52-f
w.i.c
kitchen
88-
24-6*
master
4-87
bedroom 3 bedroom 2
living
10 X 50
Garden
Apartments
Unit 3
3 Bed / 2 Bath
1.128 S.F. (net)
Griffin &lL Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
Riverside, Callfornia
243-5*
2B 2B
2A 1B 41B їв 1A 1A
127.4
4-88 1A
1A
2A
1A
Active Adult
First Floor Plan
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
Riverside, Callfornia
243-5
2B 2B 2B 1B
open to
Lobby
below
ATTA
2A 2B 1B 1A
27.4"
1A
4-89
E
1A
2A
IA
Active Adult
Second & Third Floor Plan
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KEY GROWERS
411 5*t See 20 Galila Case
Riverside, Calltornia
4-90
office Active Adult
B0.00
Clubhouse
#7,731 S.F. (gross)
Griffin &lL Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
Architecture
4T9 54 tae we Senio
Riverside, California
POET • 20000013.00
24-10°
88-
1OP5
kichen
29-4
living/dining
2-8 к W-5
16- master
12° x 0-8
50% Dz Active Adult
Unit 1A
1 Bed / 1 Bath
608 S.F. (net)
Griffin &M. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUPNS
Riverside, Callfornia
101 2001
kitchen
KDI 30-4*
living/dining
26-1
master
Active Adult
Unit 1B
1 Bed / 1 Bath
701 S.F. (net)
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KEY GROUPIES
Riverside, Callfornia
37-10°
88-
building staircase kitchen
32-0°
living/dining
4-93 *2. 02°
master
bedroom 2
0-0 < 1-0
Active Adult
deck
Unit 2A
860 S.F. (net)
Griffin &L Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
5000a07525:8008)
23043600
Riverside, California
35:70
-88
27-0°
4-94 bedroom 1 bedroom 2
0-7. 03
living/dining
Active Adult
dock Unit 2B
0OX He
2 Bed / 2 Bath
904 S.F. (net)
RIVERWALK COMMONS KY GROUP N
Griffin aL Industries architecture n
Riverside, California
SECOND BOOR. ALDALT
4-9
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN
Griffin L Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS_
Riverside, Callfornla
2il1
FIll
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
FOURTHFLOOR PLAN
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
RIVERWALK COMMONS 5: 201003. 100202
Griffin & Industries Riverside, Callfornia
4-97
/$
Two Story Typical Garden Apartments
Front/Rear View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTY GROUP
Riverside. Callfornia
4-98
Two Story Typical Garden Apartments
Side View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTY GROUP
Riverside. California
4-99
Three Story Typical Garden Apartments
Front View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUR
Riverside. California
4-100
ETE
Three Story Typical Garden Apartments
Side View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP
Riverside. California
Rear View Side View
4-101
Single Bay Garage
Front View
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP...
ture e
Riverside. California
**-
Standard Side View Enhanced Side View
4-102
Double Bay Garage
Front/Rear View
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP.N
cture e
Riverside. California
4-103
Garden Apartments Club House
Front View
Griffin aM. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUR N
Riverside, Callfornla
4-104
Garden Apartments Club House
Left, View
Griffin &M. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUR
Riverside. Callfornla
4-105
Garden Apartments Club House
Rear View
Griffin al. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTY GROUP
Riverside, Callfornla
4-106
Garden Apartments Club House
Right View
Griffin aM. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUPS
Riverside. Callfornia
4-107
0 ES
Active Adult Apartments
Front View
Griffin &. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP
Riverside, California
4-108
Active Adult Apartments
Left View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP.
Riverside, California
4-109
199
Active Adult Apartments
Rear View
Griffin &M. Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP S
Riverside, Callfornia
4-110
LIFe HE ME
Active Adult Apartments
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP.
Riverside, California
1!I
4-111
Active Adult Club House
Front View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP
Riverside, California
4-112
FF
Active Adult Club House
Left View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP:
Riverside, California
4-113
Active Adult Club House
Rear View
Griffin &M Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUP C
Riverside, California
4-114
BE HE
Active Adult Club House
Right View
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
Riverside, California
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
SIERRA VISTA AVE. ELEVATION
4-115
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
SIERRA VISTA AVE. ELEVATION
RIVERWALK COMMONS
Griffin L Industries
Riverside, California
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
PIERCE STREET ELEVATION
4-116
E0 D0 00
LEE DEA
LETTE
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
PIERCE STREET ELEVATION
RIVERWALK COMMONS
Griffin SL Industries
Riverside, California
ГП ДЕ
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
EAST ELEVATION
4-117
H ЕБЕ|
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
EAST ELEVATION
RIVERWALK COMMONS
Griffin SL Industries
Riverside, California
H
INDEPENDENT & ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
FRONT VIEW - WEST
4-118
E
INDEPENDENT & ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY
FRONT VIEW - EAST
RIVERWALK COMMONS A
Griffin SL Industries
Riverside, California
4-119
BE EE EE
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
SOUTH ELEVATION
RIVERWALK COMMONS
Griffin SL Industries
Riverside, California
SITE SECTION B
4-120
DONNONS ONE
SITE SECTION A
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
Riverside, California
SITE SECTION D
4-121
KEVE 4361 sANe
COMBIONS TWO
SITE SECTION C
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KTGY GROUPEE
hitecTora
Riverside, California
ALLADENT PROPERTY.
SITE SECTION F
4-122
man ine
PERCE STREET COMMONS THREK
SITE SECTION E
Griffin & Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS KIGY GROUPEE
Riverside, California
• 300001121
SITE SECTION H
4-123
ONE OUT OSK
SITE SECTION G
Griffin 2 Industries RIVERWALK COMMONS
Riverside, California
CANYON CREEK
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
April 2006
RIVERWALK COMMONS
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING
Site Plan Submittal- Parking Inventory
The Riverwalk Commons Congregate Seniors Housing community is a service enriched Irving environment recognized by the State of California as "Residential Care for the Elderly (RCFE)". The community will be composed of 200 units as follows:
Memory Care- 14 Units, 25 beds
Assisted Living- 50 units, 68 beds
Independent Living (Congregate)- 136 units, 163 beds
TOTAL 200 units, 256 beds
Under the City Standards, these 200 units will be required to yield .5 stalls per bed or 128 parking stalls. We are proposing to provide one stall per two units (1:2) or 100 parking stalls to satisfy the needs of residents, staff and visitors to the property. There will be approximately 27 employces during the day, counting both FT and PT, and an additional 10 cmployces at shift change. The following information is offered in support of the 1:2 Sunwest's average resident is 83 years old. Due to the age of the residents, and the fact that many require assistance with their day-to-day activities, very few residents actually own vehicles. Each of our facilities is equipped with private van/town car service for domestic errands, doctor's appointments and field trips. variety of independent pi
i wasted of in openlost path sited bi ratiengies is vironton lave been Transportation Eneineers (ITE) Parking Generation Report (2004), Parking Generation is an informal report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The information within this report is stated to have been obtained from experiences of
06.0501/0554thru 055°
06-094-
EXHIBIT 12
4-124
transportation engineering professional through research. Parking ratios sited in this report are specific to the particular land use(s). Specifically:
Land Use 253 "Congregate Care Facility" is defined as independent living development that provide centralized amenitics and may or may not provide limited medical services. This description would most likely be similar to independent living units within Riverwalk Commons Congregate Senior Housing.
Application of the peak Congregate Care parking demand of 0.41 stalls per dwelling unit (total of 163) would indicate a minimum of 67 parking stalls are necessary to serve the peak vehicle parking ratios of the IL residents.
Land Lise 254 Assisted Living, is defined as providing either routine general protective oversight or direct assistance with activities necessary Friedmen at loit not skil dares inge fris description by it most likely be similar to the Assisted Living and Memory Care units within Riverwalk Commons Congregate Senior Housing.
Application of the peak Assisted Living parking demand (highest on Sunday'S) of 0.28 stalls per AL/MC dwelling unit (total of 93) would indicate a minimum of 26 parking stalls are necessary to serve the peak vehicle parking ratios of the AL/MC residents.
These parking ratios for these land uses are inclusive of all on-site parking needs such as staff, visitors and residents. The total of these two figures indicates a minimum of 93 stalls, validates the parking ratio proposed by our project.
Sincerely,
anut Fish
CANYON CREEK DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Daniel Fish, CFO
Ex. 12
4-125
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subarea Subareas Subarea Subareas
Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea
3A Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 and 4 6 and 13 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons Town/Gown/Mixed indastrial Multi-family Multi-family Single-family Single-Family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Area Business Pack Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 dua) (3.5 dua) (4 du/a) (6.5 du/la) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.1 Primary Offices and retail uses Uses Uses Uses permitted in Uses permitted Land permitted in Chapter Chapter 19.10 ef in Chapter
Uses 19.34 of the Riverside the Riverside 19.12 of the
Permitt Zoning Code, for C2, of the Zoning Code for Riverside RO, P. C-1-A uses, Residential 1 (R- Zoning Code
exoept automobile uses, 1-65) Zones. for Residential
liquor stores, bars, Zone. 1 (R-1-65)
motels, pawn shops.
plant, video/game arcade, Li Ha
zone. initiall
Millimillu 100).
mobile home sales, Mind
living
sia hit notes, wactor
permitted.
other
4-126 P0G.0501/0554 thra 055T/0947 EXHIBIT 13
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea Subareas Subarea Subarea Subareas 6 and 13 Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 ЗА and 4 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons Town Gown/Mixed Industrial Muiti-family Multi-family Single-family Single-family Single family Commercini Land Use (Multi-Family Use Area Business Park Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 dua) (10 du/s) (3.5 du/a) (4 du/a) (65 du/a) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.2 Deasity/ Mounis off 35 FAR*-if 40 FAR* I-UNIT/4.599 +UNFT/3.600% 35 dwelling 4 dwelling 6.5 dwelling 35 FAR* Intensit commercial or office SFAOT ARCA units/ncre units/acre units/acre y (For market rate mes only: 1-0 FAR I AREA maximum The maximu residential commercial office is 10 DUIACRE ultimate m units including senior combined with Maximum du density for per Lilient bousing for raidentini utes.- 29/ gross-acre Subarca 10 subarca, independent Avenge 15 should be
living permitted de/nct aere-for determined by
soberca
Atn S-
15 DU/ACRE
other
ШЛЕН
4-127
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subarcas Subarea 1 Subarea Subareas Subarca Subarea Subareas 1 and 2 Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
ЗА and 4 6 and 13 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons Town/Gown/Mixed Industrial Multi-family Muld-family Single-family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Arca Business Park: Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 da/a) (3.5 dua) (4 du/a) (6.5 du/a).
Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.3 Min. NA 1 acre 40.000• 3,000* 6,500* 8,500 foe R-I- 7,000* For a Lot Size conventional
(Area in planned with other loes 15:00 For R. single family as an inteerated center. detailed
detached
development,
7,000 SF
For a tho
family
dwelling or
cluster 6.500
SF. Fore
Planne
ebdivided into
120g SPre
Smaller lots
may be
permitted
throueh the
PRD process
140* 65* 65* 80* for R-I- 60*
90* For R-1-
100 through the
PRD process
100* 100* 100* 100 * for R-1- 100* 100 unless 100*
110• for R-1.
100 through the
PRD process
4-128
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea Subareas Subarea Subarea Subareas and 4 6 and 13 Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 ЗА 10 and 12
Specifie Plan Campus Commons Town Gown/Mixed Industrial Multi-family Multi-Family Singk-family Single-family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Arca Business Park: Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential. (15 da/a) (10 du/s) (3.5 du/a) (4 du/a) (6.5 dula) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
From 50 for 35 (for S0° for 35' to building 35° to building 20'10 20 to building 20' to building NIA New building buildines), 30 parking and building or parage.
Arterial 30 for (for parkins buildings
or parking alone Riverwalk
Pierce Parkway): 25
Street (for parking
along Pierce
Street)
• Front NA 30° (for 15* 25** 20° 20ª unless
buildings and otherwise
parking along approved
Sierra Vista through the
Avenue) PRD process
Rear 15 15% 20% 25* 25* 25°° unless Building 20°
otherwise from Residential
approved Zone
through the
PRD process
Sides 10 None for commercial, 20%, 50 is 7.5'; 10 tom 101 7.5/12.5*. 7.5/10* unless street R-1-80
Resentia 10/15 - R-I-
office. 100€ through the
PRD process
• From 25' for 30
Collecto buildings
r Streets 15° for
parking
• Accesso Per Section O Gif Per Section 19.73 of the Per Section Per Section Per Section 19.73 Per Section 19.73 Per Section Por Section 19.73
19.73 of the architecturally Zoning Code 19.73 of the 19:73 of the of the Zoning of the Zoning 19.73 of the of the Zoning Bandinge Zoning Code inteerated into Zoning Code Zoning Code Zoning Code Code Zoning Code Code the design of a
point waiti
Selsewhere
4-129
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea Subareas Subarea Subarca Subareas ЗА and 4 6 and 13 Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons Town/Gown/Mixed Industrial Multi-Family Multi-family Single-family Sing'c-family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Area Business Park Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 du/a) (3.5 de/a) (4 du/a) (6.5 dua) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
47 Bullding NA 50% NA fer nen-residentiti: 50% 50%* 30%* 35%* 40%* 50% 40% Site 50% for meridentini unless
Coverag projeets-not combined otherwise
with commercial: approved
Maxim through the
um) PRD process
43 Beidine 60 45* 30. 35' east of 35° 35• 35
limited to 25°
shed no..
