Loading...
PC10-035RESOLUTION PC10-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE FINDING THAT NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED WHEREAS, KB HOME Coastal Inc. has applied to the City of Menifee for the approval of a development agreement for its Hidden Hills project, which now consists of 511 single-family homes, an improved park containing approximately 5.3 acres, 10 open space/regional trail/paseo lots, 3 storm drain flood control lots and accompanying infrastructure and other improvements (the "Project") on approximately 116.2 gross acres within the City; and WHEREAS, the development agreement provides for dedication of approximately 20 acres of property to the City for public purposes in exchange for certain vested development rights such a freeze on development fees and zoning changes; WHEREAS, the development agreement does not intensify or otherwise change the Project; WHEREAS, the City is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the approval of the development agreement constitutes a discretionary approval which is part of a "project" as that term is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 and which itself requires review under CEQA; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2004, prior to the City's incorporation, the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County certified that Environmental Impact Report No. 445, which analyzed the environmental impacts which would result from the development of the Hidden Hills project, had been prepared in full compliance with CEQA (the "EIR"); and WHEREAS, the EIR found that short- and long- term air quality impacts of the Hidden Hills project could not be mitigated into insignificance; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a statement of overriding considerations in connection with its approval of the Hidden Hills project; and WHEREAS, the Hidden Hills project analyzed in the EIR dealt with a tentative subdivision map which authorized the construction of 523 single-family homes, 12 more single- family homes than are now part of the Project; and WHEREAS, the staff has confirmed to the Planning Commission that staff carefully and independently reviewed the EIR in light of the Project and that there is no need for additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2010, where the public was allowed to comment on the absence of any need for additional environmental review; and Resolution PC10-035 KB DA CEQA Resolution WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all of the comments received from the public as well as the information provided by the City's staff in order to provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding environmental review. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee, California, hereby recommends to the City Council that: The EIR fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the Hidden Hills project as it was approved in 2004; and 2. The Project will result in fewer environmental impacts than those which would have resulted from the Hidden Hills project analyzed in the EIR; and 3. Based upon the information in the record, neither a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required because the review of the Project, the development agreement and the EIR shows that A. The proposed approval of the development agreement contains no substantial changes in the Hidden Hills project requiring major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Hidden Hills project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR; C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the EIR was certified; and D. There are no newly feasible, or considerably different, mitigation measures or alternatives which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Hidden Hills project but which the Project proponent declines to adopt. 4. No further environmental review of the Project is required under CEQA and that the adoption of the development agreement is sufficiently analyzed by EIR No. 445 including the statement of overriding considerations set out in Riverside County Resolution No. 2004-408, attached and incorporated as if fully set forth here PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 91h day of February 9, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: r i, v` -�X&m NOES: '`rJ2LQLl [JA1 97tfu� ABSENT:�'�rabl ABSTAIN: Resolution PC10-035 KB DA CEQA Resolution Attest: n Kathy B ett, City Clerk & Planning Commission Secretary Approved as to form: Elizabeth L. Martyn, City Attorney SUBM'1j-.TA TO ARM'DFS 11114, UPERVISO 11.4A ho.mpi .'Planh F TLMA ln!'gT)'0.p.9r.ttfWrI. bAT-E-- 00 1.12QQ4 SUBJECT- RESO�UTIQN NO .2004-409 CO"Ifyih.0 EnW.0.iIq_--o4Wj: j,rp-p#tRe -0.r(N6.A4-5:8n-d Ordinance No-:348.424-1 - Th!r::,5vp.er.vW.QrI[4I Ristricf-Sun City 1-M900eArea Plan=1:66:2. Adres. PECOM NDgD MOTION ME. The -PlAnhin"'t Department R­ g 1 ppa Men � e0ornmen.: s., ADOPTION:of iftsdiuvorr..No. -°2004,408 Certifying mpac p Itnvirm *onfd Report No:: 44.6-and, rn -11. t R ADOPTION 'v.f"0r.'.dhIa hdefilb. 348A.41 adopting Rf.-i#. hor properties f subject to-ChArige Q- g of!'Zorre-"N .q. Q; 7Q. BACKGROUND: Public Hearings concerning Environmental. I.m.p.act ReVort -No. 445j. tog0t . her with the related qKahge Of Zone No. 6670,*Woro h'dld by the Board of.Supervisors on''June S. 2004. Ft i.bert.C. Johnson Plahriihg Dife.6tor RCJ:ar MEN 0 ForMllp (RdvCS/200.3) 'mtqsw6f(M11a= A_dd, .061q.b. ffc Ndmben I Board of Suiperyisors County of:Riverside 2. RESOLUTION NO, 20O44 3 APTROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No ... 4 (CIMARRON VALLEY ESfiATES) 5 6 WHEREAS., pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et se4., a public 7 hearing was held }before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in Riverside, California on June 8, 8 .2004 and.before the Riverside County Planning Commission in Riverside, California on January 14, 9 2004. and April 21, 2004 to consider Tentative Tract Map. No. 30.142 (Cimarron Valley Estates); and, 10 WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California .Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the 11 Riverside County Rules to Implement the Act have been met, and. Environmental Impact Report (BIR) 12 No. 445, prepared in connection With Tentative Tract Map No. 30142 and related cases (referred to 13 alternatively herein as "the project"), is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant 14 effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such 15 effects have -been evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act and Rules; and, 16 17 WHER. EAS, the matter was. discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by 18 the public and affected. government agencies; now., therefore, 19 BE IT RECSOLVED; FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of 20 Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on October 26, 2004, that: 21 A. Tentative Tract Map No. 30142 proposes to subdivide 166.0 acres of fallow 22 agricultural land located west of the ]-2.15 freeway, south of Newport Road, north of 23 Scott Road and east 'of;. and adjacent to,, Murrieta Road into the following.- 523 single- 24 family residential lots, 3 detention basins, one 5.3-acre improved park, 10 open 25 space/regional trail/paseo lots., and 3 storm drain/flood control swale lots. d- 26 0 0 �2 a M v 0 12 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Tentative, Tract'Map No, 30142 is associated with Change..of Zone Case No. 6670 and Environmental Assessment No 38595, which were considered concurrently at the public hearings b0bre the Planning:Comrtdssion and the Board of Supervisors. C. Change of'Zone Case No. 667.0 proposes to change the existing zoning classification of Residential Agriculture I Acre Minimum (R-A-1) to One Faimily Dwelling (R-1), Planned Residential (R-4) and Open Area Combining Zone -Residential Developments (R-5). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that based on the analysis in Environmental Assessment No. 38595 and comments received on the Notice of Preparation, the following topics were determined not to be significant and therefore, did not require additional analysis in the EIR. A. Mineral. Resources There are no known mineral resources present, and the site is not delineated as a mineral resource area. B. Environmental.Safety There are no known potential safety hazards. There are no hazardous materials present on site and hazardous materials will not be involved in project implementation. The site is not located within two miles or a public airport. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the following environmental impacts associated with the project are potentially significant unless otherwise indicated, but each of these impacts will be avoided or substantially lessened by compliance with, and implementation of the following identified regulatory requirements, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures incorporated into the project. A. Land Use. 1. Impacts: 2 1 The project is generally consistent with the adjacent land uses and will 2 be compatible with the surrounding community and the developing 3 character of the 1bletufee Valley. The project is, consistent with the 4 adopted RCIP General Plan and is below the maximum density (up to 5 5 dwelling units per acre) designated for the site by the Sun City/Menifee 6 Valley Area Plan. Project implementation will require discretionary 7 approvals to achieve zoning consistency. 