10 of 10
4b) Water. Discharge into surface waters... The impactof the settling pond, and the other sources of water that will be discharged into the Alessandro Arroyo as a result of the surface waters from streets etc running down to the open space areas. This could have a potentially significant impact. The cumulative impact of increased impermeablesurfaces, changesin percolationand runoff patterns, and how this affects this important watershed need to be addressed in a thoughtful manor.
15b) Recreation. Affecting existing recreational opportunities. Staff correctly note that the Harwarden Hills Specific Plan ( HHSP), a part of the City General Plan, identifies a trail corridor from the Alessandro Arroyo to the Harwarden Hills Vista Point that passes along the whole western edgeof the tract map. Staff suggest that this requirementwill be satisfied by a trails easement identified at the time of projectdevelopment. This is unlikely to be successful, since there is currently no way that a continuous open space trail can be placedwithin the tract map along the western edgeof the property. It would have to pass directly through lots 54- 56.
Moreover, as noted earlier, the HHSP stated that about 15 acres should be set aside for the trail, and it is clear that no such provisionhas been made within the current project. This is a potentiallysignificant impact.
Another potentiallysignificant impact concerns the Alessandro Arroyo trail. This is part of the City General Plan, but its location has not been considered. Serious consideration of the options for the location of this trail must be part of the evaluation of this tract map. 16a) Mandatory findings of significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment... Staff response is no. However, they fail to recognizethe importance of the Ion- term management of the environment ( see 3i) in maintaining the quality of the environment. Additionally, the problemsof getting the settlement " bio- swale" to work effectively are not considered, and the potentialdangersfrom the sewage line running across the open space area above the Alessandro Arroyo are not considered. In addition, the projectdoes have the potentialto reduce the number of rare animals ( two specieswere mentioned earlier as being seen on site during our walk through, although neither was seen by Michael Brandman Associates during their survey).
In summary, this project is likely to have a number of potentiallysignificant impacts, and for this reason the negativedeclaration should be denied and an EIR requested. The excessive variances and gradingexceptionsare indicative of the problemsassociated with this project, and should be denied.
The PRD criteria for a density bonus are not satisfied and a density reduction is warranted, reducing the number of lots below 24. Finally, the requirementsof the Harwarden Hills SpecificPlan are largely ignored. Specifically, the Plan requires a substantial area to be dedicated to a trail from Tiburon Knoll to the Alessandro Arroyo, and a reduction in housing density close to the arroyo.
Thank you for your attention.
Communicated for Friends of Riverside's Hills by Len Nunney 4477 Picacho Dr., Riverside, CA 92507
email: [email protected]
phone: (909) 781-7346
12- 111
5- 250
EXHIBIT 4 -
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated
August 19, 2004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
12- 112
5- 251
CITY OF RM
Tract 1Vap
DE PLANNING DEP
wn m and Planned
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 19, 2004
PLANNING CASE P03- 1451: ProposedTract Map 31930 by Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, to subdivide approximately86.31 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 approximately86.31 vacant acres, located southerly of terminus of Cresthaven Drive and northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo in the RC - Residential Conservation and O - Official Zones.
PLANNING CASE P04- 0260: Proposalby Gabel, Cook and Becklund, on behalf of Jim Guthrie, to rezone approximately7 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.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 1994, TM 23027 was approvedallowing the subdivision 167. 5-acres into 85- singlefamily lots and 5 open space lots. In conjunction with this map, a Planned Residential Development PD- 00- 912) and a Rezoning Case RZ- 006-912) was approved. Subsequently, only 20 lots recorded and the remainder of the map expired. In 1998, TM 28728 was approved to implement the formerly approvedPlanned Residential Development. This map approvedthe subdivision of the unrecorded 151. 8-acres into 65 singlefamily lots over four phases, and phase1 (23 lots) subsequentlyrecorded see Exhibit F for phasingmap). On February 21, 2002 the Planning Commission approveda time extension for phases2-4 of TM 28728 until July 2003 with no eligibility for additional time extensions. By July 2003, phase2 (14 lots) had recorded but phases3 and 4 never recorded in time prior to expiration of the map. As such, 28 lots still remained to be recorded.
As such, the applicant is now proposinga new map to subdivide approximately86.31 vacant acres to create 29 single family residential and 5 open space lots. Phases 3 and 4 of TM 28728 were previously approvedfor a total of 28 single family residential lots and four open space lots.
The following chart shows a sequence of map approvals in relation to this project:
12- 113
City Planning Commission August 19, 2004 ,
5- 252 P03-1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
0 0
Lots Approved of SFR SFR Lots SFR Lots
Lots Recorded Remaining
TM 23027 85 SFR lots and 5 open space 85 20 65
approved .1994) Lots 1- 20) Map Expired)
86 lots originally proposedbut re-
167.5 acres quired lot 53 to be deleted and com-
bined with open space lot 87)
Lots Approved of SFR SFR Lots SFR Lots
Lots Recorded Remaining
TM 28728 65 SFR lots and 6 open space lots:
approved 1998)
Phase 1: lots 21-36, 80 - 86 and
151.8 acres portions of open space lots 23 23 42
89 and 92
Phase 2: lots 63-76 and portions of 14 14 28
open space lots 89 and 90
Phase 3: Lots 37-46, 77-79 and por-
tions of open space lots 13 None
88-91
Phase 4: Lots 47-62, and open
space lots 87 and a portion
of 88 15 None
lot 53 was required to be
deleted and combined with
open space lot 87)
57 SFR 28 Lots
Lots Remaining
Recorded
Lots Proposed
TM 31930 Phases 3 and 4 of TM 28728
Proposed) ( Lots 37-62, 77- 79 and por-
tions of open space lots 88-
86.31 acres 91)
4 of SFR Lots
Proposed)
29 Applicant proposes that lot 53 not be elimi-
nated as previously conditioned under TM
28728)
The proposedmap does not comply with the previously approved number of lots under the originally approvedPRD ( PD- 001-912) which included a total of 85 lots whereas as the proposed map proposes 86 lots. As such, the applicant is also requestingan application for a revised PRD. n.-. dormer 19 2004
12- 114 5- 2532 P03. 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
6 0
The overall number of proposedlots still lies within the allowable maximum yield pursuant to the City's density bonus provisionsfor PRDs. This is discussed in detail in the body of this report.
The project involves gradingon slopesranging between 10% and 30% and will require exceptions from the City's GradingOrdinance standards related to the encroachment of building padsand/or manufactures slopesinto the 50- foot developmentsetback and limits of the Alessandro Arroyo and to permit slopes in excess of 25- feet for streets.
The project also involves a request to rezone approximately7- acresfrom the O - Official Zone to the RC - Residential Conservation Zone. As a matter of information, a rezoning case for the area in questionwas also approvedin 1994 in conjunctionwith TM 23027 and PD- 001-912. However, the applicanthas chosen to refile a new rezoning request instead of requestinga time extension for multiple years.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing this project, staff has the following comments:
General Plan/ SpecificPlan/ Zoning Considerations
Rezoning
The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations of RHS - Hillside Residential and NOS - Natural Resources Open Space. Except for approximately7 acres generallylocated alongthe southern most portionsof the project area, the property is zoned RC - Residential Conservation. Zoning Case RZ- 006-912 was previously approved in conjunction with the original map and PRD ( TM 23027 and PD- 001-912) to rezone the southernmost 7- acres of the project area from the O - Official Zone to the RC - Residential Conservation Zone. Instead of filing a time extension for multiple years, the applicant is requesting a new rezoning application. This rezoning request will be in compliancewith the previously approvedPRD and Tract Maps 23027 and 28728. The site is surrounded by RC Zoned property and staff has no objection to the proposedrezoning request in order to comply with the original PRD for this property.
