Riverside City Council
December 12, 2023

1 Subject:

Attachments: General Plan Map.pdf; impactscomments.pdf; 2022-11-16 Friends Response Letter.pdf; Transmittal CEQA Finding_Firewise 2000.pdf; 33808.11 - M. Guillermo Landeros.pdf; Mount Vernon Hillside Pad Location and Grading Design Letter.pdf
From: Guiller
mo Landeros <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 10:27 PM
To: Tinio, Maribeth <[email protected]>
Cc: Norton, Brian <[email protected]>; Lilley, Jennifer <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 11/16/23 Meeting Summary regarding Landeros Residence

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Maribeth,
See the attached letters and attached map, please send both to the city clerk.

The DRC welcome letter records show my statements during the meeting were correct (The information was provided to the city to review for the easement). The city never requested additional information even after several attempts. Thi s is the first time the staff requested any additional assessment in order to review the plans before the city council meeting.

As stated in your email the determination of the modification of the easement can be made at the city council meeting.

It is clear and obvious the easement wo uld  create a small, isolated space within the City of Riverside limits. (see attached example of a map with red as the easement). Again, It makes sure to include the easement in the maps for better visualization.
 I would like to point out the R and C ordinance are guidelines for building within city limits. The box spring reserve is outside city limits. It also breaks from the continuous border between the city limit and the box spring reserve. This acre proposed easement compared to the 3,400 acre reserve is als o meaningless.

Thanks,
Guillermo Landeros
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
Knollmiller
Architects, Inc.

15 Deer Creek
Irvine, CA 92604 m: 213 445 2300
www.knollmiller.com [email protected]
November 16, 2022

City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development, Planning Division
Judy Eguez
Main: 951.826.5371

Attn: Judy Eguez
Project: Mt Vernon Ave RC zone site proposal
RE: Friends of Riverside’s Hills

Dear Judy:

Please see the following in response to the letter received from the Friends of Riverside’s Hills The location of the proposed pad and driveway, was thoughtfully situated to best fit the contours of the site and avoid the naturally occurring boulders.

The bottom of the site, just beyond the 3-‘ setback line, is where the grade is the steepest. The natural slope is above 40%, there is no way we could have located the pad lower on the site and still met the city’s requirement of max slope of 2:1.

The fire protection plan clearly demonstrates the fire mitigation measures taken to account for the less that 100’ clearance to the east property line.

Thank you for your time in reviewing our responses. Feel free to contact me with any questions- (213) 445-2300, [email protected].

Thank you,
Jamie Knollmiller, AIA
Knollmiller Architects, Inc.

N
PR-2021-001108 (DR, GE)
Exhibit 4 - General Plan Map
THAYER
CT
BELVE
DERE
DR

BLAINE ST

FLORAL AVE
ALLEY

SPRUCE ST
RA
MBLING
CT
GA
LA
XIE
HE
IG
HTS
ROAD

DEBORAH CT

VALENCIA HILL DR

HIGHLANDER DR
WA
LD
ORF
DR
CE
LES
TEDR
M
ARIC
OPA
DR

FLANDERS RD

MASSACHUSETTS AVE

CREEK CIR

GLENHILL DR
MA

RAVILLADR GREEN OAKS DR

NEWELLDR

SOMIS DR
TERRA
CE
DR

INVERNESS ST

GRAMPION RD

MT VERNON AVE
P
P
HR
MDR
MDR
HR
P
MDR
PF
MDR
MDR
Project Site:

HR- Hillside Residential
0 750 1,500
Feet
PF - Public Facilities/Institutions
P - Public Park
HR - Hillside Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
VLDR - Very Low Density Residential
General Plan Designations
Parcels
Outside City Limits
City Boundary
Project Site
Key

19 November 2022

Re: LANDEROS RESIDENCE APN 257160003

The property is rocky with senescent vegetation. Elevations range from approximately 1460 to 1560 feet. The subject property is currently a vacant rectangular shaped with no significant topographic features or vegetation, and it is currently undeveloped land. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Riverside County lists the following:
• Not in a Cellgroup
• Not in a Criteria Cell
Conservation Description:
• Not in an amphibian survey area
• Burrowing owl area
• Not in a criteria area species survey area
• Not in a mammal survey area
• Not in a narrow endemic plant survey area

A burrowing owl survey was conducted; no signs of BUOW (tracks, whitewash, pellets, decorations, prey remains) were found. No burrowing owls (BUOW), a CDFW species of concern, or BUOW burrows were found within the site or 500 foot buffer. This is not an area that provides favorable habitat to BUOW. The rodent burrows that are present are not large enough to house a BUOW and the ground is not supportive of burrowing.

The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Riverside County does not consider this area a habitat of wildlife concern. Biologists surveyed the area and did not find any current evidence of burrowing owl presence or historical presence.

Construction will be of a relatively short duration. After construction is complete, and landscaping is complete, there is the possibility of creating shelter for wildlife within the landscaped area and could be a positive influence in the area.

Wildlife Biologist
Barrett’s Biological Surveys
760 427 7006

1 1411 Rimpau Ave, Ste 109
Corona, CA 92879
Phone: 714-606-3655
Email: [email protected]

Date: November 8, 2022

To: City of Riverside
Planning Department
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522

Re: LANDEROS RESIDENCE – APN: 257-160-003 – PLANNING
CASE P20-0427 (PLOT PLAN REVIEW)

Topic: PROPOSED PAD LOCATION AND GRADING DESIGN

To Whom Maybe Concerned:

The proposed single-family development lies along the edge of the Box Springs Mountains which rise to the north and east of the site. This area descends at moderate gradients to the north, west, and south and rises quite steeply, offsite, to the east. Total project site is

2.47 acres and disturbed area is 0.92 acres (37% of the site). The area of the proposed residence lies atop a roughly east to west trending topographic within the center portion of the property. Large lot residential properties lie to the north and west of the site while the properties to the east and south of the site are vacant, natural land. The proposed access road alignment selected to avoid natural boulders and limited the required cut / fill slopes to the existing terrain and contours of the site. After discussion with City of Riverside staffs, the design team have come up with numerous ways to reduce the amount of grading and best fit the project for the lot.

- Pad Location

The proposed structures will be lies atop a roughly east to west trending topographic high within the center portion of the property. The location of the structures is placed in one of the flattest portions of the site (existing natural terrain range from 5% to 15%). The structures will be designed to fit with the contours of the hillside and relate to the overall form of the terrain. Structures will be designed to fit into the hillside rather than altering the hillside to fit the structure.

If the pad is placed at lower portion of the site, this creates a transition grading situation which requires cut and fill (see Figure 1). Typically, the building requires 3’ to 5’ overexacation over the existing surface and recompacted to 90% relative compaction.

The amount of grading is excessive. Alternatively, stepped building layout typically used to avoid excessive cut and fill (see Figure 2). However, the stepped building layout requires shoring walls and extensive amount of retaining wall which creates a financial burden to the owner. Therefore, in our opinion, the proposed pad location fits into the natural terrain and most economical to the owner.

2 1411 Rimpau Ave, Ste 109
Corona, CA 92879
Phone: 714-606-3655
Email: [email protected]
Figure 1: Transition Grading (Cut and Fill)

Figure 2: Stepped Building Concept

3 1411 Rimpau Ave, Ste 109
Corona, CA 92879
Phone: 714-606-3655
Email: [email protected]

- Reduce Amount of Grading

The area of a site proposed to be graded shall be that which fits into the natural terrain and which allows for a minimal amount of grading. The ungraded area must be left in its natural form for the remainder of the site. No native vegetation shall be removed and no non-native vegetation shall be introduced or allowed within hillside areas not included as part of the graded pad area. Most of the grading is due to the maximum slope of 15% and driveway width is required by Fire Department to increase to 20’ side. After discussion with Fire Department, the straight portion of the driveway can be reduced to 15’. This reduced approx. 3,000 sf of disturbed area and 2,325 cy less of export.

