Riverside
CITY OF RIVERSIDE M~ co
City Council MemorandumPeopleSeiving
People's 1996
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PLANNING CASE P03- 1451 ( Al
Hills Robert and Susan Burton
Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthri
into 29 residential and 5 open
DATE: September 28, 2004
ITEM NO.: 12
opeal by JIm Guthrie. Friends of Riverside's
i_ ProposedTract Map 31930 by Gabel, Cook and
to subdivideapproximately 86.31 vacant acres
space lots, located southerly of terminus of
Cresthaven Drive and northerly of Alessandro Arroyo in the RC - Residential Conservation and 0 - Official Zones.
PLANNING CASE P03- 1548 ( Appeal by Jim Guth riel: Proposed revised planned residential development (PD- 001-912) by Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, consisting of 29 single family residences with private and common open space on approximately 86.31 vacant acres, located southerly of terminus of Cresthaven Drive and northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo in the RC - Residential Conservation and 0 - Official Zones.
PLANNING CASE P04- 0260 ( Appeal by Robert and Susan Burton) : Proposal by Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, to rezone approximately 7 acres from the 0 - Official Zone to the RC - Residential Conservation Zone located along the southerly portion of a 29- unit planned residential development, situated southerly of the terminus of Cresthaven Drive and northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo.
BACKGROUND:
In1994, the City Council approved the development of approximately 85 single family residential lots and open space on approximately 167.5 acres generally southerly of the Hawarden Hills ridgeline and northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo. Development of this sensitive site was the subject of extensive public controversy and review. During this process the project was modified to address the outstanding concerns, and it was ultimately approved with the support of the City and the neighborhood. Overtime, portions of the project were developed. However, some of the entitlements expired before the project was fully implemented. Approximately 57 residential lots, encompassing approximately 81 acres, have been recordod.
Earlier this year the applicant refiled the necessary entitlemIents (Planning Cases P03- 1451-Tract Map 319301 P04- 0260-Rezoning/ P03- 1548-Revised PlannedResidential Development (PRD)) to implement the previously approved project, with the addition of one extra residential lot.
ATTACHMENT I
12-1
5- 140
Supplemental Council Report • Page 2
Whereas the previous approval would have allowed 28 residential lots on approximately 86 acres, the applicant is now proposing 29 lots. The technical analysis of the proposal is included in the attached Planning Commission report. On August 19, 2004, the Planning Commission approved the project in part. Specifically, the Planning Commission approved 28 lots in lieu of the 29 lots as requested by the applicant, consistent with the previous approval from 1994. However, the Planning Commission did modify several conditions of approval from what was previously approved for the project.
Several appeals have been filed regarding the Planning Commission's action as discussed below, and the appeal letters are attached to this report.
The applicant is appealing the action of the Planning Commission in denying the revised PRD ( Planning Case P03- 1548). The Planning Commission denial of the PRD results in approval of 28 lots in lieu of the 29 lots as requested. The applicant is further appealing condition 6 of Planning Case P03- 1548 which requires the elimination of residential lot 53, consistent with the PRD denial.
Adjacent property owners Robert and Susan $ urton are appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Cases P03-1451 ( Tract Map) and P04- 0260 rezoning).
The Friends of Riverside's Hills are appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Case P03- 1451 ( TM 31930).
ANALYSIS:
In regard to the applicant's appeal, staff would note that the original project approval reflected a great deal of negotiation and compromise between the original project developer and the surrounding neighborhood. The removal of Lot 53 was specifically agreed to by the previous developer in the spirit of compromise. Staff is unaware of any changes in neighborhood circumstances that would support revisiting the conditions of approval, which reflect the previous compromises. As such, staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal and that the project be limited to a maximum of 28 lots.
The appeals filed by the neighbors and Friends of Riverside's Hills raise issues related to compliance with the RC zone, grading and required grading exceptions, variances, and CEQA compliance, among others. In considering these comments, staff would note that the original project as approved in 1994 addressed in great detail the issues of site design, map layout, open space preservation and circulation consistent with the intent of the RC Zone. Specifically, the project was designed to reduce impacts on the steep slbpes and major rock outcrops which occupy the center portion of the site, while still preseNing the significant features of the Alessandro Arroyo and providing necessary loop circulation for emergency services and utilities.
Additionally, there are a number of design constraints, such as street alignments, which have been fixed based upon the previous phases of the project Which has been constructed consistent with the prior project approval. In regard to the requested variances and grading exceptions, the Planning Commission staff report includes the legally required findings in support of all such requests.
Staff would therefore recommend denial of all appeals related to this request, and recommend approval of the project as approved by the Planning Commission. 5- 141 12-2
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council could act favorably upon any of the pending appeals. Should the City Council wish to approve the applicant's appeal and approve revised PRD Case P03- 1548, recommended conditions of approval are attached to the Planning Commission staff report. If the City Council feels that this matter requires further analysis, it may wish to refer this matter to the Land Use Committee for further consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
Find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the analysis and mitigation measures described in the attached environmental initial study and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting forth the findings in supportof the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision in approving Planning Cases P03- 1451 and P04- 0260 and denying Planning Case P03- 1548.
Prepared by: Approved by:
John A. Swiecki
Principal Planner
Thomas P. Evans
Interim City Manager
Approved as to form: Concurs! with:
Gregory P. Priamos Ken Gutierrez
City Attorney Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 19, ~ 004
3. Correspondence Distributed at Planning Commission OeetingAugust 19, 2004
4. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 19, 2004 12-3
5- 142
ro
CPC° TRANSMITAL & SUMMARY SHEET-
CITY, OF RIVERSI E PLANNING DEPARTMENT; ` I
TO CIT% OUNCIL APPAL.. ARD 4
G DMA
z~ o 41?A
zIL
CITY OF
RIVERSIDE
Date: August 30, 2004
Applicant & Legal Owner
Mr. Jim Guthrie Yang-ChangHong
4225 Garner Rd. 2193 Hackamore Pl.
Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside, CA 92506
Project Description: PLANNING CASE P03- 1451: ProposedTract Map 31930 by Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, to subdivide approximately 86.31 vacant acres into 29 residential and 5 open space lots, located southerly of terminus of Cresthaven Drive and northerly of Alessandro Arroyo in the RC - Residential Conservation and O - Official Zones.