A portion of the area to be rezoned encompasses currently owned by the Riverside County Flood Control District, in which final approval of the County will be required in order to finalize the rezoning and map. Overall, 17. 45-acres of the subject property is still owned by the Riverside County Flood Control District, in which the applicant plans to purchase this property. The applicant and County have been involved in on- goingnegotiations for the sale of this property. If the applicant is unable to acquire this property, the applicant will be requiredto revise the map to eliminate approximately 6 lots due to a loss of acreage in developablearea, resulting in a maximum of 80 lots for the entire PRD.
Revised Planned Residential Development
12- 115
City PlanningCommission August 19, 2004 3 5- 254 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 6 0
The original TM 23027 and PRD had 145 developableacres on an overall project area of 167.5 gross acres. Approximately23 acres of the project area are located within the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain and are undevelopable. Based on the benchmark density of .5 units per gross acre, which is allowed for PRDs in the RC Zone, 72 lots would be allowed. However, under the Code's densitybonus provisions, up to 90 lots could be permittedon the subjectproperty. While TM 23027 as considered by the City Council in 1994 included 86 lots, the conditions of approvalrequired the elimination of lot 53, reducing the yield to 85 lots. As discussed previously, the applicant is proposingto retain lot 53, thereby increasingthe overall number of approvedlots under the original PRD from 85 lots to 86.
In considering this request, staff would note that the project since its inceptionhas been somewhat controversial and the subjectof a great deal of neighborhoodinterest. The final approveddesignrepresenteda compromisebetween the original developer and neighbor- hood, and the removal of Lot 53 was agreedto by the previous developer in the spirit of compromise. At this point staff is unaware of any changes in neighborhoodcircumstances that would support revisiting the conditions of approval, which reflect the previous compromises. As such, staff does not support allowing an additional lot, thereby recommending denial of the revised PRD.
The proposedhigher density is permittedunder the PRD provisions of the City's Zoning Code which: l) providefor a density bonus of up to 25%, providedthe project demonstrates certain design criteria resulting in superior site utilization; and 2) allows density to be calculated on a gross, rather than net, acreage basis (gross density allows the streets to be included in the lot size, thereby, increasing the overall number of permitted units). The criteria for justifying a density bonus include " Retention of unique natural features of the site and incorporationof such features into the project's overall design." In this case, the significant natural features of the site include numerous massive rock outcroppings, ruggedtopographyand steep arroyos traversing the site. The rock outcrop- pings, in particular, are a dominant visual feature which distinguishes the site from the more weathered, rolling terrain characterizing much of the Alessandro Heights area. On this basis, a density bonus under the PRD provisions of the RC Zone was approved. Staff believes that this project, of which this new map is a part, minimizes the gradingin steep, highly visible areas and retains the significant natural features of the site to a large extent. 0 Access/ Circulation
primary access to the site is providedfrom Century Avenue and Cresthaven Drive, 66- foot- wide secondarystreets. A private street system is proposedto serve this development. The circulation system as proposedis adequateto serve this project.
Map Design
This map is similar to the original project under TM- 23027 and TM- 28728, except for a proposedsewer line and changes to gradingfor some,of the lots. As well, the approvalsin 12- 116
4 5- 255 P03- 1451,P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
ni- c.,o Rnmmis[inrt Aumt41 19, 2004
i •
both 1994 and 1998 required a number of conditions requiring design changesto meet grading, neighborhoodcompatibilityand aesthetic concerns. This new map does not reflect all changesas conditioned and staff is recommendingthe same conditions of approvalas approvedby the City Council in 1998. The following discussion restates previously identified designconcerns which are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval.
The previous map proposedcustom grading for lots 54-57 and the applicant is now proposingto mass gradethese lots in conjunctionwith the remainder of the project. All changesto padelevations and lot widths for lots 54 through 57 have been incorporatedinto this new map, as conditioned under TM 28728.
The project also includes an access road to the Riverside County Flood Control dam site located along the southwesterly portion of the site. As well, lots 50-52 have been reconfigured, as conditioned under TM 28728, to provide long driveways for these lots and cul- de-sac Century Hills Drive along westerly end of the map. Finally, the project proposes installation of a new sewer line and access road in the open space area. The line originates from the adjacentresidential development to the north { TM 28728-2) and flows to the south until it reaches the intersection of Grass Valley Way and Century Hills Drive.
Variances
This project also requires variances which the City may grant, provided that findings in support of the requests can be made. Variances are requestedto permit parcelsless than 2- acres for lots with an average natural slope (ANS) grea ter than 15% but less then 30% for lots 37 - 39, 43-48, 50-79, parcelsless than 5- acresin size on lots with an ANS greater than 30% for lot 49, and landlocked parcelslocated along private streets for residential and open space lots. Staff can support the variances requestedfor lot size because of the overall benefits of the design with regardto preservationof open space and unique topographical features. Staff has made the necessary findings in support of these variances and has attached variance justifications.
Although many of the lots do not meet the requiredlot width of 130- feet as requiredby the RC Zone, a variance is not needed as these lots are not fronting on a public street. Since they do not have a front property line from which to measure the lot width at the front yard setback line, these lots do not technically need a lot width variance. To ensure that the placementsof the homes on these lots are consistent with the intent of the RC Zone, staff is adding a condition that for purposes of measuringthe front yard building setback line the private street will be considered a public street. All homes placed on these lots will have to be setback 30- feet from the private street property line and 25- feet from the side and rear property lines"
Grading
The project area is characterized by slopes that range between approximately 10 and 30 percent, with an average slope of approximately 26%. The proposed grading for this project is regulatedby the Public Works Department and the City's Grading Ordinance. 12- 117
City Planning Commission August 19, 2004 5 5- 256 P03. 1451, P03- 1548 and PU4- 0260 6 0
The project requires grading exceptionsto allow manufactured slopesup to a height of 30 feet for portionsof proposedCresthaven and Century Hills Streets.
As well, portions of the proposedpads and streets are located within the limits of the Alessandro Arroyo. In addition, the Grading Ordinance requiresa 50- foot development setback from the limits of the Arroyo. This map has been revised to eliminate pad size variances and slope height variances for all residential lots.
Arroyo Grading Exceptions
The southerly boundary of the site is traversed by the main branch of the Alessandro Arroyo, a major arroyo which is a designatedNatural Arroyo under the City's General Plan and Grading Ordinance. The map is designedto cluster lots around large, connected open space areas which are intended to include the prominentphysicalfeatures of the site, such as rock outcroppings and the main branches of the Alessandro Arroyo. A number of tributaries to the Alessandro Arroyo also traverse the site.
The Grading Ordinance allows the grantingof gradingexceptionsprovided findings can be made that exceptionalor specialcircumstances apply to the property. Such as exceptional or specialcircumstances shall include such characteristics as unusual lot size, shape or topography, drainageproblems, or the impractibility of employing a conforming grading plan, by reason of prior existing recorded subdivisions or other characteristics of contiguous properties.
While portions of the tributaries will be retained as open space throughout the project, portionsof lots 37-41, 43-49, 57-68, 77, 78, Grass Valley Way, Cresthaven Drive, Century Hills Drive, a Flood Control access road and a sewer line will encroach within the limits and 50- foot development setback ofthe Alessandro Arroyo as defined in the Grading Ordinance.
The limits of the Alessandro Arroyo and the requiredfifty-foot setback established under the Grading Ordinance were established based on an analysis of topographicalmaps and aerial photos. The limits of the arroyo are defined as those areas with slopes over 30% and which are identified on the Alessandro Arroyo map exhibit to the grading ordinance.
However, it is often necessary to actually inspectthe site to determine more preciselythe Arroyo limits. Lots 37-40 have been daylightedto avoid slopes within proximity to the main Arroyo. The gradingfor these lots allows for an open space corridor that lines up with the open space areas of the adjacentsnaps to the northeast. Additionally, lot 45 contains significant rock outcroppings in the rear portion of the pad which are noted for protection The remaining lots 41-44, 46-49, 57-68 and 77-78 are located outside the main branch of the arroyo and lie on relatively flat surfaces or within portions of tributaries which are not topographicallyor visually significant.
