Riverside City Council
September 10, 2024

Fire Department

57. Requirementsfor construction shall follow the Uniform Building Code with the State of California Amendments as adoptedby the City of Riverside.

58. Construction plansshall be submitted and permittedprior to construction.

59. Any requiredfire hydrants shall be installed and operationalprior to Fire Department release of permit.

60. Fire Department access is requiredto be maintained during all phasesof constmction.

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 andapprove the property and structure for iheintended use and all standards and regulationsshall be met.
c. Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed per City Ordinance 6019.

A public water system shall be providedand maintained.

Streets and fire apparatus access roads shall meet public street standards.

62. Appropriateprovisionsshall be made and approvedby the City resolution or agreementto insure streets are maintained and repairedwhen necessm7 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.

All dead-ends, caused by recordation of individual phases of the map, in excess of 150-feet will be requiredto provide a temporary turnaround to the Fire Department's approval.
12- 193
TM- 28728
Public Utilities

63. All utilities shall be satisfactorily relocated, protectedand/or replacedto the specificationsof the affected departments and agencies, and easements for such facilities retained as necessary.

64. 65.

The provision of utility easements, water, street lights and electrical undergroundand/or overhead facilities and fees in accordance with the roles and regulationsof the appropriatepurveyor.

Consideration for acceptance of a City maintained water system within private developments requiresthe following:
a. Easements will be providedas 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.
bo 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.

The City Water Utility shall review and approve all construction and landscapingplanswithin the easement areas.
do 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.
eo City water mains in private streets shall be ductile iron and shall be constructed beneath all transverse storm drain facilities. f. Installation ofa 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 gradedeasement 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 approvalof the Riverside County Flood Control District.

66. g. Compliancewith any other specialrequirementsof the Water Utility.

Applicable Water Utility fees and charges, will be required prior to record- ation.
12- 194

67. Since the Public Utilities Departmentsignsthe record map only when all of our conditions have been satisfied, Water Utility approvedmodifications can be made without further City Planning Commission review.

Park and Recreation

68. The removal, relocation, replacementor protectionof existing street trees to the specificationsof the Park and Recreation, Public Works and Planning Departments.

69. The installation of new street trees in accordance with the specificationsof the Park and Recreation Department. Street tree installation work may be deferred until issuance of building permit on each individual parcel. No Street Trees are required for private streets. All street trees shall be automatically irrigatedand installed prior to occupancy.

70. Payment of all applicablepark development fees (local and regional/reserve) as mitigation for impact to park development and open space needs as generatedby the project (Note: Regional/Reserve Park fees not applicable to Open SpaceLot acreages; However, all other lots including street lots are subject to Regional/ReservePark fees).

71. All reverse frontage and publiclandscapeplansshall be subjectto review and approval of the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.

72. Installation of full reverse frontage and public landscapeimprovements, walls and hardscape for all public landscape areas as may be required by the Planning Department, in accordance with the specificationsof the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.

73. Irrigation systems serving public landscape areas shall be metered, controlled and valved separatelyfi- om any private landscapeareas for both electrical and water services, as well as for irrigation valve control.

74. All public landscapeareas and private open space areas and parkways shall be maintained through a Homeowner's Association.

75. Provide landscape and wall easements, subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation, Public Works and Legal Departments, for all reverse frontage and public landscape improvements that extend beyond the public right of way.

76. 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 12- 195
15 TM- 28728

77. Steering Committee. It is anticipatedthe trail alignment will remain within the 100 year flood plain.

A minimum 10' wide multi- purposerecreational trail designatedfor non- motorizeduse and separatedfrom the residential lots by a minimum 6' block or wooden fence as determined by Planning Depmhnent, shall be constructed by the developer (or performance/labor material bonds executed for construction of trail) to the specificationsof the Public Works, Planning and Park and Recreation Departments.

78. Trail signageshall be placedalong the trail prior to recordation, or shall be incorporated into the performance/labor material bonds executed for construction of the trail.

79. A Covenant and Agreement for the maintenance of the landscapedparkways, reverse fi- ontageand publiclandscapeareas and medians, approvedas 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 acceptance of these landscape areas for private maintenance by the HOA.

GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
Appeal Information
a. Actions by the City Planning Commission, including any environmental finding, may be appealedto the City Council within fifteen calendar days after the decision. b. Appeal filing and processinginformation may be obtained from the Planning Department Public Information Section, 3rd Floor, City Hall. 12- 196

Arroyo Grading Deviations
The southerlybounda~ 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 outcroppingsand the main branches of the Alessandro Arroyo. A number of tributaries to the Alessandro Arroyo also traverse the site. While portions of the tributaries will be retained as open space throughoutthe project, gradingdeviations are requiredfor lots 37-41, 43-49, 57-68, 77 and 78 and portionsof street lots C, E, F, H and I to allow the building pad and/or manufactured slopesto encroach into the fifty-foot developmentsetback and/or the limits of the Alessandro Arroyo and its tributary streams ( Exhibit 'F').

The limits of the Alessandro Arroyo and the requiredfifty-foot setback established under the Grading Ordinance were established based on an analysisof topographicalmaps and aerial photos. The limits of the arroyo are those areas with slopes over thirty percent. It is often necessary to actually inspectthe site to determine more preciselythe arroyo limits. Based on several field visits to the site, staffnoted that lots 37-40 were encroachingfairly close to a tributary of the arroyo. Per the request of staff, the applicantrevised the gradingfor these lots to avoid significant impactsto the tributary. The lots have been redesignedinto single pads, and the padshave been daylightedto avoid slopes within proximity to the tributary.

Additionally, the redesignedgradingalso allows for an open space corridor that lines up with the open space areas of the adjacentmaps. To add to this open space area and to create a better connection the applicant created open space lot 93 by slightly reducing lot 37.

Additionally, lot 45 contains significant rock outcroppingsin the rear portion of the pad which are noted for protectionin the submitted map. To insure that these rock outcroppings are protectedunder the proposedgrading, staffrecommends that a detailed gradingplan be submitted for this lot for staff approval to determine the precise location of the rock outcroppings.

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 alignment has already been approved, grading deviations are now necessary to construct some of these streets. However, none of the proposedstreets lie within the actual arroyo.

With the changes noted to the grading and map design and conditions, staff can support all of the requestedgrading deviations for encroachments into the Arroyo and its tributaries.

P~ dS~e
A deviation is necessary for a proposedpad size in excess of the limits set by the Grading Ordinance for lot 49. The Grading Ordinance sets pad size limitations based on the average 12- 200
3 TM- 28728

APPROVED CONDITIONS FROM JANUARY 22. 1998 WITH RECOMMENDED

MODIFICATIONS & GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
Case Number: TM- 28728 Meeting Date: January 17, 2002
All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk (*).

Planning
Prior to Map Recordation

1. An open space easement shall be recorded for all areas within the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain and the setback therefrom ,~ ~, Jl a~ all areas designatedas open space, and for each lot all areas not proposedfor grading under this review subject to the approval of the Planning and 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 Homeowner's Association or by an agreement with the Riverside Land Conservancy subjectto the approvalof the Planning and Legal Depai tments.

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 staff's exhibit, subject to Planning Department review and approval.

3. Lots 53 and open space Lot 87 shall be combined as one open space lot.

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;
prohibiting further subdivision of any lots within this map. 12- 203
TM- 28728

10. 11.

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; 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);
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 providedwith maintenance being the responsibilityof the affected property owners.

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.

The reverse frontage wall for lots 21 - 26 should be placed at the top of the slope.

Thereverse frontage areas should be combined into separate lots and maintained through a Homeowner's Association.

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.

Lots 88 and 89 should be split at the phasing line to create two new, numbered open space lots.

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 permitted to encroach into the designatedopen space. 12- 204
TM- 28728

12. 13.

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 reqUireretro. aetive time extensions,)
Easements shall be recorded as necessary to providewater to the adjoining lots to the north of Rolling RidgeRoad and that the developerstub the waters lines to all effected, contiguous properties.

Prior to Grading Permit Issuance

14. 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 subjectto 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.
eo
Indicate an interim erosion control program to be certified by the project engineer subject to Public Works Department review and approval.

Reflect City adoptedcontour gradingpolicies. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant's engineer shall submit a letter certifying the contouring of such required slopes in accordance with City adoptedstandards.

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 construc- tion noise is permittedon Sundays or federal holidays.

Indicate the 100 year flood limits of the blue line stream to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.

15. The Commission makes the necessary findings in the applicant's favor to grant the following grading deviations. As justification, the applicant's written justificationsare referenced:
to allow the building padand/or manufactured slopesfor lots 37-41, 43-49, 57-68, 77 and 78 and portions of street lots C, E, F, H and I to encroach into the limits of the Alessandro Arroyo; and
12- 205
TM- 28728
16:

17. b. to permitslopesin excess of twenty2feetfor lots 49; 63; 64, and street lOts C, t! and H~
prepm'c adetailedgradingplan at 1"=40' scalefor tot 45 Sh0w~g Pr0te0ti0n of thC existingrock outcroppings, SUbjectto planningDepartment aPPr°Val; Final driveway gradesand configurationswill be subject to review and approvalof the Fire Department.

18. Tract Map 28728 shall be recorded.

19. Landscapingand irrigationplansfor all manufactures slopesin excess of five feet in vertical height shall be submitted to and approvedby the Planning Department. The applicant's engineeror landscape architect shall submit a letter certifying to the installation of such requiredlandscapingand irrigation facilities prior to the release of utilities.

20. In the event that joint access driveways are proposed, covenants shall be preparedsubject to the satisfaction of the Legal and Public Works Depart- ments.

21. 22.

23. 24.

25. 26.

The gradingplan shall be revised to reflect all design changesrecommended in this City Planning Commission report.

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 approvalof the Planning, Legal and Public Works Depm~hnents.

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 oft_he 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.

The applicantshall prepare a Coastal SageScrub and riparian enhancement plan subject to review and approvalof the Planning Department prior to grading permit issuance for Phases 2- 4.

Manufactured slope ratios shall not exceed a maximum of2:l.

The applicant shall be responsiblefor erosion and dust control during both the grading and construction phasesof the project.
12- 206
TM- 28728

27. Grading activity shall be in substantial compliancewith the grading plan on file with this application.

28. Advisory: The RegionalWater Quality Control Board requires the prepara- tion and implementationof a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP).

29. Advisory: Any disturbance of the "blue line streams" will requirepermitsand approvalfrom the State Departmentoffish and Game and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

30. The applicant shall comply with the long term Stephen's Kangaroo Rat SICR) Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) and the City's policies for implementingthe HCP.

Prior to Building Permit Issuance

31. 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.

32. The applicantis advised that 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 have to be sound insulated to the specificationsof the Building Division.

33. 34. 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 fmds this map to be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, the case shall be considered by the City Council at a public hearing concurrently with the ALUC appeal.

35. The applicantshall convey an avigation easement to the March Air Reserve Base ( MAP, B) and the March Inland Port ( MIP) to the satisfaction of the Legal Department and MARB/ MIP. The applicant shall obtain approval of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and submit documenta- tion to Planning Depm hnent staff.

36. Any lighting other than normally associated with a residential use, such as tennis court lighting, will be reviewed by the Planning Depm tment in the Design Review process. Any tennis court lighting is required to be hooded 12- 207
City PlanningCommission January 17, 2002 I 0 TM- 28728

37. and directed downWard. In addition, the design shallav6id ofi;site light spillage.

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.

