0 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
d. Inadequateemergency access or access to nearby
uses? ( sum:)
The development of this project will include
the construction of Century Hills Drive, which
will connect the dead end at Cresthaven to the
dead end that currently exists at Century. The
connection of these 2 dead end streets will
improve emergency access to the Project.
e. Insufficient parking capacityon- site or off- site?
source:)
The plans for the proposed homes will need to
include the required on- site parking at the
time of Design Review approval.
f. Hazards or barriers for pedestriansor bicyclists?
soumv)
No hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists are caused by this project.
g. Conflicts with adoptedpolicies supportingalter- 13 19 native transportation (e. g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (so„=:)
The project will result in the construction of
29 new single family residences and will not
conflict with policies supporting alternate
modes of transportation.
h. Rail or air traffic impacts? (source:)
The project site is not in the vicinity of rail
facilities. The site is located within the March
Air Reserve Base influence area. Approval
from the Airport Land Use Commission
ALUC) will be required prior to building
permit issuance. 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
will be required.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposalresult in impacts to:
12- 15719
5- 296
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
a. Federally endangered, threatened, or rare species 11 or their habitats ( including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (source:)
A biological Assessment for the proposed map
and a biological due diligence survey for the
proposed sewer line was prepared by Michael
Brandman Associates on July 9, 2004 and
December 15 2003. As well a wetland delinea-
tion was prepared March 2003 by Michael
Brandman Associates. The updated biological
assessment concurs with the findings of a
biological Assessment prepared by RB Riggan
Associates 2001.
Based on the current plant communities oc-
curring within the project site and the location
of known recorded special status species,
Stephen's kangaroo rat ( SKR), which occurs
in disturbed scrub and grassland habitats, 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 spe-
cies. The site is within the current Riverside
County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation
Plan ( MSHCP) and a separate habitat assess-
ment is not required by the County prior to
issuance of grading permits.
As a matter of information, a biological study
focusing on the California Gnatcatcber was
prepared for TM 28728 in September 2001.
The study reported that potential habitat for
the Gnatcatcher within the project area are
not occupied such species. Additionally, a
biological assessment was prepared for TM
28728 in August 2001 by RIB Riggan and
Associates. A follow-up focused survey was
conducted in October 2002 and there was no
siting of CAGN.
12- 15820
5- 297
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
Incurpo-
rated
The updated biological assessment concurs with
the findings of a biological Assessment prepared
by RB Riggan Associates 2001. The biological
assessment and wetland delineation for this
project notes that the project will have the follow-
ing impacts on existing biological resources:
1) The loss of approximately 46 acres of low den-
sity, occupied habitat os the Stephens' Kanga-
roo Rat. ( RB Riggin 2000)
2) Loss of 2.9 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub
RSS) and 2. 6-acres of heavily disturbed RSS
within Critical Habitat for the California
Gnatcatcher. These habitats are not occupied
by the California Gnatcatcher. ( RB Riggin 2000)
3) The loss of approximately 31.8 acres of non-
native grassland, 2. 9-acres of moderate quality
Riversidean SageScrub ( RSS) and 2. 6-acres of
low quality RSS within critical habitat
area. ( Wetland Study 2003)
4) loss of approximately .028 acres ( 370 linear
feet) of USACE and . 077 acres of CDFG juris-
dictional waters. Affected vegetation is limited
to ruderal species and scarce mulefat. No
wetlands are present within the project impact
area. ( Wetland Study 2003)
To mitigate these potentially significant impacts
the following mitigation measures will be re-
quired:
1) Approximately 43. 78 acres of onsite CAGN
critical habitat located along theAlessandro
Arroyo will be dedicated as open space.
This area contains approximately 10.5 acres
of riparian/wetland vegetation. (Wetland
Study 2003)
2) 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)
adjacent to theAlessandroArroyo. ( Wetland
Study 2003 and RB Riggin
2010_15921
5- 298
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
3) The permanent loss ofjurisdictional 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 crossing and adjacent to the proposed
upland water quality bio- Swale. It is anticipated
that the bio- swale willprovide sufficient hydrol-
ogy to support riparian vegetation. (Wetland
Study 2003)
4) A water quality bio- swale will be installed
immediate downstream of the road crossing.
The bio- swale will be installed in an upland
location toprovide pretreatment of urban runoff
prior to discharge into the drainage feature.
The HOA will provide long term maintenance,
consisting of installation of native grasses, and
sediment removal as needed. ( Wetland Study
2003)
5) Riparian vegetationwill be installed within the
mitigation site consisting of native grasses.
Wetland Study 2003)
6) A three year maintenance and monitoring plan
is proposedto ensure the successful establish-
ment of the native cover within the mitigation
area. ( Wetland Study 2003)
7) The applicantshall be required to obtain neces-
sary approvalsand permits prior to any grading
from 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. ( Wetland Study
2003 and RB Riggins 2000)
8) The project site is located within the Riverside
County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Fee
Assessement Area, and therefore subject to
currentfee requirements as administered by the
City ofRiverside. (BiologicalAssessment 2003)
Potentially Potentially
significant significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
12- 16022
5- 299 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES):
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
b. Speciesidentified as a sensitive or specialstatus 0
species in local or regional plans or listings
maintained by the California Department of Fish
and Game? ( source:)
According to the biological report reference in
7. a. above, based on the current plant commu-
nities occurring within the project site and the
location of known recorded occurrences of the
above mentioned special status species, Ste-
phen's Kangaroo Rat ( SKR), which occurs in
disturbed scrub and grassland habitats, a
moderate potential to occur within the project.