Although the proposedstreet alignmenthas already been approvedunder the PRD, grading exceptions are now necessary to construct some of these streets. However, none of the proposedstreets lie within the actual arroyo. For the reasons stated above, staff can support all of the requestedgradingexceptions; for encroachments into the Arroyo and its tributaries. 12- 118
r, , Pi- i- rnmmissioti Au¢ust 19, 2004 6 5- 257 P03- 1451, P03- 1549 and P04- 0260 6 0
Staff has made the necessary findings in support of these exceptionsand are attached as part of this report.
Slope Height
The Grading Ordinance permits manufactured slopes no higher than twenty-feet. The project requiresgradingexceptionsto allow manufactured slopesup to a height of 30 feet for portions of proposedCresthaven Drive and Century Hills Drive. There are two instances where slopeshigher than twenty-feet are necessary for certain segments of the streets. The street configuration, as proposed, was based on a study of the natural terrain to limit the amount of gradingneeded and are therefore not recommended for change. Since these slopes will not affect the arroyo and are necessary to construct the streets as approved, staff can support these exceptionsand has attached gradingexceptions.
Biological Issues
A biological Assessment for the proposedmap and a biological due diligence survey for the proposedsewer line was preparedby Michael Brandman Associates on July 9, 2004 and December 15 2003, respectively. Additionally, a wetland delineation was preparedMarch 2003 by Michael Brandman Associates. The updatedbiological assessment concurs with the findings of a biological Assessment preparedby RB Riggan Associates 2001.
Based on the current plant communities occurring within the project site and the location of known recorded special status species, Stephen's kangaroorat ( SKR), which occurs in disturbed scrub and grasslandhabitats, has a moderate potential for occurrence due to the lack of suitable habitat. No sensitive plant communities were observed on the site. As well, it was determined that the project site does not contain any suitable habitat for burrowing owl or narrow endemic plan species. The site is within the current Riverside County Multi- SpeciesHabitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) and a separate habitat assessment is not requiredby the County prior to issuance of grading permits.
As a matter of information, a biological study focusing on the California Gnatcatcher CAGN) was preparedfor TM 28728 in September2001. The studyreportedthat potential habitat for the Gnatcatcher within the project area are not occupied by such species. A follow-up focused survey was conducted in October 2002 and there was no siting of CAGN.
Neighborhood Compatibility Considerations
Throughout the process for both maps, TM 23027 and TM 28728, there was substantial neighborhoodconcern with and input into the project. The approved map design and grading-related conditions addressed'the concerns raised. Finally, since the lots would be large enoughto maintain livestock and the surrounding area is not livestock oriented, staff recommends that the keeping of livestock be prohibited to maintain neighborhood compatibility.
12-11F95 8 P03- 1451, P03- 1549 and P04- 0250
City PlanningCommission August 19, 2004 7 5- 2FR
6 0
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Planning Commission:
1. APPROVE Planning Cases P03- 1451 ( TM 31930) and P04- 0260 ( Rezoning), including variances and grading exceptions attached to this report, subject to the recommended conditions of approvalbased on the following findings:
a. the development, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan and with; the intent of the Grading Ordinance; and b. staff can make the necessaryfindings to support grading exceptions and variances as detailed ih Exhibits K, L, M, N.
2. DENY Planning Cases P03- 1548 (Revised PRD), based on the following findings:
a, there have been no changesin the project area to warrant any changesfrom the originally approvedPRD;
2. Determine that:
a. this proposedcase will not have a significant effect on the environment because of the mitigation measures described in this report and recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and b. there is evidence before the City that the proposedproject could have the potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources and the applicant is responsiblefor payment of Fish and Game fees at the time the Notice of Determination is filed with the County.
EXHIBITS
A. Location/Zoning Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Aerial Photo
D. ProposedRezoningMap
E. ApprovedTract Map- 28728dated 1998
F. ApprovedPhasingMap 28728 dated2002
G. ProposedSubdivision Map TM 31930
H. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated February 21, 2002 for TM 28728
1. Final ApprovedConditions for TM 28728
J. CorrespondenceReceived
K. Staff PreparedGrading Exceptions
L. Staff PreparedVariance JustificationM. Applicant PreparedGrading Exceptions N. Applicant PreparedVariance Justific4tions
0. Biological Reports and Wetland DelipeationReport
P. CEQA Findings Preparedby Applicant
12- 120
City Planning Commission August 19, 2004 9 5- 259 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 4, 0
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS & GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
Case Number: P04- 0260 (Rezoning) Meeting Date: August 19, 2004 CONDITIONS All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk Standard Conditions
Planning
Prior to finalization of the rezoning case, the applicant shall obtain final authorization from the Riverside County Flood Control District or the applicant shall have acquiredsuch property.
2. There shall be a two- year time limit in which to satisfy the approved conditions and finalize this action. Subsequent one- year time extensions may be grantedby the City Council upon request by the applicant. Any extension of time beyondfive years may only be grantedafter an adver- tised public hearingby the City Council.
3. When all of the conditions of approvalhave been completed, the appli- cant shall apply for a request for processingthrough the Public Works Departmentto initiate finalization of this rezoning. A fee may be re- quired.
4. All necessary parcel description describing the 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 S'/2, inch by 11 inch paper with the title " Attachment A" at the top.
GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
1. AppealInformation
a. Actions by the City PlanningCommission, including any environmental finding, may be appealed to the City Council within ten calendar days after the decision.
b. Appeal filing and proessing information may be obtained from the Planning Department Public Information Section, 3rd Floor, City Hall. 12- 121 5- 260
City PlanninRCommissionAupsl 19, 2004 9 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 02450 0 14
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Case Number: P03- 1451 ( TM 31930) Meeting Date: August 19, 2004 CONDITIONS All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk Case Specific
Planning
1. The City Planning Commission makes the necessary findings in the appli- cant'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% (lots 23-27, 29-32, 35-37, 39-49, 51-56, 58-64 and 66-91);
b. parcels less than five acres in size on lots with an ANS of 30% or greater (lots 33-34, 38, 50 & 65);
C. landlocked parcelslocated alongprivate 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, 57-62, 77, 78, Grass Valley Way, Cresthaven Drive, Century Hills Drive, a Flood Control access road and a sewer line to encroach within the limits and 50- foot development setback 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 days of the approval of the tentative map by the City the developer/subdivider shAlexecute an agreement, approved by the City Attorney's Office to def~'d, indemnify, including reimbursement, and hold harmless the City of Riv~rside, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding againstthe City of Riverside, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, sdt aside, void, or annul, an approval by the City's advisory agency, appeal hoard, or legislative body concerning this subdivi- sion, which action is broughtwithin the time period provided for in Section 12- 122
City Plannin¢ Commission August 19, 2004 10
5- 261 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
0 9
66499.37 of the Government Code. The City will promptly notify the Developer/subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding and the City will cooperate in the defense of the proceeding.
4. The applicantshall 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 proposedfor grading under this review subjectto the approval of the PlanningDepartmentand 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 conser- vation organizationsuch as the Riverside Land Conservancysubjectto 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 / stewardship by 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 Restric- tions ( CC&Rs) and other documents as necessary subject to approval of the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office. The CC&Rs shall contain the following conditions and restrictions:
a. prohibiting any additional grading beyond the 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 phasing line to create two new, num- bered open space lots,
10. Planning Cases P04- 0260 and P03- 1548'shall be finalized.
11. Easements shall be recordedas necessary to provide water to the adjoining lots to the north of Rolling Ridge Road and that the developer stub the waters lines to all effectO, contiguous properties.
12- 123 5- 262City PlanningCommission August 19, 2004 11 P03. 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 0 0
Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
12. The proposedproject affects waters of the United States and waters of the State, which fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of 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 Corpsof Engineers; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the California Regional Water Control Board. These agencies' approvalwill be required prior to grading permit issuance and the applicant is responsiblefor compliancewith all requirementsand conditions of these agencies.
13. Permanent loss of RSS will be mitigated at a greater than 3:1 ratio through the onsite preservationof 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 drainagefeature at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation site will be located immediate downstream of the road crossing and adjacentto the proposeduplandwater quality bio- Swale. It is anticipated that 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 discharge into the drainage feature. 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 vegetationwill be installed within the mitigation site consisting of native grasses.