The proposed grading slope to be rounded and blend with natural hillside slope. The disturbed area mostly avoided where larger rocks located. If necessary, interference larger rocks will be relocated elsewhere of the site as a natural feature.

In conclusion, the proposed development meets City’s grading ordinance and best fit to the existing terrain. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

Best Regards,

Yang Hu, PE
(714) 606-3655
[email protected]

FIREWISE2000, LLC

Mel Johnson, Owner
FIREWISE 2000, LLC
[email protected]
(760) 745-3947

6 August 2022

To: Planning Department City of Riverside

We often find the same comments on many of our projects, the Fire Protection Plan submitted to Fire provides details on expected fire behavior, required fuel modification distances, and mitigation measures.

CEQA Finding
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the project site has been analyzed and it has been determined that wildfires may occur in wildland areas to the south, west, north and east of the project site, but would not be significantly increased in frequency, duration, or size with the approval of the Landeros Residence.

The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the area include vehicle and roadway, electrical transmission line, and machinery associated with various land uses in the vicinity, as well as from off-site developed parcels.

The project would introduce potential ignition sources, but would also include conversion of fuels to lower flammability landscape and include better access throughout, managed and maintained landscapes, higher site awareness/monitoring, and generally a reduction in the receptiveness of the areas landscape to ignition.

Fires from off-site would not have continuous fuels across this site and would therefore be expected to burn around and/or over the site via spotting. Burning vegetation embers may land on structures but are not likely to result in ignition based on types of non-combustible and ignition resistant materials that will be used.

The project does comply with ignition resistant fire and building codes, plus site-specific measures that will result in a project that is less susceptible to wildfire than surrounding landscapes and that would facilitate fire fighter and medical aid response.

Respectably

Monty Kalin
Associate Planner
Firewise2000, LLC
Monty.Kalin @firewise2000.com

Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street
Riverside, California 92522
Re:   November 28, 2023, City Council MeeƟng, Agenda Item #9: Landeros Project, PR‐2021‐001108
Dear Honorable Members of the Council:

I am wriƟng this leƩer to record the following comments regarding Pr oject  PR‐2021‐001108:

I. As recorded in several different grading plans, documents submiƩed to planning and several meeƟngs regarding pad locaƟon, the team working on PR‐2021‐001108 made numinous aƩempts to move the housing pad to the lower pad of the site. CriƟc ally,  aŌer compleƟng the soil report, percolaƟon test and cost analysis, the team concluded it was financially and technically extremely impracƟcal to build at the lower pad. The Soil engineer, the civil engineer and Architect working on the project wrote leƩers documenƟng our conclusion. All leƩer s  were shared with the friends of the Hills during the comment period. Any statements claiming the lower pad was not considered in the team’s or The Planning Division’s analysis are absolutely false. Any statements claiming the team, or The Planning Division did not consider an approach that would sub stan Ɵally reduce impacts on the project is absolutely false.

II. The fire protecƟon plan and access road site map used for PR‐2021‐001108 were approved before 2023. Any addiƟonal requirements effecƟve 2023 or onwards do not apply to PR‐2021‐ 001108.

All statements made by fri ends of the hills claiming the project is inconsistent with the City’s fire department access requirements are false. As evident by the following facts:
a. The bulleƟn the friends of the hills referenced is incomplete and only meant to be informaƟonal. The actual code can be f ound  in the 2022 California Fire Code. For details of the City of Riverside adopƟon of the state code see municipal code 16.32.020. b. California Code SecƟon 503 states fire code officials are authorized to increase the dimension of access road, modify the width of the access ro ad, and determine the radius of the access road.
c. The Fire Access Road was approved by the fire code officials.

Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
III. The s
tatement from Friends of the hills claiming the project is not supported by municipal code secƟon 17.32.020 is absolutely false.  The evidence is as follows:
a. The municipal code is miss quoted by friends of the hills. ExempƟons are not supported if they are materially detrimental to the pr oper Ɵes within the same zone or neighborhood. The box spring reserve is not in the same zone or neighborhood as PR‐ 2021‐001108. The box spring reserve is not even within city limits.

IV. The statement from Friends of the Hills claiming the Project is not exempt from CEQA is false.

Building next to the box reserved is a covered acƟvity, the export of soils and grading are not considered to ha ve  significant impact. All acƟviƟes are in line with 2025 general plan and environmental study of the city of riverside. The WQMP , Hydrology Study, Cultural Study, Biology Study, Soil Report, and Fire ProtecƟon Plan Report conducted for this project supported the conclusion. There is no significaƟon im pact  associated with Project PR‐2021‐001108 In addiƟon, the California Supreme court holds that the mere possibility of a significant is not, in itself, an unusual circumstance. Therefore, not enough to negate the applicaƟon of a categorical exempƟon. [Berkeley Hillside PreservaƟon v. City of Berk ely  (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086] For the reason listed above I ask you approve the project PR‐2021‐001108 Sincerely,
Guillermo Landeros
Please CC Mayor
City Manager
City AƩorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Time Sensitive!Fwd: City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 - Landeros project ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lau
ra Chang <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:28:47 AM PST
Subject: Fwd: Time Sensitive!Fwd: City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 - Landeros project Hi Ron and Cindy!
This was forwarded from Carolyn this morning:

Dear Neighborhood Friends,
Please send an email asap, preferably before 11:00 today if possible, to [email protected] stating that you agree with the letter sent by Richard and Jane Block (attached below) and that you oppose the Landeros project because it is in violation of the Residential Conservation Code. 400 dump trucks of dirt will need to be removed from the site. This project should not be approved. Also copy Councilwoman Clarissa Cervantes [email protected] I plan to attend the 3:00 meeting at City Hall today and publicly state my opposition to the project during the public comment session. Others welcome to attend as well. Please forward this email to others.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Hock
Location of proposed project
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
2 1
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] LENDERS project on mt vernon ave From: charmaineclarke11 <c
[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 12:23 PM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] LENDERS project on mt vernon ave

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I agree with the Blocks and the letter they sent to you regarding all the trucks that would be required to remove dirt, rocks etc. We only have one way in and out of our street. Could create a fire hazard Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] opposition to the Landeros project From: Christo
pher Chase‐Dunn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:38 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>; WHR SoCal <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] opposition to the Landeros project

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I agree with the letter sent by Richard and Jane Block ( below) and I oppose the Landeros project because it is in violation of the Residential Conservation Code. 400 dump trucks of dirt will need to be removed from the site. This project should not be approved.

Chris Chase‐Dunn
2007 Mt Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507
‐‐
chris chase-dunn 邓宇歌
institute for research on world-systems
university of california-riverside
riverside, ca 92521 USA
mailing address: 2007 mt vernon ave, riverside, ca 92507 usa Consider using my textbook in your class:
_Social Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the Present_ Routledge Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
City of Riverside Fire Department • Prevention Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92522 • (951) 826-5737 • RiversideCA.gov/Fire

INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN: 2022-001
APPROVED BY: C. Kodat, Fire Marshal, 1/1/2023
F

IRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 16.32 and 2022 California Fire Code Section 503 – Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Sec. 503.1.1 - Buildings and facilities.

Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Sec. 503.2.1 - Dimensions
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.

Sec. 503.2.3 - Surface
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus of 80,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.

Sec. 503.2.4 - Turning Radius
Roadways shall have a minimum 48 foot outside turning radius.

Dead end access road shall not exceed 150 feet in length.

Sec. 506.1-2 - Key Boxes
All new commercial and multi -family residential buildings and any existing buildings where the fire department deems access is restricted shall be required to install a key box or key switch in an approved

City of Riverside Fire Department • Prevention Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92522 • (951) 826-5737 • RiversideCA.gov/Fire

location. When a lock is changed or re-keyed, the operator of the building shall immediately notify the City of Riverside Fire Prevention Division and provide the new key for placement in the key box.

