HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/11/2008 CC Reports
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DARYL HICKMAN, MAYOR
GENIE KELLEY, MAYOR PRO TEM
THOMAS BUCKLEY, COUNCILMAN
ROBERT E. "BOB" MAGEE, COUNCILMAN
ROBERT SCHIFFNER, COUNCILMAN
ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER
WWW.LAKE.ELSINORE.ORG
(951) 674-3124 PHONE
(951) 674-2392 FAX
LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
*************************************************************************************
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2008
STUDY SESSION AT 4:00 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION AT 5:00P.M.
PUBLIC SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.
The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizens' interest provides the
Council and Agency with valuable information regarding issues of the community.
Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. In addition, meetings are
televised live on Time Warner Cable Station Channel 29 and Verizon Subscribers can
view the meetings on Channel 31.
If you are attending this City Council Meeting, please park in the parking lot across the
street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on
the Downtown Business District. Thank you for your cooperation.
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is
available at each meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at the
City Clerk's Office on the Friday prior to the Council meeting and are available on the
City's web site at www.lake-elsinore.orQ. Any writings distributed within 72 hours of the
meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed to the City
Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should
contact the City Clerk's Office at (951) 674-3124, ext. 269, at least 48 hours before the
meeting to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
CALL TO ORDER -- 5:00 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION
(1a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code
~54956.8)
Properties: APNs 375042027-4; 375042028-5; 375031023-6; 378157040-1;
363281024-3; 373082021-8; 363540003-4; 378182017-9; 378182018-0;
378182035-5;378055055-0;378100008-7; 378100009-8;378100017-5;
375201020-8; 375201019-8; 375274009-5; 375274010-5; 375321029-8;
375321030-8; 375321031-9; 375321032-0; 375321033-1; 375223037-2;
375223036-1; 375293029-2; 375293030-2; 375321006-7; 375321054-0;
375321053-9; 374043014-8; 374072026-9; 373132059-7; 373132058-6;
373132053-1; 373132052-0; 373134026-3; 373134025-2; 373134024-1;
374262011-2; 374262004-6
City/RDA negotiator: City Manager / Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: Redevelopment Agency, City of Lake Elsinore, and the
County of Riverside, et al.
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
1(b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code 954956.8)
Property: APN 374-072-028, 374-072-030, 374-072-032, 374-072-034, 374-072-
036
Agency Negotiator: City Manager/Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency and City of Lake
Elsinore
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
CALL BACK TO ORDER 17:00 P.M.)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION - MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PRESENTATIONS/CEREMONIALS
(2) Chamber Update by Kim Cousins
(3) Mayor Hickman will present a Proclamation to the Veterans of Foreign War in
Honor of Veteran's Day
(4) Certificate of Recognition to Elsinore Valley Arts Network
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 1 MINUTE
(Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium, prior to the start of the City
Council Meeting.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES
(Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the podium, prior to the start of the City
Council Meeting. The Mayor will call on you to speak, when your item is called.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
(All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved on one motion, unless a
Councilmember or any member of the public requests separate action on a specific
item.)
(5) Minutes of the Followina Meetina(s)
a) Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - October 14,
2008.
b) Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session- October 28,
2008
c) Regular Meeting - October 28, 2008
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.
(6) Warrant List Dated October 30, 2008
Recommendation: Authorize payment of Warrant List dated October 30, 2008.
(7) Claim aaainst the Citv
Recommendation: Reject the claim of Regina Thiele and direct the City Clerk's
Office to send a letter informing the claimant of the decision
(8) Laroe format Canon Printer with Scanner Svstem Purchase
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve the purchase of the
Canon imagePROGRAF 720 with Colortrac Scanner System from Innovative
Document Solutions, Inc.
(9) Rosetta Canvon Fire Station and Park Consultant Contract - Chanae Order No.
~
Recommendation:
1. Approve the project Change Order NO.2.
2. Authorize the City Manger to execute the contract change order.
(10) Citv Council. Plannina Commission and Citv Treasurer Pav Waiver
Implementation
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file this report explaining the
implementation of the pay reduction.
(11) Adoption of resolution approvina an amendment to the Riverside Countv
Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail
Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance (Ordinance No. 8-1) (Measure A)
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving an amendment to
the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure
Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance.
(12) Feasibility of Havina the Hawaii Mars Air Tanker Located on Lake Elsinore durina
the Fire Season
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to discuss with various fire
fighting agencies and authorities at the local, county and state levels to
determine the feasibility of locating the Coulson Hawaii Mars Air Tanker on Lake
Elsinore during the fire season.
PUBLIC HEARINGIS)
(13) Mitiaated Neaative Declaration No. 2008-04. General Plan Amendment No.
2008-03 and Commercial Desian Review No. 2008-07 for the "Auto Sales and
Service Center" Proiect Located on Lakeshore Drive West of the San Jacinto
River Channel
Recommendations:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ adopting Findings of Consistency with the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
2008-04 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program appertaining
thereto.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving General Plan Amendment No.
2008-03.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving Commercial Design Review No.
2008-07.
(14) Residential Desian Review No. 2005-28. Amendment No. 1 for "Parkside
Terrace" Located within the Canvon Hills Soecific Plan Area
Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt Resolution No. 2008- approving Amendment No. 1 to Residential
Design Review No. 2005-28.
APPEALIS)
There are none.
BUSINESS ITEMIS)
(15) Summarv Vacation and Related Resolution over a Portion of Street Riaht-of-Wav
Known as Wasson Canvon Road
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving the Summary
Vacation of a portion of Wasson Canyon Road.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES
(Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the Podium, prior to the Start of the City
Council Meeting)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CITY TREASURER COMMENTS
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The Lake Elsinore City Council will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Tuesday,
November 25, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. to be held in the Cultural Center located at 183 N.
Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, CAROL COWLEY, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm
that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall, 72 hours in advance of this
meeting.
/lss/l
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
DARYL HICKMAN, MAYOR
GENIE KELLEY, MAYOR PRO TEM
THOMAS BUCKLEY, COUNCILMEMBER
ROBERT E. "BOB" MAGEE, COUNCILMEMBER
ROBERT SCHIFFNER, COUNCILMEMBER
ROBERT A. BRADY, CITY MANAGER
WWW.LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG
(951) 674-3124 PHONE
(951) 674-2392 FAX
LAKE ELSINORE CULTURAL CENTER
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
******************************************************************************
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2008 - 5:00 P.M.
The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Citizen's interest
provides the Council and Agency with valuable information regarding
issues of the community.
If you are attending this Special City Council Meeting, please park in the
Parking Lot across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us
in limiting the impact of meetings on the Downtown Business District.
Thank you for your cooperation.
In compliance with the Americans with [)isabilities Act, any person with a
disability who requires a modification. or accommodation in order to
participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk's Office at (951)
674-3124, ext. 262. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will generally
enable City staff to make reasonable arra~gements to ensure accessibility.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS - 3 MINUTES
(Please read & complete a Speaker's Form at the Podium, prior to the start of
the City Council Meeting. The Mayor will call on you to speak.)
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Gov't Code
Section 54956.9: (1 potential case)
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF ~
LAKE 5LSif'iORJ:
~ DREAM EXTREME
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: CLOSED SESSION REPORT(S)
Discussion
(1a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code
954956.8)
Property: APNs 375042027-4; 375042028-5; 375031023-6; 378157040-1;
363281024-3; 373082021-8; 363540003-4; 378182017-9; 378182018-0;
378182035-5; 378055055-0; 378100008-7; 378100009-8; 378100017-5;
375201020-8; 375201019-8; 375274009-5; 375274010-5; 375321029-8;
375321030-8; 375321031-9; 375321032-0; 375321033-1; 375223037-2;
375223036-1; 375293029-2; 375293030-2; 375321006-7; 375321054-0;
375321053-9; 374043014-8; 374072026-9; 373132059-7; 373132058-6;
373132053-1; 373132052-0; 373134026-3; 373134025-2; 373134024-1;
374262011-2; 374262004-6
City/RDA negotiator: City Manager/Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: Redevelopment Agency, City of lake Elsinore, and
the County of Riverside, et al.
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
(1b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code
954956.8)
Property: APN 374-072-028, 374-072-030, 374-072-032, 374-072-034,
374-072-036
City/RDA Negotiator: City Manager/Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency and City of
lake Elsinore
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Recommendation
Agenda Item No. 1
Page 1 of 2
Recess prior to adjournment of tonight's meeting in order to conduct an executive
(closed) session.
Prepared by:
Jessica Guzman~
Office Specialist
Approved by:
Robert A. Brady
Executive Director
Agenda Item No. 1
Page 2 of2
CITY OF .~
LAKE 6LSiI'iORf:
~ DREAM E)ITREME
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UPDATE
Discussion
A representative from the Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce will be providing
an update on Chamber activities.
Recommendation
Receive and file.
Prepared by:
Jessica Guzman ()[) n
Office Specialist ~
Approved by:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
Agenda Item NO.2
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF .~
LAK..E 6LSiNO~
~ DREAM EtrREME
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION
Discussion
Mayor Hickman will present a Proclamation to the Veterans of Foreign War in
honor of Veteran's Day.
Recommendation
Receive and file.
Prepared by:
Jessica Guzma~
Office Specialist '
Approved by:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
Agenda Item No.3
Page 1 of 1
~\
CITY OF ~
LAKE 6LSINORJ:
~ DREAM EXTREME
..
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION
Discussion
Mayor Hickman will present a Certificate of Recognition to Elsinore Valley Arts
Network.
Recommendation
Receive and file.
Prepared by:
Jessica Guzman ~
Office Specialist
Approved by:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
Agenda Item NO.4
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF ~
LAK-E ,6,LSiNORf:
~.~ DREAM E,XTREME
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 200~
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Discussion
The following City Council Minutes are submitted for approval as follows:
a) Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting -- October 14, 2008
b) Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting -- October 28,2008
c) Regular City Council meeting - October 28. 2008
Recommendation
Approve the Minutes as submitted.
Prepared by:
Carol Cowley ~ I
Interim City Cle~
Approved by:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
Agenda Item No.5
Page 1 of 36
MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STUDY SESSION
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
*************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER -- 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Hickman called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: MAYOR/MEMBER HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM/MEMBER KELLEY
COUNCILMAN/MEMBER MAGEE
COUNCILMANNlCE-CHAIRMAN SCHIFFNER
ABSENT: COUNCILMAN/CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY
Also present were City Manager Brady, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services
Director Pressey, Parks and Recreation Director Gonzales, City Treasurer Weber,
Captain Cleary, Director of Lake and Aquatics Kilroy, Public Works Director/City
Engineer Seumalo, Information/Communications Manager Mark Dennis, Acting Director
of Community Development Weiner and Office Specialist Herrington
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(7) Minutes of the Followina Meetina(s)
a) Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - September 23,
2008.
b) Regular Meeting - September 23,2008.
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 2 of 36
(8) Warrant List Dated September 30. 2008
Recommendation: Authorize payment of Warrant List dated September 30,
2008.
(9) Claims Against the City
Recommendation: Reject the claims listed and direct the City Clerk's Office to
send a letter informing the claimants of the decision.
Councilman Magee questioned whether the insurance company had spoken to the
Police Chief regarding this claim noting that on page 8, the description of the incident
was quite graphic. Attorney Leibold stated she did not know and confirmed she would
try to get an answer before the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
(10) Second Amendment to Janitorial Services Contract
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Second Amendment
to Service Contract for janitorial services for City parks and facilities with A & A
Janitorial.
(11 ) Second Amendment to Parks Landscape Maintenance Contract
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to sign the Second Amendment
Parks Landscape Contract with CTAI Pacific Greenscape to provide park
landscape maintenance service to the City of Lake Elsinore.
(12) Refund Lake Manaaement Fund Deposit for FY 2008/09
Recommendation: Approve the refund of the $650,000 Lake Maintenance Fund
deposit for FY 2008-09.
City Manager Brady responded to Mayor Hickman's question indicating that the Water
District's Board would have to approve this request as well.
(13) Approval of License Aareement for Use of Old Librarv Buildina with California
Familv Life Center
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 3 of 36
Recommendation: Approve the License agreement for the Old Library Building
with California Family Life Center and authorize the City Manager to sign the
agreement.
Councilman Magee asked why this contract was just coming to Council in October if it
commenced on July 1, 2008.
Parks and Recreation Director Gonzales explained that the contract actually expired last
year and was just a matter of playing catch up. Staff contacted the County and the
individual organization that actually administers the program. The agreement would be
retroactive to July 1st.
(14) Approval of South Coast Air Qualitv Manaaement District Lease Renewal
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract renewal
with South Coast Air Quality Management District extending their lease
agreement another five years.
(15) Interchanae Improvements at Interstate 1-15 and Central Avenue (SR-74) -
Consultant Selection for Survevina and Soils Testina
Recommendation: Approve the selection of KDM Meridan for survey work and
the firm of City and County Soil Testing for soil testing for Interchange
Improvements at Interstate 1-15 and Central Avenue (SR-74) and allow staff to
process the agreement.
Councilman Magee asked Public Works Director/City Engineer Seumalo when this
project would begin since the funds for the project were authorized six weeks ago.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Seumalo advised the contractor will begin putting
out K-rail this evening for traffic control and will continue to do so for the coming weeks.
Director Seumalo did not have a specific date as to when the contractor would actually
begin moving dirt suggesting possibly in 10 days. Mr. Seumalo confirmed for Mayor
Hickman that a new lane was being constructed on the south side only.
(16) Purchase Authorization to Replace Enterprise E-Mail Server
Recommendation: It is determined to be in the best interest of the City to waive
the bidding process and authorize the City Manager to sign and issue a purchase
order to Hewlett Packard, Inc. and Zones, Inc. for the replacement of the City's
Enterprise E-mail System.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 4 of 36
(17) Minor Desion Review for K Hovanian Homes
Recommendations:
a) Receive and file the resolution and conditions of approval.
b) Instruct the City Clerk to record the vote on the resolution as 3-2 in
accordance with the vote taken on September 23rd.
c) Authorize the Mayor to execute the resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelley advised that she would be pulling this item so she could vote as
she had previously voted.
The City Attorney clarified that the recommendation is to reflect the vote as it occurred
at the last meeting, which was three to two. Therefore, as long as Mayor Pro Tem
Kelley concurred with the vote taken at the last meeting the item did not need to be
pulled. The Resolution will reflect that Mayor Pro Tem Kelley voted against the
recommendation.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
(18) General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report
Recommendation: Consider the staff/Planning Commission recommendation and
direct staff/Planning Commission accordingly.
Mayor Hickman asked Acting Community Development Director Weiner what staffs
recommendation is.
Director Weiner advised that staff is presenting three options for Council to consider.
Option one is the recommendation favored by staff, however staff will wait to receive
direction from Council later in the evening. Option one is to make all of the changes
that have been made so far, allowing staff to make those changes and bring it back to
the Planning Commission for final review. That would require the environmental impact
report to be re-circulated and staff adjusting the maps and completing the project.
Mayor Hickman advised there were numerous problems with the maps. Director
Weiner responded stating that is the direction staff needed to receive so the maps could
be changed accordingly and sent back to Council.
Joe Huband addressed Council regarding the General Plan as it relates to the Country
Club Heights area. He referred to a paper entitled "The Bridge to Nowhere" that he E-
mailed to each of the Council Members that specifically identified the General Plan's
current plan for Country Club Heights. He stated that It was actually a change in
direction from the direction the City has been taking for some time. He stated for over
21 years the City has planned to develop and bring in additional infrastructure into the
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 5 of 36
Country Club Heights area. In 1987 the City actually included the Country Club Heights
area in a redevelopment area project resulting in the City receiving an additional tax
increment for the stated premise of providing additional infrastructure and improving this
particular area of Country Club Heights. He discussed the affects rezoning will have on
development and the inability to construct the infrastructure required to support
development in this area. He also discussed the establishment of the Country Club
Heights Committee who met for several months and presented their recommendations
to the City Council to zone Country Club Heights Hillside Residential which is 12,000
square feet and to hire a consultant to determine how to get the infrastructure. He
presented each Council Member with a packet that included the City Council's earlier
intent and goals and articles dating from 2004.
BUSINESS ITEM(SI
(19) Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.13 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Regarding
Aggressive Donation Solicitations
Recommendation: Waive further reading and introduce an ordinance adding
Chapter 8.13 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Aggressive
Solicitation of Donations.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelley asked about the enforceability of this particular ordinance,
explaining her concerns as to whether staff was talking about people in front of markets
or people on the streets; and whether there have been complaints about people being
accosted. She asked staff for background information.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner advised Council that this action arose
from two complaints; one from a citizen complaining about solicitation in the right of way
particularly on freeway off ramps which was evident on a frequent basis for a short
period near the 74 and Railroad Canyon South. He mentioned a second complaint
generated by the owner or manager of the Albertson's supermarket in the four corners
area, which was made directly to the chair of the PSAC. He advised the ordinance
clearly avoids violating free speech issues but enacts a zoned prohibition solicitation
within proximity to seven designated locations under three specific conditions, such as
at night with a moving vehicle involved, at a public transportation facility or on board a
public transportation vehicle such as a bus or shuttle. The seven locations include
places where people may feel vulnerable if solicited, such as during the act of an ATM
transaction or during the act of loading or unloading their vehicles in a public
commercial parking lot such as a supermarket. The conditions are carefully structured
not to impede the other groups that often depend on access to these locations, such as
girl scouts, Salvation Army or others that have regular fundraising activities that depend
on solicitation for donations. The ordinance then makes a careful distinction about
locations and conditions rather than differentiating between types of people or types of
organizations; therefore, it is non-discriminatory; It also has a coercion clause, which
might be the most enforceable action. He explained that the ordinance is primarily self-
enforcing.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 6 of 36
Mayor Pro Tem Kelley expressed concern regarding the reaction as a result of two
complaints. She added that she did not want to put any more pressure on law
enforcement to stop what they are doing to enforce panhandling. She felt the police
were already stretched. She indicated that aggressive panhandling is pretty objective.
Staff explained that under this ordinance if they are making any gestures or doing
anything to get the attention of the driver of a moving vehicle that is pre-emptive.
Councilman Magee stated that he was contacted by someone who wanted to go into
Jack in the Box to get coffee and read a newspaper, and he was stopped at the front
door. He refused to provide the individual with any funds and was attacked for it. The
police was called and the assailant was apprehended and taken away. In his opinion,
shop owners should have a tool to allow their customers to have safe and easy access
in and out of their establishments without fear that their customers will be chased away.
He realized it was adding one more responsibility to the police department but it is a
safety issue.
He also asked if the recommendation from the PSAC was unanimous or whether there
were dissenters. Staff advised he would have to defer to the record but he would get
that information.
Councilman Schiffner expressed his approval with the ordinance citing that it gave law
enforcement another tool to use and the police will have to the discretion on how to
enforce it.
Mayor Hickman asked if a sign posted outside a business that stated the business does
not condone anyone who is soliciting outside would give those businesses the strength
to move on. Staff explained the test is a distance test and certain venues are clearly
restricted by the seven access points which allow those policies to have a greater
degree of enforcement than they currently have.
Staff confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Kelley that the Police Department has reviewed the
ordinance.
(20) Introduction of an Ordinance Adootina Tree Preservation Guidelines
Recommendation: Waive further reading and introduce an ordinance, adding
Chapter 8.50 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Tree Preservation.
Ray Gonzalez explained to Council that the ordinance creates an advisory committee
and will coincide with the tree guidelines set in the Community Development
Department. It will be a team approach between Public Works and Parks and
Recreation.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 7 of 36
In response to a question from Councilman Magee as to the funding source, Director
Gonzales explained that the funds come from various sources, including the Lighting
and Landscape District and the budget already included the funds.
City Manager Brady explained that the funds were included in the budget and were
already being spent. He explained further in order to get the Tree City USA designation
the City has to spend $2 per capita, which is what the City is already doing and no
further funding is required.
Thereafter followed a discussion between Council and staff regarding the funding
sources, the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District being in a deficit as a result
of Proposition 218 and what staff was doing to reduce the additional costs each year by
monitoring the water used and the maintenance of the district.
Director Gonzales confirmed that the ordinance would only cover those trees the City is
maintaining and paying for.
(21) Appeal of TUMF Buildina Desianation of Service Commercial
Recommendation: Deny the appeal to change the project TUMF building
designation from Service Commercial to Class B Office.
Kipp Dubbs addressed Council and expressed his gratitude to the City of Lake Elsinore
and special thanks to the Planning, Building and Public Works/Engineering
Departments. He advised they have provided a project that they believe is a Class
A1Class B project in the City and they are questioning the TUMF fee designation. He
felt their project met a Class B in all areas except for one. Technically one building
does not equate to 20,000 square feet per floor, which is a requirement for Class B
designation. He indicated the square feet per floor are approximately 16,000 per
building. Because of the opposition the Holiday Inn Express received from the
community they were very sensitive to how the appearance of the structure would be.
They worked with planning to break it up and give it a campus feel with a court yard in
the middle. They also spent a significant amount of money on pop-ups. He explained
the TUMF fee was enacted to provide incentives to developers to develop Class A type
projects in the Inland Empire and they feel they have a Class A project. He advised the
qualifications they met adding that even the CC&R's do not differentiate between the
two buildings. They were challenging the WRCOG criteria because they feel it is
flawed. He clarified that he was not asking the City to take on the liability by approving
their appeal but they were asking the City to support them in their challenge to the
TUMF Board.
Gary Washburn addressed Council indicating that he concurs with Mr. Dubbs regarding
the quality of the building meeting the definition by WRCOG standards. He read the
definition of Class B qualifications indicating that it was typically characterized by high
quality design, minimum two stories, central lobby interior, access to suites inside the
building use of high-end materials either steel or concrete, state of the art technology for
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 8 of 36
voice and data, built in data systems, and is service related such as a restaurant. He
felt they met all of those requirements to be classified as Class B except for the 20,000
square feet per floor. He indicated what Mr. Dubbs is saying is that they have met the
spirit of the law and land uses to meet the TUMF traffic analysis. He requested that if
the Council moved to reject the appeal that language be added indicating they met the
spirit of the law even though the square footage was a little less than what is required.
They hoped this would give the, a little latitude when they formally addressed the
WRCOG Board for a reduction in the fee.
When asked why staff made the decision to charge the higher TUMF fee, Director
Seumalo advised that the TUMF guidelines clearly state the requirements and as Mr.
Washburn and Mr. Dubbs pointed out that one.of the requirements is to have 20,000
square feet per floor. In his judgment the building did not meet those requirements. He
did not feel he had the latitude to make interpretations when the language clearly states
20,000 square feet per floor. Because of that, in his opinion, they fall short of the
minimum requirements. Staff understands that the City would have to pay the
difference of $230,000.00 if Council approved the appeal and WRCOG found the
project was not qualified. Director Seumalo acknowledged that he had placed a call to
WRCOG staff regarding that question and has not yet received an answer.
Councilman Magee indicated the City was walking a fine line between encouraging
business and being in compliance with an overall County plan and also gaining
transportation funds for the City's own issues. While he understands the argument
being presented, he felt the City had no choice but to allow the developer to appeal to
WRCOG Board. He felt staffs interpretation is clear and the record can reflect that the
City Council wants this type of investment. Further discussion continued regarding the
number of leases that have been signed and when escrows would be closing.
Mr. Seumalo advised in response to a question posed by Councilman Schiffner that
there was an appeal process for WRCOG, and explained the appeal process to Council.
Councilman Schiffner stated he shared Councilman Magee's interest in the City
receiving its share of the transportation and concurred with staffs recommendation.
Councilman Magee expressed his opinion that the City Council deny the appeal and
encourage the applicant to file an appeal with a request for relief of this requirement
because Council believes the applicant has met the intent of WRCOG's desire to
encourage this type of investment in the County. He explained while he did not want to
see the building remain vacant he would not put the taxpayers on the hook for
$230,000.
Director Seumalo advised that the WRCOG representative was aware of this project
and of the appeal and if it's the desire of the council for city staff to work with WRCOG
staff to present this project in the most favorable light, then staff would do so.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 9 of 36
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMISl
(2) Accroval of Redevelocment Aaencv Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the following minutes:
a) Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Study Session - September 23,
2008.
b) Regular Meeting - September 23, 2008.
(3) Warrant List Dated Sectember 30. 2008
Recommendation: Authorize payment of Warrant List dated September 30,2008.
(4) Downtown Master Plan Consultant Selection
Recommendation: The City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a
contract with Cooper Carry, Inc. to prepare the City of Lake Elsinore Downtown
Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $207,280.
Executive Director Brady advised Vice Chairman Schiffner and the Board that the
Downtown Master Plan Consultant was here and he had a brief presentation to give.
Rich Fiehrl of Cooper Carry advised Council that their presentation consists of photographs
of some of the projects they have done and introduced Sarah Wilkinson, who will be the
project manager for the project and provided a brief history of the company and its
philosophy. He indicated they think there is a great opportunity to begin to be an example
to Southern California on how to take economic opportunities like there are today and
regenerate so that cities ultimately come out of this with sustainable communities that have
downtowns as their hearts. They opened an office in Southern California three years ago
and are working for cities like Sonoma, City of Los Angeles in the port area, the City of
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency at the Anaheim Canyon Transit Center, working in
Oxnard for a developer to redevelop a part of the Channel Islands Harbor. They found the
project in Lake Elsinore to be a wonderful opportunity to collaborate and help the City of
Lake Elsinore see the potential as it comes forward out of this economic downturn. They
are thrilled with the support from the staff.