17. The project site is located within the Riverside County SKR Habitat Conser- vation Plan Fee Assessement Area, and therefore subject to current fee requirementsas administered by the City of Riverside.
18. The grading plan shall be' revised, subject to Planning Department review and approval, to:
a. clearly indicate all p4~ and lot drainage, subject to review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Cross lot drainage covenants, if necessar~, shall be subject to Public Works and City Attor- ney's office Departments' review and approval.
b. Indicate that all rip-r4~ will be natural rock ( not blasted) and all visible 1 12- 124
5- 263City Planning Commission August 19, 2004 12 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04. 0260 0 0
drainagefeatures will be color treated to blend in with the natural sur- roundings.
c. Indicate an interim efosion control program to be certified by the project engineersubjectto Public Works Department review 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 slopes in accordance with City adopted standards.
e. Indicate that grading operationswill be restricted to 7: 00 a. m. to 7: 00 p. m. weekdays, and $:00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. m. Saturdays. No construction noise is permitted on Sundays or federal holidays.
f. Indicate the 100 year flood limits of the blue line stream to the satisfac- tion of the Public Works Department.
19. Prepare a detailed gradingplan at 1 "=40' scale for lot 45 showing protection of the existing rock outcroppings, subject to 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 subjectproperty, between the Alessandro Arroyo and the northerly boundary of the subject property for eventual connection to Tiburon Knoll, subject to 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 approvedby the Plan- ning Department. The applicant's engineeror landscapearchitect shall submit a letter certifying to the installation of such required landscaping and irrigation facilities prior to the release of utilities.
24. In the event that joint access driveways are proposed, covenants shall be preparedsubjectto the satisfaction of the City's Attorney Office and Public Works Departments.
25. The grading plan shall bqirevised to reflect all design changes recommended in this City Planning Corkmission report.
i
26. Adjacent property ownerPs approval shall be obtained for all off- site grading.
Also, slope maintenance agreements for all slopescrossingproperty lines shall be recorded subjectitoapproval of the Planning and Public Works Departments and City AA, orney's Office
Citv Planning Commission August 19, 2004
12- 125
5- 26413 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
E 0
27. The applicant shall prepare a Coastal Sage Scrub and riparian enhancement plan subjectto review and approvalof the PlanningDepartmentprior to gradingpermit.
28. Manufactured sloperatios shall not exceed a maximum of 2: 1.
29. The applicant shall be responsiblefor erosion and dust control during both the grading and construction phasesof the project.
30. Grading activity shall be in substantial compliance with the grading plan on file with this application.
31. Advisory: The Regional Water Quality Control Board requiresthe preparation and implementationof a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP).
32. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 shall be followed in order to minimize air pollutant construction emissions. Additionally, the applicant will implement the following:
a) Regular watering, at least 3- timesa day, of the construction site, including all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces, shall be utilized in order to reduce the fugitive dust generatedduring grading and construction operations; b) Replace groundcover 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 line streams" will require permits and approval from the State Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
34. The applicantshall comply with the long term Stephen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan;(HCP) and the City's policies for implementing the HCP.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
35. The applicant is advised tat the project is in an area impacted by a CNEL noise level between 60 and 70 dBA. Dwelling units constructed within the noise impacts areas will halveto be sound insulated to the specifications of the Building Division.
12- 126
5- 265City PlanningCommission August 14, 2004 14 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 0 0
36. Submit documentation of approvalby 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 hearingconcurrently 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 MARBIMIP. The applicantshall obtain approval of the Riverside County Airport LandUse 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 measuring the front yard building setback line the private street will be considered a public street. All homes placed on 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 contained herein conflict with the measures required by any of the resource agencieswith jurisdiction over this project, the applicant shall comply with mitigation measures imposedby the resource agency.
Standard Conditions
Planning
41. There is a thirty month time limit in which to satisfy the conditions and record this map. Five subsequent one- year time extensions may be granted by the City Planning Commission upon request by the applicant. Application for a one- year time extension mjustbe made prior to the expiration date of the map.
No time extension may be granted for applications received after the expira- tion date of the map.
42. In approving this case, it h'iasbeen 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 ~.nd Game Code is required.
12- 127
City Planning Commission August 19, 2004 15 5- 266 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 0 Public Works
L
43. A " FINAL MAP" shall be processedwith the Public Works Department and recorded with the County ~Zecorder. The " FINAL MAP" shall be preparedby a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineerauthorized to practice Land Surveying I the State of California and sh,*ll 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 stan- dards.
45. Storm Drain construction ( will be contingenton engineer's drainage study as acceptedby the Public Works Department.
i
46. Off- site improvement plansto be approvedby Public Works prior to recordation of this map. :
47. The proposedprivate streets are to be designedand fully improved per the standards governingprivatestreets, Resolutions 12006 and 15531.
48. A surety preparedby Public Works to be postedto guarantee the required off site improvements prior to recordation of this map.
49. Off- site improvement plans to be approvedby Public Works and a surety postedto guarantee the requiredoff- site improvements prior to recordation of this map.
50. Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications.
51. All security gates or facilities proposednow or in the future will be located on- site and adequatestackingspace 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 design speedfot residential streets should not be less than 25 miles per hour with a 150 foot mlinimum sight distance.
53. Installation of sewers and ewer laterals to serve this project to Public Works specifications. However, ~eptictanks will be allowed for lots that cannot reasonablybe served by a ~
ravity sewer.
I
54. Onsite disposal system ( se tic tank) acceptability shall be obtained for each lot of this map not served by ewer, to the satisfaction of the County Department of Environmental Health, ~rior to this map recording.
12- 128
City Planning Commission August 19, 2064 16 5- 267 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 0 0
55. Removal and/or relocation of irrigation facilities, as required.
56. All property subjectto floodingfrom a 100-year storm shall be placed in the WC ( or other appropriateZone) prior to or concurrently with recordation of this map.
57. Ownership of 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 accommo- date the placementof containersfor automated collection. This requirement shall be incorporatedin thleCC& R's for this project.
Fire Department
59. Requirementsfor construction shall follow the Uniform Building Code with the State of California Amendments as adopted by 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 pen~it.
62. Fire Department access is required to be maintained during all phasesof construction.
63. Prior to map recordation tlAeFire Department recommends the following conditions 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:
a. On- and off- site fire protection facilities shall be provided to the specificationsof thi2 Fire Department.
b. The Building Division and Fire Department shall inspectand approve the property and structure for the intended use and all standards and regulations shall bei
met.
C. Residential fire sprinklersshall be installed per City Ordinance # 6019. d. A public water systemshall be provided and maintained. e. Streets and fire apparatusaccess roads shall meet public street stan- dards.
Appropriate provisions sh4~1 be made and approved by the City resolution or 12- 129
64. City PlanningCommission August 19, 2004 17 5- 268 P03- 3453. P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 agreement to insure streets are maintained and repairedwhen 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 FineDepartment requirementsfor access and be equippedwith key box ( Knox) devices.
67. All dead-ends, caused by ricordationof individual phasesof the map, in excess of 150-feet will be required to provide a temporary turnaround to the Fire Department's approval.
Public Utilities
68. All utilities shall be satisfactorilyrelocated, protected and/or replacedto the specificationsof the affected departmentsand agencies, and easements for such facilities retained as necessary.
69. The provision of utility eas~ments, water, street lights and electrical under- ground and/or overhead facilities and fees in accordance with the rules and regulationsof the appropriatepurveyor.
70. Consideration for acceptance of a City maintained water system within private developmentsrequires the following:
a. Easements will be provided as required by the Water Utility. This will include the entire width of private streets ( minimum 50- feet wide) and a gradedstrip (minijmum 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 and/or replacement -of City water facilities. This includes medians.