Preserve tep of Preserve top of The amount of
hillforms in hillform as open open space
Subarea 6 as space. shall be
open space. determined
through the
PRD process:
4-130
4-131
Zoning Code
Independent
Unit (For
Code/Dwelling
the Zonine
Chapter 19.04 of
common usabic
450 sq it of
hoasing)
Rate Apartment
Unit (For Market
Code/Dwelline
1 the Zoning
Honing Code Twelling Chapter 19.04 of Space
Chepter 19.04-ofthe defined in Open
peccar defined in open space as Usabie
common tirabic open common usable
• 50-m ftof private 500 sa ft of 4.10 Commo
Housing)
Congregate Care
Senior and
(6.5 du/a) (4 du/a) (3.5 da/a) (10 du/a) (15 du/a) Residential, Designation Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Business Park Use Area (Multi-Family Land Use Commercial Single family Singie-family Singk-famity Multi-family Multi-family Indostrial Town/Gown/Mixed Commons Campos Specific Plan and 12 ЗА
10 00 Subarea 7 6 and 13 in and 4 1 and 2
11 Subarea 9 Subareas
Subarea Subarea Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea
Subareas
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Table 4-1
Table 41
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subarca Subareas 3B Subarea Subareas
Subareas Subareas Subarea Subarea
Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 3A and 4 6 and 13 00 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons Town/Gown/Mixed Industrial Multi-Family Multi-family Single-family Single-family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Arca Business Park Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 du/a) (3.5 du/s) (4 du/a) (6.5 du/a) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.11 Public For commercial arers, •
Usable an arca equivalent to a
Open minimum of 5% af the
Space total lot area shall be in
the form of a plaza or
I be nrov
conr
4-132
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subarea Subarea Subarea Subareas
Subareas Subareas 3B Subareas
1 and 2 and 4 6 and 13 Subarea 7 Subarea 9 10 11
and 12
Specife Plan Campus Commons Tawa/Gown/Mixed Industrial Multi-family Multi-family Single-family Single-Family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Arca Business Park Residential Residentia! Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 du/a) (3,5 du/la) (4 du/a) (6.5 du/a) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.12 Parking As provided for As provided for in Chapter 19.9 Chapter Chapter 19.74.010 2 parking 2 parking spaces 2 parkine Chapter in Chapter 19.16 Chapter 19.74 of the 74.010 of the 19.34.010 af of the Riverside spaces in an in an enclosed spaces in an 19.34.010 of the that provide and 19.74 of the Municipal Code. The Riverside the Riverside Zoning Code. enclosed garnge. enclosed Riverside Zoning sufficient on- Municipal Code Planning Commission Zoning Code. Zoning Code garage. garage or Code Off-street campus (For Market may grant a variance up otherwise parking may be parking for Rate Apartment so 30% of the roquired determined constructed in faculty, staff. office and commercial throuch the the form of a students and parking where it can be PRD process. landscaped visitors so demonstrated that peak
that there will parking demands for
be no noed permanent evening and
for soch weckend-oriented
persons 10 activities would be
park en offset by uses with
neighbechoo weekday, daytime
streets Milan i parking demand.
surrounding Sensor Parking for residences
the campus. shall be separated from
Representativ parking arcas provided
foe commercial and
4-133
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subareas
Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea Subareas Subarea Subarea Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 ЗА and 4 6 and 13 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons TownuGown/Mixed Industrial Multi-family Multi-family Single-family Single-family Single family Commercial Land Use (Multi-Family Use Area Business Park Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 du/a) (3.5 da/a) (4 dua) (6.5 du/'a) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.13 Buffers Buter wiped Perimeter A landscaped
buffor, a
perimeter windrow
planting shall consisting of
be planted closely spaced
adjacent ta columnar troes.
Bein Surel shall be
Matind provided
and Carminc adjacent to the
Street. existing
industrial area
and on the
property edec
pening the
roar of the
shopp ning al
Five Points
.14 Distance
units shall not
Bulbined he printed
front-to-front and shall
height in all other
CASES
4-134
-135
4 Glare
and
All exterior lighting shall be of an indirect nature, shielded to minimize illumination of adjacent properties and to reduce glare. Freestanding light poles shall not exced a maximum height of fourteen 4.21 Light Linkages
Pedestrian
A clearly defined pedestrian walkway shall be provided to connect building entrances to parking spaces and to adjacent sidewalks. 4.20 maneuvering onsite and not from a public street Areas
All loading areas shall be serened from view from adjacent lots and public streets by a solid fence or wall not less than 6 feet in beight. Loading areas shall be designed to provide for backing and 4.19 Loading Screens must be at least as high as the equipment. Appurtenanc All beating, ventilation, air conditioning equipment and ducts and other equipment or appurtenances located on roofs shall be screened from the view of people at ground level or adjacent buildings. 4.18 Roof within an enclosed structure.
n height with a solid gate providing access to the trash area. Trash enclosed within the enclesure shall not exceed the height of the enclosure. No trash shall be stored in any section of the site except A trash enclosure, six feet in height, constrocted of similar material to the building, shall be provided on each non-residential site. The trash enclosure shall be enclased on all sides, and shall be six feet 4.17 Trash Development
ding
Surroun
with
parki will building if serves antially screen vehicles in the structure from a view of a person en a public street. The walls of the parking structure shill be similar in color, materisl and architectural ibility The rear and side walls of buildings which are visible from adjacent lots or streets shall be treated the same as the front wall. The walls of any parking structure of the portion of any structure used for 4.16 Compat exterior wall or architectural detailing Walls
No building wall facing a public street or adjacent residential uses shall extend more than 25 feet vertically or horizontally without a visual break created by a minimum 2-ft. recess articulation in the 4.15 Blank finish.
material or
decorative
consist of a
Wall-fences 10
facine property
fram street
setback of 20
minimum
required. with a
walls/fences
height. provided Sire racing
6 maximum
Housing)
Congregate Care
Senior and
(6.S du/a) (4 du/a) (3.5 dala) (10 de/a) (15 duia) Residential, Designation Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Business Pack (Multi-Family Land Use Commercial Single family Single-family Single-family Multi-family Mutti-family Induscrial Commoas Campus Specific Plan and 12
10 6 and 13 and 4 ЗА 1 and 2
11 Subarea 9 Subarea 7
Subarca Subarea Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarca Subareas Subareas
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Table 4-1
Table 4-1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY SUBAREA
Subareas
Subareas Subarea Subareas 3B Subarea Subareas Subarea Subarea Subarea 7 Subarea 9 11
1 and 2 ЗА and 4 6 and 13 10
and 12
Specific Plan Campus Commons Town/Gown/Mixed Industrial Multi-Emily Multi-family Single-family Single-family Single family Commercial Land Use (Melti-Family Use Area Business Park Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Designation Residential, (15 du/a) (10 dwa) (3.5 dula) (4 du/a) (6.5 dura) Senior and
Congregate Care
Housing)
4.22 Utilities All utility connections from the main line in the public right-of-way to buildings shall be located undersreand
4.23 Signs Refer to pages 4-8 through 4-17
Same as existing zoning ordinasce. IN THE EVENT ZONING STANDARDS CHANGE, THE ZONE STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME AN APPLICATION IS FILED SHALL APPLY FAR (Floor Arca Ratio)
NA Not Applicabie
Front, side, and rear yards shall be increased by two and coc-half fect per stary in exoess of two stories.
Roof structures specified in Section 19.68.030 of the Zoning Code shall be permitted in addition to heights specifiod for cach subarca.
Development standards may be modified pursuant to the variance procodures established in Section 19.64.050 of the Municipal Code, Amendments to the Permitied uses and Density standards required amendment of the 4-136
GREATER RIVERSIDE
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
The Chamber..building a stronger local cconomy:
June 6, 2006
Mr. Ken Gutierrez &
Members of Planning Commission
3900 Main Street, 3" Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
RE: Riverwalk Commons
Dear Mr. Gutierrez. & Planning Commissioners:
The La Sierra Division Board of Directors supports in concept the proposed Riverwalk Commons Apartment project.
The board believes that this project is a well-designed project that helps meet a growing need in our community. This 668 unit project combines three distinet projects that are linked together and will offer many benefits and convinces for its residents. In the first section of this project there will be 264 that will be open to all ages, which will help meet the growing demand for student housing from La Sierra University. The second section will consist of 204 age restricted senior apartments and it will be connected to the third section, which will house 200 assisted living units.
Griffin Industrics has transformed this area of the City with its Riverwalk products and we believe that this project will continue this trend. We look forward to the addition of another wonderful project by Griffin Industries in the La Sicrra arca.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Ciadey Rok
Cindy Roth
President/CEO
CR/bb
Pob.0501/0554 thra 0557
P06 •0947
EXH/BIT 14
3985 USIVERSITY AVENUE. RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 - (951) 683-7100 - FAX (951) 683-2670 [email protected] • WWW.RIVERSIDR-CHAMBER.COM 4-137
SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTIST
CHURCH Southeastara Colifornia Conference
P. 0. 3ac 8050
August 7, 2006 Pneide, Coldonie 92515-0050
012 90972
907 6 - 90V 194(909) 529-23
City of Riverside - Planning Department
Attn: Steve Hayes
3900 Main Street, 3* Floor Planning
Riverside, CA 92522
To Whom it May Concern:
The Riverwalk Common's Project on the comer of Riverwalk Parkway and Sierra Vista Avenue was reviewed with the officers of the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventist on August 1, 2006.
The plan as presented does not appear to negatively affect our surroundings. We generally support this project plan for our area.
Sincerely,
Tim Rawson
Associate Treasurer
Ex. 14
4-138
Community Development Department
Planning Division
RIVERSIDE Negative Declaration
1. Case Numbers: P06-0501, P06-0554, P06-0555, P06-0556, P06-0557 and P06-0947
2. Project Title: Riverwalk Commons
3. Hearing Date: August 17, 2006
4. Lead Agency: City of Riverside
Community Development Department
Planning Division
3900 Main Street, 3' Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
5. Contact Person: Steve Hayes, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (951) 826-5775
6. Project Location: Northwesterly of Riverwalk: Parkway, northeasterly of Sierra Vista Avenue and southeasterly of Pierce Street
7. Project Applicant: Mr. Skip Beck (951) 509-8622
Griffin Industries
4710 Riverwalk Parkway
Riverside, CA 92505
8. General Plan Designation: MXO — Mixed Use Office
9. Proposed General Plan Designation: RHD - High Density Residential
10. Zoning: RA - Residential Agriculture
11. Proposed Zoning: R-3- SP - Multiple Family Residential (La Sierra University Specific Plan)
12. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) The applicant has submitted Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Parcel Map, Site Plan Review and Design Review applications to facilitate the proposed project, which consists of 264 market rate non-age restricted apartment units, 204 active adult age restricted apartment units and a 200-unit congregate senior housing facility on a 25.5 acre vacant site located within Subarca 3 of the La Sierra University Specific Plan (LSUSP) aren. To Draft Negative Declaration 40 P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-139
facilitate this project, a Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to place the entire site in a new specific plan subarea (Subarea 3B). Currently, Subarea 3 is designated as a "Town/Gown/Mixed Residential Area", with implications that retail uses and offices would be included within the mix of uses in the subject portion of Subarea 3. However, the applicant is proposing to develop the site strictly with residential uses and no additional retail or office uses, hence the primary need for the Specific Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment is also required to exceed the maximum cap of 1,769 residential units within the overall specific Plan area. The new proposed cap of residential units would be 2,078. Finally, the Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to create a set of development standards for proposed Subarea 3B, most of which either already apply to Subarea 3 of the SUSP or are included in the tentatively approved, updated Zoning Code. As a matter of information, the remainder of Subarea 3 as it exists today would be designated Subarea 3A and maintain the same development standards that exist for Subarea 3 today.
The General Plan Amendment is proposed to redesignate the subject site from MXO - Mixed Use Office to RHD - High Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and to facilitate the proposed project at a net density of approximately 26 units per acre. Similarly, the proposed rezoning of the site from RA - Residential Agriculture to R-3-SP - Multiple Family Residential (La Sierra University Specific Plan) Zone would place the site in a zone to facilitate the proposed project.
The proposed Parcel Map would subdivide the site into three lots, placing each of the three project components onto its own lot. Parcel 1 would be 4.86 acres in area and contain the 200- unit senior congregate care facility. Parcel 2 would contain the 204 unit age restricted senior apartment facility and be 7.16 acres in area. Finally, Parcel 3 would be 13.54 acres in size and contain the 264 unit market rate apartment units and related facilities.
The proposed 200-unit congregate care senior housing facility would contain 136 independent living units, 50 assisted living units and 14 memory care (Alzheimer's/dementia) units in a single building that ranges in height from one to four stories. A majority of the units would be one- bedroom or studio units, but 35 of the units would have two bedrooms. Vehicular access to the congregate care facility would be from three driveways; one on Sierra Vista Avenue and two on Pierce Street. The driveway on Sierra Vista Avenue would funetion as the driveway that would Icad to an on-site parking area that would primarily serve visitors to the facility. The driveways on Pierce Street would serve a larger parking lot for employees and those residents with private vehicles. A total of 100 parking spaces are proposed to serve the congregate care facility, or a ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per unit. Most residents of this facility will not have private vehicles, hence the relatively low parking ratio for this portion of the project. A total of 44,648 square feet of common usable open space is proposed within the congregate care facility boundaries, a ratio of 223 square feet of common usable open space per unit. On-site amenities would include an exercise/wellness center, beauty salon, game room, media/theater room, craft/activity room, library and a computer room. Exercise paths, benches dining patios and barbeques would also be available to residents of the congregate care facility. Independent living residents would be provided a comprehensive meal plan in centralized dining facilities, as well as access to the facility run transportation service for shopping, recreational and medical appointments. Assisted living residents would also have access to the above services and, in addition, optional services such as cleaning and laundry services, assistance in dressing and bathing and medication management. Memory care residents would be located in a separate and secure area of the Draft Negative Declaration 41 P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-140
facility with 24-hour care and a full range of services. A separate and secured outdoor facility is proposed for memory care residents.