Therefore, the project is subject to current fee
requirements as administered by the City of
Riverside.
c. Locally importantnatural communities ( e. g., sage
scrub, etc.)? (source:)
Due to the loss of approximately 31.8 acres of
non- native grassland, 2. 9-acres of moderate
quality Riversidean SageScrub ( RSS) and 2. 6-
acres of low quality RSS within critical habitat
area, the conditions of this project require the
applicant to prepare a coastal sage scrub and
riparian enhancement plan subject to review
and approval of the Planning Department
prior to issuance of grading permits.
d. Wetland habitat ( e.g. riparian and vernal pool)? El ® El 11source:) See response 7. a. above.
e. Wildlife dispersalor migration corridors? ( source:) 0 0 E The proposedopen space along the Alessandro
Arroyo will provide wildlife corridor move-
ment opportunities.
f. Wildlife resources pursuant to Section 711.4 of 0 ®
the Fish and Game Code? ( source:)
This project will result in potential adverse
impacts to wildlife resources, and the payment
of fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish
and Game Code is required.
12- 16123
5- 300 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with the General Plan Energy Element?
Source: CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN)
b. Use non- renewableresources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( some:)
The construction of residences is not a waste-
ful use of non- renewablematerials..
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? ( snort.:
GENERAL PLAN - EXHIBIT 40 - MINERAL RESOURCES)
The Project is not located in an area contain-
ing known mineral resources, therefore the
construction of residences will not reduce the
future availability of valuable mineral re-
sources.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
significant significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
9. HAZARDS.
Would the proposalinvolve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances ( including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
Source:)
Project does not involve the use of hazardous
materials.
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (source:)
This project will not impact emergency re-
sponse or evacuation plans.
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? isouree:)
This project will facilitate the construction of
single family residences which would not
result in health hazards.
11 d. Exposure of people to existing sources of poten-
tial health hazards? ( so= e:)
No hazardous sites are identified in the vicin-
ity of the project.
12- 16224
5- 301
11 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
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 ®
brush, grass, or trees? ( so= c;)
The project is planned for low density resid-
ential development with areas of natural
vegetation. While a minimal risk of grassland
fire exists, the Project contains streets which
are accessible to emergency vehicles and will
require the installation of fire hydrants per
City requirements. In addition, City Code
requires residences to include fire sprinklers.
These factors ensure that fire risks will be
reduced to a level of less than significant.
f. Exposure of peopleto risk from airport opera- ®
tions? ( source:)
The site is located within the March Air Re-
serve Base influence area. An application to
and approval from the Airport Land Use
Commission ( ALUC) will be required prior to
building permit issuance. The applicant shall
comply with all conditions of ALUC prior to
building permit issuance.
10. NOISE.
Would the proposalresult in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( s.. c)
The project does not involve uses, activities, or
increased traffic levels that would result in an
increase in ambient noise levels on the Project
site.
12- 16325
5- 302 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
b. Exposure to severe noise levels, including
construction noise? ( Source: GENERAL PLAN EXIiBII 15
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS)
Because if its proximity to the March Air
Reserve Base (MARB), the project is located in
an area of 60 - 70 dB CNEL. Noise levels of
this intensity are considered Conditionally
Acceptable for residential uses per the General
Plan. The Building Code requires that, prior
to building permit issuance, adequate noise
reduction measures must be incorporated into
the house design to attenuate interior noise
levels to 45 dBA. Compliance with the build-
ing code is required and is not considered to
be mitigation.
The project will result in temporary increases
in noise levels due to construction/grading
activity. Potential noise impacts will be lim-
ited by compliancewith the City's Noise Ordi-
nance ( Title 7), which limits construction noise
that would disturb a residential neighborhood
to 7: 00 a. m. to 7: 00 p. m. weekdays, and 8: 00
a. m. to 5: 00 p. m. Saturdays. No construction
noise is permitted on Sundays or federal
holidays. Additionally, the applicant is ad-
vised that any blasting will require a special
permit to be issued by the City Fire Depart-
ment, and must occur during the hours con-
struction is permitted by the City. Because
compliance with the construction hours is
required by City Code, compliance does not
constitute mitigation.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the proposalhave an effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
Potentially Potentially
significant significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
12- 16426
5- 303
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
a. Fire protection? (source:)
The project shall comply with the require-
ments of the City Fire Department. The Fire
Department requested a number of conditions
of approval be required for the project to
ensure adequate fire protection, including
provision and maintenance of a public water
system, provision of streets and fire apparatus
access roads that meet public street standards,
and that cul- de-sacs, where islands are pro-
vided, be a minimum of 106 feet in diameter
curb- to-curb, with a maximum 50- foot diame-
ter island. In addition, the grading plans
shows several driveways in excess of 150 feet
in length proposed. A condition of approval
will be imposed requiring the driveways and
site access on the grading plans to be submit-
ted to the Fire Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the Project.
b. Police protection? (source:)
The Project, will result in an incremental
additional demand for public services. How-
ever, because the Project is consistent with the
adopted General Plan, which provides for
adequate public services, no significant ad-
verse impacts will result from its implementa-
tion.
c. Schools? ( so= c:)
The payment of school fees pursuant to the
requirements of state law shall be required
prior to project construction.
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Souree:)
The Project will be conditioned to pay TUMF
and Traffic and Transportation Fees in an
amount established by City ordinance. Pay-
ment of these fees will reduce impacts related
to this issue to a level of less than significant.
e. Other governmentalservices? ( Source:)
See response 11b.
