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