The proposed active adult age restricted apartment complex would be restricted to tenants that are 55 years or older. A total of 132 of the 204 units within this facility would be one-bedroom, one bathroom units, while the remainder of the units would contain two bedrooms and either one or two bathrooms. The residential apartment units would be contained in four three-story buildings. Vehicular access to the age restricted apartments would be from two driveways on Sierra Vista Avenue. A total of 224 parking spaces are proposed within the age restricted apartment complex, or a ratio of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Eighty-three of the parking spaces would be located within enclosed garages, while 30 parking spaces would be covered by carports. A total of 99,317 square feet of common usable open space is proposed within the active adult apartment complex, a ratio of 487 square feet of common usable open space per unit. Included within this common open space area is a 7,731 square-foot clubhouse, which would contain an approximately 2,200 square-foot multiple-purpose room, kitchen, library, fitness room, game room, business center and covered patio. Other amenities within the age-restricted senior apartment facility include a pool and spa, gardens, barbeques, and seating areas along an interconnected series of pedestrian walkways. Additionally, all units would have a private patio or balcony in excess of 50 square feet, with a minimum dimension of 5 feet.
Direct pedestrian links between the age restricted senior apartment unit complex and the congregate care living facility are incorporated into the project design to promote interaction and utilization of all shared amenities. Furthermore, the meal program and other services offered at the congregate care facility would be available to residents of the active adult apartments, while the shuttle bus service would be shared between these two communities. Also, the recreational services and programs of the active adult apartments would be available to residents of the congregate care facility.
The 264 market rate apartment units would be contained in 17 buildings. The 10 buildings along the Riverwalk Parkway and Sierra Vista Avenue frontages would be two-stories in height, while the 7 buildings located toward the center of the project site would be three-stories in height.
Eighty-four of the units within the market rate apartment complex would be one-bedroom, one- bathroom units, while 168 of the units would be two-bedroom, two-bathroom units. remaining 12 units would contain three bedrooms and two bathrooms. All units would have a private patio or balcony in excess of 50 square feet, with a minimum dimension of 6 feet. Every unit would also have washer/dryer hookups. The primary vehicular ingress and egress would be from Sierra Vista Avenue. A secondary driveway is proposed at the northerly end of the Riverwalk Parkway frontage. This secondary driveway would be secured and gated for resident use only and ingress and egress would be limited to right turns in and right tums out only from this driveway, as the existing raised landscaped median in Riverwalk Parkway would not allow for left turn movements to or from this driveway. A total of 490 parking spaces are proposed for the market rate apartment component, 241 of which would be provided within enclosed garages and 126 of which would be under carport structures. A total of 133,276 square feet of common usable open space is proposed within the active adult apartment complex, a ratio of 505 square feet of common usable open space per unit. Included within this common open space area is a 4,380 square-foot clubhouse building to serve future residents of the market rate apartment complex. This building would contain a fitness room, media lounge, kitchen, covered patio and personal business center. In addition, the market rate apartment complex would include other Draft Negative Declaration 42 P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-141
amenities such as a pool and spa, sand volleyball courts, barbeque and picnic areas and in interconnected system of pedestrian walk ways.
13. Existing Land Uses and Setting:
The subject 25.5 acre site is of irregular shape and presently consists of two parcels. The site has a majority of its street frontage (over 1,800 lineal feet) located along Sierra Vista Avenue. The site also easire sit is present vacan alongered wilk ankay an grasses a det plans to have been. regularly disked. The relatively flat site contains no significant vegetation or natural features.
14. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Adjacent existing land use:
North: Office and institutional buildings owned by La Sierra University; dairy product manufacturing facility (across Pierce Street)
East: Single Family Residences (across Riverwalk Parkway) South: Athletic facilities on La Sierra University Campus (across Sierra Vista Avenue) West: Institutional Buildings on La Sierra University Campus (across Pierce Street) Adjacent zoning:
North: R-3 - Multiple Family Residential and M-1 - Light Manufacturing (across Pierce Street) CL - Limited Commercial and MP - Manufacturing Park
East: R-3-40-SP - Multiple Family Residential and R-1-65-SP - Single Family Residential (La Sierra University Specific Plan) across Riverwalk Parkway South: R-3 - Multiple Family Residential and RA - Residential Agriculture (across Sierra Vista Avenue)
West: RA - Residential Agriculture (across Pierce Street)
15. Other agencies whose approval is required:
a. None
16. Other Environmental Reviews Referenced in this Review:
a. Traflic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated April 25, 2006. b. Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Canty Psomas, dated July 2006
c. Air Quality Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated May 2, 2006. Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Step I! Burrowing Owl Survey, prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, dated June and July, 2006, respectively e. La Sierra University Specific Plan Environmental impact Report, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated February 16, 1996
Draft Negative Declaration 43 P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-142
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation, which reflects the independent judgment of the city of Riverside and its Planning Division, it is recommended that:
The City Planning Commission find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be prepared.
The City Planning Commission 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 recommended mitigation measures have been added to the project (see attached recommended mitigation measures). A mitigated NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The City Planning Commission find there is no evidence before the agency that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources, and the impacts of the • project are de minimis pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code.
Ken Gutierrez, Planning Director
Draft Negative Declaration 44 P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-143
Community Development Department
Planning Division
RIVERSIDE Environmental Initial Study
Project Description: See Negative Declaration
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1)
general standards.
1) 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.
An answer of "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
3) An answer of "Less than Significant Impact" is appropriate only in the event there is no substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
4) An answer of "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." A description of the mitigation measures is required, along with an explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from a previous analysis 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. When an earlier analysis is used, the initial study shall:
a. Reference earlier analyses used. Identify carlier analyses. Unless noted otherwise, all previous environmental documents are available at the City of Riverside Community Development Department, Planning Division.
b. Note impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Environmental Initial Study P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-144
c. Identify mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the carlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES): Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source: GENERAI. PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, LA SIERRA
UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN, TITLE 19 OF THE RIVERSIDE
MUNICIPAL CODE, DRAFT 2025 GENERAL PLAN AND CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 2025 GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, DRAFT ZONING CODE UPDATE)
The current General Plan designation of the
subject site is MXO - Mixed Use Office while
the current zoning of the property is RA -
Residential Agriculture. Additionally, the
subject site is located within Subarca 3 of the
La Sierra University Specific Plan (LSUSP)
area, which designated
"Town/Gown/Mixed Residential Area". To
facilitate the proposed project, the applicant is
requesting to place the entire site under the
RHD - High Density Residential General Plan
designation, to rezone the property to R-3-SP
- Multiple-Family Residential (La Sierra
University Specific Plan) and to amend the La
Sierra University Specific Plan to create
Subarea 3B, with specific development
standards tantamount to either the proposed
development standards for new multiple-
family projects under the tentatively approved
and updated Zoning Code or already apply to
Subarea 3 of the LSUSP. The proposal would
potentially change the future
implications on the property. However, the
land use implications of the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment
and rezoning would not be significantly out of
character with the existing neighborhood, as
multiple family residential projects and other
planned residential developments consisting of
smaller non-conventional sized lots exist in the
surrounding Riverwalk Planned Community,
nor were the General Plan and zoning for the
site consistent to begin with for this site.
Additionally, within the LSUSP, the
Environmental Initial Study 2 P06-0501, P06-0554 thru P06-0557, P06-0947 4-145
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
development of a residential component with a
mix of housing types (including senior
housing) was previously envisioned within
Subarea 3 and, while the number of
residential units exceeds the original cap for
residential units within the
impacts of this increase in the number of
residential units are less than significant, as
the additional units would be constructed in
potentially
retail/commercial or office development
within a portion of Subarea 3, combined with
the fact that a large number of the "over the
cap" residential units would be senior
apartment units, which have a tendency to
have less of an impact in many areas
(including traffic and air quality) than other
types of "conventional" housing. For these
reasons, the proposal to amend the SUSP,
General Plan
Designation and rezone the site to facilitate
the proposed project would not result in
significant adverse environmental impacts.
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source:) The project will
not conflict with any existing environmental
plans in the area nor or there any other
agencies with environmental jurisdiction over
the project.
c. Be incompatible with existing land usc in the X
vicinity? (Source:) A wide variety of uses
xist in close proximity to the project site
neluding office and institutional building
owned and/or operated by
University, single and multiple family
residences and recreational facilities
associated with La Sierra University. In this
setting, the proposed use would not be
incompatible with other uses in the vicinity,
since the proposed project would be separated
from the existing single family residences by
Riverwalk Parkway, a 110-foot 4-lane arterial
roadway. As well, the project is proposed to
City Planting Commission - August 21, 2006 P06-0501. P06-0554 P06-0557 4. POS-0947 4-146
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially No
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
have a 35-foot minimum landscape setback
along Riverwalk Parkway to further reduce
any potential impacts that the project could
have on the across the street (single family
residential) use. It should also be noted that
the project would be separated from the
recreational fields by Sierra Vista Avenue and
a minimum 30-foot on-site landscape buffer
would be provided along Sierra Vista for
future residents of the complexes that would
face Sierra Vista and the athletic fields.
Finally, all residential units would be buffered
from the shared interior property lines of
contiguous office developments by parking
areas with garage or carport structures and
landscaped areas, such that all residential
buildings would be more than 50 feet from a
property line shared with an office building,
far in excess of the minimum interior side and
rear yard setbacks currently applicable to
residential development in Subarea 3. As a
of information, the applicant is
proposing to construct detached
garage structures along interior property lines
shared with the existing office buildings and,
where in the gaps between garage structures,
construct a 6-foot tall decorative masonry wall
to further mitigate land use compatibility
concerns. Also, where required, perimeter
planters will be required to be planted with
canopy evergreen trees and other landscaping
in accordance with City design policies. The
combination of the above design elements will
ensure that an appropriate buffer is provided
between these adjoining land uses to provide
privacy for the adjacent single-family
residential uses as well as future residents of
the apartments. Thus, based on the above,
the site plan is designed to minimize
incompatibilities with surrounding uses. In
the judgment of the Planning Division, there is
no inherent incompatibility between these
existing uses with the above design elements
incorporated into the project and thus no
City Planning Commissics - August 21, 2006 P06-0501, POS-0556 P06-0SS7 & P06-0947 4-147
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
adverse impacts are expected.
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (Source: GENERAL. PLAN
EXHIBIT 10-AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES) Although the
site is located in an area considered to be
farmland of statewide significance, the subject
site is not irrigated and regularly disked for
weed abatement and no agricultural resources
exist on the property; thus development of the
site as proposed would not impact agricultural
resources or operations.
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? (Source:) Refer to
responses la and lc above. Additionally, since
the project is proposed to be self-contained in
a manner where impacts on adjacent land
uses will be minimal, the proposed project will
not have the potential to disrupt or divide the
physical arrangement of the community.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local L
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DIAGRAM, LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN,
EIR AND CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 2025 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
DIAGRAM) As described, the project includes a
Specific Plan Amendment request to increase
the "cap" of residential units within the
LSUSP area from 1,769 to 2,078 dwelling
LSUSP was adopted by the City of Riverside
in 1997. Under the LSUSP, a wide variety of
residential housing types is considered to be
acceptable in the current Subarea 3, including
those contemplated under this series of
applications. Additionally, all types of senior
housing (excluding Independent senior
partment units) would not count towards th
"cap" of the number of residential units
City Planning Commission - August 21. 2006 P06-0501, PO6-0554 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-148
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
within the LSUSP, so theoretically a much
greater number of senior residential units
could have been placed within the LSUSP
area to increase population than the increase
in the "cap" of units currently proposed under
these applications. Finally, under the 202:
General Plan, the site would be placed in the
MU-V -Mixed Use Village land
designation. The 2025 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report evaluated the
impacts associated with
development with a typical density of 30
dwelling units per acre and a maximum
density of 40 dwelling units per acre for all
properties designated MU-V on the General
Plan Land Use Diagram. The residential
component of the proposed project, with a
density of approximately 26 dwelling units per
acre, would be well under the anticipated
density range for those mixed use properties
designated on the 2025 General Plan Land
Use Diagram. As such, the increase in the cap
of the number of residences within the LSUSP
has already been evaluated for environmental
impacts on a local and regional level and it
was determined that the increase in the
number of residential units on this site at the
proposed density will not significantly affect
official regional or local population
projections.
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either X
directly or indirectly (c.g., through projects in an
undeveloped
infrastructure? (Source:)
infrastructure.
extension is required. Thus, the project
should not result in substantial growth in the
immediate area.
,. Eliminate existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source:) The project does involv
the removal of any existing dwelling units.
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2005 P06-0501, POS-0554 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-149
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES): Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a. Fault rupture? (Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 6-/
SEISMIC HAZARDS) There are no known faults
within the City limits of Riverside.
b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source: GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 6 • SEISMIC HAZARDS) The site is located
within Seismic Hazard Area II, which is
considered the area with the least potential fos
roundshaking within the City, However, the
project area is known to be subject to ground
shaking during seismic episodes. Building
construction will be required to comply with
building codes for carthquake-prone areas.
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 6 - SEISMIC HAZARDS)
d. Seiche hazard? (Source: GENERAL. PLAN EXHIBIT 7-
HYDROLOGY)
c. Grading on natural slopes over 10 percent?
(Source: CITY GIS MAPS & GENERAL. PLAN EXHIBIT 4 -
SLOPE ANALYSIS) The site is relatively flat with
no slopes exceeding 10 percent existing on-site.
No significant grading is anticipated with
future development of the site.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil •
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 5 - UNSUITABLE SOIL
CONDITIONS) Future grading of the site may
result in unstable earth conditions, leading to
increased crosion potential and impacts
related to slope stability and drainage.
Potential soil stability impacts should be
adequately minimized by: 1) compliance with
the recommendations of the project soils
engineer; and 2) adherence to City adopted
interim crosion control measures and the
Grading Ordinance (Title 17).
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source: GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 6 - SEISMIC HAZARDS)
h. Expansive soils? (Source: GENERAL. PLAN EXHIBIT 3.
UNSUITABLE SOIL CONDITIONS)
i. Unique geologic or physical features? (Source:)
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 7 PC6-0501, P06-0554 P06--0557 &: P06-0947 4-150
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES): Significant Significant Significant Impuct Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No unique or significant geologic or physical
features exist on the subject site.