C. The City Water Utility shall review and approve all construction and landscapingplans Within the easement areas.
d. Private streets shall be constructed to Public Works specifications, including standard ~-inch curb and gutter to provide adequate drainage for flushing and flow testing fire hydrants.
e. City water mains iniprivatestreets shall be ductile iron and shall be constructed beneathall transverse storm drain facilities. f. Compliance with ariy other special requirements of the Water Utility.
71. Applicable Water Utility feiesand charges, will be required prior to record- 1m2-130
5- 269City Planning Commission August 19, 2004 18 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 ation.
72. Since the Public Utilities Department signsthe record map only when all of our conditions have been Satisfied, Water Utility approvedmodifications can be made without further dity Planning Commission review.
73. Advisory: The provision of faithful performancebonds in accordance with the City of Riverside Water Roles.
74. Advisory: Specialrequirementsare applicablefor acceptance of public water system facilities within privatestreets.
Park and Recreation
75. The removal, relocation, replacementor protection of existing street trees to the specificationsof the Porkand Recreation, Public Works and Planning Departments. i
76. The installation of new streettrees in accordance with the specifications of the Park and Recreation Department. Street tree installation work may be de- ferred until issuance of Wldingpermit 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 Darkdevelopment fees (local and regional/reserve) as mitigation for impact to; parkdevelopment and open space needs as gener- ated by the project (Note: Pegional/ReservePark fees not applicable to Open SpaceLot acreages; However, all other lots including street lots are subject to Regional/Reserve Park feed).
78. All reverse frontage and public landscapeplans shall be subject to review and approvalof the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.
79. Installation of full reverse frontageand public landscapeimprovements, walls and hardscapefor all publiclandscapeareas as may be required by the Plan- ning Department, in accordancewith the specifications of the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.
80. Irrigation systems serving j$ ubliclandscape areas shall be metered, controlled and valved separately fromianyprivate landscapeareas for both electrical and water services, as well as
f6rirrigation valve control.
81. All public landscapeareas andprivate open space areas and parkways shall be maintained through a Honi4owner's Association.
i82. Provide landscapeand wall~ easements, subject to the approval of the Park and City Planning Commission August 19, 2004
1' 2-131
5- 27019 P03. 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
Recreation and Public Works Departments and City Attorney's Office, for all reverse frontage and public landscape improvements that extend beyondthe public right of way.
83. A multi- purposerecreational trail easement shall be grantedto the City along an alignment within the Alessandro Arroyo as approvedby the Planning, Park and Recreation and Public Works Departments, and the Recreational Trails SteeringCommittee. It is anticipatedthe trail alignment will remain within the 100 year flood plain.
84. Trail signageshall be placedalong the trail prior to recordation, or shall be incorporatedinto the perf4mance/labor material bonds executed for construc- tion of the trail.
85. A Covenant and Agreement for the maintenance of the landscapedparkways, reverse frontage and publiclandscape areas and medians, approved as to form by the City Attorney, must'be executed by the developer. The agreement shall outline the responsibilitiesand liabilities being assumed by the Home Owners Association ( HOA), upon 4cceptance of these landscape areas for private maintenance by the HOA.
GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
AppealInformation
a. Actions by the Cit} Planning Commission, including any environmen- tal finding, may be ;appealedto the City Council within fifteen calendar daysafter the decision.
b. Appeal filing and processinginformation may be obtained from the Planning DepartmelntPublic Information Section, 3rd Floor, City Hall. 12- 132
5- 271City Plannin¢ Commission August 19, 2044 20 P03- 1451, P03- 1545 and 1104- 02,~(j RECOMMENDED CONDITION$ & GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
Case Number: P03- 1548 (Planned Residential Development) Meeting Date: August 19, 2004 CONDITIONS All mitigation measures ore noted by an asterisk Standard Conditions
a Planning
A maximum of 86 lots shall be a4owedunder this Planned Residential Development on approximately 167. 5-acres. 11
2. In approvingthis case, it is found Ithat this proposedproject is consistent with the existing generalplan for the City ~f Riverside based on substantial evidence discussed in this report. There is not substantial evidence in the record that the project will interfere with the revised general lan currently being prepared by the City.
3. On and off- site fire protection facilitiesshall be provided to the specifications of the Fire Department.
Fire Department Advisory Conditions:
4. Single family residences shall met all the following requirements prior to issuing a building permit.
a, Public fire hydrant capabl of delivering 1, 000G. P.M. available at 20 P. S.I. residual pressure. i
EXCEPTION: Public fire ~ydrantcapableof delivering 500 G. P.M available at 20 P. S.I residual pressurewith an approved residential fire sprinkler system per N. F.P. A. 13(d).
b. Public fire hydrant shall b~ within 350 feet from the driveway entrance as measured by route of travel
c. All exterior portions of th single family residence shall be within 300 feet from an approved water s pply located on a public way, as measured by an approvedroute around the !exterior of the building
EXCEPTION: Access requiremenltsmay be removed if single family residence has an approvedresidential fire sprinkler! system per N. F.P. A. 13(d) and the entire exterior of the singlefamily residence, roof, iding, and overhangs, are of fire retardant construc- tion
i
12- 133 5- 272City PlanningCommission August 19, 2004 21 P03- 1451, P03- 1545 and P04- 0260 c
Water Utilities advisory conditions:
5. Consideration for acceptance of a City maintained water system within private developments requiresthe following:
a. Easements will be providedas requiredby the Water Utility. This will include the entire width of private Streets (minimum 50 feet wide) and a gradedstrip minimum 30 feet wide) el$ ewhereas needed
b. Easements shall be kept cloarof structures, trees and all other deeprotted plants, which could interfe e with the operation, maintenance, and/or replace- ment of the City water faci ities. This includes medians.
6. The City Water Utilitity shall
revi~wand approve all construction and landscaping
planswithin the easement areas.
7. Private streets shall be constructedito Public Works specifications, including standard 6 inch curb and gutter to provideadequatedrainage for flushing and flow testing fire hydrants.
8. Installation of a 12 inch water mai across the Alessandro Arroyo is of prime impor- tance to the expansionand operati~n of the city 1400 zone on both sides of the arroyo.
Therefore, the installation of a 12 ' Inchwater main in a gradedeasement is required from your project boundary near tl e Arroyo Dam to the nearest private street, as approvedby the Water Utility and the Planning Department. Crossing the arroyo at the dam will also require the apprdvalof the Riverside County Flood Control District.
9. Compliancewith any other speciallrequirementsof the water utility
10. Applicablewater utility fees and chargeswill be required prior to recordation.
11. Plot plan, building elevations, landscaping, irrigation for the future residence shall be submitted to the Design Review Bbard for review and approval. Design Modifications may be required as deemed necessary. A separate application and filling fee is required. The plot plan and buildingelevations must be approvedprior to building permit issuance; landscapingand irrigationplans must be submitted prior to building permit issuance,
i
i
i
12- 134
5- 273ra, nia. ; nu rnmmicsinn August 19, 2004 22 P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260
CITY OF RIVERSID
Negative Declaration 1
1. Case Number: P03- 1451, P03-154$, P04- 0260
2. Project Title: Tract Map, Rezoningand Planned Residential Development
3. Hearing Date: August 19, 2004
4. Lead Agency: City of Riverside, PanningDepartment
3900 Main Street, 30 Floor
Riverside, CA 92512
5. Contact Person: Clara Miramontes, ~ eniorPlanner
Phone Number: ( 909) 826- 5277
6. Project Location: Northerly of thel Alessandro Arroyo, easterly of Hawarden Drive, westerly of AlessandroBoulevard and southerly of Century Avenue I
7. Project Applicant: Bill Gabel ; ( 909) 788- 8092
Gabel, Cook an4Becklund, Inc.