Electric gates for emergency vehicle access shall include an “Infrared Automatic Gate System” that opens the gate automatically. These devices shall be installed on all electric fire access gates.

Contact the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.

1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Response to Landeros Project
From: Hiroko Inoue <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 10:12 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Response to Landeros Project
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
To whom it may con
cern:

This email is regarding the "Landeros project."  I strongly agree with the view presented by Mr. Richard Block and Ms.

Jane Block in their email (copied below), and I oppose the Landeros project since it is a violation of the Residential Conservation Code. 400, dump trucks of dirt will nee d to be removed from the site.

Sincerely,
Hiroko Inoue
Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Block <[email protected]>
Date: November 27, 2023 at 9:26:06 PM PST
To: John Green <[email protected]>, Carolyn Hock <[email protected]> Subject: FW: City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 ‐ Landeros project As sent.
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Comments: City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 - Landeros project From: Joh
n Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 10:37 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments: City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 ‐ Landeros project

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
City Clerk’s office: Please ensure that copies of the comment letter below are delivered to City Council members in advance of their consideration of the November 28 City Council agenda item #9 (Landeros project). Please confirm that this has been done. Thank You. ‐John Green
Honorable City Council Members,
As a resident of the Mt Ver non Bowl neighborhood, a professional wildlife biologist, and an environmental consultant, I am writing with concerns regarding planning staff’s apparent failure to understand the RC zone in regard to Planning Case PR‐2021‐001108. Several other environmental issues also exist which appear not to have been addr essed,  and there is some questionable logic regarding the width of the driveway. Their approval of this project despite several obvious issues concerns me, especially given that additional problematic projects in the Mt Vernon Bowl area are also pending their review.

I understand that staff ignored expert testimony from an architect that the buil dings could be located farther west down the hill with less grading, less fire hazard, and farther from the Box Spring Mountain Reserve Park. LESS GRADING is what I see as the key issue here, as the language of the grading code REQUIRES the minimum grading necessary when in th e RC zone. An alternate location is available that requires less grading, so moving the project to that location is what the code requires. Staff should not have approved a project that violates this.

Also, a “Very High Fire Severity zone” is being touted as the reason why a variance should be allowed for a 20‐foot driveway instead of the 15‐foot driveway required by code. Whil e wildfire is definitely a concern here, a quick review of aerial photography shows that the roads adjacent to this parcel, including those that will be utilized to access the project, are all less than 20 feet wide. Wh ere is the logic here? If “fire apparatus access” requires 20‐foot‐wide roads, as stated in the city council memorandum, such apparatus will never be able to reach this project parcel in the first place.

Also, the project plans show that the driveway is to include a hair pin  turn. If the wide driveway is meant to allow access by fire trucks, I seriously doubt that they could negotiate that turn. Building lower down the hill eliminates that turn.

There was a concern raised that the project would export over 5,500 cubic yards of soil. Staff responded that project grading plans show 4,200 cubic yards of dirt will be exported. Did staff just tak e the project plans at face value, or was
the discrepancy in cubic yardage actually investigated? Is there a drainage on this property? Photo 3 on page 12 of the project plans appears to show a sandy wa sh.  If a jurisdictional drainage is present, it must be protected under state law, or a Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained from the state. This project is not exempt, this requirement is independent of the MSHCP. Was this question asked and/or answered?
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
2 Habitat for native birds is present on this parcel. Native birds and their nests are always protected under both the State Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Birds Treaty Act. This is independent of the MSHCP. Have these protections been written into the project’s conditions of approval?

Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP contains guidelines for projects at the Urban/Wildlands Interface. Because the Box Springs Mountains is part of the MSHCP
Conservation Area, this project is at that interface. To avoid edge effects, were the Section 6.1.4 guidelines included in the project’s conditions of approval? I see only mention of “Lighting Standards of the Zoning Code and the Noise Code.”

It is stated in the memorandum that “the non‐graded portion will remain in its natural form and the south and
southwest portion of the site will be preserved through an open space easement.” What has been done to ensure that this easement is legally filed and that its creation is enforceable in perpetuity? As a professional in this field, I know that such easements tend to vanish if not properly recorded.

Please deny approval of this project and refer it to the Planning Commission for review. The violation of the grading code alone is grounds for denial, even without considering the additional issues.

Thank You,
John Green
3120 Mt Vernon Ave.

Riverside, CA 92507

1 From: Laura Chang <llcha
[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:59 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Carolyn Hock <[email protected]>; Husband <[email protected]>; Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Objection to Landeros Project

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
To whom it may concern:

My name is Laura Chang. I live across the street from the BSM. I fully agree with and endorse Richard and Jane Block’s letter rega
rding the Landeros project. I find it abhorrent and disrespectful of local code, culture and history not to mention the obscene and unnecessary destruction of the landscape, ecology, and wildlife.

Please stop entertaining these kinds of projects.

Thank you,
Laura
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
27th November 2023
To: City of Riverside Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Councilmembers:

Fr: Len Nunney, Secretary, Friends of Riverside’s Hills Re: November 28, 2023 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #9: Landeros Project, PR-2021-001108 I am writing on behalf of Friends of Riverside’s Hills (FRH), which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest group dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in the greater Riverside area by maximizing the preservation of the region’s scenic hills, ridgelines, arroyos, and wildlife areas.

We urge you to reject this proposed project because in its current form the project negatively impacts one the region’s scenic hills, and an important wildlife area. In our view, the environmental impact of developing this parcel could be substantially mitigated through the adoption of a different project design, and that environmentally superior designs would become apparent given an adequate (and mandated) CEQA review.

Several letters have already been submitted by and on behalf of Friends of Riverside’s Hills (FRH), including my own submitted on 20
th February 2023 via email. Unfortunately, this email apparently never reached the City’s Planning Staff due to a decision by the City’s IT department to block all emails from the domain that houses FRH’s email account (Juno.com). The City provided no automated response that would have informed users of this domain that their emails were being blocked. For this reason, I have appended that original letter to this one.

In this letter I will address two issues raised in my original letter: compliance with the mandates of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), specifically the Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines (copy appended to the letter); and compliance with CEQA. My comments are informed by my previous role as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee that was tasked with helping to develop the MSHCP, and as a Professor of Biology at UC Riverside with expertise in Conservation Biology. For example, two of my early papers addressing conservation issues have been cited 434 times (Assessing minimum viable population size: demography meets population genetics) and 408 times (Estimating the effective population size of conserved populations) according to Google Scholar.

Failure to comply with MSHCP.

As noted in my previous letter, this project directly borders an MSHCP reserve, the Box Springs Mountain Park (BSMP), defined in the plan as Habitat Block A. This habitat block was originally 2650 acres, but it has been significantly enlarged by approximately 900 acres (through public ownership and conservation easement) through the efforts of FRH, linking the two parts of the block, a division that had originally caused it to be designated “noncontiguous”, further increasing its conservation value.

Development around the BSMP was recognized as a concern in the MSHCP planning, so it was emphasized in the plan that “… treatment and management of edge conditions along this habitat block will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat and movement functions for species using the habitat block. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document.…” (Section 3.2.3, emphasis added).

Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
There does not appear to have been any consideration by the City of this crucial requirement of the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines as it relates to this project, except to state that “ministerial projects, such single-family residences, are exempt from MSHCP policies, with the exception of payment of development fees.” (Development Review Committee Report). Similarly, the developer addressed the issue (Development Review Committee Report Appendix) by noting that the development of single family homes are considered a covered activity within the Criteria Area. However, in this context, we are not suggesting that a single family home cannot be built on this lot, only that the requirements of the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) still need to be explicitly considered and adhered to.

As stated in the MSHCP in relation to edge effects and the application of the Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines: “To minimize such Edge Effects, the following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area” (MSHCP Section 6.1.4 p42). This statement applies to all projects and in the case, the successful implementation of the guidelines was not evaluated. As noted above, the MSHCP specifically states that edge effects are a specific concern around the borders of habitat block A, and the project parcel is located in direct contact with the block along the parcel’s eastern border.