4. WATER.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or X the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source:)
Future development of the site will result in
increased impermeable area, thereby altering
absorption rates and increasing surface
runoff. The City of Riverside General Plan
anticipated the impacts of development on
drainage and addressed these impacts through
the implementation of a master drainage plan
for each of the City's drainage basins.
Drainage improvements shall be consistent
with the requirements of the City's Public
Works Department.
b. Exposure of people or property to water related •
hazards such as flooding? (Source: GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 7 - HYDROLOGY, FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP. PANEL NO. 060260-0025A - ZONE C)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration •
of surface water quality? (Source: PRELIMINARY
PROJECT SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
BY CANTY PSOMAS DATED JULY, 2006)
Development of the proposed project will
result in the generation of pollutants typical of
multiple family residential uses, such as heavy
metals, oil, and grease, as well as silt and
organic loads, plastics and other general trash,
pesticides, and bacterial populations, that may
enter the storm drain system. Potential short-
term surface water quality impacts related to
project construction activities include runoff
of loose soils and/or construction wastes and
fuels that could potentially Now into nearby
and result in polluting
downstream water courses. The Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
issues federal National Pollutant Discharge
Mintion Seem permits fore
discharges to surface waters.
NDES program, effluent limits are developed
City Planting Commission - August 21, 2006 P06-0501, P06-0554 POS-0S57 & P06-0947 4-151
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
based on applicable technology and water
quality standards. The City will require that
each individual development project comply
with existing State Water Quality Control
Board and City stormwater regulations,
including compliance with NPDES
requirements related to construction and
operation measures to prevent crosion,
siltation and transport of urban pollutants.
In addition, a preliminary project specific
water quality management plan (WQMP) has
prepared by Canty
accordance with the requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the Riverside County Flood Control District.
Within this preliminary WOMP, Best
Management Practices (BMP's) specific to the
Ana region watershed (where
project is located) have been incorporated into
the project design in conjunction with
conveyance or urban runoff into the regional
watershed. These BMP's are recommended to
mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff into
the regional watershed. A final WQMP will
be required for review and approval and the
final design plans for the project will be
required to incorporate the recommended
BMP's to the satisfaction of the City prior to
the issuance of a grading permit for this
project.
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source:) The project site does
not directly drain into a body of water. Any
rainwater that is not absorbed will be
transported to the existing storm drain system
along adjacent public streets.
e. Changes in the course or direction of water
movement? (Source: PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
PREPARED BY CANTY PSOMAS) Given the relatively
fat nature of the project site, no significant
changes in the course or direction of water
movement is anticipated. The future
construction will be designed Public Works
specifications to ensure
City Planning Commission - Augest 21, 2006 P06-0501, P36-0554 P06--0557 & POS-0947 4-152
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
drainage is provided.
f. Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or throu-
gh interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
ground water recharge capability? (Source:) The
applicant supplied WQMP indicates that
groundwater is 40+ feet below the surface and
should remain undisturbed during excavation
and development. Thus, the project will not
involve either direct withdrawal or recharge
of groundwater, nor does it alter the
underlying aquifer. While the development of
the project will result in new impermeable
surfaces, thereby impacting groundwater
recharge capability, the small size of the
project as compared to the 2,000 square mile
Santa Ana River drainage basin in which the
City lies, this impact will be insignificant.
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? •
(Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 6 - SEISMIC HAZARDS)
Refer to response 4.e.
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source:)
Given the relative depth of the water table in
the project area and the anticipated future use
of the project site, the project will not result in
the discharge of possible groundwater
contaminants.
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of local
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Source:) The proposed project will
not utilize local groundwater for water supply.
Local groundwater is not utilized for domestic
consumption.
5. AIR QUALITY.
Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source:
housing development will result in a net
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 10 P06-0501, POS-0S54 P06-0557 &. PO6-0947 4-153
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentiall Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impa
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
reduction in vehicle trips and not cause a
significant increase in peak hour vehicle trips
as compared to the number of vehicle trips
originally contemplated for this site as
"town/gown/mixed office" site under the
LSUSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and the soon to be adopted 2025 General Plan.
Furthermore, the proposed project does not
exceed the thresholds of significance that
would lead to the violation of an air quality
standard or significantly contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation,
based on the size and scope of the project,
including construction and operational related
activities. The analysis conducted for this
project concluded that the project's short-
term construction impacts can be reduced to
less than significant levels after recommended
emissions reduction measures are
implemented, per the requirements of
SCAQMD Rule 403. With respect to
occupancy and operational related impacts,
the project will not result in a significant air
quality impact as defined by either ther Local
Significance Thresholds or regional daily
emissions thresholds set forth by the
SCAQMD and thus would not contribute to a
cumulative exceedance of the stipulated air
quality standards for the area.
b. Create a CO hotspot, or expose individuals to CO
concentrations above established standards?
(Source: AQMD URBEMIS 2003 MODEL, AIR QUALITY STUDY
PREPARED BY URBAN CROSSROADS, DATED MAY 2, 2006) The
proposed project, with a proportionally larger
residential component than originally
contemplated for this site, would be relatively
less intense than the former uses of the
property from a CO generation perspective.
Furthermore, CO concentrations in the
project vicinity do not exceed adopted air
quality standards and the project will not
result in the exceedance of adopted CO
standards. Thus, the project would not expose
individuals to CO concentrations above
City Planing Commission - August 21, 2006 P06-0501, P06-0534 P06--0557 & P05-0947 4-154
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than N Significant Significant Significant Impac
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
established standards.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? •
(Source:) Considering the quantity of
emissions produced by the project in the
project area and dissipation of pollutants, the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. In the
judgment of the Planning Division, the
proposed use of the property in question
should not result in an increased exposure of
sensitive receptors to pollutants.
d. Create objectionable odors? (Source:) In the •
judgment of the Planning Division, the
proposed use of the subject property should
not result in emission odors other than those
normally associated with residential
development and occupancy and would thus
not likely to be found objectionable by
reasonably sensitive persons
surrounding neighborhood.
Be subject to Transportation Demand Measures?
(Source:) Due to the limited number of
employees expected as a result of the project,
TDM requirements should not apply.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY URBAN
CROSSROADS, DATED APRIL 13. 2006) The project will
increase the number of vehicle trips as
mpared to existing levels, as the project si
currently vacant. Since the proieet has tl
potential to contribute to
increased vehicle trips in the area, the
applicant commissioned a traffic impact
analysis for this project to determine the
impacts that the project would have on traffic
and circulation in the immediate area.
According to the traffic study, the project will
result in an average daily trip count of 3,002
trip-ends per day, 179 of which would occur
during the peak AM hour and 230 of which
City Planning Commissica - August 21, 2005 12 P06-0501, 706-0554/06-0557 & 106-0947 4-155
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
However, as compared to the type of mixed
use office/commercial/residential development
originally contemplated for the site under the
LSUSP and related SUSP EIR, which would
have consisted of up to 388,000 square feet of
retail and office space, the study indicated that
the project would result in 7,783 fewer daily
trips, 322 fewer daily trips at the peak AM
hour and 823 fewer daily trips at the peak PM
hour. Due to the net reduction in the amount
of daily vehicle trips as compared to the type
of development previously
contemplated for this site under the SUSP,
the faet that the project site is contiguous of
Riverwalk Parkway, a multiple lane arterial
street within the City of Riverside, as well as
Sierra Vista Avenue and Pierce Street,
collector roadways and that all critical
intersections in the immediate area
already signalized, and currently operate and
will continue to operate at an acceptable level
of service under post project conditions, the
project will not have a significant impact with
respect to vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
b. Reduction in Level of Service (LOS) of
intersections? (Source: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY URBAN CROSSROADS, DATED APRIL 21, 2006) The City's General Plan requires that all
intersections operate at a LOS of D or better
in order to ensure efficient vehicular
circulation in the City. The City's Traffic
Engineer has reviewed the referenced traffic
study and analyzed the proposed project in
relation to potential impacts to the
surrounding intersections and made a
determination that no intersection will be
reduced to an unacceptable level of service as
a result of the additional vehicle trips
generated by the proposed development in
both the pre and post-project conditions.
Furthermore, as stated above, the proposed
less intensive use of the site as compared to
that originally contemplated for the site
effectively reduces the anticipated number of
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2005 P06-0501, POS-0534 P06--0557 &. P06-0947 4-156
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES): Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
average daily trips generated by uses
contemplated on this site; thus, the project
would have less of an impact on the LOS at
nearby intersections than contemplated under
the current LSUSP, the current General Plan
and the 2025 General Plan. As a matter of
information, the traffic study includes a
recommendation that the developer contribute
their fair share towards improving the La
Sierra Avenue/Pierce Street intersection with
a second southbound left turn lane and to
implement right-turn overlap phasing to the
westbound right-turn lane.
c. Hazards to safety from design features (c.g..
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses? (Source: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
PREPARID BY URBAN CROSSROADS, DATED APRIL 25, 2006)
Based on the site design, no significant
hazards to safety from design features will be
created, provided that the one driveway on
Riverwalk Parkway (which serves the market
rate apartment units only) be restricted to
tenant access and right turn in/right turn out
movements only and that the westernmost
driveway on Pierce Street serving the senior
citizen congregate care facility be limited to
right turn in/right turn out movements only
due to its proximity to the Pierce/Sierra Vista
Avenue intersection, as recommended in the
traffic impact analysis. It should be noted
that no additional openings within the existing
raised landscaped median along Riverwalk
Pationair roposed antiese therecord, to
additional breaks
accommodate left turn movements would be
recommended by City staff in the future
Based on the above, the points and locations of
access to the site will not lead to significant
safety hazards associated with their location,
with the restrictions on turning movements as
described above.
d. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby •
uses? (Source:) Riverwalk Parkway, Sierra
Vista Avenue and Pierce Street currently
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2005 P06-0501, 706-0554 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-157
Potentially Potentially Less Than
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Significant Significant Significant Impact INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
provide adequate emergency access to the site
and adjacent properties, and this project will
not modify current circulation patterns. The
Fire Department has reviewed the proposed
site plan and determined that adequate
emergency access and on-site circulation will
be provided. Additionally, the development of
the site as shown on the conceptual plot plan
would not cause any alteration to the existing
circulation patterns in the surrounding area
or alter access to nearby uses.
e. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source:) The conceptual plot plan submitted
for the project shows that 490 parking spaces
are being proposed for the market rate
apartment project where the Zoning Code
would require 486 parking spaces, thus staff
does not anticipate any lack of parking
capacity on or off the project site. With
respect to the age restricted senior
apartments, 224 parking spaces are proposed
for the 204 senior apartment units, or a ratio
of 1.1 parking spaces per unit. No official
parking , standard for Senior Apartments
exists in the current Zoning Code or in the
LSUSP. Although not officially adopted, the
updated Zoning Code would require a
minimum of 1.1 parking spaces per unit,
which has proven to be an acceptable parking
ratio for project of this nature in the City and
surrounding communities. Thus, staff does
not anticipate a lack of parking capacity with
the senior apartment component of the overall
project. Finally, the portion of the site
devoted to use as a senior congregate care
facility includes 100 parking spaces for the
200-unit facility. As with senior apartments,
no official parking standard exists for senior
congregate care housing in the current Zoning
Code or in the LSUSP. A letter from the
potential operator of the congregate care
facility has been submitted in conjunction
with the application materials for this project,
indicating that, in their experience, the
City Planning Commission - Augest 21, 2006 15 P05-0501, POG-0554 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-158
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
average age of residents would be in the mid-
80's and few if any future residents of the
facility would have personal vehicles. Based
on the maximum shift employee count and
peak visitor hours, combined with the
minimal number of personal resident vehicles,
the number of proposed parking stalls would
exceed the demand for parking, even at peak
times. Thus, on-site parking should be
sufficient for all three components of the
proposed project.
f. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 53 - BICYCLE ROUTES.
LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN FIGURE 33 -
CIRCULATION PLAN AND FIGURE 3-4 - LANDSCAPE AND OPEN
SPACE CONCErT) Riverwalk Parkway and Pierce
Street are shown as a Commuter Class 2
Bicycle routes. As noted earlier, six driveways
are proposed to serve the projects; two of
which are located on Pierce Street and one of
which is located on Riverwalk Parkway. In
the judgment of the Planning Division, these
driveways are properly spaced between
driveways serving adjacent properties and
should function efficiently and be highly
visible to bicyclists on Riverwalk Parkway and
Pierce Street. Additionally, these driveways
should be highly visible to pedestrians on all
surrounding streets, including Sierra Vista
Avenue, which contains a planned paseo
within the publie right-of-way. As such, staff
does not anticipate a significant impact
to pedestrian or bieycle
transportation.
g. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g, bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source: GENERAL. PLAN EXHIBIT 53 -
BICYCLE ROUTES. LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN
FIGURE 33 - CIRCULATION PLAN AND FIGURE 3-4 -
LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE CONCEPT In addition to
response 6.f. above, staff notes that bicycle
storage racks would be recommended to
support alternative transportation. As of the
writing of this report, the Riverside Transit
Authority (RTA) has not commented on the
City Planning Commission - Angest 21, 2006 16 P06-0501, PD6-0554 P06--0557 J: P06-0947 4-159
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than INFORMATION SOURCES): Significant Signifieant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
proposed development; any comments
received prior to the public hearing will be
considered and mitigation measures
implemented in conjunction with this project
as appropriate.
h. Rail or air traffic impacts? (Source:) The
project site is not near any rail lines or within
an airport influence area.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a. Federally endangered, threatened, or rare species
or their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
(Source: BURROWING OWL HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND
STEP I BURROWING OWL SURVEY, PREPARED BY SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, DATED JUNE AND JULY.
2006) The site is currently vacant with weedy
vegetation and a few mature trees
property. The site appears to have been
recently disked for weed abatement and to
reduce fire hazards. The site is located in an
urban setting with development existing on all
contiguous properties. However, the site is
located within the Riverside County MSHCP
survey area for the Western Burrowing Owl.