12- 16527
5- 304 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
6 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposalresult in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? (s..:)
The project will result in an incremental add-
itional demand for utilities. However, it is
consistent with the General Plan which pro-
vides, in conjunction with the City's Capital
Improvement Program, for the adequate
provision of infrastructure and utility services.
Therefore no impacts in regard to infrastruc-
ture or services will result from the Project.
b. Communications systems? (so= c)
See response 12a.
c. Local or regionalwater treatment or distribution
facilities? ( soum:)
The Public Utilities Department indicated a
concern regarding the proposed private street
system relative to installation and maintenance
of water lines and the provision of water to the
subdivision. To address these concerns, condi-
tions of approval have been imposed by the
City Water Department.
d. Sewer or septictanks? ( source:)
The project will require the installation of a
new sewer line and access road. Such sewer
line shall be subject to the specifications and
approval of the Public Works Department.
e. Storm water drainage? (so¢ rce:)
See response 12c.
f. Solid waste disposal? (source:)
See response 12c.
g. Local or regional water supplies? (source:)
See response 12c.
13. AESTHETICS.
Would the proposal:
12- 16628
5- 305 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
6 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
a. Have a demonstrable negativeaesthetic effect?
soUM:)
The grading and construction proposed for
the development of TM 31930 may result in
potential aesthetic impacts. There are signifi-
cant natural features on the site including
numerous massive rock outcroppings, rugged
topography and steep Arroyo areas consisting
of the main Arroyo and tributaries. The rock
outcroppings in particular are a dominant
visual feature which distinguish the site from
the more weathered, rolling terrain which
characterizes much of the Alessandro Heights
area. Conditions of approval will be required
to retain visible rock outcroppings on the site,
and the Design Review process for future
residences, will minimize any further aesthetic
impacts related to the construction of resi-
dences on the site to a level of less than signifi-
cant.
b. Create light or glare? (s.:) 0
The development proposed by this Projectwill
introduce new lighting sources normally
associated with residential uses. Any ancillary
lighting, such as tennis court lighting, will be
reviewed by the Planning Department in the
Design Review process. Any tennis court
lighting will be required by a conditions of
approval to be directed downward to avoid
spillover light escaping from the boundaries of
each individual lot. In addition, the design
will avoid off- site light spillage.
12- 16729
5- 306 P03. 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
U
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
c. Affect a scenic vista or roadway? (source:)
Compliance with this City code provision, and
the Design Review process, will ensure that the
residences developed by this Project are situ-
ated in locations which blend into the sur-
rounding terrain, and therefore, do not result
in a significant aesthetic impact when viewed
from adjacent roadways. Conditions of ap-
proval imposed during the Design Review
process and compliance with the RC zone are
required for the Project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontologicalresources? ( so.:)
No identified paleontological resources or
paleontologically sensitive areas are known to
occur within the City.
b. Disturb archaeologicalresources? ( so= c)
The Alessandro Heights EIR included this site.
As a part of that EIR, an archaeological study
was completed, which identified four archaeo-
logical sites on the property. Three of the sites
will be located within the open space areas.
The remaining site is located within a pro-
posed street and, therefore, will not be pre-
served. Because the archaeological study did
not require but did recommend that these sites
be retained, staff does not believe that loss of
the one site constitutes a significant impact.
c. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect historical resources, including
heritagetrees? ( source:)
No other historical or cultural resources are
located on this site except as described in 14b.
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
13 d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect uniqueethnic cultural values,
including those associated with religious or
sacred uses? ( source:)
See response 14c.
12-1685- 307 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
0 0
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No INFORMATION SOURCES):
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
15. RECREATION.
Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhoodor regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ( Source:)
The addition of 29 new residences will mini-
mally increase the demand for neighborhood
and regional recreational facilities, which will
be accommodated through the City's existing
park system.
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities, includ- to 0 ing trails? ( Source: GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 41 -NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS; GENERAL PLAN EXHIBIT 42 PROPOSED
TRAIL SYSTEM)
The project area is located within the
Hawarden Hills Specific Plan area and desig-
nates the westerly portion of the site with a
trail corridor connecting the Alessandro
Arroyo to the Hawarden Hills Vista Point to
the north. The City's Trails Master Plan does
not identify this trail as planned or designated,
but does show a multi- purpose recreational
trail through the Alessandro Arroyo. Upon
further review of the trail as shown in the
HHSP, it was determined that the location for
such trail shall be identified at the time of
Project development. Staff is requiring as a
condition of Project approval that a trail
easement be provided connecting the
Alessandro Arroyo and Hawarden Hills Vista
Point, with the location to be approved by the
Planning and Parks and Recreation Depart-
ments and City Attorney's Office.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
12- 16931
5- 308 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
INFORMATION SOURCES): Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
a. Does the projecthave the potentialto degradethe
quality of the environment, substantiallyreduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife populationto drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range ofa rare or endangeredplant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periodsof California history or prehistory? (so.. e:)
No. See responses in Section 7.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (so.:)
The original project, consisting of Tract Maps
23027, 28728, 31930, proposes to preserve
60.44 acres, or 36 percent of the total 167.5-
acre development. The 41.48 acres of open
space proposedfor preservation as part ofTM
31930 consists of 48% of the property con-
tained in the project. The preservation of
open space is listed as a goal in the RC Zone,
and is also identified as a goal on Measure C.
As such, information contained in this initial
study supports the conclusion that the Project
will not delay the achievement of previously-
identified long term environmental goals.
