures shall be noted and cl early illustrated on landscape construction drawings.

62. All planter areas shall provide a minimum 5 feet wide p lanter area clear of curbs, concrete step -out strips, walkways, walls, footings, and overhead s upports. If narrower landscape areas are necessary due to site constraints, the restricted width planters are to have naturally narrow growing sub-shrubs.

63. Mature specimen trees in thirty -six inch or forty -eight inch boxes shall be provided for large projects in sufficient quantity to provide variety and e mphasis at main focal areas.

Quantity and locations are subject to the review and approval of the director.

64. One street tree, and two yard trees are illustrate as required for each lot. Wherever the 348
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 9 of 37 ends

ADU is setback at least 10’ from rear drive aisle, move o ne of the required yard trees to this “alley” location. Specify a narrow canopy or small stature tree where pl anter area is limited.

65. Fire apparatus access roads shall be illustrated and noted on planting plan. Trees are to be located so that the mature ca nopies do not encroach into the access roa d clear zone of 28 feet wide and 13.5 feet high. Reposition any tree in conflict with this restriction.

66. Perimeter landscape design shall coordinate with surroundi ng properties. Select street trees to match adjacent existing or approved species. Shrub and ground cover selections are to match or compliment adjacent developments.

67. Provide enhanced corner planting using specimen trees and accent shrubs that do not conflict with vehicular line of sight. Limit shrubs to a maximum of 30” natural height.

68. Avoid plants that require cutting back to keep them within a specific area o r at a trimmed height. Carefully select and locate plants where they will be allowed to grow to maturity and keep their natural shape.

69. Plant materials within vehicular line of sight impac t areas are to be limited to a maximum of 30” natural height. Impact areas include but are not limited to project entries, drive aisles, and parking lot island planters.

70. Slopes shall be landscaped, at a minimum, a ccording to City’s Slope Landscaping, Requirements for Subdivision Tract and Commercial Slopes document. Refer to City’s website under Planning Division, Applications and Forms, Landscape Handouts.

71. Planting design and materials utilized within biofiltrati on or detention basin areas shall be suitable for both dry and wet conditions and provide slope stabilization where necessary.

Planting design and materials are subject to the review and approval of the Ci ty’s Landscape Architect.

72. Bio-barrier root control devices shall be installed for all trees located within City right -of- way and for all trees within 10’ feet o f the right -of-way and city sidewalks. A minimum length of 20’ is required at each location.

73. Above ground utilities shall be located in shrub are as and screened as required from public view. Fire equipment shall have a setback of 10 feet, or as otherwise permitted, where only low growing ground covers shall be planted.

74. Utilities and light standar d locations shall be coordinated with Owner’s engin eering team to avoid conflicts with required tree locations and utility screening.

Prior to issuance of a Building Permit:

75. The landscape plans shall be approved by the City’s Landscape Architect and Assi gned Planner.

Prior to the initiation of landscape construction:

76. Contact City’s Assigned Planner or Landscape Architect to determine if a pre -job meeting 349
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 10 of 37 ends

with the job site superintendent and the landscape contractor will be required. No landscaping shall occur prior to the meeting or the City’s determina tion that it will not be required.

Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits:

77. All required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed in a condition acceptable to the City. The owner’s Lands cape Architect shall provide inspections throughout the landscape installation process. The owner shall provide the City’s Assigned Planner with a Landscape Cer tificate of Completion documentation package at the time of final inspection request. The City will review the Certificate of Completion and cond uct a final inspection to ensure that the landscape installation is in compliance with all City policies, practices and the approved landscape plans. The Certificate of Completion shall be complete with an irrigation water audit, irrigation schedules, lan dscape maintenance schedules, and soil management report.

78. Performance securities, in the amount determined by the City to guarantee the adequate maintenance of the landscaping materials and irrigation sys tem in accordance with the approved plans for a per iod of one (1) year from the date of final clearance of the installed landscaping by the City, shall be posted with the Planning Department.

Acceptable forms of security shall be limited to cash deposit, cash bonds, or irrevocable letters of credit. The performance securities may be released one (1) year after final clearance of the installed landscaping by the City, upon written request by the owner, if the landscaping has been adequately maintained. A d eposit to cover re -inspection of the landscape, at the current City rate shall be posted with the Planning Division prior to re - inspection for maintenance bond release.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

72. All items required to be submitted shall be, at a minimum, in electronic format (e.g., PDF, Word). Hard copies may also be required.

73. All conditions as a pproved shall be completed by the Permittee/Owner at no cost to the City, unless specified otherwise.

74. Prior to any permit issuance, all relevant plans and reports shall be prepared in accordance with the Murrieta Municipal Code, reviewed, all applicable fe es p aid, and approved by the City Engineer.

75. As part of the initial s ubmittal of plans, reports, etc., for any grading permit or any other grant of approval, the Permittee/Owner shall submit the approved discretionary plans and reports (e.g., Tentative Map, Preliminary Grading Plan, Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Preliminary Hydrology Study, etc.) that were approved as part of the Discretionary Review Pro cess, in addition to all applicable onsi te and offsite plans, reports, reference documents, and/or document(s) deemed relevant for the issuance of a permit.

76. Prior to 1st submittal of building plans, the Permittee/Owner shall execute initial submittal of engineering plans/reports (e.g., grading plans, improvement plans, stormwater reports, soils reports, as applicable), submittal shall have been deemed a complete submittal, with 350
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 11 of 37 ends

first round of plan check comments provided, and revisions made onto the 2nd submittal of engineering plans/reports. Then, the 1st submittal of building plans shall coincid e with the revised 2nd submittal of the engineering plans.

77. Grading plans’ 1st submittal, with building pad location and elevation information, shall be submitted prior to, or concurrently with, building plans’ 1 st submittal. However, building plans’ 1st submittal shall not be submitted prior to grading plans’ 1 st submittal. Moreover, building plans’ 2 nd submittal, and subsequent submittals, shall coincide with grad ing plans’ revised 2nd submittal, and revised subsequent submittals, respectively.

78. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, all conditions set forth in these Conditions of Approval shall be completed and accepted/as-built.

79. In addition to any appli cable permit issuance, an Encroachment P ermit shall also be obtained from the Engineering Dep artment prior to commencement of any construction within City right-of-way or public jurisdiction easements.

80. If applicable, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtaine d from CalTrans, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, FEMA, Army C orp of Engineers, etc. prior to commencement of any construction wit hin their right-of-way. Proof of permit issuance, or verification of acknowledgement with no pe rmit issuance requirement, shall be submitted prior to city -issued permit issuance affecting said easement(s). Additionally, said approvals/acknowledgements shal l be identified on the subject grading and/or improvement plans, as applicable.

81. The Permittee/O wner shall submit a current hyperlinked Preliminary Title Report with active connectivity to all referenced recorded documents identified within the Preliminary Title Report.

82. It is understood that the Tentative Map correctly shows all existing and propose d easements, travel ways, grading, drain age courses, etc., and that any omission may require the resubmittal of documents and/or plans associated with this appli cation for additional consideration.

83. The Permittee/Owner shall defend (with attorneys approved by the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City of Murrieta, its agents, officers, and emp loyees from any claims, damages, actions, or proceedings against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval o f the City, its advisory agencies, appea l boards, or legislative body concerning any approval s. The City will promptly notify the Permittee/Owner of any such cl aim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully in the defense.

84. All Engineering Plans (e.g., Improvement Plans, G rading Plans) shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the sit e and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City -formatted bond sheets. The Permittee/Owner shall review all plan check comments, ma ke certain their consultants address all comments in each subsequent submittal, and return all plan check comments with each subsequent submittal. Failure to do so may result in additional plan check fees due to additional review time.

85. The Permittee/Owner shall comply with all current and applicable requirements set forth in 351
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 12 of 37 ends

the City of Murrieta’s Municipal Code, Development Code, Standard Drawings, Ordinances, Policies, and Resolutions, along with all applicable Sta te (e.g., State Water Resources Control Board) and Federal regulations, whether or not such p rovisions or requirements have been specifically set forth in these conditions, all of which are now incorporated herein by reference, and fully set forth at this point.

86. Prior to approval of any plans, reports, or legal documents and/or permit issuance, the Permittee/Owner shall pay all outstanding plan check and processing fees.

87. Security bonds, for a portion of the construction costs as outlined in the final cost estimate(s), shall be in the form of a cash deposit, as approved by the City Engineer.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT, THE PERMITTEE/OWNER SHALL COMPLETE

THE FOLLOWING
Offsite Property/Easement Acquisitions

88. Prior to any permit issuance, the Permitte e/Owner shall coordinate with adjacent p roperty owners affected by proposed onsite and/or off site improvements. The Permittee/Owner shall be solely responsible for acquisition of any necessary easements, agreements, etc. prior to plan approval. All easem ents, agreements, etc. shall be notarize d and recorded in a format acceptable to the City Engineer.

89. Agreements and/or easements shall designate maintenance respo nsibilities conforming to those associated/identified on the approved Tentative Map. The agree ments and/or easements shall also addres s uninterrupted access and utility services to affect ed existing properties during construction and show the recording in formation (instrument number and date) on the appropriate plan(s).

90. Upon property/easement acqui sition, the Permittee/Owner shall comple te the improvements as approved by the City.

Street Improvement Plans

91. The Permittee/Owner shall provide the following ite ms, but may be required to provide additional items to substantiate the proposed design:

A. A Stre et Improvement Plan prepared by a regist ered Civil Engineer in accordance with City standards , Caltrans standards, and MUTCD requirements, with all improvements subject to the approval of the City Engineer. i) The Street Improvement Plan shall include within it the following:
(1) Signing and Striping p lan, designed by a registered Civil Engineer and incl uded with the street improvement plans for the project.
(2) Storm Drain Improvement Plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and included with the street improvement plans for the project. 352
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 13 of 37 ends

ii) Street stru ctural section(s) shall be based on the Soils Enginee r recommendation or City Std. 120, whichever is greater.

B. A Cost Esti mate prepared, signed, and stamped by a registered civil engineer.

The cost estimate shall inc lude all costs but not limited to plan p reparation, plan check fees, permit fees, bonding, st aking, construction costs, stormwater best management practices, erosion control, soils engineering; construction management, etc.

92. Subject to the discretion of, a nd final approval by, the City Council, the City shall vacate/abandon a portion of the following street’s right-of-way.

93. The centerline profile may be required to extend beyond th e project boundaries showing grade, alignment, and/or striping, depending on the proposed desig n and existing conditions, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

94. All street improvement s sh all be designed to provide adequate right -of-way and transitions to existing improvements.

95. If applicable, the Permittee/Owner shall provide a design to [re]construct handicap access ramps within the public right -of-way along the project’s frontage, and adjacent to the project, to current ADA requirements, this includes across the street or driveway that are accessible to the frontage handicap access ramps.

96. Improvement plans shall show all existing a nd proposed drainage and stormwater facilities, including surface and subsurface construction. All required drainage easements shall be monumented along the boundaries as approved by the City Engineer.

97. City-maintained drainage facilitie s located outside of city right -of-way shall be accompanied with proper public drainage easements to be reviewed and appr oved by the City and recorded on a city-approved format.
a. All storm drain easement widths shall adhere to Riverside County’s storm drain easement width chart and have a max cross slope of 5 %.unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer.

98. The parkway cross slope in the public right-of-way shall be two percent, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

99. The Permittee/Owner shall design, for the guarantee of construction, the follow ing public improvements to the current City of Murrieta Circulation Element and corresponding City 353
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 14 of 37 ends

standards. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: pav ing, redwood header, curb and gutter; sidewalk; street lights; drainage facilities; water quality best management practices; signing and striping; utilities, inc luding but not limited to, water and sewer; landscaping; with all improvements subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

A. Design New Clay St frontage to be improved to a half width of 5 0 feet centerline to right-of-way, per the Downtown Specific Plan.
i) The required improvements shall include, opposite centerline, a minimum of 12 feet A.C. paved surface and 8 feet graded shoulder.
ii) The r equired improvements shall include, and clearly show, connectivity to existing improvements.
iii) The required improvements sh all include connectivity to improvements existing opposite legal centerline.
iv) The project’s fro ntage shall identify the requested parkw ay to accommodate the enhanced parkway landscape.
v) The frontage shall ensure a design for (or repair/replace) ADA complian t sidewalk and pedestrian ramps (truncated domes).

Pedestrian ramps adjacent to the project sh all be improved/provided to current ADA standards, per city standard drawings, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. vi) As applicable, callout right -of-way dedi cation/vacation along the frontage to provide the requested right-of-way for the required improvements.

Transition striping from the pr oposed frontage may be required to commence at the project boundary and extend offsite to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. vii) Due to proposed improvements and striping, the Permittee/Owner shall identify the limits of a reslurry, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. viii) Due to proposed improvements, a note shall be added on the plans indicating “reslurry/resurface of e xisting roadway may be required during construction at the discretion of the City’s Constructio n Inspector and may be subject to review /approval by the City Engineer.

B. Design B St frontage to be improved to a half width of 40 feet centerline to right - of-way, per the Downtown Specific Plan.
i) The required improvements shall include, opposite centerline , a minimum of 12 feet A.C. paved surface and 8 feet graded shoulder.
ii) The required improvemen ts s hall include, and clearly show, connectivity to existing improvements.
iii) The required improvements shall include connectivity to improvements existing opposite legal centerline.
354
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 15 of 37 ends

iv) The project’s frontage shall identify the requested parkway to accommodate the enhanced parkway landscape.
v) The frontage shall ensure a design f or (or repair/replace, if applicable) ADA compliant sidewalk and pedestrian ramps (truncated domes).

Pedestrian ramps adjacent to the project shall be improved/provided to current ADA standards, per city standard drawings, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. vi) As applicable, callout right -of-way dedication/vacation along the frontage to provide the requested right-of-way for the required improvements.

C. Design all interior streets to be improved to a ha lf width of 60 feet centerline to right-of-way, per Local Street, City Standard Drawing 106. i) The required improvements shall include, and clearly show, connectivity to existing improvements.
ii) The project’s frontage shall identify the requested parkway to a ccommodate the enhanced parkway landscape.
iii) The frontage shall ensure a design for ADA compliant sidewalk and pedestrian ramps (truncated domes).

Pedestrian ramps adjacent to the project s hall be improved/provided to current ADA standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. iv) As applicable, callout right -of-way dedication/vacation along the fro ntage to provide the requested right-of-way for the required improvements.

Transition striping from the proposed frontage may be required to commence at the project boundary and extend offsite to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 100. Due to proposed impr ovements, a note shall be added on the p lans indicating “reslurry/resurface of existing roadw ay m ay be required during construction at the discretion of the City ’s Construction Inspector and may be subject to review/approval by the City Engineer.
101. Proper right-of-way shall be dedicated at the fol lowing corners. The ultimate right -of-way shall be c hamfered between both frontage roads. Each end point being at the r oad frontage’s right-of-way line, perpendicular to the point of ultimate curb return.

A. New Clay St. & B St.

B. B St. & 4th St.

C. New Clay St. & 4th St.
355
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 16 of 37 ends

D. 4th St. & Juniper St.

102. Driveways and Site Access shall conform to Development Code 16.34.080. 103. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian and traffic control facilities shall be provided at all street intersections and entrances in accordance with City Standards. The line of sight shall be shown on all gradi ng, street improvement, and landscape plans in accordance with Std. 214. Signs are not allowed within the Limited Use Area.
104. The exact depth of street structural section and subgrade requi rement shall be based on subgrade "R" value tests and the appropriat e Traffic Index for the type of street, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, along with City Standard 120, whichever is greater.
105. Existing street pavement along the project’s frontage(s), shall be core tested to determine if the existing structural section meets current City Standards. Core testing shall be taken by a qualified engineer at locations approved by the Director of Pu blic Works.

Substandard sections shall be reconstruc ted or overlaid. The Director of Public Works shall have the final approval for all street conditions and the limits of the pavement reconstruction and/or resurfa cing. Core testing may be done prior to grading permit issuance to identify the limits of rec onstruction, if applicable, and shown on the improvement plans. At t he discretion of the Permittee/Owner, core testing may be deferred to after permit issuance (e. g., during construction) but is subject to unforeseen conditions which may delay construction.
106. The e xact alignment, width and design of all turning lanes, travel lanes, driveways, striping, and all other traffic control devices and measures, including turn outs, bike lanes, and width transitions, shall be approved by the City Engineer. 107. All cul-de-sac bulbs and knuckles shall be designed per the City of Murrieta’s S tandard Drawings 201, 202, and 203.
108. A light emitting diode for the street lighting system shall be shown on the street improvement plans and shall be installed at locations specified by th e City Engineer at no cost to the public. All installations shall b e compliant with the City’s Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan.
109. If the project is to be phased, the Permittee/Owner shall submit detaile d plans describing activities for the entire phase(s) . A Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Enginee r and Planning Division Director. The plans shall address, in detail, the following, but not limited to, items:

A. Demonstrate that, all conditions of prior phase have been satisfactorily completed or addressed per phase.

B. The Permittee/Owner shall implement the requirements of the current General Construction Permit at all times to prevent discharge f rom the site for all phases of construction (e.g., demolition, grading, vertical construction , la ndscape/hardscape).

Sediment and erosion controls shall be appropriately applied for the risk level assigned to the project.
356
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 17 of 37 ends

C. Submit a landscape plan to the Pl anning Division that addresses both shor t term and long term slope stability and dust control including all temporary and permanent buildable pads. This plan sha ll also include all required BMP’s and storm water design features.

D. Should the Permittee/Owner decide to develop phases out of numerica l sequence with the approved phasing as shown on the plan, all conditions required of the proceeding phases shall be comp leted unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning. Other condi tions may be imposed by the City Enginee r and Planning Division Director to allow phased construction.

E. The Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIP), approved as pa rt of the grading plans, shall address the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be utilized for each phase of development. The WQIP sha ll include an overview of project phasing that shows each project phase, prior to activation of the area for use in accor dance with Order R9-2013-0001, that 100% of the impervious area for that phase will be treated and retained to meet water quality and hydro-modification requirements. 110. All existing street m onuments within or abutting this project site shall be preserved. I f such monuments are damaged or destroyed, the Permittee/Owner shall retain a licensed land surveyor or a qualified registered civil en gineer to reset those monuments per City Standards 61 7a, 617b, and 617c, and file the necessary information with the Coun ty Recorder’s office as required by California Business and Professions Code Section 8771.

If damaged, existing monuments that are no l onger relevant do not have to be replaced, subject to approval by the City Engineer.

111. If constructing a new street or new intersection, the Permittee/Owner shall provide a design with callouts for street centerline m onuments to be set per City Std. 617a, 6 17b, and 617c. All elevation locations for street centerline(s) shall be provided.

112. If reconstructing an existing street or existing intersection, the Permittee/Owner shall provide a design with callouts for street centerline monuments to be set per City Std. 617a, 617b, and 617c, and elevations provided, u nless s pecified otherwise by the City Engineer, or assignees.
113. Centerline tie notes may be provided, when applicable as noted on City Std. 616, on 8.5 x 11 mylar sh eets (identify locations if possible). P rior to installation, each location where tie notes may apply shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, or ass ignees, to determine monument type to be used.

Grading Plans
114. The Permittee/Owner shall provide the following items, but may be require d to provide additional items to substantiate the proposed design:

A. A Grading Plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with currently accepted design standards. The plan shall incorporate Grading In formation, Erosion & Sediment Control Me asures, Mitigation Measures as applicable, and Site Design & Source Control (Low Impact Development (LID)), as well as Po llutant Control and Hydromodification as applicable.
357
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 18 of 37 ends

i) The Grading Plan shall include within it the following:
(1) A Water Quality Improvemen t Plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City standards and approved by the Engineering Department. (2) A Storm Drain Improvement Plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City standards and approved by the Engineering Department. (3) An Erosion Control Plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City standards and approved by the Engineering Department.

B. A Cost Estimate prepared, signed, and stamped, by a regi stered civil engineer.

The cost estimat e shall include all costs but not limited to plan pre paration, plan check fees, permit fees, bonding, staking, constructi on costs, erosion control, soils engineering; construction management, etc.
115. Pay to City all Cou nty of Riverside Development Impact Fees applicable at time of grading permit issuance or as otherwise approved by ordinance. In the event these fees have been previously paid, the Permittee/Owner shall provide proof of payment. Said fees may include, but are also not limited to, the following:

a. Riverside County Area Drainage Fee
b. Kangaroo Rat Fee
c. Multiple Species Habitat Conversation Plan (MSHCP) Fee

116. Obtain written clearance, as deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, from the following departments/agencies:

a. Planning Department
b. Community Services Department
c. Building Division
d. Fire Department
e. Landscape (Planning)
f. Sewer and Water District(s)
g. Utility Companies
h. Gas Company

117. If applicable, the Permittee/Owner shall obtain an d provide the City with written clearance or a non -interference letter from Southern Californ ia Edison (SCE) prior to grading plan approval. Permittee/Owner shall submit directly to SCE. 118. Development Standards for Off -Street Parking shall conform to Develo pment Code

16.34.070.
119. If blasting of rock is required, a blasting permit will be required a s pa rt of the grading permit process. A blasting permit shall be ob tained through the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Notification shall also be provided to the City of Murrieta Police and Fire Departments prior to blasting.
120. If any water wells a re found onsite, the intent shall be identified on the grading plan (e.g., if inoperable…to be abandoned; if operable…to be protected in place, etc.). If to be protected in place, easements may apply. Additionally, if to be abandoned, they shall be 358
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 19 of 37 ends

abandoned in a manner approved by the State Department of Water Resources and Riverside County Health Department. Confirmation of abandonment approval shall be provided to the City.
121. If ap plicable, a qualified biologist shall delineate jurisdiction areas that a re n ot to be disturbed. Identify the installation of some type of ba rrier fence to delineate the areas of avoidance.
122. Construction fencing shall be placed so as n ot to interfere with sight distance and comply with City Std. No. 214.

123. City-maintained drainage facilities located outside of city right -of-way sha ll be accompanied with proper public drainage easements to be reviewed and approved by the City, and recorded on a city-approved format.
a. All storm drain easement widths shall adhere to Riv erside County’s storm drain easement width chart and have a max cros s slope of 5%, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer.
124. Subject to the discretio n of, and final appr oval by, the City Council, the City shall vacate/abandon a portion of the following street’s right-of-way.

A. Old Clay Street
B. Juniper Street
C. C Street
D. D Street
E. 5th Street
F. If the vacation/abandonment is unsuccessful, Permittee/Owner shall submit revised plans for substantial conformance review as required by the City of Murrieta Development Code.
125. All existing property monuments within or abuttin g this project site shall be preserved. If such monuments are damaged or destroyed, the Permit tee/Owner shall retain a licensed land surveyor or a qualified registered civil engineer to r eset those monuments per City Standards and file the necessary infor mation with the County Recorder’s office as required by California Business and Professions Code Section 8771. If damaged, existing monuments that are no longer relevant do not have to be replaced, subject to approval by the City Engineer.

Sewer & Water
126. Verify capacity of proposed sewer and water systems and provide approval from the Health Department or the governing Sewer and Water District that the proposed sewer and water system is compliant with the District’s master plan. 127. The Permittee/Owner shall design and guarantee the construction of all sewer and water improvements necessary to serve this project. Private sewer force mains are not allowed in the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

Utilities
359
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 20 of 37 ends

128. The Permittee/Owner s hall provide a design to install all existing and proposed utility systems underground. Utility systems include, bu t may not be limited to, electric lines 32kv and lower, telephone, and ca ble TV. The utilities shall be designed in accordance with City Codes and utility provider(s).
a. All applicable appurtenances shall also be coordinated with the b uilding department a nd engineering department for review of proposed locations. Easements shall also be provided as required.
b. If there are any electric lines 33 kv and higher, those existing lines will not be required to be placed underground.
129. Above-ground Edison transformers shall be located behind the right-of-way line. If necessary, retaining walls shall also be located behind the right-of-way and limited to maximum five feet in height. Safety railing is required for retaining wall heights above thirty inches.

130. Permittee/Owner shall provide a design identifying location of all dry and wet utilities. a. All dry and wet utilities shall be installed prior to place ment of final cap or lift of asphalt pavement to avoid new street improvement from being marred by saw cuts, pot holes, equipment, etc.

Hydrology & Hydraulics Report
131. The Permittee/Ow ner shall provide a Hydrology & Hydraulics Reports prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with currently accepted design standards. 132. Ensure the Repor t addresses any prop osed commingled flows from adjacent properties, unless procedures are inc orporated to otherwise convey and properly dispose of the flows without commingling.

133. Alteration to the existing drainage pattern, including concentration or diver sion of flows, are not allowed, unless the Permittee/Owner obtains permission and/or agreemen ts from the affected property owner(s). This may involve, but is no t limited to, obtaining notarized/recorded letters of permission and/or agreements, securing dr ainage easements and /or ponding easements, constructing adequate drainage improvements, and providing a maintenance mechanism for private drainage facilities. 134. The Permittee/Owner shall be responsible for mitigating impacts created by changes in drainage runoff course, water quality, hydro-modification, concentration, or quantity to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for both on-site and off-site drainage.

135. Accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto and/or through the site. 136. If possible, all dra inage shall be conveyed onto public property. Cross lot drainage shall not b e a llowed. Where unavoidable, proper permissions, agreements, a nd easements shall be obtained by the Permittee/Owner.
137. The report shall show all existing and p roposed onsite and/or offsite public and/or private drainage facilities intended to discharge the runoff. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the drainage facilities. Runoff from the development or 360
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 21 of 37 ends

partial phase of development of the property shall meet the following criteria:
a. Permittee/Owner shall be responsible for mitigating impacts created to changes in drainage runoff course or quantity, for both on -site and off -site drainage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Do not significantly exceed the existing natural discharge quantities. c. Street storm flows shall not exceed top of curb for the 10-year storm event. d. Must contain storm flows within the street right-of-way for the 100-year event. e. All inlets, outlets, pipes, channels, basins, etc. must be capable of conveying the 100-year storm.
f. Sump conditions shall be designed to convey the 100-year storm flows g. Secondary emergency escape path shall be provided.
h. If the project discharges/connects to an off -site detention basi n, provide permission to drain/connect from the owner of basin or system. Off -site detention basins require a Declaration of Dedication. All detention measures shall have positive drainage with a minimum 48-hr draw-down time and be empty within 72 hours. i. Standing water is not permitted.
j. Detention for projects that are 10 acres or greater shall analyze for the 1, 3, 6 and 24-hour duration for the 2, 5, and 10-year frequency storms. (1) When continuous simulation is prepared (see Water Quality Management Plan section), and acceptable, the continuous simulation may be used in -lieu of the 1, 3, 6 and 24-hour duration for the 2, 5, and 10-year frequency storms, if applicable.

Geotechnical Report
138. A comprehensive geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the engineering department as part of the initial gra ding plan check.
a. The report shall address in -situ soils conditions ; shall provide the following, but not be limited to:
i) a percolation/infiltration analysis;
ii) identify any geotechnical hazards for the site;
iii) provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures, iv) provide preliminary pavement sections,
v) provide slope stability analysis,
vi) identify faults that may affect the proposed project and conf irm buildings meet setback requirements, as applicable.
361
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 22 of 37 ends

b. All recommended measures identified in the report shall be incorporated into the project design. If lo cated in a Geologic Special Study Zone, the report may, at the discretion of the City Engineer, be subject to a thi rd-party review. If third party review is required, the Permittee/Owner m ust submit an application and schedule to have any open trenches inspected by a City-approved third-party reviewing consultant. 139. If project is determined to be a “Priority Development Project”, a geotechnical engineer, civil engineer, certified engineerin g geologist or certified hydrogeologist shall prepare a percolation analysis and determine infiltration rates for the purpose of determining water quality best management practices (i.e., Water Quality Management Plan). a. See Appendix A, Section 1.8 – Final Report, of the Riverside County Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook, as a guide for preparing the analysis. b. Infiltration testing requirements shall adhere to Appendix A – Infiltration Testing, of the Riverside County Low Impact Development BMP Desi gn Handbook (e.g. Table 1 Infiltration Testing Requirements).
c. A note shall be added on the grading plan identifying the infiltration rates used in the WQMP. If BMP locations differ, laterally and/or vertically, from the WQMP, additional infiltration tests may be required to be conducted and submitted for review and approv al by the City.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
140. The Permittee/Owner shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan (Report) prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with currently accepted design standards. 141. Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIP) shall be integrated with the grading plans and included as part of the grading plans. P rior to final approv al of the grading plans, the grading plans shall be in conformance with the Project-Specific WQMP. 142. A Final Project -Specific WQMP shall be su bmitted to the City for approval with the grading plan check application and approved by the En gineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. The WQMP shall include, but not be l imited to, the following:
a. The Permittee/Owner, assigns, or heirs shall allow the City to enter the premises to conduct periodic inspections to ensure that the WQMP is being implem ented, maintained, and to review the inspection and maintenance records. b. Prepare a hydromodification analysis utilizing continuous simulation of the geomorphically significant flows starting at 10% of the 2 -year runoff and up to the 10-year runoff (85 th percentile Design Capture Volume (DCV)). The analysis must have a maximum interval of 1-hour, or 15-minutes, and contain a minimum of 37 years of data. c. The 85 th percentile DCV of on -site drainage shall be treated on site in accordance wi th the current NPDES MS4 Permit and the City’s latest Water Quality Management Plan. The dra inage shall be treated onsite prior to entering public right -of- way.
d. When continuous simulation is prepared, and acceptable, the continuous 362
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 23 of 37 ends

simulation may be used in-lieu of the 1, 3, 6 and 24 -hour duration for the 2, 5, and 10 - year frequency storms, if applicable.
e. The WQMP shall incorporate, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Site design BMP’s,
(2) Source control BMP’s,
(3) Pollutant control BMP’s,
(4) Hydromodification
(5) The WQMP shall identif y affected and 303(d) receiving water bodies, applicable water-quality ob jectives, total maximum daily loads (TMDLS), pollutants of concern f or the project type, and estimates for post -construction discharge rates (with all BMPs in place), and demonstrate that the project pollutant loads will be treated in accordance with the most current NPDES MS4 permit and will not cause a violation of the w ater quality objectives. The structural treatment and hydro -modification controls shall remove project pollutants a nticipated to be generated by the project for the benefit of downstream impaired water bodies listed by the SWRCB 303(d) to a medium removal efficiency or better for the pollutants of concern.
(6) Long term operation and maintenance require ments, inspection an d maintenance checklist;
(7) Record a restrictive covenant to ensure operatio n, m aintenance, funding, and transfer of requirements.
(8) The post -construction best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the approved Final project -specific WQMP shall be incorporate d in the grading/improvement plans.
f. A Water Quality Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder and proof of the recorda tion shall be provided to the City. The agreement shall include summaries of water quality/hyd romodification facil ities and operations & maintenance.
i) The Maintenance Agreement shall ident ify public BMPs to be maintained by the development’s assigned entity.
ii) The agreement shall also identify if the development’s assigned entity fails to maintain said BMP(s) the City i s authorized to maintain or replace BMP(s) for continued compliance and shall be reimbursed by the assigned entity. g. A copy of the Final Pro ject-Specific WQMP shall be kept onsite at all times. The Permittee/Owner shall make the occup ants, tenants, staff , employees, and contractors aware of this document and educate them on the contents. 143. The project shall demonstrate infiltration abilities by converting the percolation tests taken at locations of proposed infiltration/biofiltration BMPs. Proposed BMPs shall be per the guidelines of the City of Murrieta’s 2018 Santa Margari ta R egion Water Quality Management Plan and the most current order u nder the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit initiated under section 2 of the Federal Cl ean Water Act. The most current order shall be incorporated, as applicable.

144. The grading plan shall add a note to confirm the infiltration ra tes coincide with the rates used in the Water Quality Management Plan. If BMPs are to be place d in areas and/or 363
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 24 of 37 ends

depths different from the original infiltration testing, thereby posing pot entially different infiltration rates from those originally obtained , new infiltration testing may be required and BMP designs may be impacted.

145. It is the responsi bility of the Permit tee/Owner to ensure all applicable BMPs are correctly utilized as referenced in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Fact Sheet, and all maintenance measures implemented.

146. “As a residential area development, the Per mittee/Owner shall e nsure that minimum residential BMPs are being implemented. Such BMPs should address, at minimum:

a. automobile repair,
b. maintenance and washing and parking;
c. home and garden care activities and product use (pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers);
d. disposal of trash, pet waste, green waste, and household hazardous waste. e. The Pe rmittee/Owner shall reference the following brochures and California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Fact Sheets:
f. Brochures:

g. Automotive Maintenance and Car Care Brochure
h. Landscape and Garden
i. 10 Ways to Save Water Outdoors
j. After the Storm
k. What’s the Scoop
l. Landscape and Garden
m. Pools, Spas and Fountains,

n. CASQA BMP Fact Sheets:
o. SC-20 – Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
p. SC 21 – Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
q. SC 22 – Vehicle and Equipment Repair
r. SC 43 – Parking / Storage Area Maintenance
s. SC 73 – Landscape Maintenance
t. SD 10 – Site Design and Landscape Planning
u. SD 12 – Efficient Irrigation

147. Provide 12 foot wide x 6 inch thick concrete paved acces s to storm drain facilities with 12 percent maximum grade. Turnarounds are required, but may be waived depending on overall accessibility and, at the discretion of the Public Works Director. 148. The Permittee/Owner shall submit, for City review and approval, a mechanism ensuring ongoing long-term maintenance for the onsite post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs).
149. “The Project shall form or annex into a landscape and light maintenance district, or create some other acceptable mechanism to fund and/or maintain the propos ed water quality BMPs within public roadways.

SWPPP
364
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 25 of 37 ends

150. An adequate Storm Wat er Pollution Plan (SWPPP) shall be available to State and City Inspectors at the job site prior to commencing construction. The Permittee/Owner shall be responsible for implementation , monitoring, operation and maintenance of the SWPPP until all construction is completed and improvements have been accepted by the City. 151. This document must minimize the disturbed area, label the total disturbed area, and identify equipment and material storage areas.
152. All grading activities shall minimize dust through complia nce with AQMD Rule 403, which requires watering during earth moving operations.
153. All open or undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent wind/water erosion of s aid land. All distu rbed undeveloped land shall be planted with interim landscaping or stabilized with other erosion control measures.
154. The Permittee/Owner shall design and install the irrigation system so runoff does not discharge into the street or storm drain system.
155. Grading during the wet season should identify additional BMP’s for rain even ts that may occur as necessary for compliance with the Santa Margarita Region MS4 Permit. 156. A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number from the State Water Resources Control Board shall be identified on the SWPPP. 157. A Notice of Termination (NOT) can then be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Grading during the wet season should identify additional BMP’s for rain events that ma y occur as necessary for compliance with the Santa Margarita Region MS4 Permit. This document must minimize the disturbed area, label the ma ximum disturbed area, and identify equipment and material storage areas. 158. Erosion and sediment control details shall be submitted on the grading plans to the City's Engineering Division for review and approval. The details shall conform to City standards, codes and ordinances, and the current State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Const ruction Permit (GCP) , as applicable. The details shall include landscaping and irrigation sy stems o n exposed slopes to achieve the General Construction Permit r equired coverage criteria, and for acceptance by the City's Engineering Department.

FEMA
159. FEMA Elevation Certificate(s) shall be provided for all lots within one hundred feet of the 100-year flood plain concurrently with each pad certification. 160. If any portion of the site resides within, adjacent to, or within 100 feet of a FEMA special flood hazard area, the following items shall apply:
a. The floodway and floodplain boundary lines shall be clearly depicted on the Grading Plan. b. The grading plan shall clearly d emonstrate any building’s finish floor elevation to be at least one foot (1-ft) above the 100-year Base Flood Elevation. 365
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 26 of 37 ends

161. If a portion of the proposed site resides in a FEMA special flood hazard area, then a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shal l be processed prior to grading plan approval.
a. The following descriptions are for clarificati on to determine whic h documents should be submitted:
i) LOMA – A letter from FEMA stating that a n existing structure or parcel of land that has not been elevated by fill (natural grade) would not be inundated by the base flood. ii) LOMR-F – A letter from FEMA sta ting that an existing structure or parcel of land that has been elevated by fill would not be inundated by the base flood. iii) CLOMA – A letter from FEMA stating tha t a proposed structure that is not to be elevated by fill (natural grade) would not be inundated by the base flood if built as proposed. iv) CLOMR-F – A letter from FEMA stating that a parcel of land or proposed structure that will be elevated by fill would no t be inundated by the base flood if fill is placed on the parcel as proposed or the structure is built as proposed. b. If any of the above Letters or Conditional Letters have already been pro cessed, provide a copy of the approved documents.

Subdivision Map
162. The Permittee/Owner shall submit a Subdivision Map prepared in accordance to the City of Murrieta Development Code an d California Subdivision Map Act. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or qualified registered civil engineer. 163. The Subdivision Map shall include the following “Improvement Note(s)” to identify required improvements prior to city-specified benchmarks (e.g., any permit issuance), in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act 66411.1. The following improvements notes shall be added on the Subdivision Map:

a. All public improvements, as identified per the con ditions of approval, shall be completed, and accepted/as-built, prior to the first certificate of occupancy. b. The improvements/modifications proposed at the exist ing intersection of New Clay St & B St shall be completed, and accepted/as-built, prior to the first certificate of occupancy. 164. Prepare and record an Owner’s statement acceptable to the City Engineer with a note to the effect that the property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the parkway lighting, landscaping and irrigation, and any applicable water quality treatment facilities/devices.
165. On-site public drainage facilities located outside of public right-of-way shall be contained within public drainage easements as determined to be necessary. A note shall be added on the Subdivision Map stating, “Public drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions.”
166. Prior to approval of the Subdivision Map, the Permittee/Owner shall submit an application and pay a fee for the city administrator to reapportion any existing assessment district 366
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 27 of 37 ends

liens. The fee proposal from Willdan Financial Services includes a base amount and per parcel charge so the total amount will vary depending on number of parcels. 167. Easements, when required for roadway, slopes, landscaping, drainage facilities, utilit ies, etc., for eithe r onsite or offsite, shall be shown on the Subdivision Map. The Permittee/Owner shall incur all costs associated with the formation of a suit able maintenance district for all associated roadway, slope, landscape, and drainage easements, including access.
168. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review an d approval, and recorded as directed by the Engineering Department.
169. All easements and/or right -of-way dedications shall be offered on the Subdivision Map to the City, or other appropr iate agency, and shall continue in force until the City, or other agency, accepts or abandons/rejects such offer(s). All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Engineering Department. 170. Relinquish and waive abutter’s right of access to and from New Clay Street and B Street, excepting those areas as shown on the approved tentative map. 171. Any proposed vacation(s) and/or ab andonment(s) of existing right of way or public easements shall be shown on the Subdivision Map , or per separate do cument(s) as approved by the City Engineer. Vacations and/or abandonments may be required to be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit.