With respect to the Western Burrowing Owl,
no suitable burrows were identified on the
project site, nor were any diagnostic signs
(whitewash, pellets, bones, feathers, ete.)
observed. Therefore, it was concluded that
the Western Burrowing Owl would not be
expected to occur on site due to a lack of
suitable habitat. Thus, in the judgment of the
Planning Division, it is highly unlikely that
any federally endangered, threatened, or rare
species or their habitats are located on the
subject property. In the future, pre-
construction burrowing owl surveys will be
required within 30 days of the initiation of
grading or other ground disturbing activities
on the property.
b. Species identified as a sensitive or special status • species in local or regional plans or listings
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2005 P06-0501, POS-0554 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-160
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
maintained by the California Department of Fish
and Game? (Source: STEP I BURROWING OWL
SURVEY, PREPARED BY SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS, DATED JULY, 2006) Refer to response
7.a above.
c. Locally important natural communities (e.g., • •
sage scrub, etc.)? (Source:) The site is devoid
of locally important native vegetation.
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. riparian and veral pool)? •
(Source:) No wetland or riparian vegetation
occurs on the project site.
c. Wildinfe dispersal or migration corridors? •
(Source:) Refer to response 7.a above.
f. Wildlife resources pursuant to Section 711.4 of
the Fish and Game Code? (Source:) Even
though it would be unlikely that any rare,
endangered or threatened species of plants or
animals would be found on the projeet site,
the site is of a size where its development
could result in potential adverse impacts to
wildlife resources, and the payment of fees
pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and
Game code is required.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with the General Plan Energy Element?
(Source: GENERAL PLAN CONSERVATION ELEMENT)
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source:) Future
development of the site and operation of the
of monrenovable materials is scordace
with typical construction and occupancy
practices, which has been accounted for in the
General Plan.
X
(Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 40 - MINERAL RESOURCES)
9. HAZARDS.
Would the proposal involve:
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 18 P06-0501, POS-0354 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-161
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
(Source:) Construction of the buildings and
occupancy of the contemplated uses will not
involve the use of hazardous materials.
required to comply with applicable
regulations.
b. Possible interference with an emergency •
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(Source:) In addition to response 6.d., it
should be noted that this project will not
impact emergency response or evacuation
plans, as it has at least two points of ingress
and egress for each of the three project
components and sufficient perimeter street
frontage for the proposed uses.
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Source:) The proposed use of
the site as three integrated yet separate
residential housing types will not create health
hazards or expose surrounding residents or
employees of surrounding businesses to health
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of X
potential health hazards? (Source:)
hazardous sites are identified in the immediate
vicinity of the project.
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source:) This site is
located in area of existing urban
development; no wildland fire risks are
expected.
I. Exposure of people to risk from airport
operations? (Source:) Refer to response 6.h.
10. NOISE.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source:) The
site is located in an urban area along a 110-
foot wide, 4-lane arterial roadway (Riverwalk
Parkway) and two collector roadways (Sierra
City Planning Commission - Augus: 21, 2006 P0s-0501, P06-0554 P06--0557 & P0S-0947 4-162
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Vista Avenue and Pierce Street). In the
surrounding area, more sensitive
residential uses exist to the east of the project
site, across Riverwalk Parkway. While the
project will generate noise levels associated
with a moderately large multi-family
residential development, no significant
increases in noise levels on adjacent uses are
anticipated, especially in light of the fact that
the existing vehicular traffic on Riverwalk
Parkway is a larger contributor to the existing
noise environment. Site operations will be
required to be conducted in compliance with
the City's Noise Ordinance (Title 7 of the
Municipal Code. Compliance with the Noise
Ordinance will insure that any increased noise
level should not be more than what was
previously considered and approved as part of
General Plan
detrimental to any surrounding land uses.
b.
Exposure to severe noise levels, including
construction noise? (Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 15
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS, EXHIBIT 94 — MAXIMUM NOISE
LEVELS FOR VARIOUS LAND USES AND EXHIBIT 55 - PROJECTED NOISE CONTOURS) As the project is constructed, a
temporary increase in noise levels due to
construction/grading
Potential noise impacts should be limited by
compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance
(Title 7), which limits construction noise that
would disturb a residential neighborhood to
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays, and 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. No construction noise
is permitted on Sundays or federal holidays.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? (Source:) In addition to
responses 6.d. and 9.b. above, it should be
noted that the project will be required to
City Planning Cornision - August 21. 2006 20 P0S-0501, P06-0554 P06-0557 & P06-0947 4-163
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
comply with the requirements of the City Fire
Department and the Uniform Fire Code. No
significant impacts to fire protection are
anticipated.
b. Police protection? (Source:) Development of •
the site as previously described will result in
an incremental additional demand for public
services. However, the anticipated level of
services is consistent with the adopted General
Plan, which provides for adequate public
services. Therefore, no adverse impacts will
result from implementation of this project.
Additionally, the Police department has
provided a list of conditions including, but not
limited to, compliance with Crime Free Multi-
Housing guidelines, provision for a site map at
the entrances.
c. Schools? (Source:) The payment of school fees D
pursuant to the requirements of state law shall
be required prior to project construction.
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? • (Source:) Development of the site as
previously described will result in
incremental additional demand for public
services. However, the anticipated level of
services is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and the proposed 2025 General Plan,
both of which provide for adequate public
services. Therefore, no adverse impacts will
result from implementation of this project.
e. Other governmental services? (Source:) See L
response 11.d.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 21 P06-0501, P06-0SS: PO6-0SS7 & P06-0947 4-164
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
proposed uses are consistent with the
permitted uses under the General Plan which
provides, in conjunction with the City's
Capital Improvement Program, for the
adequate provision of infrastructure and
utility services. Therefore no appreciable
impacts in regard to infrastructure or services
will result from the project.
b. Communications systems? (Source:) See
response 12.a.
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source:) See response 12.a.
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source:) See response • •
12.a.
e. Storm water drainage? (Source:) See response
12.a.
f. Solid waste disposal? (Source:) See response
12.a.
g. Local or regional water supplies? (Source:) See
response 12.a.
13. AESTHETICS.
Would the proposal:
a. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? •
(Source:) The aesthetic elements of the
proposed project (site planning, architecture,
landscaping, etc.) are subject to the City's
Design Review process prior to the issuance of
any permits for the project. Given this
requirement, staff does not anticipate any
negative visual impacts from the project.
b. Create light or glare? development of the propose or introduce new sources of exterior lighting to the area.
Although it is anticipated that some of these
light sources will be visible from Riverwalk
Parkway, a designated scenic boulevard, other
perimeter roadways and adjacent properties,
the type of lighting anticipated would be that
typically associated with multiple-family
residential uses, which should have a less than
significant impact to the surrounding
City Manning Commission - August 21, 2006 22 P06-0501, POS-0554 POG-0557&: P06-0947 4-165
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
neighborhood. Exterior lighting will be
required to be shielded and directed
downward where necessary to minimize its
impact on surrounding uses. An exterior
lighting plan will be required to be reviewed
and approved prior to building permit
issuance to assure that the aesthetic impacts of
exterior lighting are less than significant.
c. Affect a scenic vista or roadway? (Source:) The •
site is located adjacent to Riverwalk Parkway,
which is designated a scenic roadway on the
General Plan Land Use Map. According to
the General Plan, projects along scenic
corridors should emphasize the regional
character and the importance of quality of
design within the community. The applicant
has submitted a Design Review application to
be analyzed by staff and then reviewed by the
City Planning Commission and as such the
project will be required to comply with the
intent of the General Plan
development along scenic roadways. As an
example, buildings have been placed along a
majority of the Riverwalk Parkway frontage
to de-emphasize parking along this scenic
corridor. Parking areas potentially in view of
Riverwalk Parkway will be required to be
screened from view through the use of berms,
landscaping, low walls, or a combination
thereof. Additionally, a 30-foot minimum
landscape setback has been provided along
Riverwalk Parkway in accordance with the
LSUSP.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source:) No •
identified paleontological resources
paleontologically sensitive areas are known to
occur within the City.
b. •
SIERRA UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN
REPORT, 1956) In conjunction with the LSUSP
EIR, no archacological resources were found
City Manning Commission - August 21, 2006 23 PO6-0501, P06-0554 PO6-0557 & P06-0947 4-166
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
or excected to be found within Subarea 3,
where the proposed project is located.
Therefore, in the judgment of the Planning
Division, it is highly unlikely that
archacological resources would be found on
the project site, as the site is surrounded by
residential and institutional development and
no reports of findings of archacological
significance have been reported in the arca.
However, if buried materials are found during
grading and/or construction, all work should
be halted in that area until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the nature and
significance of the finds.
c. Have the potential to cause a physical change, •
which would affect historical resources,
including heritage trees? (Source:) In addition
to response 14.b. above, there no heritage
trees or any other forms of mature vegetation
on the project site.
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change,
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values,
including those associated with religious or
sacred uses? (Source:) Based on responses
14.b andl4.c. above, no sacred or unique
ethnic cultural or sacred values would be
affected by this project.
15. RECREATION.
Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or L
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(Source:) In the judgment of the Planning
Division, the addition of the number of new
residents contemplated under this application
will increase the demand for neighborhood
park facilities in the area, but only minimally.
theoretically offset a majority of the demand
for neighborhood park space for residents of
the project. Furthermore, the site is in close
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 P0G-0501, P06-0554 706-0557 & POS-0947 4-167
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES): Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
proximity to the athletic fields at the La Sierra
University campus and contiguous to a series
of paseos that exist throughout the Riverwalk
Planned Residential Community. The
applicant will be responsible for payment of
applicable park development fees prior to
building permit issuance, as determined by
the Park and Recreation Department.
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities,
including trails? (Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 41
-NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS. GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT 42 PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM, LA SIERRA
UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC PLAN FIGURE 3-3 - CIRCULATION PLAN
AND FIGURE 3-4 - LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE CONCEPT
The applicant will be responsible for
constructing the portion of the regional trail
system that runs along the north side of Sierra
Vista Avenue in conjunction with this project.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to •
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
to climinate a
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of an endangered, rare or threatened
species, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
(Source:) See responses in Sections 7 and 14.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (Source:) Information
contained in this initial study supports the
conclusion that no long term environmental
C. Does the project have impacts that are •
individually limited, cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) (Source:) No adverse
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 P06-0501, P06-0554 P05--0357 & POS-0947 4-168
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
cumulative impacts were identified in this
initial study analysis.
d. Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, cither directly or indirectly?
(Source:) See responses in Section 9.
City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 26 P06-0501, PO6-0554 P06--0S57 & POS-0947 4-169
EINDING (To be completed by the City Planning Commission) • It has been found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted by the City Council. As part of this determination, the approved mitigation measures shall be required for the project. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Riverside.
Limited to Cases P06-0501, P06-0554 through P06-0557 and P06-0947 • It has been found that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report should be required by the City Council. • There is no evidence before the agency that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources, and the impacts of the project are found to be de minimis pursuant to decli 211.4 of the Piar and Game Code.
Signature d Date 8/07/06
City Planning Commission
Case Number: P06-0501
G:CPC108-17-06IPD6-0501_0554_0555_0556_0557_0947 rsh.doc City Planning Commission - August 21, 2006 P06-0501, P06-0554 P06--0557 & PO6-0947 4-170
UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - August 17,2006 1la. PLANNING CASE P06-0501: Proposal by Griffin Industries to amend the La Sierra University Specific Plan Subarea 3 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards to facilitate the development of a 264 market rate apartments, 200 age restricted senior apartments and a 200-unit congregate care facility on approximately 25.5 acres of vacant land situated northwesterly of Riverwalk Parkway, northeasterly of Sierra Vista Avenue and southeasterly of Pierce Street in the RA - Residential Agriculture Zone (Proposed R-3-SP - Multiple-Family Residential La Sierra University Specific Plan Zone under related Planning Case P06-0554). (This case to be heard concurrently with P06-0947 and P06-0554 through P06-0557) Contact Planner: Steve Hayes, AICP (951) 826-5775 [email protected] 1lb. PLANNING CASE P06-0947: Proposal by Griffin Industries for a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation of approximately 25.5 acres of vacant land situated northwesterly of Riverwalk Parkway, northeasterly of Sierra Vista Avenue and southeasterly of Pierce Street from MXO - Mixed Use Office to RHD - High Density Residential. (This case to be heard concurrently with P06-0501 and P06-0554 through P06-0557.) Contact Planner: Steve Hayes, AICP (951) 826-5775 shayes@riversideca gov
11c. PLANNING CASE P06-0554: Proposal by Griffin Industries to amend the Municipal Code (Title 19) to rezone approximately 25.5 acres of vacant land situated northwesterly of Riverwalk Parkway, northeasterly of Sirra Vista Avenue and southeasterly of Pierce Street, from the RA - Residential Agriculture Zone to the R-3-SP - Multiple-Family Residential - La Sierra University Specific Plan Zone. (This case to be heard concurrently with P06-0501, P06-0947 and P06- 0555 through P06-0557.) Contact Planner: Steve Hayes, AICP (951) 826-5775 [email protected]
lld. PLANNING CASE P06-0556: Proposal by Griffin Industries for Parcel Map, 34774, a proposal to subdivide 2 parcels totaling approximately 25.5 acres into 3 parcels, situated northwesterly of Riverwalk Parkway, northeasterly of Sierra Vista Avenue and southeasterly of Pierce Street in the RA - Residential Agriculture Zone (Proposed R-3-SP - Multiple-Family Residential La Sierra University Specific Plan Zone under related Planning Case P06-0554). ). (This case to be heard concurrently with P06-0501, P06-0947, P06-0554, P06-0555 and P0б- 0557) Contact Planner: Steve Hayes, AICP (951) 826-5775 [email protected] lle. PLANNING CASES P06-0555 and P06-0557: Proposal by Griffin Industries for the review of a plot plan and building elevations to establish 264 market rate apartments, 200 age restricted senior apartments and a 200-unit congregate care facility on approximately 25.5 acres of vacant land situated northwesterly of Riverwalk Parkway, northeasterly of Sierra Vista Avenue and southeasterly of Pierce Street, in the RA - Residential Agriculture Zone (Proposed R-3-SP - Multiple-Family Residential La Sierra University Specific Plan Zone under related Planning Case P06-0554). (These cases are to be heard concurrently with P06-0501, P06-0947, P06-0554 and P06-0556.) Contact Planner: Steve Hayes, AICP (951) 826-5775 [email protected] Steve Hayes, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that revised conditions were distributed to the Commission.