12- 17032 P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
5- 309
n
U
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
c. Does the project have impactsthat are individu-
ally limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.) (sa..:)
The potential exists for the individual project
to result in significant grading impacts due to
land form alteration. TM 31930 is the third
component of a 186- acre project, first ap-
proved as TM 23027. When TM 23027 ex-
pired, the lots remaining unrecorded at that
time were incorporated into a new map, TM
28728, which was approved before the Grad-
ing Ordinance was adopted. At that time, the
Alessandro Arroyo was defined as the bound-
aries of the 100-year flood plain, and the
Arroyo setback was determined from that
limit. In 1998, after the Grading Ordinance
was adopted, the property owner applied for
a time extension for TM 28728, and prepared
grading exceptions which the City approved.
Recently, the remaining unrecorded lots in
exactly the same design previously approved
for TM 28728, have been incorporated into
TM 31930 ( except for the addition of an off-
site sewer line). The development of TM
23027 and TM 28728 did not result insignifi-
cant impacts to landform grading. Because
TM 31930 does not incorporate any changesto
the" design or layout of the previously ap-
proved lots, its development is not anticipated
to result in cumulatively considerable impacts
to the environment. Together, the recordation
of the three tract maps will result in the pres-
ervation of 36% of the total project acreage as
open space. The open space dedications for
each tract individually include, TM 23027 - no
open space, TM 28728 - 14. 4 acres, TM 28728 -
4. 18 acres and TM 31930 - 41.86 acres. The
acre- 12171
33 5- 310
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
17 13
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
ISSUES ( AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
age dedicated to open space for the three tract
maps totals 60.44 acres. Because each tract
map individually did not result in significant
grading impacts to landforms, grading related
to their cumulative development is not ex-
pected to result in cumulatively considerable
impacts. As such, no adverse cumulative
impacts were identified in this initial study
analysis.
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
sower:)
No. See response in Section 9.
12- 17234
5- 311
J
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo-
rated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
4b 0
FINDING ( To be completed by the City Planning Commission) It has been found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adoptedby the City Council. As part of this determination, the approvedmitigation measures shall be required for the project. The proposedMitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Riverside.
1. See conditions in report marked with an asterisk
Limited to Case P03- 1451/P03- 1548/P04- 0260
It has been found that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report should be required by the City Council.
There is no evidence before the agency that the proposedproject will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources, and the impacts of the project are found to be de minimis pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game code.
Signatur Date. 4244 - 1 4&-:x
City Planning Co ssion
Case Number: P03- 145 1 /P03- 1548/PO4- 0260
12173
5- 312
P03- 1451, P03- 1548, P04- 0260
I ~ 1t RC
4" L-TONAV
Y
40 R- 1.130
RC
F-
AC
0~
0 0
L if
0 RC
TM- 28728 P65- 1451-15411 P04. 02.&O
12 174
EXHIBIT A- Location/Zoning Map 5- 313
0 Ac
3amwy 10, 2002
1 inch = 500 feet
RON~~~~
L991 n aryd
wn~
Q V RLD RHS
f 7/ \
RES
RHS
NOS
AHS
TM- 28728 POZ-1451'
EXHIBIT B- General Plan Mai
AV
gti ~iii5 °5- 314
RFfS
R15
TM- 28728 AM 3EXHIBIT C- 998 Aerial Photo 12_1-
wry 1Q 2002
l inch= 5Mko
0.=. 71s 1
efdlrArtornlif~~ ~ ~
d% r OYfm ,
AC
n
R- 1-130
RC
N
I f s w
j
vo
sp -a
RC.
OiON AV
1 AC s {
E ~
Q
0 PC
0 I
RC
JanuaryM 2002
1 in:h = 500 feet
0 f
TM- 28728 - M3. 14-51- 1543, P~ 2] 0p
2-1
EXHIBIT ` D'- PrOPO-%eod,n 5- 31,
RC
P®
Y.
C TM- 28728
PO'S• 1X51- 1548, Pouf • p2(VO
EXHIBIT r15= lqq%
V
f 111n
w
1 !
1 ~ • fIMCF'~\
i
I
vp4cr
mJ - 17
R 5- 317y~ / - FIVE SIDE
r ;
e , t ~ irN - f
A co
I
I' Irl a~ ( y _ I I P d l
c1q
fee,: It LLJ I
a' 1 v I
V I U : I.. I
k ` ilk t I Li I
rp
sit
16,
r . f
1JM• ` . ~ ~• C' F ~ 5tl . a r
r may.-pyy.-p. s 1~ I 1 ~ k a '
r
r y
t t r Ir !
010!
1. ~•'
r . r'
7 4T.acl'I jrl.li- r
T' lT f Mn.. I' i.
r = ri ' t
1~~ I•' ' ~
11j .~~y t~ r 7r ~ f'~- r ~ i •
h~~ ' i t. - • _-. 1...~r' r - i 1i ~ f 1) , ' - ~
l
fir. '? r ~~ M - . • tt ~
i~ ~ j-r.. ~ ~
a•.:', I` a .
I 1"' • ppaq - ' • l.:~i'. k• : lac' ., r;
1.~r5.Tf1 Jai "xj ` , y , fit' re
r Ii •
n 1
Ai
AIL'1_ ~' 1 1 cam: •~ r _
5- 318
mow
s lamfa ~
oo
r
to9
AIL
r
W
4 O
i
Vi%AN
t
G COMMISSION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2002
PLO
NI
jepo3.1 • 15 8, 7 2 : Request of Gabel, Cook and Becklund, ract Map 28 28,
on behalf of Dr. Hong, for a two- year time extension in which to recor eentati
ieG3esident a17andthe proposedsubdivision of approximately87.4 vacant acres into app Y five open space lots ( Phases2 - 4), generallysituated northerly of the Alessandro Arroyo, easterly of Hawarden Drive, southerlyof Century Avenue and
ThePl Alessandro
Commission w11~alsorevRwResidential Conservation and O - Official Zones. Planning Comm the gradingplan for compliancewith the City's Grading Ordinance. ( To be heard concurrently with PD- 001-912)
B CKrR M
This case was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2002. However, the morning of the meeting, staff and the applicantreceived tlwletters
o look at the proposedplans.
first letter was from the Burton's, who wanted to have a chance However, they did not providetheir phonenumber or address and staff was unable to contact them.