Planning

38. lnap. ~- ~' ..... ' "- ~-- ' ~ ~-'' ~' *' ~ ~ - J ' n .~__
piati ~t f~¢ be jUly
22, 2002 and only one more time extension request is pem~ed.

39. In approvingthis case, it has been determined that the project has the potentialfor 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

40. Dedication of right- of-way for Cresthaven Drive to 30 feet from monument centerline to Public Works specifications.

41. Installation of curb and gutter at 18 feet from monument centerline, sidewalk and matching paving on Cresthaven Drive to Public Works specifications.

42. Full half- street improvements required on 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.

43. The proposedprivate streets are to be designedand fully improved per the standards governingprivate streets, Resolutions 12006 and 15531.

44. Storm Drain construction will be contingent on engineer's drainage study. 12- 208
17, 2002 I t TM- 28728

45. Off- site improvement plans to be approvedby Public Works and a surety postedto guaranteethe requiredoff- site improvements prior to recordation of this map.

46. Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications.

47. Minimum designspeedfor residential streets should not be less than 25 miles per hour with a 150 foot minimum sightdistance.

48. Installation of sewers and sewer laterals to serve this project to Public Works specifications. However, septictanks will be allowed for lots that cannot reasonably be served by a gravity sewer.

49. Onsite disposalsystem (septic tank) acceptabilityshall be obtained for each lot of this map not served by sewer, to the satisfaction of the County Depot hx, ent of Environmental Health, prior to this map recording.

50. Removal and/or relocation of irrigation facilities, as required.

51. All property subjectto flooding from a 100-year storm shall be placed in the WC ( or other appropriateZone) prior to or concurrently with recordation of this map.

52. Ownership of property to be undivided prior to this map recording.

53. All security gates or facilities proposednow or in the furore will be located on- site and adequatestacking space and vehicle mm- around area will have to be providedto Public Works specifications.

Fire Department

54. Requirementsfor construction shall follow the Uniform Building Code with the State of California Amendments as adoptedby the City of Riverside.

55. 56.

57. Construction plans shall be submitted and permittedprior to construction.

Any requiredfire hydrants shall be installed and operationalprior to Fire Department release of permit.

Fire Department access is required to be maintained during all phases of construction.

58. 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 furore buyers are informed of these requirements:
12- 209
On- and off- site fire protection facilities shall be provided to the specificationsof the Fire Department.

The Building Division and Fire Department shall inspectand approve the property and structure for the intended use and all standards and regulationsshall be met.

Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed per City Ordinance 6019.
d. A public water system shall be providedand maintained.

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.

59. All dead-ends, caused by recordation of individual phasesof the map, in excess of 150-feet will be requiredto provide a temporary turnaround to the Fire Department's approval.

Public Utilities

60. All utilities shall be satisfactorily relocated, protectedand/or replacedto the specificationsof the affected departmentsand agencies, and easements for such facilities retained as necessary.

61. 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.

62. Consideration for acceptance of a City maintained water system within private developments requiresthe following:

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.
12- 210
Ciw Planning Commission January 17, 2002 13 TM- 28728
Easements shall be kept clear of structures, trees and all other deep rooted plantswhich could interfere with the operation, maintenance and/or replacementof City water facilities. This includes medians.

Co The City Water Utility shall review and approve all construction and landscapingplans within the easement areas.
do Private streets shall be constructed to Public Works specifications, including standard 6- inch curb and gutter to provide adequate drainagefor flushing and flow testing fire hydrants.
eo City water mains in private streets shall be ductile iron and shall be constructed beneath all transverse storm drain facilities.

Installation of a 12- inch water main across the Alessandro Arroyo is of primeimportance to the expansionand operationof the City 1400 zone on both sides of the arroyo. Therefore, the installation of a 12- inch water main in a gradedeasement 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 approvalof the Riverside County Flood Control District.

63. g. Compliancewith any other specialrequirementsof the Water Utility.

Applicable Water Utility fees and charges, will be requiredprior to record- ation.

64. 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 City Planning Commission review.

Park and Recreation

65. The removal, relocation, replacementor protection of existing street trees to the specificationsof the Park and Recreation, Public Works and Planning Departments.

66. The installation of new street trees in accordance with the specificationsof the Park and Recreation Department. Street tree installation work may be deferred until issuance of building permit on each individual parcel. No Street Trees are required for private streets. All street trees shall be automatically irrigated and installed prior to occupancy.

67. Payment of all applicablepark development fees (local and regional/reserve) as mitigation for impact to park development and open space needs as 12- 211

68. 69.

70. 71.
generatedby the project (Note: Regional/Reserve Park fees not applicable to OpenSpaceLot acreages; However, all other lots including street lots are subjectto Regional/ReservePark fees).

All reverse fi' ontageand publiclandscapeplansshall be subjectto review and approval of the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.

Installation of full reverse frontage and publiclandscapeimprovements, walls and hardscape for all public landscape areas as may be required by the Planning Department, in accordance with the specificationsof the Park and Recreation, Planning and Public Works Departments.

Irrigationsystems servingpublic landscapeareas shall be metered, controlled and valved separatelyfrom any privatelandscapeareas for both electrical and water services, as well as for irrigation valve control.

All public landscapeareas and private open space areas and parkwaysshall be maintained through a Homeowner's Association.

72. Provide landscapeand wall easements, subject to the approvalof the Park and Recreation, Public Works and LegalDeptutments, for all reverse frontage and public landscape improvements that extend beyond the public right of way.

73. 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.

74. A minimum 10' wide multi- purposerecreational trail designated for non- motorizeduse and separatedfrom the residential lots by a minimum 6' block or wooden fence as determined by Planning Department, shall be constructed by the developer (or performance/labor material bonds executed for construction of trail) to the specificationsof the Public Works, Planning and Park and Recreation Departments.

75. 76.

Trail signageshall be placedalong the trail prior to recordation, or shall be incorporated into the performance/labor material bonds executed for construction of the trail.

A Covenant and Agreement for the maintenance of the landscapedparkways, reverse frontageand public landscapeareas and medians, approvedas to form by the City Attorney, must be executed by the developer. The agreement shall outline the responsibilitiesand liabilities being assumed by the Home 12- 212
15 TM- 28728
Owners Association ( ttOA), upon acceptance of these landscape areas for privatemaintenance by the HOA.

GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES

1. AppealInformation
Actions by the City Planning Commission, including any environmental finding, may be appealedto the City Council within fifteen calendar days after the decision. bo Appeal filing and processinginformation may be obtained from the Planning Depa~hnent Public Information Section, 3rd Floor, City Hall. 12- 213

CITY COUNCIL

FINAL APPROVED CONDITIONS
TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912 City Council Meeting Date: May 14, 2002 APPROVED CONDITIONS FROM JANUARY 22. 1998 WITH RECOMMENDED

IODIFICATIONS & GENERAL INFORMATION NOTES
All mitigation measures are noted by an asterisk (*).

Planning
Prior to Map Recordation

1. 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 subjectto the approvalof the Planning and Legal Depmh~tents. The easement should clearly specifythat 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 Legal Departments. The property shall be transferred either in fee title or an easement established to facilitate maintenance/stewardship by such an organization, or other mechanism and/or organizationas approvedby Planning and Legal Departments.

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 staff's exhibit, subject to Planning Department review and approval.

3. Lots 53 and open space Lot 87 shall be combined as one open space lot.

Shorten private street lot " C" to cul- de-sac in front of open space lot 88 with long driveways provided for lots 50, 51 and 52, subject to Planning and Public Works Departments approval.

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final ApprovedConditions
12- 214

preserve the topographyin a natural state and minimize grading. Although the lots will be technically landlocked, guaranteedaccess to a public street will be providedwith maintenance being the responsibilityof the affected property owners.

Reverse frontagewalls shall be providedalongCentury 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.

10. The reverse frontage wall for lots 21 - 26 should be placedat the top of the slope.

11. The reverse frontage areas should be combined into separate lots and maintained through a Homeowner s Assomat~on.

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 adoption of this map. ( Both cases have expired and will require retroactive time 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

17. The gradingplan shall be revised, subject to Planning Department review and approval, to:

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final Approved Conditions
G:~ CPC~02. 21 ~ F1NAL~ TM28728.CC
12- 216

18. 19.

20. a.
b.

C.
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 subjectto Public Works and Legal Departments' review and approval.

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.
do
eo
Indicate an interim erosion control program to be certified by the project engineer subject to Public Works Department review and approval.

Reflect City adoptedcontour gradingpolicies. Prior to issuance ora building permit, the applicant's engineer shall submit a letter certifying the contouring of such required slopes in accordance with City adoptedstandards.

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 construc- tion noise is permittedon Sundays or federal holidays.

Indicate the 100 year flood limits of the blue line stream to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.

The Commission makes the necessary findings in the applicant's favor to grant the following grading deviations. As justification, the applicant's written justifications and staff's supplementedjustifications are referenced in Exhibit G and staff's written justifications are referenced in Exhibit H, both of the January 17, 2002 staff report.
to allow the building pad and/or manufactured slopesfor lots 37-41, 43-49, 57-68, 77 and 78 and portions of street lots C, E, F, H and I to encroach into the limits of the Alessandro Arroyo; and
bo to permit slopesin excess of twenty-feet in vertical height for lots 49, 63, 64, and street lots C, E and H.

Prepare a detailed gradingplan at 1 "=40' scale for lot 45 showing protection of the existing rock outcroppings, subject to Planning Department approval.

Final driveway gradesand configurations will be subject to review and approval of the Fire Department.

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final ApprovedConditions
G:\ CPC~02- 21-02\ CC-FINAL\ TM28728.CC
12- 217

21. 22.

23. 24.

25. 26.

27. 28.

29. 30.

31. Tract Map 28728 shall be recorded.

Landscapingand irrigationplansfor all manufactures slopesin excess of five feet in vertical height shall be submitted to and approvedby the Planning Depmtment. The applicant's engineeror landscapearchitect shall submit a letter certifying to the installation of such requiredlandscapingand irrigation facilities prior to the release of utilities.

In the event that joint access driveways are proposed, covenants shall be preparedsubjectto the satisfaction of the Legal and Public Works Depart- ments.

The gradingplan shall be revised to reflect all designchangesrecommended in this City Planning Commission report.

Adjacentproperty owner's approvalshall be obtained for all off- site grading.

Also, slope maintenance agreements for all slopes crossing property lines shall be recorded subjectto approvalof the Planning, Legal and Public Works Depmhaents.

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 permit issuance.

The applicantshall prepare a Coastal SageScrub and riparian enhancement plan subject to review and approval of the Planning Depmhnent prior to grading permit issuance for Phases 2- 4.

Manufactured sloperatios shall not exceed a maximum of2:l.

The applicantshall be responsiblefor erosion and dust control during both the gradingand construction phasesof the project.

Gradingactivity shall be in substantial compliancewith the grading plan on file with this application.

Advisory: The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires the prepara- tion and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP).

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final Approved Conditions
G:\ CPC~02- 21.02~ CC-FINAL\ TM28728.CC
12- 218

32. Advisory: Any disturbance of the "blue line streams" will requirepermitsand approvalfrom the State Department offish 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 slope and 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 applicantis advised that the project is in an area impactedby a CNEL noise level between 60 and 70 dBA. Dwelling units constructed within the noise impactsareas will have to be sound insulated to the specifications of the Building Division.

36. 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 hearing concurrently with the ALUC appeal.