8 9 2. Mitigation: 10 The project shall comply with the County's Zoning Ordinance and 11 County Conditions of Approval, including design standards; submittal 12 of minor plot plans and fees prior to issuance of building permits; 13 landscape maintenance requirements, requirements and applications for 14 Final'Map and Change of Zone -Planning Review. 15 B. Geophysical Resources 16 1. Impacts: 17 The project will be subject to potential ground shaking associated with 18 seismic activity. Grading will balance onsite therefore no import or 19 20 export of earth material will be required. Rock fall hazards may result 21 from outcrops .along the southeast portion of the site. Potential erosion M and off site soil migration impacts from stockpiling of oversize rock 23 material could occur. .4 2. Mitigation: 25 The project, shall comply with County Ordinance No. 547.7 pursuant to 26 the Alquist-Priolo Act of .1972; County Building and Fire Codes 27 standards and inspection procedures; and County Conditions of 28 Approval applicable to geophysical resources including requirements 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for grading plans and permits, erosion control. landscape plans, geotechnical soils reports, easements, slope planting and 'irrigation, finish grade, and compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. A quatifled geologist shall evaluate the potential for rock fall/hazards based on project -specific Road Improvement .Plans and perform inspections during site grading to assure slope cuts in rock outcrop areas do not expose or dislodge large rock outcrops that impact the residential building pads. Oversized rock/earth material shall be handled, processed, stockpiled, and disposed of in accordance with the recommendations of the County_approved geotechnical /soils report. Proper slope protection for drainage shall be provided and the County, will approve the final drainage plan prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. C. Hydrology 1. hnpacts: Project implementation will result in increased impervious surfaces and storm flow runoff; modified existing topography, and minor redirection of site drainage. Proposed drainage improvements will not adversely impact downstream properties, A low flow drainage system will maintain a reliable source of surface water to the existing offsite riparian habitat north of Craig Avenue. Detention basins will collect onsite storm flows. Provision of off -site storm drain facilities will convey project .site storm water offsite to the existing, improved channel east and north of the site. 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Mitiaation: The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to hydrology including: Provision of County approved, adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easements to protect downstream properties from damages caused by .concentration or diversion of flows and coordination with development of adjacent properties to ensure watercourses remain unobstructed, including construction of temporary and/or offsite. facilities. Offsite drainage facilities within dedicated drainage easements shall be recorded and submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control & Water District (RCFCWD) prior to recordation of final map. Drainage shall be designed and constructed to County requirements for grade, slope setbacks, and lot grading to contain 10-year and 100-year flows; energy dissipaters at storm drain outlets that discharge to natural channels/unmaintained facility; trash racks at inlet structures; Site drainage shall be routed through detention basins to mitigate increased runoff; all basins must have positive drainage and meet County and District criteria; a complete drainage study shall be provided to the RCFCWD. Homeowners Association (HOA) Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall contain provisions for privately -owned catch Basin inspection and maintenance. D. Water Quality 1. Impacts: Erosion and sedimentation, and spills from improper handling of materials during construction will potentially impact surface water 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 quality. The project has the poteritial for long-term impacts due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. The.project will increase impervious surfaces resulting. in increased storm water runoff. Permanent drainage facilities will be developed that will control sediment and erosion. The use of storm water detention basins, low flow inlet and grassy swale will filter low -flow urban runoff from the site. Specific drainage improvements will not adversely impact downstream properties.; will serve as a water quality mitigation measure; and will provide a reliable source of surface water to the existing offsite riparian area north of the site. Because of ultimate development planned in the watershed, the project will contribute to cumulative short-term and long-term impacts due to pollutants and sediment in urban runoff. 2. Mitigation: The project shall comply with the Clean Water Act NPDES Permit, Statewide General Permit for Construction. The project shall obtain coverage under this permit prior to site disturbance. The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to water quality including: inspection and maintenance of structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the project; implementation of temporary erosion control measures, development of drainage to filtration BMPs; compliance with NPDES permit requirements; and conformance with NPDES BMPs. E. Transportation and Traffic 1. Impacts: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Construction is anticipated to occur between 2004 and 2008 will result In shortterm traffic impacts along streets in the project vicinity, Construction traffic associated with iMport or export of material to and from the site is not anticipated as the grading 'quantities will be balanced. Project development of 523 single family homes will generate an additional 5,053 trip -ends :per day. Five intersections are anticipated to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service by 2004 and six intersections are projected to be at unacceptable levels by 2008. Four of the six intersections are currently failing. 2. Mitigation: The project shall pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUIVIF). The project shall contribute the required per dwelling unit TUMF to fund regional transportation improvements. The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to transportation and traffic :including: provision of street improvements, plans, and/or road dedications per Ordinance 460 and 461; provision of off -site access roads to approved County -maintained roads if the project is phased; consistency with Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies requiring a minimum LOS C or D; plan submittal and compliance with County standards for road improvement designs, landscaping, signing, and striping, and lot access; requirements for traffic signal design and installation, and intersection geometries; and TUMF fee payments. Murrieta Road, Garbani Road, Evans Road and Craig Avenue, "FF" and "JJ" Streets, "A" Street entry at Murrieta Road and Evans Road, "A" Street, and all interior streets shall be improved in accordance with 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 F. NqiEe 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 County Standards No. 100, 101, 102; 103 .Section A, and 105 Section A=modified, respectively. Murrieta Road/Garbani Road intersection shall be improved to provide the following geometries: northbound one left turn lane, two through lanes, southbound one left turn lane, two through lanes; eastbound one left turn lane, one through- lane; westbound one left turn lane, one through lane. Murrieta Road/Beth Road intersection shall be improved to provide the following geometries.: northbound one left turn lane, two through lanes; southbound one left turn lane, two through lanes; eastbound one left turn lane, one through. lane; westbound one left turn lane, one through lane. Traffic signals shall be installed at Murrieta Road/Garbani Road and Murrieta Road/Beth Road. 1. Impacts: Existing residential uses around the site are sparse and the closest sensitive receptors are two schools, approximately 835 feet south of the southern project boundary. Construction activities will generate an approximate noise level of 904B noise level at 50 feet and 65.5 dB at the adjacent schools, slightly over the County standard of 65dB for ongoing noise levels. Short-term significant impacts could occur from use of rock breaking equipment of blasting if required in areas of resistant bedrock. Long-term noise levels during operations by project - generated 5,053 vehicle trips per day will not exceed the County standard and will be less than significant without. mitigation. 