PLANNING CASE P03- 1548: Proposedrevised plannedresidential development (PD- 001-912) by Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, consisting of 29 singlefamily residences with private and common open space on approximately 86.31 vacant acres, located southerlyof terminus of Cresthaven Drive and northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo in the RC - Residential Conservation and O - Official Zones.
PLANNING CASE P04- 0260: Proposal by Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, to rezone approximately 7 acres from the O - Official Zone to the RC - Residential Conservation Zone located along the southerly portion of a 29- unit plannedresidential development, situated southerly of the terminus of Cresthaven Drive and northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo.
Applicant's Representative: Bill Gabel
Gabel, Cook & Becklund
125 W. La Cadena, Ste. A
Riverside, CA 92501
Note: Applicable information is given and/or checked below Action:
X Approved: P03- 1451 and P04- 0260
X Denied: P04- 1548
Continued to:
X Conditions Attached
Action Date: August 19, 2004
Appeal Date: September 3, 2004
Appeal Fee: $ 825. 00
Expiration Date: February 19, 2007
Transmittal Date: August 30, 2004
To: City Council
X Appeal (written appeal attached)
X Mandatory City Council Hearing
For City Council Consent Calendar
For City Council Discussion Calendar
Planning Commission approved rezoning to:
X Planning Staff recommended: approval
12-4
5- 143
Planning Commission Vote: P03- 1451
Ayes: 8 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0
Planning Commission Vote: P03- 1548
Ayes: 7 Noes: 1 Abstentions: 0
Planning Commission Vote: P04- 0260
Ayes: 8 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0
Environmental Finding
None Required - No determination made
Determination made by City Planning Commission
Environmental Impact Report Required
X Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
September 3, 2004
c: Rob Van Zanten - Public Works Dept,
prepared; City Council may take action after:
12-5
5- 144
APPROVED CONDITIONS
P04- 0260 ( Rezoning) PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: August 14, 2004 CONDITIONS . All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk Standard Conditions
0 Planning
1. Prior to finalization of the rezoning case, the applicant shall obtain final authorization from the Riverside County Flood Control District or the applicantshall have acquiredsuch property.
2. There shall be a two- year time limit in which to satisfy the approved conditions and finalize this action. Subsequentone- year time extensions may be grantedby the City Council upon request by the applicant. Any extension of time beyond five years may only be grantedafter an advertised public hearingby the City Council.
3. When all of the conditions of approval have been completed, the applicant shall apply for a request for processingthrough the Public Works Department to initiate finalization of this rezoning. A fee may be required.
4. All necessary parcel description describingthe exact area to be rezoned shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice Land Surveying in the State of California for the area of the property to be rezoned. Descriptions are required to be on 8Y2 inch by 11 inch paper with the title " Attachment All at the top.
GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
1. Appeal Information
a. Actions by the City Planning Commi4sion, including any environmental finding, may be appealedto the City Council within ten calendar daysafter the decision.
b. Appeal filing and processinginformation may be obtained from the Planning Department Public Information Section, 3rd Floor, City Hall. 12-6
5- 145
APPROVED CONDITIONS
Case Number: P03- 1451 ( TM 31930) Meeting Date: August 19, 2004 CONDITIONS All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk Case Specific
a Planning
The City Planning Commission makes the necessary findings in the applicant's favor to grant the following variances. As justification, the applicant's written justifications are referenced:
a. parcelsless than two acres in size on lots with an average natural slope ANS) greater than 15% (iots 23-29, 29-32, 35-37, 39-49, 51-56, 58 64 and 66-91) (37- 39; 43-48, 50, 51, ~3=55, 57- 62 and 77-79); b. a parcel less than five acres in size on lot 49 with an ANS of 30% or greater (Iots 33-34, 38, 50 & ;
C. landlocked parcels located along private streets.
2. The Commission makes the necessary findings in the applicant's favor to grant the following grading exceptions. As justification, the applicant's written justifications are referenced:
a. to permit lots 37-41, 43- 49-51, 57-62, 77, 78, Grass Valley Way, Cresthaven Drive, CenturyHills Drive, a Flood Control access road, a water#*, ,basin, and a sewer line to encroach within the limits and 50- foot developmentsetback of the Alessandro Arroyo as defined in the Grading Ordinance; and
b. to permit slopesin excess of twenty-feet for portions of Cresthaven and Century Hills Drives.
Prior to Map Recordation
3. Within 30 daysof the approval of the tentative map by the City the developer/subdivider shall execute an agreement, approved by the City Attorney's Office to defend, indemnify, including reimbursement, and hold harmless the City of Riverside, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Riverside, its agents, officers, or employeesto attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval by the City's advisory agency, appeal board, or legislativebody concerning this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code. The City will promptly notify the 12-7
5- 146
Developer/subdivider of any such claim, action or proceedingand the City will cooperate in the defense of the proceeding.
4. The applicant shall obtain final authorization from the Riverside County Flood Control District or the applicant shall have acquired such property.
5. An open space easement shall be recorded for all areas within the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain and all non- gradedareas and for each lot all areas not proposed for grading under this review subject to the approval of the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office. The easement should clearly specify that these areas are intended for open space purposes only and that no grading, construction or fencing is permitted. The open space areas within the open space easement are to be maintained by a non- profit conservation organization such as the Riverside Land Conservancysubject to the approval of the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office. The property shall be transferred either in fee title or an easement established to facilitate maintenance/stewardshipby such an organization.