Member Magee expressed concern with the reimbursable expenses being charged at 1.5
times the actual costs for long distance telephone calls and faxes. He also did not feel it
was appropriate for the City to pay for overtime. and meals. He requested that those
expenses be absorbed by Cooper Carry. He indicated he would like staff to take out the
entire back half of the reimbursable expense category which is located on page 94. He also
noted that the Schedule provides a start date within 60 days; however, he did not see a
completion date. He felt it had to be done within 12 months.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 10 of 36
Mr. Fiehrl confirmed they would work with staff to lower the reimbursable expenses and
they could complete the project in 12 months.
Executive Director Brady responded to a question posed by Member Hickman why the
Downtown Plan was not being done in phases indicating this was brought back to the
Redevelopment Agency Board out of the community center process and the board directed
staff to move forward with a comprehensive downtown revitalization plan that would include
the possible location of the Civic Center. It was realized that it was not just the Civic Center
but the revitalization of the entire area from the freeway down to the Lake. This was
essentially a result of the process of going through the Civic Center design review process.
Member Hickman asked if any consideration had been given to The Shopoff Group who
had already done a study of the downtown area. Executive Director Brady said that study
was reviewed and it can be included as part of this process, however staff was following the
direction of the Board. Member Hickman expressed his concern that the public should have
input into what they think downtown should look like. Staff confirmed that there would be a
public outreach element to the study.
Vice Chairman Schiffner expressed his hope the consultant will not be restricted by the
General Plan that was proposed for approval. He would be happy if this would be a specific
plan within the General Plan.
Thereafter followed a slide presentation of the proposed downtown area by Cooper Carry
carrying several of the plans they have created throughout the United States and the
functionality of their projects.
Chairman Buckley arrived at approximately 5:20 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING/51
None.
BUSINESS ITEM/51
None.
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 11 of 36
PUBLIC COMMENTS -NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - 3 MINUTES
No comments.
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY, INTERIM CITY CLERK
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DARYL HICKMAN, MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
THOMAS BUCKLERY, CHAIRMAN
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 12 of 36
MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENY
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008
****************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 P.M.
The joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board was called to
order by Mayor Hickman at 4:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: MAYOR/MEMBER HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM/MEMBER KELLEY
COUNCILMAN/CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN/MEMBER MAGEE
COUNCILMANNlCE CHAIRMAN SCHIFFNER
ABSENT: NONE
Also present were City Manager Brady, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services
Director Pressey, City Treasurer Weber, Captain Cleary, Public Works Director/City
Engineer Seumalo, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Director of Parks
and Recreation Gonzales, Director of Lake and Aquatics Kilroy, Acting Director of
Community Development Weiner and Interim City Clerk Cowley
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mayor Hickman indicated a certificate would be presented to Bruce McMeans of Broken
Arts at the later meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
COUNCIL APPROVES CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 8 THROUGH 16
(3) Minutes of the Followina Meetina(s)
(a) Regular Meeting - October 14, 2008
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.
1
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 13 of 36
j
(4) Warrant List Dated October 15. 2008
Recommendation: Authorize payment of Warrant List dated October 15, 2008.
Staff was asked about check No. 94771 and responded that it was the refund and
closing costs in the CRS account. Staff also advised the check to Home Depot was
reimbursement for State Route 74 Construction.
(5) Investment Report - September 2008
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Director of Administrative Services Pressey advised the City had $7 million in total
investments over 5% and $24 million in LAIF.
(6) Risk Assessment and Response Plan for Invasive Mussel(s)
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Mayor Hickman asked for confirmation that he read that back east they are trying a new
system with the mussels that is very successful.
Director of Lake and Aquatic Resources Pat Kilroy confirmed that testing is being done
on soil bacteria that are toxic to the mussels but a pretty high dose would have to be
administered to be lethal. He noted that whenever anything is put into the water supply
it has to be extremely well tested, so a solution could be several years away.
(7) Award Contract for Roof Replacement for Planet Youth Buildina
Recommendation: Authorize the city Manager to process a purchase order in
the amount of $20,621 to Dan's Roofing for the removal of the existing and the
installation of a new roof at the Planet Youth Building.
City Manager Brady advised the Mayor that staff wished to pull this item from the
agenda and not take any action on it. Staff will bring it back at a later date.
(8) Safe Candv Niaht
Recommendation: Approve closure of Main Street from Library to Peck for the
Safe Candy Night.
Mayor Hickman stated that he comes downtown for this event and it is great to see the
children running around.
(9) Reauest for Street closure and fee Waiver for the Unity in the Community Parade
2
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 14 of 36
. i
Recommendation: Aprrove the fee waiver and closure of streets along the
parade route for the 1 i Annual Unity in the Community Parade.
(10) Approval to use Sians of Support funds
Recommendation: Approval to use funds from the Signs of Support donation
account to assist in the Skate Park program.
Mayor Hickman noted the success of this program.
(11) Cultural Center Dioital Audio Uporade
Recommendation: It is determined to be in the best interest of the City to waive
the informal-bidding process and authorize the city Manager to sign and issue a
purchase order to On-Trax, Inc., to acquire, install, and configure the Digital
Sound Board device.
PUBLIC HEARING/5)
(12) Mitioated Neoative Declaration No. 2008-07. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26066.
and Commercial Desion Review No. 2008-01 for the "Greenwald Commercial
Center"
Recommendations:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-87 adopting Findings of Consistency with the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-88 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
2008-07 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program appertaining
thereto.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-89 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 36066.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-90 approving Commercial Design Review No.
2008-01.
Councilman Magee asked the City Attorney to address the document that was delivered
to Council in the afternoon from an attorney who indicates his client is the Canyon Lake
Property Owners Association (POA) since he has not had time to read or review the
letter.
City Attorney Leibold stated that she did review the letter and essentially the letter
claims the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in connection with the project is
insufficient under CEQA and alleges that a full environmental impact report is required.
She added staff disagrees and believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is
sufficient and satisfies all of the CEQA requirements. She advised the issue raised by
the POA is primarily a traffic safety issue and a traffic study was prepared as part of the
environmental review. Her recollection is that the traffic study does not demonstrate
that a signal is warranted where the Canyon Lake POA would like to have a signal. The
3
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 15 of 36
traffic impacts are mitigated below significant thresholds which is the finding under
CEQA that is required. While the input is appreciated staff does not believe they have
stated sufficient evidence why this project would require an EIR. The city attorney also
pointed out that the letter claims that the project is inconsistent with the county's trail
system; and a letter was left on the dais this afternoon stating the project relied on the
approved County trail system map while the letter from the Canyon Lake POA is
referencing a draft County trail system map. She also mentioned there is an issue with
respect to golf carts on city streets. Lake Elsinore's Municipal Code does not allow golf
carts on city streets so to the extent that the POA would like to see golf carts they will
have to appeal to the City Council to amend the Municipal Code.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner responded to Mayor Hickman's
question regarding the trails on the north gate of Canyon Lake explaining that staff
reviewed the trails; the GIS department generated a map that showed the approved
County plan that had been submitted to staff. Staff used the approved County plan in
conjunction with the trail system for this project. The trails incorporated into this project
are in accordance with the approved County trails map. Director Weiner explained that
the Homeowners Association is worried about the horses getting hit at the exit gate of
Canyon Lake. Director Weiner confirmed that staff was trying to encourage the Canyon
Lake residents to create the connection within their jurisdiction.
Director Weiner confirmed for Councilman Magee that the POA wanted the trail further
away from their gate and have some other type of connection rather than providing the
connection from Canyon Lake city limits.
APPEALIS)
(13)
Consideration of an Appeal of the Plannina Commission's Decision Relative to
Public Convenience and Necessitv Findinas for off-Premise Alcohol Sales from a
Proposed Convenience Store Located within the Viscava Villaae Shoppina
Center Located at 16665 Lakeshore Drive. Suite 'A' (APN: 379-470-083)
Recommendations:
1. Consider the appeal and either uphold the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the Public Convenience and Necessity request; or
2. Overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve the Public
Convenience and Necessity request.
BUSINESS ITEMIS)
(14)
Second Readina - Adoption of Ordinance No. 1256. Addina Chapter 5.80 to the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Reaardina Tree Preservation
Recommendation: Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1256, adding
chapter 5.80 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Tree Preservation.
4
Agenda Item No.5
Page 16 of 36
(15) Second Readino - Adoption of Ordinance No. 1257. Addino Chapter 8.13 to the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Reoardina Reoulation of Solicitation
Recommendation: Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1257,
adding chapter 8.13 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Regulation of
Solicitation.
(16) Commercial Desion Review No. 2008-05: A Reouest for the Renovation and
Related Onsite Improvements of the Existino 2,040 Souare-Foot "Taco Bell"
Restaurant and Associated Drive-Thru Located at 31712 Mission trail Drive
(APN: 363-172-014
Recommendations:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-91 adopting Findings of Consistency with the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-92 approving Commercial Design Review No.
2008-05.
(17) Residential Desion Review No. 2008-03. for "Jasmine" bv Lennar Homes in
Rosetta Hills. Tract Map No. 31792
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2008-93 approving Residential
Design Review No. 2008-03 for the "Jasmine" products at Rosetta Hills in Tract
31792.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner responded to Councilman Buckley's
question regarding whether the drawings from the existing homes were included in the
staff report, indicating staff did not include the existing homes, only the models being
proposed. Councilman Buckley was interested in knowing whether there was an
architectural quality difference between the existing homes and these homes. Director
Weiner indicated there was a slight difference but staff felt that the four-sided
architecture and the site plan allows for this type of unit and does not differentiate
between neighborhoods.
Jarnee Valdez of Lennar Homes added that Lennar Homes went to a great extent in
hearing the homeowners concerns to make the elevations more like Primrose and
Magnolia elevations and brought the same architectural elements into this current
design. They brought the revised architectural elements back to the homeowners who
were happy with the changes. She advised the square footage of the homes ranged
from 2,269 square feet to 2,590 square feet.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDlZED ITEMS
5
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 17 of 36
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(SI
(2) Approval of Redevelopment Aqencv Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the following minutes(s):
(a) Regular Meeting - October 14, 2008.
(3) Warrant List dated October 15. 2008
Recommendation: Authorize payment of Warrant List dated October 15, 2008.
(4) Investment Report - September 2008
Recommendation: Receive and file.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
No public hearings scheduled.
BUSINESS ITEM(S)
No business items scheduled.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMENTS
No comments.
LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS
No comments.
BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS
No comments.
CLOSED SESSION
Prior to adjourning the joint meeting, City Attorney Leibold announced The Agency and
City Council will adjourn to closed session commencing at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the
following items as listed on their respective agendas:
6
Agenda Item No.5
Page 18 of 36
The Redevelopment Agency has three items for discussion which are all real property
negotiations and they are listed as Items 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) on the Agency agenda as
follows:
1(a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code
~54956.8)
Properties: APNs 374-072-028, 374-072-030, 374-072-032, 374-072-034, 374-
072-036
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency and City of Lake
Elsinore
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
1(b) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't code
~54956.8)
Properties: APNs 374-072-018, 374-020-030, 374-072-022
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency and Riverside
County Flood Control District
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
1 (c) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code
~54956.8)
Properties: APNs 375-350-012, -035, -036, 057
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director Brady
Negotiating parties: Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency and Symantha
Pham and Glenda Patton
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Agency Counsel Leibold noted The City Council has two items for discussion which are
Listed as items 1 (a) and 1 (b) on the city Council agenda as follows:
(1a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code ~
54956.8)
Property: APN 379-403-018
City Negotiator: City Manager Brady
Negotiating Parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Jess and Marissa Enriquez
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
(1b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Gov't Code
Section 54956.9: 1 potential case
Mayor Hickman announced there was one speaker:
7
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 19 of 36
Randy Hiner of lake Elsinore Motorcross Park who addressed Council regarding the
cost for police services for the lake Elsinore Grand Prix. He mentioned that last year
they organized the Grand Prix in very short notice and paid $30,000 for police services
and $4,000 for security and there were no incidents. In June they put on the lake
Elsinore Rodeo that had projections of far more people coming to that event than the
Grand Prix and also included two beer gardens, a concert and a rodeo which is more of
a party event and police services cost $11,000.00. He was caught off guard when the
bill for this year's Grand Prix came in at $28,000.00 which was ultimately reduced to
$16,000.00. He indicated that in addition to the police the organization committee is
hiring ten security guards in the evening and eight during the day at a cost of almost
$5,400.00 for a total security cost of almost $22,000.00. He understood the Police
Department was bringing out a two man command center plus an additional six officers
beginning on Friday evening. He felt that the command center was not necessary and
that the police services were not needed until Saturday. He was hoping that the police
service costs could be cut by not using the command unit and reducing the number of
officers to six which would reduce the costs to approximately $8,000.00.
After a lengthy discussion between Mr. Hiner and the City Council about the economy,
the lack of sponsorships and the low registration this year, they would not be able to
cover the costs of the event unless the expenses were reduced. Council was informed
that on Friday evening nothing goes on because the registrants are setting up their
campsites.
City Manager Brady advised Parks and Recreation Director Ray Gonzales has been
working with Mr. Hiner and the Police Department. He advised the Police Department
has indicated that eight is the number they need to respond to this type of event. He
advised that if it was found that-that many weren't necessary, there would be a
reduction but that decision would be made in the field once it was determined the level
of the crowd, the number of people camping, and the number of participants and
spectators.
Mr. Hiner made several suggestions on how the costs for services could be cut.
Councilman Magee expressed his concern with this matter being brought to Council's
attention 12 days before the event when the application was submitted in March. He
did not feel the City Council should second guess the new Police Chief as to what
amount of public safety he feels is necessary to insure a safe and healthy event.
Councilman Magee mentioned that he attended the event both days last year and two
police officers would have been enough, however, he did not know whether there was
no need for more enforcement or whether the amount of enforcement deterred any
potential problems. One of the biggest complaints I got last year was spectators had to
pay money which is not something the spectators had to do in the past.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelley pointed out that this item was not on the agenda, so the City
Council could not take any action and suggested the Police Chief look at the issue
again to see if anything can be done.
8
Agenda Item No.5
Page 20 of 36
Councilman Schiffner agreed indicating that he was not inclined to countermand what
City Management and the Police Chief have decided. He suggested Mr. Hiner try to
work something out with the City Management and the Police Chief directly.
The City Attorney reminded Council that because this item was not agendized, Council
cannot take an action, provide a consensus or give direction. It is a matter that has to
be referred to staff.
Parks and Recreation Director Gonzales advised Council that he has been working with
Mr. Hiner since May and they have met several times to come to a consensus. It was
only a few weeks ago that they were able to identify what the public safety costs were
going to be. He advised that after looking at the conditions of approval, the Police
Department was able to reduce the fee by $10,000.00. At this point they were at an
impasse but he would be willing to continue to work with Mr. Hiner and the Police
Department to see if the problem could be worked out. After further discussion, the
Council, asked Director Gonzales to meet with the Police Chief to see what could be
done.
There being no further business to come before the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency, the meeting was recessed to closed session at 4:49 p.m.,
DARYL HICKMAN, MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, CHAIRMAN
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY, INTERIM CITY CLERK
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
9
Agenda Item No.5
Page 21 of 36
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008
****************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular City Council Meeting reconvened to public session and was called to order
by Mayor Hickman at 7:06 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY ARRIVED AT 7:18 P.M.
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
ABSENT: NONE
Also present were City Manager Brady, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services
Director Pressey, Captain Cleary, Public Works Director/City Engineer Seumalo,
Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Director of Parks and Recreation
Gonzales, Director of Lakes and Aquatic Kilroy, Acting Director of Community
Development Weiner, and Interim City Clerk Cowley.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Hickman invited all of the city council candidates who were in the audience to
join him at the podium. He introduced the candidates present: Steve Manos, Chris
Hyland, Barbara Alongi, Melissa Melendez, Bob Magee (who was seated at the dais)
and Michael O'Neal. The candidates joined Mayor Hickman in leading the pledge of
allegiance.
INVOCATION - MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER
Mayor Hickman led the meeting in a moment of silent prayer.
PRESENTATION/CEREMONIALS
(2) Mayor Hickman introduced Bruce McMeans from Broken Arts and presented him
with a Certificate of Recognition for teaching school children the value of arts in
1
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 22 of 36
public places by including their ceramic creations in the River Walk Mosaic
Project.
Bruce McMeans informed Council and the public about the community art project that
was conceived and designed to involve as many people in the community as possible.
He explained the two phases: first they are working with local children in the schools
after school program and with the Elsinore Valley Arts Network. The children are
making little plants and animals from clay and once the children's artwork has been
glazed and fired, they will hold family work days to install the artwork in the River Walk
extension which is due to begin next year and be completed in the spring. The artwork
would be installed mosaic style on the trash cans, benches, and possibly sign posts.
He presented a demonstration board with an example of what the mosaic will look like
when completed. They have received a Lot of support and have involved 400 to 450
kids in the program. He advised the audience of the locations where they would be
making the ceramic pieces over the next few weeks.
Mayor Hickman gave a brief overview of what the River Walk project was and likened it
to the River Walk in San Antonio, Texas.
Ron Hewison with HOPE provided a quarterly report to Council indicating HOPE is a
volunteer organization, created in 1992 and cover the entire Lake Elsinore Unified
School District area and also extend into Quail Lake. The last three years have been
pretty hectic due to the economy and due to the expansion of the programs they offer.
Originally, they were giving up to three days of food now they are giving 12 days of
food. Originally they were senior driven and while now they are still serving seniors they
are also delivering to shut-ins. In 2005-06 they delivered over 62,000 meals, the
following year they provided 104,000 and this past year, 225,000 meals. Hope served
76,000 meals during the quarter that just ended which means they will serve over
300,000 meals this year. Mr. Hewison informed Council on their method of verifying
income of their clients to insure their services are reaching those most in need. He also
advised council that their ministry continues to grow and expand with new referrals each
day and several new programs they are adding to the ministry this year. Mr. Hewison
stated that volunteers are always needed and the need for more food drives.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON.AGENDIZED ITEMS - 1 MINUTE
Mary Bredlau addressed Council on behalf of the Country Club Heights Citizen's
Committee. and applauded Councilman Magee for returning what might appear to be a
questionable campaign donation.
Pete Dawson addressed Council regarding the two November events; the observance
of the Veteran's Day at the Grand Prix on November 9th. Along with that, the Veteran's
Day observance will be presented in the afternoon just prior to the Mayor's hundred
mile race and is presented by the Lake Elsinore Citizen's Committee, VFW and the
American Legion. The second event is the Unity in the Community Parade on
November 22nd on Main Street at 10:00 a.m. He recommended everyone go to these
2
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 23 of 36
events. At the request of the Mayor Mr. Dawson announced that he, along with two
oth~r team members were sen~ by the .united States Coast Guard, District 11 to Cape
Main, New Jersey to compete In a national search and rescue competition. His team
won second place. First place was a group from San Francisco. The west coast took
the entire event nationally.
James Fenner addressed council on behalf of several concerned citizens regarding the
number of parking citations being issued on street sweeping days. He was also
concerned about receiving a citation for dog barking and not having a dog license when
his dog doesn't even go outside. He felt is was important to inform the City Council of
the concern he and his neighbors had and hoped that the Council would be a little more
family-friendly about parking one's car on the street in front of one's own home.
Mayor Hickman suggested Mr. Fenner discuss this matter with the City Manager.
Daniel Uhlry asked when U.S. 395 went through Lake Elsnore. He said Highways 71
and 74 went through Lake Elsinore but he could not find where U.S. 395 went through.
He indicated Highway 71 connected to U.S. 395 this side of Murrieta which was called
Copper's Corner so to his knowledge U.S. 395 did not go through Lake Elsinore.
Councilman Magee advised that there was a display inside city hall that gives the entire
chronology of U.S. 395 and its route throughout the entire state and suggested Mr.
Uhlry visit the display to get the answers to his questions.
CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Leibold announced the City Council discussed the following during Closed
Session and there was no reportable action for items 1 (a) and 1 (b):
1(a)
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code 9
54956.8)
Property: APN 379-403-018
City Negotiator: City Manager Brady
Negotiating Parties: City of Lake Elsinore and Jess and Marissa Enriquez
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment
1(b)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Gov't Code 9
54956.9: One potential case.
COUNCIL APPROVES CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 3 THROUGH 11
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar for Council approval:
(2) Minutes ofthe FollowinQ MeetinQ(s)
(a) Regular Meeting - October 14, 2008
3
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 24 of 36
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.
(3) Warrant List Dated October 15. 2008
Recommendation: Authorize payment of Warrant List dated October 15, 2008.
(4) Investment Report - September 2008
Recommendation: Receive and file.
(5) Risk Assessment and Response Plan for Invasive Mussel(s)
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
(6) Award Contract for Roof Replacement for Planet Youth Buildinq
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to process a purchase order in
the amount of $20,621.00 to Dan's Roofing for the removal of the existing and
the installation of a new roof at the Planet Youth Building.
(7) Safe Candv Niqht
Recommendation: Approve closure of Main Street from Library to Peck for the
safe Candy Night.
(8) Request for Street closure and fee Waiver for the Unitv in the Community Parade
Recommendation: Approve the fee waiver and closure of streets along the
parade route on the 1211\ Annual Unity in the Community Parade.
(9) Approval to use Siqns of Support funds
Recommendation: Approval to use funds from the Signs of Support donation
account to assist the Skate Park program.
(10) Cultural Center Diqital Audio Upqrade
Recommendation: It is determined to be in the best interest of the City to waive
the informal-bidding process and authorize the City Manager to sign and issue a
purchase order to On-Trax, Inc., to acquire, install, and configure the Digital
Sound Board device.
It was moved by Councilman Magee to continue Item 7 off calendar and move approval
of the remaining Consent Calendar items Nos. 1 through 11 (excluding Item 7),
seconded by Councilman Buckley.
4
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 25 of 36
The following vote resulted:
AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
(11) Mitiqated Neqative Declaration No. 2008-07. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36066.
and Commercial Desiqn Review No. 2008-01 for the "Greenwald Commercial
Center"
Recommendations:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-87 adopting Findings of Consistency with the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-88 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No.
2008-07 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program appertaining
thereto.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-89 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 36066.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-90 approving Commercial Design Review No.
2008-01.
Mayor Hickman opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner advised that this was a request to
approve a new 98,000 square foot commercial center located on Greenwald Avenue
directly adjacent to the Canyon Lake City limits outside the Canyon Lake's north gate.
The center is 14 acres in size consisting of five parcels which will contain office, retail
and other commercial uses. The Planning Commission approved recommendation of
the project to the City Council. The City Council will be considering the Tentative Parcel
Map the Commercial Design Review and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
Conditional Use Permit has already been approved by the Planning Commission.
Planning and Engineering staff spent time with residents of Canyon Lake during the
entitlement process to discuss various issues that representatives of Canyon Lake had
and most things were taken care of, however, as Council is aware the trail is still an
issue. The applicant is in attendance and staff is available to answer any questions.
5
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 26 of 36
Gary Andre, Trail Commissioner for Riverside County addressed Council advising that
he was alm~st d,one with all of the maps for Riverside County for the first district except
one area gOing Into Canyon Lake from Lake Elsinore. He has met with Canyon Lake,
the developer and staff and they felt the best thing to do is to put a stop sign at the main
entrance. He would prefer to see the trail go further west than across Summerhill but
there is only a 10 foot easement on the south side of the road. He advised Council of
some of the safety features they discussed but decided on a signal with equestrian
cross buttons going across the gate at Canyon Lake.
Beverly Miller, a resident of Canyon Lake addressed Council regarding the trail access
for horses and people. She understood the creek behind her property was going to
remain and she requested consideration of a multi-use trail for bike riding, horses and
pedestrians along the creek area.
Randy Felber, a resident of Canyon Lake advised that quite a few people use the trail
system. He concurred with Ms. Miller's idea of a trail system along the riverbed and felt
the project would be really nice when it was complete.
Brenda Yanoschik a resident of Murrieta who owns an equestrian center in Canyon
Lake asked Council and the developer to consider a multi-use trail along the Blue Line
Creek. She advised that there was a comparable development in Murrieta on Murrieta
Hot Springs Road that includes what the Canyon Lake residents hope will be used in
this project. She felt that a stop light to control the traffic in and out of the shopping
center will satisfy a multi-use trail and the concems about slowing traffic.
Paul Johnson, Operations Manager for the Canyon Lake POA wanted to confirm that
the City Council had received their letter regarding the POA's concern that the City did
not complete a full Environmental Impact Report on this project.
City Attorney Leibold advised that the City did receive a letter from the POA's legal
counsel dated October 27, 2008 which has been officially entered into the record and
distributed to the City Council.
Lynn Mattocks, Chairman of the Riverside County Trails Committee addressed Council
stating his opinion that the proposed trail on the east side of this project is totally absurd
and very dangerous. He suggested moving the trail to the west side and utilize the BLM
property to cross, install an equestrian button on the signal light, and follow the trail
along the blue line which will provide the connectivity to the trails throughout the entire
southwest Riverside County region, which is what is desired by the County of Riverside.
He recommended the trail be moved for safety purposes. He indicated he discussed
this with the developers and they seemed to be in agreement with him. He also stated
that the trail should not be for both golf carts and horses.
Ed Sauls, of Greenwald LLC advised Council the project is recommended by staff,
unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission and recommended by the City
of Canyon Lake but Canyon Lake Property Owners Association has a particular concem
6
Agenda Item No, 5
Page 27 of 36
regarding the equestrian trail. He advised there are at least four alternatives to consider
and .they have worked. very. closely with staff and tried diligently to come up with
solutions before presenting this to Council, however, they have been unsuccessful. He
stated that they believe staff's recommendation is a viable alternative. He believes that
staff has examined all of the alternatives and found that staffs recommendation is the
most acceptable, safest and least impacting alternative.
He advised Council of the various alternatives that were considered and the issues with
each of those alternatives. Mr. Sauls said they are open to any of the altematives but
reiterated that he agreed with staff's recommendation that among all of the alternatives
staff's recommendation was the safest.