Commissioner Densmore referred to the sentence that states, "The intersections in the area are already signalized and currently operate and will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service under post- 4-171 ATTACHMENT 3
project conditions," and inquired as to whether "post-project" conditions means maximum build-out and occupancy in both the adjacent industrial/commercial section as well as whatever is planned for residential in that area. He explained that there is a significant increase, especially in the morings, as people head out to the freeway.
Mr. Hayes confirmed that "post-projeet" refers to build-out of the project and the Specific Plan area.
Steve Whyld, 7012 Edgewild Drive, Riverside, introduced to the Commission: John Turrando and Skip Beck of Grillin Industries, the builders of the project and managers of the Garden Apartments and active adult apartments; Manny Gonzales of KTGY Architects, the architect for the Garden Apartments and clive adult aparments; Koss Jones of watton-Barger Associates, The architect for the congregate senio ortion of the project; Robert Mitchell, the landscape architect for the entire project; Daniel Fish o Sunwest Management, the operator of the congregate senior housing; and David Garagas, representing La Sierra University, the current property owners. He noted that the University will remain as the legal owner. He stated that as most of the Commissioners are probably aware, La Sierra University and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church have had an interest in over 500 acres in the La Sierra area, dating back over 80 years. It started with establishment of a very small educational facility, which has now grown to become La Sierra University with a student population of about 2,000 students. Over the years, much of this land remained vacant or in agricultural production that was part of the Hole ranch. It was not until 1997 that this specific plan was jointly developed between the City and the University to guide future campus development and also to provide complimentary development in the surrounding area. He noted that most of the 500 acres have now been developed over the last nine years; a significant amount of single-family development has occurred on the easterly side of Riverwalk; there is some industrial development still under construction on the casterly side of Riverwalk near the flood control channel; there is now a Fairfield apartment project on the westerly side of Riverwalk at Collett; and now we are looking at the particular area adjacent to the campus at Sierra Vista. He stated that for several years attempts were made to develop this site with the full vision of the plan, which was to be a vertical arrangement of both office, retail and residential with an emphasis towards senior housing; however, to fully implement that vision has not borne fruit, primarily because of the location of the site relative to retail and office development and the service area in which it needs to serve is somewhat off-center. He explained what occurred is another project has been filed with the City, called Turner Riverwalk, located to the south of the Town and Gown area, at the intersection of Collett and Riverwalk. This project is proposing a retail office and a hotel and will be before the Commission later this year. He noted that from a Planning point of view, that is a more logical place for retail development because the intersection of Collett and Riverwalk is significant in that Collett Avenue will ultimately be extended to the west, to the City of Corona, and connect with Promenade Avenue. This way there will be a cross- town arterial and also direct access to and from the City of Corona. He thanked Mr. Hayes for working very closely with them over the last many months on this very complex project.
Skip Beck, President of Griffin Industries Income Properties Division, thanked staff for their input and guidance through the whole process. He expressed concern regarding Public Works Condition 10, which requires some improvements on Pierce Street. He explained that they have expressed to staff their desire for deletion of this condition. He noted for the record that John Canty and Dave Drake from Canty/Psomas Engineering are also present and have been an instrumental part of their team. He proceeded to address the overall project.
Daniel Fish of Sunwest Management addressed the assisted living project component. 4-172
Ross Jones, president of Watton-Barger Architects, also addressed the assisted living project. He referred to Condition 10c (Page 34), which requests that patios and decks have a minimum depth of six feet and asked staff to clarify whether this is a condition that pertained to the congregate housing or just the senior apartments. He also referred to Condition 2 (Page 30), which pertains to residents and their inability to bring their cars to the site. He asked staff to help them understand why they feel this is a necessary requirement.
Mr. Hayes explained that Condition 10c on Page 34 was intended to primarily apply to the market rate and senior apartment components and not to the congregate care facility. He noted that staff understands the needs are slightly different for the congregate care residents, so that the outdoor areas provided within that facility would be sufficient based on the current site plan. He referred to Condition 2 (Page 30) and explained that based on staff's analysis it appeared that just with parking for employees and visitors, they may already be approaching the need for 100 spaces; however, if there is evidence provided here today by the operator of the facility, staff would be willing to entertain alternate language for this condition that may allow a certain number of residents to have vehicles and if it does become a problem language could then be incorporated requiring this issue come back before the Planning Commission for resolution.
Mr. Jones explained that the letter that was referred to was given to support their request for 100 parking spaces or 5 parking spaces per unit; that included resident parking as well as guest parking and staff parking. The study that was done took all those components and not just the resident parking needs. He stated in their experience with projects they have built in Northern California, Oregon and Washington, they have less than 5 parking spaces per unit in their assisted living buildings. They also have photos of those buildings and a number of those are at capacity and stabilized, showing a number of parking spaces still available.
Commissioner Brown confirmed that the Memory Care/Alzheimer's Courtyard area would be fully fenced and protected and will preclude individuals from cither exiting or entering the area; at the same time, it will not appear to be "prison-like".
Commissioner Maloney referred to the architectural elevations of the Garden Apartments and commented that there appears to be only one stucco treatment on some and two on others. He indicated that it appears to be really "flat". He asked Mr. Gonzales to elaborate on the color schemes and architecture.
Manny Gonzales, KIGY Group Architects, explained that the style they are proposing is a mon traditional California/Santa Barbara style of architecture. He feels the Mediterranean style of architec nat has crupted in California over the last few years is not true to any particular type of architecture. Hi explained that the beauty of the Santa Barbara style is the understated simplicity and the details given Commissioner Maloney noted that he really likes the architecture.
There was further discussion regarding the architectural details and plant materials, Commissioner Maloney suggested the use of other plant materials and the applicant agreed to explore the suggestions made.
Commissioner Maloney also expressed the lack of trees along the drive aisles. 4-173
Mr. Hayes explained that the recommendation from staff is that as much landscaping as possible is provided in the areas between the garage structures. Those structures are essentially going to serve as the property line walls where they are contiguous to developed properties. In between these structures there are pockets of two to three open parking stalls.. The intent would be to try and get as much landscaping as possible; half-diamond tree wells, a planter a couple of feet wide to accommodate some shrubs and vines in between the separate garage structures.
Commissioner Maloney inquired as to whether enough open space is being provided per the number of units. He also expressed his concer that the sand volleyball court might be better utilized as another pool as he does not feel two volleyball courts are necessary.
Mr. Hayes commented that staff believes the amount of open space is accommodated.
Commissioner Sebelia expressed his concern regarding the fact that this project appears to omit the mixed use aspect of the General Plan.
Mr. Gutierrez explained that staff has not abandoned mixed use, and pointed out that with surrounding developments including Five Points will satisfy the mixed use need of the General Plan.
Commissioner Leonard referred to Condition 2. He commented when he thinks of "congregate care" he thinks of people that need to be there in order to receive certain treatment; however, it sounds as though a percentage of people there are there by their own will.
Mr. Jones stated that is correct. He explained that National Studies from the American Association of Senior's Housing show that 50% of the residents that move in bring a car; after about year or less, only 20% keep their car.
Commissioner Leonard inquired as to how the decrease in the amount of cars would affect the projections of the on-site parking calculation.
Mr. Hayes explained that there would then be an excess number or parking spots.
Commissioner Leonard commented that it sounds as though this is an opcrations issue that could be addressed through an operations plan the applicant provides, possibly staggering the turnover shifts.
Mr. Hayes commented that staff would be receptive to working with the applicant on this issue.
Mr. Jones asked that Condition 2 be deleted. He stated that their design is about providing independence, dignity, and choice for their residents. He explained that one of the reasons they still provide full stoves in assisted living units and congregate units is because it is a symbol of independence; a respective resident walking through on a marketing tour is looking for things that tell them this is home; their adult children who are with them are looking for things that tell them, "You didn't have to give up anything to live here." He explained that a respective resident who is told at the end of the day that they must leave their car somewhere eise would be feeling as though their independence and ability to choose has been taken away. He commented that he believes this would be a significant detriment to the success of the community.
Mr. Gutierrez suggested that the Commission modify the condition in a way that allows staff the fexibility to work out this issue based upon an operations plan. 4-174
Commissioner Leonard referred to the four-story clement on the congregate care building and explained that he supports the notion of having more of a color palette that is complimentary to the apartment unit's color palette.
Commissioner Comer inquired as to why the apartments could not be placed closer to the University.
Mr. Gonzales explained that they placed the shortest walking distance to the units in the community that would need the most assistance to get to those areas.
Commissioner Comer explained that he sees a real deficit of open space and activity space.
Mr. Hayes explained that from a technical standpoint this meets the Code; it has the required number of amenities and has a ratio of 522 square feet of common open space per unit.
Commissioner Comer asked if it is reasonable that 500 people get to share a 40-foot pool.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the pool itself is somewhere in excess of 1,200 square feet, which is almost the size of a junior Olympic swimming pool; the spa itself is designed to accommodate 20 pcople or more. He stated the reality is that groupings of this size do not usually occur. He explained that this apartment site has an inordinate amount of open space to it compared to the apartments they normally do.
Kenneth Custoric, Attorney with Reid & Hellyer, introduced Robert Ball, Vice President of Facility Development of Stremicks Heritage Foods. He explained that they are both here on behalf of Stremicks Heritage Foods, owner of the property at 11503 Pierce Street, Riverside. He stated they are neither here to support or opposed the development, but only to express a concern. He explained that Stremicks has owned this facility for about seven years; they manufacture and produce liquid coffee and flavored milks. It is a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day operation with about 90 employees. There are constant shift changes and traffic flow. Stremicks is concerned that somewhere down the road their proximity to a senior citizen development/residential complex might ultimately lead to the relocation of Stremicks Heritage Foods in the event there are complaints from the development. He noted that relocation would cause a tremendous financial burden upon Stremicks. He informed the Commission that no one has contacted Stremicks regarding this project. He also noted that he has submitted his comments in written form.
Commissioner Leonard clarified the location of Stremicks by way of the exhibits.
Robert Ball, Vice President of Facility Development, Stremricks Heritage Foods, explained that they have an ammonia refrigeration system, which has a risk management plan associated with it and the addition of a lot of housing, in particular a senior care facility, can affect their compliance with the regulations on operating a system like this.
Commissioner Norton confirmed that Stremicks Heritage Foods was before the Commission during the General Plan 2025 hearings and the Commission assisted them in keeping their zoning.
The public hearing was oflicially closed.
4-175
Rob Van Zanten, Senior Engineer with the Public Works Department, referred to Mr. Becks concem regarding Condition 10. He asked that Condition 10 be revised to read, "Installation of sidewalk on Pierce Street to Public Works specifications."
MOTION MADE by Commissioner Norton, SECONDED by Commissioner Kurani, TO DETERMINE that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment RECOMMENDING that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and TO APPROVE Planning Cases P06-0501, P06-0947, and P06-0554, subject to the findings and recommendations of staff.
MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
AYES: Brown, Comer, Densmore, Kurani, Leonard, Maloney, Norton, Sebelia, Singletary NOES: None.
DISQUALIFIED: None.
ABSTAINED: None.
ABSENT: Nonc.
MOTION MADE by Commissioner Norton, SECONDED by Commissioner Leonard, TO DETERMINE that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment RECOMMENDING that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and TO APPROVE Planning Cases P06-0555 through P06-0557, subject to the findings and recommendations of staff, WITH MODIFICATION to Condition 10 of P06-0556 to state, "Installation of sidewalk eurb and guiter at 53 feet from monument centerline, sidewalk and matching paving on Pierce Street to Public Works specifications"; and to Conditions 2, 4a, 4b and 9c of Planning Cases P06-0555/P06-0557 as follows:
2. Future residents of the Congregate Care facility shall not be allowed to have personal vehicles on-site to further justify the 0.5 parking space/unit parking ratio. An operations plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Division to justify the 0.5 parking space/unit parking ratio.
4a. the garden apartments and the west wall of building 19. (Shifling buildings 19, 18, 10 and 9 and the project entrance approximately 5 feet to the cast or other similar alternative as mutually agreed upon between the applicant and City staff could adequately address this issue);
4b. Adjust building locations to provide a minimum 15-foot setback from adjacent parking spaces and/or drive aisles, while still providing at least a 35-fool building setback along perimeter streets and a 15-foot separation between buildings; 9c. An increase in the depth of patios and balconies to 6 feet and an increase the size of senior apartment ground floor patios without compensating landscape or other common open space areas;
The following condition is also to be added: "A covenant and agreement shall be reviewed, approved and recorded to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and City Attorney's Office to ensure that the Senior Apartment units and the congregate care facility units will be occupied by residents of 55 years of age or older, except for any units identified as caretaker's units, as shown on the final floor plans within the construction documents, as agreed to by the applicant and City staft." 4-176
Commissioner Norton stated that while this project did not come in as the traditional mixed use, she feels it is a horizontal mixed use. She hopes that doing this will force the density towards Five Points and make it more successful. She asked that the applicant consider the Santa Barbara sandstone and color pallets, including the landscaping suggestions made by Commissioner Maloncy. In terms of the amenities, she noted that there is a park across the street, which she feels some of the younger people may use.
Commissioner Densmore noted that the Commission made a great effort to protect Stremicks Heritage Foods during the General Plan project and while there is change-over, the Commission is going to continue that and remember the remarks made today as well as their statements.
MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
AYES: Brown, Comer, Densmore, Kurani, Leonard, Maloney, Norton, Sebelia, Singletary NOES: None.
DISQUALIFIED: Nonc.
ABSTAINED: None.
ABSENT: None.