172. Proof of payment of any, and all, delinquent property taxes shall be provided prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map.
173. Subject to the discretion of, and final approval by, the Ci ty C ouncil, the City shall vacate/abandon a portion of the following street’s right-of-way.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
175. The Permittee/Owner shall provide a copy of the recorded map and/or agreements to the Building Division and Engineering Department. Elec tronic an d hard copies may be required, at the discretion of the City Engineer.
176. All easements , ag reements of improvements, offsite construction, and dedication f or 367
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 28 of 37 ends

required rights-of-way shall be approved by the Engineering Department. 177. The building pad sh all be ce rtified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation. Additionally, th e So ils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
178. The Permittee/Owner shall pay to the City all applicable Development I mpact Fee s as required by, and in accordance with, City Ordinance 196 -98, Resolution No. 08-2107 and Resolution No. 16-3602.
179. The Permittee/Owner shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) based on the applicable rates at time of permit.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
180. If applicable, a qualified biologist sh all delineate jurisdictional areas that are not to be disturbed. Bar rier fencing shall be installed, as approved, delineating the areas of avoidance. Once construc tion is c ompleted, the same qualified biologist shall certify that no jurisdictional area was disturbed or damaged.
181. Construction fencing shall be placed so as no t to interfere with sight distance and comply with City Std. No. 214.
182. If dirt or construction d ebris is to be transported into, or off, the site, a haul permit will be required as part of the grading permit process. Both import and export locations must b e permitted sites. If so, submit a proposed haul route plan and comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose to the hauling operation. 183. The exact depth of s treet structural section and subgrade requirement shall be based on subgrade "R" value tests and the appropriate Traffic Index for the type of street, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and the City Standards, whichever is greater. 184. If any water w ells are found onsite, they shall be protected in place or abandoned , as approved by the State Department of Water Resources and Riverside County Health Department. Confirmation of abandonment approval shall be provided to the City. 185. The Permittee/Owner s hall construct all sewer and water improvements necessary to serve this project. Private sewer force mains are not allowed in the public right -of-way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
186. The Permittee/Owner shall install all existing and propos ed utility systems underground, including electric lines 32kv and l ower (as applicable), telephone, and cable TV, in accordance with City Codes, the utility provi der, and as approved by the City Engineer.

All applicable appurtenances shall also be instal led. Easements shall also be provided as required.
187. Above ground Edison transformers shall be installed behind the right-of-way line, as approved.

188. Permittee/Owner shall install all dry and wet utilities prior to the placement of final cap or lift of aspha lt p avement to avoid new street improvements from being marred by sa w cuts, potholes, equipment, etc.
368
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 29 of 37 ends

189. The approved Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP) shall be ava ilable onsite at all times from the Notice to Proceed until the issuance Notice of Terminatio n. M oreover, the Permittee/Owner shall be responsible for implementa tion, monitoring, operation and maintenance of the SWPPP until all construction is completed an d improvements have been accepted by the City.
190. Existing street pavement along the project’s f rontage(s), shall be reconstructed or overlaid, as approved by the C ity Engineer. If core testing was not done prior to permit issuance:
a. If core testing was not do ne prior to permit issuance, existing street pavement along the project’s frontage(s), may be required to be core tested to determine if the existing structural section meets current City Standards. Core testing shall be taken by a qualified engineer at l ocations approved by the Director of Public Works. Substandard sections shall be reconstruct ed o r o verlaid. The Director of Public Works shall have the final approval for all street conditions and the limits of the pavement reconstruction and/or resurfacing.
191. All cul-de-sac bulbs and knuckles shall be constructed per the City of Murrieta’s Standa rd Drawings 201, 202, and 203.
192. Improvement plans shall show all exis ting and proposed drainage and stormwater facilities, including surface and subsurface construction. All required drainage easements shall be monumented along the boundaries as approved b y the City Engineer. Access easements shall be provided where neces sary and shall be improved, fenced, and aligned to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
193. A light emitting diode for the public and private street lighting system shall be installed, a s approved by the City Engineer, and per the City’s Street Lighting Standards, 619, 620, and 620C.
194. Provide 12 foot wide x 6 inch thick concrete paved access to sto rm drain facilities, as approved by the City Engineer.
195. The Permittee/Owner shall construct th e following public improvements as approved by the City Engineer.

A. Construct New Clay St frontage to be improved to a half width of 50 feet centerline to right-of-way, per the Downtown Specific Plan.
i) The required improvements shall include, opposite center line, a minimum of 12 feet A.C. paved surface and 8 feet graded shoulder.
ii) The required improvements shall include connectivity to existing improvements. iii) The required improvements shall include connectivity to improvements existing opposite legal centerline.
iv) The project’s frontage shall identify the requested parkway to ac commodate the enhanced parkway landscape.
v) The frontage shall ensure ADA compliant sidewalk and pedestrian ramps (truncated domes).
369
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 30 of 37 ends

Pedestrian ramps adjacent to the project shall be improv ed/provided to current ADA standards, as approved by the City Engineer.
vi) Due to proposed improvements and striping, the Permittee/Owner shall reslurry, as approved by the City Engineer.

B. Construct B St frontage as approved by the City Engineer. i) The required improvements shall include, opposite centerline, a minimum of 12 f eet A.C. paved surface and 8 feet graded shoulder.
ii) The required improvements shall include connectivity to existing improvements. iii) The required improvements shall include connectivity to im provements existing opposite legal centerline.
iv) The project’s fronta ge shall identify the requested parkway to accommodate the enhanced parkway landscape.
v) The fron tage shal l ensure ADA compliant sidewalk and pedestrian ramps (truncated domes).

Pedestrian ramps a djacent to the project shall be improved/provided to current ADA standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
vi) As applicable, callout right -of-way dedication/vacation along the frontage to provide the requested right-of-way for the required improvements.

C. Construct all interior streets as approved by the City Engineer. i) The required improvements shall include connectivity to existing improvements. ii) The project’s frontage shall identify the requested parkway to accommodate the enhanced parkway landscape.
iii) The frontage shall ensure a design for A DA compliant sidewalk and pedestrian ramps (truncated domes).

Pedestrian ramps adjacent to the project shall be improved/provided to current ADA standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
196. All existing street monuments within or abutting this pro ject site shall be preserved. If such monuments are damaged or destroyed, the Permittee/Owner shall retain a licensed land surveyor or a qualified registered civil engineer to reset those monuments per City Standards 617a, 617b, and 617c, and file the nec essary information with the County Recorder’s office as required by California Business and Pro fessions Code Section 8771. 370
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 31 of 37 ends

If damaged, existing monuments that are no longer relevant do not have to be replaced, subject to approval by the City Engineer.

197. If constructing a new street or new intersection, the Permittee/Owner shall provide a design with callouts for street centerline monuments to be set per City Std. 617a, 617b, and 617c. All elevation locations for street centerline(s) shall be provided. 198. All existing property monuments within or abutting this project site shall be preserved. If such monuments are damaged or destroyed, the Permittee/Owner shall retain a licensed land surveyor o r a qualified registered civil engineer to reset those monuments per City Standards and file the necessary information with the County Recorder’s office as required by California Business and Professions Code Section 8771. If damaged, existing monuments that are no longer relevant do not have to be replaced, subject to approval by the City Engineer.

199. For new street and/or new intersection monumentation, street cente rline mon uments shall be set per City Std. 617a, 617b, and 617c, as approved by the City Engi neer. All elevation locations for street centerline(s) shall be provided. 200. For reconstructed existing street(s) and/or intersection(s), street centerline monuments shall be set per City Std. 617a, 617b, and 617c, and elevations provided, unless specified otherwise by the City Engineer, or assignees.
201. Centerline tie notes may be provided, when applicable as noted on City Std. 616, on 8.5 x 11 mylar sheets (identify lo cations if possible). Prior to installation, each location where tie notes may apply shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, or assignees, to determine monument type to be used.
202. Permittee/Owner shall confirm the infiltration rates coincide wi th the ra tes used in the Water Quality Management Plan. If BMPs are to be placed in areas an d/or depths different from the original infiltration testing, thereb y posing potentially different infiltration rates from those originally obtained, new infiltrat ion testi ng may be required and BMP designs may be impacted.
203. FEMA Elevation Certificate(s) shall be provided for all lots within one hundred feet of the 100-year flood plain concurrently with each pad certification.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
204. Final grading of the subject property shall be completed in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, and City Grading Manual, via accepted grading construction practices. 205. All impro vements, required by the Engineering Department, shall be constructed, completed, and accepted per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfac tion of the City Engineer. All sewer and water improvements shall be constructed, completed, and accepted in accordance with the Sewer and Water District standards.

206. Final Map shall have been recorded, accepted by County, and a copy provided to the City Engineer, in the format requested.
207. If applicable, provide elevations for set Street Centerline Mo numents. If approved, provide centerline tie notes per City Std. 616 on 8.5 x 11 mylar sheet s for all monuments 371
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 32 of 37 ends

set.
208. All existing and proposed utility lines ha ve been undergrounded and/or relocated, and/or easements provided, as necessary.

209. Demonstrate that all treatment control BMP’s described in the Final project -specific WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the Permittee/Owner is prepared to maintain all BMP’s described in the approved Final project-specific WQMP.
210. The Permittee/Owner shall prepare and provide an as -built project specific Final WQMP (updated to include any changes made during c onstruction) and demonstrate that an adequate number of copies are available for the future owners / occupants. a. One (1) electronic format shall also be provided to the Department of Engineering. 211. The Permittee/Owner shall demonstrate that the irrigation co ntroller and heads are set so irrigation runoff does not enter the street or storm drain systems. 212. The Permittee/Owner shall provide a copy of these free brochures in the new homeowner booklet: “Guidelines for Maintaining Your Swimming Pool, Jacuzzi, and Garden Fountain; Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers; and Wha t’s the Scoop”.
a. Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers; an d Wh at’s the Scoop”.

Include a copy of the link to the City’s websi te “Trash & Recycling” page that includes information that can help improve the quality of stor m water r unoff by providing basic information to the new homeowner. http://www.murrietaca.gov/services/trash/default.asp

b. Inform Homeowners that Waste Management will pick up for free bulk items & electronics twice per year as part of the trash service the homeowners pay for.

c. Household hazardous waste products such as used motor oil, p aint, and batteries can be disposed of for free at the County of Riverside facility located at 25315 Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562. Hours are only from 9am to 2pm on Saturdays and closed on holiday weekends. Provide this contact phone number of (9 51) 486 -3200 & link:
http://www.rivcowm.org/HHW_Schedule.htm#_Regional_Permanent_HHW.

d. Educate the homeowner on how to operate their irrigation controller so no irrigation runoff reach the street and storm drain systems.

213. The Permittee/Owner shall disclose to the pro perty owner(s) they are responsible for the maintenance of the parkway landscaping. And any other work within the public right -of- way will require an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department.

214. The Permittee/Owner shall provide one set of Mylars , scanned copy, and electronic copy of “As-Built” drawings of the grading and improvement pla ns. The electronic copy shall be in an AutoCAD format to the satisf action of the City’s GIS Department 2. Coordinate system shall be NAD 1983 State plane Californ ia Zone V1 FIPS 0406 Feet. Also provide electronic copies (thumb drive) of the approved WQMP , Hy drology/Hydraulic Report, Final Geotechnical Report, and any other applicable document(s). Said Electronic copies shall be in a Word.doc, PDF format, or other acceptable Microsoft formats. 372
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 33 of 37 ends

215. Obtain written clearance, as deemed necessary by the Engineer ing Department, from the following agencies:

i) Planning Division
ii) Engineering Department
iii) Building Division
iv) Fire Department
v) Landscape (Planning)
vi) Community Services Department
vii) Sewer and Water District(s)
viii) Utility Companies
ix) Southern California Edison Company

BUILDING DIVISION

General:

216. All construction shall comply with the current California Building Codes (CBC), and related Codes and Ordinances of the City of Murrieta. Digital sets of plans shall be submitted for each building and exterior site improvements; and shall include building data, building use/occupancy, construction type, actual building square foot area and related building means of egress and ensuing egress discharge to the public right-of- way.

217. 15% of purposed lots shall be provided with a UDO designation and comply with Murrieta Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 – UNIVERSAL DESIGN RESIDENTAIL DWELLINGS.

218. Architectural site and on-site civil design shall correlate, and details shall comply with accessibility standards of the State of California.

219. Construction plan submittals shall be subject to the current California Green Building Standards Code, wherein provisions for means of achieving material conservation and resource efficiency through construction waste reduction of at least 65% recycling and/or salvage for reuse, diversion, and employment of techniques to reduce pollution through recycling of materials.

220. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on building permit plans and shall comply with the City of Murrieta’s MMC Sec.16.18.110, Mt. Palomar Lighting Pollution Control Standards and/or equal. LED limits are 4050 lumens maximum per fixture and 3000K kelvin color rendition.

221. Plans submitted during the permitting process, including but not limited to, site plan, precise grade plans and building architectural features, shall not vary substantially from plans previously reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering or other City Departments, without prior authorization from the City Planner, City Engineer and/or Director of Building and Safety.

373
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 34 of 37 ends

Building Permit Application:

222. Digital sets of building construction plans shall be submitted, including two sets of supplemental current soil report, structural calculations, energy calculations, etc.

Submittals shall conform to the Electronic Plan Check Submittal Guide (Building Form IB-110). Plans must conform to Digital Submittal Requirements (Building Form DS-162).

223. Plans submitted for building construction shall contain a full size copy of the Final Approved set of city departments Conditions of Approval.

224. Submit a construction waste management plan (Building Form DS-153) for diversion of materials, including the following:

i. Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale

ii. Determine if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed

iii. Identify diversion facilities where material collected will be taken

iv. Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not both,

If applicable, provide a C & D letter for Construction Waste Diversion from the Waste Management Co.

Prior to Permit Issuance:

225. A Waste Management Plan (Building Form DS-153), which may include a C & D letter from the Waste Management Company for the recycling, reuse and diversion of construction waste materials from landfills is required prior to the permit issuance.

226. All applicable fees and forms shall be paid. This may include TUMF, School, DIF, etc.

227. Verification of an approved, stamped and signed by the City of Murrieta Engineer, grading plan.

Prior to Building Final:

228. Final permit approvals shall be obtained, and any outstanding fees shall be paid to all City Departments, which may include Fire, Planning, Engineering, Building & Safety, and the City Landscape Architect prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Murrieta Building and Safety Division.

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

229. The permittee must either form their own [maintenance] A ssociation OR join the Community Service District (CSD) by forming a Landscape and Lighting District in order 374
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 35 of 37 ends

to maintain the local areas within this project. If the permittee wishes to form a Landscape and Lighting District instead of an Association, the permittee should submit a Letter of Intent indicating such to this department. Please note that tract Approvals cannot take place unless this office receives that Letter of Intent.

230. A decorative fence, tubular steel or split rail, shall be constructed to prevent unauthorized access into the MSHCP conservation area alo ng the project’s Murrieta Creek frontage, subject to approval b y the CSD, Engineering, and Plan ning Division.

Chain link fencing is prohibited, unless otherwise required by a responsible agency (RCFCD, RWQCB, USACOE).

FIRE DEPARTMENT

231. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Office of the Fire Marshal reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in effect at the time of building plan submittal.

232. Minimum fire flow for the construction of all buildings is required per CFC Appendix B and Table B105.1. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant/developer shall provide documentation to show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1,500 gpm at 20psi for two hours. Subsequent design changes may increase or decrease the required fire flow.

233. Plans and specifications for construction must be submitted to the City of Murrieta for review and approval prior to installation.

234. Commercial fire access roads shall provide access roadway with minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet and minimum 13’6” vertical clearance.

235. All fire apparatus roadways must be maintained unobstructed and drivable by fire apparatus throughout the construction process. Access roadways shall be capable of holding an imposed load of 75,000 pounds including in adverse weather conditions.

236. Fire Apparatus Access roads (all roads in project) shall be usable (paved), accessible and fire hydrant(s) shall be capable of flowing required GPM and shall be tested/accepted by Fire Department prior to dropping any lumber for construction.

237. Roadway design features (speed humps, bumps, speed control dips, etc.) which may interfere or delay emergency apparatus responses shall not be installed or allowed to remain on the emergency access roadways.

238. Any gate or barrier across a fire access roadway, whether manual or automatic, must meet the Murrieta Fire & Rescue requirements and have specific plans and permits approved prior to installation. Gates serving multi-family assembly, educational, hazardous, institutional, or storage structures must be automatic and meet UL 325 and ASTM F 2200 standards. Knox brand key-operated electric key switch keyed to Murrieta Fire & Rescue specification are required. The Knox switch shall override all gate functions and open the gate. Other access control systems, such as Opticom, are 375
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 36 of 37 ends

required and must be installed as directed by the Fire Marshal.

239. All fire apparatus roadways must be maintained unobstructed and drivable by fire apparatus throughout the construction process. Access roadways shall be capable of holding an imposed load of 75,000 pounds including in adverse weather conditions.

240. Fire lane designations shall be required for all fire access roadways as determined by Murrieta Fire & Rescue. Posted signs which state “FIRE LANE, NO PARKING” shall be installed every 50 feet. Curbs shall be painted red and stenciled with white letters indicating the same on the face and top of any curb as directed by Murrieta Fire & Rescue. All fire lanes shall be marked and identified prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

241. Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide a phasing plan to address on-site access and water availability during each phase.

242. Prior to building construction, fire apparatus access roads extending beyond 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus.

243. During phased construction, fire apparatus access roads extending beyond 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turn-around capable of accommodating fire apparatus.

244. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved emergency vehicular access for fire protection prior to any building construction.

245. Underground Fire water improvement plans shall be approved by Murrieta Fire & Rescue. Plans shall be designed by a Registered Engineer and/or Licensed Contractor.

On-site private fire service mains shall have a minimum of eight (8) inch water mains with six (6) inch laterals and risers. Larger pipes may be required to meet required fire flow requirements. Fire hydrants shall provide one 4” port and 2-2 ½ ports and must be an approved fire hydrant type. The private fire hydrant system must be approved, installed, tested and accepted prior to combustible construction.

246. The minimum number of fire hydrants required, as well as the location and spacing of fire hydrants, shall comply with the C.F.C. and NFPA 24. Fire hydrants shall be located no closer than 40 feet from a building. A fire hydrant shall be located within 50 feet of the fire department connection for buildings protected with a fire sprinkler system. The size and number of outlets required for the approved fire hydrants are (6” x 4” x 2 ½” x 2 ½”).

247. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall be submitted to the fire department for an automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in accordance with NFPA 13D.

248. A Fire Master plan shall be submitted and approved by MF&R prior to construction. Fire master plans will show the location of all fire appurtenances, fire lanes and the location of required fire lane marking. It will also address how the contractor will maintain emergency vehicle access during construction.

249. All required plan submittals are required to be electronically submitted.

376
Conditions of Approval
RP-2021-2429/TTM-2021-2428/DP-2021-2430/
October 3, 2023

Page 37 of 37 ends

250. Permanent commercial/industrial three-dimensional street numbers, minimum 12 inches in height with a ½ inch stroke, shall be provided on the address side of the building at the highest point and furthest projection of the structure. The address shall be visible from the street and shall not be obstructed in any manner.

251. Fire safety during construction shall comply with the requirements of CFC Chapter 33.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
& WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

252. Permittee must comply with the requirements stated in Riverside County Flood Control District letter dated May 1, 2007 from Arturo Diaz.

END OF CONDITIONS

377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
MDP-2021-2430 (MASTER DEVELOPMENT

PLAN) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

FOR IVY HOUSE
(Modified by Planning Commission June 14, 2023)

Boundaries consist of Assessor Parcel Numbers:

906-193-001
906-200-001
906-200-002
906-212-001
906-221-001
906-221-002

Development Standards -

385

c. Parking -
• Parking within the Alley ROW is prohibited and will be enforced via Homeowners Association or Property Owners Association and will have no parking signs placed onsite.

d. Walls, Gates, and Fences -
• Gates separating the alley right of way and garage face are prohibited. • Outdoor Storage in an unfenced area is prohibited.

2 386
OS
OS
SP8
SF-1
SP8
RR
SP8
SF-2
SP8
P/C/I SP8
MU
RR
ER-1
RR
RR
SITE
B ST
IVY ST

HAYES AVE
2ND AVE
C ST

NEW CLAY ST

KALMIA ST

JUNIPER ST
1ST AVE
5TH AVE
4TH AVE
3RD AVE
D ST
A ST

PIMLICO AVE

CALLE ESTANCIA

TABIANO ST

CLAY AVE

VIA SERRANO

JOSHUA TREE CT

ANDALUSIAN ST

RIVERVIEW LN
A ST
5TH AVE
3RD AVE

JUNIPER STCLAY AVE
Revised Permit(RP) 2021-2429,
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 2021-2428,
Master Development Plan (MDP) 2021-2430
5/30/2023
APN: 906-193-001,
906-200-001,-002,
906-212-001,-002
Vicinity Map400 0 400200 Feet
E
Overview Map
^_
G:\GISData\Departments\Planning\ArcMapDocs_23\Vicinity.mxd 387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
Template Version 012019
Final Action
☒ City Council
☐ Planning Commission

Subject: Revised Permit 2021-2429, Tentative Tract Map 2021-2428, Master Development Plan 2021-2430 Ivy House
Date: June 14, 2023
Prepared by: Aaron Rintamaki, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Jarrett Ramaiya, Deputy Director;
Carl Stiehl, Interim City Planner
Approved by: David Chantarangsu, AICP, Development Services Director

RECOMMENDATION

1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14) Section 15164; and,

2. ADOP T A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2021 -2430, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2021 -2428, AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT 2021 -2429 FOR IVY HOUSE, A 22-ACRE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED AS 62 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS

WITH RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR CIRCULATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND MURRIETA

CREEK DRAINAGE CHANNEL LOCATED EAST OF MURRIETA CREEK, WEST OF NEW CLAY AVENUE, AND SOUTH OF “B” STREET WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE -FAMILY 1 ( RSF-1) ZONE OF THE DOWNTOWN MURRIETA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Application Type:

Revised Permit (RP) 2021-2429, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 2021- 2428, Master Development Plan (MDP) 2021-2430
Applicant: Diversified Pacific Development Group, LLC, Jason Holt Property Owner: Diversified Pacific Development Group, LLC Site Area: 22 gross acres, 10.48 net acres
Project Location:

Southwest corner of New Clay Street and B Street (APN’s 906-193- 001, 906-200-001, 002, 906-212-001, 906-221-001, 002)
Site General Plan/Zoning:

Single-Family Residential / Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan Residential Single Family 1 (RS-1)
Adjacent
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Report

437

Page 2 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

Zoning/Land Use:

North:

B Street, Residential Single Family 1 (RS-1) and Civic/Institutional (C/I) beyond / existing residential homes and future park site South: Rural Residential (RR), existing residential homes East:

New Clay Street with Residential Single Family 1 (RS -1) and Residential Single Family 2 (RS-2) beyond / existing residential homes West: Rural Residential (RR) and B Street beyond, existing residential homes

BACKGROUND
The six parcels identified for the project area consist of 72 lots recorded in 1884 as filed by the Temecula Land and Water Company in the Official Records of San Diego, California. They are generally 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (varies) with a grid street pattern and back alleys. Vacations and abandonment of rights of way, including internal streets and alleys, were recorded in the 1940’s and the 1960’s leaving several of the lots without access to a public right of way.

On May 6, 2008 the City Council approved a residential development for this site consisting of a Master Development Plan (MDP) 2006-1884, Development Plan (DP-005-1825), and Tentative Tract Map 34439 (TTM-005-1824) called Ivy House. The project consisted of a 60-lot subdivision, a Development Plan for the construction of the site, and a Master Development Plan establishing the number of lots, minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, and design parameters for any development in the described area. The project was designed as a neo-traditional residential neighborhood envisioned by the features described in Historic Murrieta Specific Plan (HMSP). After approval of this project entitlement by the City Council and before the expiration of the approval, there were several State automatic extensions of time as well as three extensions of time (2017-1372, 2018-1726, 2022-2703) granted by the City . Therefore, the project approval has been maintained since 2008 and is valid until January 2026. From 2014-2017, the City worked to create a new specific plan for this area to replace the HMSP. The new specific plan, Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP), was adopted in March 2017. A new property owner has now purchased the project site and has proposed to change the original approval and revise the project to be consistent with the newly adopted DMSP.

The proposal is for a revised map to change the configuration of the lots resulting in a change from 60 lots to 62 lots, the development of 62 single -family homes designed to reflect the architectural styles envisioned by the DMSP , and a multipurpose trail on the approximately 21.96 acres gross project site (approximately 13.23 acres net). The proposal is hereinafter referred to as “Project”.

Revisions to approved projects involving Development Plan permits and Master Development Plans are authorized by Section 16.80.070 of the Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC). Revisions to Tentative Maps are authorized by MMC Section 16.94.110.

438

Page 3 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

ANALYSIS
Zoning / General Plan Consistency:

The proposed revised Master Development Plan , Tentative Map, and Development Plan establish standards consistent with the General Plan and DMSP, including Goal LU-17: “Historic Murrieta as the City’s cultural, civic , and community center” and Policy LU-17.3 “ Encourage the location of civic, institutional, office uses, and other job -creating uses in Historic Murrieta. Supportive residential development should be encouraged. ” This Project provides supportive residentia l development to implement Goal and Policy LU-17, LU-17.3.

Goal LU-1 of the General Plan describes the community’s desire for a complementary balance of land uses throughout Murrieta that meets the needs of existing residents and businesses as well as anticipated growth and achieves the community’s vision. The Project implements this Goal by providing 62 residential homes to help accommodate the current demand for quality, residential h ousing and anticipated growth in the City. The Project is consistent with Policies LU-1.2, LU-1.3, and LU-1.6 of the General Plan Land Use Element for a land use designation that will provide for a wide range of densities, ensure opportunities for all types of housing, and promote future patterns of development and land us e that reduce infrastructure construction costs and make better use of existing and planned public facilities.

As the Project is consistent with the General Plan designation, the Project implements these policies through the land use pattern envisioned in the General Plan. Its density at a minimum of 1 - 5 dwelling units per acre , consistent with the DMSP, increases the relatively limited supply of single-family residential housing products in high demand within the City. The Project’s density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) also allows for more efficient delivery of infrastructure, transportation, and other public services. The Project is in proximity to job centers within the City, specifically the Downtown. The Project is consisten t with General Plan Goal LU -3 - Stable, well -maintained residential neighborhoods in Murrieta. The Project is consistent with this goal by providing a design that will result in the development of a safe, clean, and well-maintained residential community in the City.

Goal ED-10 of the General Plan Economic Development Element expresses a desire for a revitalized and economically stable Historic Downtown Murrieta. Policy ED -10.5 provides for consideration of opportunities for the development of higher-density residential uses to support commercial development within the Historic Downtown. The standards for the Residential Single Family 1 (RS -1) zone, the site design, and architectural standards in Section 5.0 in the DMSP provide the framework for the much needed residential development in this area . The Master Development Plan identifies the distribution, location, and extent of land uses within a development site and identifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. The density is 3.5 du/ac for the RS-1 zoned properties and is within the permitted range of this zone with the adoption of the Master Development Plan. The proposed Project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to the Murrieta Creek and implements several compon ents of the site design and architectural standards in Section 5.0 of the DMSP, such as landscaped parkways, street trees for each lot, alleys and alley-loaded garages, and front porches. The Project is consistent with Policy LU -3.4 – Strive to provide a diverse mix of housing types, along with high standards of residential property maintenance. The Project adds 62 residential homes within the density allowed for the zone adding diversity to the City’s housing stock within the DMSP, which currently, mainly consists of large lot single-family housing.

439

Page 4 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

The Vision of a “downtown” evokes an image of a destination where people have opportunities to live, work and shop in an environment that creates a feeling of cohesiveness and compactness – a place that encourages pedestrians to stroll its tree-lined streets, shop in its stores, and dine. This is the “vision” for Downtown Murrieta. A series of neighborhoods work together to establish the area is a vibrant destination. These neighborhoods include residential areas that provide a variety of housing options, ranging from multifamily to single-family housing, within walking distance from downtown amenities. The Project will provide new housing within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the business corridor along Washington Avenue and adds to the variety of housing options within the DMSP. The DMSP, Chapter 5, sets forth guidelines for the consistent promotion of high-quality, well -designed development throughout the specific plan area. The Project demonstrates consistency with DMSP Design Principle 2: Promote pedestrian-oriented design. The graphic below depicts the proximity of the Project to the future Pioneer Park site, local businesses along Washington Avenue, and beyond Town Square Park.

The RS-1 zone in the DMSP allows development at 1-5 du/ac. The density for this Project is 3.5 du/ac and is within the range permitted by the RS -1 zone. The Project preserves and dedicates natural resources related to Murrieta Creek and implements several components of the site design and architectural standards in Section 5.0 of the DMSP, such as landscaped parkways, street trees for each lot, alleys and alley-loaded garages, and front porches. The use as proposed is allowed in the City ’s Project
Site
440

Page 5 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

DMSP (Section 4.0 Table 4-1), which allows for a single-family residential development, with the approval of a Development Plan Permit.

Master Development Plan:

Chapter 16.64 of the Murrieta Municipal Code authorizes the use of Master Development Plans where properties have unique circumstances including location, shape, size, topography or use. The MDP identifies the distribution, location, and extent of land uses within a de velopment site and identifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. This proposed MDP will set a separate standard from the DMSP to allow the Project to exceed the maximum lot coverage and reduce setbacks which enables greater preservation of natural features on the site , including Murrieta Creek and future dedication of land for a Murrieta Creek improvement project. Modifications to development standards are permitted with the approval of a Master Development Plan (MDP City of Murrieta Development Code (Section 16.16.010). The proposed MDP establishes standards consistent with the City of Murrieta Development Code 16.64, 16.16.010, and the DMSP for the Project’s residential component. The MDP identifies the distribution, locat ion, and extent of land uses within a development site and identifies regulations and criteria for the development of the site. Master Development Plans are under the approval authority of the City Council, subject to findings and conditions of approval. (See Attachment 3, cover page)?

Density:

The DMSP allows for a density of up to 5 units per acre for properties zoned RS -1. The proposed 62 residential lots represent an overall density of 3.5 du/ac based on a gross area of 22 acres which is within the designated maximum density range.

Site Development Standards:

Lot Size
Lot sizes for the Project range from 5,200 square feet to 9,530 square feet, with typical lot sizes falling within a range of approximately 5,000-6,000 square feet . Section 4.6 (Description of Land Use Designations and Zones) in the DMSP identifies that cluster ing development is encouraged to protect the environment for the RS-1 zone. The Project uses a clustered approach to allow a portion of the site to be preserved as open space area. DMSP Table 4-2 (Site Development Standards ) indicates that minimum lot size requirements for attached single-family developments are not applicable to the RS-1 zone. The lot sizes proposed are consistent with the DMSP.

441

Page 6 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

Setbacks
The setbacks for the RS-1 zone are established in the DMSP. This proposed Master Development Plan will establish a standard that deviates from the DMSP , which is authorized by MMC Chapter 16.64 .

Setbacks for the Ivy House Master Development Plan are proposed as follows:

Single-Family Detached Ivy House Project
(Master Plan) RS-1 (DMSP)
Minimum Setbacks
Front
- to house
- to porch
- to structure
10 feet
5 feet
n/a
n/a
n/a
20 feet from front of
house
Rear
- to house
- from rear p/l/ alley to
structure
2 feet or greater (from
property line) 10 feet
Side
- interior

5 feet

5 feet
- street side/corner lot 10 feet 10 feet

Parking – The off-street parking provisions listed in Table 4-3 of the DMSP shall apply in determining the minimum number of parking spaces. Single-family homes require 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit.

The Project is consistent with the off-street parking requirements and provides 2 enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit.

Traffic Circulation / Access & Egress:

The prior approval allowed street sections to differ from the established street sections listed in the expired Historic Murrieta Specific Plan. The Project is now consistent with the DMSP street sec tions identified for B Street between Hayes Street and Washington Avenue, and New Clay Street between Kalmia Street to Ivy Street. Access to the Project will be taken from New Clay Avenue on the east and B Street on the north. The proposed subdivision in cludes segments of four public streets and t hree private alleys. These improvements require New Clay Street frontage to be improved to a half width of 50 feet centerline to right-of-way per the Downtown Specific Plan. B Street frontage will be improved to a half width of 40 f eet centerline to right-of-way per the Downtown Specific Plan. All interior streets will be improved to a half width of 60 f eet centerline to right -of-way per City Standard Drawing 106 (Local Street). In general, the street sections reflect improvements consistent with City standards in the DMSP.

Architecture / Aesthetics:

The DMSP, Chapter 5, sets forth guidelines for the consistent promotion of high -quality, well-designed development throughout the Downtown. The Project demonstrates consistency with DMSP Design Principle 3: Provide a sense of place for the City by providing quality style and architecture that is a 442

Page 7 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

distinct departure from the residential environments in other parts of Murrieta. The applicant has provided architectural designs that incorporate the look of traditional design elements from the 1890s-1930s, such as front porches and clapboarding. The architectural themes of the DMSP are intended to establish a “stylistic realm” within which various pro jects are to be designed. The P roject has incorporated the required Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, and American Mercantile architectural styles through building massing, design, and building placement oriented toward New Clay Street to form a distinc tive streetscape that establishes an attractive frontage for New Clay Street between Ivy and B Streets – a distance of over 1,600 feet. The P roject demonstrates high-quality, well-designed development by, 1) providing the required architectural styles using traditional design elements, and 2) designing the site so that building massing and placement are oriented towards the public street and interior private streets defining street edges, forming a distinctive street wall, and framing the pedestrian enviro nment. The Project has provided the required elements of the DMSP to create a “distinct belonging” and sense of place for the area. The Project proposes three -floor plans with three architectural styles. Each of the floor plans also includes a variation with a front porch element in keeping with the traditional design elements.

The Craftsman homes identifying features include:

1. Low-pitched gable roofs with unenclosed eave overhangs and flat tile roofing.

2. Front elevations accented with steeper gable roof elements.

3. Prominent porches with wood post supports and simple shed configurations with metal roofing.

4. Walls which feature both wood siding (board and batten) and stucco. 443

Page 8 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

5. Window shutters which provide opportunities to introduce accent color into the street scene.

6. Architecturally-themed exterior carriage light fixtures.

The American Mercantile homes identifying features include:

1. Traditional palette of Americana colors and materials.

2. Simple roof configurations representing gables and sheds with flat tile roofing.

3. Front porches with roofs supported with square wood columns.

4. Exterior walls treated with horizontal lap wood siding as an accent… with the balance being stucco.

5. Window shutters which provide opportunities to introduce accent color into the street scene.

6. Architecturally-themed exterior carriage light fixtures. 444

Page 9 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

The Spanish Colonial Revival homes identifying features include:

1. Hip roofs (and tight-rake gable accents) with barrel tile roofing.

2. Shaped foam/stucco eave treatments.

3. Arcaded porches with shaped soffits (round and/or corner corbels).

4. Stucco walls with recessed windows.

5. Ceramic tile details providing color accent.

6. Architecturally-themed exterior carriage light fixtures.

A summary of the floor plans is shown in the following table.

Plan
Type
# of
Units
# of
Bedrooms
1st Floor
(SF)
2nd Floor
(SF)
Living
Area (SF)
Porch
(SF)
Garage
(SF)
Plan Area (SF)
1 21 3 2,301 n/a 2,301 187 440 2,928
445

Page 10 ends

2021-2430 Ivy House

Template Version 082020

2 19 4 1,465 1,473 2,938 695 805 4,438
3 22 5 1,601 1,544 3,145 486 779 4,410

Landscape and Open Space:

A Preliminary Landscape Plan for the Project has been submitted and reviewed for compliance with City standards. The plan provides a layout for landscape areas, hardscape improvements, and a landscape palette for the streetscape, setbacks, and common areas. Due to its location adjacent to an d including portions of Murrieta Creek, the Project emphasizes open space and preservation. Approximately 40% of the project site will be dedicated as open space for natural drainage, wildlife connectors, conservation, open space, and water quality manage ment improvements. As part of the Project improvements, the developer must install an interim multi -use trail between the northerly and southerly boundaries . The Project complies with the landscaping guidance section 5.3.4 Landscaping of the DMSP. On -site pedestrian amenities, including benches and trash receptacles, have been incorporated into the Project and shown on the preliminary landscape plan. (See Attachment 3).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An addendum to the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. The residential development is not proposing any substantial changes which will require any substantial revisions to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of any identified significant effects; there have been no new substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous certified Mitigated Negative Declaration; and new information of substantial importance has not been discovered. The Project is subject to the previous Mitigation Measures identified in the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). (See Attachment 4).

NOTICING
The Project was noticed in compliance with Section 16.76 of the Development Code. The City posted a sign on the property, mailed notices to property owners within a 300 -foot radius, and advertised in the newspaper a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
Exhibit A –Conditions of Approval RP-2021-2429, TTM-2021-2428, MDP-2021-2430 Exhibit B – Ordinance

2. Vicinity Map

3. Project Plans (Revised MDP, TTM, DP)

4. CEQA Addendum, MMRP and Initial Study

5. Notice of Determination

446
9' x 18'

PARKING
STALL
GT
T
R
R
G
TR
R TAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
G
R
T
G
G
ADU
ACCESS
TRASH
DAY
ROUTE
TO
PUBLIC
STREET
TO
PUBLIC
STREET
4'-0" WIDE

PAVER PATH
(ADA COMPLIANT)
4'-0"
3'-0" CLEAR

WALKWAY
(PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
AND

EMERGENCY

ACCESS)
TRASH
DAY
ROUTE
TRASH
DAY
ROUTE
TRASH
DAY
ROUTE
ADU
ACCESS
3'-0" CLEAR WALKWAY
(PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
AND

EMERGENCY ACCESS)
TRASH
DAY
ROUTE
3'-0" CLEAR WALKWAY
(PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
AND

EMERGENCY ACCESS)
3'-0" CLEAR WALKWAY
(PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
AND

EMERGENCY ACCESS)
T RG

FIRE DEPARTMENT

HOSE PULL LENGTH
128'-0"
ADU
ACCESS
9' x 18'

PARKING
STALL
10'-0"

FIRE DEPARTMENT

HOSE PULL LENGTH
129'-8"

FIRE DEPARTMENT

HOSE PULL LENGTH
129'-2"
10'-0"
10'-0"

TIRE STOP
GATE
GATE
GATE

GATE GATE
GATE

GATEGATE

GATE GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA

P L O T T I N G D I A G R A M
0 4
82 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
16 1

P L O T T I N G D I A G R A M

INDICATES LIMITS OF ADU
P L A N 3

A L L E Y

P U B L I C S T R E E T
P L A N 2P L A N 1
INDICATES 36" WIDE CLEAR (INCLUDING GATE OPENINGS)
EMERGENCY ACCESS PATH FROM PUBLIC STREET. CONTINUOUS
HARDSCAPE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH.
447
5'-0"
4'-8"
15'-0"
9'-0"
18'-0"
5'-0"

KITCHEN

STORAGE
BA.

BA. 1
BA. 2
LAU.

KITCHEN
COV'D.