Some issues pertaining to the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines are covered by City development conditions; however, the absence of any explicit analysis means that, for example, the important issue of minimizing access of domestic predators, such as cats, from the subject parcel was not considered. Cats are serious predators of birds and kangaroo rats. Habitat Block A is explicitly intended to incorporate species such as Stephens’ kangaroo rat, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell’s sage sparrow, cactus wren, loggerhead shrike (MSHCP section 3.2.3 p59), all of which are potentially vulnerable to cat predation. Another concern is the intrusion of lighting. Although the City conditions states that the parcel is to be maintained as lighting zone 0, this designation does not address light intrusion into the BSMP, since, according to Table 19.556.080 A of the City code, “Allowable light trespass shall be determined based upon the light zone in which the trespass occurs, not from which the light originates.” In this case the potential intrusion involves County property, so the City zoning does not apply. The result is that intrusion FROM the subject property needs to be considered in order to comply with the MSHCP guideline that “Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased” (MSHCP Section 6.1.4, p43).

Other important aspects of the Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines not considered include the use of toxics and the drainage from the property. Since the proposed location of the house is on the top of a hill adjacent to the BSMP, the potential for polluting run-off needs to be analyzed. Such detrimental run- off could include excess nutrients from a range of domestic sources including fertilizer use that could adversely affect the plant community by promoting the growth of invasive species, and it could include toxics such as herbicides and pesticides. In addition, even without run off, the use of toxics could be detrimental to animals that could (and probably would) move between the property and BSMP, including kangaroo rats and birds.

In summary, the project evaluation should have explicitly addressed how it complies with the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines. As a result, there are important issues that have not been considered or addressed.

Failure to comply with CEQA.

In the Introduction to the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP section 6.1.4) it is noted that these guidelines are generally addressed because “…project review and impact mitigation that are currently provided through the CEQA process address these issues”. In this case, there was no CEQA review and as a result the guidelines were not explicitly considered. Of course, in general, the approval of a single family does not require CEQA review; however, as noted in detail in the letter of Richard and Jane Block, CEQA analysis is required “where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies”.

In this case, the project has the potential to impact the part of the BSMP (MSHCP habitat block A) that forms the long eastern boundary of the parcel. As noted in my previous letter, the applicant’s biologist makes the unsupported comment that “The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Riverside County does not consider this area a habitat of wildlife concern”. In fact, this area not only provides habitat for many the 146 covered species, it was also used in the more detailed conservation planning for 7 species (southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell’s sage sparrow, cactus wren, loggerhead shrike, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, bobcat, and Nevin’s barberry; 3.2.3 p59). As noted previously, the extensive biological diversity of the BSMP can be seen using the inaturalist.org public photographic database. For example, there are recent records for 68 bird species, 16 species of reptile, and 113 species of insect.

Recently, in recognition of the importance of the BSMP, the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA), which is the agency responsible to implementing and monitoring the MSHCP, worked with FRH to purchase 160 acres of additional property within the BSMP.

The BSMP is very clearly a critical environmental resource that has been mapped and officially adopted as an integral part of the MSHCP. As such, the project is subject to CEQA analysis. There is a potential impact of this project on the nearby biodiversity of the BSMP due such factors as light pollution, noise pollution, the planting of invasive plants, the use of poisons, and predation by pets needs to be mitigated to the extent possible, and evaluated under CEQA guidelines. To this point there has been no analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project on the BSMP.

Other features of this project are also of significant concern, and these points are addressed in detail in the letters of Richard Block, including concerns over the risk of wildfire. The proposed location of the structures at the top of a steep hill generally maximizes fire vulnerability, regardless of the precautions that may be taken. An additional concern is the fire risk that the development poses to the BSMP. This is another edge effect that has been recognized as increasingly important in preserving our natural open space.

Thank you for consideration of these issues.

Regards,
Len Nunney for Friends of Riverside’s Hills.

Attachments: 1. MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines

2. Nunney letter of 2oth Feb 2023

6.0 MSHCP Implementati on Structu re
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-42

6.1.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface The guidelines presented in t his section are int ended to a ddress indirect effects associated with locating Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where applicable. Existing local regulations are generally in place that address the issues presented in this section. Specifically, the County of Riverside and the 14 Cities within the MSHCP Plan Area have a pproved general plans, zoning ordinances and policies that include mechanisms to regulate the development of land.

In addition, project review and impact mitigation that are currently provided through the CEQA process address these issues.

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this document provide a general description of the MSHCP Conservation Area and contain the Criteria for Reserve Assembly . As the MSH CP Conserva tion Area is assembled, “hard-line” boundaries shall be established and Development may occur adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Future Development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in E dge Ef fects tha t will adve rsely affec t biological resou rces wit hin the MSH CP Conservation Area. To minimize such Edge Effects, the following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Edge effects assoc iated with existing and future land use s in proximity to the MSHCP C onservation Area shall also be addre ssed thro ugh ove rall MS HCP management activities described in Section 5.0 of this document, particularly General Management Measures 1 and 8 as described in Section 5.2.1.
' Drainage
Proposed Developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity a nd quality of runoff discha rged t o the MS HCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, mea sures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untre ated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Are a. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.

6.0 MSHCP Implementati on Structu re
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-43
' Toxics
Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as ma nure that are pot entially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHC P Conse rvation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.
' Lighting
Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. ' Noise
Proposed noise ge nerating land u ses affecting the MSHCP Con servation Area s hall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related t o land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
' Invasives
When a pproving lan dscape p lans for Develop ment that i s propose d adjace nt to the MSH CP Conservation Area, Permittees shall consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 and shall require revisions to landscape plans (subject to the limitations of their jurisdiction) to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of Development that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation A reas, species considered in the p lanting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conser vation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and other features.

6.0 MSHCP Implementati on Structu re
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-44
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-44
TABLE 6-2. PLANTS THAT SHOULD BE AVOIDED

ADJACENT TO THE MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA

BOT ANICAL N AME COMMO N NAME
Acacia spp. (all species) acacia
Achill ea millef olium var. millefolium common yar row Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven
Aptenia co rdifolia red ap ple
Arcto theca calen dula cape weed
Arcto tis spp. (all species & hybrids) African daisy
Arundo donax giant reed or arundo grass
Asphodelus f istulosus asphodel
Atriplex glauca white saltbush
Atriplex sem ibaccata Australian saltbush
Carex spp. (all species*) sedge
Carpobrotus chilen sis ice pla nt
Carpobrotus edulis sea fig
Centranthus ruber red val erian
Chrysanthemum coronarium annual chry santhemum
Cistus l adanifer (incl. hy brids/variet ies) gum rockrose Cortaderia juba ta [syn.C . Atac amensis] jubata grass, pampas grass Cortaderia dioica [syn. C. sell owana ] pampas grass
Cotoneaster spp. (all species) cotoneast er
Cynodon dactylon (incl. hy brids variet ies) Bermuda grass Cyperus spp. (all s pecies*) nutsedge, umbrell a plant Cytisus spp. (all species) broom
Delosperma ‘Alba’ white t railing ice plant
Dimorphotheca spp. (all speci es) African da isy, Cap e marig old Drosanthemum flori bundum rosea i ce plant
Drosanthemum hispidum purple i ce plant
Eichhornia cr assipes water hyacin th
Elaegnus ang ustifolia Russian olive
Eucalyptus spp. (all species) eucalyptus or gum tree
Eupatorium coele stinum [syn. Ageratina sp.] mist flower Festuca arundi nacea tall fescue
Festuca rubra creeping r ed fescue
Foeniculum vulgare sweet fe nnel
Fraxinus uhdei (and cultivars) evergreen ash, shamel ash Gaura (spp.) (all species) gaura
Gazania spp. (all species & hybrids) gazania
TABLE 6-2. PLANTS THAT SHOULD BE AVOIDED
ADJACENT TO THE MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA (Cont.)