37. The applicantshall convey an avigation easement to the March Air Reserve Base ( MARB) and the March Inland Port ( MIP) to the satisfaction of the Legal Department and MARB/MIP. The applicant shall obtain approvalof the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and submit documenta- tion 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 DesignReview process. Any tennis court lighting is required to be hooded and directed downward. In addition, the design shall 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 placedon these lots will have a front yard setback of 30- feet from the private street property line and TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final Approved Conditions
G:\ CPC~02. 21.O2\ CC-FINAL\ TM28728.CC
12- 219

50. Installation of sewers and sewer laterals to serve this projectto Public Works specifications. However, septic tanks will be allowed for lots that cannot reasonablybe served by a gravity sewer.

51. Onsite disposalsystem (septic tank) acceptabilityshall be obtained for each lot of this map not served by sewer, to the satisfaction of the County Depmhaent of Environmental Health, prior to this map recording.

52. Removal ad/ or relocation of irrigation facilities, as required.

53. All property subjectto flooding from a 100-year storm shall be Placed in the WC ( or other appropriateZone) prior to or concurrently with recordation of this map.

54. Ownershipof property to be undivided prior to this map recording.

55. Ail securitygates or facilities proposednow or in the future will be located on- site and adequatestacking space and vehicle mm- around area will have to be providedto Public Works specifications.

Fire Department

56. Requirementsfor construction shall follow the Uniform Building Code with the State of California Amendments as adoptedby the City of Riverside.

57. 58.

59. Construction plans shall be submitted and permittedprior to construction.

Any requiredfire hydrants shall be installed and operationalprior to Fire Departmentrelease of permit.

Fire Department access is requiredto be maintained during all phases of construction.

60. 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 protection facilities shall be provided to the specificationsof the Fire Department.

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final ApprovedConditions
o:, cp ,02. 2, 12- 221 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.

Residential fire sprinklersshall be installed per City Ordinance 6019.
do A public water system shall be providedand maintained.

Streets and fire apparatus access roads shall meet public street standards.

61. 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.

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 Depm hnent's approval.

Public Utilities

62. All utilities shall bc satisfactorily relocated, protectedand/or replacedto the specificationsof the affected departments and agencies, and easements for such facilities retained as necessary.

63. The provision of utility easements, water, street lights and electrical undergroundand/or overhead facilities and fees in accordance with the rules and regulations of the appropriatepurveyor.

64. 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.

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final Approved Conditions
O:\ CPC' 02. 21.02\ CC.FINAL\ TM28728.CC I 2' 222
Easements shall be kept clear of structures, trees and all other deep rooted plantswhich could interfere with the operation, maintenance and/or replacementof City water facilities. This includes medians.

The City Water Utility shall review and approve all construction and landscapingplanswithin the easement areas.

Private streets shall be constructed to Public Works specifications, including standard 6- inch curb and gutter to provide adequate drainagefor flushing and flow testing fire hydrants.

City water mains in private streets shall be ductile iron and shall be constructed beneath all transverse storm drain facilities.

Installation of a 12- inch water main across the Alessandro Arroyo is of primeimportance to the expansionand operationof the City 1400 zone on both sides of the arroyo. Therefore, the installation of a 12- inch water main in a gradedeasement is required, from the project boundary near the Arroyo Dam, to the nearest private street, as approvedby the Water Utility and the Planning Depmtments.

Crossing the arroyo at the dam will also require the approvalof the Riverside County Flood Control District.

65. g. Compliancewith any other specialrequirementsof the Water Utility.

Applicable Water Utility fees and charges, will be required prior to record- ation.

66. 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 City Planning Commission review.

Park and Recreation

67. The removal, relocation, replacementor protectionof existing street trees to the specificationsof the Park and Recreation, Public Works and Planning Departments.

68. The installation of new street trees in accordance with the specificationsof the Park and Recreation Department. Street tree installation work may be deferred until issuance of building permit on each individual parcel. No Street Trees are required for private streets. All street trees shall be automatically irrigated and installed prior to occupancy.

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final Approved Conditions
G:\ CPCS02-2 ! . 02\ CC-FINAL\ TM28728.CC
12- 223

78. A Covenant and Agreement for the maintenance of the landscapedparkways, reverse frontageand publiclandscapeareas and medians, approvedas 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 acceptance of these landscape areas for privatemaintenance by the HOA.

TM- 28728 / PD- 001-912, Final ApprovedConditions
G:\ CPC~02. 21-02\ CC-FIbIAL\ TM28728.CC
12- 225
Dam: April 12, 2004
To: City of Rivorside planning Commission and Planning D~ parmlent.

RE: City of Rivarside plsnning Case P03- 1451; P03- 1548; P04- 0260 (TM31930). 3- 10-04 Field Trip From: City end County Joint Citizens Advisory Committee for Riverside Area Arroyo Prcservation P. AAI')
First, we thank Mr. Jim CmilLrie and the plannersDom the Riverside City p} anningDepartment, Joel Betdiag, Clara Miremontes, end John Swlecki for aceompenyin$ RAAP on a field Uip to the project site on Man;h 10, 2004. Ev~ yene was ve~ graciousend helpful. The RAAP was able to examine the land relative to the proposedmap to gainen appreciationfor which areas of the map encroach into the Alessandro Arroyo and its setbacks and which encroachments would be problematicto protectionand preservationof the a~ oyo system.

The Alessandro Arroyo and its Uibutaries are an important part of oar local watershed. ' l' hereis much sensitive habitat along the arroyo system end scenic views that are valued by the public. The picturesat thc end of this file were taken by om committee during the field trip to help illustrate the natore of the land under consideration. The following comments have been reviewed by citizen members of RAAP and do not represent eomm~ts of County or City staf~.

We arc not surprisedilmt the agency uensmittal notice for this projectproducedfew comments from agencies. The transmittal notice for ProposedTM 31939 by Gable, Cook, and Becklund to subdivide approximately86.1 vacent acres into 29 residential and 5 open space lots, situn~cd at the south i~ minusof Cresthaven Drive and Century Drive in the RC- ResidantialConservation end O- Official Zones, was dated December 29, 2003. The notice did not provide sufficient information or a clear enough map for agency reviewers to understand the problemsand environmental impacts of the proposedtract map. The case goes before the planning Commission on April 22 for a hearing. We maintain that the project should be continued for at least two more months. This would allow problems with the proposedplan to be resolved. Problems that we discuss here involve excessive gradinginto arroyos end setbacks to arroyos, gradingand filling of wetlend habitat and scenic drainages, an unnecessary road crossing the open space, lack of a designatedpathfor a foot trail, end lack of guaranteedownership of 17.5 acres of flood control land that is part of the ffact ms!~.

Background: This map is tied to the alreadyrecorded TM28728 which already has 56 lots on 59 acres of RC land (where a maximlml density of 0. 5/acre is allowed unless an enviroomentelly sensitive planned Residential Development justifies up to a 25% density bonus). The original project was ~ iven a density bonus of - 25% based in part on thc open space that would be providedin this currently proposedproject.

TM31030). This map and open space is on RC zoned land end county flood conuol land (Zoned O) along and within the limits of the Alessandro Arroyo (as defined by the City Grading Ordinance). The developerhas not obtained the right of purchaseover thc Flood Control District land that is in thc O- zone.

The staff at the Flood Control DisUict has informed ns that thc developer (now Mr. Guttme end Mr.

Gable) is al the beglnnln~a stsg~ of proposingparchaseof the 17.5 acres of Flood Con~ol land within the Alessandro Arroyo. The proposalto purchasethat land and to rezone 7 acres will be carefally scrutinized by thc Flood Control District. To surplusthe lend end approve it for sale requiresa several month process, including for example, an appraisaland a vote by the County Board of Supervisorsto declare the land surplusand available for sale.

Thc developersare t~ yingto purchase17.5 acres of flood control land and rezone 7 acres to RC to allow encroachment of building pads, houses, and infrastructure into the current O- zone. The flood conlrol land is completelywithin the boundaries of the Alessandro Arroyo and its 50 fi setback as defined in the City Code -(see Grading Ordinance with respect to gradingof hillsides and arroyos) and thcrefor cannot and should not be graded.

Thc project as proposedis not sufficiently sensitive to thc steep terrain, the limits of thc Alessandro Arroyo, its major tributaries, and their 50 ft setbacks to warrant the excessive gradingexceptions or thc 25% PRD density bonus. Several major drainageswould be fdled to accommodate the development, including a road that unnecessarilycrosses the open space, requiresmassive gradingand filling, and crosses ( fills) a riparianarea with mulefat scnsb vegetation (potential habitat for least Bell's vireo). One least Bell's vireo was sightedlast yca~ by an employeeof thc Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District near thc Ben7 Rd. crossing of the arroyo, so we know these listed birds usc thc vegetationin the vicinity of the Alessandro Axroyo. Destruction of wetland habitat requiresa 3:1 mitigati(m. On site preservationdoes not mitigate loss of wetland habitat.

The entire projectis within official critical habitat for thc California gnatcatcher. The California gnateatcherhas been recorded at several locations ncasbyin shsubland habitat along thc Alessandro Arroyo and the Alessandro Heights. Destxuction of critical habitat, whether occupied or not, should be mitigated so that there is no net loss of habitat.

R/ cAP is concerned about how open space along mxoyOS are managed. Many are inappropriately managedand this has bean a vexing problem. There is no proposalprovidedfor how the open space in this tract map will be managed. Thc plannedencroachments into the m' ToyOshow that little thought has been given to placementof fire breaks. Setbacks to arroyos arc needed for appropriatemanagement of thc land a~ a including assurance that firebrenks arc placedin non- sensitiveareas. Firebreaks should not be daraagingto the riparianarea. There should be a buffer of natural vegetationbetween fire breaks and thc riparian areas. If thc management involves a homeowners association, an agency or non- profit lands management group should be designatedto assist thc homeowners association with the managcmant of this sensitive open space. A way of landing thc cooperativemanagement needs to be described and conditioand for map approval.

It is important for the project to include important trail linkages. Thc City*s General Plan includes an Alessandro Arroyo trail above thc riparian areas, and, by incorporating thc Hawasden Hills Specific Plan, also includes a trail from Tiburen Knoll to the Alessandro Dam. Thc projectneeds to be redrawn to integrate these trails into thc proposedtract map and into areas above thc riparian zone and above the dam. This should not walt to be a condition of upproval. It should bc designatedbefore going to thc Planning Commission.

Summary of requestedalterations to the map:

1. The project could bc ~cdcsigeed to eliminate thc road across the open space. The grading and fill requiredfor the road would destroy portionsof tributary arroyos and would degradethc opon space.

Thc road should not fill and cross a wetland ( see pictures). If there is a road, it should bridge arroyo tributaries and wetland habitat.

2. 21 of the 29 lots would requiregrading into the 50 fi. setback of the Alessandro Arroyo; 16 of these also require gradingwithin the Alessandro An' oyo itself. Any gradingthat encroaches into areas of sansitivc habitat, including habitat that is currently recovering fxom f~re, should be eliminated.

Sensitive habitat includes sensitive vegetationtypes, including riparian, vernal pool, inland Riversidena) sage scrub areas. Aroas of inland sage scrub and riparian habitat would be destroyedor degradedby the current development plan. These habitats are home to a host of sensitive speciesin the project area. Many sensitive specieshave been noted in various environmental studies along the arroyo.
2of4
12- 227

3. Any removal of inland sage scrub habitat or riparian habitat should be mitigated 3:1 through on site restoration of degradedhabitat or offsite mitigation. There should be no net loss of sensitive habitat.