PORCH
PANTRY
W
D
LINEN
LINEN
SEAT
LINEN
PANTRY
STACK
W/D
R
T
GR
6' TALL
WALL
6' TALL
FENCE

DRIVEWAYWALK

WALKMETERS
METERS
BR.
11'-0" X 10'-0"
GREAT
16'-5" X 22'-2"

COURTYARD
9'-4" X 17'-5"
BR. 1
15'-0" X 12'-0"

COURTYARD LIVING
19'-3" X 23'-0"
BR. 3
11'-0" X 10'-6"
GREAT
15'-10" X 24'-1"
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-0" X 20'-0"
ENTRY

S T R E E T

A L L E Y
BR. 2
11'-0" X 10'-10"
50'-0"
105'-0"
105'-0"
50'-0"
12'-0" 33'-0" 5'-0"
WALK

S T R E E T
( A T C O R N E R C O N D I T I O N )
GATE

KITCHEN
ENTRY
AC
AC
T
G
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
WALK
WALK
WALK
9' x 18'

PARKING
STALL
TIRE
STOP
WALK
WALK
WALK
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE

KITCHEN
COV'D.

PORCH
PANTRY
GREAT
15'-10" X 24'-1"
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-0" X 20'-0"
BA. 2
LAU.

PANTRY
W
D
T
R

DRIVEWAYWALK
METERS
WALK
ENTRY
KITCHENBA.

BA. 1
BA. 2
LAU.

KITCHEN
WD
LINEN
LINEN
SEAT
PANTRY
STACK
W/D
METERS

COURTYARD
9'-4" X 17'-5"

COURTYARD LIVING
19'-3" X 23'-0"
BR. 3
10'-8" X 10'-6"
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-0" X 20'-0"
BR. 2
10'-8" X 10'-10"
105'-0"
105'-0"

KITCHEN
5'-0"
4'-8"
15'-0"
9'-0"
18'-0"
5'-0"
COV'D.

PORCH
LINEN

DRIVEWAYWALK
WALK
METERS
BR.
11'-0" X 10'-0"
GREAT
16'-5" X 22'-2"
ENTRY

S T R E E T

A L L E Y
50'-0"
50'-0"
12'-0" 33'-0" 5'-0"
WALK

S T R E E T
( A T C O R N E R C O N D I T I O N )

KITCHEN
COV'D.

PORCH
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-0" X 20'-0"
ENTRY
BR. 1
15'-0" X 12'-0"
SEAT
GREAT
15'-4" X 24'-1"
6' TALL
FENCE
R
T
G
GR6' TALL
WALL
T
AC
AC

STORAGE
GR
GATE
T
GATE
GATE

GATEGATE
WALK
WALK
TIRE
STOP
9' x 18'

PARKING
STALL
WALK
WALK
WALK
WALK
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 1 - F L O O R P L A N
0 4
82 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
16 P L A N 1
1,551 SF
1-STORY
3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH
2-CAR GARAGE
P L A N 1 A D U
750 SF
1-STORY
1 BEDROOM / 1 BATH

CARPORT

F I R S T F L O O R
2 A L T E R N A T E E N T R Y
+47 SF

F I R S T F L O O R
( U N I V E R S A L D E S I G N )
-6 SF
INDICATES ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR ROUTE (40" WIDE)
448
449
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 1 - E L E V A T I O N S "C R A F T S M A N " 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 L E F T E L E V A T I O N
4 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N
450
451
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 1 - E L E V A T I O N S "A M E R I C A N M E R C A N T I L E" 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 L E F T E L E V A T I O N
6 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N
452
453
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 L E F T E L E V A T I O N
8 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N
P L A N 1 - E L E V A T I O N S "S P A N I S H C O L O N I A L R E V I V A L" 454
DN
DN
BR. 3
11'-2" X 11'-7"
BR. 2
12'-9" X 11'-7"
BONUS
12'-2" X 15'-6"
BA. 2
COV'D.

DECK

KITCHEN
BR. 1
10'-11" X 10'-8"
BA.

GREAT
11'-8" X 16'-7"

LOW LINEN
STACK
W/D
PANTRY
LINEN
OPEN
TO
BELOW
OPEN
TO

COURTYARD
BELOW

S T R E E T

A L L E Y
50'-0"
105'-0"
105'-0"
50'-0"

S T R E E T
( A T C O R N E R C O N D I T I O N )
5'-0"
4'-0"
18'-0"
13'-8"
5'-0"
6'-7" 22'-4 1/2" 5'-0"11'-5 1/2"4'-7"
4'-3 1/2"
UP
UP
ENTRY
ENTRY

KITCHEN
COV'D.

PORCH

COURTYARD LIVING
29'-3" X 20'-0"

LAUNDRY
DINING
14'-9" X 12'-0"
LIVING
16'-0" X 15'-6"
BR. 1
12'-6" X 15'-5"
COV'D.

PATIO
BA. 1
PDR.

FOYER
1-CAR GARAGE #1
11'-0" X 20'-0"
1-CAR GARAGE #2
11'-0" X 22'-9"

ADU GARAGE
11'-0" X 20'-5"

ALFRESCO
LIVING
10'-5" X 20'-2"COURTYARD
11'-2" X 16'-4"
PANTRY
w
LINEN

DRIVEWAY
WALK

WALKMETERS METERS
WALK
D
SEAT
R T
6' TALL
WALL

WALK DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
OPT.

GUEST HOUSE
ENTRY
6' TALL
WALL
SINK
GATE
G
AC
AC
R TG
GATE

GATEGATE
GATE
WALK
WALK
WALK
WALK
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
BR. 4
12'-3" X 13'-2"
BR. 2
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 2 - F L O O R P L A N
0 4
82 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
16 P L A N 2
2,188 SF
2-STORY
3 BEDROOM / 2.5 BATH
BONUS / OPT. BR. 4
(2) 1-CAR GARAGES
P L A N 2 A D U
750 SF
2-STORY
1 BEDROOM / 1 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

F I R S T F L O O RS E C O N D F L O O R
O P T . B E D R O O M 4

IN LIEU OF BONUS
9 455
456
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
11 P L A N 2 - E L E V A T I O N S "C R A F T S M A N" 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N

L E F T E L E V A T I O N
NOTE: WINDOW SHUTTERS TO OCCUR AT ENHANCED STREET CORNER CONDITION ONLY. 457
458
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
13 P L A N 2 - E L E V A T I O N S "A M E R I C A N M E R C A N T I L E" 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N

L E F T E L E V A T I O N
NOTE: WINDOW SHUTTERS TO OCCUR AT ENHANCED STREET CORNER CONDITION ONLY. 459
460
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
15 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N

L E F T E L E V A T I O N
P L A N 2 - E L E V A T I O N S "S P A N I S H C O L O N I A L R E V I V A L" 461
DN
DN

KITCHEN
BA.

BR. 2
13'-6" X 12'-1"
BONUS
15'-10" X 15'-4"
BA. 2
BR. 3
11'-0" X 12'-5"
BR.
10'-0" X 11'-11"
GREAT
10'-10" X 20'-10"
COV'D.

DECK
PANTRY
LINEN
STACK
W/D
LINEN
LINEN
OPEN
TO
BELOW
OPEN
TO

COURTYARD
BELOW

S T R E E T

A L L E Y
50'-0"
105'-0"
105'-0"
50'-0"

S T R E E T
( A T C O R N E R C O N D I T I O N )
5'-0"
15'-0"
9'-0"
5'-0"
4'-5 1/2" 32'-6 1/2" 5'-0"8'-0"
UP
UP
ENTRY
ENTRY
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-0" X 23'-9"
COV'D.

PORCH
FOYER PDR.

BA. 1
BR. 1
13'-0" X 14'-9"
LIVING
15'-5" X 14'-6"
DINING
13'-6" X 13'-10"

KITCHEN
ZOOM
10'-0" X 13'-11"
COV'D.

PATIO
LAU.

ADU GARAGE
11'-0" X 20'-0"

COURTYARD
8'-0" X 16'-8"

COURTYARD LIVING
37'-11" X 25'-1"
METERS
D
6' TALL
WALL
OPT.

GUEST HOUSE
ENTRY
SINK
WALK

DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY
WALK
WALK
R T
R
G
W

STORAGE
PANTRY
LINEN
SEAT
6' TALL
WALL
GATE
LINEN
LINEN
POCKET
OFFICE
WALK
T
GAC
AC

GATEGATE
GATE
WALK
WALK
WALK
WALK
GATE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
6' TALL
FENCE
BR. 5
10'-0" X 11'-11"
BA. 3
COV'D.

PORCH

KITCHEN
BR. 4
13'-4" X 13'-4"
BR. 2
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 3 - F L O O R P L A N
0 4
82 SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
16 P L A N 3
2,402 SF
2-STORY
3 BEDROOM / 2.5 BATH
BONUS / OPT. BR. 4
ZOOM / OPT. BR. 5
2-CAR GARAGE
P L A N 3 A D U
750 SF
2-STORY
1 BEDROOM / 1 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

F I R S T F L O O RS E C O N D F L O O R
O P T . B E D R O O M 5

IN LIEU OF ZOOM
O P T . B E D R O O M 4

IN LIEU OF BONUS
16 462
463
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 3 - E L E V A T I O N S "C R A F T S M A N" 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 18

R I G H T E L E V A T I O N

L E F T E L E V A T I O N
464
465
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
P L A N 3 - E L E V A T I O N S "A M E R I C A N M E R C A N T I L E" 0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 L E F T E L E V A T I O N
20 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N
466
467
ArchitectsS T U D I O

08.22.22 of 22

I V Y H O U S E M U R R I E T A , CA
0 2
41 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
8 L E F T E L E V A T I O N
22 R I G H T E L E V A T I O N
P L A N 3 - E L E V A T I O N S "S P A N I S H C O L O N I A L R E V I V A L" 468
DESCRIPTIONSYM.CONSTRUCTION LEGEND
DESCRIPTIONSYM.WALL AND FENCE LEGEND
6'-0" HIGH VINYL FENCE,COLOR: TAN OR WHITE T.B.D.ALL WALLS INTERIOR TO THE TRACT 6'-0" HIGH 6"X8"X16" SINGLE SIDE SPLIT FACE BLOCKPERIMETER WALL, WITH 8"X4"X18" PRECAST SLUMPCAP, COLOR: TAN.ALL WALLS FACING PUBLIC STREETS: 'B' STREET ANDNEW CLAY STREET ASPHALT STREETS.NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS,AND ENTRY WALKS.4' WIDE ACCENT PAVERS.STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATHWAY.6" CONCRETE MOWCURB SEPARATING TURF FROMSHRUB AREAS AND HOA FROM HOMEOWNERMAINTAINED AREAS.

MURRIETA CREEK

DETENTION BASINSTREET A

ALLEY BALLEY B
4TH STREET

ALLEY A

ALLEY B

C STREET

STREET B

DETENTION BASIN

PROPERTY LINE

NEW CLAY STREET
LOT 10
15'HORSE TRAILEASEMENT
51'SEWER ANDWATEREASEMENT
EXISTING TREESEXISTING TREE TO PROTECT IN PLACE - 5 TOTALEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED - 8 TOTAL15 GALLON FRONT YARD/ALLEY TREES - 125 TOTALWUCOLGROWTH APPRX. SIZE RATEAT MATURITYGEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOWMODERATEMOD-FAST20'H X 20'WGINKGO BILOBA / MAIDENHAIR TREEMODERATEMODERATE50'H X 30'WLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA / CRAPE MYRTLEMODERATEFAST20'H X 20'WMAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA / SOUTHERN MAGNOLIAMODERATEMODERATE30'H X 30'WPODOCARPUS GRACILIOR / FERN PINEMODERATEMODERATE40'H X 20'WPYRUS CALLERYANA / ORNAMENTAL PEARMODERATEFAST30'H X 20'W 24" BOX SPECIMEN TREES AT STREET CORNERS - 5 TOTALULMUS PARVIFLORA / CHINESE ELMLOWMOD-FAST40'H X 50'WPISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHEMODERATEFAST40'H X 40'W 24" BOX 'B' STREET AND NEW CLAY STREET TREE - 32 TOTALPLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA / LONDON PLANE TREEMODERATEFAST40'H X 30'W 24" BOX INTERIOR TRACT STREET TREE - 86 TOTALPARKINSONIA X. 'DESERT MUSEUM' / PALO VERDELOWFAST25'H X 25'WGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 'SKYLINE' / HONEY LOCUSTLOWFAST30'H X 20'W 15 GALLON DETENTION BASIN TREES - 16 TOTALBRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS / BOTTLE TREELOWMODERATE40'H X 30'WCHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOWLOWMODERATE20'H X 20'W LANDSCAPE AREAS60,036 SFHOA MAINTAINED DETENTION BASIN AREA15,933 SFHOA MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA99,614 SFHOMEOWNER MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA6.83 acresCONSERVATION AREA / OPEN SPACE AND TRAILLANDSCAPE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE SHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSANIGOZANTHOS 'BUSH GOLD' / YELLOW KANGAROO PAW1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW ARTEMISIA 'POWIS CASTLE / POWIS CAS1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' / CENTENNIAL BACCHARIS5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW CAESALPINIA GILLIESII / DESERT BIRD OF PARADISE5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW CALLISTEMON V. `LITTLE JOHN` / DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH1-5 GAL.36" O.C.LOW CEANOTHUS 'DARK STAR' / DARK STAR CEANOTHUS5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW DIANELLA R. `LITTLE REV` / LITTLE REV FLAX LILY1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS / BLUE OAT GRASS1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA5 GAL.36" O.C.LOW LAVANDULA 'GOODWIN CREEK GREY' / GOODWIN GREY 1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW LAVANDULA STOECHAS/ SPANISH LAVENDER1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS RANGER5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW ROSMARINUS O. 'TUSCAN BLUE' / TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY5 GAL.30" O.C.LOW TECOMA 'SUNRISE' / SUNRISE ESPERANZA5 GAL.60" O.C.LOW WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA - COAST ROSEMARY5 GAL.60" O.C.LOW GROUNDCOVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSMANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO1 GAL.18-24" O.CLOW ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' / PROSTRATE ROSEMARY1 GAL.18-36" O.C.LOW VINESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSMACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI / CAT'S CLAW5 GAL8' O.C.LOW

PLANTING LEGEND
HOA & HOMEOWNER MAINTAINED PLANT MATERIAL(MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO):

SHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSCALLISTEMON V. `LITTLE JOHN` / DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW CEANOTHUS 'DARK STAR' / DARK STAR CEANOTHUS1 GAL.48" O.C.LOW LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS RANGER1 GAL.48" O.C.LOW MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY1 GAL.48" O.C.LOW GROUNDCOVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSBACCHARIS PILULARIS / DWARF COYOTE BRUSH1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' / PROSTRATE ROSEMARY1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW BASIN BOTTOMBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSCAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE 4" POT 12" O.C.LOW JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH4" POT 12" O.C.LOW DETENTION BASIN PLANT MATERIAL(MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO):
[One Inch on Original Sheet] Drawing File: N:\Projects\21prj\21137 Diversified Murrieta B Street\AutoCAD\RHA\ CLMP rev 01.31.23 Feb 08, 2023 - 9:58am PH. (951) 781-1930FAX (951) 686-8091
6800 INDIANA AVERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIALIC. #279992506SUITE 245Diversified Pacific, LLC909-481-115010621 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730Tract 34439-New Clay Street & 'B' StreetAPN: 906-193-001,906-200-001, 906-200-002, 906-212-001,906-221-001,0906-221-002City of Murrieta 120'80'40'0'
Jason Holt
IRRIGATION CONCEPT:THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL INCORPORATE THE LATEST INSMART IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES. ALL NEW LANDSCAPEAREAS WILL INCLUDE HIGH EFFICIENCY IRRIGATIONMETHODS TO INCLUDE SUB-SURFACE DRIP, STREAMBUBBLERS, AND ROTARY NOZZLES . ALL POP UP TREESTREAM BUBBLERS SHALL HAVE PC SCREENS AND BEINSTALLED ON SEPARATE VALVES. A SMART IRRIGATIONCONTROLLER WITH A RAIN SHUT OFF DEVICE WILL ALSO BEINCORPORATED. BARK MULCH WILL BE USED TO RETAINMOISTURE AND REDUCE EVAPORATION AND AN IRRIGATIONSCHEDULE WILL BE PROVIDED TO PROGRAM THECONTROLLER. TWO IRRIGATION SCHEDULES SHALL BEPREPARED, ONE FOR PLANT ESTABLISHMENT AND ONE FORAFTER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT.LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLECODES OF THE MURRIETA MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 16.28,TITLE 16.42, AND OTHER CODES AS REQUIRED. FOR 16.42TREE PRESERVATION REFER TO CONDITION OF APPROVALFOR REQUIREMENTS.LANDSCAPE CONCEPT:THIS LANDSCAPE WILL CONSIST OF CALIFORNIA-FRIENDLY,LOW WATER USE PLANT MATERIAL WITH ALL PLANTSCHOSEN FROM THE LOW AND MEDIUM WATER USECATEGORY ACCORDING TO WUCOLS. PARKWAY ANDCORNER PLANTING AREAS WILL NOT CONFLICT WITHVEHICULAR LINE OF SIGHT AND SHRUBS IN THESE AREASWILL BE A MAXIMUM OF 30” NATURAL HEIGHT. IN PLANTERAREAS WHERE THE MINIMUM 5' WIDTH IS NOT POSSIBLETHESE RESTRICTED PLANTERS WILL HAVE NATURALLYNARROW GROWING SUB-SHRUBS. INTENDED DESIGN TOHAVE OVERLAPPING TREE CANOPIES FOR A MORE SHADEDWALKABLE COMMUNITY. SHRUB LAYOUT SHALL APPEAR ASMASSES, NOT SPOTTY PLACEMENT OF SINGULAR SHRUBS. PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN MURRIETASPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES.UTILITIES AND LIGHT STANDARD LOCATIONS SHALL BECOORDINATED WITH OWNER’S ENGINEERING TEAM TOAVOID CONFLICTS WITH REQUIRED TREE LOCATIONS ANDUTILITY SCREENING.SITE ACREAGE SUMMARY:TOTAL ACREAGE GROSS = 21.99 ACTOTAL ACREAGE NET= 10.48 AC100%TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA = 266,718 SF58% ROW LANDSCAPE AREA = 28,074 SF6% WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS:FOR WATER USE CALCULATIONS REFER TO SEPARATE8.5"X11" SHEET

JEFFERSON AVE

WASHINGTON AVE

KALMIA STREET
15 LEMON STREET

VINEYARD PKWY

HAWTHORN STIVY STREET

HANCOCK AVE

LOS ALAMOS RDMADISON AVEGUAVA ST

HAYES AVE
215

NEW CLAY ST

TEMESCAL MOUNTAINS

B STREET

MURRIETA HOTSPRINGS RD

MURRIETA CREEK

NO SCALE
PROJECT SITE LAND USE:EXISTING -VACANTPROPOSED - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING:EXISTING -SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALADJACENT EXISTING PROPERTIES:LAND USE -SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

CONCEPTUALLANDSCAPE PLAN
BENCH
SIGN
BENCH
SIGN
BENCH
1 469
DESCRIPTIONSYM.CONSTRUCTION LEGEND
DESCRIPTIONSYM.WALL AND FENCE LEGEND
6'-0" HIGH VINYL FENCE,COLOR: TAN OR WHITE T.B.D.ALL WALLS INTERIOR TO THE TRACT 6'-0" HIGH 6"X8"X16" SINGLE SIDE SPLIT FACE BLOCKPERIMETER WALL, WITH 8"X4"X18" PRECAST SLUMPCAP, COLOR: TAN.ALL WALLS FACING PUBLIC STREETS: 'B' STREET ANDNEW CLAY STREET ASPHALT STREETS.NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS,AND ENTRY WALKS.4' WIDE ACCENT PAVERS.STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATHWAY.6" CONCRETE MOWCURB SEPARATING TURF FROMSHRUB AREAS AND HOA FROM HOMEOWNERMAINTAINED AREAS.

NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE ALLEYS AND GUTTERS.
6'-0" HIGH X 3'-0" WIDE SINGLE VINYL GATE,COLOR: TAN OR WHITE T.B.D.6'-0" HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PEDESTRIAN BENCH - FOREST GREEN PER SPECIFICPLAN. (3 TOTAL)TRAIL SIGNAGE STATING DO NOT LEAVE TRASH ONTHE TRAILS. (2 TOTAL) EXISTING TREESEXISTING TREE TO PROTECT IN PLACE - 5 TOTALEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED - 8 TOTAL15 GALLON FRONT YARD/ALLEY TREES - 125 TOTALWUCOLGROWTH APPRX. SIZE RATEAT MATURITYGEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOWMODERATEMOD-FAST20'H X 20'WGINKGO BILOBA / MAIDENHAIR TREEMODERATEMODERATE50'H X 30'WLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA / CRAPE MYRTLEMODERATEFAST20'H X 20'WMAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA / SOUTHERN MAGNOLIAMODERATEMODERATE30'H X 30'WPODOCARPUS GRACILIOR / FERN PINEMODERATEMODERATE40'H X 20'WPYRUS CALLERYANA / ORNAMENTAL PEARMODERATEFAST30'H X 20'W 24" BOX SPECIMEN TREES AT STREET CORNERS - 5 TOTALULMUS PARVIFLORA / CHINESE ELMLOWMOD-FAST40'H X 50'WPISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHEMODERATEFAST40'H X 40'W 24" BOX 'B' STREET AND NEW CLAY STREET TREE - 32 TOTALPLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA / LONDON PLANE TREEMODERATEFAST40'H X 30'W 24" BOX INTERIOR TRACT STREET TREE - 86 TOTALPARKINSONIA X. 'DESERT MUSEUM' / PALO VERDELOWFAST25'H X 25'WGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 'SKYLINE' / HONEY LOCUSTLOWFAST30'H X 20'W 15 GALLON DETENTION BASIN TREES - 16 TOTALBRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS / BOTTLE TREELOWMODERATE40'H X 30'WCHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOWLOWMODERATE20'H X 20'W LANDSCAPE AREAS60,036 SFHOA MAINTAINED DETENTION BASIN AREA15,933 SFHOA MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA99,614 SFHOMEOWNER MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA6.83 acresCONSERVATION AREA / OPEN SPACE AND TRAILLANDSCAPE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE

PLANTING LEGEND
1R
3R
3||
||
||
||
||
||
3 LOT 37
LOT 36
LOT 58
LOT 35
LOT 57
51'SEWER ANDWATEREASEMENT
12R
1 1R
3 2
||||||||||
LOT 56LOT 55
LOT 17
LOT 14
LOT 16
LOT 15ALLEY A

ALLEY B

C STREET

DETENTION BASIN
SHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSANIGOZANTHOS 'BUSH GOLD' / YELLOW KANGAROO PAW1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW ARTEMISIA 'POWIS CASTLE / POWIS CAS1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW BACCHARIS 'CENTENNIAL' / CENTENNIAL BACCHARIS5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW CAESALPINIA GILLIESII / DESERT BIRD OF PARADISE5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW CALLISTEMON V. `LITTLE JOHN` / DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH1-5 GAL.36" O.C.LOW CEANOTHUS 'DARK STAR' / DARK STAR CEANOTHUS5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW DIANELLA R. `LITTLE REV` / LITTLE REV FLAX LILY1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS / BLUE OAT GRASS1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA5 GAL.36" O.C.LOW LAVANDULA 'GOODWIN CREEK GREY' / GOODWIN GREY 1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW LAVANDULA STOECHAS/ SPANISH LAVENDER1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS RANGER5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY5 GAL.48" O.C.LOW MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS1 GAL.24" O.C.LOW ROSMARINUS O. 'TUSCAN BLUE' / TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY5 GAL.30" O.C.LOW TECOMA 'SUNRISE' / SUNRISE ESPERANZA5 GAL.60" O.C.LOW WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA - COAST ROSEMARY5 GAL.60" O.C.LOW GROUNDCOVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSMANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO1 GAL.18-24" O.CLOW ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' / PROSTRATE ROSEMARY1 GAL.18-36" O.C.LOW VINESBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSMACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI / CAT'S CLAW5 GAL8' O.C.LOW HOA & HOMEOWNER MAINTAINED PLANT MATERIAL(MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO):

SHRUBSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSCALLISTEMON V. `LITTLE JOHN` / DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW CEANOTHUS 'DARK STAR' / DARK STAR CEANOTHUS1 GAL.48" O.C.LOW LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS RANGER1 GAL.48" O.C.LOW MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY1 GAL.48" O.C.LOW GROUNDCOVERSBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSBACCHARIS PILULARIS / DWARF COYOTE BRUSH1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS' / PROSTRATE ROSEMARY1 GAL.36" O.C.LOW BASIN BOTTOMBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZESPACINGWUCOLSCAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE 4" POT 12" O.C.LOW JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH4" POT 12" O.C.LOW DETENTION BASIN PLANT MATERIAL(MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO):
[One Inch on Original Sheet] Drawing File: N:\Projects\21prj\21137 Diversified Murrieta B Street\AutoCAD\RHA\ CLMP rev 01.31.23 Feb 08, 2023 - 9:59am PH. (951) 781-1930FAX (951) 686-8091
6800 INDIANA AVERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIALIC. #279992506SUITE 245Diversified Pacific, LLC909-481-115010621 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730Tract 34439-New Clay Street & 'B' StreetAPN: 906-193-001,906-200-001, 906-200-002, 906-212-001,906-221-001,0906-221-002City of Murrieta 120'80'40'0'
Jason Holt
IRRIGATION CONCEPT:THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL INCORPORATE THE LATESTIN SMART IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES. ALL NEWLANDSCAPE AREAS WILL INCLUDE HIGH EFFICIENCYIRRIGATION METHODS TO INCLUDE SUB-SURFACE DRIP,STREAM BUBBLERS, AND ROTARY NOZZLES . ALL POP UPTREE STREAM BUBBLERS SHALL HAVE PC SCREENS ANDBE INSTALLED ON SEPARATE VALVES. A SMARTIRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH A RAIN SHUT OFF DEVICEWILL ALSO BE INCORPORATED. BARK MULCH WILL BEUSED TO RETAIN MOISTURE AND REDUCE EVAPORATIONAND AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE WILL BE PROVIDED TOPROGRAM THE CONTROLLER. TWO IRRIGATIONSCHEDULES SHALL BE PREPARED, ONE FOR PLANTESTABLISHMENT AND ONE FOR AFTER PLANTESTABLISHMENT.LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLECODES OF THE MURRIETA MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 16.28,TITLE 16.42, AND OTHER CODES AS REQUIRED. FOR 16.42TREE PRESERVATION REFER TO CONDITION OF APPROVALFOR REQUIREMENTS.LANDSCAPE CONCEPT:THIS LANDSCAPE WILL CONSIST OF CALIFORNIA-FRIENDLY,LOW WATER USE PLANT MATERIAL WITH ALL PLANTSCHOSEN FROM THE LOW AND MEDIUM WATER USECATEGORY ACCORDING TO WUCOLS. PARKWAY ANDCORNER PLANTING AREAS WILL NOT CONFLICT WITHVEHICULAR LINE OF SIGHT AND SHRUBS IN THESE AREASWILL BE A MAXIMUM OF 30” NATURAL HEIGHT. IN PLANTERAREAS WHERE THE MINIMUM 5' WIDTH IS NOT POSSIBLETHESE RESTRICTED PLANTERS WILL HAVE NATURALLYNARROW GROWING SUB-SHRUBS. INTENDED DESIGN TOHAVE OVERLAPPING TREE CANOPIES FOR A MORESHADED WALKABLE COMMUNITY. SHRUB LAYOUT SHALLAPPEAR AS MASSES, NOT SPOTTY PLACEMENT OFSINGULAR SHRUBS. PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN MURRIETASPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES.UTILITIES AND LIGHT STANDARD LOCATIONS SHALL BECOORDINATED WITH OWNER’S ENGINEERING TEAM TOAVOID CONFLICTS WITH REQUIRED TREE LOCATIONS ANDUTILITY SCREENING.SITE ACREAGE SUMMARY:TOTAL ACREAGE GROSS = 21.99 ACTOTAL ACREAGE NET= 10.48 AC100%TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA = 266,718 SF58% ROW LANDSCAPE AREA = 28,074 SF6% WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS:FOR WATER USE CALCULATIONS REFER TO SEPARATE8.5"X11" SHEET

JEFFERSON AVE

WASHINGTON AVE

KALMIA STREET
15 LEMON STREET

VINEYARD PKWY

HAWTHORN STIVY STREET

HANCOCK AVE

LOS ALAMOS RDMADISON AVEGUAVA ST

HAYES AVE
215

NEW CLAY ST

TEMESCAL MOUNTAINS

B STREET

MURRIETA HOTSPRINGS RD

MURRIETA CREEK

CONCEPTUALLANDSCAPEENLARGEMENTS
BENCH
BENCH
20'40'60'
NEW CLAY ROAD STREETSCAPE:24" BOX PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA- 40'O.C.1 GAL ROSMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' -36" O.C.

NEW CLAY STREET

B STREET
4TH STREET

ALLEY 'B'

STREET A
B STREET STREETSCAPE:24" BOX PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA- 40'O.C.1 GAL ROSMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' -36" O.C.

SIGN
2 470
2 12R
1 3R 1
1R
3 2
3R
2R
1 3
2 1R3R2R1 3 2 1R3
2R
3 2R1 3 2 1R
3R2R1 3 2 1R
3R2
2R1R123R2R1R
3R1R
1R
3 2R
1 3R2 31R
3R12R31R
3 3
||
|||||| || ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|| || || ||
||
||||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
3 LOT 52 LOT 56LOT 55
LOT 20
LOT 18LOT 17
LOT 14
LOT 16
LOT 15
LOT 13
LOT 12
LOT 11
LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 7LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 19
LOT 21
LOT 22
LOT 23LOT 24
LOT 25
LOT 26LOT 27
LOT 28
LOT 29LOT 30LOT 31LOT 32LOT 34
LOT 33
LOT 37
LOT 36
LOT 39
LOT 40
LOT 41
LOT 43
LOT 42
LOT 53LOT 54
LOT 51
LOT 50
LOT 49
LOT 48
LOT 47
LOT 46
LOT 44
LOT 45
LOT 58
LOT 59LOT 60
LOT 61
LOT 62
LOT 38
LOT 35
200'RIVER CHANNEL EASEMENT
LOT 57
44 44
4 443343
18 2
2 6
2 2
52 8 8
8 2
B STREET4THSTREET
5THSTREET

MURRIETA CREEK

DETENTION BASINSTREET A

ALLEY BALLEY B
4TH STREET

ALLEY A

ALLEY B

C STREET

STREET B

DETENTION BASIN

PROPERTY LINE

NEW CLAY STREET
LOT 10
15'HORSE TRAILEASEMENT 2
251'SEWER ANDWATEREASEMENT
12345678
EX. POWER POLE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACEEX. POWER POLE TO BE RELOCATED BY OTHERSEX. TREE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACEEX. TREE TO BE REMOVEDEX. FIRE HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATEDEX. PIPE AND HEADWALL TO BE REMOVEDEX. SHED TO BE REMOVEDGRIND 0.1 FEET EX. PAVEMENT

KEY NOTES
[One Inch on Original Sheet] Drawing File: N:\Projects\21prj\21137 Diversified Murrieta B Street\AutoCAD\RHA\ CLMP rev 01.31.23 Feb 08, 2023 - 10:01am PH. (951) 781-1930FAX (951) 686-8091
6800 INDIANA AVERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIALIC. #279992506SUITE 245Diversified Pacific, LLC909-481-115010621 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730Tract 34439-New Clay Street & 'B' StreetAPN: 906-193-001,906-200-001, 906-200-002, 906-212-001,906-221-001,0906-221-002City of Murrieta 120'80'40'0'
Jason Holt

JEFFERSON AVE

WASHINGTON AVE

KALMIA STREET
15 LEMON STREET

VINEYARD PKWY

HAWTHORN STIVY STREET

HANCOCK AVE

LOS ALAMOS RDMADISON AVEGUAVA ST

HAYES AVE
215

NEW CLAY ST

TEMESCAL MOUNTAINS

B STREET

MURRIETA HOTSPRINGS RD

MURRIETA CREEK

TREE REMOVAL &UTILITY PLAN
3 471
2 12R
1 3R 1
1R
3 2
3R
2R
1 3
2 1R3R2R1 3 2 1R3
2R
3 2R1 3 2 1R
3R2R1 3 2 1R
3R2
2R1R123R2R1R
3R1R
1R
3 2R
1 3R2 31R
3R12R31R
3 3
||
|||||| || ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|| || || ||
||
||||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
3 LOT 52 LOT 56LOT 55
LOT 20
LOT 18LOT 17
LOT 14
LOT 16
LOT 15
LOT 13
LOT 12
LOT 11
LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 7LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 19
LOT 21
LOT 22
LOT 23LOT 24
LOT 25
LOT 26LOT 27
LOT 28
LOT 29LOT 30LOT 31LOT 32LOT 34
LOT 33
LOT 37
LOT 36
LOT 39
LOT 40
LOT 41
LOT 43
LOT 42
LOT 53LOT 54
LOT 51
LOT 50
LOT 49
LOT 48
LOT 47
LOT 46
LOT 44
LOT 45
LOT 58
LOT 59LOT 60
LOT 61
LOT 62
LOT 38
LOT 35
200'RIVER CHANNEL EASEMENT
LOT 57

B STREET

MURRIETA CREEK

DETENTION BASINSTREET A

ALLEY BALLEY B
4TH STREET

ALLEY A

ALLEY B

C STREET

STREET B

DETENTION BASIN

PROPERTY LINE

NEW CLAY STREET
LOT 10
15'HORSE TRAILEASEMENT
51'SEWER ANDWATEREASEMENT
DESCRIPTIONSYM.WALL AND FENCE LEGEND
6'-0" HIGH VINYL FENCE,COLOR: TAN OR WHITE T.B.D.ALL WALLS INTERIOR TO THE TRACT 6'-0" HIGH 6"X8"X16" SINGLE SIDE SPLIT FACE BLOCKPERIMETER WALL, WITH 8"X4"X18" PRECAST SLUMPCAP, COLOR: TAN.ALL WALLS FACING PUBLIC STREETS: 'B' STREET ANDNEW CLAY STREET6'-0" HIGH X 3'-0" WIDE SINGLE VINYL GATE,COLOR: TAN OR WHITE T.B.D.6'-0" HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL FENCE **6' MIN
8" X 4" X 16" PRECISION CONCRETEBLOCK CAP.6" X 8" X 16" ONE SIDED SPLIT-FACECONCRETE BLOCK. GROUT COLORTO MATCH BLOCK.

NOTES:1.ALL MORTAR JOINTS: 12 BUFF + 12 GRAY HEAVY SACKED MORTAR.2.ALL BLOCK WALLS TO HAVE AN ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING ALONG PUBLICSIDE.

ELEVATIONSECTIONFINISHGRADE

PLHOMEOWNERPUBLIC SIDESPLIT FACEHOMEOWNERPRIVATE SIDEPRECISION

ONE SIDED SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALLA
DOMED CAP2" X 7" TOP &BOTTOM RAIL5" X 5" VINYLPOST6" TONGUE &GROOVE 8" X 24" DOMEDCONC. FOOTING24" 6'-0"
+/-8'-0"
VINYL COLOR: TANOR WHITE- T.B.D.

FINISH GRADE

COMPACTED SUB-GRADEPER SOILS REPORTCOMPACTED SUB-GRADEPER SOILS REPORT (TYP) 1"
6` VINYL FENCED
2" x 7" PVC TOP AND BOTTOMRAILS (TO MATCH FENCE)T-HINGE2" UPRIGHT 16 GAPOWDER COATEDPRE GALV 1" X 6" TONGUE &GROOVE PVC BOARDSQUARE METAL INSERTWELDED TO UPRIGHTAND TEX SCREWED ATRAILS RAILS HAVE CUTOUT FOR 1" X 6"TO SLIDE IN VINYL COLOR: TANOR WHITE- T.B.D.LATCHDOMED CAP5" X 5" VINYLPOST 8" X 24" DOMEDCONC. FOOTING

ADJACENTBLOCKWALLADJACENTBLOCKWALL
CONCRETEWALKWAY9"
3"
3'-0"

VINYL GATEC
LEGEND:1. 3"X3" 16 GAUGE TERMINAL POST, ATTACH TO FACE OF PILASTER WITHSADDLE BRACKET(2 PER POST) AND 2 EXPANSION SHIELDS.2. 1½" x 1½" 16 GAUGE TUBULAR STEEL TOP & BOTTOM RAILS.3. 2" X 2" 16 GAUGE POSTS @ 8' O.C. MAX.4. 3/4" SQ. PICKETS @ 4" O.C.5. PUNCHED METAL MESH WELDED ONTO EXTERIOR SIDE.NOTES:- TUBULAR STEEL TO BE PAINTED WITH 1 COAT RUSTOLIUM PRIMERAND 2 COATS FINAL COLOR TO PER CITY AND MSHCP STANDARDS. 6` TUBE STEEL FENCE
4 2
3"
4" O.C MAX4" O.C MAX236'-0" MIN.
1 B
5 [One Inch on Original Sheet] Drawing File: N:\Projects\21prj\21137 Diversified Murrieta B Street\AutoCAD\RHA\ CLMP rev 01.31.23 Feb 08, 2023 - 10:02am PH. (951) 781-1930FAX (951) 686-8091
6800 INDIANA AVERIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIALIC. #279992506SUITE 245Diversified Pacific, LLC909-481-115010621 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730Tract 34439-New Clay Street & 'B' StreetAPN: 906-193-001,906-200-001, 906-200-002, 906-212-001,906-221-001,0906-221-002City of Murrieta 120'80'40'0'
Jason Holt
PROJECT SITE LAND USE:EXISTING -VACANTPROPOSED - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING:EXISTING -SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALADJACENT EXISTING PROPERTIES:LAND USE -SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALZONING - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

FENCE ANDWALL PLAN
4 472
City of Murrieta Landscape Water Use Calculations
Tract 34439 - New Clay Street & B street

0.55 ETo allowance
Applicant to use drop down menus in cells that indicate a selection to describe each hydrozone.

Where "INPUT" is shown, applicant to enter project specific information.

Please note that embedded formulas will reflect as 'false' or as an error until selections are completed. 1 Maximum Annual Water Allowance (MAWA)
INPUT the total square footage of landscape = 175,654 S.F.

INPUT the Hist. ETo for the area = 55.00
MAWA = 440,427 cu ft / yr
2 Estimated Annual Water Use (EAWU)
Plant Type Water Use
Hydrozone # 1 Plant Factor = 0.2 Basin - Slopes Low
INPUT Square Foot Area of Hydrozone = 60,036 HOA
Hydrozone Irrigation Efficiency = 0.90
EAWU = 60,821 cu ft / yr
Plant Type Water Use
Hydrozone # 2 Plant Factor = 0.2 Shrubs / Groundcover Low INPUT square footage of hydrozone = 15,054 HOA
Hydrozone Irrigation Efficiency = 0.85
EAWU = 16,148 cu ft / yr
Plant Type Water Use
Hydrozone # 3 Plant Factor = 0.2 Shrubs / Groundcover Low INPUT square footage of hydrozone = 96,489 Homeowner
Hydrozone Irrigation Efficiency = 0.80
EAWU = 109,969 cu ft / yr
Plant Type Water Use
Hydrozone # 4 Plant Factor = 0.5 Trees / Mulch Moderate INPUT square footage of hydrozone = 950 HOA
Hydrozone Irrigation Efficiency = 0.85
EAWU = 2,548 cu ft / yr
Plant Type Water Use
Hydrozone # 5 Plant Factor = 0.5 Trees / Mulch Moderate INPUT square footage of hydrozone = 3,125 Homeowner
Hydrozone Irrigation Efficiency = 0.85
EAWU = 8,380 cu ft / yr
SubTotal EAWU = 197,866 cu ft / yr
Input Irrigation System Operation Factor 0.85
Total EAWU = 232,784
MAWA - EAWU = 207,643 cu ft / yr
(this number must be positive)
PERCENTAGE OF WATER SAVED RELATIVE TO MAX. ALLOWED = 47% * Trees are not required to be listed as a separate hydrozone if understory is planted with plants of an equal or higher plant factor, and foot area is already included in calculations.