6.0 MSHCP Implementation Structure
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-45
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-45

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Genista spp. (all species) broom
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Hypericum spp. (all species) St. John’s Wort
Ipomoea acuminata Mexican morning glory
Lampranthus spectabilis trailing ice plant
Lantana camara common garden lantana
Lantana montevidensis [syn. L. sellowiana ] lantana
Limonium perezii sea lavender
Linaria bipartita toadflax
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass
Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass
Lonicera japonica (incl. ‘Halliana’) Japanese honeysuckle Lotus corniculatus birdsfoot trefoil
Lupinus arboreus yellow bush lupine
Lupinus texanus Texas blue bonnets
Malephora crocea ice plant
Malephora luteola ice plant
Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum little ice plant
Myoporum laetum myoporum
Myoporum pacificum shiny myoproum
Myoporum parvifolium (incl. ‘Prostratum’) ground cover myoporum Oenothera berlandieri Mexican evening primrose
Olea europea European olive tree
Opuntia ficus-indica Indian fig
Osteospermum spp. (all species) trailing African daisy, African daisy, Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde
Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass
Pennisetum setaceum fountain grass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phoenix dactylifera date palm
Plumbago auriculata cape plumbago
Polygonum spp. (all species) knotweed
Populus nigra ‘italica ’ Lombardy poplar
Prosopis spp. (all species*) mesquite
Ricinus communis castorbean
TABLE 6-2. PLANTS THAT SHOULD BE AVOIDED
ADJACENT TO THE MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA (Cont.)

6.0 MSHCP Implementati on Structu re
VOLUME 1 — SECTION 6 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 6-46

BOT ANICAL N AME COMMO N NAME
Robinia ps eudoacacia black locust
Rubus procerus Himalayan blackberry
Sapium sebif erum Chinese tal low tre e
Saponaria offic inalis bounc ing bet, soap wart
Schin us molle Peruvian pepper tree , California pe pper Schinus t erebint hifolius Brazili an pepper t ree
Spartium j unceum Spanish broom
Tamarix spp. (all species) tamarisk, sal t cedar
Trifolium tragi ferum strawber ry clover
Tropaelolum majus garden nast urtium
Ulex europaeus prickly broom
Vinca major periwinkle
Yucca gloriosa Spanish dagger
An asterisk (*) indicates some native species of the genera exist that may be appropriate.

Sources: California Exotic Pest Plant Council, United States Department of Agriculture-Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Plant Society, Fremontia Vol. 26 No. 4, October 1998, The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California, and County of San Diego-Department of Agriculture. ' Barriers
Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, wher e appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. ' Grading/Land Development
Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
20th Feb 2023
Dear Judy:

I would like to add some comments on PR-2021-001108 on behalf of Friends of Riverside’s Hills (FRH) in addition to those already provided by Richard Block. These comments are informed by my position as a Professor at UC Riverside with expertise in Conservation Biology. Of relevance here is that I served on the Scientific Advisory Committee that was tasked with helping to develop the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

The applicant, in responding to the letter submitted by Richard Block on February 10, 2023, argued that “The project is not of critical concern and meets the criteria for CEQA exemption. As stated in MSCHP section 6.1.1 development of property outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area (both within and outside of the Criteria Area) provided full mitigation under CEQA by paying the fee and compliance with the requirements in sections 6.”
This statement misses two points. First, while the MSHCP does generally allow take of covered species on a property within the Criteria Area, other conditions must also be met to comply with the plan. In this case, compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines is critical. Second, compliance with the MSHCP does not provide an automatic exemption from CEQA.

MSHCP Section 6.1.1 states that “Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 are intended to provide full mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), ……” – with emphasis added to show that th is is not a categorical exemption from CEQA, but one that needs to be evaluated. In addition, as noted above, compliance with section 6 includes complying with Section 6.1.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface.

This project directly borders an MSHCP reserve, the Box Springs Mountains (BSM), defined in the plan as Habitat Block A. This habitat block was originally 2650 acres, but it has been significantly enlarged by approximately 900 acres (through public ownership and conservation easement) through the efforts of FRH, further increasing its conservation value. Development around the BSM was recognized as a concern in the MSHCP planning, so the it emphasized that “…treatment and management of edge conditions along this habitat block will be necessary…” (Section 3.2.3). There does not appear to have been any consideration of this crucial requirement of the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines as it relates to this project.

The letter from a biologist employed (presumably) by the applicant makes an astonishing unsupported comment that “The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Riverside County does not consider this area a habitat of wildlife concern”. In fact, this area not only provides habitat for a large number of the covered species, it was also used in the more detailed conservation planning for 7 species. Recently, in recognition of the importance of the BSM, the Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA), which is the agency responsible to implementing and monitoring the MSHCP, worked with FRH to purchase 160 acres of additional property within the BSM.

The BSM is very clearly a critical environmental resource that has been mapped and officially adopted as an integral part of the MSHCP. As such, the project is subject to CEQA analysis. The potential impact of this project on the nearby biodiversity of the BSM due such factors as light pollution, noise pollution, the planting of invasive plants, the use of poisons, and predation by pets needs to be mitigated to the extent possible, and evaluated under CEQA guidelines.

The extensive biological diversity of the BSM can be seen using the inaturalist.org public photographic database. For example, there are recent records for 68 bird species, 16 species of reptile, and 113 species of insect.

Other features of this project are of significant concern. As noted by Richard Block, the proposed location of the structures on the steep slope lot serves to maximize the danger in the event of a wildfire, and the extent the grading is extreme.

We strongly oppose the project in its present form and in the absence of appropriate CEQAreview.

Regards,
Len Nunney
for Friends of Riverside’s Hills.

1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 - Landeros project From: Michael Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 10:53 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 ‐ Landeros project ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I write to express my support for the letter sent by Richard and Jane Block (see below).

I oppose the Landeros project, which is close to my residence on Mt Vernon Ave.

Sincerely,
Michael E. Adams
2163 Mt. Vernon Ave.

Riverside, CA 92507
[email protected]
951-750-3707
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 From: Paul Ch
ang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:49 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>; Laura Chang <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Landeros project

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
To whom it may concern:

I am Paul Chang, a neighbor and resident of Riverside. I am in agreement with the letter of Richard and Jane Block regarding the Landeros project and I am frankly flabbergasted that the project has gone as far as it has.

I will be watching developments closely .

Thank you,
Paul
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 From: Racha
el Hamby <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:17 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Landeros Project
Hello, I am writing to state that I agree with the letter sent by Richard and Jane Block and I oppose the Landeros project because it is in violation of the Residential Conservation Code. 400 dump trucks of dirt will need to be removed from ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStartZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hello,
I am writing to state that I agree with the letter sent by Richard and Jane Block and I oppose the Landeros project because it is in violation of the Residential Conservation Code. 400 dump trucks of dirt will need to be removed from the site. This project should not be approved.

Best,
Rachael Hamby
Sent from my iPhone
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 - Landeros project From: Richar
d Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 7:21 PM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>; CityClerkMbx <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 ‐ Landeros project ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
City Clerk’s office: Please ensure that copies of the comment letter below are delivered to City Council members in advance of their consideration of the Nov.28 City Council agenda item #9 (Landeros project). Please confirm that that is being done. This can be provided as a Word document if that is neede d.

Nove
mber 27, 2023
To: City of Riverside Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Councilmembers From: Richard and Jane Block
Re: Opposition to City Council Nov. 28, 2023 agenda item 9 Case PR‐2021‐001108 ‐‐ Grading of hill for Landeros lot buildings
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As our City’s General Plan (at p. LU‐3) says, “Pride in neighbo rhoods extends to pride in the City's diverse natural environment.” As will be explained, the project at issue, with its massive grading for an ill‐placed driveway, unnecessarily damages that natural hillside environment and violates provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, constituting a bad precedent for such violations.