Preservation of habitat on site does not mitigate loss of habitat.

4. Thc trail scgmants in thc Riverside G- encralPlan and Hawarden Hills Spccific map need to ha providedwithin this Wact map. Consultation with thc Department of Fish and Game should help to providean appropriatelocation for the foot path. Thc wail would be much less dcslructive than thc proposedroad.

5. An Olin spaee manag~mant plan and a way to fund the ongoing management of the open space needs to be provided (describepotentialcollaborating management organizationand fending mechanism).

Describe how off road vehicle access and illegal dumping would ha denied. Show where fira breaks would oo~ ur so that both the habita~ and the homes are proteeted.

The major arroyo systems in our area are an important part of our local watershed. Every time a portion of this watershed is lost, it results in more runoff, less water pemolatinginto the ground, and less recharging ofimportam drinking water aquifers. The arroyos are also important to wildlife and to our own aesthetic sensibilities. The MultispeeiesHabitat Conservation planning process assumed that mroyos would be protectedthrough appropriatedevelopment. Please join with us in recommending positivechangesto this proposeduact map and join in the effort to preserve our regional arroyo systems.

Submittod by Arlee Montalvo, actingsecretary, for the City and County Joint Citizens Advisory CommiUee for Riverside Arua Arroyo Preservation ( RAAP).

RAAP MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
Mission: To prc~note cooperurionbetween the County and City of Riverside for the conservation and reservationof the arroyos in the projectarea. Develop a comprehensivemodel that promotes preservationof arroyos, quality of life, and compatible development that can serve as a template for this and offer areas.

Proiect Area: The following arroyo systems within County Districts ( D) and City Winds ( W), will be emphasized:

Alessandro Arroyo (DI; W4), SpringbrookWash ( D1, 2, 5; WI), Prenda Arroyo ( D1; W4), Wooderest Arroyo (D1, W4), Golden Start/ WashingtonArroyos (DI), Mockingbird Canyon Arroyo (D1, W5), TesquesqulteA~ royo (D1, 2; WI, 2) and Box Springs/SycamoreCanyon Arroyos (D1, 5; W2).

Comments to be submiRed to:

Case planner: Joel Balding, (909) 826- 5932, ibeldingCa~iversideca.gov, and the City Planning Commissioners.

Figuresfollow. More photographsare available upon request. 228

Owner: WAYNE ]. SKILE$
Graduate Gemologist ( GIA)
115 Carousel Mall
San Bernardino, CA 92401
909) 383- 9000
26 March 2004
To: Chair and members of riverside Planning Commission
From:

Wayne Skiles
6352 Century Hill Ddve
Riverside,Ca92506
RE: tract maps TM3 1930 and TM28728
Re: Po3- 1451/P03- 1548/P04- 0260
As a nearby homeowner I would like to express my concems over the proposed project you are tasked with approving/ disappmving.

At a 3- 23-04 meeting of the Hidden Canyon Estates Homeowners association this project was discussed in detail. Speaking was professor Len Nuunney and the developer Jin Gutherie.

Several homeowners present also voiced their concerns. The sometimes heated debate went into detail.

While Jim Gutherie was eloquent ,considerate , and open to discussion, the facts remain the facts.

He is proposing grading variances on over 70 % of the proposed 29 IotsH Variances with this delvelopment seem to be the rule NOT the exception! Personally oppose the grading in the Arroyo for the purpose of having "larger building pads Other issues are the establishment of the trail, constructionof a massive road accross the Arroyo,
the filling in of the Arroyo, conversionof 7 acres from Offical Zone to Residential; Consveration Zone, etc.

I respectfully request this decision be postponed by the Planniing Commission. Perhaps fewer homes, elimination or minimal grading in the Arroyo,and establishment of a trail would please all parties and be in the interest of of the environment as well? Mr Gutherie is an astute businessman and should be open to a negotiation to prevent a lengthy, costly r~lht on this project.

Vice President
Hidden Canyon Estates
Homeowners Association
12- 234 3'- 5

2440 Rolling Ridge Road
Riverside, Ca. 92506
Joel Belding
City of Riverside Planning Department
3900 Main Street
Riverside, Ca. 92522
Re: ProposalP03 - 1451: Tract Map 31930
Dear Mr. Belding and the Planning Department,
I reside at 2440 Rolling Ridge Road and my property is adjacentto the proposeddevelopment P03- 1451. My only concern relates to my privacy.

Lot 53 will have a common boundary with my property. The proposed plan is to use fill to level the building pad. My concem is the elevation of the pad. Is it limited to the average height of the existing land or can it be artificially raised to a new height? I have had problems with mud slides from construction in the past and don't want a repeat performance.

Lastly, is the elevation of the structure limited to one story or will a two- story structure be allowed?
Thank you for addressingmy concerns.

Sincerely~ ~Steven E. Larson, MD
782- 3618
12- 236

Chaffey College Honors Program
To:

Honorable Chair and Members of the City of Riverside Planning Commissic From:

Scott and Eva Rose
6381 Century Hill Drive
Riverside, CA 92506
RE: P03- 145 l/ P03-1548/ P04-0260
APR l 3 2004
R~ VERSIDECITY

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
As a concerned and soon to be greatly affected homeowner in the Hidden Canyon Estates, I would like to both articulate my apprehensionand reaffirm the stated position expressedby my fellow homeowners and our representativeof Friends of Riverside's Hills, Leonard ' Nunney.

The heart of my apprehensionlies in a couple of the central components of the aforementioned development proposals. I will briefly highlight these concerns as follows:

1. The proposedgrading of the Arroyo for the sheer purpose of having "larger building pads" seems to me a most grave mismanagement of such a vital habitat for its dozens of spectes. As this land cannot be developed and the purpose of the grading is merely to satisfy the acreage needs of the developer. I find this misappropriationof this land a most serious vtolation of both the wildlife and all who are concerned with proper land management.

2. In my understanding of the proposalsthusfar, there have been no formal provisions to develop publi~ access trails according to the City's General Plan. In fact, the lack of such a provtsionseems to be indicative of an ethos that runs quite counter to that of the original intentions of the City Planners for this area and indeed the motivations for migrating to this area of most if not all of its current inhabitants. What was once the promiseand most appealingelement of living in this area ( a close and non- obtrusiveco- existence with the surrounding natural habitat) is now the very thing under serious attack.

In light of these and other concerns it is my strong suggestion, in solidarity with the commumty tn c- v 1 ,'~'on," , u the c ........ s -..d deskes of al! offect~'~v., hich I find - 4 self, tv dela, al. ~uch de e. et. ....... n,., ~ ......... partiesare both acknowledgedand respected. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Eva K. Rose
Director, Chaffey College Honors Program
Professor. Dept. of Communication Studies
12- 238
5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737- 3002 909/ 941-2375 Fax: 909/ 941~2783

CITY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Grading Exceptions EXHIBIT K
CASE NUMBER: TM- 28728 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2002
STAFF SUPPLEMENTED GRADING EXCEPTION FINDINGS:

Grading Exceptions: A)
B)
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 Ordi-
nance; and
To permit slopes in excess of twenty feet for portions of Crest haven, and Century Hills Drive
FINDINGS:

The strict application of the provisions of this Title would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of Title 17.

Deviation A -- Arroyo Limits and Setback Encroachments
Lots 37 through 40 - The strict application of the provisions of this Title would not permit reasonably sized building pads to be created on these minimum one- acre lots due to the required fifty- foot setback and arroyo limits. The applicant has revised the proposed grading on these lots to eliminate a second pad that was originally proposed at the rear of the lots thereby greatly reducing the amount of grading encroaching into the setback and arroyo limits. As well, the applicant has created a new open space lot, Lot 93, from a portion of lot 37 opening up the open corridor that connects to the open space areas of the maps to the east. The affected area is a tributary of the arroyo with the main branch of the arroyo further south. From a field visit to the site staff noted that the area proposed for grading does not have the characteristics ( i. e., riparian area, 30% slopes, unique topographical features, etc.) that the Grading Ordinance endeavors to preserve. Therefore, it would be an unnecessary hardship to eliminate these pads and/or lots completely as the proposed grading is not in the more environmentally sensitive areas of the arroyo and ample open space is provided.

Lots 41, 46 and Grass Valley Way - These lots encroach into another tributary of the Alessandro Arroyo. This Iributary extends from the arroyo to the south, northerly up a steep slope breaking out into two fingers. The steep slope is gener- ally characterized with large rock outcroppings which the applicant proposes to preserve. The strict application of tbe provisions of this Title would not permit the proposed building pads and street duc to their encroachment into the setback and arroyo limits. During a field visii, sJ~ a~np~ f~t~, at this portion of the map area does not visually appear as a part of an arroyo and there are no significant rock outcroppings or other notable features being removed. Since the intent of the Grading Ordinance is being maintained with the grading as proposed, it would be an unnecessary hardship not to permit the grading as proposed.

Lots 43 and 44 - The strict application of the provisions of this Title would not permit the proposed building pads in that the grading necessary for these lots encroach into the arroyo limits and setback. Based on a field inspection, staff noted that these lots are sitting on knolls above the main arroyo and are not within the arroyo. The applicant has designed the grading to daylight with no exposedslopesto the arroyo and to blend in with the natural terrain. The area directly abutting the rear property lines of these lots has been reserved as an open space lot that will link to open space areas in adjacent maps. It would be an unnecessary hardship to not permit these encroachments given that the encroachments will not affect sensitive areas of the arroyo and the actual sensitive areas behind these lots have been reserved as part of an open space lot. These encroachments will be consistent with the intent of Title 17.

Lot 45 - The strict application of the provisions of this Title would not permit the proposed building pad in that the grading necessary for this lot encroaches into the arroyo limits and setback. The limits of the arroyo and setback were established based on an analysis of topograph- ical maps and aerial photos which depicted those areas with slopes over 30%. Per a field visit, the proposed pad will not be situated over sensitive areas of the arroyo limits or within the arroyo itself. However, staff did note that significant rock outcroppings exist in the rear portion of the pad and are noted for protection on the map. To insure that these rock outcroppings are protected, staffis recommending that a detailed grading plan be submitted for this lot showing the precise location of these rock outcrops and insuring their preservation in order to meet the intent of Title 17. Given these circumstances, it would be an unnecessary hardship to not permit grading as proposed for this lot.

Lots 47, 48 & 49 - These lots encroach into another tributary of the Alessandro Arroyo. This tributary extends from the arroyo to the south, northerly up a slope generally characterized with large rock outcroppings which the applicant proposes to preserve. The strict application of the provisions of this Title would not permit the proposed building pads in this location as they are within the arroyo limits and setback. However, from both a review of the grading plan as well as a field visit to the site, staff noted that these lots are not truly in the tributary but sit on a relatively flat knoll next to the tributary. The area proposed for these pads is relatively fiat and does not contain any significant rock outcroppings or sensitive areas of the arroyo. In fact, there are some rock outcroppings directly easterly of lot 47 which have been reserved within an open space lot. It would be an unnecessary hardship not to allow these minimal encroachments given that the intent of Title 17 will be met.

Lot 57 and Cresthaven Street - Actual grading for lot 57 has not been proposed at this time.