Project Type (Select)
Bubblers
Residential
Point Source Drip
In-line Drip-Densely Planted
In-line Drip-Sparsely Planted
Bubblers
473

MURRIETA CREEK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
(200')RCFC & WCD R/W(100')(100')
||
||
||||||||||||||||
||
||
||
||
|| ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
ACAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
2 12R
1 3R 1
1R
3 2
3R
2R
1 3
2 1R 3R 2R 1 3 2 1R 3
2R
3 2R 1 3 2 1R 3R 2R 1 3 2 1R 3R2
2R 1R12
3R2R 1R
3R 1R
1R 3 2R 1 3R 2 31R
3R12R3
1R
3 3
||
||
||||||||||||||||
||
||
||
||
|| ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
3 AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
ACAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC

WWSS SS SS SSWW
W
WSS
SS
SSSS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS
WWW
W W
SS
W
W

NEW CLAY AVENUE

B STREET

STREET BSTREET A
54 23
4142
79 S35°55'11"E
N48°13'09"E 424.18'
N35°55'11"W
1107.44'
S41°43'40"E 721.34'
N48°13'27"E 300.09'
S41°43'13"E 341.34'
3943 4044
LOT B
45 62
46 35
61 47 36
60 48 37
59 49 38
58 53
5051
52 56
55 LOT D
3224
16 6
3122
15 5
3021
14 4
2920
13 3
2819
12 2
2718
11 1
26 10
LOT A
3325
17 8
34 57LOT E
N48°13'09"E 159.65'
LOT C
LOT F
LOT 57LOT E
LOT F
LOT 39LOT 43 LOT 40LOT 44LOT 45
LOT 62
LOT 46 LOT 35
LOT 61
LOT 47 LOT 36
LOT 60
LOT 48 LOT 37
LOT 59
LOT 49 LOT 38
LOT 58
LOT 53
LOT 50LOT 51
LOT 52
LOT 56
LOT 55
LOT D
LOT 32LOT 24
LOT 16
LOT 6
LOT 31LOT 22
LOT 15
LOT 5
LOT 30LOT 21
LOT 14
LOT 4
LOT 29LOT 20
LOT 13
LOT 3
LOT 28LOT 19
LOT 12 LOT 2
LOT 27LOT 18
LOT 11 LOT 1
LOT 26
LOT 10
LOT 33LOT 25
LOT 17
LOT 8
LOT 34LOT 54 LOT 23
LOT 41LOT 42
LOT 7LOT 9
LOT G

PUBLIC RW

ALLEY A (PRIVATE)

ALLEY B (PRIVATE)ALLEY B (PRIVATE)
4TH STREET

ALLEY B (PRIVATE)

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
TOPOGRAPHY SOURCEAERIAL DRONE SURVEY PERFORMED BYHUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES, SAN DIEGO, INC.ON NOVEMBER 9, 2020FIELD TOPOGRAPHY PERFORMED BYCL SURVEYING AND MAPPING, INC.ON AUGUST 6, 2021 GENERAL NOTES1.TOTAL EXISTING GROSS SITE AREA: APPROX. 21.365 ACRESTOTAL PROPOSED GROSS SITE AREA: APPROX. 21.759 ACRESTOTAL NET SITE AREA: APPROX. 12.417 ACRES= GROSS SITE AREA (21.759 AC) - PUBLIC STREET DEDICATION (2.590 AC) - OPEN SPACE DEDICATION (6.752 AC)2.EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT3.PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE4.TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 1245.TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS: 69RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 62 OPEN SPACE LOTS: 4 PRIVATE ALLEY LOTS: 3 6.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 906-193-001, 906-20-001, 906-200-002,906-212-001, 906-221-001, 906-221-0027.EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: SP(DOWNTOWN MURRIETA SPECIFIC PLAN)8.EXISTING ZONING: VRS-1 (VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY)9.NET DENSITY: 9.986 DU/AC (124 DU'S/12.417 AC)10.AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS: TBD ADT (SEE TRAFFIC STUDY)11.TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA: 3.702 ACRES (29.81% OF NET ACRES)12.TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 0 SFTOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 372,195 SF13.TOTAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED: 2 GARAGE SPACES PER UNITTOTAL OFF-STREET PARKING PROVIDED: 2 GARAGE SPACES PER MAIN UNIT,1 SPACE PER ADU14.THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP BOUNDARY CONTAINS THE ENTIRECONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.15.THE PROJECT HAS MODERATE TO HIGH LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL.16.ONSITE RUNOFF TO BE TREATED BY MODULAR WETLAND DETAINED BYBASINS SHOWN HEREON.17.PORTION OF SITE IS WITHIN ZONE A, AND REMAINDER IN ZONE X. THE SITEGRADING SHALL ELEVATE THE PROJECT OUT OF THE 100 YEARFLOODPLAIN.

NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

PROJECTSITE
SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 5/16/2023 5:45 PM5/17/2023 10:53 AMBy: JuabP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-CV-DP-001-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

JUSTIN A BROWN
COUNTY BENCHMARK "R-5 RESET 1983"
EL=1097.22NAVD88
NE OF THE "T" INTERSECTION OF KALMIA ST. AND 2ND 31' NE'LY OF THE CL OF 2ND AVE, 31' SE'LY OF THE CL OF KALMIA; 56' SE'LY OF PP#1594267E; 5' NE'LY OF A 4" X 4" STREET SIGN POSTRECORDED 1935, RESET 1983

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 IVY HOUSE DEVELOPMENT PLANRP-2021-2429, MDP-006-1884TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34439CITY OF MURRIETA, CA LEGEND
PROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYLOT LINEEASEMENT2' BUILDING SETBACK LINE (BSBL)5' BUILDING SETBACK LINE (BSBL)18' BUILDING SETBACK LINE (BSBL)CENTERLINEGUTTER, FLOW, AND CURB LINETOP OF >20% SLOPETOE OF >20% SLOPESLOPE (2:1 MAX)FENCEFLOWLINESURFACE FLOWRETAINING WALLSIGN4-WAY STREET SIGNEXISTING SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED SANITARY LINE (SIZEPER PLAN)EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEPROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE(SIZE PER PLAN)EXISTING WATER LINEPROPOSED WATER LINE (SIZE PERPLAN)SANITARY SEWER MANHOLESTORM DRAIN MANHOLEFLOW ARROWFIRE HYDRANTPROPOSED STREET LIGHTCATCH BASINADA RAMP

HATCHING LEGENDLIGHT PAVEMENTREMOVE SIDEWALKHEAVY PAVEMENTREMOVE PAVEMENTSIDEWALKGRIND AND OVERLAYCONCRETEVEGETATIONGRAVELRIPRAP ABBREVIATIONSBLBIKE LANEBWBOTTOM OF WALLELEVELEVATIONEPEDGE OF PAVEMENTEXEXISTINGFFFINISH FLOORFGFINISH GRADEFLFLOW LINEFPFLOOD PLAINFSFINISH SURFACEGBGRADE BREAKIEINVERT ELEVATIONMHMANHOLENSFNET SQ. FT.NTSNOT TO SCALEPPAD ELEVATIONPIPOINT OFINTERSECTION (V.C.)P/LPROPERTY LINERCPREINFORCEDCONCRETE PIPERGROUGH GRADERWRECLAIMED WATERR/WRIGHT OF WAYSSEWERSDSTORM DRAINSFGROSS SQ. FT.SSSANITARY SEWERSWSIDEWALKTCTOP OF CURBTFTOP OF FOOTINGTWTOP OF WALLTYP.TYPICALVCVERTICAL CURVEWWATERWQWATER QUALITYRETAINING AREA BASIS OF COORDINATESTHE COORDINATES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIACOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 6, (2010.00 EPOCH) INACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODESECTIONS 8801-8819; SAID COORDINATES ARE BASED LOCALLY UPONFIELD-OBSERVED TIES TO THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEYNETWORK, CONTINUALLY OPERATING REFERENCE STATIONS(CORS), OREQUIVALENT STATIONS:STATION NORTHING EASTING BILL 2154994.96 6313564.16 P474 2074324.58 6526718.86 ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES, ARE IN U.S.SURVEY FOOT AND HAVE BEEN SCALED FROM GRID ABOUT THE 3" BRASSDISK IN WELL MONUMENT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF NEW CLAYST AND B ST. GRID DISTANCES CAN BE OBTAINED BY DIVIDING GROUNDDISTANCES BY A COMBINED FACTOR OF 1.0000857556 BENCHMARK STATEMENTNAVD88 PER COUNTY BENCHMARK "R-5 RESET 1983" EL=1097.22 (NODE4011) AND BENCHMARK Z-9707 PER COUNTY 3 WIRE LEVELING NOTESEL=1083.249 (NODE 4122).

DEVELOPER CONTACTS
DEVELOPERDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC10621 CIVIC CENTER DRIVERANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730909.481.1150 CIVIL ENGINEERDAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES41951 REMINGTON AVE STE 220TEMECULA, CA 92590951.294.9300 SOILS ENGINEERPETRA GEOSCIENCES40880 COUNTY CTR DR, STE MTEMECULA, CA 92591951.600.9271 ENVIRONMENTALHELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC.16485 LAGUNA CYN RD STE 150IRVINE, CA 92618949.234.8770 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTRHA LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS-PLANNERS,INC.6800 INDIANA AVE #245RIVERSIDE, CA 92506951.781.1930 OWNERDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC10621 CIVIC CENTER DRIVERANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730(909) 481-1150 GENERAL DESIGN NOTES1.ALL GRADING FOR PROPOSED AND FUTURE STREETS SHALL CONFORM TOTHE CITY OF MURRIETA DESIGN STANDARDS AND AS REQUIRED BY THECITY ENGINEER.2.ALL EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED, REMOVED, OR RELOCATED ASREQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND THEIRAPPROPRIATE DISTRICTS.3.ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND.4.FINISHED GRADES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE ATFINAL DESIGN, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S SUBSTANTIALCONFORMANCE GUIDELINES.5.SOILS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PRELIMINARY SOILSREPORT PREPARED BY: PETRA GEOSCIENCES DATED 11/17/2020.6.EXACT GRADING DESIGN SHALL BE DONE AT FINAL ENGINEERING PER THEFINAL GRADING PLAN AND APPROVED HYDROLOGY REPORT.7.GRADED SWALES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 1% FLOW LINE GRADE.8.ALL STREET DESIGNS, STREET LIGHTS, AND FIRE HYDRANTS TO CONFORMTO THE CITY OF MURRIETA DESIGN STANDARDS AND AS REQUIRED BYTHE CITY ENGINEER.9.LANDSCAPING AND TREE PLANTING SHALL BE PER THE MURRIETALANDSCAPE MANUAL.10.ALL STREET DESIGN SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF MURRIETA DESIGNSTANDARDS AND AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.11.CUL-DE-SAC CURB GRADES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1%.12.THE SUBDIVIDER/DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL APPROVEDSTREET LIGHT STANDARDS AND FIXTURES IN THE TYPE AND NUMBERAPPROVED BY THE CITY OF MURRIETA, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT- TRAFFIC SECTION AND PER THE CITY'S STREET LIGHT CONSTRUCTIONSTANDARDS. STREET LIGHTS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE TO BE USEDAS AS A GUIDE ONLY.13.THE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM SHALL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINEDBY THE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION.14.THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A CURRENT DESIGNATED EARTHQUAKEFAULT ZONE.15.DRY UTILITIES SHALL BE PLACED IN ALLEYS.

LOTNO.GROSSLOTAREA(SF)PLANTYPEBLDGCOVERAGE(TOTAL) (SF)
HARDSCAPE/DWYAREA(SF)LANDSCAPEAREA (SF)LOTCOVERAGE (%)TOTAL BLDGFLOOR AREA(SF)FLOORAREARATIO*(%) 17,86131,9322,0183,463253,92450 27,01412,1741,9082,365312,74139 36,75022,0251,6332,847303,74355 46,48631,9322,0242,082303,92460 56,34112,1741,7311,869342,74143 66,06622,0251,5842,212333,74362 75,68331,9321,8571,446343,92469 85,75312,1741,5421,470382,74148 95,60022,0251,3072,023363,74367 105,30431,9321,8561,068363,92474 115,30412,1741,5041,059412,74152 125,30422,0251,3821,652383,74371 135,30422,0251,6331,291383,92474 145,30412,1741,640923412,74152 155,30422,0251,1501,884383,74371 165,20031,9321,6491,171373,92475 175,72012,1741,5881,391382,74148 186,15831,9321,5392,239313,92464 195,72122,0251,4092,042353,74365 205,72112,1741,5881,392382,74148 215,72131,9321,5531,788343,92469 226,59022,0251,3262,994313,74357 235,86512,1741,6581,466372,74147 246,08131,9321,5862,115323,92465 256,33522,0251,6042,461323,74359 266,56912,1741,7092,119332,74142 276,69731,9321,8762,441293,92459 286,72022,0251,6362,814303,74356 296,72012,1741,7842,195322,74141 306,72031,9321,9792,361293,92458 316,72022,0251,5762,874303,74356 326,72012,1741,7862,193322,74141 336,72022,0251,5762,874303,74356 347,31931,9321,8673,072263,92454 357,81831,9321,8893,549253,92450 367,20012,1741,9012,558302,74138 377,20022,0251,5933,337283,74352 387,20031,9321,8652,955273,92455 397,20012,1741,9232,536302,74138 408,04922,0251,6534,126253,74347 417,84931,9321,8653,604253,92450 427,20012,1741,9392,520302,74138 437,26022,0251,6543,336283,74352 447,19331,9321,8652,948273,92455 457,10512,1741,9002,464312,74139 466,89622,0251,7102,916293,74354 476,64331,9321,8662,397293,92459 486,39112,1741,7581,892342,74143 496,15522,0251,3802,505333,74361 506,83831,9321,6402,818283,92457 519,03012,1741,6684,621242,74130 529,26622,0251,2825,714223,74340 535,55331,9321,5441,629353,92471 545,63912,1741,5681,330392,74149 555,51222,0251,3141,928373,74368 565,50012,1741,5741,185402,74150 579,53031,9321,8655,285203,92441 586,45931,9321,8652,214303,92461 596,24912,1741,7121,796352,74144 606,24922,0251,5022,477323,74360 616,24931,9321,8652,004313,92463 626,90112,1741,8022,358322,74140 PLANTYPE# OFUNITS# OFBDRMS1STFLOOR(SF)2NDFLOOR(SF)LIVINGAREA (SF)PORCH/LOGGIA(SF)GARAGE(SF)PLANAREA* (SF) 1213230123011874402928 21941465147329386958054438 32251601154431454867794410 COVERAGE AND F.A.R. SUMMARYARCHITECTURAL SUMMARY
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONSEE SHEET 2 FOR COMPLETELEGAL DESCRIPTION

PROJECT SUMMARY
NEOTRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARDSRESIDENTIAL DENSITY (DU/NET ACRE)3.5 MINIMUM LOT AREA (SQ. FT.)5,000 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH (FEET)50 MINIMUM LOT DEPTH (FEET)100 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT (FEET)30 MINIMUM YARD/PARKING SETBACKSFRONT YARD SETBACK (FEET)10 - to house,5 - to porch SIDE YARD SETBACK INTERIOR (FEET)5 SIDE YARD SETBACK @ CORNER STREET(FEET)10 ALLEY SETBACK (FEET) >2' STREETSCAPE PROGRAMLOCAL RESIDENTAL ROADSTRAVEL LANE (FEET)10 PARKING WIDTH (FEET)8 PARKWAY (FEET)12 NEW CLAY AVENUETRAVEL LANE (FEET)12 PARKING WIDTH (FEET)8 PARKWAY (FEET)5 SIDEWALK (FEET)5 VEGETATED BUFFER (FEET)3 B STREETTRAVEL LANE (FEET)12 PARKING WIDTH (FEET)8 PARKWAY (FEET)5 SIDEWALK (FEET)5 BIKE LANE (FEET)5

MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCCOVER SHEET
RP-2021-2429, MDP-2021-2430
SHEET INDEXSHEET 1..........COVER SHEETSHEET 2..........EXISTING CONDITIONS & LEGALDESCRIPTIONSHEET 3..........TENTATIVE TRACT MAPSHEET 4..........

DETAILS AND TYPICAL SECTIONSSHEET 5..........GRADING SECTIONSSHEET 6..........

CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANSHEET 7..........CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SHEET 8..........PHASING PLAN
1 SFAC% OF SITE TOTAL EXISTING SITE AREA 930,654 21.36100.00% RESIDENTIAL LOTS 418,339 9.6044.95% PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 112,805 2.5912.12% PRIVATE ALLEY AREA (LOTS A-C) 48,673 1.125.23% PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (LOTS D-E) 70,499 1.627.58% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT* 650,316 14.9369.88% OPEN SPACE DEDICATION (LOTS F-G) 297,515 6.8331.97% *PLAN AREA INLCUDES LIVING AREA (MAIN UNIT + ADU), PORCH/LOGGIA, AND GARAGE.

DATE PLOTTED:3/29/2022

UTILITY CONTACTS
WATERWESTERN MUNICIPAL WATERDISTRICT (WMWD)14205 MERIDIAN PARKWAYRIVERSIDE, CA 92518951.571.7276SEWERRANCHO CALIFORNIA WATERDISTRICT (RCWD)42135 WINCHESTER ROADTEMECULA, CA 92590951.296.6975 NATURALGASSOCAL GAS25620 JEFFERSON AVE,MURRIETA, CA 92562800.427.2200TELEPHONEFRONTIER844.888.1006 ELECTRICITYSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS26100 MENIFEE ROAD,ROMOLAND, CA 92588800.655.4555CABLE TVCOMCAST556 BIRCH STREETLAKE ELSINORE, CA888.892.2253 TRAFFICSIGNALSMURRIETA TRAFFIC BUREAU1 TOWN SQUAREMURRIETA, CA 92562951.304.2489SCHOOLDISTRICTMURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICTCONTACT: DENISE UMPRESS951.696.1600, EXT:1182 *PUBLIC R/W TO BE MAINTAINED BY CFD SHOULD ONE BE FORMED. *OPEN SPACE TO BE MAINTAINED BY QUALIFIED 3RD PARTY.*OPEN SPACE INCLUDES EQUESTRIAN TRAIL UNIVERSAL DESIGNMAIN DWELLING UNITS ON 10 LOTSWITH FOOTPRINT 1 SHALL BEDESIGNED TO UNIVERSAL DESIGNGUIDELINES TO COMPLY WITH THEUNIVERSAL DESIGN ORDINANCE *BLDG COVERAGE EXCLUDES THE ADU FOOTPRINT.

STREET C
474

MURRIETA CREEK

RCFCWCD/ACOE R/WCDFW JURISDICTION

CDFW JURISDICTION
EX. JAPANESE ZELKOVA
EX. SILVER DOLLAR GUM
EX. SHAMEL ASH
EX. SHAMEL ASHEX. FREMONT COTTONWOODEX. ARROYO WILLOW

FEMA FLOODWAY LIMITS

PROPERTY LINE

ZONE XZONE A ZONE XZONE A

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTINGBUILDING
APN: 906221002
APN: 906221011
APN: 906221014
APN: 906200013
APN: 906200012
APN: 906184001
2SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 1/30/2023 9:29 AM5/17/2023 10:54 AMBy: MbecP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-002-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCEXISTING CONDITIONS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION RP-2021-2429, MDP-2021-2430
PARCEL 1LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 21; LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 22; LOTS 1THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 27; AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 28 OF THETOWN IN MURRIETA, IN THE CITY OF MURRIETA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ASSHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDEROF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.TOGETHER WITH THOSE CERTAIN UNNAMED ALLEYS INCLUDED WITHIN BLOCKS 27 AND 28 ANDTHOSE PORTIONS OF JUNIPER STREET, "C" STREET, CLAY AVENUE, 4TH AVENUE, AND 5TH AVENUEAS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, VACATED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THECOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED FOR RECORD ON DECEMBER 12,1944, IN BOOK 656, PAGE 175 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICH WILL PASS WITH THE CONVEYANCE OFSAID LOTS BY OPERATION OF LAW.PARCEL 2LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 25, AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 26 OFTHE TOWN OF MURRIETA, IN THE CITY OF MURRIETA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AS SHO9WN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THECOUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.TOGETHER WITH THAT CERTAIN UNNAMED ALLEY INCLUDED WITHIN SAID BLOCK 26 AND THOSEPORTIONS OF "C" STREET, "D" STREET, CLAY AVENUE, 4TH AVENUE, AND 5TH AVENUE AS SHOWNON SAID MAP, VACATED BY RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OFRIVERSIDE, CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH WERE FILED FOR RECORD ON DECEMBER 12, 1944 INBOOK 656, PAGE 175, OCTOBER 2, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 103973, AND AMENDMENT THERETORECORDED OCTOBER 31, 1963 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 115713, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICHPASS WITH THE CONVEYANCE OF SAID LOTS BY OPERATION OF LAW.PARCEL 3LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, IN BOOK 33, ALL IN THE TOWN OF MURRIETA, CITY OF MURRIETA,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OFMAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF 5TH AVENUE, LYING BETWEEN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF"B" STREET AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF JUNIPER STREET, LYING BETWEEN THESOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF CLAY AVENUE AND THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN UNNAMEDALLEY THROUGH SAID BLOCKS 27 AND 28 AND THE NORTHEASTERLY HALF OF THAT CERTAINALLEY RUNNING THROUGH SAID BLOCK 33, VACATED BY RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OFSUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED FORRECORD ON DECEMBER 12, 1944 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1148 IN BOOK 656, PAGE 175 OF OFFICIALRECORDS.PARCEL 4LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 34, ALL IN THE TOWN OF MURRIETA, IN THE COUNTY OFRIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS, IN THEOFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY HALF OF THAT CERAIN ALLEY RUNNINGTHROUGH SAID BLOCK 34, AS VACATED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED FOR RECORD DECEMBER 12, 1994 ASINTRUMENT NO. 1148, IN BOOK 656, PAGE 175, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
( FEET )
SCALE
1 INCH = 60 FT.
6060120 300

3.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTSINCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF:THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PURPOSE: RIVER CHANNEL AND BANKPROTECTION WORKS RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1939RECORDING NO: BOOK 135, PAGE 9, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS:A PORTION OF SAID LAND.5.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTSINCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF:CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, A CORPORATION PURPOSE:UTILITIES RECORDING DATE: APRIL 2, 1958 RECORDING NO: 23946, OFOFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND.6.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTSINCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF:COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PURPOSE: PUBLIC UTILITIES RECORDING DATE:OCTOBER 2, 1963 RECORDING NO: 106973, BOOK 3501, PAGE 72, OFOFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND ANDRECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1963 AND RECORDING NO: 115713,BOOK 3524, PAGE 356, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS\ EXCEPTIONSNOTE: ONLY PLOTTABLE EXCEPTIONS ARE LISTED BELOW DATE PREPARED: 09/15/2022
FEMAMAP NUMBER: 06065C2715GPANEL NUMBER: 2715 OF 3805EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28,2008 475
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
ACAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
LOT 545,639 SF
LOT 235,865 SF
LOT 417,849 SFLOT 427,200 SF
LOT 75,683 SFLOT 95,600 SF
S41°43'16"E 582.99'L=101.25,R=1000.00
S35°55'11"E
189.37'
L=86.39,R=55.00 N54°04'49"E 99.41'
S41°43'16"E 244.11'
N48°21'12"E 164.99'
S41°43'16"E 394.15'L=101.25,R=1000.00
S35°55'11"E
449.86'
S35°55'11"E
41'
122' 41'18' 75'75' 131' 18'42'50'50'16'34'
50'
14'36'
50'
50'
7'18'
20' 131' 18'42'50'50'50'50'44'
18'131'20'100'39' 31' 50' 50' 50'8'
37'
42'103'
50'
48'30'
18' 144'
55'50'50'50'50'56'
144'
144'
55'50'50'50'50'50'50'37'
13'
50'
31'40'
112'
119' 7' 43'32'18' 34' 16'50' 44'
144'
144'
143'
140'
135'
130'
56' 50' 50' 50' 50'
125'
144'
125'
144'
125'
126'
144'
125'
119'
129'12'
111' 111'113'
117'
118'
110'110'
17'44'50'50'50'50'50'50'50'50'50'38'50'
42'9'
50'
50'
50'
30'
39' 89' 20' 103'2'54'
50'
51'
51'
51'
51'
51'
51'
56'
57'
51'
52'
52'
51'
51'
51'
55'146'20'121'
134'
55'50'50'50'50'50'49'1'50'
49'1'
50'
50'
50'
63'
50'
50'
50'
55'
134'
124'
119'
116'
104' 55'51'51'51'52'52'42'51'9'
51'
51'
51'
51'
51'
51'
50'
55'
104'
114'
119'
134'
114'
104'
125'
134'
114'
104'
130'
134'
114'
104'
135'
134'
114'
104'
140'
133'
104'
129'
62'
86'
104'
134'
109'
105'
55'158' 175'
42' 9'
S41°43'16"E 381.24'S41°43'16"E 422.69'
S37°00'01"E

81.18'
L=294.27,R=178.00 N48°16'44"E 75.48'
L=50.63R=500.00
N48°21'12"E 184.00'
LOT 397,200 SFLOT 437,260 SF LOT 408,049 SFLOT 447,193 SF LOT B6,225 SF
LOT 457,105 SF
LOT 626,901 SF
LOT 466,896 SF LOT 357,818 SF
LOT 616,249 SF
LOT 476,643 SF LOT 367,200 SF
LOT 606,249 SF
LOT 486,391 SF LOT 377,200 SF
LOT 596,249 SF
LOT 496,155 SF LOT 387,200 SF
LOT 586,459 SF
LOT 535,553 SF
LOT 506,838 SF
LOT 519,030 SF
LOT 529,266 SF
LOT 565,500 SF
LOT 555,512 SF LOT 326,720 SFLOT 246,081 SF
LOT 165,200 SF
LOT 66,066 SF
LOT 316,720 SFLOT 226,590 SF
LOT 155,304 SF
LOT 56,341 SF
LOT 306,720 SFLOT 215,721 SF
LOT 145,304 SF
LOT 46,486 SF
LOT 296,720 SFLOT 205,721 SF
LOT 135,304 SF
LOT 36,750 SF
LOT 286,720 SF
LOT 195,721 SF
LOT 125,304 SF
LOT 27,014 SF
LOT 276,697 SFLOT 186,158 SF
LOT 115,304 SF
LOT 266,569 SF
LOT 105,304 SF
LOT 336,720 SF
LOT 256,335 SF
LOT 175,720 SF
LOT 85,753 SF LOT 17,861 SF
N54°04'49"E 163.99'
47'153'
LOT E1.84 AC.
5'
26'15'
34'
42'
42' 18' 41'41'18' 167'167'167'167'1'
109'
26'
22'
160'
S62°04'10.35"E 42.474Δ=1.28 424'
S49°52'35.22"E986.984
Δ=14.50
45'S64°22'35.22"E76.500
Δ=2.31
LOT 545,639 SF
LOT 235,865 SF
LOT 417,849 SFLOT 427,200 SF
LOT 75,683 SFLOT 95,600 SF
LOT 377,200 SF
LOT 596,249 SF
LOT 496,155 SF LOT 387,200 SF
LOT 586,459 SF
LOT 535,553 SF
LOT 506,838 SF
LOT 519,030 SF
LOT 529,266 SF
LOT 565,500 SF
LOT 555,512 SF LOT 326,720 SFLOT 246,081 SF
LOT 165,200 SF
LOT 66,066 SF
LOT 316,720 SFLOT 226,590 SF
LOT 155,304 SF
LOT 56,341 SF
LOT 306,720 SFLOT 215,721 SF
LOT 145,304 SF
LOT 46,486 SF
LOT 296,720 SFLOT 205,721 SF
LOT 135,304 SF
LOT 36,750 SF
LOT 286,720 SF
LOT 195,721 SF
LOT 125,304 SF
LOT 27,014 SF
LOT 276,697 SFLOT 186,158 SF
LOT 115,304 SF
LOT 266,569 SF
LOT 105,304 SF
LOT 336,720 SF
LOT 256,335 SF
LOT 175,720 SF
LOT 85,753 SF LOT 17,861 SF
LOT 397,200 SFLOT 437,260 SF LOT 408,049 SFLOT 447,193 SFLOT 457,105 SF LOT 626,901 SF
LOT 466,896 SF LOT 357,818 SF
LOT 616,249 SF
LOT 476,643 SF LOT 367,200 SF
LOT 606,249 SF
LOT 486,391 SF
LOT G4.49 AC.

LOT 579,530 SF
LOT 347,319 SF
LOT A17,505 SF
LOT F2.50 AC.
110'49'75'
321'
81'
11' 322'

2.33 AC
49'80'
147'
116'
30' 42'

NEW CLAY AVENUE

MURRIETA CREEK

B STREET
(80')(40')(40')
(50')(50')(100')

STREET B

STREET A
4TH STREET
6 6
6 3
5 ULTIMATE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
20'
20'
20'
(200')(100')(100')
18' BSBL10' BSBL

80.00'(TO BE VACATED)

80.00'(TO BE VACATED)80.00'(TO BE VACATED)

OLD CLAY (VACATED)

FEMA FLOODWAY LIMITS

ZONE XZONE A ZONE XZONE A
28'GUE
28'GUE
28'GUE
PROP. 15'TRAIL
PROPERTY LINE3.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTSINCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF:THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PURPOSE: RIVER CHANNEL AND BANKPROTECTION WORKS RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1939RECORDING NO: BOOK 135, PAGE 9, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS:A PORTION OF SAID LAND.5.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTSINCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF:CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, A CORPORATION PURPOSE:UTILITIES RECORDING DATE: APRIL 2, 1958 RECORDING NO: 23946, OFOFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND.6.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTSINCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT: IN FAVOR OF:COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PURPOSE: PUBLIC UTILITIES RECORDING DATE:OCTOBER 2, 1963 RECORDING NO: 106973, BOOK 3501, PAGE 72, OFOFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND ANDRECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1963 AND RECORDING NO: 115713,BOOK 3524, PAGE 356, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS\ EXCEPTIONSNOTE: ONLY PLOTTABLE EXCEPTIONS ARE LISTED BELOW SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 5/16/2023 5:39 PM5/17/2023 10:54 AMBy: JuabP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-BD-002-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 3DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCTENTATIVE TRACT MAP

IVY HOUSE
DATE PREPARED: 05/20/2022
476
(±14')(±31') EARTHEN SWALE(±9')
EX. E.P.
(±50') (±50')
(±100')
EX. E.P.

EX. ST.CROWN
(±5') 41'
EX. AC PAVEMENT
2%
2%
EX. SW'LYR/WEX. NE'LYR/W
C/L
(±40')

CURBFACE LINE
(±27') DIRT SHOULDER /EARTHEN SWALE(±13')(±16')
12' TRAVELLANE8'PRKG.6'WQBIOFIL.9'SW
EX. E.P.
14'5'BL
SAWCUT EX.AC 2' AND JOIN9'
(±40')
EX. E.P.
(80')
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
2%
2%
EX. NW'LYR/WEX. SE'LYR/W C/L
2' AC GRINDAND OVERLAY
26' EARTHEN SWALE
(±50')
PR. ST.CROWN
(±50')
5'SW8'PARKING5' BIKELANE12' TRAVELLANE12' TRAVELLANE8'PARKING5'WQBIOFIL.5'SW

CURBFACE LINE

CURBFACE LINE
2%
2%
2%
6'(±5')
SAWCUT EX.AC 2' AND JOIN
EX. ST.CROWN
6'
EX. SW'LYR/WMAPC/LEX. NE'LYR/W CONSTRUCTIONC/L
(100')
44' 14'PARKWAY
10' MINUNIT SETBACK

SIDEWALK
6" CURB & GUTTERPR. AC PAVEMENT
SIDEWALK6" CURB & GUTTERPR. AC PAVEMENT

UNDERCUT

UNDERCUT
EX. 6"WATER
PROP 18" SD
PROP 18" SDPROP 8"WATERPROP 8"SEWEREX. 12"FORCEMAINEX. 21"SEWER EX. 12"FORCEMAINEX. 21"SEWER
13R 2R 3
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
C/L
PR. R/W
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
12'TRAVELLANE12'TRAVELLANE8'PARKING8'PARKING6'SW4'LS 6'SW4'LS 30'30'
60'

CURBFACE

CURBFACE
PR. R/W
C/L PR. PL
10'TRAVELLANE10'TRAVELLANE4' 4'
28'GENERAL UTILITY ESMT.

SIDEWALK, TYP.4" ROLLED CURB, TYP.PR. AC PAVEMENT, TYP.

ADA COMPLIANTPAVERS, TYP.

PR. PL
AC PAVEMENT3' GUTTER
2%
2%
MIN. 2'MAX. 5'UNLESS 18'OR GREATER
18'
7'6'6'
PR. WATERPR. STORM DRAINPR. SEWER
*NOTE: UTILITIES MAY BE ON EAST OR WEST SIDE ASNEEDED TO REDUCE CONFLICTS/CROSSINGS

UNDERCUT

UNDERCUTUNDERCUT
2R
AC
AC
CUTOFF WALL2 %
R/W5'44'5'
UNCOMPACTED TRENCH BOTTOM TO ALLOWINFILTRATION IN AREAS WHERE ADJACENT TOE OF SLOPEHIGHER THAN BOTTOM FABRIC IN ALL OTHER AREAS. 12" MIN. 34" CRUSHED ROCK

NONE-PERMEABLE FABRIC ON THE SIDES
SECTION PER SOIL'S ENGR.RECOMMENDATION
12" THICK DECORATIVEWASHED TAN RIVER ROCK(~4" TO 6" DIA. ROCK) 6" SOLID PVC CLEANOUT EVERY 50'DRAINTECH 1203SDB 12" ATRIUMGRATE RIM 3" HIGHER THAN FG (TYP) 18" PLANTING/STORAGE MEDIA WITH THE FOLLOWINGPARAMETERS:·60% TO 80% MORTAR SAND PER GREENBOOK TABLE200-1.5.5(A)·20% TO 40% TYPE 1 ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENT PERGREENBOOK SECTION 212-1.2.4·MINIMUM 5 INCHES/HOUR INFILTRATION RATE UP TO 12INCHES/HOUR MAXIMUM RATE.6" PVC UNDERDRAIN TO CATCH BASIN 12"
PR. 6" CURB AND 4' CURB -CUTOPENNING EVERY 75'
NEW CLAY & B STREET BIOFILTRATIONBASIN W/ UNDERDRAINNTS 1:1 DEEPENED FOOTING(H = 2.5' FROM TC)
12" BENCH

FILTER COURSE
12"18"12"12"
SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 3/17/2023 4:11 PM5/17/2023 10:55 AMBy: MbecP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-003-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 NOTE ON MURRIETA CREEK IMPROVEMENTSIT IS UNDERSTOOD THE PHASE 4 MURRIETA CREEKIMPROVEMENTS ARE CURRENTLY UNFUNDED AND WILL NOTOCCUR. 100' AND 50' BUFFERS SHOWN ON PLAN FOR REFERENCE.

TYPICAL LOT SETBACKS

TYPICAL ALLEY SIGHT DISTANCE
TYPICAL PRIVATE ALLEYNOT TO SCALENOTE: "NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BEPLACED ALONG ALL ALLEYWAYS TYPICAL 60' ROAD SECTIONNOT TO SCALE

EXISTING STREET SECTIONNEW CLAY AVENOT TO SCALE

PROPOSED STREET SECTIONNEW CLAY AVENOT TO SCALE

PROPOSED STREET SECTIONB STREETNOT TO SCALE
MIN. 5'
MIN. 5'
MIN. 5'
MIN. 2'MAX. 5'UNLESS 18'OR GREATER
MIN. 10'
MIN. 10' MIN. 18'GARAGESETBACK
MIN. 10'P/L
P/L

CURB LINE
24'

POINT OFCURB LINEINTERSECT(TYP)
ALLEY ENTRY PERCOM STD PLAN 310C

DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCDETAILS AND TYPICAL SECTIONS

IVY HOUSE
14'14'28'
10'20'60'10'20'

TURF BLOCKOR PAVERS

TURF BLOCKOR PAVERS
24'
4 2'5'18'
10'
24' 2' MIN BLDG SETBACKFROM ALLEY
24' 2' MIN BLDG SETBACKFROM ALLEY
10'TRAVEL LANE
SITE TRIANGLE AROUND BUILDINGSSITE TRIANGLE PER COM MUNICIPALCODE12.14.040. (NO OBSTRUCTIONSGREATER THAN 30" IN HEIGHTPERMITTED) 15'
8'

PAVERS ORTURF BLOCK
MIN.2'MAX.5' UNLESS 18' ORGREATER
3' V-GUTTER

TYPICAL LOT GRADING DETAIL
MIN. 10'P/L
1%
1% 2%
2%MIN
MIN
P/L

SIDEWALK
PAD ELEV.

P/L
HIGH PT.

HIGH PT.
*NOTE: SWALES TO BE 1.0% MIN ONEARTH & 0.5% ON CONCRETE. YARDDRAINS MAY BE USED AS NEEDED.

AC TO BE LOCATED48" CLEAR OF PATHOF TRAVEL 5'MIN.
5'MIN.5'MIN. 5'MIN.

MIN. 10'
MIN. 10'
*SECTION B-B RETAINING AREA(NEW CLAY AND B-STREET)SCALE: 1" = 1' *SECTION B-B RETAINING AREA(APPLICABLE INTERIOR STREETS)SCALE: 1" = 1'

BIOFILTRATION
*RETAINING AREA NOTERETAINING AREA TO BE REMOVED DURING FINAL ENGINEERING 477
2'FREEBOARD
4:1
4:1
PROP.PAD

BOUNDARY

PROPOSEDDETENTIONBASIN A

EXISTINGSURFACE EXISTINGSURFACE

BOTTOM OF MURRIETA CREEK
200' MURRIETA CREEK EASEMENT
15' TRAILAT GRADE
28'ALLEY B10'TRAVEL LN.10'TRAVEL LN.

C/L
4'4'

PROPOSEDSURFACE
10' SETBACK FROMTRAIL TO TOP OF SLOPE
2%HIGH WATER EL. = 1087.0BOTTOM OF BASIN EL. = 1079.0
FLOW CONTROLOUTLET STRUCTUREEXISTING TOP OFSLOPE ± 1089 EXISTING TOP OFSLOPE ± 1078 EXISTING BOT OFSLOPE ± 1078 EXISTING TOP OFSLOPE ± 1089100-YEAR WS~1087'
PROP.PAD
28'ALLEY BEXIST.SHED
EXIST.SURFACE
EXIST.FENCEPROPOSEDSURFACE
10'TRAVEL LN.
47'
10'TRAVEL LN.