6. Lots 53 and open space Lot 87 shall be combined as one open space lot.
7. The applicant shall prepare and record Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ( CC&Rs) and other documents as necessary subjectto approvalof the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office. The CC&Rs shall contain the following conditions and restrictions:
a. prohibiting any additional grading beyondthe Arroyo setback and 50- foot developmentsetback;
b. establishinga Homeowner's Association;
c. the keepingof livestock is prohibited;
d. prohibiting further subdivision of any lots within this map.
8. The unused portion of right- of-way from the existing cul- de-sac bulb of Cresthaven Drive shall be vacated. A separate submittal and filing fee is required.
9. Lots 88 and 89 should be split at the phasingline to create two new, numbered open space lots.
10. Planning Cases P04- 0260 and P03- 1548 shall be finalized.
Easements shall be recorded to provide water to the "djulillar,lots to the north of Rolling Ridge Road Oidthat the deve lope. stub ffic Watets IT. A 10 ft wide priVift waterline easement long the northerly line of Lot 55 12-8
5- 147
shall be recorded as necessary to ]
system of two off- site parcelslyir
waterservice connections will be
in' CrestHaven Drive and the we,,;
meterson the two service lines sb
th„ two off- site parcelsshall be
colon, facility, zone elevate
provide' water to their parcels. Sa
psacross Lot 55 in said 00
parcels,.
Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
for connectionto the project water
fly. Lots 54, 55 and 56. Two
d betweenthe proposedwater main
toof Crest Haven Drive. ' No water
d- The property n earsof
y; a11 City water
ziscellirteous'fees requiredto
owners shall inst,, required
5nec 46 provide water'to their
12. The proposedproject affects waters of the United States and waters of the State, which fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corpsof Engineers (USACE) and the California Departmentof Fish and Game CDFG), respectively. As such, the following agencieshave jurisdiction over this project, as necessary: the California Department of Fish and Game; the Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the California Regional Water Control Board. These agencies' approvalwill be requiredprior to grading permit issuance and the applicant is responsiblefor compliance with all requirementsand conditions of these agencies.
13. Permanent loss of RSS will be mitigated at a greater than 3:1 ratio through the onsite preservation of 20.6 acres of RSS ( 9.6 acres moderate quality, 11 acres low quality) adjacentto the Alessandro Arroyo.
14. The permanent loss of jurisdictional waters will be offset by the expansion of the unnamed drainage feature at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation site will be located immediate downstream of the road crossingand adjacentto the proposedupland water quality bio- swale. It is anticipatedthat the bio- swale will provide sufficient hydrology to support riparian vegetation.
15. A water quality bio- swale will be installed immediate downstream of the road crossing. The bio- swale will be installed in an upland location to provide pretreatment of urban runoff priot to dischargeinto the drainagefeature. The HOA will provide long term maintenance, consisting of installation of native grasses, and sediment removal as needed.
16. A three year maintenance and monitoring plan is proposedto ensure the successful establishment of the native cover within the mitigation area.
Riparian vegetation will be installed within the mitigation site consisting of native grasses.
17. The project site is located within the Riverside County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Assessement Area, and therefore subject to current fee requirements as administered by the City of Riverside.
12-9
5- 148
18. The grading plan shall be revised, subjectto Planning Department review and approval, to:
a. clearly indicate all pad and lot drainage, subjectto review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Cross lot drainage covenants, if necessary, shall be subjectto Public Works and City Attorney's office Departments' review and approval.
b. Indicate that all rip-rap will be natural rock ( not blasted) and all visible drainagefeatures will be color treated to blend in with the natural surroundings.
c. Indicate an interim erosion control program to be certified by the project engineer subject to Public Works Departmentreview and approval. d. Reflect City adoptedcontour grading policies. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant's engineershall submit a letter certifying the contouring of such required slopesin accordance with City adopted standards.
e. Indicate that grading operationswill be restricted 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 Sundaysor federal holidays.
f. Indicate the 100 year flood limits of the blue line stream to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
19. Prepare a detailed gradingplan at 1 "=40' scale for lot 45 showing protection of the existing rock outcroppings, subjectto Planning Department approval.
20. Final driveway gradesand configurations will be subject to review and approval of the Fire Department.
21. Tract Map 31930 shall be recorded.
22. Provide a trail across the subject property, between the Alessandro Arroyo and the northerly boundary of the subjectproperty for eventual connection to Tiburon Knoll, subjectto approval of the Planning Department.
23. Landscaping and irrigation plans for all manufactures slopesin excess of five feet in vertical height shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. The applicant's engineer or landscape architect shall submit a letter certifying to the installation of such required landscapingand irrigation facilities prior to the release of utilities.
24. In the event that joint access drivewaysare proposed, covenants shall be 12- 10
5- 149
preparedsubjectto the satisfaction of the City's Attorney Office and Public Works Departments.
25. The grading plan shall be revised to reflect all design changesrecommended in this City Planning Commission report.
26. Adjacent property owner's approval shall be obtained for all off- site grading.
Also, slopemaintenance agreements for all slopescrossingproperty lines shall be recorded subject to approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments and City Attorney's Office
27. The applicant shall prepare a Coastal SageScrub and riparian enhancement plan subject to review and approvalof the Planning Department prior to grading permit.
28. Manufactured sloperatios shall not exceed a maximum of 2: 1.
29. The applicant shall be responsiblefor erasion and dust control during both the gradingand construction phasesof the project.
30. Grading activity shall be in substantial compliance with the gradingplan on file with this application.
31. Advisory: The Regional Water Quality Control Board requiresthe preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP).
32. Compliancewith SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 shall be followed in order to minimize air pollutant construction emissions. Additionally, the applicantwill implement the following:
a) Regular watering, at least 3- timesa day, of the construction site, including all unpavedparking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces, shall be utilized in order to reduce the fugitive dust generatedduring gradingand construction operations; b) Replacegroundcover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; and
c) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on- site construction activity, including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation.