1 2 3' 4, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Mitigation: The project shall comply with County Ordinance No. 457, which specifies times and periods When construction activities are allowed: whenever a construction site is within I/a mile of occupied residences, no construction shall occur between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. June through September, and between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. October through May. The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to noise including a requirement for the land divideripermit holder to have an acoustical study performed to establish appropriate mitigation measures for individual dwelling units to reduce first and second story ambient interior and exterior noise levels. The acoustical report and fees shall be submitted to the County Environmental Health Department for approval. Approved mitigation measures, if any, shall be forwarded to County Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Department to implement into final building plans. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, noise impacts associated with any required rock blasting or rock -breaking equipment shall be evaluated for implementation of County -approved measures (such as restricting blasting to non:school hours, use of temporary noise absorbingtreducing material such as earth blankets and berms to mitigate any severe construction noise impacts to nearby schools. G. Biological Resources 1, Impacts: Project implementation will. result in the loss of 163.8 acres of on -site vegetation and moderately sensitive habitat including non-native 4 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 :grassland, disturbed and developed areas; and fallow agricultural field. Loss of small pockets of fragmented sensitive habitat including 0.6 acres of southern willow scrub and 9.5 acres of flattop buckwheat dorninated Riversidian sage scrub (RSS) will occur. The 2.7 acres of California gnatcatcher occupied RSS in the southeastern corner is proposed for preservation. Sensitive plant species and wildlife movement carrielors are not present on site and will not be impacted. Wildlife species on site will be directly impacted through habitat loss and displacement. No direct impacts to CAGN through removal or displacement will occur. Impacts to federally -listed Stephen's Kangaroo rat will occur through habitat loss. Indirect impacts to native plants, wildlife, habitat, and water quality associated with the development project include the introduction of night light sources, traffic, dust, noise, and storm runoff discharge. Implementation of the project will result in the loss of a total 0.62 acres of CDFG jurisdictional wetlands, of which 0.35 acres are also USACE jurisdictional waters. Project flows will drain to two proposed soft - bottom detention basins in the northern portion of the site. There will be cumulative impacts from loss of open space, vegetation, plant and wildlife species, and jurisdictional wetland.areas. 2. Mitigation: The project shall require the following permits and payment of fees: Section 404, Nationwide 39 Permit; Section 10C Protection of Historic Resources review, Section 401, Water Quality Certification; 1603 Streainbed Alteration Agreement; County of Riverside Ordinance 810.1 - Interim Open Space Mitigation Fee; County Ordinance No. 663 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2.8 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee. Section 7 consultation with USFWS will not be required. Impacts to 0.62 acres of CDFG wetlands, .of which 0.35 acres are USACE jurisdictional waters, will be mitigated through a purchase of 1.8 acres of Mitigation bank credits through the Santa Ana River Nfitigation Bank. Implementation of the low -flow maintenance system will keep the downstream [off -site] riparian vegetation viable to address USACE concerns, The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to biological resources including: documentation of required permits for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streambeds, or waters provided to the RCFCWD prior to final District approval of the project per County Ordinance No. 458; provision of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to Environmental Assessment adoption; final design of the detention basin(s) shall be required at the improvement plan stage; project runoff shall be routed through detention basins; all basins shall have positive drainage and mitigate total tributary or on -site along peak flow rates; evaluation of storm flows and detention basin sizing; inclusion of a. plot showing pre - developed, post developed and. routed hydrographs with the hydrology study submittal; design shall meet County requirements for outlet pipes, use or orifice plates, trash racks, basin and outlet structure capacity for 100-year storms, joint use mitigation basins incorporated into open space; sideslope steepness and basin depth, and County and RCFCWD approved maintenance mechanisms; proof of a 1603 SAA and Section 404 permit and purchase of wetland mitigation bank credit 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from the Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District submitted prior to issuance of a grading:permit; a burrowing owl survey shall be - conducted no sooner than 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit, and a plan for active relocation submitted to Planning for review and implementation if owls are present; payment of open space fees prior to a certificate of occupancy or building permit final inspection per provisions of County Ordinance No, 659. Payment of Interim Open Space Mitigation fees per County Ordinance No. 810 for acquisition and preservation of open space: The Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall note protected biological resources and restricted activities. Submittal of a fire-protecdon/vegetation management plan to the Riverside County Fire Department, and concurrence with the responsible wildlife and/prior to issuance of a grading permit to the fire department. Payment of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat fees, calculated in accordance with the Tentative Map, per provisions of County Ordinance No. 663 prior to issuance of a grading permit. H. Aesthetics and Visual 1. Impacts: Project implementation will convert open space agricultural land to a developed residential neighbored and result in alterations to the existing landform, topography, aesthetic environment, and existing views from the surrounding residential uses. Open space views of native vegetation will be retained at the southeast portion of the site (preserved for habitat conservation). Project development will add to the nighttime lighting within the Mt. Palomar Nighttime Policy Area 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2,g and will modify the nighttime appearance of the area to that of a lighted residential community. 2. Miti ation: The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to aesthetic and visual resources including: Compliance with County Ordinance No. 655 restricting permitted use of certain light fixtures that impact the night sky and Mt. Palomar astronomical observation and research; placement of utility lines underground per County Ordinance Nos. 460 and 461; submittal of landscape plans with the street improvement plans; approval of landscaping by the Transportation .Department and assurance of continuing maintenance through an approved maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar mechanism; street Ighting designed in accordance with specifications of County Ordinance No. 461 or Imperial Irrigation district standards as applicable; compliance with parkway landscaping requirements of County Ordinance No. 499 for all General Plan Circulation Element roads. Installed landscaping along Murrieta, Garbani, Evans and Craig Road(s) will be maintained by annexation into a County Service Area and/or Assessment District, or by continuous agreement. The ECS shali note the: property is subject to lighting restrictions required by County Ordinance No. 655. and that all proposed outdoor lighting is in conformance with the ordinance. I. Cultural.and Paleontological Resources 1. Impacts: The cultural resources identified onsite are. determined to represent less than significant resources. Project implementation will result in loss of 13 1 0AI 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 73 24 25 26 27 28 less than significant, onsite historic and prehistoric resources. Additional unidentified archaeological remains s.ould be present and potentially impacted. There are potential iinpacts to paleontological resources, however the likelihood of encountering specimens is considered extremely low. No conflict with religious or sacred uses will result as none are known or present onsite. Cumulative loss of cultural resources by development of the project in conjunction with future development projects in the area may result in the loss of significant cultural resources, 2. Mitigation: The project shall comply with Section 106 Protection of Historic Resources review and Regulatory Historic Property Regulations (33 CFR 325, Appendix C). The project shall cornply with conditions of approval applicable to cultural resources including: placement of an Environmental Constraints. Note on the ECS stating the County Archaeological Report No. PD-A_0384 (October 2.1, 2001) was prepared and is on file at the County Planning Department. The project site shall be subject to surface alteration restrictions based on the results of the report. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the County of Riverside Historic Preservation Officer,. Regional Park and Open Space District that a County -certified archaeologist has been retained to monitor onsite grading and excavation per recommendations of the Phase 1 report. A pre -grading report shall be filed with the Regional Park and Open Space District and Building and Safety Department by the retained 14 I archaeologist documenting the proposed methodology for grading 2 activity observations, salvage and catalogue of archaeological 3 resources. 4 A County -certified archaeologist. shall conduct ongoing monitoring during grading and excavation in the vicinity of .the prehistoric milling b features, and daily spot checks for the remaining project area. The 7 archaeologist shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading, 8 9 excavation, and ground disturbing activities to permit sampling and 10 evaluations of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 11 The retained County -certified archaeologist shall notify Native 12 American representatives, including the Pechanga Cultural Resources 13 Department, of the grading and excavation monitoring program and 14 provisions to participate in the monitoring. The applicant shall 15 coordinate with the county Regional Parts and Open Space District and 16 the PCR to negotiate an Agreement addressing the designation, 17 responsibilities, and participation of Native American monitors during 18 19 grading, excavation, and ground -disturbing activities, schedule, 20 compensation and disposition of resources discovered on site. The 21 County shall be the final arbiter of conditions in the agreement. 22 If human remains are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity shall 23 cease; the County Coroner shall be immediately notified; the Coroner 24 shall notify the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) 25 upon determination that the remains are prehistoric; the NAHC in turn 26 shall notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). 27 I Recreation 28 1. Im ap ets; i5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Project construction will not impact existing parks or recreational facilities. The project will provide a 5.3 acre centrally -located park with improvements and available to the public, to meet the project demand of 4.7 acres of parkland area. Project demand is based on the County's standard of 3.0 acres of public parkland per 1,000 population. Improvement of a multipurpose, 12-foot wide trail along the east of Evans Road will tie into proposed regional trail improvements along Garbani Road and future trail system proposed northerly of the site. Provision of over 10 acres of open space. green belt/paseos will provide aesthetic improvements and connectivity to the park and/or trails. New residential developments including the project and specific plan area in the surrounding area will result in a cumulative increase in the need for recreation areas to serve the developments. 2. Mitigation: The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to recreation including: Murrieta Road and Garbani Road will be improved per County Standards No. 100 — modified and 101, respectively; payment of fees per provisions of County Ordinance No. 659 for openspace acquisition, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or building permit final inspection; dedication to the County for a 1246ot wide regional trail along Evans Road to tie into Garbani Road shall be noted on the Final Map and ECS; seven (7) sets of detailed park plans shall be submitted_ to and approved by the Planning Department prior to approval of any building permits; provision of proof that park sites have been constructed per approved park plan and 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is fully operational prior to issuance of the 131't building permit for the project; provision of maintenance by the land developer of any trail easement until maintenance is taken over by an appropriate maintenance district; submittal by the. land divider to the Planning Department a completely executed agreement with County Service Area No. 145 that demonstrates the land divider has provided for payment of parks and recreation fees and/or dedication of land per County Ordinance No. 460 (Quimby fees); incorporation of view/open or halfbiock wall/half view fencing at the lots backing up to the paseos, security lighting as approved by the Regional park and Open Space District and Sheriff's Department. K. Population and. Housing 1, Impacts: Project implementation will provide an additional 523 single-family homes to the Sun City(Menifee Valley area and contribute approximately 2.1 percent of the projected western Riverside County housing need. The project will create new construction jobs. The project is consistent with the RC1P General Plan, based on long-term housing/jobs balance. The project will not be growth -inducing and will provide housing for Riverside County's projected growth. 2, Mitigation: None required. L. Fire Protection Services 1. Impacts: Development of 523 single-family residential dwelling units will result in an increased need for fire protection services. The project will not 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 generate a need for .an additional fire station. No conflict with Applicable RCFD Code and ordinance requirements or standards are anticipated. The project will contribute its fair share of property taxes toward funding for fire protection services. 2. Mitigation: The project shall .comply with California Public Resources Code Section 4290; the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code; County Ordinance No. 787, fire protection standards; and County Ordinance No. 671., requiring payment of f re facilities mitigation fees. The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to fire protection services including: installation of County -approved blue retroreflective pavement markers; installation of Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants; provision of notes on the ECS map regarding gate entrance standards, requirement to submit a fire protection/vegetation management plan prior to issuance of a grading permit, installation of the required water system prior to placement of any combustible building material on an individual lot, and access gate standards; provision of a copy of the water system plan for RCFD review; provision of an Alternate or Secondary Access per Transportation Department conditions, and concurrence and approval of the. Department and RCFD; RCFD inspection of installed water system; compliance with provisions of County Ordinance No. 659 including payment of fees prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permit final inspection; submittal of a fire protection/vegetation management plan for RCFD approval prior to the issuance of.a grading permit; culmde-sac lengths not exceeding 800 feet; 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provision of an alternate or secondary access. that must be maintained throughout all phasing. M. Police Protection Services 1. Impacts: Project implementation will increase demand for police .protection services. The. projectrelated population increase will warrant two additional sworn officers. Existing response times will not be impacted. The project will contribute its fair share of property taxes toward, funding for police protection services. 2. Mitization: The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to police protection services including: provision of street lighting designed and installed in accordance with specifications of County Ordinance No. 461 or Imperial Irrigation district standards as N. Schools applicable; 1. impacts. Schools within the Menifee Union School District and Perris Union High School District are at capacity and will not have sufficient space to accommodate additional students generated by the project. The proposed project will be required to pay applicable developer fees to offset significant impacts to schools. The applicant is considering payment of school impact fees through direct payment to the school Districts at issuance of building permits or payment through the formation of a community facilities district or assessment district. 2. Mitigation: 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The pro jeet .shall comply with the School Facilities Act (Government Code. §659.95), requiring.sehool districts to assess developer fees. 0. Library Services 1. Impacts: Existing library capacities within the project area are adequate to meet the needs of the current population and expected growth. Current facilities will meet the additional demand generated by implementation of the project. Impacts will be Less than significant. Implementation of the project will result in a cumulative increase in fire and police protection requirements and demand for .school and library services. 2. Mitigation: The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to library services including: compliance with provisions of County Ordinance No..659 including payment of fees prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or building permit for final inspection. F. Utilities and Service Systems I. Impacts: No utilities or service systems are currently developed onsite. Implementation of the project will result in increased demands for utilities and service systems for water supply, sewer and wastewater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas. The amount of pervious area for groundwater recharge will be reduced; however the proposed drainage system will provide some groundwater recharge in the detention basins, The project's demands for water supply and sewer and wastewater services will be met by the Eastern Municipal Water 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 District (EMWD). Solid waste collection.services will be provided by the Riverside County" Waste 1Viar agemont District. The current landfill(s) serving the project area have sufficient capacity for a projected 15 years. Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (S.CB) and natural gas service will be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). Additional demand generated by the project can be met with existing SCE and SC.GC resources. 2. N itindon: For Water Supply, the project shall comply with: Senate Bill 221 requires identification of sufficient water supply for new development and residential development; Senate Bill 90.1 requires urban water suppliers to identify existing and planned sources of water available to supplier over a 5 year period; Senate Bill 610 requires the county to request the project -servicing public water system to prepare a specified water supply assessment; and County Conditions of Approval applicable to water supply services including: provision of the project's water system plans and specif cations approved by the water company and the County Department of Environmental Health; financial arrangements shall be made for water improvements plans and approved by County Counsel; provision of a Water Supply Assessment Report per AB 610 and 221; removal of the existing well located onsite at the time of the grading permit, or will be used for grading water but will then be deferred prior to Building permit issuance for the dwelling on the former well site; placement of all utility extensions underground. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 90 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For Sewer and Wastewater, the project sliall comply with: Riverside County Ordinance No. 573 establishes a :procedure for the determination, collection, and enforcement of charges; and County Conditions of Approval applicable to sewer and wastewater including: :provision of sewer system plans and specifications as approved by EMWD, County Survey Department, and the Department of Environmental Health; annexation proceedings must be finalized with the applicable purveyor; placement of all utility extensions underground. For Solid Waste, the project shall comply with: California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) Model Ordinance per AB 939 which requires recycling; County Ordinance No. 573 which establishes a procedure for the determination, collection, and enforcement of charges; County Ordinance No. 745 which regulates solid waste collection and disposal within unincorporated Riverside County; and conditions of approval applicable to solid waste services including: annexation proceedings must.be finalized with the applicable purveyor. For Electricity and Natural Gas, the .project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to electrical and gas utilities and services including: placement of utilities underground in accordance with County Ordinance Nos. 460 and 461. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the following impacts potentially resulting from the approval of the project cannot be fully mitigated and will be only partially avoided or lessened by the mitigation measures hereinafter specified; a statement of overriding findings is therefore included. herein: 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Air Quality 1. 2. Impacts: Construction of the project will generate significant short-term criteria Pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOJ and PMIo) from grading, soil disturbance, equipment and vehicle emissions, fugitive dust, erosion "spill -over" from construction activity, and application:of architectural surface treatments. T ong-term air emissions from operation of additional motor vehicles will result from the 5,053 project -related, new vehicle trips per day. Operational, lonb term air pollutant emissions for NO,, and reactive organic compounds (ROC) will also exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds. Project implementation will have an incremental impact on cumulative air quality conditions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is classified as a non -attainment air basin. Both project -specific and cumulative air quality impacts are considered significant. Mitigation: The project shall .comply with Wind Erosion Control Plan provisions of County Ordinance No. 460. The project shall comply with conditions of approval applicable to air quality including implementation of all necessary dust control measures during grading activities. The project shall implement dust control measures including: twice - daily site watering; covered haul trucks; watering unpaved parking/staging areas four times daily; sweeping/washing site access points; covering or watering. debris/dirt/dusty :material stockpiles; 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 28 suspension of operations on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 Miles per hour-, stabilized any cleared area that will remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing. The project shall implement construction -related emission controls including: using off road equipment built within the past ten years; providing low- NQ, tune-ups of equipment at least every 90 days; limiting idling of trucks and heavy equipment to ten minutes. The project shall implement emission control measures related to off - site impacts including: limiting roadway Iand closures to off-peak travel periods; construction vehicles shall not be parked on heavily - traveled roadways; encouraging receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours; providing fide -share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has considered the following alternatives identified in EIR No. 445 in light of the environmental impacts which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened and has rejected those alternatives as infeasible for the reasons hereinafter stated: A. No Project Alternative (Remain Vacant or Revert to Agricultural Use) 1. The No Project Alternative would result in no onsite development; the 166.3- acre site would remain in its present condition. 2. The No Project Alternative would maintain existing zoning classifications and environmental conditions. 3. The No Project Alternative would retain the existing landform and topography. If fanning were resumed at the site, the fallow fields would be replaced with at least seasonal crops. No elements would be 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 introduced that would detract from the existing aesthetic character or j the site or surrounding area. 4. Under the No Project Alternative, the open field or future farming of the site would result in some level of fugitive dust (PMIO) emissions and some farming equipment emissions. Depending on the agricultural use, this alternative could also result in odor emissions. Under this alternative, there would be no construction -related or on -going operational; mobile or stationary emissions related to the site. Air quality impacts associated with the ongoing fallow condition or site or re -introduced agricultural use would be less than air quality impacts associated with the project. 5. The No Project Alternative would continue to avoid onsite jurisdictional waters and sensitive Riversidean habitat as in previous agricultural operations. This alternative would not result in loss of existing habitat or result in significant impacts to local populations of on -site wildlife species. Biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would be less than the project. 6. The No Project Alternative would not result in excavation or any activities that could result in loss of cultural or paleontological resources. impacts to cultural and paleontological resources would be less than the project. 7. The No Project Alternative would not increase in population at the project site. Under this alternative, there would be ao additional exposure to seismic risk. In addition, no grading would occur. Impacts to geophysical resources would be reduced relative to the project. 25 1 8. Under the No Project Alternative., the existing drainage patterns or 2 volume of storm water runoff would not be modified because the total. 3 impervious area on -site would remain unchanged from p g present 4 conditions. Without mitigation, use of pesticides or herbicides for 5 agricultural operations could potentially impact downstream surface 6 water quality and/or percolate to ground water. Overall impacts to. 7 hydrology and water quality would be similar to the project. 8 9 9. Under the No Project Alternative, no additional traffic trips would be 10 generated under this alternative. Continuation of the site in a fallow or 11 , agricultural use condition, however, would_ not generate funds for local 12 and regional transportation system improvements. Overall, traffic 13 impacts would be less than the project. 