The other letter was from Arlee Montalvo. The applicantrequesteda continuance to today's meeting to allow time to adequatelyaddress the issues
audience on January
addition to
supplemen 1
Commission also heard testimony from members of the
report addresses the issues raised in both written and verbal comments.
Ms. Montalvo's Letter
I. Time Extension
Comment - This Tract Map has expired, and no extension can legally be grantedretroactively.
As stated in the January 17, 2002 staff report, the applicant submitted a timely request for a one year time extension on July 19, 2000 where the map was due to expire on July 22, 2000. Although the City' Subdivision Ordinance, Title 18, requirestime extension requests to be submitted thirty-days prior to map expiration
18. 10.030), the State's Subdivision Map Act does not, and it has been the City's practiceto defer to the Subdivision Map Act when our ordinance conflicts with the Act. The Act permitstime extension requests up to the expiration date. Therefore, the request for the time extension was acceptedand processed.
Due to the City's requirementto review the grading deviations in conjunction with the time extension request and the additional time needed for the applicantto conduct the needed surveys for the updatedbiological report, the case was still open on July 22, 2001 when a second one year time extension would have normally been required.
Since the first time extension re uest was still open and being processedby staff, 2- 181
5-~ 2 0 TM- 28728
8 ~ 0
there was no need for the applicant to formally request another one year time extension.
Comment - The granting of grading exceptionson 26 out of 44 (59%) of the lots on Phases 2-4 is excessive.
The Grading Ordinance, Title 17,
by excavation gradingand
objectivesof the General Plan and RC Zone Y controlling earthwork construction. The
ollowsorunder5ectionpl73ZA14whwhich fates asf
exceptions,
deviations, from the ordinance
Generally. Conditional exceptions e
Administrator that exceptionalor specialbe permittedupon a finding by the Zoning circumstances apply to the property. Such exceptionalor special circumstances shall include such characteristics as unusual lot size, shape, or topography, drainage problems, or the impracticabilityof employinga conforminggradingplan, by reason of prior existing recorded subdivisions or other characteristics of contiguous properties."
The Planning Department is supportingthe requesteddeviations for the detailed reasons outlined in the recommended findings. This subdivision and related grading plan were the subjectof intense scrutiny by the community and many hours of study by the staff and property owner's representatives. Numerous field trips to the site were made by staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. In staff s opinion, the resulting design is exceptionallysensitive to the natural topographyof the property.
In further support of this conclusion, reference the following comments made by one of the most affected neighbors, Mr. Raftery, at the January 17' meeting.
In working with the developer and their engineer, plus the City Planning Department, the group that I representfeelsstronglythat the City has probablycome up with one of the best plans that I' ve seen in some forty years of law practice involved in this area and many others, under the circumstances of this property. I am a contiguous property owner that abuts this project. The developers, through their engineer, Mr. Gabel's f rm, have been cooperativewith the City and have been cooperativewith peoplewho had interest in the environment. I want the Commission to know that I think the project is one of the best that I' ve seen and been involved in here in the City. It is a highly sensitive area, but they have done a wonderful job with this project. "
Comment - The Tract Map cannot be justified by an expired Planned Residential Development ( PRD) plan.
It is correct that the related Planned Residential Development (PRD) case, PD- 001- 912, for this map has expired. The Code states that time extension requests are to
17. 1 A7
5- 321 TM- 28728
s
be submitted before the expiration date, which has passedfor PD- 001-012.
However, longstandingpracticeof the City is to allow filing of retroactive time extensions for P1tD's and Conditional Use Permits.
extension, and staff has prepared
applicanthas submitted a request for the PRD t
the report for the Commission's review at today's meeting.
Comment - The Tract Map cannot be justified by a non- conformingPRD.
This is not a non- conformingPRD as the PRD ordinance permitsup to a 25% density bonus for RC zoned projectsbased on a number of factors. The subjectPRD was grantedan 18% densitybonus based on superior design and sensitivity to the natural terrain, and findings were made to support that bonus. The remaining unrecorded portions of the map and PRD have a density 0. 48, which is less than the baseline density permittedwithout a density bonus.
The pRD was processedin accordance with normal proceduresfor a singlefamily PRD, which are different than for multiple
ufalyaldotsmare' notnlmthecase of the former,
own at the time of
the specificsof development for
approval, as custom homes are normally built on these lots. In the case of the latter, floor plansand elevations are requiredearlier in the process as the projectis typically an apartmentbuilding under one ownership.
Finally, the PRD ordinance, as it appliesto the RC Zone,-was effective on the date of approvalof TM- 28728.
Comment - This Tract Map fails to satisfy legal requirements regarding lot size variances in the RC Zone.
The request before the Commission today is a time extension and gradingreview.
Since there have been no changes in the area or the Zoning Ordinance which would require another look at the requestedvariances, staff did not readdress this issue under the time extension. The City's discretion in approvinga time extension on an approvedmap is limited to the length of the extension and new conditions or review of prior approvalsis not permitted. When the map was approvedin 1998, the Commission made the necessary findings to support the variances based upon the topographicalconstraints of the property and these findings are still applicabletoday, since there have been no pertinentchangesto the Zoning Ordinance or the map that affect these variances.