33. Advisory: Any disturbance of the "blue life streams" will require permits and approval from the State Department of Filshand Game and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
34. The applicant shall comply with the longterm Stephen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR) 12-11
5- 150
Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) and the City's policies for implementing the HCP.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
35. The applicant is advised that the project is in an area impactedby a CNEL noise level between 60 and 70 dBA. Dwelling units constructed within the noise impacts areas will have to be sound insulated to the specifications of the Building Division.
36. Submit documentation of approval by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC) shall be submitted to the Planning Department. All Conditions imposedby the ALUC shall be met to its satisfaction prior to map recordation. In the event the ALUC finds this map to be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, the case shall be considered by the City Council at a public hearing concurrently with the ALUC appeal.
37. The applicant shall convey an avigation easement to the March Air Reserve Base ( MARB) and the March Inland Port ( MIP) to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's Office and MARB/ MIP. The applicant shall obtain approval of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and submit documentation to Planning Department staff.
38. Any lighting other than normally associated with a residential use, such as tennis court lighting, will be reviewed by the Planning Department in the Design Review process. Any tennis court lighting is required to be hooded and directed downward. In addition, the designshall avoid off- site light spillage.
39. For purposes of measuringthe front yard building setback line the private street will be considered a public street. All homes placedon these lots will have a front yard setback of 30- feet from the private street property line and 25- feet from the side and rear property lines. All other applicable standards of the underlying RC - Residential Conservation Zone shall be met.
40. If any of the mitigation measures containedherein conflict with the measures required by any of the resource agencies yvithjurisdiction over this project, the applicant shall comply with mitigation measures imposed by the resource agency.
12-12
5- 151
Standard Conditions
Planning
41. There is a thirty month time limit in which to satisfy the conditions and record this map. Five subsequentone- year time extensions may be grantedby the City Planning Commission upon request by the applicant. Application for a one- year time extension must be made prior to the expiration date of the map.
No time extension may be granted for applications received after the expiration date of the map.
42. In approving this case, it has been determined that the project has the potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources and the payment of fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code is required.
Public Works
43. A " FINAL MAP" shall be processedwith the Public Works Department and recorded with the County Recorder. The " FINAL MAP" shall be prepared bya Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice Land SurveyingI the State of California and shall comply with the State Subdivision Map Act and Title 18 of the Riverside Municipal Code. All applicable checking and recording fees are the responsibility of the applicant.
44. Full improvement of interior streets based on private residential street standards.
45. Storm Drain construction will be contingenton engineer's drainagestudyas accepted by the Public Works Department.
46. Off- site improvement plans to be approved by Public Works prior to recordation of this map.
47. The proposed private streets are to be designedand fully improved per the standards governing private streets, Resolutions 12006 and 15531.
48. A surety prepared by Public Works to be postedto guarantee the required off- site improvementsprior to recordation of this map.
49. Off- site improvement plans to be approved by Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the required off- site improvements prior to recordation of this map.
50. Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications. 12- 13
5- 152
5 t . All security gates or facilities proposednow or in the future will be located on- site and adequatestacking space and vehicle turn- around area will have to be provided to Public Works specifications. Security gates shall be keypad activated to provide access to the project for trash collection service.
52. Minimum designspeedfor residential streets should not be less than 25 miles per hour with a 150 foot minimum sight distance.
53. Installation of sewers and sewer laterals to serve this project to Public Works specifications. However, septic tanks will be allowed for lots that cannot reasonablybe served by a gravity sewer.
54. Onsite disposal system (septic tank) acceptability shall be obtained for each lot of this map not served by sewer, to the satisfaction of the County Department of Environmental Health, prior to this map recording.
55. Removal and/or relocation of irrigation facilities, as required.
56. All property subjectto flooding from a 100-year storm shall be placed in the WC ( or other appropriate Zone) prior to or concurrently with recordation of this map.
57. Ownershipof property to be undivided prior to this map recording.
58. Trash collection service will not be provided on the common drive serving Lots 50- 53. An area shall be provided along Century Hills Drive to accommodate the placement of containers for automated collection. This requirementshall be incorporatedin the CC& R's for this project.
Fire Department
59. Requirementsfor construction shall follow the Uniform Building Code with the State of California Amendments as adoptedby the City of Riverside.
60. Construction plans shall be submitted and permitted prior to construction.
61. Any required fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to Fire Department release of permit.
62. Fire Department access is requiredto be maintained during all phasesof construction.
63. Prior to map recordation the Fire Departmentrecommends the followingconditions be included in a recorded covenant to the satisfaction of the City Attorney's Office and Fire Departments to ensure that future buyers are informed of these requirements:
12- 14
5- 153
a. On- and off- site fire protection facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Fire Department.
b. The Building Division and Fire Department shall inspect and approve the property and structure for the intended use and all standards and regulations shall be met.
C. Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed per City Ordinance # 6019. d. A public water system shall be provided and maintained. e. Streets and fire apparatus access roads shall meet public street standards.
64. Appropriate provisions shall be made and approvedby the City resolution or agreement to insure streets are maintained and repaired when necessary in the event a homeowners association fails to do so.
65. Cul- de-sacs, where islands are provided, shall be a minimum of 106- feet in diameter, curb- to-curb, with a maximum fifty-foot diameter island.
66. Entry gate(s) shall meet Fire Department requirements for access and be equipped with key box ( Knox) devices.
67. All dead-ends, caused by recordation of individual phasesof the map, in excess of 150- feet will be requiredto provide a temporary turnaround to the Fire Department's approval.
Public Utilities
68. All utilities shall be satisfactorily relocated, protected and/or replacedto the specifications of the affected departmentsand agencies, and easements for such facilities retained as necessary.
69. The provision of utility easements, water, street lights and electrical undergroundand/or overhead facilities and fees in accordance with the rules and regulations of the appropriate purveyor.