However, a portion of lots 57 and C encroach into the arroyo and setbacks as defined by the Grading Ordinance. Therefore, the strict application of the provisions of this Title would not permit the construction of street lot C and would limit grading on lot 57. However, this area is actually just to the west of one of the tributaries of the arroyo. The areas proposed for grading do not have any of the characteristics of an arroyo. When this map was originally approved, careful consideration was given to the proposed street alignment through the map to insure that grading would be minimized. Not allowing
construc~.~r~thaven Street or the future grading of lot 57 would be an unnecessary hardship since these areas are not significant and the intent of the Grading Ordinance is being met.

Lots 58 through 62 - These lots are also on the westerly side of the tributary mentioned under Lot 57 and Street Lot C above. The strict application of the provisions of this Title would greatly limit the proposed building pads for these lots as much of these lots are within the arroyo limits and setback. However, from a field visit to the site, staff noted that the tributary itself is further east than what has been depicted in the Grading Ordinance. The areas of these lots within the tributary do not have the characteristics the Grading Ordinance is intended to protect. These pads will lie on relatively fiat areas of the site not disturbing the lower portions of this tributary.

Given these minimal encroachments, it would be an unnecessary hardship to not allow these proposed pads given that the intent of Title 17 will be met.

Lots 77 and 78 - These lots are located easterly of the tributary finger discussed in Lots 63 through 68 and Street Lots F and H above and are proposed for a relatively flat area approximately twenty to thirty feet above the actual tributary as noted in our field visit. The strict application of the provisions of this Title would not permit the proposed building pads for these lots in that the proposed grading necessary encroaches minimally into the arroyo limits and setback. However, the tributary of the arroyo lies directly westerly of these lots and grading will not occur in the lower steep portions of the tributary thereby no impact to the vegetation and the scattered rock outcroppings characterizing the tributary is proposed. Given these insignificant encroachments, it would be an unnecessary hardship to not allow these pads given that the intent of Ordinance is being maintained.

Century Hills Drive - The strict application of the provisions of this Title will not permit the construction of this street since it encroaches into the arroyo limits. The proposed alignment of street E is designed to preserve as much of the existing rock outcroppings as possible while minimizing grading. The street traverses some tributary segments of the arroyo. Additionally, the street is aligned to stay away from the main branch of the arroyo to the south. Given these minimal impacts, it would be an unnecessary hardship to not allow the creation of street lot E which connects this development given that the intent of Title 17 will be met.

Flood Control access road and sewer line - The strict application of the provisions of this Title will not permit the installation of a Flood Control access road and new sewer line. This will require minimal grading and excavation for the installation of the sewer line. Additionally, the Flood Control access road already exists. Not allowing the Flood Control access road would be considered an unnecessary hardship given that maintenance access is necessary. Additionally, the sewer line originates from the adjacent residential development to the north and flows to the south until it reaches the intersection of Grass Valley Way and Century Hills Drive. Not allowing this sewer line would be considered an unnecessary hardship give the minimal grading and distur- bance will be created.

Deviation B -- Slope Height
Century Hills Drive and Cresthaven Drive - The strict application of this Title would not permit the construction of these streets since slopes higher than twenty feet will be required. To build proposed Crest Haven Di there is an area, just southerly of the Cresthaven Drive cul- de-sac, where slopes will reach a maximum of 26-feet. af~ a~ i~t,~ nce of thirty-feet. For Century Hills Dr, I ~-~/
there is an area, located approximately midway in the length of the street, where the maximum slope height will reach thirty-feet for a distance of seventy-feet. For street H there are two areas where slopes will exceed twenty-feet. The first area is the southerly portion of lot 76, where a maximum height of 29- feet over a distance of seventy-feet will be needed. The second area is on the easterly side of the knuckle of street H with street F where a maximum height of thirty-feet for a distance of forty-feet is needed. These slopes are not out of character with the area and will be contour graded to blend with the area. As mentioned previously, the street configuration, as proposed, was based on a study of the natural terrain of the project site to limit grading. This proposal shows the same streets as approved before under the map and the slopes will be contour graded. It would be an unnecessary hardship to not allow these slopes for these streets given that the slopes are not in sensitive areas of the arroyo and the intent of Title 17 will be met.

That there are exceptionalcircumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use or developmentof the property that do not apply generally apply to other property in same zone or neighborhood.

Deviation A: -- Arroyo Limits and Setback Encroachments Lot 37 through 40 - Per a field visit, the portions of the building pads and manufactured slopes of these lots encroaching within the arroyo limits and setback areas are from a visual standpoint not readily identifiable as part of the arroyo. Also, all of the sensitive natural features in the area, particularly the rock outcroppings, will not be affected. These factors are considered exceptional circumstances.

Lot 41, 46 and Grass Valley Way - The portion of the building pad and manufactured slopes lying within the arroyo limits and setback areas are within a tributary and not the main branch of the arroyo. From a site visit to this site, staff noted that this area is not identifiable as part of the arroyo and this is considered an exceptional circumstance.

Lot 43 and 44 - Per a field visit, the portions of the building pads and manufactured slopes of these lots lying within the arroyo limits and setback areas will not affect sensitive natural features of the arroyo. When staff went out to the site, it was noted that these lots are sitting on knolls above the main arroyo. The applicant has designed the grading to daylight with no visible slopes and to blend in with the natural terrain. In fact, there is a portion adjacent to the rear property line of this lot that is sensitive to the arroyo and will be reserved as part of an open space lot.

Lot 45 - As noted under finding 1, the proposed pad will not be situated over sensitive areas of the arroyo limits or within the arroyo itself. However, staff did note that significant rock outcroppings exist in the rear portion of the pad and are noted for protection on the map. Since, this grading is not actually within the arroyo, this an exceptional circumstance.

Lots 47, 48 and 49 - From both a review of thc grading plan as well as a field visit to the site, staff noted that these lots are not truly in the tributary but sit out on a relatively fiat knoll next to the tributary. The area proposed for these pads is relatively fiat and does not contain any significant rock outcroppings or sensitive areas of the arroyo. As a matter of fact, there are some rock outcroppings directly easterly of lot 47 which have been reserved within an open space lot. Lot 48 is further to the north outside the main bran.~h~ofj~ h~, ~ royo. These are considered exceptional circumstances. 1Z- Zt4Z

impacted. The proposed grading will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood.

Lot 45 - The proposedgrading on this lot, as conditioned for the preservation of the rock outcroppings in the rear of the pad, will not affect sensitive portions of the arroyo. On this basis, the proposedgrading will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood.

Lots 47 and 48 - The proposed grading on these lots will not affect sensitive portions of the arroyo.

No other grading exceptions are necessary for these lots. The proposedgrading will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood,
Lot 49 - The proposed grading on this lot, as conditioned, will not affect sensitive portions of the arroyo. This map has been approved previonsly and this lot will not change. The proposed grading will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood.

Lot 57 and Street Lot C - The proposed grading on these lots will facilitate the construction of Street C which is in the least sensitive location possible. The proposed grading will not affect sensitive areas of a tributary segment of the arroyo. The proposed grading will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood.

Lots 58 through 62 - The proposed grading on these lots will not affect sensitive portions of a tributary segment of the arroyo. The proposed grading for these lots is the same as previously approved and will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood.

Lots 77 and 78 - The proposed grading for these lots will not affect sensitive areas of the arroyo and its tributaries. Additionally, these lot configurations have been approved once previously.

The proposed grading will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood.

Crest Haven and Century Hills Drives - The proposed alignment of this street has already been approved previously and it was determined that it would not affect sensitive areas of the arroyo.

The proposed grading will have no adverse impact to this neighborhood.

As noted above the actual effects to the arroyos are insignificant and the applicant has designed the map and grading as sensitively as possible. Therefore, this project should not be detrimental to the public or area.

Deviation B: -- Slope Height Exceptions
Glen Haven and Century Hills Drives - As mentioned previously, the street configuration and alignment have already been approved under the map based upon extensive studies and previous public input to limit the amount of grading to the extent possible. Per a field visit, thc proposed slopes up to 30- feet will not affect sensitive areas of the arroyo and will not have an adverse impact to the neighborhood.

Flood Control access road and sewer line - These features will not impact any adjacent neighbor- hood but rather improve sewer facilities and maintenance into the Flood Control District area to the south the project. As noted above the actual effects to the arroyos are insignificant and the applicant has designedthe map and gradin~ ka~[t~ tively as possible. Therefore, this project

CASE NUMBER: P03- 1451, P03- 1548 and P04- 0260 HEARING DATE: August 19, 2004 Variances: 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); parcels less than five acres in size on lots with an ANS of 30% or greater (lots 33-34, 38, 50 & 65);
landlocked parcels located along private streets
STAFF VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION FINDINGS:

FINDINGS:

The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Regulations result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the development of this property.

Variances A and B: The strict application of the Code would require a redesign of the project to eliminate all variances, which would negate the need for the Planned Residential Development application. As the PRD application was filed to allow clustering of the proposed lots with the intent of maximizing the preservation of natural space within the project area, this strict application of the Code would be counter to the City's goal of environmental preservation and sensitive hillside development.

Variance C: The strict application of the Zoning Code would not allow the proposed private street design in which this would be considered an unnecessary hardship given that ali lots will have access to public streets.
e There exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to this property or to the intended use or development of this property which do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.

Variances A and B: The clustering of lots proposed for this project, with the intent of maximizing open space preservation and retention of important natural drainages, is the environmentaliy superior option for this project.

Variance C: This map is designed as a planned residential development with private streets and that all lots will have access to a public street. These are considered exceptional circumstances, The granting of this request prove materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located.

Variances A, B &C: The lot is of comparable size to surrounding RC Zone lots and still exceeds the minimum lot size allowed in the RC Zone. The lot provides adequate building area to accommodate a residence without the need for setback v.~ r~n, c.~ ,~ s well, ali lots will be served by a private street connecting to a public street.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
F' ar/a ee Ju tOea
CASE NUMBER: HEARING DATE:

STAFF SUPPLEMENTED VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION FINDINGS:

Lot Size/ AverageNatural Slope: ( A) · To allow the following lots, with acreage and average natural slope (~ANS") as listed, to contain less than the 2- acre minimum lot size required in the RC zone.

Lot 37
Lot 38
Lot 39
Lot 43
Lot 44
Lot 45
Lot 46
Lot 47
Lot 48
Lot 50
Lot 51
Lot 53
Lot 54
Lot 55,
Lot 57,
Lot 58,
Lot 59,
Lot 60,
Lot 61,
Lot 62,
Lot 77,
Lot 78,
Lot 79,
and
at 1. 11 acres ~ n s~ ze
at 1. 03 acres In s~ ze
at 1. 07 acres ~ n s~ ze
at 1. 04 acres ~ n s~ ze
at 1. 03 acres ~ n size
at 1. 19 acres in s~ ze
at 1. 00 acres ~ n s~ ze
at 1. 49 acres m s~ ze
at 1. 01 acres ~ n size
at 1. 25 acres in size
at 1. 78 acres in size and an
at 1. 73 acres in size and an
at 1. 49 acres ~ n size and an
at 1. 48 acres ~ n s~ ze and an
at 1. 73 acres in size and an
at 1. 03 acres in size and
at 1. 05 acres in size and
at 1. 17 acres in size and
at 1. 00 acres in size and
at 1. 11 acres m size and
at 1. 28 acres in size and
at 1. 32 acres in size and
at 1. 13 acres in size and
and an ANS of 18. 77%
and an ANS of 19. 85%
and an ANS of 16. 38%
and an ANS of 16. 95%
and an ANS of 22. 27%
and an ANS of 26. 67%
and an ANS of 19. 56%
and an ANS of 28. 43%
and an ANS of 27. 73%
and an ANS of 28. 07%
ANS of 18. 63%
ANS of 15. 16%
ANS of 20. 23%
ANS of 19. 06%
ANS of 19. 60%
an ANS of 21. 10%
an ANS of 22. 83%
an ANS of 20. 30%
an ANS of 16. 93%
an ANS of 26. 60%
an ANS of 20. 31%
an ANS of 17. 36%
an ANS of 15. 88%
To allow Lot 49, at 2.0 acres in size and an ANS of

34. 57%, to contain less than the 5- acre minimum lot size required in the RC zone.