The Commission is advised that the time extension request can be denied; however, nothing prevents the subdivider from agreeingto new conditions under the time extension in an effort to gainsupport for the time extension. It should also be noted that if the time extension is denied, the subdivider could reapply for a new map, which could result in a design that is not consistent with the phasesof the map that have been previouslyapprovedand recorded in this area by this developer. 12- 183
5 - 3 2 2 TM- 2872$
t
Comment - The findings for the variances and deviations are inadequate.
The findings for the variances are not being revisited at this time as noted above.
Both the staff and the applicanthave preparedfindings for the requestedgrading deviations. Based upon the site's topographicalcharacteristics and constraints, including drainageissues, rock outcroppings, blueline stream location, flood plain location, etc., staff was able to make the findings to support the deviations.
Negative Declaration
Comment - Mitigation for wetland and Riversidian coastal sage scrub is absent.
Mitigation for wetland and Riversidian Costal SageScrub is found in the mitigations noted in the Initial Study as well as in the conditions of approval. The applicant's representative, CampbellBio Consulting, has prepareda detailed letter addressing the commentor's concern's ( Exhibit V of this supplementalstaff report). Staff is of the opinion that the initial study adequatelyaddresses biological impacts and providesappropriatemitigation, reflected in the conditions of the map, to adequately mitigate any significant impact.
Comment The homeowners association being listed as a possiblemanager of the open space easement undermines the proposedmitigation.
At the last meeting staff recommended that condition 1 be modified to require the open space to be maintained by a non-profit conservation organization. This change is reflected in the latest recommended conditions.
The Tract Map is not consistent with the RC zoning and General Plan.
The Planning Commission and City Council previouslydetermined that the map is consistent with the General Plan and the RC Zone, and staff continues to concur in this previousfinding.
Mr. Raftery's Testimony
Mr. Raftery is a contiguousproperty owner living at 2400 Rolling RidgeRoad. Generally, he was very supportiveof the project (see comments noted above). However, he did have two requests. The first was that a condition be added requiring the projectto be gated. The second was to have private street " C" shortened to a cul- de-sac in front of open space lot 88. Long driveways could then be providedfor lots 50, 51 and 52. This design would minimize the extent of grading. As noted by the letter submitted by the applicant's representative, the applicant agrees with these requests and appropriateconditions have been added.
12- 184
5- 323 TM_ 28728
1 Mr. Mylne's Testimony
The Hawarden Hills Studywas adoptedin 1977 and includes a trail corridor from the Alessandro Arroyo to Tiburon Knoll to the north of the subjectproperty. Staff is recommendinga condition that the applicantprovidefor this trail across the subjectproperty subjectto approvalof the Planning Department.
That the City Planning Commission:
1, APPROVE Zoning Case TM- 28728 subject to the recommended conditions of approvalbased on the following findings:
a. the development, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Code, specifically the RC Zone, and General Plan and the intent of the Grading Ordinance;
b. staff can make the necessary findings to support deviations to the Grading Ordinance; and
C. there have been no significant changes in the surrounding area.
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; b. the proposedproject could have the potentialfor adverse effects on wildlife resources and the applicantis responsiblefor payment of Fish and Game fees at the time the Notice of Determination is filed with the County.
EXHIBITS
1. Site Plan
II. Original Staff Report and all Exhibits from January 17, 2002 III. Biological Report
IV. Letters of Opposition (2)
V. Letter from Kathy Dale, Campbell Bio Consulting, Inc.
VI. Letter from William Gabel ( 2)
G: XCPM2.21- 02%TM28728. R0K
cw: Diane Jenkins, AICP
12,-185
M, 5 5- 324 v 28728
0 0
QNS F N R 22 1
A R V D T
F I N E LIN I NNOTES
Case Number: TM- 28728 Meeting Date: February 7, 2002
CDinoli All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk M.
Planning
Prior to Map Recordation
l . An open space easement shall be recorded for all areas within the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain and the setback therefrom, all areas designatedas open space, and for each lot all areas not proposedfor grading under this review subject to the approval of the Planningand Legal Departments. 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-profitconservation organizationsuch as the Riverside Land Conservancy subjectto the approvalof the Planning and LegalDepartments. The property shall be transferred either in fee title or an easement establishedto facilitate maintenance/stewardship by such an organization.
2. Lots 54 - 57 shall be redesignedto widen the street frontage of Lot 56 to allow the building padarea to be located at a lower elevation as conceptually shown on the staffs exhibit, subject to Planning Department review and approval.
3. Lots 53 and open space Lot 87 shall be combined as one open space lot.
4. Shorten private street lot "C" to cul- de-sac in front of open spacelot 88 with long driveways providedfor lots 50, 51 and 52, subject to Planning and Public Works Departmentsapproval.
5. Provide gates at the entrance/exits to the project. The gates should meet all Fire, Police, Public Works and Planning Departments' requirementsfor design, turnarounds and locks.
6. Provide a trail across the subject property, between the AlessandroArroyo andthe northerlyboundaryof the subjectproperty for eventual connection to Tiburon.Knoll, subject to approvalof the PlanningDepartment.
2. 1 R6
5- 32 5 TM- 28728
r,.... m~..inn FebrueN 21, 2002
7. The applicant shall prepare and record Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ( CC&Rs) and other documents as necessary subjectto approval of the Planning and Legal Departments:
a. prohibiting any additional grading beyond the Arroyo Study standards;
b. restricting the pad elevations on Lots 54 - 57 as follows: Lot 54 - 1, 260; Lot 55 - 1, 265; Lot 56 - 1, 280; and Lot 57 - 1, 290; c. establishing a Homeowner's Association;
d. the keeping of livestock is prohibited;
e. prohibiting further subdivision of any lots within this map.