70. Consideration for acceptance of a City maintained water system within private developmentsrequiresthe following:
a. Easements will be provided as requiredby the Water Utility. This will include the entire width of private! streets ( minimum 50- feet wide) and a gradedstrip (minimum 30- feet wide) elsewhere as needed. b. Easements shall be kept clear of structures, trees and all other deep rooted plants which could interfere with the operation, maintenance 12-15
5- 154
and/or replacementof City water facilities. This includes medians.
The City Water Utility shall review and approve all construction and landscapingplanswithin the easement areas.
d. Private streets shall be constructed to Public Works specifications, including standard 6- inch curb and gutter to provide adequatedrainage for flushing and flow testing fire hydrants.
City water mains in private streets shall be ductile iron and shall be constructed beneath all transverse storm drain facilities. f. Compliance with any other special requirementsof the Water Utility.
71. Applicable Water Utility fees and charges, will be required prior to record- ation.
72. Since the Public Utilities Department sighsthe record map only when all of our conditions have been satisfied, Water Utility approvedmodifications can be made without further City Planning Commission review.
73. Advisory: The provision of faithful performancebonds in accordance with the City of Riverside Water Rules.
74. Advisory: Special requirements are applicable for acceptance of public water system facilities within private streets.
Park and Recreation
75. The removal, relocation, replacement or protection of existing street trees to the specifications of the Park and Recreation, Public Works and Planning Departments.
76. The installation of new street trees in accordance with the specifications of the Park and Recreation Department. Street free installation work may be deferred until issuance of building permit on each individual parcel. No Street Trees are required for private streets. All street trees shall be automatically irrigated and installed prior to occupancy.
77. Payment of all applicable park developmentfees ( local and regional/reserve) as mitigation for impact to park developmentand open space needs as generatedby the project (Note: Regional/Reserve Park fees not applicable to Open SpaceLot acreages; However, all other lots including street lots are subject to Regional/Reserve Park fees).
12- 16
5- 155
78. All reverse frontage and public landscapeplans shall be subjectto review and approval of the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.
79. Installation of full reverse frontage and public landscapeimprovements, walls and hardscapefor all public landscapeareas as may be required by the Planning Department, in accordance with the specificationsof the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.
80. Irrigation systems servingpublic landscapeareas shall be metered, controlled and valved separately from any private landscapeareas for both electrical and water services, as well as for irrigation v4lve control.
81. All public landscapeareas and private open space areas and parkwaysshall be maintained through a Homeowner's Association.
82. Provide landscapeand wall easements, subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation and Public Works Departments and City Attorney's Office, for all reverse frontageand public landscapeimprovementsthat extend beyondthe public right of way.
83. A multi- purposerecreational trail easement shall be granted to the City along an alignment within the Alessandro Arroyo as approved by the Planning, Park and Recreation and Public Works Departments, and the Recreational Trails SteeringCommittee. It is anticipated the trail alignment will remain within the 100 year flood plain.
84. Trail signageshall be placedalong the trail prior to recordation, or shall be incorporated into the performance/labor material bonds executed for construction of the trail.
85. A Covenant and Agreement for the maintenance of the landscapedparkways, reverse frontageand public landscapeareas and medians, approved as to form by the City Attorney, must be executed b~ the developer. The agreement shall outline the responsibilities and liabilities being assumed by the Home Owners Association ( HOA), upon acceptance of these landscapeareas for private maintenance by the HOA.
GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
Appeal Information
a. Actions by the City Planning Commission, including any environmental finding, may be appealedto the City Council within fifteen calendar days after the decision.
b. Appeal filing and processinginfo# ation may be obtained from the Planning Department Public Information Section, 3rd Floor, City Hall. 12- 17
5- 156
f
August 30, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Planning Department
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street
Riverside, Ca. 92522
Attention: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Planning commission ( CPC) Reviews
Reference: Appeal of Tract/ Parcel Map
By Non- Applicant
Proposed ~T_31-930Case No PO 3- 1451
PO 3- 1548
PO 4- 0260
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council,
We own a residential estate home built on a five ( 5) acre lot that we purchased on June of 2000. Our address is 1998 Apostle Lane, Riverside, Ca. 92506. Our residence lies within the area which is commonly referred to as " Alessandro Heights" and is directly overlooking the Alessandro Heights Reserve Arroyo area at or near the southwest corner of the reserve specifically, our rear property line runs for 822' north and south and would be directly impacted to the west by proposed development of Lots 37 - 42 and Lots 77 - 79,
Thus, a major portion of our property, (approximately 3 '/x acres out of 5 acres) falls into the open space requirement under the Reservation Conservation Zone to wit we cannot improve, develop, fence, landscape or utilize in any way. However, should you allow development of the proposed project, it would serve to totally redefine the standards and guidelines put in place for this sensitive area.
Hence, the proposed development does not provide for the above a Reservation Conservation Zone set asides - see Lots 37 - 40 ( also see overall proposed tract map).
This not only sets up an illogical double standard but totally disregards the original purpose of the Reservation Conservation Zone.
While w e a re n of p ermitted to d evelop o r u tilize o ur o wn p roperty a rea, t he P lanning Commission and the Planning Staff have totally overlooked this issue, and will allow the new development to go forward.
The Planning Commission Meeting, August 19, 2004
First please note that we did attend the Planning C mmission Meeting on August 19, 2004, and spoke briefly in opposition to the proposeddevelopment. We also submitted two letters regarding our concerns about the proposed project. At this point we should 12- 18
5- 157
also want to state for the record that we were not properly notified and in a timely manner of the availability of the Planning Staff Report prior to the meeting. We had to contact Clara Miramontes on Mondy, August 16, 2004. afterwhich we requested the report and received the E- mail late on August 16, 2004. Imediately, we responded with our letter of concerns on August 17, 2004, by E- mail. The importance of this discussion is that several letters were not transmitted to the Planning commissioners until the actual meeting on August 19, 2004, and at the _"last minute". Specific comments by the Commissioners regarding their concerns over not having read the studies and letters were lamented commissioners: Bill Densmoore and Harry Kurani. Last minute communications would fall on " deaf ears" since they could not digest all these concerns given to them by Planning Staff just before the hearing began." Decisions made in haste were un- informeddecisions.