Lot Widths: B) To allow lot widths at the building set back line of less than 130 feet in width for lots 38, 44, 49, and 52.

Land Locked Parcels: C) To allow land locked parcels located along private streets for all residential and open space lots.
12- 249
FINDINGS:

The stdct application of the provisions of the zoning Regulations will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the development of the property.

Variance A - Lot Size/ ANS
Cluster for Lots 37, 38 and 39
Compliance with the RC zone would require that lot 37 increase by .89 acres, lot 38 increase by .97 acres, and lot 39 increase by .93 acres. For the reasons discussed below, the acreage required to expand these lots would be removed from adjacent open space lots 91 and 92.

Factual support: Lot 37 can only be expanded to the south or to the west for the following reasons: ( i) the north property line is determined by Century Hills Ddve, the location of which has been fixed by the development of the TM 28728 - 1 to the northeast; ( ii) the east property line is fixed because it is the eastern boundary line of the underlying property, (iii) the northeast property line could be moved to incorporate the . 25 acres of open space in lot 92. However, even with an expansion to the east, another expansion to the west or south would be required to add enough acreage to comply with the RC zone. In turn, however, expansion to the south would reduce the size of the open space lot 91, and transfer to pdvate ownership a portion of the open space proposed for preservation in that lot. Expansion of lot 37 to the west would also create open space within the lot. Because Lot 37 contains an ANS of 18. 77%, the building pad for lot 37 is limited to 21, 000 square feet, and is currently proposed at 20, 310 square feet. Because the building pad can not expand, the additional . 87 acres would become an open space area within lot 37. For the reasons discussed below, the preservation of open space areas on pdvate property is expected to result in practical difficulties.

Compliance with the RC Zoning Ordinance would require lot 38 to increase by .97 acres, and could be accomplished by widening lot 38 to the east and/or to the west or to the south. Because the northern boundary of lot 38 is fixed by Century Hills Drive, the expansion to the south would require the transfer of acreage from the open space lot 91.

Widening lot 38 either to the east or west would also result in the creation of an open space area within the lot because at AN$ 19.85%, the building pad proposed on lot 38 is 20, 110 square feet, close to the 21, 000 square feet maximum. Therefore, any increase in the size of lot 38 would require the transfer or the creation of open space within that lot.

For the reasons discussed below, the preservation of open space on pdvate lots is expected to result in practical difficulties.

Lot 39 would need to be increased by .93 acres to comply with the minimum lot size standards in the RC zone. As with lots 37 and 38, because of the fixed location of Century Hills Drive to the north, and the open space lot 91, containing the Alessandro Arroyo, to the south, lot 39 could only be increased by an east- west expansion. However, at 21, 000 square feet, the proposed building pad is already at the maximum permitted size for the lot at ANS 18. 38%, so the expansion would add an open space area to lot 39. For the reasons discussed below, including open space in a privately owned residential lot would result in practical difficulties.
12- 250
Factual Support for the Practical Difficulties Associated with the Long Term Preservation of Open Space on P~ ivate Property:

The Conditions of Approval for TM 31930 require that all open space land be maintained by a non- profit organization. If the open space is contained in a lot, title to the lot can be transferred to the non- profit organization. If the open space consists of an area within a pdvate tot, an easement for maintenance of the open space area ( instead of fee title) would be granted to the organization. Common sense suggests that a property owner would exercise greater control over the property than the owner of an easement. This fact suggests that the preservation of open space is more secure if the property consists of a designated open space lot which can be transferred to the non- profit organization.

For purposes of comparison, if the open space area was located on pdvate property, instead of owning fee title to an open space lot, the organization would own an easement over the open space area on the lot. The fact that the open space would be owned as an easement would result in tension between the property owner and the easement owner.

The Conditions of Approval prohibit grading, construction or fencing in open space areas.

The following difficulties with regard to the long-term preservation of the open space may adse: ( i) The property owner may not be aware of the boundaries of the open space area, ii) when the property changes hands, a survey would probably be required to confirm the exact location of the open space area within the lot, (iii) the only mechanism available to the organization charged with the preservation of the open space would be the enforcement of the Conditions of Approval. The organization would be burdened with. policing the open space area within the pdvate property, and would turn to the City and the code violation authority, to guard the open space. ( iv) Once developed, even by an innocent homeowner, the open space would loose the qualities it possessed in its undeveloped state.

The creation of open space lots is a supedor mechanism for the long term preservation of open space compared to the creation of open space areas on pdvate property. Because the City of Riverside General Plan identifies the preservation and protection of ddgelines, hillsides, arroyos and other significant natural features as one of its pdmary goals, and, because this goal is central to the standards in the RC zone; stdct compliance with the lot size / ANS requirements should not be promoted at the expense of large open space lots.

Lots 43 and 44
A practical difficulty would result if Lot 43 were increased by .96 acres as required by the RC zone. Lot 43 could be expanded to the south or to the west, however, in both cases the result would be the transfer to private ownership of land in open space lot 88. This strategy, although providing for strict compliance with the RC zone, would result in practical difficulties.

Lot 44 would be required to add . 97 acres to comply with the RC zone. The addition of land to lot 44 would result in a practical difficulty because lot 44 is surrounded on three sides by the Alessandro Arroyo. As discussed above, the transfer of acreage from an open space lot to a privately owned parcel, would result in practical difficulties.

Lots 45 and 46
Compliance with the minimum lot size requirements of the RC zone would require the addition of . 81 acres to lot 45. The addition of this acreage would reduce the amount of open space proposed for preservation in large blocks, and would result in the practical difficulties discussed above.
12- 251

the north boundary for the underlying property, the location of Crest Haven Drive to the east, and the property line for lot 56 to the east.

Factual Support: The north boundary line of lot 57 is fixed because it is the north boundary line of the underlying property. The expansion of lot 57 to the west would increase the ANS of that lot to over 30%, which in rum would require the addition of more acreage. Crest Haven Ddve cannot be shifted to the east without jeopardizing the " pan handle" portion of open space lot 89. Because the " pan handle" contains the Arroyo Tributary, it is best conserved as an open space lot rather than placed under pdvate ownership, as discussed above.

Lots 58, 89, 60, 61, and 62
The stdct application of the RC zone would require the addition of . 93 acres to lot 58, 95 acres to lot 59, .83 acres to lot 60, 1.0 acres to lot 61, and . 89 acres to lot 62, for a total addition of 4.6 acres. However, the adjacent open space lot 89, at 4. 54 acres in size, does not contain enough acreage to make up the additional acreage requimclfor lots 58 through 62 to conform stdctly to the RC zone. Because the location of lot 89 is circumscribed by the north property line, and by Century Hills Drive, even the transfer of the open space in lot 89 would not provide the required acreage. Therefore, stdct compliance with the RC zone for lots 58 through 62 results in a practical difficulty, which is impossible to overcome because of the fixed locations of the northeastern boundary of the underlying property and Century Hills Ddve.

Lots 77, 78 and 79
Strict compliancewith the RC zone would require the addition of . 72 acres to lot 77, 68 acres to lot 78, and . 87 acres to lot 79. This additional acreage totals 6. 87 acres. As a practical matter, because of the location of the north boundary of the underlying property, the only way to increase the size of the parcels north of Century Hills Drive would be to shift the street to the south. However, shifting Century Hills Drive to the south was rejected because of the impact it would have on the lots south of Century Hills Ddve.

Factual Support: Shifting Century Hills Drive to the south would result in the elimination of the 1. 69 acres of open space proposed in lot 91 and the incorporation of the Alessandro Tributary area south of lots 37 - 40 into those lots. However, as discussed above in the section on the preservation of open space on private property, with regard to the preservation of open space, an open space parcel is supedor to an open space easement.

Variance B - Lot Widths
Front Buildin.q Line Standards Contained in the RC Zone: The RC zone requires that lots with an ANS from 15 to 30% shall have a minimum width at the building line of 130', and] every lot with an ANS over 30% shall have a minimum width at the building line of 200"' (§ 19. 09.050) The building line is defined as " a line parallel with the front lot line or planned street line and distance there from the depth of the required front yard."

19. 04.070) Front yards in the RC zone are required to have a depth of not less than 30'. (§ 19. 09.060)
The requested variances are required to accommodate the placement of: lot 38 on a curve, and lots 44, 49, and 52 within clustered configurations. 12- 253
Lot 38: Lot 38 has an ANS of 19. 85% and a width at the building line of about 110' 20' narrower than the minimum width at the building line imposed by the RC zone).

Lot 38 is narrow and deep, and is part of a 4- lot cluster including lots 37- 40. Each lot in the cluster takes access directly from Century Hills Drive. Alternatively, lots 37-40 could have been arranged around a cul- de-sac. However, the present configuration of narrow but deep lots was preferred because it provides for open space lot 91, adjacent to lots 37-40 to the south. The addition of 20' at the building line would result in a practical difficulty. The design currently aims to maximize the size of the open space lots proposedfor conservation. To insist on strict compliance with the lot width requirement, would elevate lot width to a level of prominence which would potentially jeopardize the conservation of open space.

Lot 44: Lot 44 has an ANS of 22. 27% and a width at the building line of about 50' 80' narrower than the minimum width requirement). Lot 44 is part of a 2- lot cluster, and shares a common boundary line with lot 43. Strict compliance with the lot width standard would require lot 44 to expand into a square or wide rectangular shape, similar to the shape of traditional subdivision lots. However, because the Alessandro Arroyo surrounds lot 44, such an expansion to the west would be prohibited by the Grading Ordinance, would reduce the open space area, and therefore would result in a practical difficulty.

Lot 49: Lot 49 has an ANS of 34. 57% and a width at the building line of about 36' 164' narrower than the minimum width requirement of 200' for lots with an ANS of greater than 30%). Strict compliance with the lot width standard would require lot 49 to expand into the traditional square shape commonly found in residential tract subdivisions. The expansion of lot 49 to the west would reduce the adjacent open space lot 88, and conflict with the location of the existing Riverside County Flood Control access road. Strict compliance with the lot width standard would result in practical difficulties, because ( i) the location of the Flood Control access road interferes with the ability to expand the lot in the only available direction, to the west, and ( ii) the expansion of lot 49 to the west would reduce the open space in lot 88.

Lot 52: Lot 52 has an ANS of 21. 28% and a width at the building line of about 60' 70' narrower than the minimum width requirement). Stdct compliance with the lot width standard could be achieved by reducing the length of the private driveway to lot 52 and extending the private access road. This alternative would increase grading because a private 2- lane access road is twice as wide as the one- lane driveway currently proposed.

This variance request provides for the reduction in grading that accompanies the flag lot type design.