Chairman Singletary advised of the appeal procedure.
4-177
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall
3900 Main Street .......
Riverside, CA 92522-0111
CA 9244 4 L
P06-0501,0554, 0555, 0556, 0557 22 3EF 2O0C
Notification - P06 - 0947
Important Neighborhood News RECEIVED
10-3-04 SEP 2 7 2006
City of Riverside
City Clerk's Office
OCCUPANT
#4 APN: 141320002
11585 Pierce St
-... Rive:.-
NIXIE 925 "1'
RETURN TO SENDER
NO SUCH NUMBER
UNABLE TO FORWARD
BC: 925220111 *2704-16047-22-39
82505+325ä0@0111
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall SAN BERNARDINO
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522-0111
CRACK S
PoG-050i, 055a, 0555, 0554, 0557, 0941 22 537 2205
Notification -
Important Neighborhood News
10-3-06 RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2006
OCCUPANT City of Riverside
APN: 141210006
#4 11641 mammina ct City Clerk's Office
..RIVE NIXIE
923
30 09/27/06
RETURN TO SENDER
NO SUCH NUMBER
UNABLE TO FORWARD
ĐC: 925220111 *2004-12874-22-39
92508436352280111
Office of the City Clerk
City Hall
3900 Main Street SAN BERNARDINO
Riverside, CA 92522-0111
CA 924 7 L
P06.0501, 0554,0555,0556 22 SEP 2006 PM
Votification - 0557, 0947
Important Neighborhood News
RECEIVED
10-3-06
SEP 2 9 2006
City of Riverside
City Clerk's Office
#4 NIXIE
913
30 09/26/08
NOT DORETURN TO SE SENDER
ADDRESSED
TO FORWARD
BC: 925220111 *3004-00560-22-40
31302+221#270111
09/31/08 THU 09:46 FAX 951 368 9008 CLASSIFIED AD 4002
CLASSIFIED 3512 Fourteenth St.
THE ADVERTISING PROOF Riverside, CA 92501-3878
PRESS- 1-800-880-0345
Printed by: Peoples, Karen Ad #: B005319 951-684-1200
3. al: 10:52 am
ENTERPRISE 951-368-9018 Fax
on: Thursday, Sep 21, 2006
Account info
Ad Copy:
Phane #: (951) 826-5557
OTY ORVELSDE
Name: RIVERSIDE CITY CLERK
Addreas:; 3800 MAIN ST ounci of the Cay # Riverside regereng 1 RIVERSIDE CA 13: P0-2301, P060564, 194-0554, PO6-2536,
92522
Acct e: 044653
Cient"
Placed by: Janis Lowry
Fax ed (951) 826-5470 Pim 304, ond the renic
Miron the Pionning Co
aa w not it
ond is recommending
corution be adopter
Claso/licaition; : Lagais ta to Ctr Clerk Oty Hall 3980 Motm Publicationa, Press-Enterprise apposed action it court you me afi ba nor e grin uet
dne ar ci ki
RECENED
CER 2 1 2006
Start dete: 09-22-08 Cly ai Rwesico
Stop date: 08-22-06
City Clerk's Offen
Ingartions:
Rate code: LE City
:Ad typer Ad Liner
Taken bys Peopie, Karen
Size: 2x89.530
Sl size 180.00x 5.14 agate linas
Amout dae 18900
CONTACONG: HAT E HONE
Cly Clerk of the City of Rimside $/22
WapA gudd spreena
Fax from : 951 368 9806
89/21/86 18:54 Pg: 2
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY OF RIVERSIDE DE S
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
I, the undersigned, say that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident or employee of the City of Riverside, in the County of Riverside, State of California, over the age of 18 years; that my business address is City Hall, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522; that on the 22d of September, 2006, I deposited a copy of the attached notice to each of the persons as shown on the list attached regarding CA 06-0501, P06-0554, P06- 0555, P06-0556, P06-0557, and P06-0947 that said notice was served by depositing same enclosed in a sealed envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post Office mail box at Riverside, California; that there is either delivery service by United States Mail at the place so addressed, or regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the place so addressed said notice was mailed pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code of the City of Riverside.
I certify or declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this Friday, September 22, 2006.
Veef men
G:\clk\hearings\affidavit.doc
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
MAIN DI
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND a Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Riverside regarding the following items:
CASE NUMBERS: P06-0501, P06-0554, P06-0555, P06-0556,
P06-0557, and P06-0947
APPLICANT: Griffin Industries
PERCEST
LOCATION: Northwesterly of Riverwalk Parkway, AIVERWALK northeasterly of Sierra Vista Avenue, and
southeasterly of Pierce Street
PROPOSAL: To establish 264 market-rate apartment units, 200 age-restricted senior apartment units, and a 200-unit congregate care facility on 25.5 acres of vacant land by rezoning from Zone RA (Residential Agriculture Zone) to R-3-SP
(Multiple-Family Residential - La Sierra University Specific Plan Zone), amending the La Sierra University Specific Plan and General Plan Land Use designation, Parcel Map 34774, and the review of conceptual plot plan and building elevations.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning
Commission has determined that the proposed project will not NORTH
have a significant effect on the environment and is
recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be
adopted.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
***
Art Pick Council Chamber, City Hall
3900 Main Street
Mail written statements to City Clerk, City Hall, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 Riverside, CA 92522.
If you challenge the above proposed action in court, you may be MEETING DATE: October 3, 2006 limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised MEETING TIME: 3 p.m. at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk of the City of CONTACT PLANNER: Steve Hayes Riverside at, or prior to, the public hearing. PHONE: (951) 826-5775 E-MAIL: [email protected]
COLINI NICOL, MMS Morton Elles pa
City Clerk of the City of Riverside
Dated: September 22, 2006
Publish: September 22, 2006
G: HEARINGS|P06-0501, P06-0554, P06-0555, P06-0556, P06-0557, and P06-0947.100306
SE CALIF CONFER OF SEVENTH OCCUPANT LA SIERRA COLLEGE
APN: 141180004 APN: 141180004 APN: 141210006
11330 Pierce St 4900 Golden Ave 4700 Pierce St
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside 92505
OCCUPANT LA SIERRA COLLEGE OCCUPANT
APN: 141210006 APN: 141210007 APN: 141210007
11640 Carmine St 4500 Riverwalk Pkwy 4700 Pierce St
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA ASS OCCUPANT Dairies RV
APN: 141320002 APN: 141320002 APN:141320004
PO Box 8050 11585 Pierce St *no Site Address*
Riverside CA 92515 Riverside CA 92505
Dairies Riverside OCCUPANT University Lasierra
APN: 141320006 APN: 141320006 APN: 141350007
4002 westminster Ave 11503 Pierce St 4700 Pierce St
Santa Ana CA 92703 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505
OCCUPANT RIVERWALK MASTER PROP OWNER
APN 141350007 APN: 142020037 APN: 142570007
"ho Site Address. *no site Address*
CA
Riverwalk 7b Coronado OCCUPANI RIVERWALK AREA 7 H & O ASSN APN: 142570012 APN: 142570012 APN: 142570014
24005 Ventura Blvd *no Site Address *no Site Address*
Calabasas CA 91302 CA
William & Yvonne Kirkendall OCCUPANT Timothy Ariei Cruz APN: 142572001 APN: 142572001 APN: 142572002
24843 Del Prado $509 4550 Bieber Ct 4558 Bieber Ct
Dana Point CA 92629 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Gilberto Gonzales Etelvina Sanchez OCCUPANT
APN: 142572003 APN: 142572004 APN: 142572004 V
11410 Brookscape In 11418 Brookscape In #14/ 11418 Brookscape In Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Jerrad Long OCCUPANT Erin Madison
APN: 142572005 APN: 142572005 APN: 142572006
24005 Ventura Blvd #10Q 11422 Brookscape In 11419 Brookscape In Calabasas CA 91302 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Tony Garcia Mario & Lindsay Chavez Danny & Robyn Ortega APN: 142572007 APN: 142572008 APN: 142572009
11415 Brookscape In 11411 Brookscape In 4597 Bieber Ct
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 P06-C947 CiC. 817106300' 176 SH
Darren * Sonia Johnson Herbert & Esmeralda Fuentes Ivan Franco APN: 142572010 APN: 142572011 APN: 142572012
4589 Bieber Ct 4573 Bieber Ct V 4565 Bieber Ct
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Mark Beltran Holly Huddleston OCCUPANT
APN: 142572014 APN: 142572015 APN: 142572015
4602 Olsen Ct 11598 Waterwell Ct 11350 Pond Ln
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Jason Dale Vodrick Griffin Jaime & L C Valencia
APN: 142572016 APN: 142572017 APN: 142572018
11359 Pond In 11355 Pond In 11351 Pond Ln
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Brian & Misty Snowden Homer Domingo Michael & Melissa Brown APN: 142572019 APN: 142572020 APN: 142572021
4635 Olsen Ct 4627 Olsen Ct 4611 Olsen Ct
Riverside CA • 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Ronald & Julie Gibson Riverwalk Ghg OCCUPANT
APN: 142572022 APN: 142572023
4603 Olsen Ct 24005 Ventura BIvd
Riverside CA 92505 Calabasas CA 91302
Sapna Naraindas Ramchandani Michael McDonough Miles & Shirley Adamson APN: 142572024 APN: 142572025 APN: 142572026
4580 Geraty Ct 11388 Creekmoor Ln 11397 Creekmoor In
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Randall Bowers Lester Junsay Jeffrey Shinar
APN: 142572027 APN: 142572028 APN: 142572029
11393 Creekmoor Ln 11389 Creekmoor In V 4615 Geraty Ct
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Richard & Nancy Henderson Harry Wheeler John & Krista May APN: 142572030 APN: 142572031 APN: 142572032
4607 Geraty Ct 4591. Geraty Ct 4581 Geraty Ct
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 RIVERWALK AREA HOMEOWNERS A OCCUPANT Josh Ferguson
APN: 142600010 APN: 142600010 APN: 142601001
24005 Ventura Blva *no site Address* 4606 Water Glen In Calabasas CA 91302 Riverside CA 92505
Cindy Osowski Catherine Wheeler Khanh Tang
APN: 142601002 APN: 142601003 APN: 142601004
11328 River Trail Ct 1334 River Trail CtV 11331 River Trail Ct Riverside CA 92505 iverside CA 9250 Riverside CA 92505
106-0947
Soon Lee Erin Jurian Xuan Grace Ly
APN: 142601005 APN: 142601006 APN: 142601007
11327 River Trail Ct 11321 River Trail Ct 11315 River Trail Ct Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Suk Hong Arron BrOWn Joseph Giglio
APN: 146280019 APN: 146280020 APN: 146280021
11282 Streamfield Ct 11290 Streamfield Ct 11298 Streamfield Ct Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA • 92505 Riverside CA 92505 David Haase Richard Sherman Bradley & Tamara Rice
APN: 146280022 APN: 146280023 APN: 146280029
11297 Creekdale Way 11289 Creekdale Way V 4624 Riverbay Way Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Leon Ronzana Olga Gallardo Patricio Coba
APN: 146280030 APN: 146280031 APN: 146280032
4632 Riverbay Way 4640 Riverbay Way 4648 Riverbay Way V Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Craig Rossi Gerard A Corros David Alonzo
APN: 146280033 APN: 146280034 APN: 146280035
4656 Riverbay Way 4697 Brookmore Ct 4689 Brookmore Ct V Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Renato & Josephine Lim Ruben & Dawna Ledesma OCCUPANT
APN: 146280036 APN: 146280037 APN: 146280037
4683 Brookmore Ct 4575 Brookmore Ct 4675 Brookmore Ct
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Steven Chau Kattie Robertson Lyn Pintelon
APN: 146280038 APN: 146280039 APN: 146280040
4674 Trailmore Ct 4680 Trailmore Ct 8990 Garfield St #6 Riverside CA 92505 Riverside •CA 92505 Riverside CA 92503 OCCUPANT Tricia McConkey TIBURON BUILDERS 149 LLC
APN: 146280040 APN: 146280041 APN: 146280055
4688 Trailmore Ct 4696 Trailmore Ct 25004 Ventura Blvd
Riverside CA 92505 Riverside CA 92505 Calabasas CA 91303 applicant
OCCUPANT RIVERWALK AREA 10 & O ASSN
APN: 146280055 APN: 146280057 Griffen Industries, Inc.
*no site Address* *no site Address* Skip Beck
CA 4710 Riverwalk Parkway
Riverside, CA 92515
LA SIERRA COLLEGE SE CALIF CONFER OF SEVENTH David Gergis APN: 141350002 APN: 141350005
APN: 141350003 La Sierra University
4500 Riverwalk Parkway
Riverside, CA 92515
78. 006-0947
18 City Council Meeting Dater 1
Item No.: 4
Robert C. Ball, VP Facility Development
714/775-5081 • FAX 714/775-5070
HERITAGE
FOODS
RECEIVED
September 18, 2006
SEP 2 9 2006
City Clerk, City of Riverside
City Hall City Clerk's Office
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
Re: Case Numbers P06-0501, P06-354, P06-0555, P06-555ó, P06-0557, and P06-0947 I am writing to you regarding the proposed development in Riverside by Griffin Industries. A part of the development is a congregate care facility located near the Stremicks Heritage Foods facility on Pierce Street. Stremicks Heritage Foods uses anhydrous ammonia in the refrigeration system at this facility which is a commercial refrigerant commonly used in our industry. As anhydrous ammonia is a regulated substance, our company is required to have a program to prevent accidental releases.
This program is regulated under the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal-ARP).
Stremicks Heritage Foods has a preventative program in place to insure that a release of ammonia is a very unlikely event.
We at Stremicks Heritage Foods take our responsibilities to maintain a safe environment for our employees and the surrounding community very seriously and are committed to do what is necessary to insure that any accidental release of ammonia is an extremely unlikely event. We do want to be certain The City of Riverside recognizes that the proposed Griffin Industries project locates not only additional housing but also a congregate care facility very near the Stremicks' facility. Stremicks Heritage Foods requests that the operators of the congregate care facility recognize this situation and have an approved emergency response plan in place that specifically deals with an ammonia release as well as any other emergency situations that may occur at that care facility.