Hence, the specific concerns represented on these communications were subsequently ignored by the Planning Commission in their haste to approve the proposed development. Ergo, we now have arrived at an uneducated and uninformed decision by the Planning Commission to go forward on this disastrous project! There was a strict three ( 3) minute time limit allowed for Home owners to present their issues. Three minutes is not sufficient to render decisions on a project filled with problems. Hence, a fair hearing regarding neighbors and Friends of Riverside Hills was also cut short along with their written report. Commissioner Bill Dinsmore complained that the " Planning Staff should have given them the complaining materials prior to the hearing to allow time to digest the neighborhood concerns" and the " Friends of Riverside Hills concerns regarding this flawed proposed development". Moreover, he remarked that the " Developers should have ` sat down' with the complaining parties and the neighbors to work out problems prior to this hearing". Commissioner Harry Kurani suggested that he did not " feel comfortable" going forward with the approval of this project without further review of all recently submitted concerns along with an actual on- site review of this proposal. Both Bill Dunsmore and Harry Kurani complaints were unilaterally overlooked not withstanding serious concerns. The most important issue discussed for the Planning Commissioners involved concern over who would be responsible for the water meter, while totally disregarding violations of the Riverside Specific Plan, obvious grading encroachments into the Reserve and Arroyo Zone, improperly calculated density, invalidation of the Tiberon Park set aside plan, neighborhood concerns, wildlife concerns, et. al.
Thus, we will submit this appeal to the Planning commission Appeal of August 19, 2004 Meeting with the following serious concerns for proposed development:
1. Proposed Tract Map 31930 should not be treated as mere extension of 10 year old Tract Map 28728, which was allowed to lapse by the Developer and which was approved under circumstances that were. different as to current state of the neighborhood development and current wild life impact.
2. Developer has provided no current Environmental Impact Study (E. I.R.) for what has to be considered one of the most - ii. not the most - environmentally sensitive areas remaining undeveloped in the City of Riverside. Planning Staff discussion regarding no negative impact is specious and inadequate.
3. The Tiberon Park Set Aside and public access! Area
12- 19 2
5- 158
This Project disregards and violates the City of Riverside Specific Plan. While Bill Gable ( Engineer), representing the Developers side, attempted to address this issue he could not explain how they would ( or could) provide proper neighborhood access to this area at the Planning commission hearing. Also, the required acreage for the Tiberon Park is totally absent from the proposed Development due to extreme density, prescribed in the Riverside Specific Plan and lack of usable, quality open space.
4. Grading Encroachments into sensitive arroyos non- gradingzone violates grading set back lines - see proposed map - and requires a myriad of city provided variances which would not be allowed to current homeowners in order to utilize homeowner owned vacant/ natural portion of our parcel (5 acres of which 3'/z is in this category).
5. a) D ensity c alculations a re b ogus a nd skewed d ue to 17 a ores of c ounty owned land which is not owned by Developer, but was allowed to be included in the density calculations by Staff and Planning Commission. The 17 acre parcel sale was not even in escrow as of the date of the Planning Commission Hearing, but the Commissioners still treated the property as if it was owned by the Developer, T he s ale o f t he 17 a Gres p arcel t o t he D eveloper h as y et to t ake place, was not in escrow and has yet to be approved by the Country Board of Supervisors.
b) Density calculations disregards 16 acre open space site set aside to be for Tiberon park requirement as per Riverside Specific plan - no provision indicated by Proposed Development Plan.
6. Neighborhood impact
Commission and Developer
concerns ( we included) or t
impacted neighbors).
totally disregarded by
Developer has failed
even attempt to meet
Planning Staff, Planning
to address neighborhood
to discuss them ( with the
The proposed development of 85 homes would necessarily require many years to complete and during the years of development there will exist serious problems regarding noise, blasting, heavy equipment, massive grading, dust and dirt abatement, animal migration onto neighborhoodproperty, et. al.
The Planning Staff Report did not address this issue adequately ( relying on out- dated reports) as to neighborhood acceptance regarding this project.
7. The proximity of lot development to our property serves to treat our personal property as de- facto open spa , ethat which is not being provided for by the Developer which will thus cause our property to bear the brunt of displaced wildlife and in effect become the refu a for, wild life in the southwest portion of the Alessandro Arroyo. Since the Developer has not done and E. I.R. there is no concern or importance regarding wild liceimpact for this project. Planning Staff Report is patently inadequate regardingthe wild life impact issue. We will not allow this to transpire.
8. Lotting Plan Proposed invades or come . dan erousl close to Alessandro Arroyo and Tributaries. Either this matt rs to the City of it doesn't. If it doesn't we will request from the city the same variance treatment as given to 12- 20
5- 159
3 this Developer. Fair and balanced in order to utilize our property traversed by the Arroyo - please advise. We will expect equal consideration by the City as providedthus far by the Planning Commission.
9. Quality of open space provided by proposed development not commensurate with the existing Specific Plan. The open space proposed is primarily granite out- croppings - rocky, undevelopable land that was used to calculate open space but will not support displaced wildlife.
Therefore, the city of Riverside should not support, nor should the Neighborhood bear the brunt, or be responsible for the fiscal success of a " Developer". The " Developer" has already been given over ten ( 10) years to develop the project and allowed both maps to lapse. The neighborhood has been established and defined per 2004 standards.
However, now the " Developer" has received special treatment in order to rationalize the excessive number of homes/lots ( 85) plannedfor this eserve area.