Councilman Magee asked the City Attorney what obligation requires the builder to
provide equestrian access across this site.
City Attorney Leibold responded that to the extent that the City participates in this trail
system then a requirement to connect the trails would be a standard condition of
approval. Director Weiner concurred with the City Attorney and stated staffs main
concern was that there was some type of access beyond the shopping center to the
BLM area. The developer indicated they found this to be palatable and staff felt a multi-
purpose trail would be appropriate and the applicant included that into the site plan.
Mr. Sauls indicated that providing the trail is an accommodation not necessarily a
requirement because the adopted County Trails Map provides for trails interior to
Canyon Lake and does not include a trail through this property.
Mr. Weiner confirmed that the only obligation that exists as far as staff is concerned is
the easement held by several property owners north of the project area that require
access, but it is debatable as to whether that access be for horses.
Councilman Magee confirmed his understanding of the issue before Council and he felt
it important for the citizens to know that the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association
provided to the City a letter that is in essence a threat of litigation challenging city staffs
environmental work because staff only prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration as
opposed to preparing a full Environmental Impact Report. Councilman Magee
questioned whether the City of Canyon Lake would be willing to pay to help facilitate
this trail system which would benefit their residents.
John Zaitz, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Canyon Lake addressed Council referring to
Exhibit E of the document provided to Council from the POA, which is a portion of the
City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan. He felt the trail system is a benefit to the County
and that it is a way to connect the BLM lands to north with the BLM lands to the south.
He did not think it was their responsibility to contribute to the cost of a trail that is going
to be a County benefit as well as to the people of the City of Canyon Lake who happen
to be members of the County. He stated that all they are asking for is to have an EIR
prepared that determines the best way to handle the trail system.
7
Agenda Item No.5
Page 28 of 36
A lengthy discussion continued between the City Council, staff and Mayor Pro Tem
Saitz as to where the crossing should be, where the City of Canyon Lake feels the
safest location of the crossing would be and who would have entitlement to use the
crossing.
Director Seumalo confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Kelley that staff was recommending
that the trail remain on the eastern side of the project and would prefer the
recommendation of Canyon Lake tentative trails map that shows the trail going from the
equestrian center internal to Canyon Lake and come out the guard gate on the north
side, at the top of Greenwald and then make a right turn onto the trail system. Further
explanation was made by Mr. Zaitz as to where the crossing currently was and the
differences of staff's recommendation.
Mr. Sauls indicated the developer was willing to facilitate City of Canyon Lake with the
costs of an interior solution including speed bumps, or stop signs. He further
recommends providing a trail on the eastern boundary and they would be willing to add
to the intersection at Summerhill and Greenwald as part of the signal costs a button for
equestrian crossing resulting in having two trails. That would be the best possible
accommodations.
Councilman Schiffner expressed his desire to move ahead with the design review
placing the trail where it is presently located and if the developer is willing to satisfy that
location and let Canyon Lake decide how they are going to get across that intersection
because he did not want to get involved in a signalization and take on that liability.
There being no other speakers, Mayor Hickman closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Councilman Schiffner moved to adopt Resolution No. 2008-87 adopting Findings of
Consistency with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; second by Mayor Pro
Tern Kelley
The following vote resulted:
AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
8
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 29 of 36
Councilman Schiffner moved to adopt Resolution No. 2008-88 adopting Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 2008-07 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
appertaining thereto, including the additional mitigation measure offered by Mr. Sauls;
second by Mayor Pro Tem Kelley.
City Attorney Leibold added that as to the letters received challenging the legitimacy of
the environmental review it was Staff's opinion that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
does satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the project has been adequately evaluated
and all significant environmental impacts have been mitigated.
The following vote resulted:
AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Councilman Schiffner moved to adopt Resolution No. 200889 approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 36066; second by Councilman Buckley.
Councilman Schiffner moved to adopt Resolution No. 2008-90 approving Commercial
Design Review No. 2008-01; second by Mayor Pro Tem Kelley.
The following vote resulted:
AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
9
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 30 of 36
APPEAL(S)
(13) Consideration of an Aooeal of the Plannina Commission's decision Relative to
Public Convenience and Necessitv Findinas for Off-Premise Alcohol Sales from a
Prooosed Convenience Store Located within the Viscava Villaae Shoooina
Center Located at 16665 Lakeshore Drive. Suite 'A' (APN: 379-470-083)
Recommendations:
1. Consider the appeal and either uphold the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the Public Convenience and Necessity request; or
2. Overturn the Planning Commission's decision and approve the Public
Convenience and Necessity request.
Attorney Leibold advised there was a request to continue this item.
Cynthia Reynoso addressed Council in opposition to the location of a
liquor/convenience store immediately adjacent to the Viscaya community. She
indicated there are already six establishments, three bars and two restaurants who
already sell alcohol. She did not feel that another liquor establishment was necessary.
Mary Lou Veytia, Vice President of the Viscaya Home Owners Association expressed
the HOA's opposition to the establishment of another liquor store in their area. She
indicated they have several pictures depicting the sidewalks littered with empty liquor
bottles and have had issues with people being. passed out on the sidewalks as well as
having several calls made to the Police Department for drunk and lewd behavior. They
felt they are overly saturated with liquor stores.
Councilman Magee stated that he met with the applicant because of the problems being
experienced by the residents of the Viscaya community. He confirmed with the owner
that the establishment had not met with the Home Owners Association to resolve the
issues and suggested they continue the appeal until they have met with the
homeowners to resolve the concerns and issues addressed by the Homeowners
Association.
Councilman Magee moved to continue this item off calendar and direct the applicant to
meet with the Property Owner Association and bring this item back with the results;
second by Mayor Pro Tem Kelley.
The following vote resulted:
AYES:
MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
10
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 31 of 36
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
BUSINESS ITEM(S}
(14) Second Readina - Adoption of Ordinance No. 1256. Addina Chapter 5.80 to the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code reaardina Tree Preservation
Recommendation: Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1256, adding
chapter 5.80 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Tree Preservation.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kelley, and seconded by Councilman Schiffner to
adopt Ordinance No. 1256 adding Chapter 5.80 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
The following roll call vote resulted:
AYES: COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
MAYOR HICKMAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
(15) Second Readina - Adoption of Ordinance No. 1257. Addina Chapter 8.13 to the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Reaardina Reaulation of Solicitation
Recommendation: Waive further Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1256,
adding Chapter 8.13 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Regulation
of Solicitation.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kelley; second by Councilman Schiffner to adopt
Ordinance No. 1257 adding Chapter 8.13 to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
The following roll call vote resulted:
AYES:
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
11
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 32 of 36
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
MAYOR HICKMAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
(16) Commercial DesiQn Review No. 2008-05: A Reauest for the Renovation and
Related Onsite Improvements of the ExistinQ 2.040 Square-Foot "Taco Bell"
Restaurant and Associated Drive-Thru Located at 31712 Mission Trail Drive
(APN: 363-172-014
Recommendations:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-91 adopting Findings of Consistency with the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-99 approving Commercial Design Review No.
2008-05
Acting Community Development Director Weiner advised Council this project was a
complete remodel and reconstruction of the current Taco Bell maintaining the same
footprint and drive through. Staff felt the architecture provided by the applicant is
greatly enhanced and the applicant is present to answer any questions. Director Weiner
noted that the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelley moved to approve adoption of Resolution No. 2008-91 adopting
Findings of Consistency with the Multiple Species Habitat conservation Plan; second by
Councilman Schiffner.
The following vote resulted:
AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Councilman Magee thanked the applicants for having the faith and confidence in the
community and for their longtime existence in the community since 1984.
12
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 33 of 36
May.or Pro !em Kelley moved to adopt Resolution No. 2008-92 approving Commercial
Design Review No. 2008-05; second by Councilman Buckley.
The following vote resulted:
AYES: MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
(17) Residential Desion Review No. 2008-03. for "Jasmine" bv Lennar Homes in
Rosetta Hills. Tract Map No. 31792
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2008-93 approving Residential Design
Review No. 2008-03 for the "Jasmine" products at Rosetta Hills in Tract 31792.
Acting Community Development Director Weiner advised that this is a request by
Lennar Homes introducing a new home product to the Rosetta Hills neighborhood.
Approximately 65 lots remaining in this neighborhood will contain the new "Jasmine"
product. The product that is already completed entitled "Primrose and Magnolia" range
from 2,904 square feet to just over 3,800 square feet. The new homes range from
2,269 square feet to 2,590 square feet. They have completed four-side architecture and
it should be noted that this is not part of a specific plan but a stand-alone tract map so it
falls under the guidelines of the Municipal Code.
Councilman Magee moved to approve and adopt Resolution No. 2008-93 approving
Residential Design Review No. 2008-03 for the "Jasmine" products at Rosetta Hills in
tract 31792; second by Councilman Schiffner.
The following vote resulted:
AYES:
MAYOR HICKMAN
MAYOR PRO TEM KELLEY
COUNCILMAN BUCKLEY
COUNCILMAN MAGEE
COUNCILMAN SCHIFFNER
13
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 34 of 36
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Public Comments - Non-Aaendized Item - 3 Minutes
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Brady commented/announced the following:
(1) Safe Candy Night, Friday, October 31, 2008, Main Street will be closed from 4:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and a costume contest for children from ages 2 to 12 will be held
beginning at 6:30 pm at the City Park.
(2) Friday, November 7,2008, there will be an Art Show sponsored by the Palitiers Art
Group from 9;00 am to 3:00 pm, at the Cultural Center. Local artists and guests
will display their original artwork.
(3) Saturday, November 8th, a Shopping Extravaganza at Lake Elsinore Outlets from
10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
(4) Saturday and Sunday, November 8th and 9th, is the Lake Elsinore Grand Prix at the
Lake Elsinore Motocross Park
(5) Wednesday, November 12, the Women's Club will hold their general meeting from
10:00 am to 2:00 pm and reservations are required.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY TREASURER COMMENTS
No comments.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckley commented on the following:
Candy on Friday, downtown; Grand Prix next weekend; reminded everyone to vote at
the election on Tuesday; bids on the animal shelter were opened and are under review
for full compliance. The low bid came in 20% lower than the Engineer's estimate which
means over the course of the next 30 years, Lake Elsinore will save approximately
$70,000.00 to $90,000.00 a year.
Councilmember Magee commented on the following:
Announced that all pets need to be licensed and properly vaccinated within the city
limits and Animal Friends of the Valley holds a shot clinic every third Saturday at the
14
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 35 of 36
City Park. The next clinic is Saturday, November 22nd and they only charge $6 for
shots; he encouraged everyone to take advantage of the clinic. He encouraged Mr.
Fenner to call him or e-mail him regarding the parking citation issues.
Councilmember Schiffner commented on the following:
Apologized to all those who might have been unhappy about the decision made
regarding the trails earlier, but he felt a decision was never going to be made and
something had to be done.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelley commented on the following:
Wished everyone a safe and happy Halloween.
Mayor Hickman commented on the following:
Thanked staff for the work on 1-15 Central where more lanes were added for traffic
congestion, the condition is much better; November 3'd work on the Rosetta Canyon
Fire Station and park will begin; resurfacing of Grand and Machado will begin next
week; and he received a call from one of the founders of HOPE who complemented
Public Works for removing trash that was dumped on his property. After waiting for two
weeks, he called Mr. Gomez in Public Works and it was taken care of the next day.
Candy night, Friday night so be safe.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Hickman adjourned
the meeting at 8: 50 p.m.
DARYL HICKMAN, MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY, INTERIM CITY CLERK
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
15
Agenda Item NO.5
Page 36 of 36
,
. i
CITY OF ~
LA~E 6LSiNO~
, I
;,;;.t... DREAM EjTREME_
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: WARRANT LIST DATED OCTOBER 30, 2008
Discussion
The warrant list is a listing of all general checks issued since the prior warrant list.
Recommendation
Authorize payment of Warrant List dated October 30, 2008.
Prepared By:
Matt N. Presse~
Director Of Ad~in~e Services
Approved By:
Robert A. Bradyflt1k1:
City Manager W
,
\.
Agenda Item NO.6
Page 1 of 5
OCTOBER 30. 2008
FUND#
100
104
105
110
112
130
135
205
211
352
353
356
357
360
362
363
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
381
382
384
385
386
387
606
608
610
620
650
651
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
WARRANT
SUMMAR Y
FUND DFSCRIPTION
TOTAL
2,733,635.28
30.682.64
~~,879"~
3,403.65
19.234.70
38,411.96
1,377.6~
70.80
~206,~
10.50
532.00
91.00
14,1330.41
7.Jil7.83
500.00
~2.622. 78
8,787.76
1,1399.63
1.160.00
_1,~Z5.56 .
__lQ.1345.95
14,286.40
4.561.28
5.732.60
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
43.50
2,666.71
500.00
500.00
141.60
___2,000.00
11.957.00
944.34
500.00
500.00
GENERAL FUND
TRAFFIC OFFENDER FUND
MISC. GENERAL PROJECT FUND
STATE GAS TAX FUND
TRANSPORTATION/MEASURE A FUND
LIGHTING/LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUND
L.L.M.D. NO.1 FUND
SIGNAL C.I.P. FUND
STORM DRAIN C.I.P.
A.D. 86-1 DEBT SERVICE FUND
A.D. 89-1 DEBT SERVICE FUND
A.D. 90-1A DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2003-2 DEBT SERVICE FUND
A.D. 93-1 DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D.95-1 1996 SRS E DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 88-3 1997 SRS A DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 98-1 SUMMERHILL DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2005-6 CITY CENTER TOWN HOMES DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-1 SUMMERL Y DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-2 VISCAYA DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2004-3 ROSETTA CANYON DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2005-X CAMINO DEL NORTE DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2005-1 SERENITY DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2005-2 ALBERHILL RANCH DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2005-5 WASSON CANYON DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2005-4 LAKE VIEW VILLAS DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-4 TR#30698 & 32129 DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-3 LA STRADA DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-6 TESS ERA DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-8 RUNNING DEER ESTATES DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-10 RIVERLAKE VILLAS DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-9 TRIESTE DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2003-2 SERIES 2006 A DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2004-3 SRS 2006A DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2007-4 MAKENNA COURT DEBT SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2007-5 RED KITE DEBT SERVICE FUND
MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION FUND
TRUST DEPOSIT & PRE-PAID EXPENSE FUND
KANGAROO RAT TRUST FUND
COST RECOVERY SYSTEM FUND
C.F.D. 2003-1 LAW & FIRE SERVICE FUND
C.F.D. 2006-5 PARK, OPEN SPACE AND STORM DRAIN FUND
$
GRAND TOTAL
$ 3,033,089.06
11/3/2008 Warrant 103008
10f1
Agenda Item NO.6
Page 2 of 5
OCTOBER 30, 2008
CHECK#
94777
94778
94779
94780
94781
94782
94783
94784
94785
97632
97633
97634
97635
97636
97637
97638-97640
97641
97642
97643
97644
97645
97646-97647
97648
97649
97650
97651
97652
97653
97654
97655
97656
97657
97658
97659
97660
97661
97662
97663
97664
97665
97666
97667-97673
97674
97675
97676
97677
97678
97679
97680-97681
97682
97683
97684
97685
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
W ARRANT LIST
VENDOR NAME
AMOUNT
4,406.25
1,500.00
4,303.00
386.76
1,240.13
4,123.60
1,484.80
7,654.80
1 ,023.20
2,jl30.00
275.00
----
300.00
393.82
25.00
564.00
553.55
147.66
-.-J-,900.00
40.00
1,796.17
29.65
54,569.66
425.00
13,376.00
3,086.25
1,000.00
2,433.39
325.00
853.09
3,251.42
457.53
5,499.00
1,180.34
3,366.07
904.50
130.50
592.89
275.00
54.99
1,586.25
11,777.72
54,321.72
360.50
1,652.00
698.76
189.25
96.96
620.96
17,531.84
758.56
122.66
747.12
228.08
LINDA MILLER
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS
I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT TRUST
DESERT PALMS HOTEL & SUITES
CALIFORNIA P.E.R.S.
LA STRADA PARTNERS, L.L.C.
P.I.C. INYESTMENTS, L.L.C.
SPYGLASS RANCH, L.L.C.
CHARLES G. TUNSTALL
A & A JANITORIAL SERYICE
AFFORDABLE MAILING SOLUTIONS
ALBERTO Y. BUSTOS
ALLIED TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC
BIANCA AMADOR
AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES
AMERIPRIDE SERYICE
ARTISAN GOLDSMITHS & AWARDS
HYLTON BEATTIE
ERICKA BENJAMINSEN
BIO-TOX LABORATORIES
BUNDY CANYON TURF SUPPLY
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, L.L.P.
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS, INC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CANON FINANCIAL SERYICES, INC.
CANYON LAKE WAKEBOARD CLUB
CANYON TIRE SALES, INC.
CB TYRES RECYCLING RESOURCES, L.L.C.
CLEAN SOURCE INC.
CNH CAPITAL AMERICA, L.L.C.
COOK EQUIPMENT OF ORANGE, INC.
KIRT COURY
CRAFCO, INC.
CTAI PACIFIC GREENSCAPE
D & SELECTRIC
DATA QUICK INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
MARK DENNIS
DIEHL, EYANS & COMPANY, L.L.P.
DISH NETWORK
CAROLE K. DONAHOE A.I.C.P.
DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING, INC.
E.Y.M.W.D.
EILEEN'S CLEANERS
ELAN ASSOCIATES
ELSINORE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC.
ELSINORE YALLEY RENTALS
CHRIS ERICKSON
EWING, TEMECULA
EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC.
FED EX KINKO'S
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
FERRELLGAS
FIRST AMERICAN CORE LOGIC, INC.
$
11/3/2008 Warrant 103008
10F3
Agenda Item No. 6
Page 3 of 5
OCTOBER 30. 2008
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
W ARRANT LIST
CHECK# VENDOR NAME
97686 GALL'S RETAIL CA
97687-97690 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
97691 HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
97692 HI-WAY SAFETY, INC.
97693 HOGLE-IRELAND, INC.
97694 I.C.MA RETIREMENT TRUST
97695 INLAND EMPIRE LOCK & KEY
97696 INLAND URGENT CARE WILDOMAR
97697 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS
97698 JEFF HAUSER MOBILE WELDING
97699 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES
97700 JTB SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
97701 PAT KILROY
97702 KIRSTEN KING
97703 LAKE BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC.
97704 LAKE ELSINORE TIRE & AUTO, INC.
97705 LAKE ELSINORE VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
97706 LEXIS NEXIS
97707 LOGICAL DESIGN, INC.
97708 LAWRENCE MENDEZ
977~.__ LINDA M. MILLER
97710 MOBILE SATELLITE VENTURES, L.P.
97711 MORROW PLUMBING, INC.
97712 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP
97713 NELSON PAVING, INC.
97714 NEWPORT BOATS
97715 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
97716 OCB REPROGRAPHICS
97717 ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING, INC.
97718__----9RK1N, INC.
97719 PAULA OWEN
97720 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE POWER
97721 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS
97722 GENARO PRATS
97723 PRESENTA PLAQUE CORPORATION
97724 THE PRESS ENTERPRISE
97725 PRODUCTION VIDEO, INC.
97726 REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
97727 RIGHTWAY SITE SERVICES, INC.
97728 SCOTT RIPPSTEIN
97729 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT
97730 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF
97731 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
97732 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
97733-97738 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
97739 ROBBINS PEST MANAGEMENT, INC.
97740 SADDLE BACK MATERIALS COMPANY. INC.
97741 SCOTT FAZEKAS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
97742 SERVCO SURVEYORS SERVICE COMPANY
97743 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
97744 SHRED-IT
97745 KATHLEEN R. SMITH
97746 SOCALSANDBAGS__
AMOUNT
398.62
37,126.26
1,698.25
_.-1.425.21
6,376.25
4,203.00
31.23
152.00
556.77
240.00
----
104.54
----
2,282.15
297.00
225.00
435.31
70.00
4,167.00
117.00
_10,21!iOO
50.00
4,~82.50
145.92
158.83
_~,198.89
4,980.70
150.08
.~287.61
2,881.15
13,390.00
65.00
50.00
3,000.00
60.70
1,780.00
338.99
806.30
281.25
7,662.93
238.28
339.38
. 11,957.00
1,937,925.63
181.57
24.00
2,445.21
290.00
858.92
5,483.46
29,818.52
425.63
80.00
266.25
841.67
11/3/2008 Warranl103008
20F3
Agenda Item NO.6
Page 4 of 5
OCTOBER 30. 2008
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
W ARRANT LIST
CHECK# VENDOR NAME
97747 DAVID S. SOLOMON
97748 SOUTHEAST CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
97749-97753 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
97754 SOUTHWEST HEAL THCARE SYSTEM
97755 SPRINT
97756 SPYGLASS INN
97757 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE
97758 STAUFFER'S LAWN EQUIPMENT
97759 STENO SOLUTIONS
97760 STK ARCHITECTURE, INC.
97761 T T S TRUCK PARTS
97762 TASC
-~-~-
97763 TEAM AUTOAID, INC.
97764 TEMECULA MOTORCYCLE SALES & SERVICE
97765 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & SUPPLY
97766 THE CLIFFS RESORT
97767 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
97768 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
-.
97769 VA CONSULTING, INC.
97770 VENUS PRINTING
97771 VERIZON BUSINESS
97772 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
97773 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC.
97774 VOLUNTEER CENTER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
97775 WAL-MART COMMUNITY
97776 WEST COAST SERVICES
97777 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
97778 WILCYNS' FITNESS
97779 WILDOMAR PLUMBING & DRAIN SERVICE
97780 DENNIS WILSON
97781 WORTHY WORTHEY
AMOUNT
3,384.00 .
124.77
7,811.36
900.00
160.00
528.00
922.39
98.59
147.20
58,022.52
14.98
400.00
922.16
864.12
540.61
462.00
2,626.11
117.47
3,183.64
9.70
575.00
1,284.80
15,708.00
6,192.42
257.78
900.00
240,042.69
70.40
95.00
480.00
7,367.25
PIE DATE
$ 2,678,730.32
10/29/08
10/30/08
10/24/08
10/24/08
11/07/08
10/20/08
10/31/08
FLEX BENEFITS WIRE TRANSFER
UNION BANK WIRE TRANSFER
PAYROLL CASH
PAYROLL TAXES
PAYROLL TAXES
CALIFORNIA P.E.R.S.
CALIFORNIA P.E.R.S.
553.00
44,862.88
154,839.69
61,638.32
13.06
45,889.14
46,562.65
GRAND TOTAL
$ 3,033,089.06
CHECK STOCK #339367 lhru #339643
(CHECK STOCK VOIDED #339622 lhru #339632)
11/3/2008 Warrant 103008
30F3
Agenda Item NO.6
Page 5 of 5
.
LAKE ,LSlI'iOR,f:
~ DREAM E;<TREME
,.
FROM:
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
. SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY
. Backaround
Claims filed against the City of Lake Elsinore are. reviewed and handled by Carl Warren
& Company, Claims Administrators. When received, each claim is logged in the City
Clerk's Office and forwarded to this company for investigation. After initial review and
investigation, direction is issued to the City to take one of several actions such as
rejection, notification of late claim or reservation of action until further information is
obtained.
Discussion
The following claim has been recommended for rejection by Carl Warren & Company:
CL# 2008-26 - Regina Thiele
Fiscal Impact
None.
Recommendation
Reject the claim listed above and direct the City Clerk's Office to send a letter informing
the claimant of the decision.
Agenda Item NO.7
Page 1 of 6
Claim Against the City
November 11, 2008
Page 2
Reviewed by:
Jessica Guzman 00.
Office Specialist "{/J
Carol Cowley \\\,
Interim City Clerk~
Robert A. Brady t'1 M\
City Manager jl.FY
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Agenda Item NO.7
Page 2 of 6
CD
October 23,2008
RECEIVED
TO: The City of Lake Elisinore
OCT 2 S 2008
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
ATTENTION: Jessica Guzman, Office of the City Clerk
RE: Claim
Claimant
D/Event
Rec'd Y/Office
Our File
Thiele v Lake Elsinore
Regina Thiele
09/11/08
09/12/08
1483565 DBQ
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the action indicated
below:
. CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above. If you have any
questions please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
CARL W AaREN & COMPANY
/l\ 1.(
! I. '."
Delor (~t/~-
CARL W ARREN& CO.
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT.CLAIMS ADJUSTERS
770 Placentia Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870.6832
Mail: P.O. Box 25180. Santa Ana, C. 92799-5180
Phone: (714) 572-5200 . (800) 572-6900. Fax: (714) 961-8131
Agenda Item No.7
Page 3 of6
CITY OF A. .
LA~E 5 LsiNORJ:
\ I
~ DREAM EXTREME
September 15, 2008
Dwight Kunz
Carl Warren & Company
P.O. Box 25180
Santa Ana CA 92799-5180
Dear Mr. Kunz:
Enclosed for your handling is a claim received on September 12, 2008
from Regina Thiele (Cl #2008-26). Please keep me advised of
appropriate City Council Action.
For further assistance, please contact me at (951) 674-3124 ext. 269.
Sincerely,
\
// -------
-----
Enclosure
951.674.3124
130 s. MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE. CA 92530
WWW.LAKE-ELSINQRE.QRG
Agenda Item No.7
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF A
LAKE 6LSiNORf:
, I
?ft.~ DREAM E)<TREME_
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
(For Damages to Persons or Personal Property)
Received by:
I,/L
kJl. il..(,t..1....;.I..~'>-''-,.~./
Time/Date Received
City Representative
RECEIVED
A claim must be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore within
six (6) months after the incident or event occurred. Be sure your claim is
against the City of Lake Elsinore, not another public entity. Where space is
insufficient, please use additional paper and identify information by
paragraph number. Completed claims must be mailed or delivered to the
City Clerk, City of Lake Elsinore, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore,
CA 92530.