BOUNDARYC/L
4'4'
2 12R
1 3R 1
1R
3 2
3R
2R
1 3
2 1R 3R 2R 1 3 2 1R 3
2R
3 2R 1 3 2 1R 3R 2R 1 3 2 1R 3R2
2R 1R123R2R 1R
3R 1R
1R 3 2R 1 3R 2 31R
3R1
2R31R
3 3
||
||
||||||||||||||||
||
||
||
||
|| ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
3 AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
ACAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC

NEW CLAY AVENUE
4TH STREET

MURRIETA CREEK

STREET B

B STREET
PROPOSED DETENTIONBASIN AVOLUME = 4.5 AC-FT

B STREET
15' TRAILAT GRADE

RCFCWCD/ACOE R/W

CDFW JURISDICTION

CDFW JURISDICTION
22' RCFC ESMT

STREET A
E-E-
D-D-
SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 5/16/2023 12:23 AM5/17/2023 10:55 AMBy: JuabP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-004-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCGRADING SECTIONS

IVY HOUSE

SECTION E-E
SECTION D-D5

MULTIPURPOSETRAIL SECTION

STREET C
478

WWWWWWW

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
WWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSSSSSSSSSSS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWWW
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS

W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
ACAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
(W)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(SS)
(W) (W) (W) (W) (W)

NEW CLAY AVENUE
4TH STREET

STREET B

B STREET
40'25'
60'20'20'10' 10'
26' 50'100'
28'20'4' 28'20'4' 4'
EX. 21" SEWER
EX. 12" PVCFORCE MAIN
PROP 8" WATER
PROP 8" WATER
PR. 8" WATER
PROP 8" WATER
EX. 6" WATER
PAD=1093.8PAD=1093.6PAD=1093.3PAD=1093.1PAD=1092.8PAD=1092.6PAD=1092.4PAD=1092.1PAD=1091.9PAD=1091.6PAD=1091.4PAD=1091.1PAD=1090.8PAD=1090.6PAD=1091.0PAD=1091.3PAD=1091.4 PAD=1093.8PAD=1093.6PAD=1093.3PAD=1093.1PAD=1092.8PAD=1092.6PAD=1092.3PAD=1092.0PAD=1091.8PAD=1091.6PAD=1091.3PAD=1091.0PAD=1090.8PAD=1090.6PAD=1090.3PAD=1090.0PAD=1089.8 PAD=1088.7
PAD=1089.6
PAD=1090.2
PAD=1090.6
PAD=1093.2PAD=1093.2PAD=1092.7PAD=1091.8PAD=1091.8PAD=1089.8PAD=1089.3PAD=1089.1PAD=1089.4PAD=1089.7PAD=1090.0PAD=1090.2PAD=1090.5PAD=1091.0PAD=1091.3PAD=1091.2 PAD=1091.0
PROP 8" WATER

1.0%

1.0%1.0%

1.0%

0.3%

0.6%

0.5%1.7%

1.0%0.5%

0.5%

0.5%
1090
1091
1092
1093
1090
1088
1089
1091
1090
1090
1090
1088
1088
1088
1089
1089
1089
1091
1090
1090
1090
1088
1088
1088
1089
1089
1089
1091
1092
1092
6'13' 1090.32 TC1090.12 TC
24'

B STREET
40'25'15'

0.5%
15'
6'
6'
13'
36" STORM DRAIN
18" STORM DRAIN
18" STORM DRAIN
24" STORM DRAIN
8" PVC S=0.4%
8" PVC S=1.0%
8" PVC S=1.0% 8" PVC S=1.0% 8" PVC S=1.0%
13'
6'
8'19'
PROP 8" WATER
6'6'11'
8" PVC S=0.4%
JOIN EX. 8" WATER LINE IN C STREET
MODULAR WETLANDS OR SIMILARFOR FILTRATION WITH DETENTIONPOND FOR STORAGE. OVERFLOWDISCHARGES TO ONSITE STORMDRAIN

11.5%

9.8%

4.1% 30.4%

38.6%

0.7%

1.0%0.6%

1.4%

4.4%

FEMAFLOODZONE

ZONE XZONE A ZONE AZONE X

ZONE XZONE A
EX. 12" CMP(TO BE REMOVED)
35'
20'38'
32'
24'
35'
33'
29'
32'26'
35'
35'
32'
24'
32'
19'
25'
19'29'
13'
19'
23'26'
22'
25'
26'
17'26'
18'
16'
24'
29'
29'
25'22'
18'24'
27'20'
11'16'
21'27'21'
14'
25'21'
18'21'
16'14'
23'22'
26'18'
18'
28'
24'
29'
22'25'
19'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'
5'5'
5'
18'
18'
22'18'
23'23'
25'
18'
24'
18'
5'
5'
5'
5'5'
5'2'
18'29'
18'
18'
25'
18'
18'23'
18'
18'
23'
25'
18'
18'5'
5'
38'
39'
38'
28'
29'
24'
20'
5'
23'19'
5'
16' 21'18'23'14' 18'22'13'
2'5'2'2'
10'
10'
10'
5'5'5'
5'5'5'5'5'5'
5'5'5'5'
5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'
5'
5'5'5'5'5'
7'
7'5'
5'5'
5'5'
5'5'
12'
10'
6'5'5'5'5'6'5'6'7'7'5'5'
10'6'
8'5'
6'7'
5'5'
5'6'
6'6'
6'5'
5'6'
5'6'
10'
5'
5'
5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'5'
5'
5'
8'
6'
7'
6'
11'5' 5'8' 5'5' 5'5'

11.67'
1090.36 TC
1089.77 TC
LOT 545,639 SF
LOT 235,865 SF
LOT 417,849 SFLOT 427,200 SF
LOT 75,683 SFLOT 95,600 SF
N48°13'09"E 424.18'
N35°55'11"W
1107.44'
LOT 397,200 SFLOT 437,260 SF
LOT C20,340 SF
LOT 408,049 SFLOT 447,193 SF
LOT B6,225 SF
LOT 457,105 SFLOT 466,896 SF LOT 357,818 SFLOT 476,643 SF LOT 367,200 SFLOT 486,391 SF LOT 377,200 SFLOT 496,155 SF LOT 387,200 SF
LOT 535,553 SF
LOT 506,838 SF
LOT 519,030 SF
LOT 529,266 SF
LOT 565,500 SF
LOT 555,512 SF LOT 326,720 SFLOT 246,081 SF
LOT 165,200 SF
LOT 66,066 SF
LOT 316,720 SFLOT 226,590 SF
LOT 155,304 SF
LOT 56,341 SF
LOT 306,720 SFLOT 215,721 SF
LOT 145,304 SF
LOT 46,486 SF
LOT 296,720 SFLOT 205,721 SF
LOT 135,304 SF
LOT 36,750 SF
LOT 286,720 SF
LOT 195,721 SF
LOT 125,304 SF
LOT 27,014 SF
LOT 276,697 SF
LOT 186,158 SF
LOT 115,304 SF
LOT 266,569 SF
LOT 105,304 SF
LOT 336,720 SF
LOT 256,335 SF
LOT 175,720 SF
LOT 85,753 SF
LOT 17,861 SF
311'
50'
LOT 545,639 SF
LOT 235,865 SF
LOT 417,849 SFLOT 427,200 SF
LOT 75,683 SFLOT 95,600 SF
LOT 377,200 SFLOT 496,155 SF
LOT 387,200 SF
LOT 535,553 SF
LOT 506,838 SF
LOT 519,030 SF
LOT 529,266 SF
LOT 565,500 SF
LOT 555,512 SF LOT 326,720 SFLOT 246,081 SF
LOT 165,200 SF
LOT 66,066 SF
LOT 316,720 SFLOT 226,590 SF
LOT 155,304 SF
LOT 56,341 SF
LOT 306,720 SFLOT 215,721 SF
LOT 145,304 SF
LOT 46,486 SF
LOT 296,720 SFLOT 205,721 SF
LOT 135,304 SF
LOT 36,750 SF
LOT 286,720 SF
LOT 195,721 SF
LOT 125,304 SF
LOT 27,014 SF
LOT 276,697 SF
LOT 186,158 SF
LOT 115,304 SF
LOT 266,569 SF
LOT 105,304 SF
LOT 336,720 SF
LOT 256,335 SF
LOT 175,720 SF
LOT 85,753 SF
LOT 17,861 SF
LOT 397,200 SFLOT 437,260 SF LOT 408,049 SFLOT 447,193 SFLOT 457,105 SFLOT 466,896 SF LOT 357,818 SFLOT 476,643 SF LOT 367,200 SFLOT 486,391 SF LOT 347,319 SF
LOT A17,505 SF
PAD=1092.2
5'
1082.89INV
1082.47INV
1088.14 RIM1079.73 INV 8" SE1079.53 INV 8" NW
1089.71 RIM1076.95 INV 8" SE1076.75 INV 8" NW1076.55 INV 8" SW 1091.83 RIM1079.67 INV 8" SE 1090.21 RIM1080.55 INV 8" NE1082.73 INV 8" NW 1089.10 RIM1081.96 INV 24" E1082.16 INV 18" N1081.96 INV 36" W 1091.72 RIM1081.55 INV 8" SE
1087.68 RIM1076.97 INV 8" SW1087.91 RIM1077.61 INV 8" NW1077.31 INV 8" SW1077.11 INV 8" NE 1088.07 RIM1078.37 INV 8" SW1078.17 INV 8" NE

SECONDARY OVERFLOWCATCH BASIN
5'
5'
39'
38'
39'
7'
10'
24'28'
13'
20'
17'
24'
13'8'
12'5'
22'19'
10'16'
6'
14'
8'16'
5'11'
7'13'
12'8'
12'8'
7'13'
8'16'
5'11'
7'13'
-5.3%

0.0%

4.6%

2.0%

4.1%

8.6%

8.1%

2.9%

3.8%

7.9%

4.2%

4.3%
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DETENTION BASINVOL=10,600 CU-FT
1083.30INV
1082.72INV
1082.08INV
1079.98INV 30" RCP S=0.5%
24" STORM DRAIN
30" STORM DRAIN
1087.8 TG1083.8 INV
NOTE: CATCH BASIN AND STORMDRAIN LINE IS SUBJECT FORREVIEW AND POSSIBLE REMOVALDURING FINAL ENGINEERING NOTE: CATCH BASIN AND STORMDRAIN LINE IS SUBJECT FORREVIEW AND POSSIBLE REMOVALDURING FINAL ENGINEERING NOTE: BASIN IS SUBJECTFOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLEREMOVAL DURING FINALENGINEERING.

UDUDUD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD

LEGENDEXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEPROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE(SIZE PER PLAN)STORM DRAIN DRAWN TO SCALE(SIZE PER PLAN)STORM DRAIN MANHOLECATCH BASINFLOW ARROW (SD)SD

PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENTPROPOSED SIDEWALKPROPOSED CONCRETE

SEWER MANHOLE
EARTHWORK SUMMARYCUT(CY)FILL(CY) RAW VOLUMES 15,700 71,800 LESS ROADBEDS (5,800)O/X AND RECOMPACTION (8'AVERAGE ACROSS SITE) 173,000 173,000 SUBSIDENCE (0.1') (2,200)SUBTOTAL 180,700 244,800 SHRINKAGE (10%) (18,300)SUBTOTAL 162,400 244,800 GROSS 82,400 SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 3/29/2023 11:45 AM5/17/2023 10:55 AMBy: JuabP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-005-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCCONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN

IVY HOUSE
SEE SHEET 6
6 7'11'18'
11'
( FEET )
SCALE
1 INCH = 40 FT.
404080 200
UDUNIVERSAL DESIGNCOMPLIANT UNITCONSERVATION AREA(NOTE: TRAIL INCLUDED)

CONSERVATIONAREA

STREET C
479
3R12R31R
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|| || ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
3 AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
SSSSSS

SS SS SS

WWWWWWWW
W W W
SS

SSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|| || ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
S41°43'40"E 721.34'
N48°13'27"E 300.09'
S41°43'13"E 341.34'
LOT 626,901 SFLOT 616,249 SFLOT 606,249 SFLOT 596,249 SFLOT 586,459 SF LOT E3.87 AC.

S62°04'10.35"E 42.474Δ=1.28
S64°22'35.22"E76.500
Δ=2.31
N48°13'09"E 159.65'
LOT 596,249 SFLOT 586,459 SF
LOT 626,901 SFLOT 616,249 SFLOT 606,249 SF
LOT F4.49 AC.

LOT 579,530 SF
(W)
(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)(SS)
60'20'20' 10'10'
4'

3.0:13.0:1

3.0:1

3.0:1
1087.97 RIM1075.10 INV 8" NE1074.90 INV 8" NW1089.63 RIM1074.30 INV 8" SE1074.10 INV 8" W

1.0%

1.2%1.7%
15' TRAILAT GRADE

CDFW JURISDICTION

CDFW JURISDICTION
1092.40 RIM(1070.36 INV 8" SW)(1070.46 INV 8" NW)
8" PVC S=0.4%
EX. 6" PVC W
8" PVC S=0.4% 8" PVC S=0.4%
40'25'10'
1090.32 RIM1073.85 INV 8" E1073.65 INV 8" NW 1070.46 INV 8" NEREMOVE BLINDFLANGE & JOIN EX.

PR. 8" WATER
6'
6'
13'13'
6'
6'
35'
30" STORM DRAIN
30" STORM DRAIN
PAD=1091.6PAD=1090.7PAD=1090.2PAD=1089.8PAD=1088.8
1087.27 TC
1087.02 TC
1079.00INV
1078.05INV
PAD=1091.6
1079.00INV
1079.00INVLOW FLOW OUTLET

HI FLOW BYPASSOUTLETSTRUCTUREW/ FLOWCONTROL

MODULAR WETLANDSOR SIMILAR
60'20'20' 10'10'
4'13'
31'
34'13'
19'16'
20'29'
20'19'14'
5'
18'
18'
10'
18'17'
10'
5'5' 5'5' 5'5' 5'5'
5'5'
11'

MURRIETA CREEK
PROPOSED DETENTIONBASIN AVOLUME = 82,764 CU-FT

RCFCWCD/ACOE R/W STREET AFLOODWAY LIMIT

FLOODWAY LIMIT

1.5%
1079.00INV 30" RCP S=0.52%
15' TRAILAT GRADE
UD UD
EARTHWORK SUMMARYCUT(CY)FILL(CY) RAW VOLUMES 15,700 71,800 LESS ROADBEDS (5,800)O/X AND RECOMPACTION (8'AVERAGE ACROSS SITE) 173,000 173,000 SUBSIDENCE (0.1') (2,200)SUBTOTAL 180,700 244,800 SHRINKAGE (10%) (18,300)SUBTOTAL 162,400 244,800 GROSS 82,400 SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 5/16/2023 5:41 PM5/17/2023 10:56 AMBy: JuabP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-006-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCCONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN

IVY HOUSE
SEE SHEET 6
7 LEGENDEXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEPROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE(SIZE PER PLAN)STORM DRAIN DRAWN TO SCALE(SIZE PER PLAN)STORM DRAIN MANHOLECATCH BASINFLOW ARROW (SD)SD

PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENTPROPOSED SIDEWALKPROPOSED CONCRETE

SEWER MANHOLE
UDUNIVERSAL DESIGNCOMPLIANT UNITCONSERVATION AREA(NOTE: TRAIL INCLUDED)

CONSERVATION AREA

1.84 AC.

G
480
2 12R
1 3R 1
1R
3 2
3R
2R
1 3
2 1R 3R
2R 1 3 2 1R 3
2R
3 2R 1 3 2 1R 3R 2R 1 3 2 1R 3R2
2R 1R123R2R 1R
3R 1R
1R 3
2R 1 3R 2 31R
3R12R31R
3 3
||
||
||
||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|| ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
3 AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
ACAC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC

NEW CLAY AVENUE
4TH STREET

MURRIETA CREEK

STREET B
PROPOSED DETENTIONBASIN AVOLUME = 4.5 AC-FT

B STREET

RCFCWCD/ACOE R/W
54 23
4142
79 3943 4044
LOT B
45 62
46 35
61 47 36
60 48 37
59 49 38
58 53
5051
52 56
55 LOT D
3224
16 6
3122
15 5
3021
14 4
2920
13 3
28 19
12 2
27 18
11 1
26 10
LOT A
3325
17 8
34 57LOT E
LOT C
LOT F
LOT 57LOT E
LOT F
LOT 39LOT 43 LOT 40LOT 44LOT 45
LOT 62
LOT 46 LOT 35
LOT 61
LOT 47 LOT 36
LOT 60
LOT 48 LOT 37
LOT 59
LOT 49 LOT 38
LOT 58
LOT 53
LOT 50LOT 51
LOT 52
LOT 56
LOT 55
LOT D
LOT 32LOT 24
LOT 16
LOT 6
LOT 31LOT 22
LOT 15
LOT 5
LOT 30LOT 21
LOT 14
LOT 4
LOT 29
LOT 20
LOT 13
LOT 3
LOT 28
LOT 19
LOT 12
LOT 2
LOT 27
LOT 18
LOT 11
LOT 1
LOT 26
LOT 10
LOT 33LOT 25
LOT 17
LOT 8
LOT 34
LOT 54
LOT 23
LOT 41LOT 42
LOT 7LOT 9

STREET A
SHEETS
DRAWING NO. SHT.NO. ENGINEER OF WORKDATEINITIALREVISION DESCRIPTIONFIELD BK:CITY APPROVAL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DATEINITIAL
SHEET

APPROVED
CHKD BY:DWN BY:RCE 63056PROJECT NO.DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEERROBERT K. MOEHLINGDATE PREPARED BYDATE JUSTIN A. BROWNRCE NO. 85617EXP. DATE: 09/30/2024
SEAL:

SCALE APPROVED FOR SIGNATURE
VERTICAL PLAN CHECK ENGR. NAME TYPEDDATE PLAN CHECK FIRMRCE NO.

HORIZONTAL BENCH MARKDESCRIPTON:LOCATION:

RECORDED:ELEVATION:DATUM:

Save Date: Plot Date: 5/16/2023 5:41 PM5/17/2023 10:57 AMBy: JuabP:\D\DVPA00000001\0400CAD\EC\SHEETS\DEVELOPMENT PLAN\EC-DP-007-DVPA00000001.dwgJustin BrownBy: File:
®41951 Remington Ave, Ste 220Temecula, CA 92590Phone: 951.294.9300 NG
TE
ANRO

AETFOLCAFI
CNo. 85617

ST IEGSR
LVII

I ENEIR E
EDRROP

ISSFENAOL

CITY OF MURRIETA
DVPA00000001
8 DEVELOPMENT PLANDIVERSIFIED PACIFIC, LLCPHASING PLAN

IVY HOUSE
PHASE 1PHASE 2PHASE 3
PHASE 4PHASE 5
8 481

Ivy House Residential Project

Final Addendum to the Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
(SCH No. 2007111059)

Prepared for:

Diversified Pacific Investments
10621 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618

February 2023 | 01968.00004.001

482

This page intentionally left blank
483

i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose of Addendum to the IS/MND ................................................................................ 2

2.0 Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3

2.1 Project Setting and Location ............................................................................................... 3

2.2 Project Description and Modifications Since IS/MND Adoption ........................................ 3

3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 4

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................... 8

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 13

3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 16

3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 21

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 28

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 29

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 34

3.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 36

3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 38

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 39

3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 41

3.15 Public Services................................................................................................................... 43

3.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 45

3.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 46

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 48

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 50

3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 52

4.0 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 53

5.0 References Used in the Completion of the Addendum ................................ .......................... 53

484

ii
Table of Contents (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Air Quality and Noise Technical Assessment
B General Biological Resources Assessment
C Cultural Resources Assessment
D Paleontological Technical Study
E HVAC Noise Analysis

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 Impact Assessment Summary .......................................................................................................... 5

485

iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ADU accessory dwelling unit
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

BMPs best management practices

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CY cubic yard

dBA A-weighted decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIR Environmental Impact Report

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

GHG greenhouse gas

HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

I- Interstate
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

JRMP Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan

LEQ dBA hourly equivalent

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program
MFD Murrieta Fire Department
MMC Murrieta Municipal Code

NOD Notice of Determination
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Properties

486

iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
PRC Public Resources Code

RCDEH Riverside County Department of Environmental Health RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SB Senate Bill
SCH State Clearinghouse
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

U.S. United States
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound

WRCRCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority

487
Ivy House Residential Project
1 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background
The Ivy House Project (referred throughout this Addendum as the “approved project”) included the Master Development Plan (MDP)-006-1884 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM)-005-1824 for the subdivision of 22 acres of land located at the southeast corner of New Clay Street and B Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 906-193-001, 906-200-001, 906-221-001, 906-221-002, 906-200-002, and 906-212-001) into 62 residential lots. The average lot size proposed was 6,673 gross square feet (sf), with a minimum lot size of 5,519 sf and maximum lot size of 9,545 sf. In addition, the approved project included a 2,839-sf lot for storm water drain purposes. The 22-acre site is within the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan and is zoned Village Residential-Single-Family 1 (VRS-1) with Master Plan Overlay (MPO).

The City of Murrieta (City) prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in November 2007 for the Ivy House Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 2007111059), which was circulated for a 30-day public review period pursuant to the requirements of Section 15105 of CEQA. The review period gave agencies, organizations, and members of the public the opportunity to review the Draft IS/MND and provide comments on the document and environmental analysis presented therein. The City considered all relevant comments in preparation of the Final IS/MND.

The Final IS/MND for the approved project was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). The purpose of the Final IS/MND was to provide the decision-making body (Murrieta City Council [City Council]), responsible agencies, and the public with information regarding the environmental impacts of the project. The City Council certified the Final IS/MND February 19, 2008, and a Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed with the County Clerk’s Office and the State Clearinghouse on November 13, 2007.

Since adoption of the 2008 Final IS/MND, the approved project has been revised to 62 single family lots and provide on-site stormwater detention to meet updated Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) standards and maintain the required 50-foot buffer from the Murietta Creek. This Addendum analyzes this revised project.

The activities addressed in this document are consistent with the types of activities envisioned in the 2008 Final IS/MND. This Addendum was prepared per Section 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines to analyze whether the changes to the approved project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. As a result of this analysis, it is found that there are not substantial changes in regard to circumstances or new information of substantial importance such that the specific activities now proposed would result in new significant impacts or impacts of substantially increased severity. Therefore, this Addendum supports the conclusion that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and that none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document has occurred.

The analysis of each CEQA topic area is discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum. This analysis concludes that the revised project as discussed below in Section 2.0, Project Description, would not alter the conclusions reached in the impact analysis in the 2008 Final IS/MND. In summary, the project, with the proposed changes, would result in the following impacts, which are the same as those that would occur under the approved project analyzed in the IS/MND:
488
Ivy House Residential Project
2 • No significant impacts on energy resources, water resources (hydrology and water quality), land use and planning (including agricultural resources), mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire; and
• Less-than-significant impacts, with mitigation incorporated, related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources), geology and soils (paleontological resources), hazards and hazardous materials, and noise.

While impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not analyzed in the prior IS/MND, impacts of the revised project would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA.

1.2 Purpose of Addendum to the IS/MND
When an approved project is changed or there are changes in the environmental setting, a determination must be made by the Lead Agency as to whether an Addendum, Subsequent/ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or MND is needed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 set forth criteria to assess which environmental document is sufficient and appropriate. The criteria for determining whether an Addendum or Subsequent/Supplemental MND should be prepared are outlined in this section. If the following statements are true, then preparation of an Addendum is appropriate:
• There are no substantial changes proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or • There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was certified as complete or was adopted, that shows any of the following:
o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous environmental document;
o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous environmental document;
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or o Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous environmental document would substantially reduce one or more 489
Ivy House Residential Project
3 significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
• An addendum to an adopted MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent environmental document have occurred.

Based upon the analysis in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, of this document, the revisions to the project analyzed in the prior IS/MND would not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the IS/MND. Additionally, the mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND are still applicable, and no considerably different mitigation measures are required to mitigate the changes to the previously approved project. Therefore, the Lead Agency has determined that an Addendum to the IS/MND is sufficient and appropriate, and this environmental document has been prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the revised projects. Public review of this Addendum is not required per CEQA.

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Setting and Location
The project site is located at the southeast corner of New Clay Street and B Street (APNs 906-193-001, 906-200-001, 906-221-001, 906-221-002, 906-200-002, and 906-212-001) and is zoned as Residential – Single Family (RS-1) within the Downtown Murrieta Specific Plan (DMSP) Overlay with a land use designation of Single Family Residential (SFR).

The project site is relatively flat vacant land with elevations ranging from approximately 1,090 ft above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,100 ft amsl. Vegetation consists of non-native grassland and there are scattered trees throughout the site.

Surrounding land uses are designated as Civic/Institutional to the north, SFR to the northwest, south, and southeast, and Large Lot Residential to the west and southwest. Physically, the surrounding land uses are a combination of rural residential to the northwest, southeast, and east, undeveloped land to the north and south. Like the project site, the undeveloped areas support nonnative grasslands.

Murietta Creek traverses the western portion of the project site and runs southwest to northeast in the project area with a channel of the creek north of the site (north of Kalma Street).

2.2 Project Description and Modifications Since IS/MND Adoption As noted in Section 1.0, Introduction, in 2008 the Murietta City Council approved TTM 34439/ TTM 005- 1824 and MDP 2006-1884 to subdivide 22 acres into 62 single family lots. The revised project proposes minor revisions to the currently approved entitlements that include the TTM, MDP, and CEQA documents, including the 2008 Final IS/MND. These minor revisions will also include updates to the Development Plan (Revised Permit). To meet updated WQMP standards and maintain the required 50-foot buffer from the Murietta Creek, the revised project proposes to include on-site stormwater detention. Each single-family lot is now proposed to contain a single-family home with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the approved lot sizes, ranging from 5,500 sf to 9,000 sf).
490
Ivy House Residential Project
4 The approved MDP includes three architectural floor plans ranging from 2,400 sf to 2,850 sf with detached two and three car garages that were accessible via project alleyways. As proposed, the revised project includes homes that range from 2,300 sf to 3,150 sf with attached two and three car garages.

The garages are either accessed via the internal public streets or private alleyways depending on lot configuration. The proposed ADUs are 750 sf in size with single- and two-story options and will have matching architecture with the main house and adhere to setback standards as required under the Murietta Municipal Code (MMC) and state law. Architecture will be updated in the revised MDP to include new elevations consisting of Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, and American Mercantile. The revised MDP will also detail the use of ADUs in the Development Standard section.

The approved project took access from New Clay Street and B Street and had several internal public streets and private alleyways. The single-family homes will take vehicular access either from the public street fronting each lot or private alleyway depending on the particular lot layout. The ADUs will take vehicular access from the private alleyways. Additional circulation system revisions include shifting the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain both efficient lot design and the required 50-foot buffer for Murrieta Creek. Further, due to updated hydrological analyses showing that the previously proposed temporary intercept channel is no longer required, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street along with the outflow that entered into Murrieta Creek.

The proposed project also includes updates to the technical reports that were part of the original approval. All previous technical reports have been reviewed for adequacy and validity to the revised project. As appropriate, the technical reports have been updated and this Addendum has been prepared to address the current CEQA Appendix G Guidelines and evaluate CEQA topics not included or not included as an individual topic area in the Appendix G Guidelines at the time of the approved project (agricultural and forestry resources, GHG emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire). Revised and new technical reports include the hydrology and WQMP, traffic analysis including (vehicle miles traveled [VMT]), paleontology, cultural resources, geotechnical due diligence, biological resources (including a tree survey), and an air quality and noise technical assessment. This Addendum has been prepared to address the CEQA requirements for the minor revisions to the entitlement. Lastly per the existing conditions of approval, a fully executed Tribal Monitoring Agreement with Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians has been executed which will include monitoring for future ground disturbance activities.

3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, a change to the previously approved project has been proposed since preparation of the IS/MND. As such, the following comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Sections 15162 and 15164 to provide the factual basis for determining whether changes in the project, change in circumstances, or new information since adoption of the IS/MND would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent IS/MND. This analysis focuses on whether the impact significance conclusions identified in the IS/MND would change under the revised project. The environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND remains current and applicable to the approved project in areas unaffected by the revised project for the environmental topics detailed in this section. An overview of the approved project impacts in relation to the previously adopted MND is provided in Table 1, Impact Assessment Summary. 491
Ivy House Residential Project
5 Table 1

IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Environmental Issues Approved MND Revised Project New
Mitigation?
Project Resultant
Impact

3.1 Aesthetics Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts2 No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.2 Agriculture And Forestry
Resources1
Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.3 Air Quality Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.4 Biological Resources Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.5 Cultural Resources Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.6 Energy Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.7 Geology & Soils2 Less than Significant No New Impacts No2 Less Than Significant with Mitigation

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Not Analyzed No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.9 Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality3 Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.11 Land Use & Planning Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.12 Mineral Resources Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.13 Noise Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.14 Population & Housing Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.15 Public Services Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.16 Recreation Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.17 Transportation Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less than Significant

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources4 Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No New Impacts No Less than Significant
with Mitigation

3.19 Utilities & Service Systems Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less Than Significant

3.20 Wildfire5 Less than Significant No New Impacts No Less Than Significant 1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources were not analyzed as a separate CEQA environmental issue area in the approved IS/MND; however, agricultural resources were evaluated under land use. 2 CEQA Appendix G Guidelines have been revised to include paleontological resources within Geology and Soils, no new significant impacts or considerably different mitigation measures have been identified as impacts to paleontological resources was discussed in Cultural Resources in the approved IS/MND. 3 Referred to as Water Resources in the Approved IS/MND. 4 Discussed in Cultural Resources in Approved IS/MND.
5 Discussed in Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Approved IS/MND. 492
Ivy House Residential Project
6 3.1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved IS/MND determined that the project would have not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic impact or impact a scenic vista or state highway. However, the approved IS/MND did identify a potential adverse aesthetic impact related to lighting. The approved IS/MND contained mitigation measure A-1 to reduce impacts to less than significant. It is noted that mitigation measure A-1 is the required regulatory compliance to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) as discussed in the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report prepared for the project. This is further discussed below.

A-1 In accordance with BMPs for the MSHCP and as recommended in the DBESP report lighting within the Project development will be limited to residential streets and consist of downward directed and shielded low-pressure sodium lights to ensure ambient lighting in the adjacent Murrieta Creek in not increased.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project; however, the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750-sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the 493
Ivy House Residential Project
7 jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

According to the Conservation Element of the Murrieta Genera Plan 2035, Murrieta’s natural setting offers views and vistas of features that have both scenic and ecological value (City 2011b). Prominent views of the Santa Rosa Plateau occur along the I-15 and I-215 Freeways. The project site itself if situated approximately 1.3 miles west of the I-15 within an area that has very little topographical relief (approximately 1,090 to 1,100 ft amsl). The project would introduce residences that would extend to a height of 26.4 feet, while the maximum height for the SF-1 zone is 35 feet. Moreover, due to the distance and intervening development, the project would not obstruct views of the Santa Rosa Plateau from I-215.

California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the legislature in 1963 to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either currently designated or eligible for designation as scenic highways. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which oversees the program, does not identify any state scenic highways in the City of Murietta. It is noted that Caltrans identifies I-15 as eligible, however it is not officially designated.

The project does not contain any historic buildings or rock outcroppings. There are a few scattered trees throughout the site, yet as noted, these are not within a state scenic highway.

Public Resources Code 21071 defines the term “urbanized area” for the purpose of CEQA to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (U.S.

Census Bureau) data from 2020 indicates that the City has a population of 110,949. Thus, the project site is within an urbanized area and therefore, is evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project site is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning. Additionally, as discussed above, the project is proposing structures with heights less than the allowable 35 feet under the RS-1 zone. There are no other land use regulations that govern scenic quality that apply to the project site (i.e., scenic corridor, scenic overlay zone, etc.).

The project site is currently vacant land, the surrounding land uses are a combination of rural residential to the northwest, southeast, and east, undeveloped land to the north and south. The project would result in the subdivision of the 22-acres into 62 single-family lots that would be constructed in the architectural style of Modern Farmhouse, Wine Country, and Spanish. As with the previously approved project, the revised project would comply with the comply with the applicable requirements for Residential Design Standards (Section 16.08.030) and Landscaping Standards (Section 16.28) as contained in the Development Code as well as Design Standards contained in the DMSP. The requirements of the Development Code and the DMSP will ensure quality architectural design, site design, and landscaping standards are accomplished. Implementation of Design Standards will reduce impacts to aesthetics below a significant level
Lighting standards are established in the Development Code, (Sections 16.18.100 and 16.18.110) which requires that the project controls light and glare on adjacent properties and minimize impacts to the 494
Ivy House Residential Project
8 Mount Palomar Observatory. Additionally, in accordance with the BMPs of the MSHCP the project will be required to reduce lighting impacts on Murrieta Creek. In particular, lighting within the project would be limited to residential streets and consist of downward directed and shielded low-pressure sodium lights to ensure ambient lighting to reduce light impacts on Murrieta Creek (mitigation measure A-1).

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the previously approved project. The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be no impacts to aesthetics. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to aesthetic impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to aesthetic impacts than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non- forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved IS/MND did not include the discussion of agricultural resources as a separate topic and included a single threshold under Land Use. At the time of the approved IS/MND, the CEQA Appendix G 495
Ivy House Residential Project
9 Guidelines did not include Forestry Resources as an issue area. The approved project was determined to have no impacts in relation agricultural resources.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

The project is in an urbanized area (as defined by CEQA) where there is no farmland or agricultural resources within the project area. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Riverside County Important Farmland 2018 map, the project site and surrounding area is classified as Other. Lands that are classified as Other are lands that are not included in any other mapping category.

Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

The Williamson Act applies to parcels within an established agricultural preserve consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. The purpose of the act is to preserve agriculture and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land for use as agricultural or related open space. The project site and surrounding areas are not contracted under the Williamson Act.

The project site is zoned RS-1 with the DMSP overlay and according to the Murrieta General Plan Update 2015 Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) it is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract (City 2011).

Forest land is land that can support ten-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.

Riparian habitat can be considered forest land if it meets these criteria.

Timberland is land, other than land owned by the Federal government and designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE) Board of Forestry as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.

The project site, which is zoned RS-1, indicating the site is intended for residential land uses has scattered trees but does not support a forest. A tree survey report was prepared by HELIX 496
Ivy House Residential Project
10 Environmental Planning, Inc. in June 2022. As noted in the tree survey report, a total of 13 Protected Trees were located within the project site, including five arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), one Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), one Japanese zelkova (Zelkova serrata), four Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), and two silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos).

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts to agricultural resources. The approved IS/MND did not discuss forestry resources, however, there is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would result in new significant environmental effects. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved project was determined to have the potential to produce both short- and long-term air quality impacts. Short-term impacts are associated with the construction of the project, while long-term impacts are associated with emissions from the operation of the project. The IS/MND identified potential adverse impacts that would occur during all phases of construction and as a result the IS/MND contained mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-19 to reduce impacts to less than significant. These mitigation measures are presented below.

AQ-1 During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained in good operating condition to reduce emissions. The SCAQMD requires that fuel injection timing be retarded 2 degrees for the manufacture's recommendation and use high-pressure injectors.
497
Ivy House Residential Project
11 AQ-2 During construction, the contractor shall ensure low emission mobile construction equipment is used (replace diesel-powered equipment with gasoline-powered equipment), where feasible, during site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction of the proposed project components.

AQ-3 During construction, the contractor shall ensure proposed project specific sites are watered and that construction trucks pass through a shaker grate to remove excess dirt prior to exiting the site.

AQ-4 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that when soil is transported, the operator (1) employs water to moisten earthen surface prior to disturbance and immediately after disturbance; (2) controls runoff so it does not saturate the surface of unpaved haul road and cause track-off; and (3) employs watering as an emergency measure during high wind events to stabilize actively dusting surface including but not limit to soil pile, unpaved road, and unpaved parking areas.

AQ-5 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that water-wetting methods and soil-binders are used on exposed soil stockpiles, unpaved roads, and unpaved parking areas. Active grading areas shall be watered at least three times each workday, as needed, to prevent visible plumes from exiting the project site.

AQ-6 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, chemical soil stabilizers are applied, according to the manufacturer's specification, to all inactive construction areas, defined as previously graded areas, which are inactive for 96 hours or more.

AQ-7 During construction, the contractor shall ensure groundcover is re-established through seeding and watering on those parts of the Project site that would not be disturbed for lengthy periods, generally defined as two or more months.

AQ-8 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, public streets are swept if silt is deposited on these roads from construction activities within the project site.

AQ-9 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation; grading, excavation and construction speed limits on unpaved roads are restricted to 15 miles per hour.

AQ-10 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation; grading, excavation and construction operations are suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.

AQ-11 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, low sulfur fuel is used for portable and stationary construction equipment.

AQ-12 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, onsite power sources are used rather than temporary diesel or gasoline ICE generators when feasible.
498
Ivy House Residential Project
12 AQ-13 During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, the contractor will establish a car-pool program for construction employees which will include incentives with the goal of achieving a 1.S persons per vehicle ridership for this project.

AQ-14 During construction, the City shall require a lunch shuttle or catering program be implemented by the during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction to reduce the number of lunch time trips to and from the site.

AQ-15 During construction, the City shall require that low volatile organic compounds (VOC) coating and solvents be used on all structures.

AQ-16 During construction, the City shall require that low VOC asphalt be used on paved portions of the project site.

AQ-17 The City shall require that sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths be provided within the development.

AQ-18 The City shall require that pedestrian safety measures such as street lighting and pedestrian signage and signals be provided.

AQ-19 The City shall require that off-site intersection traffic signals be synchronized to prevent congestion of traffic flow in the area of the project.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

In September 2021, HELIX prepared a Technical Assessment of the proposed project, that included a review of the approved project to determine if the previous air quality analysis was adequate and applicable to the revised project. The Technical Assessment is attached to this document as Appendix A.

As noted, impacts to air quality were addressed in the previous IS/MND and it was determined that air quality impacts from construction would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-16. These mitigation measures would require low emission equipment, reduce on-site dust emissions, and reduce fuel usage. The measures would continue to be required to be implemented with the revised project. Because the number of residences would remain the same as what was analyzed for the approved project, impacts from air quality are anticipated to be at least the same as what was previously analyzed. Furthermore, because construction 499
Ivy House Residential Project
13 would occur at a later date from what was originally proposed, emissions may be reduced because more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix is now available than when the previous project was analyzed in 2007. In addition, the approved project included the demolition of the onsite structures, totaling 5,000 square feet. These structures are no longer present on the project site and therefore, the project would not experience the short-term construction emissions related to demolition. Mitigation measures AQ-17 through AQ-19 requiring sidewalks and pedestrian and traffic safety measures would continue to be implemented to reduce operational air quality emissions. Impacts to air quality from operational and construction sources would be less than significant with implementation of these measures.

Due to these factors, construction and operational noise levels and air pollutant emissions are not anticipated to exceed City thresholds, and no additional impacts from implementation of the revised project are anticipated.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. The IS/MND for the approved project identified that with mitigation impacts to air quality would be less than significant. Likewise, the revised project would not change the IS/MND’s findings with respect to air quality impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to air quality than those reached in the IS/MND, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required for the revised project.