The special treatment is found in the Planning Staff Report through the utility of a myriad of extra ordinary negotiated variances. The Staffs treatment of the neighborhood impact and the wildlife impact that has occurred in this area over the past ten ( 10) years was given a pass by Planning. The Development Plan does not provide a way out for the wildlife and will in effect cordon off major animal populations upsetting the natural balance. The " open space" described in the Report is virtually the only land left that could not be develo ed on this canyon due to the extreme rocky nature of the area. As open space" it fails badly to provide density relief and is so rocky that it won't support wildlife.
For the above issues and many others, too numerous to even go into in this letter, we reject the Planning Staff Report and the Planning commissions vote to go forward re is badly f Jawed p roposed d evelopment. We h ereby, a ppeal t o t he C ity o f iverside Cit Council and the Honorable Major to fully reject this Proposed Development an thus; avoid a travesty in the making.;
Sincer
aobfrt Burton
1998 Apostle Lane
Riverside, Ca. 92506
951-776-1467Susan Burton
1998 Apostle Lane
Riverside, Ca. 92506
951- 776-1467
CC: Dr. Len Nunney, Friends of Riverside's Hills
County Board of Supervisors
The Press Enterprise
The Sierra Club, Department of Real Estate, LoyalCongressman 12- 21 4
5- 160
GRE5HAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS - FOUNDED 1910
FoR THE FIRM:
Aiicen Clark Wong
e- mail: Alicen. W0n9@9re8h8m3ava9e•c0m
550 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 300
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408-4205
909) 884- 2171 - FACSIMILE ( 909) 888- 2120
www. greshamsavage.com
September2, 2004
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Clara Miramontes
3900 Main Street
Riverside, California 92522
Re: Appeal Condition of Approval 6 for Tract Map 31930, Case No. P03- 1451 and the denial of Planned Residential Development, Case No. P03- 1548 Dear Clara:
Our firm represents Jim Guthrie with regardto the above- referencedentitlements. On his behalf, we hereby appeal Condition of Approval 6 for TM 31930, which requires the deletion of lot 53, and the denial of Planned Residential Development ("PRD") P03- 1548. As submitted to the Planning Commission, TM 31930 contained 29 residential and five open space lots on
86.31 acres. The purpose of the PRD was to retain lot 53, which had previously been deleted during the public hearing for TM 28728-3 and - 4 ( a map identical to TM 31930). Please find enclosed a check for $825, to pay the fee for this appeal. Because the rationale for approvingthe PRD and deleting condition 6 are identical, these issues are discussed together below.
Justification for Approval of PRD Case No P03- 1548 and Deletion of Condition of Approval 6 of TM 31930
TM 31930 contains 86. 31 acres, of which 22.30 acres is designatedas flood plain. After subtracting the un- developableacreage, TM 31930 consists of 64.01 net acres. At first blush, it appears that the 29 lots proposedin TM 31930 would not require a density bonus, because the resulting density is 1 unit per 2.2 acres. However, it would be inaccurate to base the density for TM 39130 on the acreage contained in the current map.' Actually, the density of TM 31930 relates back to the density previously approved for TM 23b27, the larger project which included TM 28728-3 and -4 and TM 31930. TM 23027 consisted of 167.5 gross or 145 net acres.
A density bonus of 19% was requestedto increase the density from the 72 to 86 residential lots PRD PD- 00-912). The City Council approved 85 lots and required the deletion of one lot lot 53), to appease the concern of two neighbors who lived near that lot. This appealis a request to retain lot 53, and the PRD is the mechanism which facilutatesthis request. 12- 22 5- 161
RIVERSIDE OFFICE - 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 250, F. O. BOX 1240, RIVERSIDE, CA 92502- 1240 - ( 951) 684- 2171 - FACSIMILE ( 951) 684- 2150 V] C oRVILLE OFFICE - 14350 CIVIC DRIVE, SUET], 120, VICTORVILLE, CA 92392 - ( 760) 243- 2889 - FACSIMILE ( 760) 243- 0467
GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Alicen Clark Wong
September2, 2004
Lot 53 is located in the northwest corner of the property, adjacent to two residences located to the north ("Next Door Neighbors") (see the location of the adjacentlots, highlightedin green on the attached vicinity map). During the entitlement process for TM 28728-3 and -4, the Next Door Neighbors objected to the development of the open space in their backyards. The objection was based, in part, on the fact that the Next Door Neighbors have developed a tee area on lot 60 and a putting green on lot 53 ( see the picturesof the improvements on lots 53 and 60, attached). The development of lot 53 would interfere with their use of the property as a driving range and putting green. The developer respondedby offering to delete lot 53, which the City Council approved. The City Council also requiredTM 28718 to provide an alternative source of water for use by the Next Door Neighbors by extending a water line to their properties.
Our client was not involved in the projectwhen the previousdeveloper agreedto give up lot 53. However, the City Code contains specificcriteria which justify the approval of a density bonus for lot 53. Based on the following criteria in the PRD Ordinance ( City of Riverside Municipal Code § 12. 65(b), lot 53 should be retained and Condition of Approval 6 should be deleted.
Criteria that Support a 25% Density Bonus for Property the RC Zone:
1. The property is well located in close proximity to schools, shopping, and public and semipublicfacilities.
A. Schools:
Public Schools Serving the Project Area: Taft Elementary School ( K- 6), Victoria Elementary School ( K- 6), Washington Elementary School ( K- 6), and Castleview Elementary School ( K- 6); Gage Middle School (7- 8) to the north; Poly High School ( 9- 12) to the north.
Private Schools Within a 10- mile Radius: Riverside Christian Day School ( K- 6); Woodcrest Christian Middle School ( 6- 8); Woodcrest Christian High School ( 9- 12); Hawarden Hills Academy ( 1- 8); Emanuel Lutheran School ( K- 6); Riverside Christian School ( K- 12); and Montessori School on Indiana ( preschool).