Variance C - Land Locked Parcels
TM 31930 is proposed as a private community, with gates proposed at the north end of Crest Haven Drive and at the east end of Century Hills Drive. The placement of gates at the entrances to TM 31930 causes the access roads to become private. Technically, TM 31930 creates landlocked lots, because the zoning code defines a lot as having access to a public street. Because none of the lots in TM 31930 have direct access to a public street, each lot is technically landlocked. In actuality, none of the lots are landlocked because access to each lot is provided, and for this reason this variance request is sometimes referred to as a ' lechnical" variance. 12- 254

There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use or development of your property which do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.

Variance A - Lot Size/ AverageNatural Slope
Lot 37, 38, and 39
The opportunity to cluster the building pads on lots 37 through 40 is an exceptional circumstance that is not generally applicable to other property in the RC zone or in the neighborhood. Clustering reduces grading between the building pads, and achieves a more natural appearance throughout the development of contiguous building pads.

Factual Support for Lots 37 and 38: Although clustering furthers the preservation of open space, property which will support clustered grading is not common in the RC zone or in the neighborhood surrounding the project. Directly south of the Alessandro Arroyo and the subject property is TM 29606, approved in December, 2000. TM 29606 provided for 33 lots on 75. 56 acres, of which two lots (or 6 percent) were clustered ( lots 29 and 30, see map attached as Exhibit %"). The most recent tract maps approved in the neighborhood, and which are also located on RC zoned property, are adjacent to each other, and located about 2 miles south of the subject property to the south of Ovedook Parkway. TM 31859 P03- 1336), was approved in January 2004, and TM 32042 ( PO3- 1530) was approved in February, 2004. TM 31859 provided for 12 lots on 24.6 acres, none ( zero percent) of which were clustered ( see map attached as Exhibit " B"). TM 32042 provided for 8 lots on

16. 79 acres, of which three ( or 26 percent) were clustered ( lots 6, 7, and 8) (see map attached as Exhibit " C"). The ability to cluster building pads to reduce slopes between pads reduces grading and results in residential lots that are more consistent with the odginal topography.

Two Clustered Pairs of Lots: Lot 43 1 44 and Lot451 46
Lots 43 and 44 were designed to incorporate the knoll-top that exists on each parcel. The knoll-top on lot 43 establishes the northern boundary of the building pad. Lot 44 contains a natural knoll-top that establishes the southernmost boundary of the building pad. The presence of knoll-tops is an exceptional circumstance which is not generally present on other properties in the RC zone or in the surrounding neighborhood.

Lot 45 also contains a knoll-top, and Lot 46 contains a ridgeline that runs in an east- west direction between Lots 37 and 45. The building pads proposed on these lots are clustered to minimize grading. Lot 46 is located on the western slope of a large fiat knoll top that has been chosen as the most appropriate location for the cul- de-sac, Grass Valley Way.

The ability to cluster the building pads at the higher elevation provided by the minor ridgeline is an exceptional circumstance that does not apply generally to other property in the RC zone and in the neighborhood. Of the 12 lots approved as TM 31859 ( see Exhibit " B"), only Lot 1 contains a knoll top, and there are no minor ddges to support a multi-lot cluster.

Lots 43144 and Lots 45~46
12- 257
Lots 80 and 53
Lot 50 contains 3 knoll tops, and lot 53 contains one knoll top. The lots straddle the access road and form a cluster that eliminates a front slope on lot 53 and an eastern slope on lot 50.

Factual Support for Lots 43 / 44, 45 / 46, and 50 / 53: The presence of knoll tops is an exceptional circumstance in the surrounding neighborhoodand amongst other RC zoned property. For example, TM 29606 ( see the map attached as Exhibit " A") ( the closest approved tract map to the subject property, located south of the Alessandro Arroyo), contains one knoll top that is the site of the only clustered lots. Of the 32 residential lots approved in TM 29606, only two ( lots 29 and 30) share a knoll top. TM 31852 ( see the map attached as Exhibit " B") contains 4 knoll tops (lots 1, 2, 4, and 13) out of 13 lots or 31. 1%). Tm 32042 contains 2 knoll tops (lots 1 and 7) out of 8 lots ( or 25%).

Lot 51
The proximity of Lot 51 (i) to the west boundary of the underlying property, and ( ii) to the existing Riverside County Flood Control (" RCFC") access road, are exceptional circumstances which effect the size and shape of Lot 51 and do not apply generally to other property in the RC zone or in the neighborhood. Although the east lot line for Lot 51 could be extended to the southeast to increase the size of the parcel, it would reduce the width of the adjacent open space corridor at the narrowest point.

Lots 50, 5t and 53
12- 258
Three Building Pad Cluster: Lots 47, 48 and 49
Lots 47, 48, and 49 are located on a minor ridge consisting of 5 knoll-tops. The building pads are clustered along the ddge. The presence of a minor ridge consisting Of 5 knolls aligned in close proximity is an exceptional circumstance unique to the property in TM 31930.

Factual Support: TM 31930 contains three minor ddges, (i) a ddge consisting of 4 knolls, including lots 37 - 42, and lots 45 and 46, (ii) the subject ridge, consisting of 5 knolls, including lots 47 - 49, and ( iii) a ridge consisting of 7 knolls, including lots 58 - 62. A total of about 32. 83 acres of property in the subject tract map contains minor ddgelines. This amount is determined as follows: The first minor ddge line consists of 8. 61 acres tabulated as follows: Lot 37 = 1. 11 acres, Lot 38 = 1. 03 acres, Lot39 = 1. 07 acres, Lot 40 = 1. 18 acres, Lot 41 = 1. 01 acres, Lot 42 = 1. 02 acres, Lot 45 = 1. 19 acres, and Lot 46 = 1 acre; the second minor ddge line consists of 4.7 acres tabulated as follows:

Lot 47 = 1. 49 acres, Lot 48 = 1. 03 acres, and Lot 49 = 2.0 acres; the third minor ddge line consists of 9. 86 acres tabulated as follows: Lot 58 = 1. 03 acres, Lot 59 = 1. 05 acres, Lot 60 = 1. 17 acres, lot 61 = 1 acre, and Lot 62 = 1. 11 acres. This amounts to about 38% of the total land area ( 32. 83 acres divided by 86.31 acres = 38%). For purposes of comparison, TM 31959 does not contain any minor ddgelines (see map attached as Exhibit " B"), andTM 32042 contains one ( supporting lots 6, 7, and 8) consisting of about

4. 35 acres or 10% of the 42- acre tract ( see map attached as Exhibit " C").

NDRo ARROY_O
LiNE

Lots 58, 59, 60, 6t, and 62
A ridgeline containing 7 knoll tops extends in a north- south direction between lot 58 and lot 62, and is an exceptional condition applicable to TM 31930, and not to other properties in the RC zone or in the surrounding neighborhood.

Factual Support: The north- south ddgeline is conducive to the terraced grading proposed.

Instead of a typical building pad (which consists of slopes on two sides), because of the knoll top, lot 58 does not require slopes on either side, and the building pads on lots 59, 60 and 62 require a slope on only one side. Only lot 61 requires slopes on three sides to accommodate lot 60, Crest Haven Ddve and Century Hills Ddve.

Lots 58, 59, 60, 6t and 62
12- 261

at 3. 93 acres in size. The remaining eight lots have an ANS between 16. 3% and 25. 9% and are requiredto contain at least two acres. These lots range ~rom 1. 38 to 1. 83 acres in size.

The applicant-prepared variance justification f' mdingsare attached as Exhibit 6. The applicant cites topographicaland street alignment constraints, along with improved map design and open space retention and maintenance issues as justification for the requested variances. In reviewingthe applicant's request, staffis generallysupportive of the requested variances. For eightof the nine lots, the applicanthas demonstrated that they could comply with the lot size requirementby adjustingproperty lines. In most cases, adjustmentof the lot lines to comply with the Code creates a series of awkward, irregularly shapedlots, much of which is within the open space area and not a usable part of the lot. As such, staff sees no benefit in redrawing lot lines to comply with the letter of the Code and would support lot size variances to accommodate a better project design with more logical lot configurations.

The exception is Lot 28, which is approximately1. 83 acres in size. In this case, minor adjustmentsbetween Lots 27 and 28 and minor modifications to adjoining street alignments would providesufficient lot area to provide the required2 acres in a logical manner. Staff recommends that the map be modified so that Lot 28 complieswith the lot size requirements, and the applicanthas agreedto make the necessary modifications.

Lot Width for Lot 20
The RC Zone requiresthat all lots with an ANS of thirty percent or greater also have a minimum lot width of two hundred feet at the building setback line. Lot 20, with a width of 180 feet does not comply with this standard. The applicant indicates that the common lot line between Lots 20 and 21 will be adjustedin order to allow Lot 20 to comply with the standard.

Open Space Conservation
Apart from the proposedpad grading and street construction, a majority of the land under this map will be lefi undisturbed. Much of this undisturbed area lies within protected tributaries to the Alessandro Arroyo as defined in the City's grading ordinance. As such, it is important that these open space areas be defined and protected in perpetuity. The applicant has agreed to set aside all ungraded portions of the map in an open space conservation easement.

With these areas set aside, there are two options available to maintain this land in its natural slate. Staffbelieves it would be most preferableto dedicate these areas either in fee or with an open space easement to an appropriate non- profit conservation agencies which have expertiseand experiencein managingnatural areas, such as the Riverside Land Conservancy.

In the event a suitable conservation organization cannot be found accept this property, it is recommended that a Homeowners Association be formed and chargedwith maintenance and stewardship of these areas. In addition, staff would recommend that an open space management plan be developed to ensure that a maintenance program is developedfor the 1:,'- 272 xmmxA
City Planning C~. misaio. D~ emb~r 21, 2000 ( 5 of 9) m 29~0~

Environmental Considerations
There are several important environmental issues associated with this project that are discussed in detail in the initial study, and these issues are summarized below.

Gnatcatcher Considerations
The biologicalstudy for the project indicated the presence of coastal sage scrub habitat along the easterly project limit, which serves as potentialhabitat for the federally endangered California Cmatcatcher. Since no focused gnatcatchersurvey was prepared, the site is presumedto be occupied. As such, the applicant will be required to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) and obtain an incidental take permit from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The biological study included specificmitigation measures mlat~:l to when and how vegetation may be cleared, property mitigation through off- site habitat conservation, proper site access and project area maintenance. These measures have been incorporatedinto the recommended conditions of approvalfor the project.

Wildlife Corridor
The central drainage feature ( behind Lot 7- 16 and between Lots 29-33) is an important linkage between approximatelyfourteen acres of open space preservedwithin TM 26109 to the southeast and the main branch of the Alessandro Arroyo to the northwest ( See Exhibit 5). The crossing of Chateau View Drive and related fill slopes will effectively create a barrier to animal movement along this corridor. Staff believes it is important to maintain oppommitiesfor movement along this corridor. As such, it is recommended that a functional wildlife corridor be provided under Chateau View Drive, as determined by a qualified biologist and approvedby the Planning Department. Options for maintaining the corridor may include the installation of one or more large culverts under the roadway, retention of a short natural span area under the roadway, or other alternative deemed appropriateby the biologist.

Neighborhood Compatibility Considerations
This map will accommodate a public street system and typical RC zoned subdivision of a size and configurationsimilar to what is found in the surroundingarea. With the conditions regardingthe establishment of open space areas and minimized grading, this map should be compatiblewith the surrounding residential neighborhoodand sensitive to the existing natural features on- site.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Planning Commission:

1. APPROVE Subdivision Case TM 29606, subjectto the recommended conditions of approvaland based on the follow; ""

EXHIBIT A
1 :,'-276 (9 of 9)
City planning Commission December 21, 2000 TM 29606

Policy NR 1.5
Section V,, Resource Conserv_n_!!on
The City shn!! supportmaintenance oftha exi~-s open space character of Riverside's hillsid~ and arroyo areas throughRs d~ elopmemr~ gulafionsand policies.