To help implement th
at pride in the City’s natural environment, exactly 50 years ago this fall we led the citizen impetus to get the County to preserve much of Box Springs Mountain (BSM) at the east of the City, with the County acquiring initially 2,200 acres to create the BSM Park, now BSM Reserve in recognition of its importance to wildlife. And a few years later Jane played a significant role in establishing the Victoria Ave bike trails and the 1,500 acre Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park.

In 1979 the citizens of Riverside voted to appro
ve Prop R, which stated
“Our hills, ridgelines, arroyos, and watersheds are being bulldozed. All these are priceless and irre
placeable amenities which enhance the quality of life and which we wish to preserve for ourselves and future generations.” and in 1987 the citizens voted again to reinforce Prop R and in the 2000s to prevent weakening it. In the recent dec
ade we joined with others in helping to arrange the
preservation of much additional land – over 1,000 acres – much of it on or adjacent to BSM, including a gift to the City of 4.1 acres of R‐1‐8500 land that we owned th at  was added to the open space part of Islander Park.

Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
2 In furtherance of that need to preserve hills from being bulldozed, the Hillside/Arroyo provisions of the Grading Code (section 17.28.020) were adopted by the City. Key provision are “Where grading is proposed on any parcel having an average natural slope of ten percent or greater, or which is zoned Residential Conservation (RC), … the grading must be confined per this chapter and limited to the minimum grading necessary to provide for an approved dwelling unit or units, driveway, garage and limited level yard.” … A.6: The area of a site proposed to be graded shall be that which fits into the natural terrain and which allows for a minimal amount of grading. …” (emphasis added) Note the specific inclusion of any driveway grading in the limitation of grading to the minimum needed in the first quoted provision, and that the area of the site considered in the second quoted provision would also include the driveway.

But now comes the Landeros project, to bulldoze the top of a steep hill a stone’s throw from the BSM Reserve, with a driveway going up the hill that needs two U‐turns, plus right turns
and a grading exception (for which the required findings are not legally justified and which the latest grading plan shows is being violated), and such a huge amount of grading that it requires the export of well over four thousand cubic yards of dirt, so about 400 dump truck loads going through a big part of an exclusively residential neighborhood, very unusual for grading of a single‐family lot, and with no information on where the export will be going.

At an elevation of 1,540 feet, the proposed buildings would tower above  neighboring houses – per the latest grading plan, the closest house, immediately to the west of the lot, is at about 1,450 feet, so a huge 90 foot difference. And the proposed buildings, so close to the BSM Reserve and with part of the driveway only 25 feet from the lot’s long 427‐foot border with the Reserve, would impact the Reserve and its wildlife species of concern with its lights, noise and pet predation, as well as negatively impact the view of the BSM as seen from a good part of the City.

But our principal concern with the project is the bad
precedent it sets in allowing the
violation of important hill‐preserving provisions of the City’s Grading code as contained in the Hillside/Arroyo section of that code, particularly by essentially ignoring the huge extent of grading for the driveway.

The project’s engineer, at Attachment 1b  p. 26‐29,  gives what purports to be “Hillside/Arroyo Grading Ordinance Requirements” as they relate to this project, but omits to mention the above quoted key ordinance requirements that include driveway grading. In the pages following that, the engineer gives drawings of how to build on a hillside such of this one, showing feasibility of such a location instead of at the top of the hill. Moreover, distinguished Architect Brian Williams provided detailed drawings of such building on a hillside such as the one in question in letters to the Planning Division prior to the DRC Action on Feb. 22, but none of those letters, nor those of FRH, that were received in February after the comment period 3 that ended Feb. 10 are included in the agenda attachments for the present Public Hearing over nine months later, despite a staff apology for failing to timely notify FRH of a public comment period for the DRC meeting.

We believe Architect Brian Williams, with his impressive expertise in hillside building, will

provide you drawings and testimony regarding building on the hillside in question. With the pad much lower on the hill, there would be very much less grading and export for the driveway and thus for the whole project. And most important, it (and similarly drawings of such hillside building), with its far less grading when the driveway grading is included, shows that the proposed pad at the top of the hill, with its extremely long driveway with associated very large amount of grading, is in violation of the quoted requirements to minimize such grading where the grading mentioned in the Code includes that for the driveway.

We find no evidence that staff or the project consultants addressed the above quoted provision of the grading code that includes the driveway in the minimum grading necessary, much less substantial evidence that it was abided by, although staff did include a statement by Mr.

Landeros that
“Grading: Per the fire consulate and the fire [sic] the City Fire department the pad cannot be located in the bottom of the property because the structure would be within the 100ft defensible space. Having the property at the bottom corner of the hill would expose two sides of the buildings to less than 100 ft from the property line. Having two sides exposed to within 100 ft is not allowed per the city fire department.” That claim that fire regulations prevent the pad from being located farther down is false: a pad somewhat farther west down the hill would easily be farther than 100 feet from the eastern boundary, and with the north‐south dimension of the lot being 427 feet, one could easily place a pad that was more than 100 feet from both the north and south lot boundaries (if 100 feet from the entry road to the north is even needed), and also farther away from wildland fires in the Reserve along the long eastern lot border – but maybe the engineer and staff were confused about directions: the staff report for the DRC mistakenly claims the BSM Reserve is to the west rather than the east, and until the most recent version, the engineer’s grading plans had the North arrow pointing east.

The project engineer says (1b, p. 26‐28)
“The proposed access road alignment selected to avoid natural boulders and limited the required cut / fill slopes to the existing terrain and contours of the site. … Refer to Appendix A for Grading Specification for details showing slopes blended with natural hillside. … The proposed disturbed grading area well fits into the natural terrain and limited disturbance of the site. … As shown on the Conceptual Grading Plan, vertical height throughout the site ranges from 11’ to 19’.”  [versus the Code’s limit of 20’].

However, “vertical height throughout the site rang[ing] from 11 feet to 19 feet”, so close to the Code’s 20 foot limit, shows that the grading is in fact not “limited to existing terrain and 4 contours of the site” or well fitting into the natural terrain or limited disturbance of the site.

And the Appendix A referred to shows some general schematics for hillside buildings but does not deal with any particular part of this lot.

But the most important thing about the project Engineer’s comments is that there was no
consideration shown by the project Engineer, or any other consultant, or staff, as to whether there might be a building site farther down that, with driveway grading included, might involve significantly less grading, and thus there is a failure to provide evidence that the project as proposed would abide by the above quoted Hillside/Arroyo provisions of the Grading Code.

At 1b p.28, in response to the Code’s limitation on grading on slopes exceeding 40% (about which architect Brian Williams has provided information showing that project consideration was inadequate), the project engineer says
“The proposed grading will
be on the northwest of the project site which is generally flatter than Remainder of the site. The disturbed area mostly between 5% to 40%.” It’s not clear whether the “proposed grading” he refers to is just that for the pad or more generally, but anyway, it is apparent from the topography as shown on the grading plans that there are places on the lot, lower down and closer to the entrance road and so with much less driveway length and rise, and with slope sufficiently low, where the buildings could be located with very significantly less grading including that for the driveway , but the project failed to consider them, thus again showing a failure to abide by or provide evidence concerning the Code’s restriction on grading to the minimum necessary including for the driveway.

It appears that the applicant simply decided he wanted the buildings on top of the hill, and
told his Fire and Engineering consultants and City Planning staff that that was the only building site to consider on the lot. Indeed, the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) and the Engineers Grading Plan (in its various versions) and the staff report fail to even consider any other building site on the lot than that on the hilltop. Thus there is a lack of evidence that the project complies with the quoted Grading Code provision, as opposed to the evidence, particularly in the drawings and comments by Architect Brian Williams showing that the buildings could be located farther down so with much less driveway,  that it does not so comply.