SEP 1 2 2008
r.ITY CLERKS OFFICE
The undersigned respectfully submits the following claim and information relative to damage to persons and/or
personal property:
1. Name of Claimant R. e j ;r1 e. TI /i:.IE..
a. Address of Claimant:
b. Phone No. __)
c. Date of Birth
d. Social Security No.
e. Drivers Lie. No
2. Name, post office address and telephone to which claimant desires notices to be sent, if other than
the above:
3. Occurrence or event from which this claim arises:
a. Date: q-/r-DR- b. Time: tT CJ:O{),on^)
I
c. Place (Exact and specific location) -Re<, /"()I1r-f (;0. n j(';') (keto' -vir,,,, OCC,' ",",1/
cJ-h(d 1J('(,;dPAf Wf/If'A' fOrk' kif-nil! f'mr11 (~j"l/-/e.y rA'j (..u.:t.fJct!yn+l'f"i"
....J . ,
d. How many and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? Specify the particular
occurrences, event, act or omission you claim caused the injury or damage (use additional
paper if necessary). Ko_clz.. '^ rt (",'1 &ct -won-f , Io.u.m per {~J d~(1,~j
e-.\U010 lLf de...bns .f!v'(")vY1 €D{/,.f'/ IlLcocL'/lA.f
e. What particular action by the City of its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
Agenda Item No.7
Page 5 of6
4. Were there anY'injuries at the time of this accident? If not, state "No Injuries."
j JO
,
5. Give the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
6. Name and address of any person injured:
7. Name and address of the owner of any damaged property:
8. Damages claimed:
a. Amount claimed as of this date: $
b. Estimated amount of future costs: $
c. Total amou'ilt claimed: $
d. Basis for computation of amounts claimed (include copies of all bills, invoices, estimates, etc.):
9. Names and addresses of all witnesses, hospital, doctors, etc:
a.
b.
c.
10. Any additional information that might be helpful in considering this claim:
Warning: It is a criminal offense to file a false claim I (Penal Code 72/lnsurance Code 556.1)
I have read the matters and statements made in the above claim and I know the same to be true of my
own knowledge,exc~pt as to those matters state upon information or belief as to such matters, I believe
the same to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
~/.~., '".
-'------, . .
.e ~ -{
;1 Claimant's Signature
('
7- /;2-0<<
Date
Agenda Item No. 7
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF .~~
LA~E \6,LSINORJ
~ DREAM EXTREME
TO:
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: LARGE FORMAT CANON PRINTER WITH SCANNER SYSTEM
PURCHASE
Back~round
Consider the Canon imagePROGRAF 720 with Colortrac Scanner System purchase to
provide large format document image scanning and reproduction services.
Discussion
The City of Lake Elsinore has invested in Document Imaging and Retrieval Technology
with the purchase of the Laserfiche Software Application in January 2008. Since the
purchase, the City Clerk's office has scanned up 'to 96% of their official records which
has reduced the staff time required for document research. To expand these benefits to
the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Canon
imagePROGRAF 720 with Colortrac Scanner System from Innovative Document
Solutions, Inc. (IDS) has been identified to meet the needs to accept large format maps.
Performing the scanning process in-house for these departments will yield additional
benefits consisting of a higher degree of quality control and quality assurance, reduced
processing time, accessibility to project documents from all departments, reproduction
of full size maps, and most importantly project documents will be digitally stored and
archived.
As per the City's purchasing policy section 3.0,8.070, this purchase which is over
$15,000 is exempt from a formal bid process because it is in the best interest of the City
to use the established government CMAS or WSCA pricing for information technology
purchases.
Agenda Item NO.8
Page 1 of 3
Large Format Canon Printer with Scanner System Purchase
November 11, 2008
Page 2
Fiscal Impact
The purchase price is $18,758.91, including tax, installation, and a (1) one year service
agreement, as shown in the attached quote (Exhibit A). Sufficient funding for this
purchase is available in the 08/09 Information Technology budget.
Consistent with the City's practice of making information technology purchases under
the California Municipal Awards Schedule (CMAS), Canon hardware qualifies for
purchase under the state and local government CMAS or WSCA pricing schedule.
Both CMAS and Western States Contract Alliance (WSCA) pricing ensures competitive
pricing at Government Services Administration (GSA) rates.
This purchase is exempt from the City's purchasing policy requIring informal bids
because it is in the best interest of the City to use CMAS or WSCA government pricing
for information technology purchases.
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to approve the purchase of the Canon imagePROGRAF
720 with Colortrac Scanner System from Innovative Document Solutions, Inc.
Prepared by:
Mark Dennis
Information/Communications Manager
Robert A. BradlAl1/tt
City Manager '1MJV
Approved by:
Agenda Item NO.8
Page 2 of 3
INNOVATIVE
DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS
rOUT Load Buine.u 1I11tm:r
26855 Jefferson Avenu~ Suite f
Murrieta, (A 92562
P. 951) 676-8885
F. 951) 296.2675
77.760 Springfield Lane, Suite #6
Palm Desert CA 92211
P. 76ll) 200-1583
F. 760) 200-1673 .
Wide Format printer-scanner proposal for
The City of Lake Elsinore
Recommended: Canon imagePROGRAF 720 w/Colortrac
Scanner System
· Accepts roll media to 36" wide output, up to 44" wide
input width (40" imagewidth max input)
· Includes system-engineered Dell OptiPlex workstation
with SmartLF software for scanning, copying, e-mailing
functions
. Includes unified reprographic stand housing printer,
scanner, workstation, 'all on a single, wheeled unit
. Prints at up to 2400X1200 DPI
. 2-way paper feed (roll input & manual feed)
. Software includes Colortrac CopySmart, Colortrac
SmartLF software, dri~ers, utilities, and more.
. Delivery, training, and ONE YEAR on-site warranty
(excludes supplies and printheads)
. Please note: the enclosed brochure reflects the
older imagePROGRAF 700, and included 720
brochure, as the most current brochure is not in
print at this time
Purchase this system for just $16,115.-- plus tax
or...
Lease this system on a 60 month rate at $334.-per month, plus tax.
Optional Service Agreement (available AFTER initial warranty period) is
$1395.--/year, includes parts and labor, cleanings, and repairs as
required. Excludes User Replaceable items: Printhead PF-01, Ink Tanks
PF1102, Maintenance Cartridge MC-O?
I hope you find this information useful, and look forward to your
consideration.
Sin. 7WIy/! ~/
~~
Award-winn!ng
. technology
EXCEPTIONAL
SERVICE
&/TtUm/i7Ul1)'
. pef1Jle
www.idscano..Qe~m.No. 8
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF ~~
LAIZE &LsiNORt
\ I
?j!:.~ DREAM EXTREMEN
REPo.RT TO CITY Co.UNCIL
TO.: Ho.No.RABLE MAyo.R ,
AND MEMBERS o.F THE CITY COUNCIL
FRo.M: Ro.BERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: No.VEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: Ro.SETTA CANyo.N FIRE STATlo.N AND PARK
Co.NSULTANT Co.NTRACT - CHANGE o.RDER NO.. 2
,
BackQround
On May 23, 2006, City Council approved the agreement for professional services with
STK Architecture, Inc. to design and provide technical support for the construction of the
Rosetta Canyon Fire Station and Park. On June 24, 2008, City Council approved the
selection of Peter Ramey for Project Construction Management. Plans and
specifications were completed by STK Architectu~e, Inc. for the fire station and park and
notice requesting bids was published. Bids were opened on June 27, 2008, at 3:00
p.m., and the low bidder was Perera Construction, Inc. Contractor has started
construction on the project.
Discussion
The engineer's estimate for the project was $6,000,000. This bid submitted by Perera
Construction Inc. was $7,451,000 or $1 ,451,OOO~above engineer's estimate. The City
and the contractor discussed certain value enginE:1ering items that reduced the contract
to $5,980,000. The City Council approved this change order, reducing the contract by
$1,471,000.. The project scope reduction required a substantial revision for plans and
specifications. The work was done by project consultant STK Architecture, Inc. The
consultant has estimated the additional work at $7,000. Staff concurs that this estimate
is reasonable. It represents 4.5 percent of the project savings.
Fiscal Impact
The reduced project construction costs, contingel'1cy, project management, design, and
inspection are estimated at $7,441,000, which .is in the current fiscal year adopted
budget. This change order of $7,000 is within the.current budget.
Agenda Item No.9
Page 1 of 3
'0
Rosetta Canyon Fire Station and Park
Consultant Contract - Change Order NO.2
November 11, 2008
Page 2
Recommendation
1. Approve the project Change Order No.2.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract change order.
Prepared by: David S. Solomon 17
Project Engineer
Ken A. Seumalo ~
Director of Public Works
Approved by: Robert A. Bradyll rtl
City Manager ILtlV
Agenda Item NO.9
Page 2 of 3
l
!
'I
\
I
I' . I I 'I
o 75 150
300 Feet
I,
~
LAKJ; 6LSiNOIU:
~ DllEAM tpREME
.+.
.
City Of lake Elsinore
130 S. Main 51.
lake Elsinore. CA 92530
(951)674-3124
www.1ake-elsinore.org
ROSETTA CANYON FIRE ST~TION & PARK - PHASE I
PROJECT 10 NUMBER: GEN-0017
PROJECT NUMBER: 4270
Prepared By:
Lake"Bsinore GIS
ApriI,2007
Data $our(;es:
Riverside County GIS
A d I[:-!"U! Lt>~ EIsj(>ore GIS
gen a ~/iWl3d!l3
Pa e
~
I
'I
I
II
I
CITY OF ~
LAIZE 5LSiNO~
\ I
~ DREAM EjTREME
FROM:
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
TO:
I:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY TREASURER
PAY WAIVER IMPLEMENTATION
Backaround
At the September 18, 2008 budget study session, Councilman Buckley recommended
that members of the City Council and the Planning Commission decline their pay for the
remainder of the fiscal year, similar to what the employees were doing with a furlough
through the end of the fiscal year. On September 23, 2008, the City Council voted to
approve budget adjustments, which included the proposed reduction in pay of the City
Council and Planning Commission.
Discussion
City Council compensation is governed by the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code consistent
with California law. A legislative change to the City Council's compensation would
require the adoption of an ordinance subject to certain requirements. Because of these
requirements, City staff has proposed to implement the reductions by way of a voluntary
relinquishment by individual members of the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Implementing the pay reduction for the City Council on a voluntary basis avoids conflicts
with the California Government Code. Under Government Code Section 36516.5,
changes in compensation are applicable for the next successor Council term. In other
words, were the City Council to amend the Municipal Code to eliminate or reduce
compensation, the change would be in effect for a 2 year period beginning in January
2009 and last at least until the next election cycle. Staff understood the requested pay
change for only the remainder of the current fiscal year (at which time Council members
can evaluate the desire to end or extend the pay reduction into the 2009-10 fiscal year).
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 1 of 2
City Council, Planning Commission and City Treasurer Pay Waiver Implementation
November 11, 2008
Page 2
Newly elected Council members, like existing members, may voluntarily relinquish their
compensation.
Staff also proposes to implement the proposed reduction in pay for the Planning
Commissioners by way of a voluntary program consistent with the City Council. The
City Council reserves the ability to modify the Planning Commissioners' and Treasurer's
pay by way of an official resolution as provided in "Municipal Code Section 2.24.070 and
2.42.090, respectively. A resolution could be prepared to reduce the Planning
Commission pay through the end of the fiscal year and once approved, it could be
effective immediately. Similarly, a resolution would also be required to change the pay
of the City Treasurer. However, staff is moving forward with making the reduction of the
Planning Commissioners' and Treasurer's pay voluntary unless the City Council directs
staff to bring back a resolution to the next City Council meeting on November 25, 2008.
Unless otherwise directed, staff requests that City Council and Planning Commission
members along with the Treasurer notify the City Manager in writing (e-mail or letter) if
they wish to voluntarily decline their monthly pay.
Fiscal Impact
Per the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 2.08.020 and the Government Code
Section 36516, the City Council receives $400 per month for City Council meetings.
The fiscal impact to the General Fund of all five City Council members voluntarily
waiving their $400 per month is a savings of $16,000 for the remainder of the fiscal
year.
The Planning Commissioners each receive $100 per meeting and have regularly
scheduled meetings twice a month. Total savings for the five Commissioners voluntarily
waiving their pay is $8,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The Treasurer receives $150 per month. If voluntarily waived, the total savings would
be $1,200 for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Recommendation
Receive and file this report explaining the implementation of the pay reduction.
Prepared by:
Matt N. Presse
Director of Admlnlst
Robert A. Brady nJ &,(l
City Manager V4\V
Approved by:
Agenda Item No. 10
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF ~
LAI<-E 6LSiNORJ:
, I
~..::- DREAM E;(TREME
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL
TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 88-1)
(MEASURE A)
Backaround
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) recently adopted a resolution
initiating an amendment to the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
Since Measure A was adopted the designation of Highway 111 has been changed as
portions of the original alignment have been relinquished by the State and are now
maintained by local jurisdictions. The amendment to the Plan will make funding
available for the planning and environmental review of future transportation
improvements.
Discussion
In order for the amendment to the TIP to become effective, the Board of Supervisors
and a majority of the cities within Riverside County constituting a majority of the
incorporated population must approve the proposed amendment. The RCTC is asking
the City to support the amendment to the TIP by adopting the attached resolution.
Also attached is a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines. Upon adoption of the resolution the Notice of Exemption will be filed
with the Riverside County Recorder's office and the Office of Planning and Research.
Agenda Item No. 11
Page 1 of 7
Am~nd.m~DffCitFie,ffan~p()i:t?tior{~~p,~ndltuf~Bi,~.b, (M~a~(J!~~A)
November 11, 2008
Page 2
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the City.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving an amendment to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction
and Use Tax Ordinance (Ordinance No. 88-1) (Measure A).
Prepared by:
Carol Cowley
Interim City Clerk
Robert A. BradyO{J3
City Manager ~
Approved by:
Attachments:
Resolution
Notice of Exemption
Agenda Item No. 11
Page 2 of 7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION
AND USE TAX ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 88-1)
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure
Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88-1 ("Measure A") was
approved by 78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in November of 1988.
WHEREAS, the purpose of Measure A is to help relieve traffic congestion, increase safety,
improve air quality, provide funds to match developers' fees and State and local moneys for
transportation and plan adequately for traffic by providing essential countywide transportation
improvements.
WHEREAS, the Transportation Expenditure Plan, also referred to as the Transportation
Improvement Plan ("TIP"), was attached as Exhibit B to Measure A and was incorporated therein
by reference.
WHEREAS, the TIP identifies State Highway III from Ramon Road to Indio Boulevard
as one of the projects in the Coachella Valley for which Measure A State highway and major
regional road project funds are to be appropriated and expended ("Measure A Highway Funds").
A map depicting the then-current Highway III designation between Ramon Road to Indio
Boulevard (the "Original Alignment") was part of the TIP.
WHEREAS, since the passage of Measure A, the designation of Highway III has been
changed as portions of the Original Alignment have been relinquished by the State and are now
maintained by local jurisdictions. Additionally, Highway III was realigned in the city of Palm
Springs and now is located on Vista Chino Drive between Indian Canyon Drive and Gene Autry
Trail, as well as the segment of Gene Autry Trail from Vista Chino Drive to South Palm Canyon
Drive.
WHEREAS, changes to the alignment of Highway III have raised questions regarding the
eligibility of segments relinquished by the State to local agencies for Measure A Highway Funds.
Furthermore, additional segments of Highway III not included in the Original Alignment have
been requested to be eligible for receipt of Measure A Highway Funds.
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 240302(d), the TIP may
only be amended by the following process:
(1) Initiation of amendment by the commission, reciting findings of necessity for the
amendment.
(2) Approval by the board of supervisors.
(3) Approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated
population.
Agenda Item No. 11
Page 3 of 7
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
aforementioned portion of the TIP, located on page 183-07 of
Measure A, shaIl be amended to include the segments of highway,
and/or roadway described below and as shown on the map attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The
total amount of funding allocated to the CoacheIla Valley shall not
be changed.
I. In Palm Springs, from the intersection of Ramon Road and
Gene Autry Trail, north on Gene Autry Trail to Vista Chino
Drive, thence west on Vista Chino Drive to North Palm
Canyon Drive, thence northerly on the existing Highway 111
alignment to Interstate 10;
2. In Indio, from the crossing of Golf Center Parkway over
Indio Boulevard, northerly on Golf Center Parkway to
Interstate 10; and
3. In Indio, from the intersection of Highway 11 I and Indio
Boulevard, southeasterly on Indio Boulevard and Grapefruit
Boulevard, the existing and former Highway III alignment,
through the city of CoacheIla and Riverside County to the
intersection of State Route 195 (Avenue 66).
B. Revision to Map Included as Part of TIP. The map attached as
part of the TIP shaIl be amended to include those segments of
highway and/or roadway as shown in the map attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit "A".
Approval of Findings. The City Council hereby approves the findings of
the Commission Board related to adoption of the amendment to the TIP.
Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the date of its
adoption. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the amendment to the TIP set
forth herein shaIl not be effective unless and until approved by the Board of
Supervisors of Riverside County, and a majority of the Cities within
Riverside County.
Notice of Exemption. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this
Resolution is not subject to CEQA and authorizes and directs City staff to
file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk of Riverside County and
the State Clearinghouse within five (5) days foIlowing adoption of this
Resolution.
Agenda Item No. 11
Page 4 of 7
-_..!--
. P~SSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, this 11th day of November 2008.
DARYL HICKMAN, MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, CAROL COWLEY, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. was adopted by the City Council of
the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of November 2008,
and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
3
Agenda Item No. 11
Page 5 of 7
..
,tI
~
>.
..
~
...,
..
l:
...
<( =
...;0
:c =
.~ ..
-=
.. ~
~ ~
-=
lOll
:.a
...
=
'"
...
"
..
e
lOll
..
'"
~
"
lOll
"
'=
"
Oe.
...,
=-
..
llo
....
E-
..
-=
...
"
.~
...,
..
...,
"
-
"
"
.~
"'
a>
"0
<:
..
Cl
j
>-
~ ~
'" a>
>-00 ~ "0 J:
~~ .E ~o .;
~..- c";" ~...
~,~.s 0- en':
=1i ...-ti :::~.9 ::.s & .lJ
~ E iU'1:: {;'et: ~ ;. -g ~
me ! ~ ~.9m ~m ;0 a::
.c.g> 01 ~~~ a.Q ! (5
of ~.~ ~r ~I~ i i
<<l
z+~
~
"
c
.
-: ~~
:&= IV
~~~ ~
c.IIl<'ll(9
~.aiio
1;1;c
z~2
(Jog
.
;:>
~~
i;
~-
.'
-,
!.
H
"
I'
,1
.,
i~
"
~ ~
"
::"~
~i
~ ~
~U
i i
~€
u'
.~
~l
j.
..
0'
~ =
I.
.~~
~1
~~
'"
H
~~
~J
; ~
~n
"
g~
*~
"
.,
i&
11
n
"
,.
:: ~
~:
.'
..
.<
~i
H
ii
,.
H
.,
~o
]i
"
.eg
H
.~
~8
~ ~
.,
~.~
H
H
!-
~>
a~
'"
0"
f-UJ
-~
,,'"
'"
Ul
~
::11N
'"
<D
'"
'"
o
I
j
enda Item ~o. 11
pagJ ~ of 7
.,
. .
Notice of Exemption
(California Environme*tal Quality Act)
To:
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 222
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Attn: State Clearinghouse
From: The City of Lake Elsinore (the "City")
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Phone: (951) 674-3124
Fax: (951) 674-2392
Riverside County Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 751
2720 Gateway Drive
Riverside, CA 92502-0751
Title: Adoption of Resolution Approving an Amendment to Coachella Valley Portion of
Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance No. 88-1
Location - Specific: In Palm Springs, along Gene Autry Trail, Vista Chino Drive, and, Highway
III. In Indio, along Golf Center Parkway, Indio Boulevard, and Highway III.
Location - Citv: Cities of Palm Springs and Indio. Location - Countv: Riverside County.
Description' of Nature, Purposes, and Beneficiaries: The Riverside County
Transportation Commission Transportation ("RCTC") Expenditure Plan and Retail
Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88-1 (the "Plan") was approved by
78.9 percent of the voters in Riverside County in 1988. The purpose of this Plan is to
relieve traffic congestion, increase safety, improve air quality, and provide funding for
essential countywide transportation improvements. The Plan listed the locations of
anticipated improvements in Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley area. Due
to unanticipated realignments in roadways and the relinquishment of State control over
other roadways and highways in Coachella Valley, the Plan must now be amended to
reflect current conditions and specif'y the current roadway segments which are eligible for
funding. The resolution approving an amendment to the Plan adopted by the City on
, 2008 does not approve the construction of any transportation improvement,
but instead approves an amendment to the Plan in order to make funding available for the
planning and environmental review of future transportation improvements. The
beneficiaries of these improvements include the residents of Riverside County,
particularly those of the Coachella Valley area.
Name of Public Agencv Approving Resolution: The City of Lake Elsinore
Name of Person or Agencv Carrying Out: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Agenda Item No. 11
Page 7. of 7
CITY OF ~
LAKE ,6,LSiNORJ:
~ DREAM E;<TREME~
FROM:
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY OF HAVING THE HAWAII MARS AIR TANKER LOCATED
ON LAKE ELSINORE DURING THE FIRE SEASON
BackClround
During October of this year the City Manager and staff worked on securing an
agreement with Coulson Air Tankers to have the f-iawaii Mars tanker plane moored on
the lake. Coulson was working with various fire fighting agencies to secure a contract to
provide their services in Southern California. Courson agreed to pay the City $5,000 per
month plus the cost of associated services to allow the tanker to be located and
operated out of the boat launch area near the calTlpground. Although Coulson was not
able to secure a contract, they did express their desire to be able to locate on and
operate from Lake Elsinore.
Discussion
Councilman Magee discussed with the City Manager his idea to have the Hawaii Mars
air tanker regularly stationed on Lake Elsinore during the fire season each year. Lake
Elsinore is a resource that can be used to fight fi~es as demonstrated by the successful
operation of the Hawaii Mars on the lake in October of 2007 to help fight the fires in San
Diego County. Lake Elsinore is one of only a very few water bodies in Southern
California that can accommodate this type of fire fighting aircraft. Locating the air tanker
on the lake and having it ready to go during the fire season could be beneficial to the
City and adjacent areas in case there is a major fire.
Fiscal Impact
There would be no negative fiscal impact to the City. The cost of locating the air tanker
on Lake Elsinore would be paid for through the contracts Coulson would secure with fire
fighting authorities and agencies.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 1 of 2
"
__L
Flying Air Tanker
November 11, 2008
Page 2
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to discuss with various fire fighting agencies and authorities
at the local, county and state levels to determine the feasibility of locating the Coulson
Hawaii Mars Air Tanker on Lake Elsinore during the fire season.
Prepared and
Approved by:
Robert A. Bradyj.) ,(k
City Manager (]V
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF ~
L.A~ 6LSif10Rf
, #
;;-. DREAM E;(TREMEN
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA-rION NO. 2008-04,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03, AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
FOR THE "AUTO SALES AND SERVICE CENTER" PROJECT
LOCATED ON LAKESHORE DRIVE WEST OF THE SAN JACINTO
RIVER CHANNEL
Discussion
On October 21, 2008, the Planning Commission approved by unanimous vote various
resolutions recommending approval for the site grading and development of the "Auto
Sales and Service" project, to allow for the future' development of a 50,000 square foot
automobile dealership on a 9.34 acre site. The project site is located on the north side
of Lakeshore Drive and is bound by the San Jacinto River Channel to the east and
Lakeshore Drive to the south. The site is bounded on the north by the approved but
currently vacant "Toyota Project Site," and vacant commercial land to the west, and
known as Assessor's Parcel No's. 363-130-085, and -087.
The request is being made with the intention of establishing an automobile dealership
on-site. As part of the process, the applicant is required to obtain a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) to remove the portions of the 6.34 acre site that are designated
Floodway under the City's current General Plan. Since the adoption. of the City's
current General Plan, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
revised the 100 year flood zone along the San.Jacinto River channel. The revised
maps have removed all but a small portion (10,745 square feet or 0.025 acres) of the
6.34 acres are from the 100 year flood zone, specifically Zone AE. The project will not
be allowed to grade or develop within this small area designated Zone AE. It should be
noted that the land use changes have been reflected in the Draft General Plan Update;
however, this document has not yet been adopted. Because the anticipated project
approval will occur prior to the adoption of the General Plan Update, a General Plan
Amendment is required.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 1 of 174
MND 2008-04, GPA 2008-03, CDR 2008-07
November 11, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Als~, the applicant is only seeking conceptual site plan project approval and
environmental clearance. This will allow for rough grading and stockpiling between the
described project site and the adjacent Toyota site. All future development of the
project site and operations will be subject to a complete and thorough Design Review
process (i.e. building architecture, landscaping, lighting, noise, traffic circulation, vehicle
and product delivery, hours of operation, signage, etc). The Planning Commission Staff
Report and draft Meeting Minutes are attached for reference.
Recommendations
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ adopting Findings of Consistency with the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-
04 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program appertaining thereto.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07.
Prepared By:
Kirt A. Coury,~
Project Planner
Approved By:
Robert A. BradYt'tlf
City Manager W
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution No. 2008-_ adopting Findinos of Consistencv with the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
3. Resolution No. 2008-_ adopting Mitigated Neoative Declaration No. 2008-04
and the Mitioation Monitorino and Reporting Prooram appertaining thereto.
4. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Final MND (Enclosure)
5. Resolution No. 2008-_ approving General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03
6. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation (Enclosure)
7. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation (Enclosure)
8. Resolution No. 2008-_ approving Commercial Desion Review No. 2008-07
9. Site Plan (Enclosure)
10. Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan (Enclosure)
11. Conditions of Approval
12. Staff Report and Minutes for the Planning Commission, October 21, 2008
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 2 of 174
(
(
VICINITY MAP
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
APN# 363-130-087
" ~
)
""
/.~
/. oS
'~
oS
-L
~ w:o JJ;~
UJ T"j r
::l W W .LN
Z ::l ::l ~
W ~r-Z Z W
~ r-~ ~ --~
I--r-<l: <l: --w
c--~
~
)PROJECT SITEI
'"^\
'9~~~ .~.
~
~
,?
<)
~
~
~
~Lf'~~~O~
c:::.-.,. r-~. -j Ir.... ~
-----, '--- f--.-..e:- '---- ~
H::-:::l J
II r w GREENsr-
II- ;;.
r- -<( J-- I-
f-~ t-- ~&,. t--
-cr f-.::: f-~. ::-
r- f-W cr
- ClI I:=-I-~ :::
--.-f5 ::' fli ~
'--:r ~
7/ '---'-:5 ~
q/--J-::;/ -...:
~TAYLORSTl.
~ 1--r- .'::::
~ t:- t: '--
~ i-- ~
~~~
-..J-
~
:--I..
~
~
t;;;;;;i,
i--GREENst
,---;1' r:=:
---- ----f(} I=::::-,
_ ~ r-:::
'-~:... ---.
-w '---
----
-~b8
--'-- --
T;:;;-i --
2-YLOR ST
-r=:.
I--
( T Lr-~
+--. r-P
, -- '-------...... ~
o
'-
~
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 3 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS THE AUTO GROUP DEALERSHIP PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
WHEREAS, The Automotive Group, Inc. (the "Developer") filed an application
with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Commercial Design Review No.
2008-07 and General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03 (the "Project") for the design and
construction of a 50,000 square foot facility a 9.34-acre site, located on north side of
Lakeshore Drive, adjacent east of the San Jacinto River channel, known as Assessor's
Parcel Nos. 363-130-085 and -087 (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are
proposed on land within an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary
approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process
("LEAP") and a Joint Project Review ("JPR") between the City and the Regional
Conservation Authority ("RCA") prior to public review of the project applications; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects within or
outside of a criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide
Requirements"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and
approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Project is within a MSHCP criteria cell of the Elsinore Area Plan,
and therefore, the Project was processed through a LEAP and JPR as well as reviewed
pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency
findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of
property that is subject to the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been delegated with the responsibility of
making decisions regarding the consistency of discretionary project entitlements with
the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the City Council has
considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other
interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 11,
2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1
Agenda Item No. _
Page_of_
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 4 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
PAGE20F5 -
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed application and its
consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to adopt findings that the
Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the
MSHCP, the City Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the
City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval.
The Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell. As such, the Project has
been processed through the LEAP and JPR, as well as reviewed for consistency
with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements," including Section 6.1.2
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines.
2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project
Review processes.
As stated above, the Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell and
therefore the Project was processed through the LEAP and JPR.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the RiparianlRiverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Guidelines.
Of the 9.34-acre project site, 3.0 acres that encompass riparian/riverine habitat
are being avoided and donated for MSHCP conservation. The remaining 6.34-
acre area to be developed does not encompass riparian/riverine habitat nor
vernal pools or other fairy shrimp habitat. Currently, most of this 6.34-acre area
is the location of a 12,000 cubic yard stockpile of fill to be used at the adjacent
approved Toyota Dealership project. As such, the Project is consistent with the
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of
the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines.
Per MSHCP requirements, the Property is not subject to the Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.3. No further action regarding
this section of the MSHCP is required.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures.
The Property was assessed for suitable habitat for Criteria Area Species, set
forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. No suitable habitat for any of these
species, including Burrowing Owl, exists on the project site. As required by the
MSHCP, mitigation has been included to conduct a Burrowing Owl survey 30
2
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~afltemNo. 13
Page 5 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
PAGE30F5 -
days prior to any ground-disturbance, including the removal of vegetation or
other debris. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the UrbanNVildlands Interface
Guidelines.
Because 3.0 acres are being donated to the MSHCP for conservation, there
would in effect be an "urban/wildlands interface between this area and the
adjacent 6.34-acre area to be developed. Project design features and best
management practices are incorporated into the Project to address and minimize
edge effects associated with run-off, night lighting, and noise-generating land
uses. As such, the Project is consistent with Urban/Wildlands Interface
Guidelines set forth in Section 6. 1.4 of the' MSHCP. No further action regarding
this section of the MSHCP is required.
7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The 3.0-acre area to be donated to the MSHCP does encompass
riparian/riverine resources for which the vegetation mapping requirements are
applicable. This area has been mapped in accordance with the MSHCP
requirements. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The MSHCP acknowledges that brush management to reduce fuel loads and
protect urban uses and public health/safety shall occur where development is
adjacent to conservation areas. The Property is adjacent to open areas that may
require on-going brush abatement to reduce fire risk. One of the scenarios in the
Fuels Management Guidelines is that any new development planned adjacent to
a MSHCP conservation area or other undeveloped area shall incorporate brush
management guidelines in the development boundaries and shall not encroach
into MSHCP conservation areas. Because the Project is non-residential, has
incorporated building setbacks and will not encroach into MSHCP conservation
areas, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set
forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the
MSHCP is required.
9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee.
The developer will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
10. The proposed project is consistent with theMSHCP.
3
Agenda Item No. _
Pa9AgeAdlYltem No. 13
Page 6 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-_
PAGE 4 OF 5
The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further
actions related to the MSHCP are required.
SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
conditions of approval attached to the Resolution approving Commercial Design Review
No. 2008-07, General Plan Amendment NO. 2008-03 and Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2008-04, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore hereby adopts
findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
4
Agenda Item No. _
pa9Agend@(1tem No. 13
Page 7 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
PAGE 5 OF 5 -
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11TH day of November 2008.
DARYL HICKMAN
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. was adopted by the Ci~ Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 111 day of November
2008, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
5
Agenda Item No. _
Pa9Agen.dlY lteJ:n No. 13
Page 8 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 200B-_
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 200B-
04 FOR THE AUTO GROUP DEALERSHIP PROJECT
WHEREAS, The Automotive Group, Inc. (the "Developer") filed an application
with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Commercial Design Review No.
2008-07 and General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03 (the "Project") for the design and
construction of a 50,000 square foot facility a 9.,34-acre site, located on north side of
Lakeshore Drive, adjacent east of the San Jacinto River channel, known as Assessor's
Parcel Nos. 363-130-085 and -087 (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code SS 21000, et seq.: "CEQA") and the
State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations SS
15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") because the Project involves an activity which may
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease,
permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies
(Public Resources Code S 21065); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ,Section 15063, the City conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment. The Initial Study revealed that the project would have potentially
significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be
mitigated to less than significant levels; and
WHEREAS, based upon the results of the Initial Study, and based upon the
standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined appropriate to
prepare and circulate Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 for the Project (the
"Mitigated Negative Declaration"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15072, on August 20, 2008,
the City duly issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15073, the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was made available for public review and comment for thirty days
beginning on August 20,2008, and ending on September 19, 2008, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular
meeting held on October 21, 2008 made its report upon the desirability of the proposed
project and made its recommendation to the CitY Council in favor of the adoption of
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2008-84; and
1
Agenda Item No. _
Pag~Jtem No. 13
Page 9 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-
PAGE20F4 -
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been given, and the City Council has considered evidence presented by the
Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing
held with respect to this item on November 11, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated into these findings by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral,
received from persons who have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Written
responses to comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during the
public comment period were prepared and circulated. The City Council hereby finds
and determines that all public comments have been addressed.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby determines that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for implementation of
CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
represents the independent judgment of the City.
SECTION 4. The City Council further finds and determines that none of the
circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration are present and that it would be appropriate to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the
following findings regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the
applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to
a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial
evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting
from the Project can be mitigated to the less than significant levels. All
appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project
design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an
implementation program for each mitigation measure. After
implementation of the mitigation contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to
less than significant levels.
2
Agenda Item No. _
Pa9AgendW Item No. 13
Page 10 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-_
PAGE 3 OF 4
2. There is no substantial evidence, ,in the light of the whole record before
the agency, that the Project as revised may have significant effect on the
environment.
Pursuant to the evidence received, and in the light of the whole record
presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
conditions of approval attached to the Resolution approving Commercial Design Review
No. 2008-07 and General Plan Amendment 2008-03, the City Council hereby adopts
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage
and adoption.
3
Agenda Item No. _
Pag~ Jtem No. 13
Page 11 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-
PAGE40F4 -
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11TH day of November 2008.
DARYL HICKMAN
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. was adopted by the Ci~ Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 11t day of November
2008, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
4
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~geAd8fJtem. No. 13
Page 12 of 174
FINAL
INITIAL STUDY /
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 2008-04
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081083
Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07
General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03
The Auto Group Dealership
Lake Elsinore, California
Applicant:
The Automotive Group, Inc.
450 West Vista Way
Vista, CA 92083
Prepared For:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
September 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 13 of 174
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEC'fION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .................................................1-1
SECTION 2.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS..................................................2-t
2.1 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT ................................................2-1
SECTION 3.0 RESPONSES TO WRITIEN COMMENTS........................................3-1
SECTION 4.0 MffiGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..........4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARy........................................................ 4-1
4.2 MITIGATION MATRIX........................................................................... 4-1
4.3 PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 4-18
Tables
Table 3-1.
Table 4-1.
Table 4-2.
Comment Letters - The Auto Dealership Draft IS/MND (August 2008) .......... 3-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist................................. .4-2
Project Design Considerations ..........................................................................4-19
Attachment
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Auto Group Dealership No. 2008-04
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
i
CityJ{g_j~No.13
Page 14 of 174
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
,',
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
ii
CltyJ{~~fe~NO. 13
Page 15 of 174
1.0 Introduction and Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code
Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of Lake Elsinore CEQA procedures.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) and (d) state:
"(b) Prior to approving a project, the decision making body of the lead agency
shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process. The decision making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration
or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record
before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration
reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis."
"(d) When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid
significant environmental effects."
In accordance with this requirement, The Auto Group Dealership IS/MND is comprised of the
following:
. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2008 (SCH No.
2008081083)
. This Final IS/MND document, September 2008, that incorporates the information
required by Section 15074 (included in this document)
. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (included in this document)
Format of the Final IS/MND
This document is organized as follows:
Section 1.0 Introduction and Summary
This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final IS/MND.
Section 2.0 Corrections and Additions
This section provides a list ofthose revisions made to the Draft IS/MND text
as a result of comments received and/or errors and omissions discovered
subsequent to release of the Draft IS/MND for public review.
The Auto Group Dealership
Final ISjMND
1-1
City~~l~ilmNo. 13
Page 16 of 174
1.0 Introduction and Summary
Section 3.0 Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft IS/MND
This section provides copies of the comment letters received and individual
responses to written comments.
Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This section provides a program of monitoring or reporting to ensure that the
provisions or revisions are complied with during implementation of the
project.
The Auto Group Dealership
Final ISIMND
1-2
Cityft:_l'~No. 13
Page 17 of 174
2.0 Corrections and Additions
2.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
This section contains revisions to information included in the Draft IS/MND (August 2008)
based upon additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific
comment. Please see copies of the letters and responses in Section 3.0, Responses and
Comments of this Final IS/MND, as applicable.
2.1 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT
Changes to the Draft IS/MND were made either in response to comments received on the Draft
IS/MND or made to better clarify the information and analysis presented in the text. Text that
has been added to the document appears in an underline format. Text that has been deleted
appears with strikeout.
The table below identifies the changed IS/MND page numbers in the Final IS/MND. The
revised IS/MND is included following this IS/MND Introduction. None of the changes to the
Draft IS/MND were substantial in nature. The changes do not meet the requirements for
recirculation of a negative declaration, as described in Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The changes would not be characterized as a substantial revision that identify a new, avoidable
significant impact
Final MND Section Page Numbers
IV. Environmental Analysis - Cultural Resources 38, 39, and 40
IV. Environmental Analysis - Traffic 67 and 68
VIII. Mitigated Negative Declaration 74
The Auto Group Dealership
Final ISIMND
2-1
CityJ{~~~No.13
Page 18 of 174
3.0 Responses to Written Comments
3.0 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Section 3.0 contains responses to all comment letters received on the August 2008 Draft
ISjMND. A total of 4 comment letters were received during the comment period, which
closed September 19, 2008, as detailed in Table 3-1. Also listed below is the website
notice from the Governor's Office and Planning and Research CEQAnet indicating that
no comments from State agencies were received.
Table 3-1
Comment Letters - Greenwald Avenue Commercial Center Draft ISjMND (August 2008)
Number Letter Preparer Date
1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQAnet 9/27/08
2 Soboba Band of Luiseiio Indians 8/28/08
3 Morongo Band of Mission Indians 9/4/08
4 pechanga Tribe Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians 9/18/08
5 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 9/18/08
The City has prepared the following responses to all of the comment letters received by
various public agencies and members of the public. Please note that the comment letter
follows the responses from the City.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinaII8/MND
3-1
City of Lake Elsinore
Age,*</JIl!lm2~. 13
Page 19 of 174
3.0 Responses to Written Comments
Letter 1- Governor's Office of Planning and Research CEQAnet
This website notice indicates that no comments were submitted to the State
Clearinghouse during the IS/MND public review period. This website does not address
the adequacy of the environmental document. No response is required.
The Auto Group Dealership
Final ISIMND
3-2
City of Lake Elsinore
AgendaltUem:Nol. 13
Page 20 of 174
'j"
. .
GOVERNOR'.S OFFICE ofPLANNIN.... G AND RESEARCH .
. . .
STATE.Ci:.EARrNGHOpSE A1lD
~"P""'f!f..
f:~l
'il......i1
...~ -
'41i..CiJJiflfli" .
llJ<l'ANT
DUlCl'OR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A1U!OLD SCIlWJ.RZIlNllGGlIR
GOVBllNOR
. September 22, 2008
'. Wendy Worthey
. City of Lake Elsinore .
130 S. Main Sireet
Lake ElSinore, CA 92530
. Subject:' The Auto Group Dealership Project .
SCH#: 2008081083
'. Dear Wendy worthey: .
The State Cl~aringho1J!le.ribnii~the above named~iti~!edNegative peck;..tion to selectedStatC
agencies for revjew'. The revjew.period closed on September 19; 200S,and no state agencies submitted
cOIlUl1Onts by that date; 'This Jetter acknowledges !1Ja! you'have coniplied with the State .CleariogJ,ouse' .'
. review requirements for draft. environmentaJdocuinents, pUrsuant tothe CalifomtaEnvironmental Quality .
Act. '.' .' '. '. . .
, '.'. '..
. Please callthe stilte Clearinghouse a! (916) 445.0613 if you have any~uestions regarc1in8 ~
environmental review process. If you have a question about the abov":named project, 1'le..e refer to the
ten':'ligit SlSte CI""ringhouse nwnber when colitaclillg thiSofJice. . .. . ..
'.
" .. Sincerely,.:- - _ " . .
'~".' ..... ')~' ......~..-a...'.,:,....:
,. . " '-, -: . -.
~" -- " .' " .'- ":
. '. '. ,:" ."',.." " ", .
. Terry Roberts ." ......
Director, State Clearinghouse.. . .
....
. ':,.,
..' .
, .'
.' ,"n,
,.
1400 lOth Street, P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916) 445.0613 .' FAX (916) 323.301~ www.opr.ea.gov:'
. Agenda Item No. 13' .
......... Page 21 of 174
. ii
Ii
~L
3.0 RespQnses to Written Comments
Letter 2 - Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The City thanks the Soboba for its interest in this project. This comment letter provides
introductory remarks and notes that the project site is within the boundaries of the
Soboba Band's Tribal Traditional Use Area.
This comment letter made three requests: 1) further government to government
consultation; 2) copies of archeological and/or cultural resource documentation; and 3)
cultural resources monitor(s) present during ground-disturbing activities. Responses to
these requests are discussed below:
. Request for further government to government consultation - The comment
letter did not specifically indicate if it was commenting on the MND pursuant to
CEQA or to letters sent out on August 18, 2008 pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB
18). As such, City staff contacted the Sobooa Tribe requesting clarification as to
their request. Per those discussions, the Soboba indicated that they were
commenting both on the MND and responding pursuant to SB 18. The Soboba is
requesting further government to government consultation to encourage the City
and developers to use their Tribal Monitors. The City has respectfully agreed to
schedule a meeting pursuant to SB 18 but does not have the authority to "force"
developers to use a particular Tribe for monitoring.
. Requests for copy of the archeological and/or cultural resources documentation -
The documentation being requested was einailed to the Soboba on September 27,
2008.
. This comment requests that Cultural Reso~rces Monitors be present during any
"ground disturbing proceedings." Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 of the
IS/MND propose appropriate monitoring during the construction/excavation
phases of the project. No further action is required.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinalIS/MND
3-5
_ City of Lake Elsinore
Agenctat.tem~. 13
Page 22 of 174
August 28, 2008
S~B'
.:~~
~,.
~.
O.
/
rica Helms-Schenk
Soboba Cultural Resource Department
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
Phone (951) 654-5544 ext 4129
Cell (951) 663-8333
ehelms@soboba-nsn.gov
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 23 of 174
3.0 Responses to Written Comments
Letter 3 - Morongo Band of Mission Indians
The City thanks the Morongo for its interest in this project.
This letter offers three comments which are briefly described and responded to below:
. If human remains be encountered during grading and other construction
excavation, work in the immediate vicinity should cease and the County Coroner
contacted. The ISjMND does include Mitigation Measure CR-3 to address this
scenario.
. The comment addresses accidental findings of Native American cultural
resources on the project site during projectconstruction. The ISjMND does
includes Mitigation Measure CR-2 to address this scenario.
. The City appreciates the acknowledgement and understanding by the Morongo
Band that other Tribes may have claimed cultural affiliation to the site as well.
Mitigation has been proposed in the ISjMND to address the unanticipated
discovery of Native American cultural resources. For this project, it is anticipated
that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to its demonstrated
cultural affiliation with the project area and prior extensive coordination with the
City.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinaIIS/MND
3-7
City of Lake Elsinore
Agel1lllaeltem>Ne. 13
Page 24 of 174
September 2, 2008
fFHlCCClEaW~fD)
SEP 0 4 i~08
CITY pF LAKI:: I:LSINORE
P NNING DIVISION
MORONGO
BAND OF
MISSION
INDIANS
II
Wendy Worthey, Principal Environmental
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
A SOVEREIGN HAnON
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability and Notice oflntent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Auto Group Project
Dear Ms. Worthey:
Thank you for contacting the Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding the above
referenced project(s). The Tribe greatly appreciates,the opportunity to review the project
and, respectfully, offer the following comment(s):
o If human remains are encountered during grading and other construction
. . excavation, work in the immediat~ vicinity shall cease and the County
Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
F050.5.
o In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered
during project development/construction, all work in the immediate
vicinity of the find shall cease alld a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on
the overall project may continue during this assessment period.
o If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for
which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his
archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians
("Tribe'') 1. If requested by the Tribe, the developer or the project
archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its
disposition (e.g. avoidance, preserVation, return of artifacts to tribe, etc.).
1 The Morengo Band of Mission Indians realizes that thate may be additional tribes claiming
cultural affiliation to the area; however, Morengo can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no
objection if the archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes and if the city wishes to revise the
condition to recognize other tribes.
Agenda Item No. 13
49110 IEMINOlE DRIVE . (ABAZON, CA 92210 . 911-849-8807 . lAx,911-922-8146 Page 25 of 174
If I may be of further assistance with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 951-755-5212 or FRANKLIN DANCY@MORONGO.ORG.
Very truly yours,
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
~' Cl F~~.._ h
Franklin A. Dancy t...../V-j
Project Manager
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 26 of 174
3.0 Responses to Written Comments
Letter 4 - Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians
The ~ity thanks the Pechanga for their interest in the project. This letter provides
opemng rem~rks and requ.ests that the Pechanga Tribe be notified of the CEQA process
for the duratIOn of the project. The comment letter will be included in the Final MND
an~ wil~ be part of the CEQA record for the project. The City will provide the Pechanga
Tnbe WIth a copy of the response to comments and Final ISjMND. Additionally, the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings for the project are open to the public
and the Pechanga Tribe is invited to attend should they wish to make further commen'ts.
The City encourages the Tribe to contact the City Planning Division for confirmation or
hearing dates.
In addition, this letter addresses government to government consultation with respect to
the project, pursuant to Senate Bill 18. The SB 18 process is separate from the CEQA
process; however, it should be noted that the City has scheduled a meeting pursuant to
SB 18 to discuss the Tribe's involvement with this project and other future projects
This letter also includes a discussion that provides cultural history for the Pechanga
Tribe and their connection to the project area. The cultural resources report prepared
for the project (LSA, 2008) acknowledges that the project site falls within the traditional
use area of the Luiseiio. The City acknowledges that that the Pechanga Tribe has been
active in projects in the Lake Elsinore area.
Regarding the comments related to project impacts, the City stands by the significance
conclusions in cultural resources assessment and the ISjMND. Regardless, mitigation
was included due to the possibility of encountering unanticipated cultural resources
during grading and excavation.
As it relates to the request for additional mitigation, the City believes the intent of the
requested mitigation has already been included in the mitigation measures proposed in
the ISjMND. The only exception to this would be the language regarding a decision by
the Community Development Director (CDD) should the Tribe and developer be unable
to agree to impact significance andjor mitigation. As such, the City has added the
following Mitigation Measure CR-2b to reflect the involvement of the CDD.
CR-2b
Should the Tribe and developer be unable to agree to the significance or
mitigation of archeological resources discovered during grading, these issues
shall be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for
decision. The CDD shall make the determination based upon the provisions of
CEQA and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs and practices
of the Tribe.
Decisions made by the CDD are appealable to the City's decision-makers; therefore it is
not necessary to include additional language regarding "appeals" as CEQA mitigation.
One of the conditions of approval for the project includes a requirement to implement
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As such, the mitigation measures
related to cultural resources mitigation are included in the conditions of approval for the
project.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinaIIS/MND
3-9
City of Lake Elsinore
Ager*<l>Iem2~. 13
Page 27 of 174
I'ECHANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES
Temecula Balld of Luiseiio Missioll Illdialls
Chairperson:
Gcnnainc Arenas
I
1
1
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
j
i
i
I
;
,
Vice Chairperson:
Mary Bear Magee
Committee Members:
Evic Gerber
Darlene Miranda
Bridgett Barccllo Maxwell
Post Office. Box 2183 . Tcmecula, CA 92593
Telephone (95 I) 308-9295 ' Fox (951) 506-9491
September 18, 2008
Director:
Gary DuBois
VIA E-Mail and USPS
Coordinator:
Paul Macarro
Ms. Wendy Worthey
Principal Environmental Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Cultural Analyst
Anna Hoover
Monitor Supervisor:
Aurelia Mamlffo
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on SBI8 Consultation, the Notice of Availability and
Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Auto Group (TAG)
Project
Dear Ms. Worthey:
This comment letter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseilo Indians (hereinafter,
"the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, in response to an
SB 18 Consultation and the NOP of a MND for the above named project both dated August 2008
from the City of Lake Elsinore. The Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources
Code 921092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process
for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"), and requests that these comments
be part of the record of approval for this Project. We request that these comments also be
incorporated into the record of approval for this Project as well.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE MUST INCLUDE INVOLVEMENT OF AND
CONSULTATION WITH THE PECHANGA TRIBE IN ITS ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS
It has been the intent of the Federal Governmentl and the State ofCalifornia2 that Indian
tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as
other governmental concerns. The responsibility to consult with Indian tribes stems from the
unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. This
I See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Governments and Executive Order of November 6, 2000 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Govemments.
2 See California Public Resource Code ~5097.9 et seq.: California Government Code ~~65351,65352,65352.3 and
65352.4
Sacred Is The Duty Tnlsled Unto Our Care Alld With HOllor We Rise To The Need
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 28 of 174
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore
Re: pechanga Tribe Comments on SB 18 Consultation and the MND for The Auto Group (TAG) Project
September 18,2008
Page 2
arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions ofgovel11mental agencics and departments.
In this case, it is undisputed that the project lies within t~e Pechanga Tribe's traditional territory.
Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is
imperative that the City and the Project Applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an
adequate basis of knowledge fOr an appropriate evaluation of the project effects, as well as
generating adequate mitigation measures.
LEAD AGENCY CONSULTATION WITH THEPECHANGA TRIBE REOUlRED
PURSUANT TO
CAL. GOVT. C. llll 65351, 65352, 65352.3. AND 65352.4
(SENATE BILL 18- TRADITIONAL TRIBAL CULTURAL PLACES LAW)
As this Project entails a General Plan Amendment, the Lead Agency is required to consult
with the Pechanga Tribe pursuant to a State law entitled Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (also
known as SB 18; CaJ. GOVI. C. S 65352.3). Such consultation shall be fOr the purposes of
identifying any Native American sacred places and any geographical areas which could
potentially yield sacred places, identifying proper means of treatment and management of such
places, and to ensure the protection and preservation of such places through agreed upon
mitigation (Cal. GOVI. C. 65352.3; SBI8, Chapter 905; Section 1(4)(b)(3)). All consultations
shall be government-to-government, meaning they shall be directly between the Tribe and the
Lead Agency, seeking agreement where feasible (Cal. Govt. C. S 65352.4; SBI8, Chapter 905,
Section I (4)(b)(3)). Lastly, any such information conveyed to the Lead Agency concerning
Native American sacred places shall be confidential intelms of the specific identity, location,
character and use ofthose places and associated features: and objects. Such information shall not
be subject to public disclosure pursuant the California Public Records Act (Cal. GOVI. C.