125 West La Cadena Drive, Suite A
Riverside, CA 2501
i
8. General Plan Designation: RHS - OillsideResidential and NOS Natural Resources Open Spacei
9. Zoning: RC - SP - Residential
Conservationand Specific Plan ( Hawarden Hills) Combin- ing Zone and O - SP - Official and Specific Plan ( Hawarden Hills) Combining Zones
i
i
10. Description of Project: ( Describe the whole a tion involved, including but not limited to later phasesof the project, and any secondary, support, or off- site features necessary for its implementation.) I This project proposes to implement thd'~ final two phases of a previously approved map TM 28728, subdividing 151.8 acres into 65i single family residential lots and 6 open space lots in the area bounded by Trafalgar Avenue ~ o the north, Century Avenue to the east, the Alessandro Arroyo to the south and RolllingRidge Road to the west. TM 28728 was originally approved in 1998 and was divided into four phases, in which phase 1 recorded subsequently (see Exhibit F for
phasin4map). TM 28728 was created to implement a
formerly approved Planned Residential] Development (PD- 001-912) which was approved in 1994 along with Tract Map 23027 originallyencompassing the subdivision of 167.5 acres into 85 lots. However, only 20 lots
of~M23027 were recorded in time before the map
expired. As such, TM 28728 was creat d to implement the remaining 65 unrecorded lots.
On February 21, 2002 the Planning Co mission approved a time extension for phases 2-4 of TM 28728 until July 2003 with no eligibility for additional time extensions. By July 2003, phase 2 (lots 63-76, 90 and a portion o 89) had recorded but phases 3 and 4 never recorded in time prior to expiration of the map. ~ s such, the applicant is now proposing a new map to subdivide approximately 86. 31 vacant
acre] -r a 9 single family residential and 5 open
5_ 274 1 1103- 1451,1103- 1548, P04- 0260
0 t
space lots. Phases 3 and 4 of TM 28728 were approved for a total of 28 single family residential lots and four open space lots.
The proposedmap does not comply Withthe previously approvednumber of lots under the originally approvedPRD ( PD- 001-912) which approveda total of 85 lots whereas as the proposedmap proposes 86 lots. I~s such, the applicantis also requestingan applica- tion for a revised PRD. The overall numberof proposedlots still complies with the City's density bonus provisions for Pl.kDs. This is discussed in detail in the body of this report.
The project involves grading on slopes ranging between 10% and 30% and will require exceptionsfrom the City's Grading rdinance standards related to the encroachment of building padsand/or manufactures slopesinto the 50- foot development setback and limits of the Alessandro Arroyo and to permitslopes in excess of 25- feet for streets.
The project also involves a rezoning equest to remove an O - Official Zoning designation from the southerlyportion of the projictarea where development is proposedand placing the property in the RC - Residential gonservationZone. The area to be developed has a General Plan land use designationof illside Residential, in which a General Plan Amendment is not required. As a materof information, a rezoning case for the area in questionwas also approvedin 1994 i* conjunction with TM 23027 and PD- 001-912.
However, the applicanthas chosen tolrefile a new rezoning request instead of requestinga time extension for multiple years.
11. Existing Land Uses and Setting:
The subjectproperty is characterized 6yvacant, steeply sloping terrain traversed by a series of ridgelines and arroyo tributa#ies. The main arroyo, the Alessandro Arroyo is a blueline stream generallylocated alongthe southerly edge of the property. Numerous rock outcroppings and mature trees are loc ted throughout the project area. The Alessandro Dam lies directly to the southwest of thesubject property. Surrounding properties to the south and east are primarily vacant, bitplannedfor large lot ( RC Zoned) single family residential development. Propertiest' the north and west are characterized by a mix of vacant properties, conventional residentialunits and large lot single family residences alongthe Hawarden Hills ridgeline.
12. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Adjacent existing land use:
North: Single Family Residential
East: Vacant
South: Vacant
West: Vacant
Adjacent zoning:
North: R- 1-100 and
R- 1-130- S4 le Family Residential Zones & RC - Residential Conservation Zone
East: RC Residential Consen,ati6n Zon 2-1 6South: RC - Residential Conservation and 0 - - Official Zones 2 5- 275 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
West: RC Residential Conservation Zone
13. Other agencieswhose approval is required:
a. California Department of Fish and Game
b. United States Army Corps of Engineers
c. Fish and Wildlife
d. U.S. California RegionalWater Quality Control Board
14. Other Environmental Reviews Referencedin this Review:
a. Environmental Review of TM- 28' 28/ TM-230271PD- 001-912/ RZ-006- 9121EP-016- 912 ( On file with the Planning Department)
b. Alessandro Heights Arroyo Study! & EIR, and Grading Ordinance ( On file with the Planning Department)
c. Hawarden Hills Study/ SpecificPlan ( On file with the Planning Department) d. Traffic StudyTM 23027,1991 ( O file with the Planning Department) e. Hydrology StudyTM 23027 ( On file with the Planning Department) f. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report 1999 ( On file with the Planning Department) i
g. Air Quality Analysis 2004 ( On fi$ with the Planning Department) 12- 137
3 5- 276 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
0 a
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation which reflects the independentjudgement of the Planning Department, it is recommended that:
The City Planning Commission find that the proposedproject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and that a NEGATIVEDECLARATION be prepared.
The City Planning Commission find that although the proposedproject could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the recommended mitigation measures have been added to the project (see attached recommended mitigation measures). A mitigatedNEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared.
The City Planning Commission find there is no evidence before the agency that the proposedproject will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources, and the impacts of the project are de minimis pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code.
Ken Gutierrez, Planning Director
12- 138
4 5- 277 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
low
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Environmental Initial Study
Project Description: See NegativeDeclaration
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1. A brief explanation is requiredfor all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequatelysupportedby the information sources cited in the parenthesesfollowing each question. A "No Impact" answer should be explainedwhere it is based on project-specificfactors as well as generalstandards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off- site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construc- tion as well as operationalimpacts.
3. An answer of "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more " Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. An answer of "Less than Significant Impact" is appropriate only in the event there is no substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
5. An answer of "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a " Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." A description of the mitiga- tion measures is required, along with an explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level ( mitigation measures from a previous analysis may be cross- referenced).
6. Earlier analysesmay be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. When an earlier analysisis used, the initial study shall:
a. Reference earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses. Unless noted otherwise, all previous environmental documents are available at the City of Riverside Planning Department.
b. Note impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
C. Identify mitigation measures. For effects that are " Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorpo- rated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specificconditions for the project.
12- 139
1 5- 278 P03- 1451, 1103-1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
12- 140
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
2 5- 279
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
a. Conflict with generalplandesignationor zoning?
Source: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, TITLE 19 OF THE
RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE)
The proposed project involves the subdivision
of approximately 86.31 vacant acres to create
29 single family residential and 5 open space
lots. A Planned Residential Development
application has been submitted to allow one
additional lot to the previously approved TM
28728. The original Planned Residential
Development request was approved in 1994 in
conjunction with TM 23027, the original tract
map for this project area, and subsequently
for TM 28728. The proposed PRD complies
with the maximum density bonus allowed
under a PRD in the RC zone.
This project also requires variances and grad-
ing exceptions, which the City may grant,
provided that findings in support of the re-
quests can be made. Variances are requested
to permit parcels less than 2- acres for lots with
an average natural slope (ANS) greater than
15% but less then 30% for lots 37 - 39, 43-48,
50-79, parcels less than 5- acresin size on lots
with an ANS greater than 30% for lot 49,
landlocked parcels located along private
streets for residential and open space lots, and
lot widths at the building setback line less than
130- feet in width for lots 38, 44, 49 and 50- 53.
Grading exceptions are discussed in detail in
Section 3.e.
The project also involves a rezoning request to
remove an O - Official Zoning designation
from the southerly portion of the project area
and place the property in the RC - Residential
Conservation Zone to facilitate this develop-
ment. The area to be developed has a General
Plan land use designation of Hillside Residen-
tial. A General Plan Amendment is not re-
quired.
12- 141
3 5- 280
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
p ®
1' 03-1451, P03- 1548, 1304- 0260
LJ 13
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially
Significant
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
b. Conflict with applicableenvironmental plans or
policies adoptedby agencieswith jurisdiction
over the project? lsou
The proposed project affects waters of the
United States and waters of the State, which
fall under the jurisdiction of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
California Department of Fish and Game
CDFG), respectively. As such, the following
agenciesmay have jurisdiction over this pro-
ject, as necessary: the California Department
of Fish and Game; the Army Corps of Engi-
neers; the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
the California RegionalWater Control Board.