A related issue is that the Justifications given (1b, p.103) for at least two of the three Findings listed in Section 17.32.020 for the project’s Conditional Exception to the Grading Code (driveway wider than 15 feet), all three of which are required, are false. For the first Finding, the justification given (1b, p. 103) is
“the fire code requires the driveway to be at least 20ft wide. The maximum allowable width of the driveway using title 17 is 15ft. Without the exemption the project does not pass the fire code requirements.”
But as stated by the project Engineer (1b, p. 23)
5 “Most of the grading is due to the maximum slope of 15% and driveway width is required by Fire Department to increase to 20’ side. After discussion with Fire Department, the straight portion of the driveway can be reduced to 15’.” And the present Grading Plan does shows a long section of the driveway as now only 15 feet wide. But since the allegedly required 20‐ft fire code provision can be waived after discussion with the Fire Department, then it is not true that the 15‐foot width provision of the grading code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships.

The second required finding is
“B. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood; The Justification given (1b, p. 103) is that the project is in a very high fire hazard zone and there are developed properties in the neighborhood not meeting current standards. But the entire neighborhood for a considerable distance from the site is in a very high fire hazard zone (as shown on City’s General Plan Public Safety Element Figure PS‐7). Regarding other properties in a neighborhood, the same driveway width restriction does apply to them if they would ever want to develop a new driveway, and that they might not choose to do so is irrelevant.

Another point about the Grading Exception: as requested and granted: it is for a 20‐ft driveway width, but as seen in the Grading Plan, substantial portions of the driveway as planned
are well over 20 feet wide, yet another violation of the Grading Code.

Staff claims a Class 3 Exemption from CEQA for the project, but ignores that two of CEQA’s Exceptions to that Exemption can apply:
“(a) … except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” In this case, the environmental resource of critical concern is the BSM Reserve, a wildlife reserve that the project lot borders all along its long 427 foot eastern border, with much of its proposed driveway and buildings impacting the Reserve as noted above. And “(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”
As our Supreme Court has said in Berkeley Hillside Preservation vs City of Berkeley (2015, at p. 21)
“A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance.” 6 Here the unusual circumstances include the said location adjacent to the wildlife habitat BSM Reserve, the need for a Grading Exception for the driveway with its very sharp curves, and the export of so much soil. Previous letters have addressed some of the resulting significant effect, and ecology expert Prof. Leonard Nunney is sending you a letter for FRH that comments on significant effects on the BSM Reserve and MSHCP.

Other letters will be sent pointing out problems with the project, including Architect Brian Williams’ analysis showing that the grading design’s ramps for the sharp turns in the proposed driveway are in violation of the code, as well as drawings showing other problems and better solutions for the site.

We urge you to reject this project in its present form.

Thank you for your consideration and dedication to the best for Riverside.

Richard and Jane
Richard Block, UCR Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Emeritus and representing Friends of Riverside Hills and the University Neighborhood Association Jane Block, recipient of the 2011 City Spirit Award presented by the City Council, and of numerous other awards for her civic activities over the past half century Sent from Mail for Windows
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Landeros Project PR-2021-001108 Attachments: LAST LANDEROS LETTER (12).pdf; 40% SLOPE.pdf; RAMP CALL OUT.JPG; RAMP RADIUS 2A.JPG; RAMPRADUIS 2AA.JPG; BRIAN BIO (9).pdf; LANDEROS A.pdf
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 11:44 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Landeros Project PR‐2021‐001108
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Can you please distribute these documents before the 3pm council meeting These documents are from The Williams Company
Opposition to City Council Nov.28th 2023 Agenda item 9 case PR-2021-001108, Grading of a hill for the Landeros Project.

Thank you
Brian

cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9

THEWILLIAMSCOMPANY
ARCHITECTURE+CONSULTING
BrianWilliamsPrincipal Architect
Mr. WilliamsholdsaBAandMAinArchitecture.EarlyinmycareerI wasfortunateenoughtogainemploymentwithoneofthefivebestratedpracticingArchitectsintheworld.MylineageisEeroSaarinen( St.LouisArch,TWAterminalNewYork),andAnthonyLumsdenwhoworkedforSaarinen.Lumsdenisthepersonwhotaughtme.MyearlycareerwasspentdesigningandconstructingavarietyofbuildingtypesworldwidefromtheUStoEuropetoAustraliatoIndonesiatoJapan.I wastheleaddesignArchitectforOntarioInternationalAirportinthe80’s.

Inmyprivatepracticewhichopenedin1987,I designavarietyofprojectsfromcommercialtoresidentialtoeducationalaswellascurrentmid-riseofficebuildingproposalsinLosAngelesandBeverlyHills,mostofmyworkisinCalifornia.Inthemid90’sseveralofmyhillsidehomestructureswereselectedbytheCityofLosAngelestotraintheirplancheckersintheconstruction,detailingandproblemsolvingaspectsofdesigninghillsideproperties.Difficulttodevelop,hillsidepropertiesaretheonlyremainingresidentialsitesleftinLosAngeles.

I amanOldSchoolArchitectthatwastrainedtodesign,surveydostructuralandcivilcalculations.

THEWILLIAMSCOMPANY
ARCHITECTURE+CONSULTING
Date:11-28-23
To: CityofRiversideHonorableMayorandHonorableCityCouncilmembers From:BrianWilliamsArchitectResidentat2292MountVernonAve.Riverside,California Re: OppositiontoCityCouncilNov.28th2023Agendaitem9casePR-2021-001108,GradingofahillfortheLanderosProject.

DearMayorandCouncilmembers,
Thedesignprocessstartsbyundertakingacompletesiteanalysis.Beforeanydecisionsaremadeonafinallocationforabuilding,alloftheinformationhastobeanalyzed.Allofthecoderequirements,FireDepartmentrequirementsPlanningandZoningrequirementsandBuildingDepartmentrequirementsareallputinadecisiontree,processed,analyzedandweighed.

Itiscleartomethisprocesswasnotfollowed,thedeveloperbackedintothisdesign,hewantedhishouseontopofthehillandhehasstruggledtryingtojustifykeepingitthere.Thedeveloperisstrugglingtryingtojustifythemassiveamountofsoiltoberemovedfromthesite.TheoriginaldesignwasapprovedbythePlanningCommissionwiththehelpofthePlanningDepartment.ThisapprovalviolatesthemaintenetsoftheRCzone.

1. Excessivegrading,whichleadstotheexportofmassquantitiesofsoiloff site.2. Protectionofhilltopsandridgelines.Sitephotographsprovidedshowtheridgelineinquestion.

Nowwehaveanewdesignwhichexportsalittlelesssoiloff sitebuttheamountofexportedisstilltoomuch,especiallyifthereisawaytoreducetheamountofexportedsoiltonearzero,withabettersitedesign.

I haveprovidedadesignthatsatisfiesallofthePlanning,GradingandFireDepartmentrequirementswithouttheneedforanycodeaccommodations.Thedesignschemedoesnotrequireanyexportofsoil.ThisdesignorsomethinglikethisdesigniswhatshouldhavebeenproposedInthefirstplace.Itsolvesthepuzzle.Thissolutionisonlyafirstlookatwhatcouldpotentiallybeareallygooddesign,anditallstartedwithgoodsiteanalysisnotapreconceivedidea.

1. Ifthecorrectanalysiswasperformedthedeveloperwouldn’tbeexporting550ororcurrently400truckloadsofexportedsoilinanRCzone.Myproposal,proposesnottoexportanysoilandpreservethehilltopsandridgelines.Myproposalwillcutapproximately400cubicyardsofsoilnotincludingtheroadasopposedto7,900cubicyards,theremainingsoilwillbeusedasfillundertheroadbedandanyremainingsoilwillbespreadaroundthesitewithsomesoilplacedinsiteretentionplanters.Theultimategoalisnoexportedsoil.Myproposalstillneedssomefinetuningbutit'smovingintherightdirection. .a. Whyisexportingsoilsuchabigdeal?