6254(1')).
PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILlNflON TO PROJECT AREA
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal
territory, as evidenced by the existence of Luisefio place names, rock art, pictographs,
petroglyphs, and an extensive Luiseiio resource record in the vicinity of the Projecl. The Tribe
fmther asserts that tbis culturally sensitive area is affiliated specifically with the Pechanga Band
of Luisei'io Indians because of the Tribe's specific cultural ties to this area. Pechanga considers
any resources located on this Project property to be Pech!ll1ga cultural resources.
The Pechanga Tribe's knowledge of our ancestral boundaries is based on reliable
information passed down to us from our elders; published academic works in the areas of
anthropology, history and ethno-history; and through recorded ethnographic and linguistic'
accounts. Of the many anthropologists and historians' who have presented boundaries of the
Luisei'io traditional territory, none have excluded the Lake Elsinore area from their descriptions
(Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925; White 1963; Harvey Oxendine 1983; Smith and Freel'S
Pechanga Cultural Resources. Temecula Band of Luisello Mission Indians
Post Office Box 2/83 . TemeclI/a, CA 92592
Sacred /s The Duty Trusted UIIIO Our Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Agenda Item No. 13
Page 29 of 174
Pechanga Comment Letter 10 the City of Lake Elsinore
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on S8 18 Consultation and the MND for The Auto Group (TAG) Project
September J 8,2008
Page 3
1994), and such territory dcscriptions correspond almost identically with what was
communicated to the Pechanga people by our cIders. While historic accounts, anthropological
an? linguistic theories are important in detcrmining traditional Luiseflo territory; the Pechanga
Tnbe asselts that the most critical sources of information used to define our traditional territories
are our songs, creation accounts, and oral traditions.
There is a connection between Temecula and Lake Elsinore area that stems from the
beginning of time for Pechanga people. Luiseflo history originates with the creation of all things
at 'exva Temeeku in the vicinity of Temecula and dispersing out to all corners of creation (what is
today known as Luisei'io telTitory). In fact, in many of the creation songs, Temecula and Elsinore
. are mentioned interchangeably, intimating a relationship between Temecula and Elsinore,
including the entire area in between. It was at Temecula that the Luisei'io deity Wuy60llived and
. taught the people, and here that he became sick, finally expiring at Lake Elsinore. Many of our
! songs relate the tale of the people taking the dying Wuy601 to the many hot springs at Elsinore,
,
i where he died; He cremated at 'exl'a Temeeku (DuBois 1908). It is the Luiseflo creation account
i that connects Elsinore to Temecula, and thus to the Temecula people who were evicted and
, moved to the Pechanga Reservation, and now known as the Pechanga Band of Luisei'io Mission
: Indians (the Pechanga Tribe).
, The area known as Lake Elsinore is also the location for notewOlthy events in Luiseflo
! culture which are related specifically to the people of Temecula or the Pechanga people. For
i example, it is the place where two of the Kaamalam (first people), Qawqaw and Chixeemal, had
i their first menses, which is the subject of one of the girls' coming-of-age songs (DuBois 1908).
: Another song recounts the travels of the people to Elsinore after a great flood (DuBois 1908).
i From here, they again spread out to the north, south, east and west. Three songs, called Monlivol,
i are songs of the places and landmarks that were destinations of the Luiseflo ancestors. They
! describe the exact route of the Temecula (Pechanga) people and the landmarks made by each to
i claim title to places in their migrations (DuBois 1908: 11 0). Anotller account involves a
, Temecula village leader killing the evil Taakwish (the Luiseflo evil spirit) at Elsinore, followed
i by his cremation in Temescal Canyon (Kroeber 1906).
In addition, Pechanga elders state that the TemeculalPechanga people had
! usage/gathering rights in an area extending from Rawson Canyon on the east, over to Lake
i Mathews on the northwest, down Temescal Canyon, and back to the Temecula area, which
i includes Lake Elsinore in its boundaries.
Thus, our songs and stories, as well as academic works, demonstrate that the Luiseflo
i people who occupied what we know today as Temecula, Lake Elsinore and the areas in between
i (Pdayaxchi, Nive'wuna, Paa'a, Paa$ukwa, Pli'iv, Pivmay, We'eeva, Wlina and Temeeku) are
i ancestors of the present-day Pechanga Band of Luiseflo Indians, and as such, Pechanga is the
i appropriate culturally affiliated tribe for projects that impact this geographic area.
.__.-.J.._...__._._.___._____.__~___.._.._..______..__~____-
Pechallga Cultural Resources. Temecula Band of Luiselio Mission Indians
Posf Office Box 2183' Tell/ecllla. CA 92592
Sacred Is The DlIty Trllsfed Unto Ollr Care And With Honor We Rise To The Need Agenda Item No. 13
Page 30 of 174
Pechanga Comment Leltel' to the City of Lake Elsinore
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on S818 Consultation and the MND for The Auto Group (TAG) Pl'Oject
September 18, 2008 .
Page 4
Lastly, the Pechanga Tribe has a long modern day history of involvement with Projects in
the area known as Lake Elsinore. No only has the Pechanga Tribe been involved, but it has been
given the designation of the consulting tribe or affiliated tribe on projects located in the City of
Lake Elsinore and its sphere of influence, such as Cottonwood Hills, Liberty Serenity, North
Peak, Temescal Canyon, Lakeview Villas, County Sheriffs Station, Spy Glass Ranch,
Meadowbrook, Oak Springs, Canyon Hills and Glen Ivy. Moreover, the Pechanga Tribe has
been the only Tribe that we know of to assume the role of MLD in the Lake Elsinore area.
NAHC records confitm that no other tribe has been named MLD in the Lake Elsinore area.
The Tribe would welcome to opp0l1unity to meet with the City to further explain and
provide documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your
jurisdiction.
PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed Project is on land that is within the traditional territory of the Pechanga
Band of Luiseiio Indians. The Pechanga Band is not opposed to this development Project. The
Tribe's primary concerns stem from the Project's likely impacts on Native American cultural
resources. The Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural
resources, such as Luiseno village sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by
ground disturbing work on the Project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items,
Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the
work.
The Tribe has reviewed the August 2008 Draft Initial Study for a Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2008-04, Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07, General Plan Amendment
No. 2008-03. The Auto Group Dealership (hereinafter "August 2008 IS/MND") and the related
2008 archaeological study by LSA Associates entitled Cultural Resources Assessment, The Auto
Group 6-Acre Parcel, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County California (hereinafter "2008
LSA report"). The 2008 report indicates that there were three (3) isolated artifacts previously
identified within the project boundaries. These were determined to be not significant per CEQA.
The Tribe does not agree with this assessment as the Tribe believes all cultural resources to be
both culturally significant and potential indicators of subsurface resources. It was also stated that
the probability for additional resources to be recovered on the property was low. As noted, the
Tribe also disagrees with this conclusion as surface artifacts are often indicators of subsurface
resources. Regardless of the Tribe's disagreements with the archaeological findings, the Tribe is
in general agreement with the proposed mitigation measures/conditions of approval included in
the 2008 LSA report and in the 2008 IS/MND which requires archaeological and tribal
monitoring. The Tribe thanks the City for the inclusion of the mitigation measures and
conditions of approval to address the potential impacts to cultural resources, and for the inclusion
of the Tribe in those measures.
Pechanga Cultural Resources" Temecula Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians
Post Office Box 2/83. Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred /s The Duty Trusted Ullta 0,,1' Care Alld With HOllOI' We Rise To The Need Agenda Item No. 13
Page 31 of 174
!
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Lake Elsinore
Re; Pechanga Tribe Comments on sa 18 Consultation and the MND for The Auto Group (TAG) Project
September 18, 2008
Page 5
PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
The Tribe is in general agreement with the proposed mitigation measures for cultural
resources presented in the August 2008 IS/MND and n:quest they be incorporated into the final
MND document and added as conditions of approval for the Project. Further, the Tribe requests
that the City's standard requirements for archaeological monitoring and inadvertent discoveries
be included as follows:
CR-5 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for the project, the project applicant
shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a
cultural resources evaluation.
CR-6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are
discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and
the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and
confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and
the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such
resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development
Director (COD) for decision. The COD shall make the determination
based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with
respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the
religious beliefs, customs, and pnictices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any
other rights available under the :law, the decision of the COD shall be
appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore.
The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Lake Elsinore in
protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the Project area, Please contact
myself or Deputy General Counsel Laura Miranda at 951-676-2768 X2138 once you have had a
chance to review these comments so that we might address the issues concerning the mitigation
language. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
C--- c:-
Anna M. Hoover
Cultural Analyst
cc; Laura Miranda, Pechanga Office of the General Counsel
Pechanga Cultural Resources '. Temecula Bane! of LuiseiioMission Indians
Post Office Box 2183' Temecula, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty Trusted Unto Our Care Alld With HOllar We Rise To The Need Agenda Item No. 13
Page 32 of 174
3.0 Responses to Written Comments
Letter 5 - Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
This letter indicated that they have no comments at this time. No response is required.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinaIIS/MND
3-15
City of Lake Elsinore
Agertti8eI'lim1<<N\!). 13
Page 33 of 174
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
General Manager-ChiefEnginccr
1995 MARKET STREET
RNERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
FAX 951.788.9965
www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us
Ms. Wendy Worthey
Principal Environmental Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRI fu~ ~re
September 16, 2008 IFi'1lS~{f;n~~/O)
SEP 1 820C8
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE'
.J!Ar:!NING DIVISION I
\
Dear Ms. Worthey:
Re: Notice of Availability and Notice of
Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Auto Group Project
This letter is written in response to the Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Auto Group Project. The proposed project consists of
the construction of a 50,000 square feet automobile dealership on 6.34 acres, in addition to the
donation 00 acres ofland for conservation along the San Jacinto River Channel, bounded by the San
Jacinto River Channel to the east and Lakeshore Drive to the south, within the city of Lake Elsinore,
Riverside County.
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reviewed the MND and has
no comment at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the MND. Any further questions concerning this letter may
be referred to Mai Son at 951.955.5418 or me at 951.955;1233.
Very truly yours; .
c:)J/WJerJ
TERESA TUNG ~
Senior Civil Engineer 0
c: TLMA
Attn: David Mares
MTS:mcv
P8\121031
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 34 of 174
4.0 Mitigation Monitpring and Reporting Program
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.1 INfRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines Section
15097, public agencies are required to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to assure that
the mitigation measures and revisions identified in the MND are implemented. As stated in
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code:
"...the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resourc~ Code, findings must be adopted by the
decision-maker coincidental to certification of the.. MND. The Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) must be adopted when making the findings (at the time of
approval of the project).
As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, "reporting" is suited to projects that have
readily measurable or quantitative measures or which already involve regular review.
"Monitoring" is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetland
restoration or archaeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to
oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful execution to
assure compliance. Both reporting and monitoring would be applicable to the proposed project.
The IS/MND prepared for The Automotive Group Dealership project (SCH No. 2008081083)
provided an analysis of the environmental effects res4lting from construction and operation of
the project. A thorough scientific and engineering eval!lation of each alternative was undertaken
in compliance with CEQA, including the identification of measures designed to avoid or
substantially reduce the potential adverse effects of each alternative.
4.2 MITIGATION MATRIX
To sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has
been prepared and includes the following components:
. Mitigation Measure number
. Mitigation Measure (text)
. Implementation Action
. Monitoring Method
. Responsible Monitoring Party
. Monitoring Phase
. Verification/Approval Party
. Mitigation Measure Implemented? Cf/N, and date)
. Documentation Location (Monitoring Record)
Mitigation measure timing of verification has been apportioned into several specific timing
increments. Of these, the most common are:
1. Incorporation of measures into plans and specifications
2. During construction
The mitigation matrix is included in Table 4-1.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinalIS/MND
4-2
City.A:~JiimNO. 13
Page 35 of 174
.,
c
S .2 '"
ECc-
(';i 0";: 'E
c; 0
l-< .. to"" ~
boO E U c
~ooiD:
0 8....~
l-<
~
boO c ~S
l: 0" to
..... ;!3'Cc
t: cacnCl)oa
.~m ~-
0 "':;;-<!E
0.. :;; Ie
~ C!_
"'t:l o to
.- > ~
50
l: ~ to
(';i s: 8::a.
.. ~<
'" ~
boO ~
l: C,j
'C ..
..c '"
0 U .5 lD
+" a l; :g
.....
l: 01 "".c
... 6a.
0 "" :;;
::s .,
...
i:l.
l: ""
= .!!'"
0 ..
1:: -"c
..... ..';: ~
+" ., co
(';i C. O:!:: C'CI
boO ~ a.ca.
..... III 0
+" .., a::;;
..... =
::s 01
""
= '"
0 .;:: .5 "'CI
~ 0
. ., ,g'i
'<T ..
'S 6:;;
., :E
~
=
.S
.. c
.. 0
.':!' '"
.. Sc
.. co
~ ..'"
..... ii:l
, a.
.... .5
..
~
Eo<
I!!
"
m
:E
c
.2
-
..
.~
""
:E
0>
- c::
c:: ,-
:>,O)C::
'2: E :ii
:::J Q.- c
E~~.Q
E >a.~
80)0).2:
000
~15
'2 E
" Co ~
e.22
EO) U
> 0)
8<38
0>
c::
g!, :e
to "
-c >-'ti)
g:iiVcri
c:.s-c~
:.2 .... 3 'S;
~.g eu
3: c.. en n::s
1::
z.0)
'2 E
" Co ~
E.Q-R
E ~ a:;
o m.=
<..>00
~
"
'" cri
o.~ 5
~~~ts
",1::0)
'S: 8. a.
~ ~.fg
g g!,"': "'~.. '" ~.
-g1i) ~i<<i-fjj-c5Q)O t:~
.5:'5 :J oJa(.!) ::a+:l~c5 Q)E ~
roO (l)cn3=u. ~- .....Q)....
~:Q ~ g.E ooj.Q~ c: "'-s-m
Em Cou ~ ~<-:"5 ~ (I)~~af"O
g~~~ ~'~15 8~'~ ~~~~!
a. cd c: c: ..c t:: ~ ~~"O .- E C'd
~ 6- 8 8 .g .E c.~ ~ a. 3 :g ~ 1B
g> Q) .~ m ctS ~-c .s .s cb ~ 5 .s ~I E -g '0 ~ E
.~E~Q)~~C:- C. ~ - -Q)'~
o8~..c(l):J~~-g ~~C:Q)~i~o_ .
....~Q) _(I)....uc:cn~oQ)-c~~~....m"O
~ ~(I)~ cn~.~~(I)~~~'(I)n::s5~~~
..c C\1oc:>-2....~(.!)....~~c: o..c(l)~
16 0 CD -'= C5 ..g &i Co.s "'C u.. Q) Q) 0' ,2 .... Q) n::s
~ ~ :0 0 Q) (l) 0 ~ "'0 ca'16 :J -E ~ >
~octSE 2oS"C~u.(I)3~ocn~oSQ)
~"E Q) Q)"'C (;) - _ ~ en _ ~ ca..Q.6 CS _ e Ca
=O~E~6octSctSn~c..Q)c:e~~c:~>-
B ~~V.~m0~~ ~~~=~g~m
(/) ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ O-;;=""j '0 c: cu _ 0 .r= .e ~ ~ .s
woo c: (/) C'"... (/) 5 0 ... :::l"C - -.' t- CD ~
(.) c.. E 0 gJ ~ Co:>,.:o=: c.. (I) l:: jg rn. "C (I) ~
a: m _ cd 4il ~ ~ m c: cd (I) ""j ~ fa g~ 5
5 ,s ~ ]l'l'j 'i g g>'~,s ,g -g E ~ :;: -g J!l ~ ~-g
en.S: ~ .en.!!? g l:: :e t:: ~ 2 3 ~ N t) g ~ e ~
~ CD.Y2 ~ 0 ~"C .- ~ oS ~ en rn c, 01 cd "'C _.0 .-=
~;o"'~88c::1~_H8c::8c::e.a.E8c::e~~m
...J ...... 0 m D .,."'C _ C5 c.. Woo._ 0-_ 0"'C
c:s
Cl
Zo 9
o -
m Cii
c::~0>
~~:g.e
~O-l::mc:
E.9ns~o
E Q) -.-.ii)
> a. 0)'''''
8'" '" c::,~
oowc
-go..:
c::'" 0)
:>.mc:~
~.E ~.5i
~a....0)
E 0 0 c
E'ij;nw
>~~
8<356
'l5
c:: 0>
.g O)"e c:
:s l:: ~.2
c:s"Ot)
8 .. ._"
cu(5~~
'" '" '" c::
<<,s<>-8
~
c~Qi
>.Q)c:CD
~ E m.5i
~a....0)
E 0 0 c:
Eg!~w
8<35B
'"
...
I:: CI) C
o L,,- 0 0
~.....c
~ g ,2 'u
_"fit) 0)2
en CDc1;)
81:: a SE'C I::
a..1:: -6 8
gj'C
ea
jg ~-g
en_o-
~ ...- III '
~.s~.5i~
~eQ)~"2
-~en""lS
81:: en I:: Q) c:
li68(ij~
ff 0)"c f!? 0)1.0 C 0)
o:55.S:~"-:8~
aeno a. en C=-S(I)
~~c,~~~&~
rn CD .Q CD
~ca ~ t:: .s CD > ~
..;::::I~28. Uo_'C
m li6.c: a.~E--5
C::-8.en_~.~e
o en "C-""::S
- mJ2"'C-gM ~
~'l5..,_ 8~'''' _ is
~_ cD .~ 5 ~ 1;)
.s~:':"1ans~.[~
"C~.~.s~....
'g eE~J2 15~~
a:lQ)~g?5~eE
~.sg?8ii~~e
C)l
1ii
tOO
c g
.!3 ~
Sill
~ 8
~!
...
c
t-
U
M
,
V
"-
~
~
"-
es:
~~
=~
~'5
t:il:
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 36 of 174
s
~
boO
8
~
boO
!:::
.....
1:
o
0.-
~
'i:l
!:::
~
boO
!:::
'f::
o
....
.....
!:::
o
~
!:::
o
.....
~
boO
.....
....
.....
~
o
~
c
.2 l:J)
-I::C:_
J! 0''''"2
c:Coo
....= u
E U C Q)
",Soa:
u :E
8 -
""..
cQ)'i-
o ~ - c"
..::se
~=~cO
;:;;Q)U-
:!i:l!'ii.~
.5-
"C_
0..
~e~
0:: a."
'C a.D..
..c:c
>
Ol
C
0': =
.2..
.- .s:::
ao.
:l!
SOl
Be
.,.", ~
co,!:
0= ..
o.Co.
lB 0
a::l!
Ol
-e -g
.2=
.- ..
a:l!
:E
c
o
:c
J!c
i:8
i:l
'ii.
.5
l!!
"
.,
;I
:l!
c
o
~
Ol
:e
:E
O"'C~CC:"i1tiQ)(/)C:Q)Q)$'-:""i
~-~ Q)~i:l~=~Jg ~~-5 ~.~fd
(/)~~~ S~c:~_ ~UO~.
.. =>.. G) Q) Q)..c: c: (I) ....:;;::: ~ c.. .. '"
-~-CIl t>> ~."'Q)(I)cn.... c
~~~ ~Q)~=~>~Q)o~-~~
~(I)O "e>Q) ~cnQ)mC:-~l::-om
C5 E ~ ~ ~J5 CD ~ Q) -g ~ :8"'5 c:
'~~~Q)oOm~(I)..~._S~DO~(/)
-.- cc:-~~.... _:::J,fi::J..-m
..c c: m :::II c: m Q) 0 C'" en':::: .....0
~cn8'~~5C:(/)5C:~E~Q)~~~
~.5Sn~'~Q)~-Q) Q)Q)"'C8~(I)
~U~~a~.~~"'C="'C~..c~ ..c..~
:::II Q) ..... >-.... U Q) c: Q)"'C .
C"'c:~cC:g ns~~::snsc..-SU)~-5~"
cd U)._ c moQ)<D_
ns co 1U .... fii'= 1;) c: :::II"'C -g ~ c: - 0
=~Q)"'C .~o JY.-_-gC)Q)Q)
~nQ)~..c ~ ~"iQ)Q)~.-.5.~S
O:::J....e >C)-"'C~>C)c..m(/)c:
0"'C:::J'-UQ)o~Q)'-e~~:::J~Q)8.
nsc0_:::JQ)E....cno ~oH::,.c
m8mgE~~~~~8~~~..c~:::J
o
z
-
c
.~i!1
ca.
=> 0
E Q; .
E > "E..
8....
ClCl
"
~i!1
=> a._
e.2.9
e .. "
> ..
8~i5
c
o
U
o =>
-:,
~ '"
.Q c:
~g
-
c
~i!1
c a._
~.Q.9
e .. "
> l!!
8~i5
c
.Q~
13"
=> ..
~"fi
c c
8~
_ '0
m"3
'E .- 0 c:
Q)= giij.~
c: as Q) _ Q)
8.'0 ~~"'C
e.l!l ~~.,.,
c..c: 0 as.
n81ti:a'2~
cU="3 fito.c
'2'jg 0) en Q)jg
a.. en ~ co-.6 0
5 15 c -0 ~Jg 15 8l:
._Q).coQ)Q)cE =Q) 0_
~~g~~m5~CD~]t~~:5
5l-.. ~~'.E ",,s,s,s"5 "'5.l!!
cQ)~~ Q)COQ)t:>>Q)OQ)_::l
8~"c -o.cc:c....en€c:en
".8 8 ::l~o;o:::.5 ~.5 ~ Q)e lii
-a. _....::lQ)-ocn:Ju.
CijQ)caQ).~co<n-o Q)E Q)O
....Q),.r::-OQ)O)oO) Q) .0)-
:20rt;t-c:oc-co....caca-c
o n:J ::l'- 0)';:: - ~ Q) C Q)
raq 615 5~ g.5 m-g.> ca cae"..
- M:O::: 0 'ca - Q) 0 u .~ .- c
Cij Q) ~ rt; Ecti";..5i-o CDO.QU; E
.c ~ L.. a. Q) .c L..- _ C a. ca - Q) Q)
en.,.Q)Q)....en~ccocc:::~..cCi.
n:5 ~ e:s1a 8l: 8..2 O).Q g Q) ~.5
a;ogca.c'- tsc:::oocn..c
'2'..c~ 6 en rt; ~ 2:0 2 2 c::: ~ ~
c..~Q)coicn-g-1i)e!(j)u;8==
.! ~~ Q) ~ 5:E C:::g~Cg Cg~ 8:jg
t-caca-.6co.c~ 0 ...cacn
'?
10
e'"
Q Q
= ~
.~ ~
ril~
~l
'S
~
l:l
V
'<1"
"-
:E
E
~
go
e!iE
'c;~
=~
<-
~ g
t=:i>:
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 37 of 174
e
S .2 Q
ECc-
o-l!
e c:= 0 0
~B'2~
boO :Jooa::
0 8-'~
I-<
~
boO ",.
e .,"is
l:::: 0 ...-s
'" " e
..... racnCl)aes
t: .~= E_
O "':;.!!i!!;
0.. :; I~
~ ,,-
"t:l o ea
"'>~
l:::: ~ e ca
- <L
~ :e .to..
boO ~
l::::
'C '"
0 .5 eLl
+-' ~ en
..... Sea
l:::: .- .c
0 6D.
~ :;
l:::: .!!'"
0
..... Be
~ en"C ~
co
o:t:: ca
boO <LCD.
..... l!l 0
+-' a::;
.....
~
'"
0 '2 il
. S5
~ .- .,
6:;
:;
e
0
E e
co
"':g
~c
Q.
.5
.,
:;
U
.,
2! '@
" (5
!3 e
:; 0
"0
e e l\i
0 0
'" ~
ea ~
'" .- ..
:e "' e
:; -g .2
~~
.~ m
o e
(j; 8
ci
z
e
en Q)~
"' .,e
c: ,!coQ)
(ij ~lij~m~~
..c: '5-m~ca~'2
.~ C)E{gcnroQ.
'$ mmcci:i>-
>00- (.) .Q :::J '6 Q)...elI
a.~~8:.8 s:s"E
E8U).:!!caQ)g~o
::a.sQ)=:::::JQ)~
1ijQ)(/)=(J)(/)OE U)
..c:-s"g afn;-c::::= w
cn_ca._CUCOo 0
uO;::;-S.E;;CO,!R.c: a:
., ",~-==_Qiu e: CD,.:. :::::)
,_C: 0-00>0........"0
e.~ 1::: >:e1:5 CO;! tJ)
CL.._ ca co -.:: 0..'- Cf) '> w
CD~-ec..mQ)iE~~ a:
j!:. c..:::J ~ 13:; e? ctI ~ ...I
C
a:
::>
!:i -
::>a:
00
'"
- e
e.-
,...,e
""Ee
e ..
:::J c..- c:
E~c.._.Q
E >a.~
8., .,."
000
c
~.,
'2 E ~ ....
::J c...... ~Q)
E.Q~'2~
8E ~.~~~
DCa.....:::
"
o
15
.s2
o~
5:8
c
,g~
::> 0. ~
E.Q{l
E ~ as
8~5
e
,2 ::i
U"
2~
1;;"
e e
8~
<;; "0
..c: C:-C: Q)
~mro.D
ffi-ggS
,Q :::::J._CO
c...8 e ~ .
c.. c.. ca -c
C'dSC:Q)~
gm~OQ)
,_ c: .! co en
12~Q)C!8e
...... "C ..c C")
.,
ii'i
'"
E.!;;
,...,e
.1:= E c:
c: c..ctJ .