These agencies' approval will be required
prior to grading permit issuance and the
applicant is responsible for compliance with
all requirements and conditions of these agen-
cies.
On April 13, 2003, the applicant obtained a
stream or lake alteration agreement from
CDFG for the same - acre project in its previ-
ous iteration, TM 28728. The agreement
authorized permanent impacts to. 077 acres of
State jurisdictional streams and associated
habitat. Any changes from that stated in the
agreement will require the applicant to re-
quest an amendment to the original agreement
or submit a new notification to CDFG. The
applicant has also obtained a Clean Water Act
Section 401 Certification under the previous
map TM 28728, the project qualifies for
processingunder the US Amy Corps of Engi-
neers Nationwide Permit NW39 under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service has conducted a formal
Section 7 consultation for the project.
12- 142
4 5- 281
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
0 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
C, Be incompatible with existing :land use in the
vicinity? ( Source:)
The proposal is in conformance with the
General Plan. In addition, surrounding prop-
erties to the north have been developed with a
similar density. This project is not expectedto
result in an adverse impact on the adjacent
properties.
d. Affect agriculturalresources or operations (e. g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatibleland uses)? (Source: GENERAL PLAN EXMIT
10 - AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES)
Portions of the sites are designated as Farm-
land of Local Importance by the State of
California. The City General Plan, while
acknowledging the importance of retainingthe
City's agricultural capability, indicates that it
is not feasible nor desirable to retain all po-
tentially viable agricultural lands, based on
land use considerations. Inasmuch as the
General Plan proposes the conversion of these
lands to development, and the designated
areas have not been actively farmed, the im-
pacts associated with the development of these
lands are not considered significant.
e. Disrupt or divide the physicalarrangement of an
to
established community? (Source:)
The proposeddevelopment will not disrupt the
existing residential neighborhood to the north.
This map will complete the final phase of
previously approved map ( TM 28728), which
was part of the planned residential develop-
ment originally approved in 1994.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
populationprojections? (Source:)
This project is consistent with the City of
Riverside General Plan and the growth projec-
tions contained therein.
12- 1435
5- 282 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either di-
rectly or indirectly (e. g., through projects in an
undevelopedarea or extension of major infra-
structure)? (Source:)
The project is located in an urbanized area
and involves only the minor, incremental
extension of existing infrastructure. The
sewer extension will not directly or indirectly
induce substantial growth because the capac-
ity is directly proportional to the number of
houses in the project.
c. Eliminate existing housing, especiallyaffordable
housing? (source:)
The project will not result in the removal of
any residences.
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potentialimpacts involving:
a. Fault rupture? (source: GENERAL PLAN EXH18rr 6 - SEISMIC
HAZARDS)
b. Seismic groundshaking? (Source: G1;NERALPLAN EXHIBIT 6 - SEISMIC HAZARDS)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Source: GENERAL. PLAN EXHIBIT 6 - SEISMIC HAZARDS)
The Soil Study prepared by Gabel, Cook and
Becklund for TM 28728 does not identify that
the Project site contains soils subject to
liquifaction or seismic ground failure.
d. Seiche hazard? ( Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 7 -
HYDROLOGY)
12- 1446
5- 283 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
s
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
e. Grading on natural slopesover 10 percent? (source: El to GIS MAPS & GENERAL PLAN EXKSrr 4 - SLOPE ANALYSIS) The project area is characterized by slopes
that range between approximately 10 and 30
percent, with an average slope of approxi-
mately 26%. The proposed grading for this
project is regulated by the Public Works
Department and the City's Grading Ordi-
nance. The project requires grading excep-
tions to allow manufactured slopes up to a
height of 30 feet for portions of proposed
Cresthaven and Century Hills Streets. As
well, portions of the proposed pads and streets
are located within the limits of the Alessandro
Arroyo. In addition, the Grading Ordinance
requires a 50- foot development setback from
the limits of the Arroyo.
The Grading Ordinance allows the granting of
grading exceptions provided findings can be
made that exceptional or special circumstances
apply to the property. Such as exceptional or
special circumstances shall include such char-
acteristics as unusual lot size, shape or topog-
raphy, drainage problems, or the
impractibility of employing a conforming
grading plan, by reason of prior existing
recorded subdivisions or other characteristics
of contiguous properties.
Portions of lots 3741, 43-49, 57-62, 77, 78,
Cresthaven Drive, Century Hills Drive, Grass
Valley Way, a Flood Control access road and
a sewer line encroach within the limits and 50-
foot development setback of the Alessandro
Arroyo as defined in the Grading Ordinance.
The limits of the Alessandro Arroyo and the
required fifty- foot setback established under
the Grading Ordinance were established based
on an analysis of topographical maps and
aerial photos.
12- 145
7 5_ 284 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
s •
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
The limits of the arroyo are defined as those
areas with slopes over 30% and which are
identified on the Alessandro Arroyo map
exhibit to the grading ordinance. However, it
is often necessary to actually inspect the site to
determine more precisely the Arroyo limits.
Lots 37-40 have been daylighted to avoid
slopes within proximity to the main Arroyo.
The grading for these lots allows for an open
space corridor that lines up with the open
space areas of the adjacent maps to the north-
east
The remaining lots 41- 44,46- 49,57- 68 and 77-
78 are located outside the main branch of the
arroyo and lie on relatively flat surfaces or
within portions of tributaries which are not
topographically or visually significant. Addi-
tionally, lot 45 contains significant rock
outcroppings in the rear portion of the pad
which are noted for protection.
Although the proposed street alignment has
already been approved under the PRD, grad-
ing exceptions are now necessary to construct
some of these streets. However, none of the
proposed streets lie within the actual arroyo.
For the reasons stated above, staff can support
all of the requested grading exceptions for
encroachments into the Arroyo and its tribu-
taries. Staff has made the necessary findings
in support of these exceptions and are at-
tached as part of this report.
12- 146
6 5- 285 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
f. Erosion, changesin topographyor unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Sousa:)
The California Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board has issued a Section 401 water
quality standards certification which contains
mitigation measures to protect water quality.
g. Subsidence of the land? ( Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 6 - SEISWC HAZARDS)
h. Expansive Soils? ( Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIDIT 5 -
UNSUrrABLE SOIL CONDITIONS)
See Preliminary Soils Report prepared by
Earth Technics dated November 22, 1999
12- 147
9 5- 286
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
D11
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
i. Unique geologicor physical features? ( Source:)
Adjacent to the site to the south is the main
branch of the Alessandro Arroyo, a major
arroyo which is a designated Natural Arroyo
under the General Plan and Grading Ordi-
nance. A number of tributaries to the
Alessandro Arroyo traverse the site. While
portions of the tributaries will be retained as
open space throughout the project, develop-
ment will reduce the size of some tributaries
within the boundaries of the Arroyo. Staff can
generally support the requested exceptions to
the grading ordinance to permit grading
within the Arroyo boundary and setback
because the project design is sensitive to the
natural terrain and incorporates the preserva-
tion of significant natural features in relatively
large open space areas. In addition to the
Arroyo, the site contains large areas of rock
outcroppings within open space lot 88, a
unique feature recognized by the City zoning
ordinance. The map and grading plan have
been designed to preserve rock outcroppings
which are visible on the site where ever possi-
ble. Most of the major outcrops have been
retained within the open space areas or in
parcel areas outside the graded pad.
An open space easement shall be placed over
all ungraded portions of the map consistent
with the provisions of the Grading Ordinance.
The easement shall designate these areas for
natural open space purposes and shall pro-
hibit fencing, grading, structures orvegetation
removal. This open space shall be dedicated to
an appropriate conservancy organization for
purposes of long term maintenance and man-
agement.
s
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
12_-148
10 5- 287
1' 03-1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
s s
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Should no organization be found, a home
owner's association ( HOA) shall be established
to maintain these areas. In the case an HOA is
required, CC & R' s will be required to insure
maintenance and management of the open
space, subject to approval of the Planning
Department and City Attorney's Office.