8. The City Planning Commission makes the necessary findings in the applicant's favor to grant the following variances. As justification, the applicant's written justificationsare referenced:
a. an overall average density greater than . 5 units/acre; b. parcels less 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);
C. parcelsless than five acres in size on lots with an ANS of 30% or greater (lots 33-34, 38, 50 & 65);
d. landlocked parcelslocated along private streets.
In addition to the applicant's findings, approvalof these variances will not affect the overall density or functioning of the map. The design, which proposes some lots with less than the required area, will more effectively preserve the topographyin a natural state and minimize grading. Although the lots will be technically landlocked, guaranteedaccess to a public street will be provided with maintenance being the responsibilityof the affected property owners.
9. Reverse frontage walls shall be providedalong Century Avenue for lots 21 - 26 and carried through on the side yards for lots 85 & 86 and along Cresthaven Drive for lots 69, 71 & 72. Plans for all reverse frontage shall be submitted for Design Review for the Planning, Public Works and Park and Recreation Departments approval. A Homeowner's Association shall be responsiblefor maintenance of this reverse frontage area.
12. 187
Pnhruerv 21. 2002 7 5 - 3 2 6 TM- 28728
s s
10. The reverse frontage wall for lots 21 - 26 should be placed at the top of the slope.
11. The reverse frontage areas should be combined into separate lots and maintained through a Homeowner's Association.
12. 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.
13. Lots 88 and 89 should be split at the phasing line to create two new, numbered open space lots.
14. The phasingline for Phase 2 should follow the lot line of Lot C, the extension of Cresthaven Drive. Grading for the southerly extension of Cresthaven Drive shall be permittedto encroach into the designatedopen space.
15. Zoning Cases RZ- 006-912 shall be adoptedand PD- 001-912 finalized prior to or concurrently with the adoptionof this map. ( Both cases have expired and will requireretroactivetime extensions.)
16. Easements shall be recorded as 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 effected, contiguous properties.
Prior to Grading Permit Issuance
IT The gradingplanshall be revised, subjectto Planning Department review and approval, to:
a. clearly indicate all pad and lot drainage, subject to review and approvalby the Planning and Public Works Departments. Cross lot drainagecovenants, if necessary, shall be subject to Public Works and Legal Departments' review and approval.
b. Indicate that all rip-rap will be natural rock ( not blasted) and all visible drainage features 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 Department review and approval.
d. Reflect City adoptedcontour grading policies. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant's engineer shall submit a letter 12- 188
rim Ohnnino C mrnission Februarv 21. 2002 8 5- 327 TM- 28728 s s
certifying the contouring of such required slopes in accordance with City adoptedstandards.
e. Indicate that gradingoperationswill 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 permittedon Sundays or federal holidays. f. Indicate the 100 year flood limits of the blue line stream to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
18. The Commission makes the necessary findings in the applicant's favor 'to grantthe following grading deviations. As justification,. the applicant°s written justificationsand staff's supplementedjustificationsare referenced:
a. to allow the buildingPad and/or manufactured slopesfor lots 37-41, 43-49 57-68, 77 and 78 and portionsof street lots C, E, F H and I to encroach into the limits of the AlessandroArroyo; and
b. to permit slopes in excess of twenty-feet in vertical height for lots 49, 63, 64, and street lots C, E and H.
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 grades and configurations will be subject to review and approvalof the Fire Department.
21. Tract Map 28728 shall be recorded.
22. Landscapingand 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 landscapearchitect shall submit a letter certifying to the installation of such required landscapingand irrigation facilities prior to the release of utilities.
23. In the event that joint access driveways are proposed, covenants shall be prepared subject to the satisfaction of the Legal and Public Works Departments.
24. The gradingplan shall be revised to reflect all design changes recommended in this City Planning Commission report.
25. Adjacent property owner's approvalshall be obtained for all off- site grading.
Also, slope maintenance agreements for all slopes crossing property lines shall be recorded subjectto approval of the Planning, Legal and Public Works Departments.
12- 189
rin, i- inn rnmmission Februarv 21, 2002 9 5- 328 TM- 28728 s s
26. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phases 2-4, the applicant shall have a biological study preparedby a qualified biologist acceptableto the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the presence or absence of the California Gnatcatcher. In the event portions of the site are occupied, the applicantshall obtain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to prior to grading permitissuance.
27. The applicantshall prepare a Coastal SageScrub and riparian enhancement plan subject to review and approval of the Planning Department prior to gradingpermit issuance for Phases 2-4.
28. Manufactured slope ratios shall not exceed a maximum of 2: 1.
29. The applicantshall be responsiblefor erosion and dust control during both the grading and construction phasesof the project.
30. Grading activity shall be in substantial compliancewith the gradingplan on file with this application.
31. Advisory: The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires the preparationand implementationof a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP).
32. Advisory: Any disturbance of the "blue line streams" will require permits and approvalfrom the State Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
33. The applicant shall comply with the long term Stephen's Kangaroo Rat SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) and the City's policies for implementingthe HCP.
Prior to Building Permit Issuance
34. The 30- foot wide access road proposedfor Lot 92 shall be graded, with slopeslandscaped, a wall placedat the top of the slopeand a gate installed at Century Avenue, on- site with adequate stacking space and vehicle turn- around area to Planning and Public Works specifications.
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 specificationsof the Building Division.