E..Q a: 5
Q) "":'(ii
E> 0..'::::
8., .,.'"
000
"t:l
"
g
~
o
Ei
~
.12
o
-
~
"t:l
C
"
b
U
"
oS
oS
.~
c
o
.~
'6
~
c
.g- ~
::> 0. ~
e.Q.9
E ., "
> .,
8~5
..
~"'.
..e""
"O:s2E
0".,
Mma.
1i)oO)
m -.5
=.Q~
-~~
~o.'"
~
'u;
c
"
'll
"t:l
Iii
..
o
'1:
'"
.12
o
-
"
.g
"
.c
ES
c
,g~
::> 0._
e..9.9
E g? ~
8~5
"0
1a -'
'0 ~'E~ffi
-oQ)'-e
~~5.5.9Q)
'~:Egm"2e?
~8~.=~~
,
"
-
"
'1:
go
l>.
'"
"
,
"
oS
"
.c
~
" '
~~
gs.~
c.~
" 2
ij'"
","
"oS
oS oS
~'i
..c"
- 0
il'.g
~;.::l
.e-lE
u"
.~~
",E
'': "3
_u
<;; -
-f1j 0 Q)
c~~.~ ~~~
~o';::€ E8"5"C
=C::}-::J"'C~-rn5
c.."'C Q) .... c:: Q) Q)~" ...:
Do c:: ~ .~ .ns ~ 6; a:: E ~ c:
co ns..... "'9!i~ tt1"C _ Q) '0:: Q)
n U 0--c._.5 0 ~ s:: 0 5.
iil rt'I 0 c::.~"'C.... ::J~:t::::.....
__+::I a.::J .i" .... >._ ns c: Q)
e c:: o..e:g g.1:3 ~ 0 0,
a.. 8 co: C):CO (,) U U I- :::!: <(
.s. --0_
.....9 5 Q) 'E ~"Cil c.9?..cna
ns~~~S€ ~ ....~I-.;::~eo.~s::~
C)o~>"C- Q)::J .... ::J~....
;::=';::mc:m Q).s::::.O"fSC'l:l'--ggJ.a
~~l-ens~rn~:~.~~~.~~~3
Q)tt1SQ)~"CQ)~0~~~~:t::::~"Cu
mt5.~~~~~~~~~~~~'E~~
g.9!..o..5 C)>.g.;::"C~ c<l: t::>>ctl Q) i::co
....ee"Ce:t::::~ons::J8.Q)~C)Eo~
.2 c.. 0. ~,o.U a:: :t:::: = (,) > "C c: 0.'-
....Q)Q.C) Q) c:ns~rn=ns'-o~C:
CL.5 tt1_ ~5~~1a 3 2:! Ctl o€Ci) VJ~
~ wo~ ::J~_o~zC)a>i'~
CtI~~~g€~"Cm~~~~'~~a.o
~ ~o.E ~ ',BE: 8", ~e ~ ~ ~.~.g:g -g S!
c:: Q) ca Q) c: 0)- M ::J co -
-~ "'8= Q) c:: 0.0 Q) 0,0)'0 ~o~ p cn15 COe
c: .- co.- - c:
._ _ :>.= 12 Qi .s < .5"C .o:t:::: 0).- rn;
_"C~~"C~>COQ)ns ec:"C"C~"C
.a: [!! ..c "5 'Ie: Q) I-~ .c ~ ~ Ci3 OE c: E!:! Q) c:
en (/) c: :'CO "C t- __ .,. c.. as c).... co:
too
00
" 1'l
U
e
~ ~
.;lo.
...JJ
o
t-
O
""
o
V
0.
;a
Ie
~
0.
~~
Era
<-
~ g
j:;;,;
Agenda Item No, 13
Page 38 of 174
s
e
b.O
o
l-<
j:l.;
b.O
!:
....
;:
o
0..
~
"C
!:
ell
b.O
!:
.t::
o
+'"
....
!:
o
::;s
!:
o
....
+'"
ell
b.O
....
+'"
....
::;s
o
.
~
c
.2 OJ
195.5-
c:+:;c;'E
cuca_O
E Uc ~
::J,900:
& e!
""
~~~~
caU)CUoa
.~lB E_
:t::::&.!!~
::& I~
"C_
0..
~e~
._ ICL CD
:t:: ca.Q.
a;<
>
'"
-25:
s..
-~
an.
::&
.!!'"
.<:Ic
'Cij'c ,...
C01:
o.:!:: ca
Q.cn.
XI 0
a:::&
'"
'2 '8
!!tj
a::&
::&
c
o
Ee:
co
1>>_
i~
Q.
.E
Ii!
:s
iB
::&
c
o
i\i
'"
32
::&
o
z
1::
f~
::> c. ~
E 0 0
E g! g
8.3<5
1::
f~
::> c. ~
e.2.9
E ~ ~
8.3<5
'0
~-
~ "E
::J..... c
13 8'. C'.l.Q
._ c: '0
o g'~ 2
:::0"01;)
,2 e"'O c:
d:Cl:a8
-
c
f~
::> c._
EOO
E1Do
> 0)
8.3<5
m-t~
c.. 0 ,2 c::
- g. g ,2
O~a. g
~.~~C)~
'S:"'O'-.5 en
Q) ns Q) .... c:
a:: c,'~ -5 8
c
..
E
::> .
.<=.!I
"'C'(f.j
C 0)
,,:,s
'" C
.!I 0
'(;]"'0
-00)
0) -
tl ~
.. 8
'" '"
ui':O
0) '"
~ C
5 'n;
'" E
~ ~
:t:::='tO
EoE;;.
-gc..oa-U)
en ~o 's: n:l
.s g"8:g 5
- '-.s co.-
:a~O)g>liij
,2 en E .- ffi .-
8:~€-e~-m
c:c 0.3= cnO"O
~n:l~~bca~E~SE~n~~omn:l~~n:l~~~
:o~bcn'5~~Q)n:l Q)._~ '~Q)o~~n:l~n:l '-
eU)Q)&ncn~~a. ~~~"O~~5~o cna. 2
C)~~ecaE;;~c...s~~o....m~~g.E ~sma.
~~a. ocaQ)cn_C)~"O'6~~~~OC:n:lU)E
~O'- go ...."OS.5 co-5 ~ Q; a.'1: Q)-~ o.=: Q)
n:l~~ ~~SS~~ ~a.~i'~ ~~gg-~~
o~8.~ ~~55~~ cag;.s~ Q) ~~~ a.~ ~~~
rom E'cS .s..cQ)Q)'5Q)n:lQ)o~C)€
Bo.... ...."O~On:l~5~~ S~.Q5Q) n:l55'3=
c; Q) O)_.E'-'- E '-'-, ~ -'=:::1 O..c as"'C
as '0'.5 c: ~ 6-_ ~ ~ 3: a:: o::!2.~ ca Q) c: _ ~ C) Q) CtI
:::1...."00) Q)ctl~.... U~~~>mo-~c ~ ~
0~eE~.~.Qw~ SOcwti ~.5~5~c~
.!ia~9>Gga~gi; B.Em~.Qo(ij"'5l0-gmQ) .Qg
o~~oo~~o~ c~~ m~ ~e~n~_Eo
-~~~~~Q)Q)on~~O~~Q) ~o ~~o~Q)
Em ~ ~m_ffi~._~_~~ 8~ c Q)0m
O~ ~~~~~.~R~c~c5~ c ~o~c~
mQ) Q)Duoc~~uo~8 c0o-ew"'5l82
~~~SEo~~m~m~E~ ~m~E~~~~ m
..
'"
r:i:
'-'
1::
f~
::> c. ~
E.Q~
E ~ Q)
8.3<5
1::
f~
::> c. ~
E.Q~
EO) a>
o [),!::::
'-'cc
'0 .
Q) cn"i 0
E.S; r,'~
~<Da;w
w > ~>
=8Q)~
<C5S:ei
0)
8. -:m
; t.~
> g c.
~gmg.
Q) '-~ ~
-'= e 2 c
t-~mm
,~~
5:ei
""..
C -
0'"
E'"
C
.~.~
(JJ -0
0)
~,sjg
-~,-
-:c~
.!ia m Q)
r, '" -_
Q) 0 ~ m
'-0 Q).-
eQ)~a.
~m~ e
Q)~ > ~
-,=2w~
t-m~m
6 '"
0) CD 1:!
~g~m
l!:.l'llilO)
.Q~~€
Q) c_ ci)
[).g:l ~.5:
~ ~ 'en-g
"O.J::.Q~
5i-;;~g;
~ ~~'E
'I:: ~ C'CS ~
t- cn- ~
Q)mo-g
=Sa~
:g~'1a ~
5~~8
ti5 5'E:6
.c
'"
r:i:
'-'
~'"
.. g
.5 ~
!il~
~~
...'"
..
.e-
l:l
'l:)
o
'<t
'"
:a
~
~
'"
eA
,,~
.s~
~.::
~ g
r:lI:
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 39 of 174
I
I
s
~
bI.l
o
...
~
bI.l
l::
.....
1::
o
0..
~
'i:l
l::
ro
bI.l
l::
"I::
o
...
.....
l::
o
~
l::
o
.....
...
ro
bI.l
.....
...
.....
~
o
.
v
e
~ en
S 6'E=6"
c:;:: 0 ~
~ ~~ ()
:::::I 0 0 CI)
u...l:::ia:
8 -
.....
e ""-
o! so"
..:::lIe
~= cuE oil
;CUep-
:i:;:~E.
~iii
iil~~
.!:! Co ca
:: Q. Q.
~<C
>
'"
.5 G)
~ III
.2..
.- ..c
50.
:;:
.!!!'"
:8c
Ill." ,...
eo't:
O:!:!: C'llI
Q.eo.
:rl 0
a::;:
'"
.S "0
~ 0
O..c
= a:;
5:;:
:;:
e
o
""
5e
eo
...-
EU
..<c
Q.
.5
.,;
.c
~
~ 0 J2Q)
(/) ctS u 5:E
~o Q) ~ 3:>-
~~"C~:5: ~~~~
~~~."'!!1 Q)~Q) Q) 3::..!2
.......-_ 10'- E..::.::: -co:
c:'t:::O.....t:cc..ctIcQ)
:2..2> ~ ~ g ~.2", ~ .~ 8: .
= (t) x 8 o..E >(ij'u ctI >.
jg ~ ~.~ 0.8 Q) ~ CD Q)"~
<n.....::J-cca OU)"C..cU
Ii!
'"
i
:;:
e
o
1;
'"
""
:i
B",
.5 E
.... ~.g
Q)~"'" .s=s
:E~ZQ)!Zw '" "
.9c~~.,.:;; :6Jg"gf
-c-c.. 'O:-5C:(I)~cD
.$a50ao 8.."C<u€
c: E Lrl'(j3 -..I ~ ::l ffi.c....
~ 8-> .~ g;! ~ -g c( ~ Q)
...."ii3w"CUJ- <nO.2=
0. > 0 .... 0 ca jg W.Q)_
~~~.g>-~c:<..:>~~
= ~z iE't:: a: g '5 Q) ~
jg'2~OZO a:l ~=:g
(I) ::;,;::1--=>1--.5 0"'" co
"'E <.:>::!i<.:>e.-c-
Q)E::!:W:::EW'S5Q.
~8Rg;8g:*e8-g
,(I'] ~o O"'C 0. ro ctS
o
z
~~
"2 E
=> Q. ~
E.Q.9
E '" "
o fi;.~
<':>00
~~
'2 E
=> Q.-
E.Q,S
E ~ 1ll
o Q).~
<':>00
'5
'" o>ijl .;
E.5 -".~
:O::::Q)Q)Q>
Q) > a. >
;;; 8 >< 0
~ C 2!.11l
_ ::J ='"C
""- -
.!Q .s c
0>.- >0 '"
..,!.. .25:t=E
C"'C"'C 0::: 5 c......
.~~~~-E.Q.g
c..'-7a..l::jg E ~ ~
~~ 6-~j::8C!;;<5
_"O~Q)
C Q)~.r=. >.
Q) as..... .....~..c
]~~o~"E
.f:Q~~5~~
::J.- c:s.-.- c:
g"'C ~ ~ :: ~
=caO(,Jcn{l)
~o~:5~~
c:'
1iJ Q) c: .2
.!::.~ <'IS Q) m
E ...g :5'.E
CD Z Q):t:= E
~~~~8
'"
"
m
oE-c
:::cQ)
C::Q)=
~5l*
a.c.."O
~.~ gj
~, - Q) .5_
- C Q)C::Q)0~5~ c:: c::
g~ co Q) Q) 0 ~= ~-_'(j)~ ~1ij". Q) ~~
"0 R0 ~"O~~~=.-~~'~Ec::~5~='~
~co m ~~8=~~ _0 O,~VI.~ ~~
Q)'-C::Ob~~ co~~Q)Q)'-E0ZC::"O~Q)~
c~~~~ a.~~i~"O~~8mQ)'~~~"O-
~-U€8 ~uw.-~coE~E =~.~~~5~
8<ilti!l.i3 ",jg".""OE ~<t",.v -E"'-ov-
C::UQ)~Q)C::~~co S~~Q)>~.5~E"O~~~
Q) -""C ~ "0 Q) LL Q) E e en Q) 0.- ~..c c:: 8 >. c:: C::._
~~8~~= .~~~co~5~~j~ j~8E
co~ ~Q)Q)~O~~5cnUZI UQ)=wco~
~~~~~~~~~-'(j)~b~sjm~U~~C::
.~~~- EO~~~'~c::5oD~~'oE~~8
E ~ en g ~ en .e co Si co ~ ~ 8 ;; 'C ~ en Q);s ~ E ~
~~""C__co0'-0Q)-'~ c::~o .IQ)=80
c::~c::co~..ccoE~~~oQ)'~~o~c::..cu _
co a. co = ~ Q; a:€:l c:: c..;;:: g.:g E ~ co ~ -;. 0 ~ ~
E~o50~C::c::~~c::CO~~Q)~ ~'>=~-EQ)~
~'~is~8e~u~~~""C~;~1ij~~~Q)~~
-~~~o~.eCl)Q)~ffioc=Z~~<~~E8
'"
ci:
<.:>
too
Q 0
. 11
.- ~
lii.ll
.!di
~~
..."
Q
.e-
u
t;-
v
"-
:E
1l
~
'"
"-
el'l
,,~
s~
~::
o
] ~
....i<:
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 40 of 174
c
S .!! '"
iCc-
~ o 'C 1!
c:;: 0 0
l-< ~ B'2 1Il
b.O ::J,3oc:
0 U ::!i
l-< o -
A.. c
b.O ....
c Jl Q)
s:: ~~c;!
..... C'GClJlU,.
1: ,g>lllE_
0 ""::!i.!!~
0- ::!i I~
~ 1:_
"0 0..
'ille~
s:: .~ a. ca
~ 1i ~Q.
b.O >
s::
.t:: '"
0 c
+-' 'C III
..... ,g..
s:: co&:
0 0'"
~ ::!i
s:: .!!'"
0
..... :E!c
~ "'C~
c 0
O:t= ca
b.O Q.C...
..... :a 0
+-' a:::!i
.....
~
'"
0 'E '8
. ~~
~ 15::!i
::!i
c
0
Ec
co
Q)'-
E'l:l
cuct
is.
.5
.Q
:c
"
l!! a.
" ,5
!B '0 '
",0:>
:2~
::!i >r--
c eo>
0 a.g
'ill la '"
'" .~8
""
liE .. '"
E '"
~ ~
'" "
,<::0
:::SJ
oa:
0
z
E
~~
" Q.-
E.!! ~
E !e Q)
8~i5
-
c
,g- ~
" Q.-
E 0 0
E Qi U
> '"
8~i5
'0 .
Q) CD"'C U)
E.~ ~.~
;CD~Q)
Q) > e- >
=8",~
<35=0
g
Q) ...to
Co .~.~
~ ,Q~
> 0 a.
CD-Q)Q.
"'C~mC'lSQ)
Q)'o..c::-c.Q
~ a~ ~j::
'" '
c'"
't::.E:
0'0
""'"
c -
0'"
E'"
C
cp't::
"""
U)'O
~ ~ CD
Q)~ fgo .~..c:~
=-,lg '" '" .Qo;
_'O';::l:l~ ""= 0"'_0""'"
.1Q~"-ctJc . ~ E=:i 3:0-
~~~S~B~~~~~~~co-~~
._~Q)~c~n~._cc..ctJc._Q)~~
e Q) c.. 0.'0 C Q) Q) 0.. ~ 0 E o:==.c-
0. ns..Q 0 ,-.Q) a. > 0 E CD .- ~"'C Q)
Q)..t:=. Q)....= U))( R.... E >=.22 0."'5=
~2~R~~~.~R80Q)~g~~~
t-tO"'Ccafl)~::I"'CC'l:J cn"O"'C;>..Q
~ 'E
.. '" '"
ui'"'8n; E
~ 0= '"
'5i5~",;;g
._ 0 <<J 13
g.cn';::Jg.eCii
~~~t m Q.e
Q) co ~ ra ....
'::5E1~al"'~
(ij '3 Q).- 0
..c:: u= g._';
(1)_"'0- 0.0 .
Q)ra~ga..t=5
io~jg~t;:e
00..(1)0+,,-'1)
"'C'-Ol~C:'~o
~..c: c: ~... 0 .... ~
s ~ =c 1ij"'C 8":0
Q) i ~ "'C 5 c.."C
j!: o.c: ffi.g i" fa
"f
a:
(.,)
E
~~
" a._
EOO
E Qi U
> '"
8~i5
-
c
f~
" a._
E.2{l
E ~ CD
8~i5
'0
Q) OJ"'C U)
.E 'E oS .~
- Q) ~ g?
Q) > &8
=8....
<5~:6
I;;
a. 0;
.Q '0,
"'",> 0
g
'0 0
Q)"'C~
F5lll
g>",
'C .5
0'0
,.. '"
C -
0'"
E'"
Q)'E
"""
U)'O
>-
c
'"
]ZQifg15
~~~ 5
,g~ctl5 .
cm>'oaJt/)
ljl'OE=-rdg
n; <D'o c: ffi <D
0.= =.~ ~ >8
cu"'On;Q)C1l(l)
~~ii=3:O
'" c
U ~ ~l;;g'Oal
.~ mQ)CU .S::6~~~
- a"Q E== m:Q; 01;.: <D.~
.53 <D~:J$ ~-s:s:! 0 c:~~
g= n; 8 ~ Q) Q) ~ N 815 0
_ ~:::J"'O- ~"'O(,.!) ~ 0)_"'0
~ ~ C"=a ~ ctI 5 og: ~ .S; $ ~
0.... ctI.s::.<D"'O",oo..c....-ct1
S ~~t/)-c~.s;~ ctI-5f5.s::.
ll802ij cD';;; c""al c~
n;:6~ $ Q) ~='-~ a;~ f!
-6 ~jglif~ 515t~ >8 ~ 8.
t;;n:J(I).an:J~Q)-QVlt/)E
Q) U)-..Q >".... 01iiLO.- C:O '"
> Q) ~ 0 r-. ca c: U) ..- ""'C .- -
Q) ~ c:c ~~.~.m 6'~~~
~gg.j~.m~Q)g~B=a
c: ~ a~~ 8..~'t5(f).E ~~
u;>
a:
(.,)
eoo
" g
.5 ~
~ ~
Ol'll
.;~
.:l~
..."
"
.e-
O
~
';
S
~
~
~
~
'~
i3
~
.s
-g
.,
~
'E
"
13
~
'"
.,
"
-5
-a"
S
.~
tl
"
.~
~
1l
~
-
1;;
-5
~
'0
l;l
'"
-e
~
"
'0
'"
~
<
co
,
'<t
'"
;a
~
~
'"
e~
'c;~
~~
~o
pi!;
M
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 41 of 174
e
i::
boO
o
...
p.,
boO
l=l
......
t:
o
0-
~
"d
l=l
ell
boO
l=l
.!::
o
......
......
l=l
o
;s
l=l
o
......
~
boO
......
.~
::;s
c:
~
C
,2 Q
-cc_
.lll 0." l!
c;:'so
alla._ u
E u C '"
::::lIooe:
g....~
a
....
c "2.8
0'" ..
:;:;!;c:C
~fd~a2S
;:CU(l)-
:i::E Ii~
.5-
"'C_
0..
Be~
._ a..CV
'E ~Q.
~
Ol
.5 CD
- en
S..
.- .c
6Q.
::E
.!!Ol
:Sic
en."~
6,g ..
a.CQ.
en 0
&!:::o
Ol
.5 "'a
- 0
S.c
.- 'S
6:::0
:::0
C
o
Ec
C 0
",.-
~~
Ii
.5
l!!
::I
en
III
::E
C
o
i
Ol
:e
:&
CD E;; "C_
00 mQ)-.!a__ ",,,,
ctIt:o:= .c3:-c~<C1 "C..c..c""C
>>ctI.....ca Oc: O)--c:
.c"Ec..c",.s"O='_.c: U)Q)(ij<tl~
"0 8 Q _ en "3 ctI - 5 en .... R~.c: ~ Ja
CI) un;.!a.m.,g.!:Q~"O.1a 0 0 E en 0)-
.S ctI a. g g ~ co"'" '0 0)- Ci. a's: l!3
E .!i;;; Q) - Q) ctI .- '0 ~ ..Q ffi Q) ~ 0.. ~ ~
ctI -10 .9 C)~ t5 r::: ..... .9"'5.-5 = Q) .... E
~u;""5ct1 2.Qca5c_rn",,.c::.g~
U) 'en-g Q) .$ 81 U) 1a -6 Q) ,2 0 ~.2:' c..
.- .Q 1:: co.S! :s c: g U) (ij 10 11 1$ -:.- E
~o Q) c.....""C 8- ~ 0..> a> m c:C,,)._
lJ)E>Q>8'Q) Q)'-Q)r5~:::J~<DO
8~o~~~~~~=~~i&=0~
<.f)~~.-:..~c...1D ctl_ arc=:;= E--
~ c...~ CJ) Q)..c Q) ~:c ctI C) c: .- "0 c..
o-cQ)c: e......- c:OQlQ)-
~j~ Cij-5'ej =,,,,.<;-,,,,,,(1) ~~U g.~ ~
,::::E "'C~....~ U_o..c:nQ)....E....
~~~j~;g~Q)a~E.~~~~
:::Jo-:=-rnc:."'OJ2.9-Ec:o.Eo.2!(I)(tl
.;
z
~15
'c: E
::I 0._
E..Q .9
E ~ al
o CD.=
(Jaa
c
f!l!
::I 0._
E.2.s
E ~ al
8.35
eO)
00
= 1'l
:i ~
l<l~
~ ~
.Jfr
...'"
o
t-
U
c -
"
~'" ~'"
'2 E '2 E
::I 0._ '" 0._
E.Q ~ E.Q~
E ~ E '"
8.35 > -
8.35
"0 "0
" "
<CI <CI
"" ""
" '" "
'5 '5 .:
~~ ctI ,9
0,0
",,2 ",,2
,,- ,,-
.- '" .- '"
- " - "
'" 0 68
au
.. C C
~'" ~'"
'2 E '2 E
.. ::I 0._ ::I 0._
E 0 0 E..Q~
E a; 0
> '" E g? Q)
8.35 8.35
.: "".~ '?'
~ C)~ '" "'"
. "
0" 0"<>
1'52 tj'62
l!!115 2!.l!!115
'" """ '" "" "
.5 g> 8 .S::;; ~8
Q)'K::'"O Q)'C "0
~-65i :t:::::lC:
(I)."",
.<a
'"
(ij:; .
-"""'"0
~m.s;!
~Elii
o '" E
1:SJ!!
",,,,a.
o ~.E
-g 6 6;5-g~.9.~.!Q.~
n:lnn~.5~~oQ)~
aSS ~~~E.5'655'
-.::; rn rn Q)'- ctI 0 UJ c: en JB
~l:::c::::;=<<I'Soc 'w
",88.gEEac:8-g.~o
o _ eO :eoa>
~ Q) ca -g ~ 1:5 ~'E C 'e
(1):6,9-0: n:lE.5 c Q)~ c..
:t::::I i: <n.Q ...... Q)
en g g>-e c: E (5 E :5
na>_-g~Q)8tf.l=e1ii
.!lL~ca.?;SI!!1i5<D- -0)
oC{J.J::-Q)'- -0>,.....
c..ccn a.~t=ctlc/)cam
=o~'Eo8c6~c:~C=
cu ~Q)>.cn-"'E~Q)"C~
og><<J E"t::", CD n:I o..E Q).g
c:.-..... a. _"'0_ nt).......
.~ ~ 1: '5 g-:s ~ (ij 'S ~ ~
(0)8 gc.E rniii g:c ~
.
~
Z Z
.<a
7a ~ .
1ii~~
.....me
~EQ)
o '" E
1:s~
Q)~~
(0).-
g "0
B_ a; ~
..Q=(l)U)
=;:~~
~~<U"'"
<n-S.c 5,
o~~~
~ ~.@.<a
.:::: ctI.!a g
"8,5 "C-c
0>(;) g
g .~.m ~
US~*
2 en Cl c:
...... 'E Q) ,g
"'Q)..s::o
"8 E- '"
o..g~
Q)'S n:I c:
F g~ 8
C)J
Z
Co
:E
~
Co
gA
C>~
2C1j-
~:::
~ ~
!5l!:
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 42 of 174
~
l-<
boO
o
l-<
~
boO
~
......
1::
o
0..
~
"0
~
C'J
boO
~
......
l-<
o
+-'
......
~
o
:;s
~
o
......
+-'
C'J
boO
......
+-'
~
o
..f
e
.S! C)
1;;, c c_
og O'C"E
c=' 0 0
E ~~ 1Jt
:::1.9 oa:
.3 ~
....