3.4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
500
Ivy House Residential Project
14 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. (VCS) prepared a Consistency Analysis for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Ivy House Project prepared by on July 17, 2006, and in response, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority released the Joint Project Review Letter (JPR 07-05-22-04) dated October 26, 2007 (JPR Letter).

The approved IS/MND identified potential adverse biological resources impacts. The project site is within the MSHCP planning area and has suitable habitat for burrowing owls and nesting birds. In addition, the proposed project site is located inside the Stephens' Kangaroo (SKR) HCP fee area boundary. The approved IS/MND contained mitigation measures B-1 through B-4 shown below to reduce impacts to less than significant.

B-1 The project is required to pay the MSHCP mitigation fee.

B-2 A burrowing owl (BUOW) clearance survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities of the site. If the clearance survey is positive, additional actions/ mitigation may be required pursuant to the MSHCP, Fish and Game Code, and the MBTA.

B-3 For all bird species vegetation removal should be conducted outside the avian breeding season (March through July) to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If vegetation clearance is conducted during the breeding season, a preconstruction bird survey would be required less than three days from vegetation disturbance activities. If passerine birds are found to be nesting or there is evidence of nesting behavior inside or within 300 feet of the impact area, a 300-foot buffer will be required around the nest where no vegetation disturbance would be permitted; for raptors the buffer would be increased to 500 feet. A qualified biologist would closely monitor the nest until it is determined that the nest is no longer active, at which time vegetation removal could continue.

B-4 Payment of the SKR mitigation fee to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCA) is required.
501
Ivy House Residential Project
15 Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

HELIX staff reviewed the Consistency Analysis for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Ivy House Project JPR Letter dated October 26, 2007 (JPR Letter), and conducted a general biological survey and jurisdictional delineation on the project site on June 24, 2021. The JPR Letter includes specific conditions related to covered biological resources under the Western Riverside County MSHCP that must be complied with including impacts to, and mitigation for, Riparian/Riverine Areas pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

HELIX staff conducted biological and jurisdictional field assessments and compiled the findings into a General Biological Resources Assessment, attached to this document as Appendix B. Based on the findings of the HELIX biological and jurisdictional field assessments, existing biological conditions on the project site, including vegetation communities and jurisdictional resources, remain largely consistent with the prior biological resource mapping for the project site conducted by VCS in 2006.

The revised project has reduced the number of outlet locations discharging into Murrieta Creek from two to one, with the revised project only requiring one outlet to convey stormwater from one expanded detention basin proposed near the center of the residential development along its western limits. Due to the revision in site design, the project would likely reduce impacts to jurisdictional and MSHCP resources compared to the project design analyzed in the JPR Letter. Similar to the approved project, protocol surveys for burrowing owl were conducted by HELIX in 2020 during early due diligence efforts for the project and were negative.

Implementation of the project would likely require a Section 404 permit from the USACE, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Agreement from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

To summarize, no new impacts to sensitive plant or animal species are anticipated as a result of the revised project. The project proponent intends to construct the residential development consistent with the terms of the existing JPR Letter approval, including remaining at, or below, the acreage of permanent construction impacts to riparian/riverine areas associated with Murrieta Creek on-site for the construction of two proposed outlets for the project. As such, impacts to riparian/riverine areas will not exceed more than 0.05 acre, and on-site compensatory mitigation for impacts to riparian/riverine areas associated with Murrieta Creek will total no less than 0.10 acre of revegetated streambed habitat.

Given that the revised project intends to further reduce permanent impacts to jurisdictional features and MSHCP riparian/riverine areas compared to the prior approved design analyzed in the JPR Letter, 502
Ivy House Residential Project
16 the project remains consistent with the existing JPR approval, and no new JPR authorizations under the MSHCP are anticipated to be required. The project will require preparation and processing of a DBESP for impacts to riparian/riverine areas under the MSHCP, which will be submitted to the City for processing by the agencies concurrent with forthcoming processing of the regulatory permit applications for the project.

The IS/MND for the approved project identified that with mitigation impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Likewise, the revised project would not change the IS/MND’s findings with respect to impacts to biological resources. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to biological resources than those reached in the IS/MND, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. However, it is noted that due to the revised site design the project would not have increased jurisdictional impacts and impacts to MSHCP resources compared to the approved project. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed change.

3.5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed project site and surrounding area by Michael Brandman Associates, the results of which are contained in a report dated March 29, 2006. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicates that two previous archaeological surveys have been conducted on portions of the project site in the past. In 1992, the floodplain of Murrieta Creek and a buffer around the floodplain were surveyed by Jones & Stokes Associates. In 2003, a linear survey along a portion of the southern boundary was conducted by Peak & Associates. No cultural sites were recorded within the project site during either of these previous surveys. Additionally, 15 other surveys have been conducted within a half-mile radius of the proposed project site. These surveys recorded 45 cultural resources. The Assessment ultimately determined that there is a “moderate” probability that significant historic and prehistoric (archaeological) resources will be unearthed during development within the project site.

It is noted that the approved IS/MND cultural resources analysis also determined that there is the potential for impacts to paleontological resources. Due to changes in the CEQA Appendix G Guidelines, 503
Ivy House Residential Project
17 impacts to paleontological resources are now discussed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils of this Addendum. As shown below, the approved IS/MND contained mitigation measures C-1 and C-2, C-7, and C-8 to reduce impacts to historic, archaeological, and Native American resources to less than significant.

C-1 There is “moderate” probability that significant historic resources will be unearthed during development within the project area. An archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the Project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the Project Site has been reduced from moderate to low as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during the monitoring, all monitoring shall cease.

C-2 Should any cultural resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency (City) on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

If the resources are determined to be unique, historic resources as defined under section 15064.5 pf the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency (City).

Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency (City) approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency (City) where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

C-7 A report documenting the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. The artifacts shall be deposited into an accredited institution that is authorized to accept the cultural resources.

C-8 Once the project-related earthmoving excavation begins, and in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Riverside County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are (either historic or) prehistoric and that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24-hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased North American. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or 504
Ivy House Residential Project
18 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall re-bury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriated dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
 The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24-hours after being notified by the commission.
 The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation: or  The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. Additionally, as with the previously approved project the proposed project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project.

Specifically, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street allows the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

HELIX conducted an updated archaeological resource study to identify and address archaeological sensitivities within the project site. To assess if the cultural sensitivity has changed since the 2006 study, HELIX requested an updated records search from the Eastern Information Center (EIC), requested a Sacred Lands File search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), conducted a pedestrian field survey of the approximately 22-acre project site with a Luiseño Native American monitor, and reviewed historic maps and aerial photographs of the project area. The results of this study can be found in the Cultural Resources Assessment, attached to this document as Appendix C.

HELIX requested a records search update and an updated review of the Sacred Lands File, reviewed archival research, and conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site. Forty-five cultural resources have been recorded within half-mile of the project. One resource, a ranch complex dating between the 1940s and 1980s, was identified within the project site during the 2006 survey. Although the 2006 survey identified multiple structures within the project site relating to the ranch complex, these structures have since been removed. However, concrete slabs, the remnants of building foundations, and a wooden shed are still extant within the project site. As previously noted, the ranch complex was assessed as not a significant resource under CEQA; therefore, impacts to these remaining features do not constitute significant effects.
505
Ivy House Residential Project
19 Furthermore, two isolated prehistoric flake artifacts were observed during the 2021 HELIX survey of the project site. Isolates also are not significant resources under CEQA, as they do not meet the criteria for the California Register of Historic Resources. However, the potential remains for both historic and prehistoric resources to be present in a subsurface context within the project area. The Murietta Creek area is rich in cultural resources, both archaeological and tribal cultural resources, and the alluvial setting elevates the potential for buried resources. As such, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented during grading or other ground-disturbing activities, including brushing/grubbing, removal of existing infrastructure, and trenching for utilities.

As noted in the mitigation measures listed above for cultural resources, the monitoring program should include attendance by the archaeologist and Native American monitor at a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during initial ground-disturbing activities on site. Both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity in the event that cultural resources are encountered. If significant cultural material is encountered, the project archaeologist will coordinate with the Monitoring Tribe, the applicant, and City staff to develop and implement appropriate avoidance, preservation, or mitigation measures.

In the event that human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.98 shall be followed.

Based on these factors, the mitigation measures implemented in the adopted 2008 IS/MND and associated adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are recommended to ensure cultural resources are not impacted by project development. By implementing an archaeological and Native American monitoring program, the project will reduce any potential impact to cultural or tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the previously approved project. The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be no impacts to cultural resources. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to cultural resources impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to cultural resources impacts than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required. 506
Ivy House Residential Project
20 3.6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts in relation to energy resources.

Specifically, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street allows the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. In addition, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street, which would incrementally decrease the construction effort and associated energy consumption.

Several levels of government have implemented regulatory programs in response to reducing GHG emissions, which consequently serve to increase energy efficiency. State agencies, including California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, California 507
Ivy House Residential Project
21 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Caltrans, and the Department of Water Resources have developed regulatory and incentive programs that promote energy efficiency. Many of the measures are generally beyond the ability of any future development to implement and are implemented at the utility provider or the manufacturer level.

On a project level, the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, which are mandatory requirements for efficiency and design. The project would be consistent with the requirements of Title 24 through implementation of energy-reduction measures, such as energy efficient lighting and appliances, water efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures, water efficient landscaping and irrigation. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with or obstruct with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts to energy resources. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to energy resources than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.

3.7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 508
Ivy House Residential Project
22 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the previously approved project, dated December 15, 2004. Based on this report, the 2008 IS/MND concluded that the approved project would not result in a significant impact related to any geology and soils concerns.

However, the 2008 IS/MND did identify significant impacts related to paleontological resources (which was discussed under Cultural Resources). The paleontological resources-related mitigation measures from the approved IS/MND are presented below (mitigation measures C3 through C7).

C3 Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor is required. Based upon results of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, dated 29 March 2006, areas of concern within the boundaries of this project include the sandstone components of the Pauba Formation. Monitoring is not necessary unless potentially fossiliferous units are encountered in the subsurface during excavation activities and upon examination by qualified paleontologic personnel are subsequently determined to potentially contain fossil resources.

If required, paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.

Monitoring may be reduced if potentially fossiliferous units as described herein are not present, or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have a low potential to contain fossil resources.

C4 Recovered specimens must be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments, so as to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
509
Ivy House Residential Project
23 C5 Significant paleontologic specimens are to be identified and curated into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage (e.g., SBCM). The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.

C6 A report of findings must be prepared with an appended itemized inventory of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

C7 A report documenting the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the City within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. The artifacts shall be deposited into an accredited institution that is authorized to accept the cultural resources.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

Seismic analysis procedure for liquefaction evaluation in California has changed since the prior site investigation for the approved project. Accordingly, and in respect to the most recently adopted California Building Code (CBC) (2019), Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra), prepared a Feasibility/Due Diligence Geotechnical Review of the project in January 2020. Based on the changes to the CBC, Petra performed a limited evaluation of the liquefaction settlement and lateral spreading potential during a major seismic event, which is discussed further below.

Development of the revised project is tentatively considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. However, additional investigations are required to further characterize the potential for liquefaction settlement and lateral deformation at the site. These conditions are not new, rather due to advancement in the characterization and approach to geotechnical investigations and design, more information is available. The Geotechnical Due Diligence contains several recommendations that are designed so that the project meets the criteria set forth in the CBC, which is adopted as Chapter 15.08 of the MMC. Accordingly, these recommendations are required by the CBC and are incorporated as project design features that would be included as conditions of approval. 510
Ivy House Residential Project
24 In 1972, the California legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act (Act) to help identify areas subject to severe ground shaking. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the placement of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults; thereby mitigating the hazard of fault ruptures.

A fault is classified as active and categorized as within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, if movement has occurred within the past 11,000 years. Where such zones are designated, no buildings or structures may be constructed on the trace of the fault According to Exhibit 5.8-3, Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No impact would occur.

According to Exhibit 5.8-4, Riverside County Fault Hazard Map of the General Plan EIR, there are no known active faults on or adjacent to the project site (City 2011a). However, there are faults near the project site that have the potential to cause moderate to intense ground shaking at the site. The project would comply with the seismic design parameters outlined in the CBC, which provide requirements for earthquake safety based on factors such as occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: (1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; (2) proper building footings and foundations; and (3) construction of the building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. In addition, the City’s Building Department would review the site plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the residences during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into all of the homes. Adherence with construction and building safety standards would be required (as encoded in MMC Chapter 15. 08), would reduce potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking at the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: underlying loose coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than approximately 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquake. Exhibit 5.8-5, Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, of the General Plan EIR shows that the project is located in an area that is designated as having a moderate susceptibility to liquefaction (City 2011a). Further, site investigations performed by Petra identified that the site contains liquefiable soils. In particular, soils identified in the northwestern and southwestern portion of the site have a potential to liquefy, however project development could occur without significant impacts through the required adherence to the CBC.

However, soils in the area of the proposed water quality basin need to be further investigated.

The project is subject to the mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR that state that prior to issuance of a grading permit, a registered geologist or soils engineer shall prepare an area-specific geologic study, which shall be submitted to the Public Works or Building and Safety Department for approval. In addition, the project is subject to the CBC as adopted into the MMC as Chapter 15.08, which provides the standards to mitigate geologic hazards such as liquefaction. In addition, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils. If a geologic report concludes liquefaction 511
Ivy House Residential Project
25 impacts cannot be reduced to less than significant with mitigation as necessary, development would not be permitted. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Ground surface elevations on the project site range between 1,090 ft amsl and 1,100 ft amsl). Exhibit

5.8-6, State Seismic Hazards Zone Map, of the General Plan EIR shows that the project site and surrounding area is outside of any areas that are identified as subject to earthquake induces landslides (City 2011a). Additionally, construction of the proposed structures would follow existing guidelines set forth by the CBC. No impact associated with landslides would occur.

Construction of the proposed project would involve a variety of heavy equipment associated with intensive earthwork, structural, and paving phases. Soil exposed by construction activities, such as excavation, could be subject to erosion if exposed to heavy rain, winds, or other storm events. The project applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) for the preparation a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Generally, a SWPPP demonstrates how water quality during, and post construction would be maintained in accordance with mandated objectives. Often this is achieved by employing BMPs. Many BMPs designed to protect water quality also serve to reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil.

Specific BMPs may include the following:
 Preservation of existing vegetation within staging/parking areas where feasible.  Covering stockpiled, excavated, and/or fill materials to reduce potential off-site sediment transport.
 Use of erosion control devices, such as straw wattles, mulch, mats, and/or geotextiles.  Use of sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment transport, including measures such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, street sweeping, stabilized construction access points and sediment stockpiles, and use of properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles.  Compliance with local dust control measures.
 Daily backfill, compaction, and/or covering of excavated pipeline trenches to minimize erosion potential.
 Paving of disturbed roadway areas as soon as feasible after completion of trenching.  Regular inspection and maintenance of all erosion control and sediment catchment facilities to ensure proper function and effectiveness.

Further, construction would also be subject to compliance with the MMC Grading Permit regulations that address erosion control. Specifically, MMC Section 16.16.070, Erosion Control and Grading, specifies that every subdivision map shall be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property, as set forth in MMC Chapter 15.52, Grading Restrictions. Once operational, the project would include a combination of impermeable surfaces and landscaped areas, eliminating large areas of exposed soils that may be subject to erosion and sedimentation.
512
Ivy House Residential Project
26 With implementation of required standard erosion control measures and storm water construction BMPs, construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, once constructed, the project site would not include expansive areas of exposed soils that would contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. Most ground subsidence is induced by humans and is most commonly associated with the extraction of fluids (water and/or petroleum) from subsurface sediments. Subsidence can also occur when dry collapsible soils become saturated. Less commonly, ground subsidence can occur as a response to natural forces such as earthquake movements.

The Geotechnical Investigation includes recommendations that are designed to meet the CBC standards and have been incorporated into the project as design features that would be adopted as conditions of approval. Mandatory compliance with applicable seismic-safety development requirements as well as the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which specifies that the lead agency may withhold development permits until a project incorporates adequate mitigation measures to reduce seismic/geologic hazards minimizes potential effects related to unstable geologic unit or soils. Impacts would be less than significant.

No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the proposed project. No impact would occur.

Paleo Solutions conducted both field and archival research and prepared a paleontological report for the proposed project. This report, the findings of which are summarized below, is attached as Appendix D of this Addendum.

The paleontological potential of the project site was evaluated based on an analysis of existing paleontological data and a field survey. The three components of the analysis of existing data included a geologic map review, a scientific literature search, and museum records searches. The analysis of existing data was supplemented with a pedestrian field survey. Geologic mapping indicates that the Project area is entirely underlain by Holocene- and latest Pleistocene-age young alluvial valley deposits.

However, during the field survey conducted on August 18, 2021, the sandstone member of the Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation and artificial fill were also observed within the project site; therefore, these geologic units are included in the paleontological analysis. Holocene- and latest Pleistocene-age young alluvial channel deposits and the fanglomerate member of the Pauba Formation are also mapped within a half mile of the project site, but these additional geologic units are unlikely to be encountered during planned construction activities. No fossils were observed or collected during the field survey. A museum records search completed for the project site and surrounding area by the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) in 2006 indicated that there were no previously documented fossils within the boundaries of the project site, but that fossils have been recorded within a one-mile radius of the site and elsewhere in Murrieta. An updated records search was requested from the Western Science Center (WSC), which returned no documented paleontological localities within the boundaries of the project site; however, fossils have been recovered from older sedimentary deposits within one to two miles of the project site.

The County of Riverside (2015) paleontological sensitivity system was applied to the results of the analysis of existing data and field survey. Due to its fine-grained lithology and potential to yield a scientifically significant and diverse fossil fauna, the sandstone member of the Pauba Formation has high 513
Ivy House Residential Project
27 paleontological potential. Holocene-age deposits, such as the young alluvial valley deposits, are considered to be too young to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources; thus, they have low paleontological potential. Lastly, unmapped recent artificial fill consists of previously disturbed sediments and any fossil found within these deposits will have lost their stratigraphic context; therefore, artificial fill also has low paleontological potential.

No fossil localities were recorded during the survey; however, sediments conducive to fossilization were observed in the southern portion of the site and paleontologically sensitive sediments are likely present at shallow depth elsewhere in the site. Construction excavations that disturb units with high paleontological sensitivity (the Pauba Formation and older alluvial sediments) should be monitored full- time by a professional paleontologist in order to reduce potential adverse impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Artificial fill and young alluvial valley deposits should be initially spot-checked during construction to determine if older, more paleontologically sensitive deposits, the Pauba Formation, or older alluvium, are disturbed at depth.

Paleontological sensitivity mapping by the County of Riverside indicates high sensitivity units may be present in the vicinity of the Project area beginning at four feet below ground surface, at which point construction monitoring of ground disturbing activities should begin.

Due to the findings of the site-specific paleontological report, mitigation measures C-3 through C-7 of the approved IS/MND are still considered relevant but would be supplemented by the following measure.

Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Prior to construction, a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) shall be prepared by a Qualified Paleontologist and filed with the Riverside County Geologist. The PRIMP shall provide detailed recommended monitoring locations; a description of a paleontological resources worker environmental awareness program to inform construction personnel of the potential for fossil discoveries and of the types of fossils that may be encountered; detailed procedures for monitoring, fossil recovery, laboratory analysis, and museum curation; and notification procedures in the event of a fossil discovery by paleontological monitor or other project personnel. Prior to the start of construction, a curation agreement from the WSC, or another accredited repository in Riverside County, shall be obtained.

Construction excavations that disturb geologic units with high sensitivity (all areas that contain the Pauba Formation and areas four feet below ground surface that contain artificial fill and older alluvium) shall be monitored full-time by a professional paleontologist. Areas of artificial fill and young alluvial valley deposits shall be initially spot-checked to determine if older, more paleontologically sensitive deposits (the Pauba Formation and older alluvial sediments) are disturbed at depth. Monitoring can be reduced or ceased at the discretion of a Qualified Paleontologist in consultation with the City of Murrieta.

Implementation of GEO-1 will reduce impacts to geology and soils/paleontological resources to less than significant.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the previously approved project. The IS/MND for the approved project identified no impacts to geology/soils and that with mitigation impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The revised project would not change the IS/MND’s findings with respect to geology 514
Ivy House Residential Project
28 and soils or paleontological impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project, which would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in any different conclusions than those reached in the IS/MND related to geology and soils or paleontological resources, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No considerably different mitigation measures are required for the proposed change.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
The generation of GHG emissions was not discussed for the approved project because such analysis was not required at the time of the preparation of the IS/MND. Currently the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires a discussion in relation to whether a project would, either directly or indirectly, generate GHG emissions and/or or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions GHG.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site.

Additionally, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street. These changes would incrementally reduce the construction effort necessary to build the project and the associated GHG emissions.

As discussed above in Section 3.3, in September 2021, HELIX prepared a Technical Assessment for the proposed project, that included a review of the approved project to determine if the previous air quality 515
Ivy House Residential Project
29 analysis was adequate and applicable to the revised project. The Technical Assessment is attached to this document as Appendix A.

As is typical of any construction, the project would temporarily consume energy for the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. During construction, standard methods of earthmoving and other associated construction activities are planned. Construction activities would not include methods of construction that would result in inefficient or unnecessary use of energy resources. Post construction, energy resources would include mobile (vehicle) sources, solid waste sources, and water sources. While this was not required to be evaluated in the approved IS/MND, this does not negate the fact that the project would have generated GHGs. With technological advances in clean energy and the introduction of regulations intended to reduce the generation of GHGs (as discussed below) that has occurred since the approval of the project, the revised project would not result in increased GHG impacts compared to the approved project if it were previously constructed.

There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Additionally, SB 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Because the project’s operational year is post-2020, the project aims to reach the quantitative goals set by SB 32.

Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the low carbon fuel standards, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.

The project must also be constructed in accordance with the energy-efficiency standards, water reduction goals, and other standards contained in the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Part 11 (CALGreen) Building Standards, including the requirement for onsite solar electricity generation. As such and as discussed in Section 3.6, Energy, the development includes a suite of design features that assist in meeting the required energy reduction.

The IS/MND did not include a separate analysis of GHGs as this was not part of CEQA Appendix G at the time of project approval. However, there is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project, that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, either on a project- related or cumulative basis. No GHG impacts are identified and no mitigation measures are required.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
516
Ivy House Residential Project
30 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

IS/MND Conclusion
According to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc dated November 22, 2004, the site previously contained a gasoline underground storage tank (UST). The tank was documented as removed on June 9, 2004; however the report indicates that records of the removal are incomplete and no records could be located by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health on the status of the UST removal. As such the Phase I recommended soil boring and confirmation sampling in the former UST excavation site be completed The approved IS/MND identified a potential adverse hazards and hazardous materials impact related to accidental release of hazardous materials. This impact is in association with the potential spill or leakage of petroleum products during construction. The approved IS/MND contained mitigation measures H-1 and H-2 to reduce impacts to less than significant. All hazardous materials related mitigation measures from the approved IS/MND are presented below.

Mitigation measure H-1 is the required regulatory compliance to the various federal, state, and local regulations. The applicant would adhere to all required regulations pertaining to the use, handling, transport and/or disposal of any hazardous materials or wastes. Additionally, in the event of an 517
Ivy House Residential Project
31 accidental release, the applicant is required to follow the protocols outlined in the various regulations imposed at all levels of government. This is further discussed below.

H-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities shall be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulation regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminated release. The contaminated waste shall be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.

H-2 Conduct soil boring and confirmation sampling in the former UST excavation site and coordinate UST closure reporting with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) and the San Diego County Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

Petra conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the proposed project. Petra was not provided any other hazardous materials reports for review. As stated by the American Society for Testing Materials International (ASTM), the purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), which are defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” There are three categories of RECs: existing RECs (as defined above), Historical RECs (HRECs), or Controlled RECs (CRECs). An HREC is defined as “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls.” An HREC is an environmental condition that was recognized in the past but may or may not still be recognized as a current environmental condition. A CREC is defined as a “recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.” A CREC is an active environmental concern because while the hazardous substances have been corrected to meet certain regulatory levels, the contaminants still remain and have the potential to be above regulatory levels for some types of development.
518
Ivy House Residential Project
32 As with the approved project, construction that would be reasonably foreseeable with implementation of the proposed project would require the transport, use, and disposal of materials that are typically associated with construction activities, such as diesel fuels, hydraulic liquids, oils, solvents, and paints.

This transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the San Bernardino County Hazardous Materials Program’s regulations. Adherence to such regulations would result in less than significant construction impacts. However, it is noted that since the approval of the 2008 IS/MND, the onsite structures have been removed. Thus, any potential disturbance to asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or lead based paint (LBP) associated with the former buildings would not occur with project implementation.

In relation to the removal of the onsite structures, the Murrieta Fire Department used the residence at the southwest corner of B Street and Clay Street for fire training. It is noted that all debris associated with the fire was removed from the property; however, structure fires can impact the environment. In addition to carbon emissions, the fire can create non-carbon contamination of surface water, air, and soil through combustion of building products. Hazardous substances that can be released during a fire include metals, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated and brominated dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polyfluorinated compounds. Short-term effects are typically related to surface water runoff and air emissions. Long term effects, not usually recognized during the event, may impact soils.

Operation of the revised project would include the storage and use of household hazardous materials and wastes. Typical household hazardous materials associated with the residential land uses could include cleaning products, paints, solvents, adhesives, other chemical materials used in building maintenance and interior improvements, automotive lubricants, small combustion engine fuels and lubricants, expired pharmaceuticals, mercury thermometers, sharp or used needles, and electronic wastes from household and car batteries. No special permits would be required for such limited use or disposal of common agents and products. Therefore, operation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

The project site is not located within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Murrieta Elementary School, which is approximately 0.5-mile northeast of the site. Residential land uses do not generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes.

As part of the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, a search of environmental databases, compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). According to the Phase I ESA, the project address was associated with the following listings:
 Frazee and Frazee Corp. (42310B Street, Murrieta, CA) onsite, near the northeastern corner of the subject property. This site is listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste Manifest (HAZNET) and The State Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) databases. Under HAZNET, the creation date was reported as November 1, 2004, and the Waste Code was listed as “Tank bottom waste and Still bottoms with halogenated organics.” The disposal method was reported as, “recycler.” The quantity was listed as 0.52 tons. Under HWTS, the create date was reported as June 3, 2004 with an inactive date of December 28, 2004. Under 519
Ivy House Residential Project
33 EDR’s Directory Search, Frazee and Frazee Ranch was listed at the address from at least 1985 to 2000. Under EDR’s Building Permit Report, a permit for a “register hay house barn” was cancelled in 1964. No additional information was provided, including where on the subject property the tank was located. Based on no other database listing related to tank permits, storage and handling or violations, or an unauthorized release or spill of hazardous materials, including no leaking underground storage tank (LUST) or leaking aboveground storage tank cases reported, the potential for the UST and petroleum hydrocarbon soil residues to remain cannot be entirely precluded. This listing appears to represent a REC.

Petra recommends consistent with mitigation measure H-2, a geophysical survey be conducted in the vicinity of the former ranch buildings along B Street to locate the UST excavation. As described in the Mitigation Monitoring Report for the site (dated January 1, 2008), Petra recommends application and entry into the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) voluntary cleanup program. Based upon RCDEH oversight, soil samples would be collected from borings placed in the excavation area to assess whether elevated hydrocarbon soil residues remain. Dependent upon soil residue concentrations, excavation and offsite removal of the elevated soil residues may be warranted.

The nearest airport is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 5.5 miles to the northeast. The project site is outside the Airport Influence Area Boundary for French Valley Airport (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2012). No impact associated with this issue will occur.

Changes to the existing circulation network would be limited to improvements on New Clay Street and B Street to provide ingress/egress that would not physically interfere with emergency access.

According to Exhibit 12-8 of the General Plan the project site is not in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (City 2011b). No impact associated with this issue will occur.

The proposed project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts hazards and hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would not involve the demolition of structures and therefore, potential impacts related to ACMs and LBPs would not occur with the project (as opposed to the approved project). There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to hazards and hazardous materials than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project- related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required. 520
Ivy House Residential Project
34 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off- site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
With the required adherence to the SWPPP, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and BMPs, the approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts in relation water resources (hydrology and water quality). Additionally, no significant groundwater was encountered during geotechnical investigations.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the 521
Ivy House Residential Project
35 range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

Like the approved project, the revised project would change the site through site grading and by adding impervious surfaces, such as building roofs, paved drives, and alleyways, that would alter the hydrological patterns of the site and could introduce new sources of water pollutants in site runoff.

There is the potential for water pollutants to be generated in the short-term during construction activities and in the long term due to the permanent changes to the site. Construction related pollutants might include loose soils, liquid and solid construction materials and wastes, and accidental spills of concrete, fuels, and other materials. As an urban development, the revised project would add typical, non-point-source pollutants to stormwater runoff, primarily due to runoff from impervious surfaces where a variety of pollutants can collect over time, such as driveways, streets, roofs, patios, and other paved surfaces. Landscaped areas can also generate water pollutants such as fertilizers and weed control agents, as well as green waste from landscape maintenance cuttings. Several measures to protect water quality and limit discharges are directed and implemented, through both the preparation of various plans and adherence to established programs. As discussed below, the project will be required to demonstrate compliance with such plans and programs.

Murrieta is within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB), which is tasked with protecting the region’s water quality objectives that meet the standards set forth in the Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) as well as the state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. The SDRWQCB designates beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater, sets qualitative and quantitative water quality objectives that must be met to protect designated beneficial uses, and develops implementation programs to protect the regional water resources through its Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.

Additionally, the NPDES program regulates point source and non-point source pollutant discharges to surface waters. Municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdictions. These permits are known as municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits. Because the revised project’s stormwater runoff would be discharged into the local municipal storm drain system, the project is required to demonstrate that it would be consistent with the standards established in the MS4 permit as encoded in Chapter 8.36 of the MMC, Stormwater and Runoff Management and Drainage Controls.

The revised project would adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit during construction, which includes BMPs that serve to protect groundwater quality. A SWPPP would also be prepared in compliance with the Construction General Permit, which would identify erosion control and sediment control BMPs, such as desilting basins or other temporary drainage or control measures, or both, as may be necessary to control construction-related pollutants. The City will not issue a grading permit for the project until the SWPPP has been submitted to and approved by the City (MMC Section 15.52). 522
Ivy House Residential Project
36 Post construction, the site is divided into two major drainage areas that are hydrologically connected to two proposed project basins. Drainage would be conveyed through a series of inlet catch basins in the streets and storm drains to one of two modular wetlands system. For events that are greater than the two-year storm, overflow would be directed to the two onsite basins for eventual release to Murrieta Creek either through an outlet or via the channel along New Clay Street. It is noted that currently there are flows that enter from offsite sources that mix with the onsite drainage. Under the revised project condition, a new storm drain line would convey the offsite flows to one of the two proposed basins.

Portions of the project site are within Federal Emergency Management Agency mapped flood zones.

However, like the approved project, final building pad elevations would be above the 100- year flood zone. However, Exhibit 5-13.3 of the City General Plan EIR identifies the project site as within the dam inundation area of the Diamond Valley Lake Saddle Dam (City 2001a). The project is located approximately 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is therefore not at risk of experiencing tsunami hazards.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to hydrology and water quality. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to hydrology and water quality than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.

3.11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be less than significant impacts to land use. Specifically, the project contained parcels that are listed within the planning boundaries of the MSHCP. The approved IS/MND contained mitigation measure B-1 through B-4 to reduce impacts to less than significant (see Section 3.4 above). 523
Ivy House Residential Project
37 Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The project site is within an area developed with primarily large lot residential uses. No new major supporting infrastructure facilities would need to be constructed and extended to the project site that could result in a physical disruption to an established land use or the local pattern of development.

Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community; no impacts would occur.

The RS-1 zoning district is applied to parcels appropriate for single-family subdivisions with a uniform lot pattern possessing a minimum parcel size of seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. The allowable density range is from 2.1 to 5.0 units per acre. The RS-1 zoning district is consistent with the single-family residential land use designation of the general plan. The lot sizes have remained consistent between the previous and proposed entitlement with average lot sizes ranging from 5,500 sf to 9,000 sf all while being above the minimum stated by the original MDP of 5,000 sf.

The parcels that make up the proposed project are within the boundaries of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Compliance with the MSHCP is discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and mitigation measures B-1 through B-4 as identified in the IS/MND for the approved project are included in the revised project.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be no impacts to land use. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts to land use. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to land use and planning impacts than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required. 524
Ivy House Residential Project
38 3.12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts in relation mineral resources.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. Mineral resources are commonly defined as a concentration or occurrence of natural, solid, inorganic, or fossilized organic material in or on the earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. Mineral resources can be categorized into three classes: fuel, metallic, and non-metallic. Fuel resources comprise coal, oil, and natural gas. Metals include such resources as gold, silver, iron, and copper. Lastly, non- metal resources include industrial minerals and construction aggregate. Industrial minerals include boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone.

Construction aggregate includes sand and gravel, and crushed stone.

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary regulator surface mining in the state. The act requires the state geologist (California Geological Survey) to identify all mineral deposits in the state and to classify them based on their significance. SMARA defines a mineral deposit as a naturally occurring concentration of minerals in amounts or arrangement that under certain conditions may constitute a mineral resource. The concentration may be of value for its chemical or physical characteristics. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the State and local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of the four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), Scientific Resource Zones (SZs), or Identified Resource Areas (IRAs), described below:
 MRZ-1: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.
 MRZ-2: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence and development should be controlled. 525
Ivy House Residential Project
39  MRZ-3: A Mineral Resource Zone where mineral resource significance is undetermined.  MRZ-4: A Mineral Resource Zone where there is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
 SZ Areas: Containing unique or rare occurrences of rocks, minerals, or fossils that are of outstanding scientific significance shall be classified in this zone.  IRA Areas: County or State Division of Mines and Geology Identified Areas where adequate production and information indicate that significant minerals are present.

According to the General Plan EIR, the lands west of Interstate 15 are classified as MRZ-1, indicating that no significant mineral deposits are likely to be present (City 2011). And Exhibit 5.12-1, Mineral Resources of the General Plan EIR show no mineral resource extraction sites within the project site or surrounding area (City 2011a).

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to mineral resources impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to mineral resources than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.

3.13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

526
Ivy House Residential Project
40 IS/MND Conclusion
The approved IS/MND identified a potential adverse noise impacts. As shown below, the approved IS/MND contained mitigation measure N1 through N3 to reduce impacts to less than significant.

N-1 During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuation devices. (e.g., mufflers).

N-2 With the exception of emergency conditions, construction shall be limited to daylight hours or no later than 7 p.m.

N-3 If noise complaints demonstrate that a significant noise impact is affecting sensitive receptors due to construction activities (noise levels as measured at the receptor location at a level in excess of the City's noise significance thresholds), the City shall require the construction contractor to apply appropriate measures to reduce the impacts of noise on the sensitive receptor to levels within the City's significance thresholds.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

In September 2021, HELIX prepared a Technical Assessment of the proposed project, that included a review of the approved project to determine if the previous analysis was adequate and applicable to the revised project.

The IS/MND concluded that operational noise level impacts associated with the approved project’s residential uses would be less than significant and that the future residential uses would be compatible with the General Plan’s Noise Element. The project does not propose a change in land uses from what was previously approved, and operational noise levels are anticipated to be the same as what was analyzed in the IS/MND. Due to the currently planned ADUs that would be located within each residential lot along with the main residences, an analysis of the project’s Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system noise was conducted to ensure operational noise impacts remain less than significant. Detailed analysis for operational noise can be found in the HVAC Noise Analysis, attached to this document as Appendix E.

Because the revised project would utilize the previous project’s site with the same number of residential units, construction noise is anticipated to be similar to what was identified in the previously approved project. No impulsive construction equipment such as drill rigs, rock crushers, or hoe rams would be required, and the anticipated construction equipment identified in the previous IS/MND is not expected 527
Ivy House Residential Project
41 to change. Therefore, the prior IS/MND’s conclusions that noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation measures N1, N2, and N3, would not change for the revised project. These mitigation measures would limit construction to daylight hours and require noise attenuation devices on construction equipment.

Operational noise from the project’s HVAC units is subject to standards set forth in Section 16.30.090, Exterior Noise Standards, of the City’s Municipal Code. Per Table 3-6 in Section 16.30.090, noise levels at residential receptor properties shall not exceed 45 A-weighted decibels (dBA) during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) or 50 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

The project would include ground-mounted HVAC units on the side of each residence and ADU. The analysis assumed typical to larger-sized Carrier 38HRD060 split system condensers. The Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) model version 2021 was used to calculate noise levels at residential receptor properties generated by operation of the project’s HVAC units. In the CadnaA model, HVAC units were placed on the sides of each residence and ADU. Receivers were located at residential receptor property lines to the northwest, northeast, and southeast of the project site. The highest calculated noise level was 40.4 dBA at the residential receptor property line to the southeast of the project site. Noise levels at all modeled receiver locations were below the 45-dBA nighttime noise standard and 50-dBA daytime noise standard for residential uses. As such, the project’s operational HVAC noise levels are within City standards, and impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the determination in the MND.

Due to these factors, construction and operational noise levels are not anticipated to exceed City thresholds, and no additional impacts from implementation of the revised project are anticipated. The IS/MND for the approved project identified that with mitigation noise impacts would be less than significant. Likewise, the revised project would not change the IS/MND’s findings with respect to noise impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to noise than those reached in the IS/MND, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required for the revised project.

3.14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

528
Ivy House Residential Project
42 IS/MND Conclusion
The approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts in relation to population and housing.

Growth inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that foster or encourage population and/or economic growth, such as new housing (direct) or creation of a new job center or the expansion of infrastructure to increase capacity (indirect).

The revised project would introduce 62 new residential homes and accompanying ADUs, which would directly induce growth in the project area. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average household size in the City is 3.49 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). Applying this rate, an additional 62 single family homes could result in a population increase of approximately 216 people. Conservatively considering that under California law no more than two people may reside per bedroom, the ADUs would generate an additional 124 people. If all 62 homes and ADUs were occupied by new residents, the project would represent an increase in the City’s population by approximately .031 percent.

The site is designated as SFR and zoned as RS-1, indicating the City’s intent for the site to accommodate residential housing. Further, as part of the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target for Murrieta, the City recognized the potential for the project site to accommodate a portion of the of the need calculation of 3,304 residences. Therefore, while the project would directly induce population in the area through the construction of new homes, this development is consistent with the City’s intent to provide housing as expressed through its General Plan and Zoning Code and the RHNA.

Direct impacts would continue to be less than significant.

The project does not involve activities or features that would indirectly induce growth. The project does not propose the installation of utility infrastructure that would expand beyond the project site.

Improvements to the current site access would occur through the installation of project drives and an internal network of alleyways. However, the project does not include off-site roadway improvements.

Therefore, the project would not indirectly contribute to substantial growth.

The proposed project includes the subdivision of the 22-acre project site for the construction of 62 single-family lots on undeveloped land. Therefore, the proposed project would not remove housing and would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts population and housing. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant 529
Ivy House Residential Project
43 environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to population and housing than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.