Pol~ NR 1.6 The City should use d&i~n guidelines and develop-mintregulatitms affectingbuilding height, spacing of s~ s, and the preservationor use of native plantsin landscaptag, to retain ridgeline areas in their natural state, to the
extent feasible.

Policy NR 1.7 The alignm~t studies and designstandards used in constmot- lng roadwaysincluded in the Trarispo, t~ tlonBl~ nent, and for local or neighborhood streets, shall minimize the roadways' effects on nalm~ resom-c~ by following existing topography, rnl. imi~in, ff the height of cut- and-fill slopes, and using othsr design techn;ques to reduce lhe visual impacts of roadways and associated Iraffic on thc natural terrain.

Goal iN'IR 2 To protect the biotic communities and critical habitats for endangered species throughout the General Plan Area.

Policy NR 2.1 The City should design its plsns, policies and implementation techniques to protect key wildlif~ habitats, habitats of ram, threatan~l, or , ndangered species, wetlands and oth~
significant environmentally sensitive areas.

PolicyNR 2.2 Exhibit 9 (Page IH - 12) shows the generalized locations of rare and endangeredsp~ies habitat identified on the date of Plan adoption. This diagramshall be used by ~e City to
idel~ify areas for which more speoifiohabitat analysis will be necessary as part of the developmentreview proeass. The City shall update this diagram as more detailed habitat information is developed. The City may require habitat
analysis for proposed developments in areas of pot~a6al habitat for othar specieslisted in Exhibit 8 (Page m - 10), even fhough such habitat is not mapped in Exhibit 9
Page IH- 12), SRe specificreview may be requiredbecause thc habitats for lt~c sensitivc spccies listed in Bxhiblt S Page Ill - 10) range from pristine to disturbod areas.

Policy NR 2. $ The CiD/ shall consider requiring development projec~ in areas identified in ]Exhibit 9 (Page m - 12) to un&go review to assess their impact on habitats of rarc, threatened or endangeredspecies. This mvi~w of habitat impaots should be conduoted as part of the project's environmantal review.

Developers of projects found to have potantial impactson City of RiverSide

EXHIBIT D
2 of 4)
12- 302
V -,21
OENI~RAL PLAN
Section 1x- Resource Conservation
sensitive speciesmay be requited to mitigata the impactsof proposedhabitat changes.

Policy NR 2.4 The City shall cooperaie with the Couaty, State and F~ xlmal governments to protect the S~ phens' Kea~ oo~ ~$KR) by
complying with the terms of ~ adoptedshort-term SKR
Habitat Conservation pl~, includingprovisions for develop-meat regulations, mitigation fees, and the acquisition and operationof SycamoreCanyon Wilderness Park as an SKR
reserve. The City shall encourage land donations ~ the
dedication of land in lieu of park fees fox the acquisitionof additional portionsof SycamoreCanyonas part of the parc.

Policy NR 2.3 The Cily should participate with the County, Stats, and Federal Governments in developing and implementingboth
a long-~-m Habitat Conservation Plan for thc Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat and a county-wide m~ lti-spccies Habitat
Comcrvation Plea.

Policy ArR 2. 6 The City shall endcavox to pwtect native plant comm~ uitias in the General Plan Area, including lhe inland sage scrub, riparian and vernal pool habitats.

Policy NR 2. 7 The City should protect and enhance known wildlife mlgra- tory corridors and help create new corridors wheaev~r
possible.

Poliay NR 2.8 The City should establish programs ~ o idemify, map and monitor the habita~ for seasifive specieslisted in Exhibit 8 Page m - 10), or for other species added to the State or Federal listings of rare, threa~an~l or ~ dangored spocies.

Recommendations for Implementation - Natural Resources
l-- ArR1: Continu~ to refine regulations limiting the development of areas with unstable soils, steep terrain, floodplains, an' oyos and other critical environmental and hazardous areas.
1- 3rR2: Developregulationsestablishingg~ a~n8 standa~ to msm~ soil stability and to min; mh, e negative aesthetic impacts.

I- NR 3: Modify the subdivision and zoning regulalions ~o ~ xpand the use of d~ sigureview and designguidelinesto regulal~ building height, builai%o spacing, landscaping, gxading and street alignment to retain rid~ eline areas in their natural state to the greatest extent possible.

V- 22

GENERAL PLAN
EXHIBIT D ~'~
3 of 4)
12- 303
ill
City of Riverside

19. 09.100

19.62. In addition lo the standards established
in ~ title and in Chapter 19.62, the Design
Review Board shall consider the following items
of particular concern in the RC zone and shall
approve the plans and drawings if all applicable
A. The encouragement of unique site
design to ensure optimum Ireatmeni of natural
hillside and an' oyo featu~s and avoid
inharmonious, incongraent, conspicaous end
obUusive development;
B. The reduction of the scarring effects
of grading and the proteclion of slopes subject
to erosion, deterioration or slippage, and fire by
the use of appropriate slope planting, irrigation
and maintenance; and
C. The encouragement of s~ u~
which will r~ late apiary and architecturally
with Ibe anviromnent and complemant the
anmral land forms.

Conditions may be applied when the
proposed development 'does not comply wi~
applicable standards and shall be such as to
bring such developmentinto conformity or
plansend thawings may be disapprovedand the
Board shall specify the. standard or mandards
that ar~ not met:

All cut and fir slopes exceeding five
feet in height ,h, R be suitably Inudscapedwith
plant materials and adeq~tely irriga~d in
accordance ~ approved plans end mah~ mlned
on eomplefian of the gr~ in~ oporatico~ The
applicant or developer shall be respons~ie for
the mainta~ance of all slope planting and
inigafion sysam~ until such time as the
propertiesare occupied or anlil a homenwnefs
a~ sociallenaccepts the rcepans~ilily to maintain
the landscapingin co,~,~ en areas. ( Ord. 5585 §
23, 1987; Ord. 4399 § I (part), 1977)

19. 09.100 Subdivisions and parcel maps.

In order to assure compliance with the
provisions of this chs?~ and title where a
planned residential development permit is not
every tentative subdivision map end parcel map
filed for approval in accordance with the
ptevisien of title 18 in this zone a preliminary
grading plan showing at least one practical
usable building site which can be developed in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter
and title for each lot or parcel. (Ord. 4399 ~ I
I, Colleen J. Nicol, City Clerk of the
City of Riverside, California, hereby
certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is a full, true and correct copy o
Chapter 19. 09 of the Riverside Municipal
Code on file in my Office.

Ci~ of Riverside
Dated this 12th day of March, 2001, at
Riverside, CA.

19. 09) 4
12- 308

EXHIBIT E
4 of 4)

The applicant has obtained a Nationwide Permit for Linear Transportation Projects NWP 14".) ( Id. at 14.) The Streambed Alteration Permit, issued by CDFG, required mitigation consisting of (i) the expansion of an unnamed drainage downstream of the read crossing that will provide 0. 077 acres of mitigation (a 1:1 ratio, permitted by the Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 6- 2003-067), ( ii) the installation of riparian vegetation within the mitigation site consisting of native grasses, and ( iii) a three-year maintenance and monitoring plan to ensure the successful establishment of native cover within the mitigation area. ( Jurisdictional Delineation, Streambed Alteration Permit, at pg. 17.) The applicant has obtained the necessary permits, and analyzed the impacts of constructing Century Hills Drive across the unnamed drainage area, and will comply with all mitigation measures required by the Nationwide Permit, and the Streambed Alteration Agreement. Because impacts to jurisdictional waters will be mitigated to comply with the requirements identified in the resource agency permits, the City need not consider the Century Hills Drive area to be sensitive.
12- 320

Lots 37, 38, 39, and 40 - The limits of the 100-year flood plain did not extend into lots 43 and 44.

Exhibit " D" identified the setback dbbon extending within the lots. Compare the Red Line on the map below to the Black Line on the map abow.

Lot 41- The Flood Plain did not include the t~ butary. Compare the Red line to the Black line on the map above.

Lots 45 and 46- The setback from the Flood Plain extended to the edge of the building pad slopes.

Compare the Red Line to the Black Line on the map abo~e.

Lots 43 and 44 - The old setback extended to the edge of the building pad slopes. Compare the Red Line to the Black Line on the map abo~e.

Lots 77 and 78, and Sewer Extension- Because the Flood Plain did not identify a tributary, the old setback does not extend north of Century Hills Ddve. The pink setback line did not extend to lots 77 and 78, or to the sewer extension. Compare the pink setback line to the Encroachment Area for lots 77 and 78, highlighted in orange on the map above, and to the sewer extension area, highlighted in purple.

Century Hills Drive, Grass Valley Road, the water quality basin and lot 41- The limits of the Flood Plain and the adjacent setback does not extend to the area currently identified as tributaries north into the area proposed for Century Hills Ddve.) Compare the Red Line to the Black Line on the map above.

Lots 47, 48, and 49- The old setback was between 175' and 200' to the south of the building pad slopes at the closest point. Compare the Red Line to the Black line on the map abo~e.

Lots 50 and 51 - The Flood Plain did not identify the western tributary, so the old setback is located about 350' south of the Encroachment Area, at the closest point. Compare the Red Line to the Black Line on the map above.

North End of Crest Haven Drive and Lot 57- The Flood Plain did not identify a tributary, so the old setback did not extend north of Century Hills Drive. Compare the Red Line to the Black Line on the map above.

Lots 58, 59, 60, 61, and 62- Because the Flood Plain did not identify a tributary, the old setback does not extend north of Century Hills Drive. Compare the Red Line to the Black Line on the map above.

Alessandro Dam Access Road: There are currently 2 roads that provide Riverside County Flood Control with access to the dam. The access road in TM 31930 is the shorter road. The other road snakes through a variety of privately owned property and is much longer than the subject road.

Aisc, the County may not have access to the longer road in perpetuity because we understand that several of the property owners intend to develop the land, which would close certain portions of the longer road.
12- 364
Both roads are unpaved. Traveling on an unpaved read generates dust ( PM10). Therefore, the use of the shorter read would reduce the dust generated by the regular maintenance of the dam.

Also, because Flood Control will be able to use the shorter road in perpetuity, the shorter road is preferable to the longer for that reason also.

The ability to access the dam using the shortest route, and reduce PM 10, combined with the ability to secure the dght to use the shorter road in perpetuity, are exceptional circumstances which do not apply generally to other property in the RC zone or in the neighborhood. These reasons suggest that the grant of this grading exception is appropriate.

Exception B: Slope Height Exceptions
Crest Haven Drive - TM 31930 is identical to TM 23027, which was designed by Gabel, Cook and Associates, Engineers, to conform to the natural topography to the greatest extent possible, and limit grading. The height of the slopes was not a result of the street locations chosen by the engineers. Slope heights are a function of proposed driving speed, the width of the road, and the natural topography. The City imposed a design speed of 25 miles per hour on each of the roads in TM 31930 ( Condition of Approval 48.) The chosen design speed determines the proposed slope heights for Crest Haven Drive. Designing the street to comply with a safe driving speed is an exceptional circumstance resulting in slope heights that require variances. 12- 365