4. WATER.
Would the proposalresult in:
a. Changesin absorptionrates, drainagepatterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( source:)
project will result in increased impermeable
area, thereby altering absorption rates and
increasing surface runoff. The City of River-
side General Plan anticipated the impacts of
development on drainage and addressed these
impacts through the implementation of a
master drainage plan for each of the City's
drainagebasins. Drainage improvements shall
be consistent with the requirements of the
City's Public Works Department.
11 0
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
There are a few instances where grading
crosses lot lines and/or the tract boundaries.
Approval for all off- site grading will be re-
quired from all affected property owners and
covenants will be required ensuring adequate
maintenance of all such proposed facilities,
subject to review and approval by the City
Attorney's Office, Planning and Public Works
Departments.
12- 149
11 5- 288 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
b. Exposure of peopleor property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (s,,.: GENERALPLANEXH1Brr
7 - HYDROLOGY; FEW. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PANEL 060260 0001-0010 B, ZONES A & C)
As previously noted under the original map
approval of the low- lying portion of the site is
located in an area subject to inundation from
the Mills Filtration Plant located to the east.
No development is proposed within the 100-
year floodplain and the probability of expo-
sure to flood hazards is minimal.
The floodplain for the project area was identi-
fied in a hydrological study prepared by the
applicant for TM- 23027. The low- lying por-
tion of the site is located in an area subject to
inundation from the Mills Filtration Plant
located to the south east. No development is
proposedwithin the 100-year floodplain; and
therefore, the probability of exposure to flood
hazards is minimal. Floodplain areas within
the project are required to be within an open
space easement. The easement will specify
that these areas are intended for open space
purposes only and that no grading, construc-
tion or fencing is permitted. The open space
easement is to be maintained by a Home-
owner's Association or a conservation group
such as the Riverside Land Conservancy
subject to the approval of the Planning De-
partment and City Attorney's Office.
12- 150
Potentially
Significant
Impact
12 5- 289
J
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0250
s
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality? (s....:)
The project will result in increased imperme-
able area, thereby altering absorption rates
and increasing surface runoff. The City of
Riverside General Plan anticipated the im-
pacts of development on drainage and ad-
dressed these impacts through the implemen-
tation of a master drainage plan for each of
the City's drainage basins. Drainage improve-
ments shall be consistent with the require-
ments of the City's Public Works Department,
the mitigation measures and standards con-
tained in the Section 401 Certification, and the
First Flush" standards for retention basins
imposed by the Water Quality Control Board.
In addition, impacts related to erosion and
surface runoff will be addressed by adherence
to City adopted erosion control policies.
As this project also involves the grading of
more than one acre, state and federal require-
ments call for the preparation and implemen-
tation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan ( SWPPP) establishing erosion and sedi-
ment controls for construction activities. The
City is not responsible for approving the
SWPPP or ensuring that it is implemented.
Rather, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board is responsible for enforcing NPDES
regulations.
12- 15113
5- 290 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
0 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (source:)
The existing property currently drains into the
Alessandro Arroyo. This project continues to
drain into the arroyo but will not change the
course of the arroyo. Although the amount of
surface water draining into the Arroyo will
increase, the "First Flush" requirements noted
in 4c and the NPDES requirement noted in 4d
above will mitigate impacts to surface runoff
in accordance with CWQCB and NPDES
regulations.
e. Changesin the course or direction of water move- 0
ment? ( source:)
All grading and drainage facilities will be
subject to Public Works Department approval
and specifications to ensure that adequate
drainage is provided.
f. Changes in the quantityof ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or throu-
gh interceptionof an aquifer by cuts or excava-
tions, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? (source:)
This project does not involve either direct
withdrawal or recharge of groundwater, nor
does it alter the underlying aquifer. The
project results in new impermeable surfaces,
thereby potentially impacting groundwater
recharge capability. However, due to the
topography of the site, groundwater will
runoff the new impermeable surfaces, into the
proposeddrainage facilities consistent with the
City's master drainage plan.
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBrr 6 - SELSMZC HAZARDS)
No changes to the direction of groundwater
flow will occur as a result of the proposed
project, and a retention basin is proposed to
catch and filter " First Flush" runoff before it
percolates into the ground.
12x-1 fj2 5_ 291 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
s
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? (source:)
The project will not result in the discharge of
groundwater contaminants.
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of local
groundwaterotherwise available for public water
supplies? (souse:)
This project will not utilize local groundwater
for water supply. Local groundwater is not
utilized for domestic consumption.
5. AIR QUALITY.
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
12- 15315
5- 292
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
Source: AQMD URHENS 2002)
LSA Associates prepared an Air Quality
Analysis for TM 31930, dated June and July
2004. The Analysis identifies that project
construction will temporarily exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District daily
thresholds of significance for Nox and PMio.
Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403
shall be followed in order to minimize air
pollutant construction emissions. However,
because project construction is only proposed
for 5-6 weeks, this short term impact is deter-
mined to be less than significant.
Additionally, the applicant will implement the
additional mitigation measures:
1) Regular watering, at least 3- times a day, of
the construction site, including all unpaved
parking or staggingareas or unpaved road
surfaces, shall be utilized in order to reduce
the fugitive dust generated during grading and
construction operations; 2) Replace
groundcover in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible; and 3) Appoint a construction rela-
tions officer to act as a community liaison
concerning on- site construction activity, in-
cluding resolution of issues related to PM 10
generation.
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
12- 15416
5- 293 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
0 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
b. Create a CO hotspot, or expose individuals to CO 0 ® concentrations above established standards?
Source:)
This project is located in an area of the
SCAQMD which is designated as attainment
for CO. Because project traffic is not antici-
pated to result in a significant impact at inter-
sections in the vicinity of the project, resulting
CO levels from project traffic will not rise to a
level of significance.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (source:) 0 ® Because the area surrounding the proposed
Project is zoned RC, the lots for the most part
range between 1 and 2 acres in size. The size
of the lots coupled with the distance between
them prevents the transfer of air pollutants
between the proposed project and the existing
homes to the northeast. Although sensitive
receptors to the NE of the project may be
exposed to an increase in PM10 as a result of
project grading, this increase will be reduced
with mitigation, temporary, and therefore, a
less than significant impact.
d. Create objectionableodors? ( Source:) Cl
This project will not result in emission odors
likely to be found objectionable by reasonably
sensitive persons in nearby neighborhoods.
e. Be subjectto TransportationDemand Measures?
Source:)
This project will not result in any new employ-
ees and therefore TDM requirements do not
apply.
6. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION.
Would the proposalresult in:
12- 15517
5- 294 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No I mpactSignificant Significant Significant
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Source:)
In 1991, a traffic study was prepared for the
original tract map ( which includes the prop-
erty contained in TM 31930) encompassingthe
subdivision of 167.5 acres into 86 single family
residential lots and 5 open space lot. The study
concluded that the widening of the intersection
at Alessandro/ Chicago/Arlington Avenues and
of Alessandro Boulevard will mitigate any
increase in trips that result from the develop-
ment of this project. As such, any traffic
impacts that result from increased trips and
cumulative impacts that may result from the
development of TM 31930 will result in an
impact that is less than significant.
b. Reduction in Level of Service ( LOS) of inter-
Sections? ( source:)
The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the
1991 Traffic Study prepared for the original
project, and has determined that the LOS for
Century and Alessandro and Trafalgar and
Alessandro identified in that document accu-
rately describe conditions today. Project
traffic will not result in a significant impact to
the LOS at intersections carrying project
traffic.
c. Hazards to safetyfrom designfeatures (e. g., sharp El Cl 13 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompati-
ble uses? ( source:)
This project will facilitate the construction of
residences, which will not have an effect on the
existing transportation corridors. All new
private streets shall be required to comply
with all Public Works requirements as to
design.
12- 15618
5- 295
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260