3.15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved project was determined to have no impacts in relation to public services.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. Further, the revised project would shift the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain efficient lot design while avoiding the jurisdictional delineation that is on the property boundary on the southeast portion of the site. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

The project would result in an increase of residents in the area; however, this increase is accounted for in the General Plan. Given that the General Plan provides the foundation for the adequate provision of services for existing and planned land uses, project-related development is accounted for in the 530
Ivy House Residential Project
44 allocation of resources. As identified in the General Plan EIR, the Murrieta Fire Department (MFD) has indicated that the proposed General Plan buildout would not create significant changes to its services (City 2011a).

The project does not represent a unique land use or type of construction that would require additional MFD resources, would not have a significant impact involving fire response times, and would not otherwise create a substantially greater need for fire protection services than already exists. The project applicant is required to submit project plans to MFD for review and plan check approval with respect to applicable fire protection standards set forth in Chapter 15.24 of the MMC approval is required prior to the issuance of building permits. Through this routine process, MFD confirms that the project meets all of the applicable fire codes set forth by the State Fire Marshal and the City’s building code, including sufficient fire flow and emergency access for fire engines and crews.

Implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase in the demand for emergency services; however the size and location of the project would not place an undue hardship on the fire department since they are presently servicing the areas surrounding the site and since the population growth associated with the project is accounted for in the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the Murrieta Fire Department to serve the site with existing fire protection services and resources.

Typical of residential developments, such services would be in relation to property crimes or crimes against persons, however these types of crimes are not considered unique. Yet, as described in the General Plan EIR, it is reasonably foreseeable that new or physically altered facilities within the City would be required to serve the growth associated with the buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the project, the applicant would be required to contribute a fair share development impact fee to provide adequate facilities and capital to support the development.

The project includes the development of 62 single-family homes, some of which may house school-aged children. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Murrieta Unified School District (MUSD), which serves grades pre-school through 12. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, using approved planning forecasts, the project could result in approximately 340 new persons in the project area, some of which may be school-age children. There would be an increase in the demand for MUSD school services if the homes are ultimately occupied by people from outside the City or County.

California Education Code Section 17620 and CCR Section 65995 allow school districts to levy fees on residential and/or commercial/industrial construction projects within a school district’s boundaries. The State Allocation Board sets the per-square-foot Level I school impact fees (developer fees) every two years.

The project would be required to pay the current statutory developer fee (currently $4.08 per square foot of residential construction) as a condition of building permit approval. The Leroy Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 established the use of developer fees as mitigation for school districts in California.

Developer fees may be used for multiple purposes, including to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities, and to fund costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development in order to refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with a general plan. Thus, the project’s 531
Ivy House Residential Project
45 school impacts are fully mitigated through the payment of the required developer impact fee that has been adopted at the time of project approval.

With the increase in population there would be a corresponding increase in the use of parks, especially associated with residents that relocate from outside of Murrieta. The applicant is required to pay the Development Impact Fee and as stated in Chapter 16.36.010 pf the MMC, it is the intent of the City to require every person who develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the City's public facilities. The City will therefore require developers to pay a public facilities development impact fee that will assist in meeting the demand for public facilities caused by development. Per MMC Chapter

16.36.020, the applicant shall pay this fee prior to the issuance of a development permit.

The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts to public services. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to public services than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.

3.16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts in relation to recreation.

The project does not involve or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the approved project. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to impacts to recreation. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to recreation than those reached in the prior environmental document, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.

3.17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

IS/MND Conclusion
The approved IS/MND did not identify impacts to emergency access, parking capacity, or alternative transportation. The approved project would be required to participate in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County, a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The approved IS/MND identified a potential adverse transportation impact in relation to increased trips and congestion. The approved IS/MND contained the following mitigation measures T-1 and T-2 to reduce impacts to less than significant. It should be noted that the adopted IS/MND did not address potential impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which was first included in the CEQA guidelines in December 2018.

T-1 Construct half street improvements with appropriate transitions along New Clay Street and B Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
533
Ivy House Residential Project
47 T-2 Install stop signs at the project egress points and alley egress points as required by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

The revised project would not introduce any new features (in comparison to the approved project) that would conflict with the implementation of a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As noted in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the revised project shall include pedestrian paths or sidewalks and install pedestrian safety measures.

Senate Bill 743, resulted in a shift in the measure of effectiveness for determining transportation impacts from level of service and vehicular delay, as was evaluated in the IS/MND, to VMT. To satisfy SB 743, Translutions prepared a VMT Screening Analysis for the revised project in January 2021. This evaluation was conducted based on the City of Murrieta Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines, May 2020.

The City uses the following screening thresholds to exempt a project from a VMT analysis:
 Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips regardless of whether or not consistent with the General Plan.
 Local-serving retail that primarily serves the City and/or adjacent cities.  Office and other employment-related land uses reducing commutes outside the local area.  Local-serving day care centers, pre-K and K-12 schools.  Local parks and civic uses.
 Local-serving gas stations, banks, and hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels).  Local serving community colleges that are consistent with Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation {Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy assumptions.  Student housing projects.

The proposed project does not fit the screening criteria identified above. Based on the City’s Guidelines, projects that are not screened out using the process above shall perform a limited analysis of the VMT expected to be generated by the project and compare that to the VMT expected to be generated by the land use assumed in the General Plan. This should result in one of two outcomes as follows:
534
Ivy House Residential Project
48  VMT is less than the land use assumed in the General Plan – Less than Significant VMT impact and no need for further analysis in a transportation impact analysis for VMT.  VMT is more than the land use assumed in the General Plan - Likely Significant VMT impact and need for full analysis in a transportation impact analysis for VMT.

A significant transportation impact will be assumed to occur if the proposed project would be expected to generate more VMT than the land use assumed in the General Plan. In these cases, VMT will be analyzed and VMT mitigation will need to be considered.

The proposed project land use is consistent with the General Plan since the site is already entitled and the minor changes proposed do not alter the land uses currently approved for the project site.

Therefore, the proposed land use will have the same VMT as the General Plan and the above numbers should not change. Therefore, based on the City Guidelines, there will be a less than significant VMT impact and there is no need for further VMT analysis.

There would be no hazardous design features or incompatible uses introduced as a result of the project.

The project is a typical residential subdivision that is comparable to the surrounding land uses to the south and east. No unique roadway features, traffic patterns, or incompatible vehicles would be introduced as part of the development. The internal street network would be capable of providing safe and efficient access to and from each of the 62 proposed residences and is similar to that of the approved project. Additionally, the internal roadways would be designed with rights-of-way, in accordance with City standards and would have sufficient capacity to support the residential traffic. In addition, the MFD and City Public Works Department would review the circulation to ensure compliance with MFD standards (turning radii, street widths,) and traffic safety standards (line of sight, traffic calming, etc.).

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
535
Ivy House Residential Project
49 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

IS/MND Conclusion
Subsequent to preparation of the 2008 IS/MND, the passage of AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) on September 27, 2016, required an update to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to include questions related to impacts to tribal cultural resources. A tribal cultural resource may be considered significant if it is included in a local or state register of historic resources; is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1; is geographically designated landscape that meets one or more of the criteria in PRC Section 21084.1; is a unique archaeological resource described in PRC Section 21083.2; or is a non-unique archaeological resource if it conforms to the above criteria. The approved IS/MND concluded that the approved project result in impacts to cultural resources because it involves and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant.

The approved IS/MND contained mitigation measures C-1 and C-2, C-7, and C-8 (see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources) relevant to tribal cultural resources.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, there is the potential for potential remains for both historic and prehistoric resources to be present in a subsurface context within the project area. The Murietta Creek area is rich in cultural resources, both archaeological and tribal cultural resources, and the alluvial setting elevates the potential for buried resources. As such, as required by Mitigation Measure C-1, discussed above, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented during grading or other ground-disturbing activities, including brushing/grubbing, removal of existing infrastructure, and trenching for utilities.

The monitoring program should include attendance by the archaeologist and Native American monitor at a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during initial ground-disturbing activities on site. Both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground- disturbing activity in the event that cultural resources are encountered. If significant cultural material is encountered, the project archaeologist will coordinate with the Monitoring Tribe, the applicant, and City staff to develop and implement appropriate avoidance, preservation, or mitigation measures. 536
Ivy House Residential Project
50 Based on these factors, the mitigation measures implemented in the 2008 MMRP are recommended to ensure cultural resources are not significantly impacted by the revised project. By implementing an archaeological and Native American monitoring program consistent with Mitigation Measure C-1, the project will reduce any potential impact to cultural or tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

The proposed project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the previously approved project. The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be no impacts to cultural resources (including those to Native American resources). As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to cultural (tribal cultural) impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to tribal cultural resources impacts than those reached in the prior environmental documents for archaeological and Native American resources, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

537
Ivy House Residential Project
51 IS/MND Conclusion
The project involves localized infrastructure improvements and connections to accommodate site development. The project would be required to pay fees to accommodate infrastructure improvements for water and sewer. Due to an increase in capacity in the County to accommodate planning projections, the additional solid waste generated by the approved project (and within the General Plan planning projections) could be accommodated. The approved project was determined to have no impacts in relation utility and service systems.

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. Further, due to the findings of updated hydrological analysis that indicated that the temporary intercept channel was no longer required as a result of project area improvements, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street.

Similar to the approved project, there would be various upgrades and connections to the existing infrastructure that occurs within and surrounding the site, the extent of impacts has been examined in the context of the project as a whole (i.e., grading for utility trenches would be considered in overall grading plan). The project would not result in the need for new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities.

Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) would provide water and sewer service to the site. To calculate future water demands, the WMWD relies upon projected population and growth rate projections as determined by land use policies in the general plans, thereby ensuring that adequate supplies are being planned for existing and future water users. Like the approved project, the revised project is consistent with the General Plan and therefore has been accounted for in water and sewer planning documents. Likewise, as with the approved project, the applicant would be required to pay development connection fees to provide for current and future infrastructure to support proposed projects.

The General Plan EIR determined that the combined remaining capacities of landfills serving the City would be adequate to accommodate the buildout of the proposed General Plan 2035 (City 2011a). The project would be consistent with General Plan and would not generate additional solid waste beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan. The City participates in a number of programs that promote recycling that are intended to help achieve the goal to divert solid waste from landfills. Solid waste and debris generated by the project would be disposed of consistent with City standards The proposed project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the previously approved project. The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be no impacts to utilities and service systems. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to utility and service systems impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to utilities and service system impacts than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No mitigation measures are required.
538
Ivy House Residential Project
52 3.20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

IS/MND Conclusion
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted a comprehensive update to the state’s CEQA Guidelines that incorporated a new category, wildfire impacts, into Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the prior IS/MND for the approved project did not contain a discussion of wildfire related issues in its own topical category but did address fire hazard within its Hazards section.

The analysis in the IS/MND concluded the project would not increase the fire hazard characteristics of any project site because the project is outside of areas designated as Wildland areas which may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards and very high fire hazard severity zones according to the CAL FIRE fire hazards map and Exhibit VI-7 of the City's General Plan (City 2011b).

Revised Project Conclusion
Implementation of the revised project would occur within the same parcels evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The revised project would develop 62 single family lots with the general street layout of the previously approved project. Additionally, the lot sizes would remain within the range of the approved project, however the homes would vary in size from 2,300 to 3,150 sf (as opposed to 2,400 to 2,850 sf) and have attached (as opposed to detached) garages with a single 750 sf ADU on each lot. The project site is level and does not contain any significant slopes. The surrounding area does not support the common characteristics identified as a wildfire risk, such as difficult terrain, inadequate access, and unmaintained vegetation.
539
Ivy House Residential Project
53 As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, according to Exhibit 12-8 of the General Plan, the project site is not in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (City 2011). Like the approved project, the revised project would adhere to the California Fire Code.

During construction of the project, heavy construction vehicles could interfere with emergency response to the site or emergency evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency (e.g., vehicles traveling behind the slow-moving truck). However, such trips would be brief and infrequent. Additionally, although traffic would temporarily need to be directed around the construction when making utility tie-ins, the project construction would not require road closures. Public roadways would remain open for standard traffic and emergency response vehicles for the duration of construction The revised project is within the parameters of the types of actions envisioned to occur with implementation of the previously approved project. The prior environmental document for the approved project identified that with mitigation there would be no wildfire impacts. As such, the revised project would not change any of the findings with respect to wildfire impacts. There is no new information, such as new regulations, a change of circumstances, or changes to the project that would give rise to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This analysis does not result in different conclusions related to aesthetic impacts than those reached in the prior environmental documents, either on a project-related or cumulative basis. No new mitigation measures are required.

4.0 Conclusions
The purpose of this Addendum was to address and analyze the environmental effects associated with changes to the approved project that occurred since the adoption of the IS/MND. Based on the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that the analysis conducted, and the conclusions reached in the IS/MND adopted February 19, 2008, remain valid. The proposed change to the project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the IS/MND, and no considerably different mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce said environmental impacts. Therefore, no further environmental documentation or review beyond this Addendum is required.

5.0 References Used in the Completion of the
Addendum
California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2022 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2022 California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c c8e8057116f1aacaa.

David Evans and Associates, Inc.
2021 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. December. 540
Ivy House Residential Project
54 HELIX Environmental Planning Inc., (HELIX)
2021 Biological Constraints Technical Memorandum for the Tentative Tract 34439 Ivy House Residential Development. September.
2021 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Ivy House Project. September 2021 Technical Assessment of the Ivy House Project. September Murietta, City of (City)
2011a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Murrieta General Plan 2035. Available at:
https://www.murrietaca.gov/303/General-Plan-2035.
2011b Murrieta General Plan 2035. Available at: https://www.murrietaca.gov/303/General- Plan-2035.

Petra Geosciences (Petra)
2020 Feasibility/Due-Diligence Geotechnical Review, Ivy House Project, 58 Proposed Lots on 22-Acre Site, Located South-Southwest of New Clay Street and B Street, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. November.
2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; Ivy House Project, Vacant Land Southwest Corner of B Street and New Clay Avenue, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California 92562. November.
2012 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Available at: https://rcaluc.org/.
2020 Translutions. Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Memorandum. January.

United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau)
2021 U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/murrietacitycalifornia.

541
1 CITY OF MURRIETA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Initial Study

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Development Plan 005-1825 and Master Plan Overlay

2. Lead Agency: City of Murrieta
Address: 26442 Beckman Court
Murrieta, CA 92562-8850

3. Contact Person: Dennis Watts, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (951) 461-6037

4. Project Location: The proposed project consists of 6-properties totaling 22.2 acres located in the City of Murrieta, Riverside County. The project site is bounded on the northeast by New Clay Street, on the southeast by Ivy Street, on the northwest by “B” Street, and on the southwest by Murrieta Creek. The properties are referenced as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 906-193-001, 906-200-001 & 002, 906-212-001, 906-221-001 & 002. A ranch house with the street address of 42310 B Street is located on APN 906-193-001. The proposed project is located within the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan.

5. Project Sponsor: Murrieta Brook, LLC
Address: 1100 Quail Street, Suite 102
Newport Beach, CA 92660

II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT

1. Project Description: This proposed project will divide approximately 22.2 acres of land into approximately 62 Single-Family Residential lots with a average lot size of approximately 6,673 gross square feet with the minimum lot size 5,519 square feet and the maximum lot size 9,545 square feet. The proposed site additionally includes a 2,839 square foot lot for storm water drain purposes. The project site within the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan and is zoned Village Residential -Single-Family 1 (VRS-1) with Master Plan Overlay (MPO). In accordance with the Historic Murrieta Specific Plant the VRS-1 with MPO provides for lot sizes reduced to 5,000 square feet provided that the number of units does not exceed the VRS-1 density. The Historic Murrieta Specific Plan VRS-1 target density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre and the project proposes 2.9 dwelling units per acre.

542
2 Utilities are located within or available for extension along adjacent streets or in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Proposed utility services will be provided as follows:
water/sewer Western Municipal Water District; Natural Gas, Southern California Gas Company; Electric, Southern California Edison; Telephone, Verizon; Cable, Adelphia.

The proposed project site is located within the Murrieta Valley School District and will receive public services from the City of Murrieta.

2. Description of the Project Site: The site consists of approximately 22.2 acres of land that is primarily vacant with the exception of a single-family residence, barn, and out buildings on the north end of the property along B Street. The site topography is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 1,198 feet above mean sea level. The project site has historically been used for agricultural uses and according to the Biological Studies the site primarily consists of non-native grassland/rural vegetation.

The site is bounded to the west/southwest by Murrieta Creek.

3. Land Uses:

North: Single Family Residential and Old Town Murrieta.

East: Rural Residential uses.

South: Rural and Estate Residential uses.

West: Murrieta Creek, Rural and Estate Residential.

4. General Plan Designation: Historic Murrieta Specific Plan.

5. Zoning: Designation: Village Residential -Single-Family – 1 (VRS-1).

6. Other Agencies whose approval may be required: A General Construction Storm Water (NPDES) Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.

543
3 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

X Land Use & Planning Water X Aesthetics
Public Services X Biological Resources Geophysical
Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources X Hazards Population & Housing X Cultural Resources X Noise
Transportation/Circulation Recreation X Air Quality
X Mandatory Findings of Significance

544
4 IV. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.

Jim Mackenzie, Planning Manager

BY: Dennis Watts Date: November 12, 2007
Name

Senior Planner
Title

545
5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources the City cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

A “No Impact” answer does not require a source listing if it is clearly apparent by a reasonable person that the project does not affect a particular issue (e.g. the construction of infrastructure will not impact parking capacity). The source reference in the parentheses would be “not applicable” or (N/A).

Potentially Potentially Less than
Significant Significant Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Unless Mitigated Impact Impact

Would the proposal:

Insufficient parking capacity? (N/A) X

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the Planning Department staff lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The Planning Department must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 18 at the end of the checklist.

6) A reference list of information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances) has been established. The source list is attached to the checklist and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the impact assessment discussion. See sample question below.

Potentially Potentially Less than
Significant Significant Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Unless Mitigated Impact Impact

Would the proposal result in potential
impacts involving:

Landslides or mudslides? (1, 7)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 7 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.)

546
6 V. INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST

1) Project Application Information
2) Field Inspection/Investigation
3) Project Plans
4) Planner's Knowledge of Area
5) Planner’s Experience with Other Projects of this Size and Nature 6) City General Plan
7) City Development Code
8) City General Plan/zoning Map Buildout Projections
9) City Noise Ordinance
10) City Aerial Photos
11) City Engineering/Public Works Department
12) City Fire Marshall/Fire Department
13) City Off-Street Parking Standards
14) City Community Services Department
15) City Police Department
16) City Finance Department
17) City Historical Committee/Historic Resources Inventory 18) Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Appendices (as adopted by the City) 19) Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and Appendices (as adopted by the City) 20) Murrieta Valley Unified School District
21) Lake Elsinore School District
22) Menifee School District
23) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 24) County of Riverside Planning Department
25) Western Municipal Water District
26) Waste Management
27) Rancho California Water District
28) Riverside County Congestion Management Plan
29) South Coast Air Quality Management District
30) USDA-SCS, Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area
31) State of California, Special Studies Zones (Revised Official Map) 32) ITE Trip Generation Manual/Highway Capacity Manual
33) Caltrans Highway Design Manual
34) Caltrans Traffic Manual
35) Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) 36) State Archaeological Clearinghouse, UC Regents
37) State Agency: __________________________
38) Federal Agency: U.S. Census Bureau – FactFinder website 39) Master Plan:
40) Site Specific Cultural Resources Study
41) Site Specific Biological Reports (Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, HANS Review, DBESP)
42) Project Specific Traffic Study or Report
43) Project Specific Noise Study
44) Site Specific Geologic Report
45) Site Specific Arborist Report
46) Site Specific Air Quality Study
47) Project Specific Parking Study
48) Special Study: Updated 2003 Population
547
7 49) Other: Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, June 25, 2002 50) Other: Riverside County Flood Control District “Supplement A to the Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plans, and Attachment to Supplement A”, 1996 51) USGS Topographic Map
52) Other: Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). “Western Riverside Subregional Comprehensive Plan.” January 3, 1994.
53) Other: VRPA Technologies. “2001 Riverside County Congestion Management Program.” December 12, 2001.
54) Other: City of Murrieta General Biological Assessment, September 2000 55) Other: California Energy Commission, 2003 & 2005 Integrated Policy 56) Other: Site specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 57) Other: Site specific Drainage Study

548
8 VI. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & DISCUSSION

A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question.

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:

a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1, 3, 4, 6)

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (1,2,6,41,56)

c) Affect agricultural resources or operations?
(2,6,4,41) X

d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (1,3,6)
X
e) Be compatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1,3,4,6) X

1.a. The parcel that is proposed for this project is currently designated in the General Plan as part of the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan and is zoned as Village Residential Single- Family -1 (VRS-1). The VRS-1 designation provides for residential uses with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and a density range between 2.1 and 5.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a target density of 3.5du/ac.

The Historic Murrieta Specific Plan states: The primary purpose of the VRS-1 District is to provide for residential development on common sized suburban lots. This District is intended as an area for development of single family detached, small lot single family detached residential, and mobile homes with a density range of 2.1 – 5 dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet with one dwelling per lot.

The target density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Cluster development is encouraged in order to protect the environment and VRS-1 lot sizes may be reduced to 5,000 square feet when included in a Master Plan Overlay area; however the, the number of units cannot exceed the VRS-1 density.

The proposed project’s average lot size will be approximately 6,673 gross square feet with the minimum lot size 5,519 square feet and the maximum lot size 9, 545 square feet at a density of 2.8 du/ac, thus, conforming with the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan (Section 4.7 Descriptions of Land Use Districts) and the City’s General Plan designations and zoning (General Plan Policy LU-1.1h). No mitigation required. 549
9 1.b. The parcels that make up the proposed project are within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, (MSHCP) according to the Riverside County Integrated Project parcel search. The project proponents completed the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) Process and Joint Project Review (JPR) as required under the MSHCP. Compliance with the MSHCP is covered in Biological assessment in section 7, of this study.

Federal and State programs require selected industries and construction activities to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A WQMP was completed for the proposed project by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. dated February 7, 2006.

In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program. The subject property is located in the San Diego Region and must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Construction Storm Water Permit, Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ. The requirement is mandatory and the project will comply with standards for Best Management Practices, (BMP’s) which must be implemented to prevent/control potentially significant adverse water erosion and sedimentation impacts. Mitigation is covered under the Biological Section of this report.

1c. The project site is not replacing or displacing land currently used for agricultural purposes, nor will the proposed project be used for agricultural purposes. There will be no adverse impact to agricultural resources as a result of this development. No mitigation required.

1d. The project site is bordered on the North and East by existing and proposed multiple uses, single family, and rural residential units, on the West by Murrieta Creek, vacant land and estate and rural residential units, and to the south by rural residential uses and vacant land. Development will not disrupt or divide an established community. No mitigation required.

1e. The City’s General Plan, Development Code and Historic Murrieta Specific Plan establish land use policies for developments in Residential zones. The development of this project will be compatible with existing land uses in the area through implementation of design standards contained in the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan and Development Code and policies contained in the General Plan. No additional mitigation required.

550
10 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

2. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project
have an effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following area:

a) Fire protection? (6)

b) Police protection? (6)

c) Schools? (1, 20) X

d) Parks or recreational facilities? (6) X
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (6) X
f) Other governmental services? (6) X

2a-f. Implementation of the project will create a demand for public services including police, fire, and emergency response services. The proposed project would result in 62 residential lots averaging approximately 6,673 square foot per lot. The development being proposed is in an area zoned for Single-Family Residential (VRS-1) uses and would create a demand for services at a level anticipated and predicted by the General Plan and the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan. The City of Murrieta’s Development Impact Fees are designated to offset capital expenditures for police, fire, park and recreation, and public facilities. Property taxes and other assessments provide funding for maintenance and operational costs for these services. Recreational facilities are covered in section 10 of this study. Payment of Development Fees and assessments are mandatory. No mitigation is required.

2a. The project area is serviced by Murrieta Fire Station # 1 located to the north of the proposed project on Juniper Street. According to the City’s General Plan the Fire Department shall ensure all property in the City and successive uses of individual buildings comply with the latest edition of the Uniform Fire Code, (UFC), California Fire Code, (CFC), and other applicable building and fire standards. This is a mandatory requirement as part of the City’s Development Code, no mitigation required.

2b. According to the City’s General Plan in cooperation with the Police Department, all new development will incorporate safe building/site designs, such as visible walkways and proper lighting. This is a mandatory requirement as part of the City’s Development Code, no mitigation required

2c. The project is located within the Murrieta Unified School District. The development of this project will impact the School District by increasing to the number of students and demand on school facilities. Mitigation fees will be provided by the future development as currently required by State Law and residential school fees and taxes are a mandatory requirement. No additional mitigation is required. 551
11 2d. Development Code, Residential Development Mitigation states: The purpose of this section is to provide for the payment of fees for the construction and acquisition of public facilities, purchase of regional parkland and trails and the preservation of habitat and open space to defray the actual or estimated cost of financing and/or acquiring these facilities. The funds collected under the residential development mitigation fee do not reflect the entire cost of providing the facilities required in order to effectively meet the needs created by new residential development. Additional revenues will be required from other sources. The council finds that the benefit to each residential unit is greater than the amount of the fee to be paid by that residential unit. Recreational facilities are covered in section 10 of this study.

2e-f. The City of Murrieta’s Development Impact Fees are designated to offset capital expenditures for police, fire, park and recreation, and public facilities. Property taxes and other assessments provide funding for maintenance and operational costs for these services.

552
12 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project result in a need for new
systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:

a) Power or natural gas? (6, 55)

X
b) Communication systems? (6)

X
c) Sewer or septic tanks? (25) X
d) Solid waste and disposal? (26) X
e) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (25) X
f) Storm water drainage? (44,56,57) X

3a. The project will generate a demand for utility and service systems for energy, communications, water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste. The City of Murrieta’s General Plan identified adequate capacity for energy and communication systems.

Subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan, electricity and natural gas utilities have been deregulated and short-term deficiencies in the supply of electricity and natural gas were experienced in 2000 and 2001. Since 2001, the states electricity situation has stabilized and the state has added over 9,500 megawatts of electricity capacity to the system. The state currently consumes approximately 253.5 million megawatt hours of electricity, and 7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each year at a predicted growth rate of

2.4 percent per year. The California Energy Commission in the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report indicated that California should have adequate supplies of electricity through 2007 and meet the natural gas needs of Southern California through 2013 under average annual conditions. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report indicates in the electrical power supply and demand section that several approved power generating facilities have not started construction, maintaining adequate electricity reserves will be difficult over the next few years, however the state now requires investor-owned utilities to maintain a year-round 15 – 17 percent reserve margin. The IEP estimates are based on increases in population and demand and indicate that shortfall will be in reserves. The report further indicates that conservation measures have been producing better results than anticipated in the 2003 IEP. Since the proposed project is in conformity with the General Plan and anticipated growth the project is deemed to have a “less than significant impact” on power resources.

The City of Murrieta has adopted building codes that require implementation of energy conservation measures for new development. Implementation of design and construction standards is considered adequate compliance with energy conservation goals and policies.

No mitigation required.

553
13 3b. Communication systems are provided by Verizon Communications with adequate capacity to meet the anticipated demand for this project as well as the ultimate build-out in the City. No mitigation is required.

3.c&e Western Municipal Water District will provide facilities for both sewer and water service.

WMWD charges development connection fees to provide for current and future infrastructure to support proposed projects.

Metropolitan Water District (MWD) on July 13, 2004 approved the Updated Integrated Water Resource Plan, which indicated that the District is confident of its ability to meet the water demands of its customers through 2025.” With the exception of mandatory fees and installation of onsite infrastructure, no mitigation is required.

3d. Solid waste capacity has been increased under Riverside County to provide adequate disposal capacity for the increasing demand over the planning outlook. Waste from the area is transported to the 495 – acre El Sobrante Landfill in Temescal Canyon located south of Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The El Sobrante Facility is permitted to accept as much as 10,000 tons of waste per day, and is currently accepting an average of 8,000 tons per day during weekdays. At the current rate of disposal the El Sobrante facility has a life expectancy estimated at 36 years.

It is estimated that approximately 75 percent of all trash can be used to produce various forms of energy. USA Waste of California is in the process of building a 2.5-megawatt electrical generating plant that will utilize methane gas generated from the decomposition process in the landfill. Excess power not used in the operation of the facility will be distributed back to the grid for use by Southern California Edison.

Combined with the City’s mandatory source reduction and recycling program, the proposed project is not forecast to cause an adverse impact on the solid waste and disposal system. No Mitigation Required.

3e. Western Municipal Water District, (WMWD) will provide facilities for water service for the proposed project. WMWD charges development connection fees to provide for current and future infrastructure to support proposed projects.

WMWD water comes from a variety of natural sources including precipitation, surface stream flows and regional groundwater (aquifers). WMWD also purchases water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which imports water from Northern California and the Colorado River. Water delivered to homes and businesses is a blend of well water (40 percent) and import water (60 percent). Metropolitan Water Districts (MWD) on July 13, 2004 approved the Updated Integrated Water Resource Plan which indicated improved reliability of imported water supplies due to implementation of the Integrated Resources Plan and the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan should provide 100% full service imported water supply reliability through 2025.

554
14 The project is exempt from SB 221 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply and SB 610 Water Supply Assessment due to the project size being less than the required 500 units.

3f. The City’s General Plan includes policies to minimize surface runoff and ensure that no significant effects occur to the storm runoff drainage system. A Project Specific Drainage Study dated February 07, 2006 and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) dated February 7, 2006 were prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.

The Drainage Study indicates that runoff from the proposed project will be handled from the eastern portion of the (approximately 1.3 acres) drains to a grassy swale adjacent to New Clay Avenue. Runoff from the central portion of the proposed site (approximately

11.5 acres) is conveyed via two proposed storm drain systems, discharging to a proposed water quality basin located on the southwest corner of the proposed project site. Impacts will additionally be minimized at a single point discharge from the water quality basin to Murrieta Creek with the use of energy dissipation rip rap.

The drainage study concludes that all runoff from the pre-developed site drains to Murrieta Creek and development of the proposed Ivy House project will not divert area to or from Murrieta Creek.

555
15 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

4. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the
project:

a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (6,35)

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure? (6, 35)

c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (2,6) X

4.a. The WRCOG anticipates the growth rate in Western Riverside County will increase 18% for population and 12% for employment by the year 2020. The most recent City projections indicate that the maximum population potential for the City is 108,000 persons. The current 2006 population of Murrieta is approximately 93,000 as reported by the California State Department of Finance with a current rate of increase from 2000 of 110%. The proposed project would divide 22.2-acres into 64 lots on property zoned and designated for Village Residential S-1 (VRS-1), with a density of approximately 2.8 dwelling units per acre which conforms to the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan and City’s General Plan. The anticipated population generated from the project and the cumulative build out projections for population should not exceed the current regional or local forecasts. No mitigation required.

4.b. The project is located in a primarily residential area with additional proposed residential development planned or in progress. Development and zoning surrounding the site also includes existing single-family, multiple use, estate and rural residential development.

Existing developments are to the north and to the east of the project site. To the west of the site are Murrieta Creek, estate and rural residential and vacant land, to the south is rural residential and vacant land. Infrastructure to this project is available or planned to be extended to the project area within existing roadways. Area improvements have been identified within the City of Murrieta’s General Plan and do not induce substantial growth in the area as development is planned for the area consistent with the General Plan. No mitigation required.

4.c. The proposed project is planned on property that is primarily vacant and is displacing one existing single-family residence with barn and outbuildings. The existing zoning will not have an adverse affect on affordable housing. No mitigation required.

556
16 Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact

5.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.

Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(3, 6, 28, 32, 42)

X
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections),
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) or
barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 11, 42)

X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 42)

X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 42)

X
e) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (3, 6, 28, 42)

X
f) Air or rail traffic impacts? (6, 42) X

5.a. The project site is located south of New Clay Avenue with primary egress to Kalmia/California Oaks Road. According to the Traffic Assessment Letter conducted by LOS Engineering, Inc dated November 11, 2005 the proposed project will generate approximately 650 trip-ends per day with 52 vehicles per hour during the AM peak and 68 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hours.

The following table contains the information from the study Table 12, Existing + Cumulative + Project Intersection Level of Service for the intersections of New Clay x Kalmia, Washington Avenue x Kalmia, and Adams Avenue x Kalmia during peak AM and PM traffic conditions.

Intersection Traffic
Control
Status
AM Peak Hour
Level of Service (LOS)
PM Peak Hour
Level of Service
(LOS)
New Clay Ave at Kalmia Street U A A
Washington Ave at Kalmia Street TS C D
Adams Av at Kalmia Street TS C C
AWS – All Way Stop CSS – Cross Street Stop TS – Traffic Signal U - Unsignalized

• Traffic Mitigation Measure (T 1)
Construct half street improvements with appropriate transitions along New Clay Street and B Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

• Traffic Mitigation Measure (T 2)
Install stop signs at the project egress points and alley egress points as required by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
557
17 The City is a participant in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County, a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. This is a mandatory fee. No additional mitigation is required.

5b. Roadways and circulation improvements within the proposed project must conform to the City’s standard street design requirements. Circulation system improvements will be installed in a manner that will not result in traffic hazards.

5.c A review of the development plan indicates adequate routes of emergency access are provided to the project and adequate access will be provided to all proposed structures.

The City Fire Department was consulted by the project proponent and approved the 20- foot paved alley widths within a 28-foot wide general utility easement. No adverse emergency access impacts are forecast to occur. No mitigation is required.

5d. The proposed project incorporates off street parking of two (2) vehicles for each residence and is consistent with Residential requirements. No adverse parking capacity impacts are forecast to occur. No mitigation is required.

5e. The roadways and project access ways are being designed to meet City standards. No alternative transportation systems are being incorporated into the project and none are required by City policy for this type of residential project. No conflicts with alternative transportation policies should occur with implementation of City requirements. No mitigation is required.

5f. The project site is not located in an area that would impact air or rail traffic and is located outside of the any existing airport safety or influence zones. No mitigation required.

558
18 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

6. WATER - Would the project result in:

a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(5,44,56,57)
X
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related to hazards such as flooding and
inundation? (1,2,3,5,6,41,44,57)

X
c) Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration
of surface water quality, (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
(1,2,3,5,6,41,44,56,57)
X
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (1,2,3,5,6,41,44,56,57) X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (1,2,3,5,6,41,44,56,57) X
f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? (1,2,3,5,6,41,44)
X
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground
waters? (1,2,3,5,6,41,44) X
h) Impacts to ground water quality?
(1,2,3,5,6,41,44) X

6.a The proposed project will develop unimproved lands and includes asphalt streets, concrete driveways and walkways, which will result in changes in absorption rates and the rate and amount of surface runoff from the project site. The addition of structures, pavement and asphalt will result in a decrease of the surface permeability. The project is proposing 62 residential units with an average 6,673 square foot per lot, which is below the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet allowed under the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan and General Plan designation and zoning with Master Plan Overlay, as such the decrease in permeability is less than anticipated in the General Plan. Additionally, development of the project must conform to the City’s Development Code and a portion of Development Fees is designated for stormwater management systems. The measures will bring the impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation required.

6b. According to FEMA and the General Plan Flood Zone Maps a portion of the proposed project site and the property is located inside the 100 and 500-year flood hazard zones.

Final pad elevations according the project specific Drainage Plan will be above the 100- year flood zone. The project is outside of the inundation channels for Lake Skinner and Diamond Valley Lakes.

559
19 6c. The project has the potential for discharges of various urban and storm generated pollutants into the storm drain system. These pollutants include motor oil, antifreeze, fuels, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, trash, detergents, and waste typically generated by similar industrial projects. The City and County have adopted Best Management Practices, (BMP’s) which are designed to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that could cause significant adverse impacts to the surface water quality. The document “Supplement A” to Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plans, and Attachment to “Supplement A” define BMP’s that should be applied to the project which will ensure that significant erosion and sedimentation, nor other water quality degrading impacts will occur from the development of the proposed project. The project will be required to obtain a State General Permit for construction activity by coordinating between the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, (SARWQCB) and provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prior to commencing grading operations. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was completed by Hunsaker & Associates, dated February 7, 2006 and contains recommendations for BMP’s and site drainage. Conditions of the General Stormwater permit are contained in Section 1 of this study. This is a mandatory requirement.

6d. Surface runoff from the site will be increased from the site as a result of the decreased permeability. This increase will be reduced before leaving the project site to a level that does not cause significant increases in downstream runoff using acceptable control measures. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was completed by Hunsaker & Associates, dated February 7, 2006 and contains recommendations for BMP’s and site drainage. Control measures or BMP’s are outlined in the sources described in item 6.c. &

6.d. No additional mitigation required.

6e. The project site is border to the west by Murrieta Creek. Changes in drainage will occur but have been addressed in the project Drainage Study and Water Quality Management Plans prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated February 7, 2006. No mitigation required.

6f-g. Impacts to ground water can be mitigated to a level of less than significant by implementing Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and the installation of a retention basin. No ground water was encounter during geotechnical investigations. No activities in constructing or operating the project are predicted to cause any direct adverse impact to groundwater with the exception of accidental releases of pollutants during construction which is addressed in Section 13, “Hazardous” mitigation measure HAZ-1 of this document. Implementation of the SWPPP and surface water quality control measures outlined in item 6c above will ensure that the project does not contribute to indirect significant impacts to groundwater quality. No additional mitigation is required.

560
20 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project result in impacts to:

a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? (6,41)

b) Locally designated species and/or natural
communities (e.g. heritage trees, oak forests,
etc.)? (2,6,7,41)

c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and
vernal pools)? (2,6,41) X
d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors,
(including, but not limited to Murrieta Creek,
Warm Springs Creek, and Cole Creek)? (2,6,41)
X

7a - b. The parcel that makes up the proposed project is within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, (MSHCP) according to the Riverside County Integrated Project parcel search. The APN for the MSHCP search was 384-220-011, which was the property designation prior to incorporation into the City. The current APN for the property is now 359-350-011 which is not listed in the MSHCP Riverside County Integrated Project parcel search.

APN Cell Cell Group Acres Area Plan Sub Unit
906193001 6314 Independent 5.47 Southwest Area SU1 – Murrieta Creek 906200001 6314 Independent 5.76 Southwest Area SU1 – Murrieta Creek 906200002 6314 Independent 5.45 Southwest Area SU1 – Murrieta Creek 906212001 6314 Independent 5.33 Southwest Area SU1 – Murrieta Creek 906221001 6314 Independent 2.17 Southwest Area SU1 – Murrieta Creek 906221002 6314 Independent 0.46 Southwest Area SU1 – Murrieta Creek

A Consistency Analysis for the Western Riverside MSHCP, was prepared by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. dated October 2005 revised on July 17, 2006. The report concluded that: “… the proposed Project site exists within SWAP Subunit 1 of the MSHCP in independent Cell 6314 requiring conservation focusing on Murrieta Creek and adjacent grassland habitat contributing to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. In compliance with the Subunit and Cell conservation requirements and the riparian/riverine definition in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, the proposed Project will avoid the majority (+/- 97.5%) of Murrieta Creek and adjacent 100-foot buffer along the southwestern boundary of the site, thereby providing a potential wildlife movement corridor pursuant to MSHCP Section 7.5.2.