12- 190
ri- n14., i- rnmmic; inn Februarv 21. 2002 10 5 X
3 2 9 TM- 28728
37. Submitdocumentationof approvalby the' Riversi
Commission (ALUC) shall be submittedto the
recordation. In the event the ALUt.- nnas rnis mup Lv u,, u1wiw1~,•~.
Airport Land. Use Plan, the case shall be consideredby the .City Council at a publichearingconcurrentlywith the ALUC appeal.
38. The applicantshall conveyan avigation easementto the March Air. Reserve of the
Base (MARB } and the March Inland Port (1VIIP) to the -satisfact co LegalDepartmentand MARB/MIP. The applicantshall obtain approval`of the RiversideCounty Airport Land : Use Commission and submit documentationto PlanningDepartmentstaff:
39. Any lighting other than normally associated with a residential use, such as tennis.court; lighting, .will be reviewed by the Planning Departmentin the Design Review process. Any tennis court lightingis required to be hooded and directed downward. In addition, the design shall avoid off--site light spillage.
40. For purposes of measuring the 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 applicablestandards of the underlying RC - Residential Conservation Zone shall be met.
Stdates
Planning
41. nt ( YnL,-.Y Cal t Me Lay M,
H au U1 UJL%l
The new expiration date of the map will be July
22, 2002 and only one more time extension requestis permitted-.
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. Dedication of right- of-way for Cresthaven Drive to 30 feet from monument centerline to Public Works specifications.
12- 191
11 5- 330 TM- 28728
0 0
44. Installation of curb and gutter at 18 feet from monument centerline, sidewalk and matching pavingon Cresthaven Drive to Public Works specifications.
45. Full half- street improvementsrequiredon Cresthaven Drive for the portion not lying completelywithin the boundaries of the map, total R/ W = 40 feet, curb and gutter at 18 feet from monument centerline to Public Works specifications. The unused portion of the right-of-way for the cul- de-sac on Cresthaven Drive shall be vacated prior to recordation of this map.
46. The proposedprivate streets are to be designedand fully improvedper the standards governingprivate streets, Resolutions 12006 and 15531.
47. Storm Drain construction will be contingent on engineer's drainage study.
48. Off- site improvement plans to be approvedby Public Works and a surety postedto guarantee the required off- site improvements prior to recordation of this map.
49. Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications.
50. Minimum designspeedfor residential streets should not be less than 25 miles per hour with a 150 foot minimum sight distance.
51. Installation of sewers and sewer laterals to serve this project to Public Works specifications. However, septic tanks will be allowed for lots that cannot reasonably be served by a gravity sewer.
52. Onsite disposalsystem (septic tank) acceptabilityshall 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.
53. Removal and/or relocation of irrigation facilities, as required.
54. All property subject to flooding from a 100-year storm shall be placed in the WC ( or other appropriateZone) prior to or concurrently with recordation of this map.
55. Ownership of property to be undivided prior to this map recording.
56. All security gates or facilities proposednow or in the future will be located on- site and adequate stacking space and vehicle turn- around area will have to be providedto Public Works specifications.
12. 192
5- 331 TM- 28728
FelNUUY 21. 2002 12
0 Fire Department
57. Requirementsfor construction shall follow the Uniform Building Code with the State of California Amendments as adoptedby the City of Riverside. 5$. Construction plans shall be submitted and permittedprior to construction.
59. Any required fire hydrants shall be installed and operationalprior to Fire Department release of permit.
60. Fire Department access is requiredto be maintained during all phasesof construction.
61. prior to map recordation the Fire Department recommends the following conditions be included in a recorded covenant to the satisfaction of the Legal and Fire Departments to ensure that future buyers are informed of these requirements:
a. On- and off- site fire protectionfacilities shall be provided to the specificationsof 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 regulationsshall 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.
Appropriateprovisionsshall be made and approvedby the City resolution or agreementto insure streets are maintained and repairedwhen necessary in the event a homeowners association fails to do so.
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.
Entry gate(s) shall meet Fire Department requirements for access and be equippedwith key box ( Knox) devices.
62. 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.
12- 193
w , M, 13 5- 332 TM- 28728
0 1*
Public Utilities
63. All utilities shall be satisfactorilyrelocated, protectedand/or replacedto the specificationsof the affected departments and agencies, and easements for such facilities retained as necessary.
64. The provision of utility easements, water, street lights and electrical undergroundand/or overhead facilities and fees in accordance with the rules and regulationsof the appropriatepurveyor.
65. Consideration for acceptance of a City maintained water system within private developments requiresthe 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 graded strip (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 and/or replacement of City water facilities. This includes medians.
C. The City Water Utility shall review and approve all construction and landscaping planswithin the easement areas.
d. Private streets shall be constructed to Public Works specifications, including standard 6- inch curb and gutter to provide adequate drainage for flushing and flow testing fire hydrants.
e. City water mains in private streets shall be ductile iron and shall be constructed beneath all transverse storm drain facilities. f. Installation of a 12- inch water main across the Alessandro Arroyo is of prime importanceto the expansionand operationof the City 1400 zone on both sides of the arroyo. Therefore, the installation of a 12- inch water main in a graded easement is required, from the project boundary near the Arroyo Dam, to the nearest private street, as approved by the Water Utility and the Planning Departments.
Crossing the arroyo at the dam will also require the approval of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
g. Compliance with any other specialrequirementsof the Water Utility.
66. Applicable Water Utility fees and charges, will be required prior to record- ation.
12- 194
r:.,, PI- nine ex. mmission February 21, 2002 14 V - 3 3 3 TM- 28728