14 10. With the No Project Alternative, if the site remains vacant, no noise 15 would be generated. Agricultural operations (equipment) could result 16 in a periodic noise source. The project site would not generate the 17 additional traffic trips or construction -related noise impacts associated 18 19 with the proposed project. Overall noise impacts would be less than the 20 project. 21 11. The No Project Alternative would not generate additional population or 22 result.in. additional demand for area recreational resources. Unlike the 23 proposed project, however, it would not provide new recreational 24 amenities (such as the active sports park) or contribute to the extension 25 and improvement of regional trails. Overall, recreational impacts for 26 this project would be .greater than the project, which would result in 27 beneficial impacts. 28 26 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. The No Project Alternative would not generate additional housing or population. It would not assist in meeting the projected housing demand for western Riverside County. Impacts to housing and population are considered greater for this alternative in comparison to the project. 13. The No Project Alternative would not generate additional population and therefore, would not increase demands on public services (Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, and Libraries). Impacts would be less than the project. 14. Under the No Project Alternative, reversion to agricultural uses at the project site would require irrigation water. Often, water supply requirements for irrigation purposes exceed requirements for residential developments. Reclaimed water, however, is typically made available for agriculture. Overall, water supply impacts would be considered similar to the project. 15. Under the No Project Alternative alternative, water and sewer services would not be extended to the project site. Impacts would be less than the project. 16. The No Project Alternative would not generate solid waste and impacts would be less. than the project. 17. The No Project Alternative would not generate additional demand for electricity or natural gas and impacts would be less than the project. 18. Implementation of the No Project alternative would eliminate the significant short-term and long. term air quality impacts associated with the project. Overall, this alternative would reduce environmental impacts. Due to beneCYts of the project, however, impacts associated 27 1 with recreational resources .and housing, and population would be 2 considered greater than the project. Water supply, hydrology, and 3 water quality impacts would be different than the project, but would be 4 considered a similar impact level. 5 19. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project 6 objectives. 7 8 B. Sun CiWiMenifee Valley Communir` P� lan (SN1VP) Land Use Designation 9 1. The previous SMVP Community Plan Land Use Designation 10 (Alternative 2) would result in the development of 104 minimum I -acre 11 , lots representing an 80 percent reduction in the number of housing 12 units. Public service and utility impacts are substantially reduced from 13 the proposed project. 14 2. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in conversion of vacant 15 land to that of a residential development, although at a lower residential 16 density, consistent with land uses to the west and north of the project 17 site. Views from residential and institutional uses adjacent to the site 18 19 would be changed; however, this alternative would not conflict with 20 County regulations regarding view resources. Visually, the 21 development of the site would be in character with the rapidly growing 22 nature of the M. enifee Valley. Visual impacts would be similar to the 23 project. 24 3. Under Alternative 2, the number of residential units, compared to the 25 proposed project of 523, would decrease by approximately 80 percent. 26 The site plan incorporates larger lots but, like the project, the entire 27 project site would be graded. Air quality impactsassociated with 28, grading would therefore, be similar to the project. As with the project, 28 1 2 9 10 11 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 grading would belimited to 30 900 cubic yards of material per day. Impacts associated with home construction (minimal compared to grading impacts) would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Long=term air quality impacts, primarily associated with vehicle trips generated by the development would be substantially reduced relative to the proposed project. An 80 percent reduction in the number of housing units would result in a proportional reduction in vehicle trip generation. Although short-term construction NO,, emissions would likely remain significant under this alternative, long-term air quality emissions would be reduced below SCAQMD's significance thresholds, thereby eliminating a significant impact of the project. 4. Under Alternative 2, site disturbance would be similar to the project. Although disturbance to the Riversidean sage scrub habitat located in the southeast corner of the site would occur in this alternative;. the site plan could be modified, similar to the project, to avoid this sensitive resource. Similar to the project, this alternative would affect on -site wildlife species, CDFG-regulated riparian habitat, and USACE- regulated waters. As with the project, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce site impacts to less than significant. Biological resource impacts would be. similar to the project. 5. Without mitigation, grading activities associated with Alternative 2 would have the potential to damage cultural resources on the project site. The same mitigation measures (monitoring and recovery) would be implemented for this alternative and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Cultural and paleontological resource impacts would be similar to the project. 29 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6, Under Alternative 2, the total disturbed area would be similar to that With the: project. Grading. for this alternative would require an estimated 365,160.cubic yard (cy:) cut and 365,160 cy fill, similar to the project. Risk associated with exposure of residents to seismic hazards and on -site soils would be similar to that with the project. Overall, geophysical and soils impacts for this alternative would be similar to the project and would be less than significant. 7. Drainage improvements required for Alternative 2 would essentially be the same as those for the project. Due to larger lots, however, impervious areas would be reduced compared to the project, and the net increase in surface water flow from the site would be less than the project. Due to the reduction in units and population, urban contaminants (grease, oil, paints, household cleaners, etc.) that may end up in storm .drains, would be reduced relative to the project. Overall, this alternative would slightly reduce hydrology and water impacts in comparison to the project. 8. Under Alternative 2, the approximate 80 percent reduction in housing units would result in a proportionate reduction in the number of project - related vehicle trips. For the proposed project, project:specific trip generation causes. the AM peak service of three intersections to fall below an acceptable level of service (without mitigation). The 80 percent trip reduction of this alternative would probably be sufficient change to result in maintenance of acceptable service at those intersections. The funding contribution to regional and local transportation improvements (TUMF program) would be substantially less for this altemative. Overall, the reduction in trips, however, is 30 I considered to outweigh the benefit of funding, and transportation 2 impacts would be reduced under this alternative relative to the project. 3 9. Alternative 2 would result in construction noise impacts primarily 4 related to grading activities and would be similar to the project. 5 Mitigation, as with the project, would be implemented to assure that 6 blasting or rock breaking did not significantly impact nearby school 7 occupants. Since fewer homes would be .constructed, noise generation 8 associated with the building phase would be reduced in comparison to 9 10 the proposed project. Vehicle trip generation would be reduced by 11 , approximately 80 percent with a proportionate reduction in traffic- 12 generated noise, and with the proposed project, would be less than 13 significant. Noise impacts would be reduced compared to the project. 14 10. Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in population and would 15 reduce demand for recreational services in comparison to the project. 16 The Site Plan offers a community park similar to the project. Since the 17 cost for park improvements (basketball, baseball, and soccer) would be 18 amortized over a much smaller development, this alternative may not 19 support the proposed active uses for this park. It is anticipated, that 20 21 improvements to the Garbani Trail abutting the property boundary 22 would still be required. Overall, recreational impacts would be similar 23 to the project, and would be less than significant. 24 11. Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the population introduced at �5 the project site. The provision of new housing would also be 26 substantially reduced. Considering the projected housing need for 27 western Riverside County, impacts to population and housing would be 28 considered greater for this alternative in comparison to the project. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Under Alternative 2, the 8.0 percent-reductian-in the number of housing units would substantially reduce the: public service demands (Fire Protection, Police protection, Schools and Libraries) in comparison to the project. Fire and police response times, however, would remain similar to the project. The reduction in service demand would be offset by a reduction in property taxes. generated by the project site. Similarly, the contribution to school fees (or alternate agreement with the local school district) would be reduced proportionate to the reduction in number of students to be generated by this alternative. Overall, public service impacts would be reduced, and like the project, would be less than significant. 13. Water demand for Alternative 2 would be substantially reduced for this project. Domestic water supply required for new residents would be reduced concomitant with the 80 percent reduction in housing units. The demand for irrigation water (larger lots) would increase. Overall, water supply impacts would be reduced as compared to the project, and would be less than significant. 14. Under Alternative 2, the number of residential units and expected population would be reduced compared to the project. The amount of wastewater .generation would be reduced by approximately 80 percent. Infrastructure to serve the project; however, would require extension to connect to existing services. Wastewater generation impacts would be reduced as compared to the project and not significant. 15. Solid waste generation associated with Alternative 2 would be reduced approximately proportionate with the reduction in number of units. Green waste (lawn and gatden clippings, etc) would likely be greater 32 .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 than the project. Overall, "solid waste impacts would be less than the project and would not be significant, 16, Under Alternative 2; demand for electricity and natural gas would be reduced by approximately 80 percent for this alternative in comparison to the project. As with the project;. this impact would be less than significant, 17. Compared to the project, Alternative 2 would reduce impacts to transportation/traffic, noise, public services and utilities, and water supply. It would eliminate the long-term significant air quality impact associated with the project. Visual, biological, cultural/paleontological, and geophysical resource impacts would be similar to the project. Hydrology and water quality impacts may be slightly greater under this alternative than the project. Housing and population impacts would also be considered greater for this alternative. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in a reduction of environmental impacts and would eliminate a significant impact associated with the project. 18. Alternative 2 would generally meet the objectives for the project. This alternative may not result in a reasonable return of investment for the � project proponent. Site development grading and infrastructure costs would not be substantially reduced, and these costs would have to be amortized over 80 percent fewer housing units. Alternative 2 would not meet the objective of satisfying market conditions for housing and providing affordable housing because of its substantially greater per -lot improvement costs. 33 I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors. that it has balanced the benefits 2 of the project against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects thereof, and has deteniiined that 3 the following benefits .outweigh and render acceptable those environmental effects: 4 A. The project would create a Medium Density Residential (NIDR), single-family 5 community proposed to meet the growing need for housing in the Menifee Valley and 6 assist in meeting the regional projected need for housing in western Riverside County. 7 8 B. The project would be consistent with the vision and plan for this area as recently set 9 forth in the adopted October 2003 County of Riverside General Plan component of the 10 Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan to 11 , assure a balanced community including housing opportunities and employment growth. 12 The. siteplan incorporates a variety of community -wide recreational amenities to meet 13 the needs of existing and future area residents and to create a sense of community. 14 C. The project would integrate the new development with. both existing and future area 15 land uses by providing for landscape treatments, setbacks and pedestrian and 16 equestrian connections that integrate with the mix of residential and institutional [and 17 uses in the immediate vicinity. 18 19 D. The .project would provide an onsite, improved, multi -purpose trail that will eventually 20 tie-in to future regional trails. 21 E. The project would provide park and recreation amenities including the provision of a 22 large (5.3-aere), centrally -located park with improvements that will be available to the 23 public. In addition, over 10 acres of open space greenbelt/paseos incorporated 24 throughout the project will provide aesthetic amenities and on -site and offsite 25 connectivity park and trail facilities. 26 F. The project would incorporate specialized drainage devices to enhance onsite and 27 watershed -wide water quality while providing a reliable source of surface water to 28 maintain and preserve the off -site riparian habitat resources located north of the site. 34 z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G. The project would provide onsite preservation of sensitive Riversidian Sage Scrub and offsite habitat. improvements through the purchase of mitigation credits to improve the Santa Ana River. H. The project would provide traffic improvements including installation of new signals at Murrieta Road/Craig Avenue and Beth Road/Murrieta Road intersections. These improvements would serve to reduce the deteriorating. intersection conditions in the project area, and improve vehicle and emergency access. I. The project would provide approximately $16 million to regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) to fund regional and arterial highway improvements for western Riverside County. J. The project would provide funding for various elements of regional infrastructure through the County's mitigation fee programs. K. The .project would provide extensions of utilities and services to an area projected for future growth and residential development. The site is currently undeveloped and served by an existing water well. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126 (d)) require an LAIR to discuss how .a proposed project could directly or indirectly lead to economic, population, or housing growth. A project may be growth -inducing if it removes obstacles to growth, taxes community service facilities or encourages other activities which cause 4 significant environmental effects. The discussion is as follows: A. Economic Population Or Housing Growth The project proposes development of 523 single-family residential uses. The project would not impact County employment trends; however it would create new construction jobs and contribute to the economic growth of the area. B. Removal Of An Impediment To Growth M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lI, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The project would not displace existing housing or people, require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere or induce population growth, but rather accommodate growth by providing housing. for the projected growth of the County. The project is adjacent to existing roadways and existing water and sewer lines, the project should not result in the removal of an impediment to growth. C. Precedent-.Settin Effects ffects The project has no precedent -setting effects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the project will implement applicable elements of the adopted RCIP General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element. The project is generally consistent with the adjacent land uses and would be compatible with the surrounding community and the developing character of the Menifee Valley. The project is consistent with the adopted RCIP General Plan and is below the maximum density (up to 5 dwelling units per acre) for the site. The project is consistent with the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP) Land Use Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (2-5 dwelling unitslacre). The project is within an area that exhibits characteristics conducive to accommodating growth. Factors pertaining to circulation., drainage, aesthetics, biological and cultural resources, recreation, school and library services, water and sewer availability, and utilities have been addressed through project design, mitigation measures and the conditions of approval. The project. is participating in regional transportation improvements and other major circulation improvements in the. area. Project related employment opportunities, are intended to serve the fixture residents of the SCMVAP area. The provision of service and utilities is covered under the RCIP General Plan 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Land Use Element policies. The