B. ShoAAin&;
Groceries- Within a 5- minutedrive to the southeastof the project, on the southwest corner of Alessandro and Trautwein, is the Mission Grove; Plaza shopping center, which contains Ralphs, K- Mart, Steinmart ( a clothing store), a Cinema $ tar theater, and a variety of fast food restaurants.
12-23
5- 162
GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Aiicen Clark Wong
September2, 2004
Groceries and Restaurants - Within a 10- minute drive to the northwest of the project is the Riverside Plaza shopping center, which contains grocery and general merchandise stores including Trader Joes, Sav-On Drugs, and Sees Candy. Sit- down restaurants and fast food eateries include: Islands, Fazollis, Spoons, and Wendy's.
Regional Mall Within a 15- minute drive from the project is the Tyler Mall, located southwest of the project, off the 91 Freeway at the Tyler exit.
Freeway Access: Access to the 91 Freeway is about 10- minutes away, off Arlington Avenue, to the northwest of the project. Access to the 215 freeway is about 15- minutesaway, off Alessandro Boulevard, to the east of the project.
C. Public Facilities:
Taft Park, Castleview Park, and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park.
2. The property enjoys excellent access from the following adjoining public streets:
Alessandro Boulevard, the main circulation street, from Trafalgar to the west, and Century to the east.
3. The design of the project exhibits superior utilization of the site as evidenced by the following criteria:
a) Varied placement of buildings demonstrating sensitivity to the natural topographic features of the site. The lots have been clustered around the proposed streets to maximize the remaining acreage into the largest possibleopen space lots. In this case, the open space lots include lot 88 at 34.67 acres, lot 89 at 4. 54 acres, lot 91 at 1. 69 acres, and lot 92 at 25 acres, for a total of 41.15 acres of open space. Without clustering the 86- acre site would be subdivided, and the open space would consist of the ungraded areas outside the building pad on each individual lot. The open space lot resulting from clustering would be far superior as a mechanism to preserve open space in perpetuity, that the open space areas on individual lots.
Because open space lots can be deed restricted so the open space can be preserved in perpetuity, open space on privately owned lots cannot be preservedby deed restriction. b) Retention of unique natural featuresof the site and incorporation of such features into the project's overall design. By clusteringthe lots around the streets outside the Arroyo area, the project proposes to dedicate to open pace 28% of the developable acreage contained in the original 165- acre project (TM 23027). 12- 24
5- 163
GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Alicen Clark Wong
September2, 2004
c) Majority of dwelling units afford direct access to common usable open areas well designedfor their intended purposes. All of the 29 lots proposedin TM 31930 have direct access to common open space, although the open space to which lot 55 has access is within that parcel. Except for lot 55, every lot in TM 31930 has direct access to an open space lot. d) An efficient internal circulation system consisting of private streets and driveways that follow natural courses in the case of hilly land. The streets providing internal circulation for the project include Crest Haven Drive, Century Hills Drive, and Grass Valley Way. These streets follow the natural course of the land because they are located in flatter areas where the topographyis less than 30% average natural slope. See the topographic map, attached, which identifies the flatter areas in red and the steeper areas ( with ANS of greater than 30%) in blue.
4. The project reflects sensitivity to the impact of buildings on surrounding properties.
Propertiessurrounding TM 31930 include three residences in TM 23663-1, located on the oppositeside of the Arroyo from lots 37, 38, 39, 40, 42-44 ( see the lots highlighted in yellow on the following pages), and Next Door Neighbors located adjacent to the proposed lot 53, discussed above. Lots 37-44 are located on the opposite side of the Arroyo about 200- 300' from the property line for the three residences in TM 23663. This distance will preserve the privacy of the existing homes.
Regarding the views of TM 31930 from the Next Door Neighbors' residences: ( i) The closest adjacentresidence to lot 53 ( identified as Neighbor 1 on the map) is located near the top of the crest of the hill. Neighbor 1 has a view of lot 53 and the surrounding areas of TM 31930, but the primary view is to the west. ( ii) Neighbor 2 is separatedfrom TM 31930 by Neighbor 1's residence, and has no view of lot 53 because his primary view is also to the west.
With only four existing residences adjacentto the proposed project, few surrounding properties will be impacted by project development, and the impacts will be naturally mitigated by the distance between the lots in TM 23663-1, and tl~e fact that the Next Door Neighbors' residences are oriented to enjoy a view to the west. Lotl53is in their backyards, and therefore outside their view. i
i
i
12- 25
5- 164
GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Alicen Clark Wong
September2, 2004
5. The project contains varied building elevations exhibiting excellence of design that complement each other and the surrounding area.
TM 31930 will be requiredto submit all proposedelevations to the Design Review Board for review and approval. This review process will ensure that the project will comply with the City's parking and RC- zone standards.
In summary, Lot 53, which was deleted from TM 28728 in 1998, should be retained in TM 31930, based on the PRD criteria referenced above, and the City Council should also delete TM 31930 Condition of Approval 6.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures
NA G397- 0001AppealPFSI and TM 3 ] 930 COA 6. doc
A,t-~ (;"L' 0
Alicen Clark Wong, of
GRESHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN & TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
12- 26
5- 165
TM- 23027-1
0.1t "
TM 31930 ~r
p- vionsly known as,
TM 28728-3 and 4 r r
111111 ~ ~
I r E' H arac,P .' t f . r....
3 Ril 41MT.a
F
To= anxs
7~ lLTyy~yq
tJ~ r+hars' roptrlris ~ i. m have. abetted lot 53
p~. atrors o-F orZ t' Ot ~pd a- d P1a 1 tdf~ ~ GGr1 On ICN 5.3 ee. urea.. EU~ U
12-27
5- 166
3 i M
N
CC
2 5- 167
m
cs
Al
5- 170
COPOGRAPMC MAP;
TM 31930
Legend:
RED SHADING:
Areas shaded in red
Indicate flatter areas
with ANS
less than 30%
BLUE SHADING:
Areas shaded in blue
Indicate steeper areas
With ANS
greater than 30%
5- 171