1. Itwouldn'tbesuchabigdealifthiswasn'tanRCzonewhichbycodewasdevelopedtoprotectthehillsides,ridgelinesandhilltops.Soifadesignwasdevelopedthatcaneliminatetheexportofsoilanddoesn'tflattenoutahilltop,whywasn'tthisdesignconsideredbytheCity. I ambeginningtofeelasiftheCityPlanningandGradingDepartmentsdon'thavetheexpertisetoevaluatethenuance’srequiredforsensitiveprojects.Theamountsofsoiltobeexportedshouldhavebeenabigredflagforpoordesignanalysis.Whomakesthedesigndecisionsrelatedtowhat'spossibleonthesite?DoestheCityrelyonthegoodwilloftheCivilEngineerortheDevelopersArchitecttodeterminewhatispossible?OristheCity'sresponsibilitytodirectthedeveloperastowhatispossibleandwhat'snotpossible?ItseemstometheCityhasisahugetechnicalassessmentpersonmissing.Thatpersonorpersonsshouldhaveabackgroundinsiteanalysis,architecturaldesignanalysisinrelationshiptotheCodeandsiteoptions,thispersonshouldhaveyearsofpracticalcommonsenseexperienceinthedesignprocess.That'sthepersonwhoshouldbe makingdecisionsforthesetypesofprojects.PlannersandCivilEngineersshouldn'tbemakingthesecriticaldecisions.PlannersandCivilengineersarenottrainedtoassesssites.TheCityneedstohireathirdpartyoutsideconsultanttohelpassessthesetypesofprojects.

2. It'sabigdealbecausethissiteabutsanaturalwildlifepreserve,andanybuildingorconstructionproposedforthesetypesofsitesshouldbecarefullyconsidered.

3. It'sabigdealbecause400truckloadsofdirtisgoingtotearupourdirtroadsandcausenoiseanddustpollution.Otheroptionsareavailablebutwereneverconsidered.

2. I reviewedthecurrentsubmittedsiteplanandtwoofthethreesemicirculardrivewayrampsdon'twork.SeeattachedSketchA a. RampA,inorderforahairpinramptoworktheinnerandouterradiushavetomakeacomplete180degreeturn,soafullturncanbecompleted.Thenewlysubmitteddesignistruncated,halfoftheturnradiusismissing.Thiswasdonesoyoucouldfittheramponthesite.Thisrampdoesntworkandit'sdangerous.Atsomepointsomebodyhastodecidethisroadandtheserampsarenotgoingtowork,becausetheentiredesignisforcedonthissite.TherampshouldbedesignedtobeequaldistanceonbothsidesofthecenterlineseeSketchA. RampAisalsomissingacontourline. b. RampB,ismissingacontourline,andthisrampsslopeisbetween17and20percent.

3. Slopestability
a. I amnowreallyconcernedaboutslopestability. Thispadandhouseisproposedtobeconstructeddirectlyabovemyparentshouseat2292MountVernonAve.Therearyardofmyparentshousehasacutfacerockwallthatsitsdirectlybehindmyparentshouse.I fearthattheheavygradingmachinerywillloosenthosehugerocks.FurthersoilreportreviewisrequiredbytheCity, nomatterwherethefinallocationforthehouseisonthesite.

4. Buildingpadsa. Concretepadsongradearenotrequiredtobuildabuilding.Therearemanyoptionsforsecuringabuildingtothegroundespeciallyonslopedsites.Justbecausethecodesaysyoucanhaveanpadof18,000s.f.doesn'tmeanyoucanhavean18,000s.f.padoran8,000s.f.padifthatpadviolatesoneofthemaintenetsoftheRCzone.Hillsidepropertydevelopmentdeserveshillsidepropertysolutionsnotflatsitesolutions.

5. 40PercentSlopesCodeSection
a. Codesection17.28.020 A12

12. Nogradingshall bepermittedonslopesexceeding40percent unlessfindingscanbemadeby thePlanningCommissionthat exceptional or special circumstancesassetforthinChapter 17.32Conditional Exceptionsapply. b. Nobuildingonthissiteshouldbeconsidereduntiltheproblemwithgradingon40percentslopeshasbeensolved.Enclosedisasiteplanwhichshowshighlightedareaswherethesiteslopesexceed40percent.BycodenogradingcanoccurIntheseareas. c. Thedefinitionofslopeasdescribedinthegradingcode:

17.08.140- Slope“Slope”isaninclinegroundsurfacetheinclinationofwhichiscommonlyexpressedasaratioofhorizontaldistancetoverticaldistance.

17.08.150- AverageNaturalSlope“Averagenaturalslope”isaslopedeterminedpursuanttotheCityofRiversideAdoptedAverageNaturalSlopeFormulaspecifiedinSection19.100.050ofthisCode,asfollows:AverageNaturalSlopemeanstheaveragenaturalinclinationoofthegroundsurfaceofthelotorparcelexpressedasapercentandasmeasuredbythefollowingformula:

1 From: Wilfre
d Elders <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:58 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council 11/28/2023 Agenda Item 9 ‐ Landeros project

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Sirs,
I strongly endorse the letter sent by Richard and Jane Block opposing the Landeros project because it is in violation of the Residential Conservation Code. 400 dump trucks of dirt will need to be removed from the site. This project should not be approved.

Wilfred A. Elders
Professor Emeritus of G eology,  UCR,
Resident on Mount Vernon Avenue for more than 50 years.

Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Landeros Project
From: Willia
m Kennedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 11:17 AM
To: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>
Cc: ccervantes@riversidegov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Landeros Project
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear City council members:

My name is William Kennedy and I reside at 2285 Mt Vernon, Riverside, CA, a home which I built within all of the specifications of our City Codes. In building my own home in 2018, I was required to strictly meet all codes, a process which took over two years to get my building permit. I was strongly limited on the amount of grading which could be done. In addition thereto I was encouraged to beautify my property by greenery and in fact have planted 65 trees — all in adherence to the building codes.

Comes now the Landeros project in direct opposition to multiple good planning ordinances —A PROJECT WHICH SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

The opposition to this project has been poignantly set forth by Richard and Jane Block in their communications . Of particular note is the input by their architect of a very viable opportunity to build without the tremendous grading removal — and the health damaging dust therefrom! AS A CURRENT CARDIAC PATIENT, I personally believe my health will be aggravated by this project.

I STRONGLY URGE THIS MATTER BE REVIEWED BY THE ENTIRE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ONLY GO FORWARD WITH THE ALTERNATIVES SET FORTH BY ARCHITECT WILLIAMS AND THE BLOCKS .

Respectfully yours
WILLIAM C. KENNEDY
Attorney at Law
Kennedy & Associates, inc
Sent from my iPhone
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director
1 Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Opposition to City Council Nov. 28, 2023 agenda item 9 Case PR-2021-001108 -- Grading of hill for Landeros lot buildings
From: WHR SoCal <carolynhock@gmail
.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 11:15 AM
To: William P Carter <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>; Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Opposition to City Council Nov. 28, 2023 agenda item 9 Case PR‐2021‐001108 ‐‐ Grading of hill for Landeros lot buildings
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Very well said.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:06 AM William P Carter <[email protected]> wrote:

I am writing in support to the comments by Richard Block on November 27 regarding Opposition to City Council Nov. 28, 2023 agenda item 9 Case PR‐2021‐001108 ‐‐ Grading of hill for Landeros lot buildings. I support "Proposition R" and oppose granting an exception in this case to permit the significant grading proposed to this project.

In addition, I own the undeveloped parcel immediately to the north of the subject lot, parcel 257150008, and am concerned that the proposed grading will impact access to this lot. Right now, the flat area on this parcel can be accessed with no or minimal grading, but if the proposed project goes through then I may lose ready access to my property, and its value will be significantly reduced.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please call me at 951‐788‐8425 or email me at [email protected]
William P. L. Carter
2284 Mount Vernon Ave
Riverside CA 92507
Date: 11-28-23
Item No.: 9
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CEDD Director