project through its design, mitigation measures and conditions. of approval wound provide adequate circulation, water, sewer, solid waste, police And fire. protection, and other services to comply with public facilities and services element requirements. B. Circulation Element The intent of the .Circulation Element is to establish a comprehensive multi - modal transportation system that is coordinated with the Land Use Element relative to projected future travel demand, growth and development in the County. The project's. onsite circulation system would be designed to County Transportation and Land Management Agency design criteria and right-of-way requirements listed in the RC1P General Plan. The project would also include roadway and intersection improvements, provision of emergency access, and trail improvements that will tie into proposed regional trail improvements and future trail systems. The project would provide a substantial contribution to regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee {TUMF) to fund regional and arterial highway improvements in the County. Upon project buildout and implementation of project, the intersections within the project area would operate at acceptable levels of service as targeted in the RC1P General Plan. C. Housing Element The RC1P General Plan :Housing Element assesses the current and project housing needs for the County and establishes policy for providing adequate housing and related action programs. The project would provide an additional 523 single-family homes to the developing Sun City/Menifee Valley area of western Riverside County. The new housing would contribute approximately 2.1 percent of the projected need in the western portion of the County and 1'.7 percent of the County -wide need. The project is consistent 37 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with the County's and community's objecOves and 'projects for existing conditions and future growth in relationship w...ith population employment and housing included in the RCIP General Plan. D. Safety .Element Based on the Initial Study and Phase i site assessments, no significant safety hazards or issues or impacts from hazardous materials or airport hazards would be associated with the site. The project through its design, mitigation and conditions of approval would reduce impacts from potential seismic hazards, drainage, and rock fall hazards during construction to less than significant. E. Air Oualit Element The RCIP General Plan Air Quality Element requires projects to mitigate anticipated emissions which exceed allowable emissions as established by the SCAQMD. Implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval would reduce PM10 emissions to a less than significant level during peak grading activity days: NO, reduction measures would also substantially reduce construction -related emissions, but NO,, generated from construction would exceed the significance thresholds. Long-term emissions during operation are project to exceed significance thresholds for NO, and ROC. Overriding findings are required for air quality impacts. BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the project is consistent with the RCIP General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has reviewed and considered EIR No. 445 in evaluating the project, that EIR No. 445 is an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and reflects the County's independent judgment, and that EIR No. 445 is incorporated herein by this reference. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 Pan 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BE. IT FURTIHE)Et RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it CE'RTI'IES EIR. No. 445, ADOPTS the. Mitigation Monitoring Plan specified therein and ;APPROVES the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the. Board of Supervisors that the custodians of the documents upon which this decision is based are the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Department and that such :documents are located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO.. 3.4.8:?4241 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY+OF RIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE .NO. 34.8 .REIATING TO ZONING The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows : Section 1. Section 4.2 of Ordinance No. 348, and official Zoning Plan Map No. 2, as amended, are further amended by placing in effect in the Antelope Valley Area, the zone or zones as shown on the map entitled "Change of Official Zoning Plan Amending Ordinance No. 34.8, Map No. 2.2103, Change of Zone Case No. 6670" which map is made a part of this ordinance. Section 2. adoption. ATTEST: NANCY ROMERO Clerk to the Board By: Deputy (SEAL) This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE., STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors ANTELOPE VALLEY AREA SECTION 9, T.6.S.; R.3.W., S.B.B.&M. ..-.iri al lv f'M tl�03 P.M 0169 Pad 26170 VIVL ;6180 I PM 06/61 l i I I I I II _J l I_.�.-i___;cwua-xverrtF---------1 — I I = -— — — — — — — — — — — — — -------- — I ! PARCEL H �I" PARCL I f II PARCEL WF ko. V934 � m I I m Ior A PCL1 R-1 I a PCL Z I� PARCEu A ! ---- ll� I a I II PCL a: I �` R_g ! PARCEL G KL 4. I I R-5 I 56 4 -6 pCL, s I I n. PARCEL F _ t ` PALOMA VALL& 1 }jGH sCHacL R—+ C) PCL. 0 K--1 PARCEL MAP 0143 'h PARCEL C PARCEL 8 I j PCL 6 PCL 4 I '� I l i PARCEL A I sw PARCEL K a PARCEL E I I R—s._ -_ -_- � Ij\-LpT A PCL 7 i R—S I �� l' I PMB aa/28 2i I �II I PCL 8 Phi 6fll1-v PAiA 64 2?J-23 i.� PIA 601.E :-------_------------_---------- - _DAWN R—.,9QS�--- — — — — — — — -----� �Q �------ I PM 38/93 .. I . I I I I 1 I LEGEND R-1. ONE - FAMILY DWELLINGS R-4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL T aao' R-5 OPEN AREA COMBINING. aw too' a 6007 sw ZONE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SCALE 1"=300' MAP NO, 2.2103 CHANGE OF OFFICIAL ZONING PLAN AMENDING MAP N0. 2, ORDINANCE NO, 348 CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 66:70 ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 348.4241 O:CTOBER 2.6, 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS h N Sheet t of 3 ANTELQPE :VALLEY AREA SE&ION 9, 7;6.§., R.3.W., S;8,6" &M• P.Q.B. P.CLt H CRAIG IIJ I SIR-5 .1 ,a�'1 -� as i•uia x�raw•t iaca-''- PARCEL H I' r I a I PARC51 J\/!AP N0. ! ^1-183 4 I ; � h F'CL, -1 R-1 i PGi , 2 l PARCEL A I II I i I---- 1 4t _ III -------_____ V--------------:--- -- R I a$ Mt + jil 4... T.P.O.B. P.CL G 4� �$ R $a h t r t S y 'Mini /Y Y I I iJ�L, . �7 54..f ..l.,�mx' lJl eusr�.ti ,Ati`I \\ •a•»xlru'osy n.rr I I I; IYnY tniY l-5 , ` N nil PARCEL G ;JCL. 4� m I I I,.Int ," g o-n 117r utY.r Mniny raa t F�.,74%, . nnir )"retPy Ip I ! 1, 11 T• 1i1L1 R i:+•MU•sAlt S:t( \ H e.t°Si'wu+ �,•,■ "wy ! ti f g �' 1 µr�nCE }..•' N I . w N01# R 4Yl 11w d� 5� J 1W N° " xeirsa+�p =N s•q �� lu�i '^.� �k r_3 yy 11 'J. _ �; I I , rm�7 ti ,.4 e.sYidt -•;• U014 •. A —. 1^ '•'I- —.3-- _ _`. _ _ tea—. _ — I5 . ; TP-0B PCL F PARCEL A PARCEL F� PARCEL C _ _ r Y I4% I I•" ume�i.,a/i' PCL. 6•�• �gm[vrut IMI'611Y 11Nr j j... —I I I u '�...�; b!{7171• �.. Ym'PYIf'ON[Ol-17M' r E, °..� I �y� 71' ,lint RI�►PARCEL E J I I P.O.S. PCLS A k D PCL. 7 xais,�rYluaie ^ P.O.B. PCLS: C$ E - PcL. a ± �.I ( P:O.C. PCL f LEGEND R-1 ONE - FAMILY DWELLINGS T R--4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL IR-5 OPEN AREA COMBINING isa ts' o tsa' zoo' +so ZONE — RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SCALE V'-150' MAP NO. 2.2103 CHANGE OF OFFICIAL ZONING PLAN AMENDING MAP NO. 2, ORDINANCE NO. 348 CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 6670 ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 348.4.241 OCTOBER 26. 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Usr Sheet 2 o1 3 ANTELOPE VALLEY AREA PARC:�sECTfo.N 9., T.6.S., R.3,W., S.B.B.&M. i:xiu•: v"MAIX. ;JCL 2 R--1 PARCEL A i 1 PARCEL, � a f vri• G T:P.O.n. PCL G a- R— 5, X wer],9 Slag f ----— — — — — — - -SEE OETNL f�4TcE0N I I T P:O.B: PEL. J 1 P.O.B. PCL. 13 5 _ P.O.C. PCL J w ,!jiii eiap' ,w•mra ,S!rr PCL. 4 .,wCW!i 4 lax Mv 1 NIXf '..� iiL•�Oia71f FIARCi-L 1�flr-\P NO, j �'.R-5. !<�;�M --�--------- � IMV PARCEL C 1VlAP INti. 0-J41^ R-4 (Fumr. E. �gN LU PCL. 0 I R-1 3 -•P.O.C..PCL G. PAS. J f: M!!S 4& M.T — yXs'' .: 1 i >- I a a PCL 0 I t. I DETAIL N.T.S. co CF EVANS RD/�O) fr=W:•�F,$�j ( �^ iSolil ' .! I 1 ; < T � ,n , PARCEL x b I I_$ P:; I� 3'ti neu,•i.A,n I N - rie7,�e•w._i {q. j � c�seti P �iIJ�. �f / ;Y ; ; } �28 1 PCL y3q 2 4'% Q�,,.�t ; j � ;. k r eai rras x.,aa U u.n $ 5 a t� � ' Sr�14. -�— R-5 —• aei•S,'a9 Letl, i:; u,. I •j-�X 1i d- f• al "..,..naxYrw mu 1 �tCa�a.f � PCL. E9 r,y:.�:,. z.. L e;. E PJ\./1Fl 0r`�/7C)-�j 8 >z Y $' `i •;;' 'r f'.A I . P:O.B. PCL K G�R80N! — LEGEND R=9 ONE — FAMILY DWELLINGS R=4 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL R�5 OPEN AREA COMBINING ,sq. 7y. Q , 3q. ,so ZONE — RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SCALE l"atso' MAP NO. 2.2103 CHANGE OF OFFICIAL ZONING PLAN AMENDING MAP NO. 2, ORDINANCE NO. 348 CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 6670 ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 348,,4141 h. OCTOBER 26, 2004 AXESSCR'S_ PARcm No. 3a0-e60=003..004. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD. OF SUPERVISORS 005. Cos. dog, o,o. 0i1, a- Sao-200-oi3' Sheel 3 of 3 01\Mentfbe\70i42\Exhblta\2ontChonga SH703,dwa