Sincerely,
STREMICKS HERITAGE FOODS, LLC
Robert C. Ball
VP Facility Development
-
cc: Lou Stremick
Mike Malone cc: Mayor
Steve Hayes City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Planning
4002 W. WESTMINSTER AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92703-1310 PHONE (714) 775-5000 FAX 1714) 265-0401
RIVERWALK COMMONS
La Sierra University Specific Plan
Riverside, California
by
Site plans: Two Story Elevations
Three Story Elevations
Clubhouse Elevations
Aerial Site Plan Garage Elevations
Illustrative Landscape Overali Site Plan Color Schemes
Commons One site plans
Commons Two site plans Building 'A' & 'B' Typical Floor Plans Commons Three site plans Building C'& Garage Typical Floor Plans Building D' Typical Floor Plan
Technical Dimensioned Overall Site Plan Building 'E' Typical Floor Plan Commons One Site Plans Clubhouse Plan
Commons Two Site Plans
Commons Three Site Plans Unit 1A Plan
Unit 1B Plan
Parcel Map Unit 2A Plan
Unit 2B Plan
Unit 3 Plan
Commons Two: Active Adult Ar
Active Adult Apartment Elevations
Clubhouse Elevations
Color Schemes
First Floor Plan
Second / Third Floor Plan
Clubhouse Plan
Unit 1A Plan
Unit 1B Plan
Unit 2A Plan
Unit 2B Plan
Commons Three: Congregate Sel
Elevations
Color Scheme
First Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
DIVEDWAI ZAAMMARIC
vomitions two. Alive Haul Apartments commons Three: C
Site area Site area Site area
13.54 acres 7.16 acres
4.86 acres
Density Density
19.5 units/acre Density
28.5 units/acre 41 units/acre
Unit Mix Unit Mix Unit Mix
One bedrooms 84 One bedrooms 132 65%
Two bedrooms 168 64% Independent Living
Two bedrooms 72 35%
5, PLLC Three bedrooms 12 5% 204 units Assisted Living
r Housing 264 units Memory Care (alzheime
Total
Parking Parking Parking
iates Required parking Required parking Provided parking
1.5 / One bedroom x 84 126 1.1 / Unit x 204 224 spaces
2 / Two or Three bedrooms × 180 360 .5 / Unit x 200
486 spaces
Provided parking Provided parking
Garaged 241 Garaged
Carport 126 Carport 30
Handicap 10 Handicap
Uncovered 113 Uncovered 105
490 spaces 224 spaces
Aerial View
Proposed Site Plan
1121208: 17282)
OVERALL PRELIMINARY LANDS
tOUBING CONGREG
4eTMENTS GARDEN ACTIVE ADULT APAR
AR
SODDED PERCUE LANN
PAUS B.DAR GA (KC 2) COUMORONS EVERAREDY TREE PIMAS EBARICA (KC 2) MAGNETONA ROBISTA (NG 2) MARATHONE EY BOUTHLA MODELL ANE MONTIL. PINE MEX CAN PAN MALM
DUCALYA JO MOLTANTMENCE IKE 2) IVERUSRSEN VEXTICAL THIE CHAGDID DARK, VULCH M SEVA DOLLAL GAM MA 15 5AM. ON *ENTA VISTA AVENUE TREES OR ROO 10 CUT INOB OF I OR MONT ED CUT NSS 0ª I
PLATANUS ACHNO, A (EC 5) DEL JIN CANOPY MEE DATAN ENTER (KE 3) CONFEROUS EMERGREY TREE LONDON PLANE FINE Mih. Is GA ON MIN. DAULO MONTPL, PNE
EVDASREEN VERTICAL TALEE EXA_NOTUB MOLTANTHEMOS (« 2)
MAMANY INTRY TAURU MON. BGALLON ELVER DOLLAR EUN ABELIA GRANDLORA
AGAPANTHNO APH CANTS
TAL, NAMHOM ACCENT TALE MAD MATAN BUSTAKE; FLATAND ACERUFOLIA (IC DI NOB. TUB UNEDO COMPACTA! MONOLL MME MA. 12 - 14 DROWN -RUNK LOMBOY PLANE TRUE
CASTUS DA
DUCALYPE JA MOLTANTMEMCO (KO 2)
BLVES DOLLAR Q.M MECONDARY INTRY TREE BUTALK PARKMAY TALES
ALL ONA MAORE
PLATANIS ACUTO,A (KC 5) TAL NAMWOHACCENT TREE ACTUA CANOET TREE FLATANIS MAGENOSA (AC 3) LONDON FLANE TUSE MA. 12 - 14 BROMY TUNK MEN. "E GALLON CAMORNA BUGAMORE I VOM TORA BTOKEN THANG
UNITRO CANANDS
CONFEREE RASMEN TRE PALS BLDARUCA (IC 2) LAVAROLLA D'ORCHAE
LEARMA / MIGNATION CENTER TREA MONDELL PHE EMOSIMAM SCOPAILM СплАномІм САМаномА (КС 3) EVERGRIN CANOPY TREE EMANGOD ARCHED ORS ISE SI KOROGANTA CAMPHOR TOE MA. 24' BOX PUMARY BENTRY TRO TATUS COMMUNS EVERGREEN VERTICAL MEET EVERGREEN CAVORY TREE CARAMOMAM CAMPHORA AKE 9) мал 18 5А-.ОМ MN. 34'B0X
TOMOLN TOUFU
H$ LAYBA (KC 2)
REAL SUMAC HICONDARY INTRY TRANS: ком ge.
EVERSRIN CHIOPY TREE ENS BOY CAVORY TREE TRACHELOWERVN AAMMODEL
MY OBHA CONGRSTIM
LEANE / RECTRZATION CENTM TREED. TrekaL vee ver
CALVE IS POLTANTHENOS (KE 2) MI6 ARE CAMORY TREE MAGAOLA SAMUEL SOMMER' (KE 3I CLYTOSTOVA CALLATAODES VIa.
SEVER DOLLMA GUM PANDA (KE 2) DETIETS BUCCMATORU
SAMUEL SOMMER VASMOLLA
P NO
ROSA BAUESUR
PARKING LOT TREES.
MIN BE SO CANOPE TRE CONDONE LATE TOLA (KE 9) EVERGREEN CAVORY THEE NOTEs:
MIN B GALLON
EVELARIN VERTICAL TRIE EVEREREEN VERTICAL TREE
SCHAUB TEREONTH POLLO TEE 2)
SADLAN PENSA OPEN SPACE TILERS:
EXCAN PANTAM HAAREN CANOMY TREE
EVERGMILE VERTICAL TREE
COURTYARLO THEREA
EVELANIE CANOPY TEN DUDUDS GALORY TRIE СоЛОНИЙ ПРИМ ЖО ВІ нас 24' 30х MEN. 24' BOX
A TEREN PATO TRE BONNIEA BARED MC 7:
COURTYARD TUNE
EVERAMAN CANORY TREE
MN,24 BOX
MON SARANDATO TREE HONGALE SECRES KC I
OVERALL PRELIMINARY LANDSCAP
SEE SHEET L-5
KEY MAP
GARDEN APARTMENTS - PRELIMINARY L
STUCER MALL A MILASTE
TUPULAR STEEL ENTRY GATE
KEY MAP
SEE SHEET L-3
GARDEN APARTMENTS - PRELIMINARY L
БАНЕ
SEES SEE SHEET
_KEY MAP
ACTIVE ADULT APARTMENTS - PRELIMINARY L
GT1BRS AN
KEY MAP
VIRA
CONGREGATE SENIOR HOUSING - PRELIMINARY L
Дана с
SIERRA VISTA AVENUE SIERRA VISTA AVENUE
RIVERWALK COMMON
COMMONS ONE ... (
RIVERWALK PARKWAY
30' SE
BUILDING A BUILDING C
BUt BUILDING B
BUILDING C
BUILDING D
SIERRA VISTA AVENUE
BUILDING D
CLUBHOUSE
BUILDING B
BUILDING E
ВЦ:
BUILDING C
BUILDING E
BUILDING O
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING BIVO
RESIDENT HOVELS, DE
BUILDING A
$/
GONGINED
BUILDING B
BUILDING E
KEY MAP
BUILDING D
COMMONS ONE - C
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
BUILDING
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
CLUBHOUSE
RESIDENTIAL SUEDING
SIERRA VISTA AVENUE
COMMONS
DRNO
PIERCE STREET 20 SETBACK
ШШШ
SIERRA VISTA AVEI
35 SETBACK
COURT. VISTA AVENUE
YARD KEY MAP
SIERRA
COMMONS THREE - CONGEGF
BLK.
LOT 10 AND PORTION OF LOT 9 OF TRACT 29058 AS SHOWA
ON FILE IN BOOK 289 OF MAPS AT PAGES 27 THROUGH 36 /
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2008
PSOMAS
GOLDEN AVÉÑUE 146-141-072
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
200 100 200 800
2-45'
SCALE: 1" = 200°
TRACT Nºw37/06 note: not to scale
OWNER
LA SIERRA COLLEGE
LA SIERRA HEIGHTS TRACT No. BLK. 61 141-130-004 4700 PIERCE ST RIVERSIDE, CA 92505
520-012-921
APPLICANT
PSOMAS
PIERCE STREET 2010 lawa Avenue, Suite 110
141-320-006 S9601 d 730444 Riverside, CA 92507
: 7308Vd AYMANYA (951) 683-5234
CEL MAP : <5-95/65 Wd
2/80 145' 280-054 ASSESSORS PARCEL No.
141-350-002
141-350-003
41-320-002
ZONING & LAND USE
ARCEL 1 Existing Zoning MXO (25) MIXED 1
Proposed Zoring VACANT
4.86 AC. Existing Land Use VACANT
PARCEL 2 Proposed Land Use APTS- MARKET RA
13205. 29621 ASSITED LIVING
7.16 AC.
STREET VACATED
- Deleted per 04/03/06 OR. UTILITY PURVEYORS
Water City of Riverside
ReG. Sewer City of Riverside
PARCEL Electricity City of Riverside
TRACT 13.54 AC. Gos Southern Calif. Gas Co.
Telephone Pocitic Bell
2905 M.B. 289/27-36 PARKWAY
PROJECT AREA
25.555 Acres
11 RIVERWALK 142-600-006 13
PREPARCO UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF.
65077
* 965937
NIC
Iwo Story Typical Garden Apartments Front/Rear View
Two Story Typical Garden Apartments Side View
Three Story Typical Garden Apartments Front View
Three Story Typical Garden Apartments Side View
Rear View Side View
Single Bay Garage
Front View
Standard Side View
Enhanced Side View
Double Bay Garage
Front/Rear View
Garden Apartments Club House Front View
Garden Apartments Club House
Left View
RIVERWALK COMMONC
RIVERWALK COMMONS
Rear View
Garden Apartments Club House
ETHZMD
73:"
B
Garden Apartments Club House
Right View
es RIVERWALK COMMONS
TRIM FASCIA FRONT DR. & FRONT DR. GARAGE DRS
TRIM / LOUVER DRS. /
SHUTTERS
BAND
RAILINGS - BLACK
ILS - NATURAL CLAY
BRICK CAP DETAIL S-TILE ROOFING
RIVERWALK COMMONS KT
arch
BUILLINGO A, D, ANU U
TRIM FASCIA FRONT DR. & FRONT DR GARAGE DRS
TRIM / LOUVER DRS. /
SHUTTERS
BAND
RAILINGS - BLACK
ILS - NATURAL CLAY
BRICK CAP DETAIL S-TILE ROOFING
RIVERWALK COMMONS KT.
trioc Aren
TRIM FASCIA FRONT DR. & FRONT DR. GARAGE DRS
TRIM / LOUVER DRS. /
SHUTTERS
BAND
RAILINGS - BLACK
ILS - NATURAL CLAY
BRICK CAP DETAIL S-TILE ROOFING
RIVERWALK COMMONS KTI
Arch
ACCENT STUCCO TRIM / FASCIA FRONT DR. & FRONT DR. GARAGE DRS (AVOVE BELLY BAND) TRIM / LOUVER DR$.I
AWNINGS
BAND
RAILINGS - BLACK
ILS. NATURAL CLAY
BRICK CAP DETAIL S-TILE ROOFING
RIVERWALK COMMONS KT
tripe Arch
BUILDINGO DAND E
TRIM / FASCIA FRONT DR. & FRONT DR. GARAGE DRS
(AVOVE BELLY BAND) TRIM / LOUVER DRS. /
AWNINGS
BAND
RAILINGS - BLACK
ILS - NATURAL CLAY
BRICK CAP DETAIL S- TILE ROOFING
RIVERWALK COMMONS KT
ArET
10 TRIM / CHIMNEY CAPS / FASCIA / RAFTER TAILS FRONT DR. & FRON LOUVER DRS. TRIM
RAILINGS - BLACK
BRICK CAP DETAIL S-TILE ROOFING
RIVERWALK COMMONS KTI
ACTIVE ADULI APARTMENTS &
GARDEN APARTMENTS
SEE VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON SITE PLAN
BLOCK WALLS TUBULAR STEEL
(EXTERIOR GATES AND RAILINGS)
RIVERWALK COMMONS KTG
riac Archit
81'-11" 81'-11"
IA 1A
IA
Garden Apartments Garden Ap
Building 'B' Bu
Typical Floor Plan Typical FI
Two Story
RIVERWALK COMMONS
10'-0"
20 _gr*
79'-6"
Garden Apartments
Single Garage
2 B
62'-4"
1 2B IAF
-15.
11.0 I0'-0*
Garden Apart
Build
Garden Apartments
Typical Floo
Double Garage
RIVERWALK COMMONS
81'-11"
2B 2B 2B 2B
61'-10"
2B 2B, 2B
Typica
RIVERWALK COMMONS