561
21 The Consistency Analysis concludes that based on the analysis “pursuant to MSHCP guidelines and the DBESP, the proposed Project is in compliance on payment of the MSHCP and SKR HCP mitigation fees.”

• Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 1)
The project is required to pay the MSHCP mitigation fee.

APN Amphibia
Species
Burrowing
Owl
Criteria Area
Species
Mammalian
Species
Narrow Endemic
Plant Species
Special Linkage
Area
906193001 NO YES NO NO NO NO
906200001 NO YES NO NO NO NO
906200002 NO YES NO NO NO NO
906212001 NO YES NO NO NO NO
906221001 NO YES NO NO NO NO
906221002 NO YES NO NO NO NO

As required by the MSHCP for these parcels a Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl (BUOW), Phase I and Phase II were conducted by PCR Services Corporation, dated March 21, 2005. According to the Assessment no burrowing owls or burrows were identified on the project site and concluded that the Study Area is not expected to support burrowing owl.

An additional Habitat Assessment and Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl was conducted on the proposed Project site by Pacific BioScience, Inc dated June 2006 and although no burrowing owl (BUOW) or BUOW sign were observed on the proposed project site, the site contains suitable habitat for the BUOW and a 30-day BUOW clearance survey is recommended as mitigation.

• Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 2)
A burrowing owl (BUOW) clearance survey shall be conducted 30-days prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities of the site. If the clearance survey is positive, additional actions/mitigation may be required pursuant to the MSHCP, Fish and Game Code, and the MBTA.

In accordance to the MSHCP Consistency Analysis and in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and nesting bird surveys will be conducted three days prior to commencing Project activities.

562
22 • Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 3)
For all bird species vegetation removal should be conducted outside the avian breeding season (March-July) to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If vegetation clearance is conducted during the breeding season, a pre-construction bird survey would be required less than 3-days form vegetation disturbance activities. If passerine birds are found to be nesting or there is evidence of nesting behavior inside or within 300 feet of the impact area, a 300-foot buffer will be required around the nest where no vegetation disturbance would be permitted; for raptors the buffer would be increased to 500 feet. A qualified biologist would closely monitor the nest until it is determined that the nest is no longer active, at which time vegetation removal could continue.

The proposed project site is located inside the Stephens’ Kangaroo (SKR) HCP fee area boundary. Potential impacts to the SKR will be mitigated through the payment of a fee.

• Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 4)
Payment of the SKR mitigation fee to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCA) is required.

7c. The proposed project site is bounded to the west/southwest by Murrieta Creek. According to the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report prepared by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. dated July 17, 2006 “ the MSHCP requires avoidance of all Riparian/Riverine areas and Vernal Pools in areas within Criteria Cells described for conservation, which is applicable to the entire on -site portion of Murrieta Creek. However, the Project is required to construct interim flood control and water quality structures in compliance with the City of Murrieta General Plan Safety Element. An interim flood control channel to direct off -site flows is required prior to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Master Planned improvements to Murrieta Creek, and a water quality basis is required pursuant to the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Impacts for construction of flood control facilities in Murrieta Creek are considered covered activities pursuant to MSHCP Section 7.3.7.”

7d. The project site is located in an area currently experiencing residential development and disturbances and is located in a wildlife corridor. Development however of this site will not interfere with wildlife dispersal and migration corridors according to the DBESP report prepared by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. dated July 17, 2006. The DBESP report states that the proposed conservation associated with the Project is considered in compliance with the MSHCP Reserve Assembly objectives by providing indirect connections to MSHCP Criteria Cells to the east and northwest, contributing to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.

563
23 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES -
Would the project:

a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (5,6,55)

b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (5,6,55)

8.a. The project does not conflict with any known energy conservation plans. The Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide along with State plans for energy conservation will be met in the construction of the project.

Energy conservation measures are addressed in the City’s General Plan under goal COS- 4 Energy Conservation, including the adoption of California Title 24 Building Energy Standards. Energy resources are further discussed in the “Utilities and Services” (Section 3) of this report. No mitigation is required.

8.b. Development of the proposed project will increase the demand for energy and could increase the demand for non-renewable resources. Based on analyses in the City’s General Plan and other available data and reports, adequate commercial energy and non- renewable resources are currently available or will be available to meet forecast growth demand, no significant impact to these resources is predicted to occur. The City’s General Plan describes goals and policies to limit the wasteful use of non-renewable resources. No mitigation is required.

564
24 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

9. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES - Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5? (1,6,40)

X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to '15064.5? (1,6,40)

X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (1,6,40)
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? (2,6,40) X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (2,6,40) X

A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed project site and surround area by Michael Brandman Associates the results of which are contained in a report dated 29 March 2006. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicates that two previous archaeological surveys have been conducted on portions of the project site in the past. In 1992 the floodplain of Murrieta Creek and a buffer around the floodplain was surveyed by Jones & Stokes Associates. In 2003 a linear survey along a portion of the southern boundary was conducted by Peak & Associates. No cultural sites were recorded within the proposed project site during either of these previous surveys.

Additionally, 15 other surveys have been conducted within a .05 mile radius of the proposed project site. These surveys recorded forty-five cultural resources. Table 1 of the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment provides information on these sites and general location.

9a. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicates that the historic ranch complex located on the northwest corner of the proposed site has been determined to be ineligible for the California Register and is therefore not considered a historical resource for purposed of CEQA. The assessment however, indicates that there is a “moderate” probability that significant historic resources will be unearthed during development within the project area and a mitigation monitoring program is recommended per the Cultural Mitigation Measures in this section.

9b. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment indicates that no prehistoric sites or prehistoric artifacts were identified during the survey for the proposed project site. The site has been determined to have a “moderate sensitivity” for cultural resources and archaeological monitoring must take place during construction. A mitigation monitoring program is recommended per the Cultural Mitigation Measures in this section.

565
25 9c. A records search was conducted on the proposed site by Dr. Eric Scott, Curator of Paleontology, Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum and indicates in a letter dated 8 February 2006 that results of the literature review and check of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPLI) demonstrate that excavation within the boundaries of proposed project site has a high potential to impact significant nonrenewable fossil resources. A mitigation monitoring program is recommended per the Cultural Mitigation Measures in this section.

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 2)
Should any cultural resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency (City) on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

It the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under section 15064.5 pf the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency (City).

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 3)
Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor is required. Based upon results of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, dated 29 March 2006, areas of concern within the boundaries of this project include the sandstone components of the Pauba Formation. Monitoring is not necessary unless potentially fossiliferous units are encountered in the subsurface during excavation activities and upon examination by qualified paleontologic personnel are subsequently determined to potentially 566
26 contain fossil resources.

Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if potentially- fossiliferous units as described herein are not present, or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have a low potential to contain fossil resources.

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 4)
Recovered specimens must be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments, so as to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 5)
Significant paleontologic specimens are to be identified and curated into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage (e.g., SBCM). The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 6)
A report of findings must be prepared with an appended itemized inventory of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 7)
A report documenting the monitoring activities shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. The artifacts shall be deposited into an accredited institution that is authorized to accept the cultural resources.

567
27 9d. Disruption of human remains is not anticipated; however the following mitigation measures shall be adhered to:

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 8)
Once the project-related earthmoving excavation begins, and in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:

1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Riverside County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are (either historic or) prehistoric and that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24-hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased North American. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person of responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 or

2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall re-bury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriated dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

- The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24-hours after being notified by the commission.

- The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation: or

- The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

9e. No apparent existing religious or sacred uses within the subject property’s boundaries currently exist. No additional mitigation is required beyond the measures identified in this section.

568
28 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

10. RECREATION - Would the project:

a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (6)

b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (6)

10a. The proposed project being a residential development will create a demand for neighborhood, regional parks and other recreational facilities. The City requires the payment of Development Impact Fee’s, which includes a park fee used to offset demands on the park system by developments. This fee is mandatory and no adverse impact to recreational facilities and opportunities is anticipated.

Development Code, Section 16.36.040 Residential Development Mitigation states: The purpose of this section is to provide for the payment of fees for the construction and acquisition of public facilities, purchase of regional parkland and trails and the preservation of habitat and open space to defray the actual or estimated cost of financing and/or acquiring these facilities. The funds collected under the residential development mitigation fee do not reflect the entire cost of providing the facilities required in order to effectively meet the needs created by new residential development. Additional revenues will be required from other sources. The council finds that the benefit to each residential unit is greater than the amount of the fee to be paid by that residential unit.

No additional mitigation required.

10.b. No existing recreational resources or opportunities occur on the project site; therefore, no potential for adverse impacts to existing resources on the project site will occur. No mitigation required.

569
29 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

11. AESTHETICS - Would the project:

a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (2,6)

X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(6,7) X

c) Create light or glare? (6,7,41)

11a. The proposed project is not located adjacent to or affecting a scenic highway. The site location will not obstruct and is not part of a critical scenic vista. No mitigation is required.

11b. The project will comply with the applicable requirements for Residential Design Standards (Section 16.08.030) and Landscaping Standards (Section 16.28) as contained in the Development Code as well as Design Standards contained in the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan. The requirements of the Development Code and the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan will ensure quality architectural design, site design, and landscaping standards are accomplished. Implementation of Design Standards will reduce impacts to aesthetics below a significant level. No additional mitigation is required.

11c. Lighting standards are established in the Development Code, (Sections 16.18.100 and

16.18.110) which requires that the project controls light and glare on adjacent properties and minimize impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory. Additionally, the project will be required to reduce lighting impacts on Murrieta Creek.

• Aesthetics Mitigation Measure (A 1)
In accordance with BMP’s for the MSHCP and as recommended in the DBESP report lighting within the Project development will be limited to residential streets and consist of downward directed and shielded low-pressure sodium lights to ensure ambient lighting in the adjacent Murrieta Creek in not increased.

570
30 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

12. GEOLOGY/SOILS - Would the project result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:

a) Seismicity: fault rupture? (6,44)

X
b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? (6,44) X c) Seismicity: special study zone? (6,44) X
d) Landslides or mudslides? (6,44) X
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,6,44) X f) Subsidence of the land? (6,44) X
g) Expansive soils? (6,44) X
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (2,6,44)

12.a-h Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Harrington.

Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. dated December 15, 2004; the subject property is not located within an earthquake fault, liquefaction, subsidence, flood, and/or dam inundation zone. The project is not subject to landslides, mudslides or expansive soils. Through the projects site design and implementation of the City’s development code and the Uniform Building Code, potential impacts are less than significant.

12a&c. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Harrington.

Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. dated December 15, 2004, the site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone, and does not require a special fault study. Fault rupture normally occurs along existing faults since no active or inactive faults are known to traverse the site (Kennedy, 1997 & Mann 1955), rupture is unlikely. No Mitigation is required.

12b-h. According the Safety Element of the General Plan Figures VI-2 and VI-3 the site is not located within Liquefaction and Subsidence Hazard Zones, or within the Earthquake Fault or Special Geologic Study Zones. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Harrington. Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. dated December 15, 2004, found that no soil or geologic conditions were encountered during the investigations, which would preclude residential development of the property. Compliance with City grading standards, recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Harrington. Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. dated December 15, 2004 and the Uniform Building Code will ensure that persons are not subject to hazards as a result of excavation, grading, and fill. No additional mitigation is required.

571
31 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

13. HAZARDS - Would the project involve:

a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
(1,5,6,56)

b) Possible interference with an emergency
evacuation plan? (1,5,6) X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (1,5, 6) X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (1,5,6) X
e) Increased fire hazard with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1,5,6) X

13a. During construction there is a potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a significant hazard to people and the environment. The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the project and will reduce the hazard to a less than significant level.

• Hazards Mitigation Measure (H 1)
All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities shall be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulation regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminated release. The contaminated waste shall be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.

Following construction a limited potential exists from residential usage of petroleum products, pesticides, and consumer products. Riverside County operates several Antifreeze, Batteries, Oil and Paint (ABOP) collection facilities including one located in the City of Murrieta for household hazardous waste disposal. Residents within the city are routinely notified of the ABOP facility’s operations, which limits the potential residential release of these materials. The measures addressed in Section 6 - Waters, of this study reduce the hazards to a less than significant level.

13b. The project will include access points off improved roadways and include site access sufficient for fire apparatus turn radius. The proposed project presents no significant potential to cause interference with any emergency response or evacuation plan. No mitigation required.

13c. The project being residential in nature does not create health hazards or potential health hazard at a significant level. No mitigation required.

13d. The project area was predominately used for rural residential uses. According to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. 572
32 dated November 22, 2004, the site previously contained a gasoline underground storage tank (UST). The tank was documented as removed on June 9, 2004, however the report indicates that records of the removal are incomplete and no records could be located by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health on the status of the UST removal.

As such the Phase I recommended soil boring and confirmation sampling in the former UST excavation site be completed

• Hazards Mitigation Measure (H 2)
Conduct soil boring and confirmation sampling in the former UST excavation site and coordinate UST closure reporting with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the San Diego County Regional Water Quality Control Board.

13e. The project is located outside of the Wildland Fire Protection Agreement Area and is outside of areas designated as Wildland areas that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards and very high fire hazard severity zones according the California Department of Forestry and Fire Preventions fire hazards map dated 06 June 2000, and the Protection Agreement Area according to Figure VI-7 of the City’s General Plan. No mitigation required.

573
33 Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

14. NOISE - Would the project result in:

a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1,3,6)

b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(1,3,6) X

14.a. The proposed development will generate noise during construction and following occupancy of the site. Construction noise is required to be controlled in accordance with the City’s Development Code, which restricts construction activities to daylight hours.

The ongoing noise levels associated with residential use are considered acceptable and insignificant for the project area in accordance with the General Plan Noise Element policies. No other sensitive uses occur in the project area and no background noise conditions will conflict with the project. Mitigation measures are included under Section

14. b.

14.b. According to Figure VII-3 of the General Plan, the project is not located within area that is impacted by vehicular noise between 60 and 65 CNEL. The project is in a Land Use Category for Residential Use and according to the City’s General Plan Noise Element, normally acceptable levels of noise are 65 to 70 CNEL.

Construction Noise Source Table
Noise Source DBA @ 50 feet
Dozer 85 – 90
Tractor 77 - 82
Loaders 86 – 90
Backhoe 81 – 90
Grader 79 - 89
Trucks 81 - 87
Air Compressor 76 - 86
Pneumatic Tools 78 – 88
Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1987.

As indicated in the Construction Noise Source Table short term elevated noise levels during the noisiest construction phases can typically levels range up to 90 dBA,Lmax @ 50 feet from the source. Construction employees may be exposed to severe noise levels from equipment operation during construction. Mandatory occupational health and safety standards require hearing protection for individuals operating such equipment. No other sources of severe noise are forecast to occur on the project site during construction or occupancy of the project site.

574
34 • Noise Mitigation Measure (N 1)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuation devices. (e.g. mufflers)

• Noise Mitigation Measure (N 2)
With the exception of emergency conditions, construction shall be limited to daylight hours or no later than 7 p.m.

• Noise Mitigation Measure (N 3)
If noise complaints demonstrate that a significant noise impact is affecting sensitive receptors due to construction activities (noise levels as measured at the receptor location at a level in excess of the City’s noise significance thresholds), the City shall require the construction contractor to apply appropriate measures to reduce the impacts of noise on the sensitive receptor to levels within the City’s significance thresholds.

575
35 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

15. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
(6,29,42,46)
X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(6,29,42,46)

X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (6,29,46) X
d) Create objectionable odors? (6,29,46) X

15a-b) Data on local air quality for 2006 is available from the SCAQMD, a summary of air quality data is provided in Table A-1. The data indicates the Federal and State standards that have been violated within the region via monitoring stations located at Lake Elsinore, Perris Valley, and Metropolitan Riverside County.

Regional Air Quality Summary Table A –1
2006 Air Quality Summary
PM 10 (*)
Federal State
24 hr. 24 hr.

PM 2.5 (*)
Federal
24 hr.

CO (max
concentration)
1 hr. 8 hr.

Ozone (days)
Federal State
1 hr. 8 hr. 1 hr.

Lake Elsinore -- -- -- 1 1.0 3 24 40 Perris Valley 0 19(35.2) -- -- -- 12 53 76 Metropolitan
Riverside
0 71(60.2) 32(10.7) 3 2.1 8 30 45 -- Pollutant not monitored.
* Indicates number of samples and percent that exceeds standard.

The proposed project will create emissions associated with the construction and operation of the project and vehicle trips associated with the movement of materials, products, customers, and employees. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, (SCAB) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, (SCAQMD) for air quality issues, regulations, and enforcement. The SCAQMD published in 1997 the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that identifies threshold values for emissions. The 2003 AQMP has been adopted without change to the threshold values. The SCAQMD also published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as an advisory tool to assist local governments, project proponents, and consultants who prepare environmental documents with guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts of projects.

576
36 This project has the potential to produce both short and long term air quality impacts.

Short-term impacts are associated with the construction of the project, while long-term impacts are associated with emissions from the operation of the project. The SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance values for construction and operation are expressed in pounds per day, (lbs/day) and provided in Table A-2)

Air Quality Significance Thresholds Table A-2
Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
ROG* 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
* ROG may also be referred to as VOC or ROC.

The emissions estimates represent a “worst-case,” because they incorporate the assumption that construction activities at each location occur at the peak daily levels throughout the construction period. It is unlikely that the peak daily levels would actually occur at all locations where construction is taking place at the same time. Data utilized to forecast emissions was obtained from available project data, development plans, and resource material where indicated. The URBEMIS 2002 for Windows, 8.7, program was used to forecast emission based on the project data, resource material, or default values where no data was available.

Construction emissions can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite emissions generated during construction principally consist of exhaust emissions (CO, ROG, NOX, SOX, and PM10) from construction equipment, fugitive dust (PM10) from grading and excavation, and ROG emissions from asphalt paving and architectural painting. Offsite emissions during construction typically consist of exhaust emissions from truck traffic and worker commute trips; road dust associated with traffic to and from the construction site; and fugitive dust (PM10) from trucks hauling materials, construction debris, or excavated soils from the site.

577
37 Construction Emissions (lbs/day)

Demolition:

Pollutant Unmitigated
(lbs/day)
Mitigated
(lbs/day)
ROG 7.05 7.05
NOx 53.38 53.38
CO 56.10 56.10
PM10 5.94 5.94
SO2 0.03 0.03

Demolition of approximately 5,000 square feet of structures including the existing single- family residence, barn and outbuildings currently located on the property is planned for this project, utilizing one dozer, one tractor/loader, and one miscellaneous off road truck (water truck) over a period of ½ month.

Site Grading:

Pollutant Unmitigated
(lbs/day)
Mitigated
(lbs/day)
ROG 12.41 12.41
NOx 77.25 77.25
CO 105.21 105.21
PM10 193.96 31.47
SO2 0.00 0.00

Grading includes removal of existing trees, land clearing and grubbing operations.

Grading estimates are based on worst-case PM10 levels utilizing one dozer, two scrapers, and one miscellaneous off road truck over a period of approximately 1.5-months. Grading was estimated using the 19.5 acres with an estimated daily disturbance of 5 acres.

Decreasing the amount of daily disturbance would decrease the emissions. Equipment requirements estimated per each acre using: Process Plan Construction Estimating Standards, 1996; National Construction Estimator, 1998; Dodge Unit Cost Book, 1998.

The following mitigation measures are recommended in order to comply with regional rules such as the SCAQMD’s Rules 402, 403, and 404 which would assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-1)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained in good operating condition to reduce emissions.

The SCAQMD requires that fuel injection timing be retarded 2 degrees for the manufacture’s recommendation and use high-pressure injectors.

578
38 • Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-2)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure low emission mobile construction equipment is used (replace diesel-powered equipment with gasoline-powered equipment), where feasible, during site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction of the proposed project components.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-3)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure proposed project specific sites are watered and that construction trucks pass through a shaker grate to remove excess dirt prior to exiting the site.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-4)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that when soil is transported the operator (1) employs water to moisten earthen surface prior to disturbance and immediately after disturbance; (2) controls runoff so it does not saturate the surface of unpaved haul road and cause track-off; and (3) employs watering as an emergency measure during high wind events to stabilize actively dusting surface including but not limit to soil pile, unpaved road, and unpaved parking areas.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-5)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that water-wetting methods and soil-binders are used on exposed soil stockpiles, unpaved roads, and unpaved parking areas. Active grading areas shall be watered at least three times each workday, as needed, to prevent visible plumes from exiting the project site.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-6)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, chemical soil stabilizers are applied, according to the manufacturer’s specification, to all inactive construction areas, defined as previously graded areas, which are inactive for 96 hours or more.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-7)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure groundcover is re-established through seeding and watering on those parts of the Project site that would not be disturbed for lengthy periods, generally defined as two or more months.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-8)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, public streets are swept if silt is deposited on these roads from construction activities within the project site.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-9)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation; grading, excavation and construction speed limits on unpaved roads are restricted to 15 miles per hour.

579
39 • Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-10)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation; grading, excavation and construction operations are suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-11)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, low sulfur fuel is used for portable and stationary construction equipment.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-12)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, onsite power sources are used rather than temporary diesel or gasoline ICE generators when feasible.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-13)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, the contractor will establish a car-pool program for construction employees which will include incentives with the goal of achieving a 1.5 persons per vehicle ridership for this project.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-14)
During construction, the City shall require a lunch shuttle or catering program be implemented by the during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction to reduce the number of lunch time trips to and from the site.

Building Construction:

Pollutant Unmitigated
(lbs/day)
Mitigated
(lbs/day)
ROG 10.86 10.86
NOx 70.48 70.48
CO 88.74 88.70
PM10 2.75 2.70
SO2 0.0 0.0

Building construction estimates were based on utilizing one miscellaneous off road truck, two rough terrain forklifts, two tractor/Loader/Backhoes, and two internal combustion engines (ICE’s) operating miscellaneous equipment over a period of approximately 10 months.

580
40 Architectural Coating

Pollutant Unmitigated
(lbs/day)
Mitigated
(lbs/day)
ROG 50.92 50.92
NOx .14 .14
CO 2.99 2.99
PM10 .05 .05
SO2 0.00 0.00

Architectural coatings estimates were based on URBEMIS defaults were applicable over a period of 4 months with mitigation for using Low VOC coatings. No mitigation values were calculated for the project however a 50% reduction for ROG (VOC) can be achieved by taking the default URBEMIS value of 250 grams/liter of VOC and evaluating the use of Low VOC coatings which according to manufacturer and AQMD data are 100 g/l for interior and 150 g/l for exterior. Additional decreases in ROG (VOC) can be obtained by using High Velocity Low Pressure Applicators (HVLP), and NO VOC coatings, which contain <1g/l VOC. The values using the Low VOC coatings represent approximately 50% reduction whereas using a combination of Low and No VOC coatings can produce reductions of 60%, 40 %, and >90%. The majority of architectural coatings will be applied as interior paints which would offer the best reduction using Low VOC and No VOC paints. Using HVLP equipment it is estimated would also reduce the VOC emissions 10 – 15%.

Asphalt Paving

Pollutant Unmitigated
(lbs/day)
Mitigated
(lbs/day)
ROG 1.13 1.13
NOx 3.51 3.51
CO .68 .68
PM10 .08 .08
SO2 0.01 0.01

Asphalt estimates are based on utilizing one paving unit, one roller, one surfacing unit and one miscellaneous paving equipment on 4 acres over a ½ -month period. No mitigation values were used for the asphalt operations.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-15)
During construction, the City shall require that low VOC coating and solvents be used on all structures.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-16)
During construction, the City shall require that low VOC asphalt be used on paved portions of the project site.

581
41 Area Source and Operations Emissions (lbs/day)

Pollutant Unmitigated
(lbs/day)
Mitigated
(lbs/day)
ROG 11.15 11.15
NOx 7.09 7.09
CO 66.25 66.25
PM10 5.98 5.98
SO2 0.06 0.06

Data contained herein was obtained from default values for similar projects using the URBEMIS program and includes the calculated values for Area and Operational Emissions. The Operations Emissions table includes emissions from the day-to-day residential operation and maintenance, consumer product use and from vehicle trips associated with the movement of materials, products, residents, and visitors. Area Source emissions include consumer products, natural gas use, and landscaping equipment.

Emissions associated with the construction and operational portions of the project are below SCAQMD thresholds with mitigation and are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

CEQA requires that impacts be reduced to the greatest extent feasible, therefore the following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented:

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-17)
The City shall require that sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths be provided within the development.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-18)
The City shall require that pedestrian safety measures such as street lighting and pedestrian signage and signals be provided.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-19)
The City shall require that off-site intersection traffic signals be synchronized to prevent congestion of traffic flow in the area of the project.

15 b) Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons suffering from illness are normally associated with locations such as schools, day-car facilities, convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. Evaluations according to SCAQMD recommendations need to be conducted to ensure that sensitive receptors will not be exposed to localized concentrations of the criteria pollutant carbon monoxide (CO). High levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion in particular slow moving and idling vehicles. Depending on the existing background concentrations of CO, roadways have the potential to be CO hot spots. Therefore projects with sensitive receptors or projects that could negatively impact levels of service (LOS) should utilize the Emfac 2.2 and CALINE 4 programs to evaluate the effects of vehicle emissions to determine if the project will cause the state 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards to be 582
42 exceeded, creating a “CO hotspot.” Since the project does not negatively impact the LOS of local intersections. Local CO Hotspot analysis was not performed.

15 c) The climate of Southern California found in the Murrieta Valley is a combination of a Mediterranean-type climate characterized by long hot summer and moderate winter precipitation with a Maritime Influence giving a marine layer and a temperature inversion layer. The average temperature in the project area is 73 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average rainfall of 10.44 inches. The construction project proposed is too small to have a potential effect on climatic changes. No mitigation required.

15 d) During construction and operation the proposed project will contain operations that will produce odors associated with equipment and materials. The site is located within the vicinity of sensitive receptors in the surrounding residential areas; however, the odors associated with this type project are normally not considered so offensive as to cause sensitive receptors to complain. Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment, operation equipment, and new asphalt paving fall into this category. No significant odor impacts are forecast to result from implementing the proposed project.

583
43 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

X
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?

X
c) Does the project have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

X
d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The project is a residential development consisting of 22.2 acres of land into approximately 62 Single-Family Residential lots with a average lot size of approximately 6,673 gross square feet with the minimum lot size 5,519 square feet and the maximum lot size 9,545 square feet. The proposed site additionally includes a 2,839 square foot lot for storm water drain purposes.

The conclusion of the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) prepared by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. dated July 17, 2006 states:

The Project site contains +/- 3.40 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat as defined by MSHCP Section 6.1.2. In compliance with the City of Murrieta General Plan Safety Element, the Project is required to construct an interim channel to convey off-site flows to Murrieta Creek and prevent site flooding prior to RCFCWCD Master Drainage Plan improvements, and to provide a water quality basin designed to meet the requirements of the RWQCB. The required interim flood control channel and water quality basin outlets to Murrieta Creek will require impacts to the banks that have been minimized through project design features, including selecting the design with the least acreage of impacts and locating the structures in unvegetated or low-quality Riparian/Riverine habitat.

Proposed impacts total approximately 0.086 acre of Riparian/Riverine Area associated with Murrieta Creek, including +/- 0.035 acre of temporary and only +/- 0.051 acre of permanent impacts. The majority of impacts (+/- 0.074-acre of the +/- 0.086-acre) is associated with the flood control structure outlet to Murrieta Creek and is therefore considered a covered activity pursuant to MSHCP Section 7.3.7. Proposed conservation will include the avoidance of approximately 97.5% of on-site Riparian/Riverine habitat (+/- 3.314 acres), a minimum 100-foot buffer between the Creek and development (+/-

2.7 acres of existing grassland habitat), in addition to restoration of all temporary 584
44 impacts by revegetating with native plants consistent with local habitat. This conservation complies with MSHCP Reserve Assembly objectives by maintaining habitat connectivity and potential habitat for planning species, linkage contribution, and the proposed inclusion of +/- 3.75% of the 10%-20% conservation targeted by the MSHCP despite the Project occupying only 14% of the entire Cell. Furthermore, no individuals of Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pool planning species and no suitable fairyshrimp habitat were observed on-site. Suitable habitat exists on-site for only two Riparian/Riverine planning species, the southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo. This habitat will be avoided, and pre-construction surveys will also be conducted prior to any breeding season. Therefore no direct or indirect impacts to Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool planning species are expected with development of the proposed Project…

All “Potentially Significant” adverse environmental impacts have been identified that are not addressed by compliance with mandatory mitigation requirements that when applied will reduce impacts to a level of “Less than Significant”. The evaluation in this Initial Study indicates that the City can issue a Negative Declaration as the appropriate determination for this project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

585
45 17. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMIS" IMPACT
FINDINGS.

Yes No
a) Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for its continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).

The parcel that makes up the proposed project is within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, (MSHCP) according to the Riverside County Integrated Project parcel search. According to the Consistency Analysis for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan conducted by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. dated October 2005 and revised on July 17, 2006 indicates that the Project with recommended mitigation employed does not have a potential for adverse effects, individually or cumulatively, on fish or wildlife as a result of the proposed Project. The evaluation in this Initial Study indicates that the City can issue a Negative Declaration if mitigations described herein are implemented as the appropriate environmental determination for this project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

18. EARLIER ANALYSIS.

There are no earlier CEQA analyses of the proposed project, aside from the general evaluation given this site within the City’s General Plan EIR.

APPENDICES:

A- Location Map
B- Air Quality Assessment/Study
C- Mitigation Measures

586
46 APPENDIX C

MITIGATION MEASURES:

• Traffic Mitigation Measure (T 1)
Construct half street improvements with appropriate transitions along New Clay Street and B Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

• Traffic Mitigation Measure (T 2)
Install stop signs at the project egress points and alley egress points as required by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

• Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 1)
The project is required to pay the MSHCP mitigation fees.

• Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 3)
For all bird species vegetation removal should be conducted outside the avian breeding season (March-July) to avoid impacts to nesting birds. If vegetation clearance is conducted during the breeding season, a pre-construction bird survey would be required less than 3-days form vegetation disturbance activities. If passerine birds are found to be nesting or there is evidence of nesting behavior inside or within 300 feet of the impact area, a 300-foot buffer will be required around the nest where no vegetation disturbance would be permitted; for raptors the buffer would be increased to 500 feet. A qualified biologist would closely monitor the nest until it is determined that the nest is no longer active, at which time vegetation removal could continue.

• Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (B 4)
Payment of the SKR mitigation fee to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCA) is required.

• Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 1)
There is “moderate” probability that significant historic resources will be unearthed during development within the project area. An archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the Project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the Project Site has been reduced from moderate to low as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during the monitoring, all monitoring shall cease.
587
47 • Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 2)
Should any cultural resources be discovered, the monitor is authorized to stop all grading in the immediate area of the discovery, and shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency (City) on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

588
48 • Cultural Mitigation Measure (C 5)
Significant paleontologic specimens are to be identified and curated into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage (e.g., SBCM). The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.

- The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24-hours after being notified by the commission.

- The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation: or

- The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

• Noise Mitigation Measure (N-1)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuation devices. (E.g. mufflers)

• Noise Mitigation Measure (N-2)
With the exception of emergency conditions, construction shall be limited to daylight hours or no later than 7 p.m.

• Noise Mitigation Measure (N-3)
If noise complaints demonstrate that a significant noise impact is affecting sensitive receptors due to construction activities (noise levels as measured at the receptor location at a level in excess of the City’s noise significance thresholds), the City shall require the construction contractor to apply appropriate measures to reduce the impacts of noise on the sensitive receptor to levels within the City’s significance thresholds.

590
50 • Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-1)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained in good operating condition to reduce emissions.

The SCAQMD requires that fuel injection timing be retarded 2 degrees for the manufacture’s recommendation and use high-pressure injectors.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-2)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure low emission mobile construction equipment is used (replace diesel-powered equipment with gasoline-powered equipment), where feasible, during site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction of the proposed project components.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-4)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that when soil is transported the operator (1) employs water to moisten earthen surface prior to disturbance and immediately after disturbance; (2) controls runoff so it does not saturate the surface of unpaved haul road and cause track-off; and (3) employs watering as an emergency measure during high wind events
to stabilize actively dusting surface including but not limit to soil pile, unpaved road, and unpaved parking areas.

591
51 • Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-8)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, public streets are swept if silt is deposited on these roads from construction activities within the project site.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-9)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation, grading, excavation and construction speed limits on unpaved roads are restricted to 15 miles per hour.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-10)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that site preparation, grading, excavation and construction operations are suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-13)
During construction, the contractor shall ensure that during site preparation, grading, excavation and construction, the contractor will establish a car-pool program for construction employees, which will include incentives with the goal of achieving a 1.5 persons per vehicle ridership for this project.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-14)
During construction, the City shall require a lunch shuttle or catering program is implemented during the site preparation, grading, excavation and construction to reduce the number of lunchtime trips to and from the site.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-15)
During construction, the City shall require that low VOC coating and solvents be used on all structures.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-16)
During construction, the City shall require that low VOC asphalt be used on paved portions of the project site.

592
52 • Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-17)
The City shall require that sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths be provided within the development.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-18)
The City shall require that pedestrian safety measures such as street lighting and pedestrian signage and signals be provided.

• Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ-19)
The City shall require that off-site intersection traffic signals be synchronized to prevent congestion of traffic flow in the area of the project.

593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
(Consistency Determination Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162) (Choose one)
TO: X Riverside County, County Clerk FROM: City of Murrieta 2724 Gateway Drive Development Services Department
Riverside, CA 92507 One Town Square
Murrieta, CA 92562
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814

PROJECT NUMBER: MDP-2021-2430 RP-2021-2429 TTM-2021-2428

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: #2007111059

PROJECT TITLE: Addendum No. 1 to the Ivy House Project 2008 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)

PROJECT LOCATION: The Ivy House Project (MDP-006-1884/TTM-005-1824) encompassed approximately 22 acres of land located at the southeast corner of New Clay Steet and B Street (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 906-193-001, 906-200-001, 906-221- 001, 906-221-002, 906-200-002, and 906-212-001). The revised project encompasses the same site acreage and APNs.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 2008, the Murietta City Council approved TTM 34439/ TTM 005-1824 and MDP 2006-1884 to subdivide 22 acres into 62 single family lots. The revised project proposes minor revisions to the currently approved entitlements that include the TTM, MDP, and CEQA documents, including the 2008 Final IS/MND. These minor revisions will also include updates to the Development Plan (Revised Permit). To meet updated WQMP standards and maintain the required 50-foot buffer from the Murietta Creek, the revised project proposes to include on-site stormwater retention. Each single-family lot is now proposed to contain a single-family home with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the approved lot sizes, ranging from 5,500 sf to 9,000 sf).

The approved MDP includes three architectural floor plans ranging from 2,400 sf to 2,850 sf with detached two and three car garages that were accessible via project alleyways. As proposed, the revised project includes homes that range from 2,300 sf to 3,150 sf with attached two and three car garages. The garages are either accessed via the internal public streets or private alleyways depending on lot configuration. The proposed ADUs are 750 sf in size with single- and two-story options and will have matching architecture with the main house and adhere to setback standards as required under the Murietta Municipal Code (MMC) and state law. Architecture will be updated in the revised MDP to include new elevations consisting of Craftsman, Spanish Colonial Revival, and American Mercantile.

The revised MDP will also detail the use of ADUs in the Development Standard section. The approved project took access from New Clay Street and B Street and had several internal public streets and private alleyways. The single-family homes will take vehicular access either from the public street fronting each lot or private alleyway depending on the particular lot layout. The ADUs will take vehicular access from the private alleyways. Additional circulation system revisions include shifting the street alignment of the ingress/egress access off of New Clay Street to allow the project to maintain both efficient lot design and the required 50-foot buffer for Murrieta Creek. Further, due to updated hydrological analyses showing that the previously proposed temporary intercept channel is no longer required, the project has been revised to remove the temporary intercept channel located adjacent to B Street along with the outflow that entered into Murrieta Creek.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA guidelines 15162 and 15164, the City has determined that: (1) there is substantial evidence that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or subsequent Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration exist, and (2) the City will rely on the previous environmental document and an Addendum, which adequately addresses this project.

The proposed project would, or X would not introduce additional impacts or increase the severity of impacts beyond those already analyzed in the 2008 IS/MND.

PROJECT APPLICANT: Diversified Pacific Communities, 10621 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

This is to advise that the City of Murrieta [Body] on [date] approved the above described project and made the following determinations:
601

(1) No Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and,

(2) No Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or,

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was certified, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous IS/MND;

b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous IS/MND;

c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or,

d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

It is hereby certified that the Ivy House Project 2008 IS/MND, including comments and responses, and Addendum #1 to the Ivy House Project 2008 IS/MND are available to the general public at the office of the Development Services Department, One Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562.

Analyst: Aaron Rintamaki Telephone: 951-461-6079

Filed by:

Signature

Associate Planner
Title
[Attach Copy of Check, Proof of CDFG Payment, or No Effect Form] Reference: California Public Resources Code, Section 15162/64. 602
Ivy House
Revised Development Plan Permit 2021 -2429
Tentative Tract Map 2021 -2428
Amended Master Development Plan 2021 -2430
Development Services Department
Presentation by
Aaron Rintamaki, Associate Planner
City Council October 3, 2023
Received After Agenda Printed
Regular City Council Meeting 10-03-23
Item No. 8 - Staff Presentation
603
2 Project Proposal
Revised Permit, Amended Master
Development Plan, and Tentative Tract
Map:
• A Master Development Plan to
establish development standards for
the site
• The subdivision of 22 acres into 62
single-family residential lots
• A Development Plan for the
construction of the site into 62 single-
family residential homes
604
3 IVY HOUSE
May 6, 2008 City Council Approved
• Master Development Plan –
established development standards
for the future home construction
• Tentative Tract Map – Subdivision to
establish residential lots
• Development Plan –
Implementation of the Master
Development Plan to construct the
housing project known as Ivy
House.
605
4 Existing Land Use
Land Use and Zoning:
• General Plan Designation –
Single Family Residential
• Zoning Designation –
Residential Single Family 1
4 606
5 Downtown
Murrieta
Specific Plan
The Vision
• Historic Character and
Pedestrian Activity
• Sustainable Development and
Open Space
• Attractive Residential
Neighborhoods with diverse
housing options
5 Project
Site
607
6 The Vision
• Historic Character and
Pedestrian Activity
• Sustainable Development and
Open Space
• Attractive Residential
Neighborhoods with diverse
housing options
5 TRAIL
608
7 Downtown Murrieta
Specific Plan
• The Vision
• Historic Character and Pedestrian Activity
• Sustainable Development and Open Space
• Attractive Residential Neighborhoods with
diverse housing options
Elementary
School
Future
Pioneer Park
Town
Square
Park
Project
Site
Urgent
Care
6 609
8 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
610

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
8 611
612
11 Site
Plan

B STREET
9 Basin
Creek Trail
Alley Access
613
Planning Commission
• Proposed homes close to one another;
• Traffic Flow and Safety on adjacent streets;
• Source of water required to serve homes;
• The cumulative impact on the flood way;
• Missing sidewalk connections along the route
to school for future residents; and
• Increased crime
Public Comments raised at the June 14, 2023, meeting
10 614
13 Recommendation:

Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 597-23 entitled:

Murrieta City CouncilOctober 3, 2023

Murrieta City Council
October 3, 2023