Sl!!-g~
+:::::11:0
&=E~
;;Q)Q)~
:i == Q. >=
.5-
1:_
0..
5e~
._ Q, ca
~~Q.
>
ClI
e
"i: :K
S..
-.<::
S<L
==
"'ClI
~'E >-
eo'C
o:t:: ca
<Le<L
&!~
ClI
.= "C
~ 0
S.<::
.- II
S==
==
e
o
""
Be
eo
"'-
EU
"'co:
Q.
.5
l!!
'"
m
==
e
o
:;
~
ii
'"
,5
Cii
E
m<:s
"'"
~ .0'
,Sa
0.=
'" '"
"",
l!! c
~.~
~"Cc:
'0 Q) 0
c:.~-...:::;
"''''''
'" " 2
"''''-
,~'o~
0_0
c Co"
o
z
E
"~~
'" 0._
e.Q.9
E !Ii ~
8c3iS
E
-""'"
'c: E
'" 0._
E.Q~
E ~ (J)
00).:
UDD
"0
c
'"
'"
c "
:.cB
E!:! .-
",U
",2
.S::; 1;)
:; a
0"
E
-""'"
'2 E
'" 0._
e.Q.9
E '" "
> '"
8c3iS
'" .:
C Cl).Q
oct;
~~~
g. 0)1:::
.5 ~8
<D'C "C
m-6 ~
"'"
OJ
.<::
'"
li;
0.
o
~
'"
o
l!!
'" "
"'"0
'" '"
"'-
E Iii
l!! E
"'.!!!
<n 0.
ffi.E
E1a .s = E
=-5 ~ a:J 0-
~(/)(I)B(I)'-E-1ti ..... c:
.c.~Q5..c~._:S1i3-g 0 0
Cf)~>l:: =~>roz-ogi
~:g~~~~E>-: E: >-",' "'03: '"
~ a:J q):::It; (/).- </) ro-o_;g
.:::~'5~~o~'6!:: :s(ij~
c:....Cc.-t5 C:O_<D
8~-s,o(,)e~-s,~JS~g
c:~._It,)>--ca'-::::l (ijD
o C ~ ~..c B Q) ~ 0 -a.c s..
U,Q._--g (,,) .,._.c::::J rn-o
2o~.9.5 5 63~ e 5 c:
....::::J en C)S:=.-.- 0-:5.- a:J
~':::Q)C:t:t)OQ)C:>.OU)
8(1)....:;:;Q)::::J::::J....Q)ctS2~
c8"O ....1i5-m.b-o Q)-C--c
CD "58-oc:~"5.!5~c:
~~~~~88~~:E8c73
'"
z
I
E
"~~
'" 0._
:E..Q .s
E '" "
> '"
8c3iS
E
-""'"
;2 E
'" 0._
e.Q,S
E ~ ~
8c3iS
"0
c
'"
'"
c .
:aa
e.-
"'U
",2
.&; 1;)
~ c
.58
E
.~~
'" 0. ~
E.Q~
E ~ Q)
o Q).:
UDD
'" .:
c: CD.S!
Oct;
~~ 2
o._1n
'" ~,c
.S ~8
(I)'C "C
ij5.g ~
.
"'"
='"
ttJ:; .
iirJ-g
-"'-
2tE:5
o '" E
J:S.se
",<no.
o ffi.E
.~ ~ Cti
"_55 E1ii
.c:",,,,
taQ)E~
~~'seo
.s~g"5rg
u.cc<tl~
(!:!-o..r::
-.S:aar-g.
6w2::EJ!!w
o.~ 1;)'Ci) <1> ~
l::Q)l::ro>=
:fl:5; 8::"5il
2~ol::5i"tJ
-~(I)-
'tniS"tJ UJ'~
l::;::'<1><1>UJ-
8':=~cPctJ55
'm:; ~:6 2-~
~jg~~g~
't
z
E
,g~
'" 0._
E.2ii
E ~ cP
8c3iS
E
-""'"
'2 E
'" 0._
E.2 .S:
E '" "
> '"
o cP.=
UDD
"5
~!!i
[ij"g
'" '"
l:jc..
.;; 0)
_c
.....:s
0=
.;::: ;::,
<L '"
-
c
-""'"
.2 E
'" 0. ~
E.2.S:
E !Ii ~
8c3iS
E
'"
E
iU'
0.
~ en
.~ .a
a:-lll
.,;
~*.~55E
.c:'f
"'iij E3 UJ tl= Q) .
..r:: l::.= 0 i;~
-,,(I) ~~_o a.ctJ
'0 m'= E.Q
~ ~ > Q) 0)._ li
.-(i)0';;.5oa.
lil:: a.>.-g:e ctJ
~ 8.5 l!l..2 ~ lQ
'"
"
'-~
in
91::
'" '"
,5E
u!li
2~
~.s
8 a
'lilu
.c:",
'" i2
U '"
.~.~
- '"
a..'t::::
'" 'f
Fa
z
o
~
o
<L
U>
Z
co:
a:
....
o
z
co:
u
ii:
u.
~~
.... ....
!!l
E.S:~~'S6
2 ~--tA~:6
- ro a.cao:;
.~-g-g.;;~o
05;::,:2-;:-8
Q).c.83:rtI_
.....u_c:~tb
.Em~.Q~O)
UJ.O'.o-O 0"0
Q) ..... ..... Q) >- l::
.:::.:: o..o..CP(ij ro
~ >. >,::t::::._ >.
;;:::;;:::roCiiro
'O$cP..c:::'t;:::;:
.EUJ1n$ctl~
~~m~~2
8 Q) Q)E€a
:5 -6 ;::, ::::J';::
.
e""
Q g
.5 ~
~.8
. 8
!a
...JJ
Q
"
<3
o
...
,
v
'"
:E
~
~
Co
j~
.s~
~:::
Q
l!"
....<<:
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 43 of 174
c
8 0
:;:; c gt_
SO"I: "C
~ ii-So
l-< co .- lil
M ~.s ~a:
0 8 ~
l-<
~
('0.
M c "is
::: O!_IU
:;:::;::sc:::C
..... CGcnGJ~
1:: :8':3 ij-
0 .- 2- i!E
0- 2 Ie .
~ "C_
o co
"0 ~e~
::: ._ Q. co
~ :t:: Q.c..
mc:e
M >
:::
'C '"
0 .5 cu
ol-' S=
.....
::: -J::
~a.
0 2
::s
::: .!!'"
0 :8c
..... co';:~
~ c 0
o:t:: co
M CLCa.
..... 13 0
ol-' a:2
.....
::s
'"
0 .5 "C
~ 0
. OJ::
V :S'ii
02
2
C
0
'"
J!c
c 0
...-
EU
..CC
a.
.E
I!!
::0
co
co
..
::;;
c
o
i@
'"
'"
:i
CD >- Q) C) -grJ)VJ_
~ ~ Q)~S _ € c ~ c ~ ~c~~
~ ~ '~~9 ~8~ ~_~_i~~ '0- ~ei=~
-~~ c c-- c-ocC)~c~Q)ro~ U>~~ Q)
~~~ ~ ~Q)g~ ~~g~~S~~~~~~ ~ Q)~8j~~
c_'~ ~ c5c'c 5.~~~~-o-ool~ ~Q) '~Q) VJc~
8~~Q); ~~8~ ~~~~~~~~~~'c~~=fi a~~Q)gc
g~~=~ ~j~E ro~€~Q)$m~~~~~-g~~ ~~~g~:
.2, Q) g 0 ~ ......'" ctI 1ii.~ So.=:!: 3: E f3. g ..... ~ ..... >..sc "2 'E"'C VJ m CIJ .s ~ Co 0-
c~ t ..... ~_ ~..... ~ ~oQOctl C)Q)~C >-rJ).-Q)ct1
8~~R~~g~~€ ~~.~~~~i~i~~'~~'~ ~~S~!g
S~=ctI'E.~~ctI1ii3: 'EoC~C~o.Q)"'C.~~Yacc ~Q)_~o~
~~~~~~;~.~~g.~~~~~!~m~~~.~fi~ j~i'~~~
~o.ccQ)~~ctI2U~~~~~8_8~c~Q)$~22 ~~~~~~
~~octl~'-U3:u~rJ)=0VJ2om-~@o&'__U- ~VJ.....UQ)._
~ili.t~&i;~~lj~jll~~~~t~~~~~I~t~~i
.
.
.
.
6
z
tOO
" g
c "
u
~l
....'"
"
:e-
u
'"
'"
,
v
0.
:a
~
~
0.
ill':>
,,~
.s~
~:::
~ g
F:ii":
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 44 of 174
c:
S .2 '"
-cc_
(Ij .l!I 0'''' 1!
c;:: .s 0
l-< Q) CU._ u
b() E U C cu
:::I,9oa:
0 u :;;
l-< .3 -
~
b() "".,
c:.,"i,.
~ ~:;c:c
..... caV)CPoas
1: ~m ~-
0 ._:;;-~
:;; Q.>
0- 05-
~ "2_
'"0 0"
~e~
~ ~ Q.~
(Ij .t:~
b() ~
~
'!:: '"
0 .5 cp
+-' ~ ..
..... ,g..
~ .- z:
0 go..
~ :E
~ .!!'"
0
..... :5! c
~ "'i:~
c: 0
o:t:: ra
b() Q.c:o..
..... lB 0
+-' a::;;
.....
~
'"
0 '2 '8
. ,gz:
'<:t" cQ;
0:;;
:;;
c:
0
E c:
c: 0
CD;
i~
a.
05
c:
-"='''
"2 E
=> Q. ~
EOO
EQ;O
> 0)
00>.=
<.JOO
c:
-"='0)
"2 E
=> a. ~
E 0 0
EQ;O
> 0)
8~i5
'5
1'l$
1ij'~
iil 0)
.!lQQ..
gg>
o~
.;:: :;,
a. lD
-
"
-"='0)
'2 E
=> a. ~
EOO
EQ;O
> 0)
00>.=
<.JOO
c:
0)
~
a.
~ u)
"S: ::l
~~
<ii
z:
'"
Eo
rl 2
a~
~8
.;
"'C ~ Q)c
ffi~'~ ~
2l(l):C~<<i
~'iij~e:o
E'::J2 c..B
~'Q) c).~a
e=:6.2g-
c..>-c::t::
,E ~.2 g ~
Ii!
=>
..
III
:l!!
c:
o
i
'"
""
ii
t5 u:i"'C 0 .;;
.9l. Effi.~ .~
o ctI-"'C Q) E
c..~~ ~..... .....
Uw,_O m~15
~~58~o~o_
~.5ts~!::~:fl c.:E
_o<U,S2o=a>LLJ=.
~'"c; ~ ~ E.5 f!! t= en
c..O'EmOC:Q)(I).S
_':.E._..c:_ o'E~''''
(ij::l c: en <US.-.E'::!: .
.c.:9 Q).=..c..c<(=<':>- Q)
rJ).ba;~-;;';;:: Q)o.~
'E6C/.1~:ccc:=60
~ u 10 (,,).- 8 0 c:=''= Q)
:=/D mctl -.;:;.-0.....
fS: (ij g>"e ~Jg g -g ~ ~
ctI t5 E Q...c g -m"C ~ ~
a>....::lmc:ctlc..2 ..sc:
F :iii !i! F rl,g 8.g ~ ~
'"
"
'"
0.
c:
0)
E
~
a.
.5
.;
z:
N
ci:
I-
-
"
-"='0)
'2 E
=> a. ~
e.Q.9
EO)"
> 0)
8~i5
-
"
-"='0)
'2 E
=> a._
e.Q.9
EO)"
> 0)
00).=
<.Jee
'5
~ '"
,,""
'" E
=> ~
'" 0)
"'a.
'0 g>
- .-
~ "C
0=
';::: :::::J
o..lD
c:
-"='0)
'2 E
=> a._
E .Q -gO
EO)
> ~
8~o
c:
0)
~
a.
~ ui
'S; =>
~~
.l!i
-g~Q)ffi
ctIjg'Vi E
(ij .$ U):C Q) .
..c c.!:::: 0 i;~
"'~O)E.ll!_oa.m
'E v 0)'=. E.Q
rl _2 > Q) 0)._ c..
'-(f) 0=.5 00..
c..c c..>."'ClE co
~ 8 .E ~ ~ ~ ~
~ - ~
en ~"E$ m 5~
(ll,ij9(3 ~_U) E ~ts ski
-50ffi-o>-~~E2cnm
Co E~ !..-....<l) = Vi <l) E
.-_ en:; 2~~c:E<l)
g <l) ~=t:t-c..ca- 873 Q)
~= 2~E.1; C-~....~ 0,
:20 ~~ en-g s~~~
't::c'-_Q)o:::JEcr.n"C
~.Q 5 0 $ 'E € E ro = ~
='O':.F-'EQ)Q)'E8d)oO
ro2uQ)....F=o cc>Q)
..c:-mFOs;..u.....ocQ)
cn ~ .... s;...~ ca u g c '3: -
n 0 $ ca.52 c..:e v ro..Q $
.~ u.~ c.w u; e ~.E (5'~
e'E Q) -a,~ == - '0 '0 - c..
c..cn~:::J m:J ~.t:.t: Q) e
Q)a:JcpO.;;.J~a:J--:5c..
~..c:=-.E__.c..~.~_ c..
t-c..o..,~ocn-o-ooca
'"
~
~oo
Q g
.9 ~
1511
8
~ ~
.:l&
....'"
Q
t-
U
C'I
...
,
<:t
'5
0) 0)
>- 0) =>
.5.c-~ai
~Q)~C"')>
::!:.~ <<1""; <(
_......c: _
coO cnX ca Q)
111 ~'iil8<ii.",
.gJ.,g -; q .~D
en ~ C)g ~ ~
~~~.~C\J=.,g
m 'S'!!t<<1<n
.... .c .... Q)
~Q)~8~..:>o::
S~c:(Og~
t/.l(;58~cna;
E ..5
0-
:a
~
~
Cl
go
e~
';~
=~
<-
~ Q
~
19'<:
.
.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 45 of 174
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank.
The Auto Group Dealership
FinallSjMND
4-13
CltyA'~~1i~NO. 13
Page 46 of 174
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.3 PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The project incorporates several design measures which would minimize project impacts.
Additionally, adherence to applicable regulatory requirements will also minimize impacts.
Specifically, design measures and applicable regulatory requirements are provided for
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and
traffic, and utilities and service systems. A complete list of the design considerations for the
project site is located on the following page, and on page 10 of the attached ISjMND.
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
4-14
CityA'M$a:rlem:No. 13
Page 47 of 174
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AESTHETICS
Lighting and Glare
All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting ordinance
including the siting and direction of light fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of
60 watts would be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto
adjacent properties or streets. Low-pressure sodium lighting in accordance with the Mount
Palomar Observatory lighting standards would be required. Individual lighting for building
entrances would also be restricted to small wall mounted fixtures that use low wattage (60
watts or less) incandescent lighting. No lighting shall be directed towards the 3.0-acre area
to be donated for conservation.
AIR QUALITY
Construction-Related
The project must adhere to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rules; Rule No. 401(Visible Emissions); Rule No. 403 (Fugitive Dust Control); Rule No.
1113 (Architectural Coatings); Rule No. 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel); and Rule No. 1186/1186.1
(Street Sweepers) during construction-related activities.
Contractors shall utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators
rather then temporary generators where feasible.
Operational-Related
The building(s) shall be equipped with ENERGY STAR qualified appliances, where
applicable, and shall exceed California Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for water
heating and space heating and cooling to the extent feasible.
Energy efficient lighting, which exceeds the California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards,
shall be installed to satisfy interior lighting requirements within the building(s) to the
extent feasible.
Shade producing trees shall be planted at the project site to the extent feasible.
The project shall incorporate fans to assist natural ventilation, centralized water and space
conditioning systems, high efficiency individual heating and cooling units, and automatic
setback thermostats to the extent feasible.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project will comply with all requirements of the Western Riverside Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan.
The project will pay appropriate Multiple Species Habitat Conservation fees, including
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat fees. .
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
4-15
City.A:~Ji~No.13
Page 48 of 174
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
GEOLOGY and SOILS
The proposed,Project shall adhere to all recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical
report for design and construction, and in accordance with applicable structural
requirements of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) and the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC). Compliance with these requirements, the California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore
(Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code), would ensure that the proposed project would be
designed to withstand adverse seismic activity.
Ground Shaking
The project shall implement recommendations outlined in the geotechnical evaluation for
the proposed project in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and 2001
California Building Code (CBC) requirements for resistance to seismic shaking.
Erosion
During construction, soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant
impact through the implementation of a project-speCific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the California State Water
Resources Control Board Order No. 92-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with best
available technology (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BeT) to
reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project would comply with existing federal and state standards in place for the
handling, storage and transport of hazardous materials.
HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY
Hydrology
The project is prohibited from grading or developing with the 0.02s-acre area that will
remain designated as Floodway even after adoption of the City's General Plan Update.
Water Quality
In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Drainage Area Management Plan (SAR-DAMP) and
NPDES requirements, an applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP. In addition,
the City shall ensure that construction activity is in compliance with the State's General
Permit for Construction Activities administered by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board located in Riverside (Santa Ana, Region 8) (SARWQCB). The site-speCific
SWPPP shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs), Best Available Technology
(BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BeT) to reduce/eliminate erosion and
sedimentation assoCiated with construction.
All construction period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the California
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
4-16
City7{~iI'j;m No. 13
Page 49 of 174
,
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
I:
I
Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbookfor
Construction.
The State's General Permit for Construction Activities also requires that management
measures be incorporated into new development to ensure that once construction is
completed, the residential land use does not contribute substantially to water quality
problems in water bodies that receive storm water and non-storm water runoff from the
projects. The proposed project would address post-construction (operational) water quality
Impacts on a parcel by parcel basis through construction of facilities that would filter the
storm water and convey it into the proposed project's storm drain system or the river
channel before leaving the property. The design features for each parcel's water quality
facility are outlined in the project's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
NOISE
City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance
The City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary source noise impacts does not permit
operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or
demolition work between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am
The project shall adhere to the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance governing construction
hours.
PUBLIC RESOURCES
Fire
The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance
requirements. The project would comply with the 2006 International Fire Code, California
Building Code, and applicable Riverside County Fire Department Code requirements and
standards for construction, access, water mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants.
In addition, all new development projects are required to contribute to the City's CFD No.
2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services).
Police
All new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities
District (CFD) No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services).
Schools
The project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by LEUSD
pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, cA07).
TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
The Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program evolved
from the need to establish a comprehensive funding source for regional arterial highway
improvements for western Riverside County. This program (adopted December 2002)
establishes a single uniform mitigation fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
4-17
CityA'~Q,flj;a;No. 13
Page 50 of 174
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
new development on the regional arterial highway system. It was adopted with the
!ntention to avoid. multiple, discrete fee programs with varying policies, fees, and
Improvement proJects. The project proponent would contribute the required amount per
dwelling unit TUMF for funding regional transporultion improvements.
Per City of Lake Elsinore Resolution No. 2007-80, the project proponent must pay traffic
impact fees (TIF) to offset any cost to the City from added traffic to City roads caused by
the project.
UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water
Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD).
The project shall incorporate drought-tolerant plants into the landscaping palette and use
water-efficient irrigation techniques.
The project shall install U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Certified WaterSense
labeled or equivalent faucets and high-efficiency toilets to the extent feasible.
Wastewater
Sewer-related infrastructure will be connected in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, EVMWD, Riverside County Department of Health, and the
RWQCB.
Solid Waste
The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and
regulation related to solid waste, including the County's Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE).
Gas
Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with
the requirements and specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities
Commission under existing roads and rights-of-way.
The Auto Group Dealership
Final IS/MND
4-18
city.d:.'1.imNO.13
Page 51 of 174
. DRAFf INITIAL STUDY /
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION No. 2008-04
State Clearinghouse No. 2008081083
Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07
General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03
,
h
"
!
The Auto Group Dealership
Lake Elsinore, California
Applicant:
The Automotive Group, Inc.
450 West Vista Way
Vista, CA 92083
Prepared For:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 52 of 174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUcnON..................................................................................................3
II. PROJECf DESCRIPI'ION ............................................................................6
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI...IST .....................................................................14
A. Background........ ........ ................................ ............. .... ............... .............. .............. 14
B. Enviro~me~tal Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................... 15
C. DetermmatlOn ....................................................................................................... 15
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................22
I. Aesthetics............................................................................................................... 22
II. Agriculture Resources............................................................................................ 24
III. Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 24
IV. Biological Resources ..............................................................................................33
V. Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 38
VI. Geology and Soils................................................................................. .................. 41
VII. Hazards and Hazardous MateRIALS ...................................................................-43
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality...............................................................................-46
IX. Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................... 51
X. Mineral Resources ..... ............................................. ...............................................52
XI. Noise .. ........................................ ................. ...........................................................53
XII. Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 57
XIII. Public Services....................................................................................................... 57
XIV. Recreation....... ................ ........ .... ........................................................................... 59
XV. Transportation/Traffic.......................................................................................... 59
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 68
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................... 73
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ............................................. 75
VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................76
VIII. MmGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION .....................................................78
COY OF lAKE ElSINORE .................................................................................... 78
FINDINGS............................................................................................................ 80
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Regional Vicinty Map .............................................................................. ................ 7
Preliminary Site Plan...............................................................................................8
Aerial Photograph Showing Parcels.........................................................................9
The Auto Group lJe/Jler.fhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Ncgatiye Declaration
City of Lake Elsinore
August 20UR
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 53 of 174
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2005-2007 Days Standards Were Exceeded
and Maximum Observed Concentration ...............................................................26
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ........................................................................ 27
E~!ssi~ns Summary .o~ Construction Activities (pounds per day / without
mitIgatIOn / peak actlVlty) ......................................................;............................. 28
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions (summer / pounds per day)...............29
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions (winter / pounds per day)..................29
Construction and Operational C02 Emissions (tons per year) ........................... 30
SCAQMD Localized Thresholds for Lake Elsinore................................................ 31
Localized Significance Summary Construction (peak pounds per day)................32
Localized Significance Summary Operations (peak pounds per day)...................32
Level of Service Descriptions................................................................................ 60
Intersection Level of Service Definitions.............................................................. 60
Proposed Project Traffic Generation ..................................................................... 61
Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service .................................................. 61
EAP Conditions (2012) Intersection Delay and Level of Service ..........................63
EAPC Conditions (2012) Intersection I:l'elay and Level of Service ........................65
Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation ........................................................... 70
**Please note that the Technical Studies have not been included here as Appendices. However, all
studies and other supporting materials are available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore
Planning Division.**
The AI/lo Grrmp Dtalmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitig:1ted Negative Declaration
City of Lake Elsinore
AU!,'I.lst 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 54 of 174
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the proposed project "The Auto Group Dealership", as requested by The
Automotive Group, Inc. For purposes of this document this development as described in
Section II, Project Description, will be called the "proposed project".
B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIlY ACT REQUIREMENTS
As defined by Section 15063 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with
information to use as the basis for deciding whether the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the
necessary environmental documentation for a proposed discretionary action. The City of
Lake Elsinore is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project that may have significant effects upon the environment.
Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that although the project could have a
significant effect on the environment, mitigation has been included to bring all potential
impacts to less than significant levels. This determination was made based upon technical
analysis, factual data, and other supporting documentation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) is being proposed. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments
received on the document will be considered by the City before it acts on the proposed
project.
This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.); Section
15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000,
et. seq.); and applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore
C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This IS/MND is an informational document intended to inform City of Lake Elsinore
decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of
potential environmental effects of the project. The environmental review process has been
established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to
examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse
impacts.
D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY
The Initial Study is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and
environmental implications ofthe proposed project as follows:
The Aulo GrollP Dealmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
3
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 55 of 174
I. INTRODUCI'lON identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the
process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by
reference documents.
I~. PR~JEcr DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of proposed
discretIOnary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM presents the results of the environmental
evaluation for the proposed project and those issue areas that would have either a significant
impact, potentially significant impact, or no impact.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS evaluates each response provided in the
environmental checklist form. Each response clJecked is discussed and supported with
sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and
identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section,
mitigation measures are also recommended, as appropriate, to reduce adverse impacts to
levels of "less than significant" where possible.
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance
with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those persons
consulted and involved in preparation of this Initial Study.
VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document.
VIII. MmGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION
E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist
Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of
the Initial Study. All responses take into account the whole action involved, including off-site
as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and
quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including:
1. No Impact: A "No Impact" response is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project.
2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project
implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts,
however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no
additional analysis is required.
3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the
mitigation measures and explain how the measures reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
TIx AHfo Group Dfu/mbip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Ncgati,'e Declaration
4
City of Lake Elsinore
AU!-,>tlst 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 56 of 174
4. Potentially Significant Impact: Future implementation will have impacts that are
considered significant and additional analysis and possibly an EIR are required to
identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant
levels.
F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL
STUDIES
Information, findings and conclusions contained in this document are based on
incorporation by reference of tiered documentation, and technical studies that have been
prepare for the proposed project.
As permitted in Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, information and discussions from
other documents can be included in this IS/MND. Tiering is defined as follows:
Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as
one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative
declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions
from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on
the issues specific to the later project."
Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of EIRs and is most
appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical matters that provide general
background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the
proposed project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when an EIR or Negative
Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for "its evaluation of cumulative impacts of
related projects. This IS/MND incorporates by reference the following CEQA documents:
. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Adopted
November 27, 1990. Revised March 1995.
. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared December 2007. Pending certification (to be used currently for planning
and informational purposes only).
G. PERMITS AND ENTITLEMENTS FOR PROJECf APPROVAL
. Agency !! ," Discretionary Action
-
City of Lake Elsinore Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07
General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03
The Alllo GroHfJ Dea/u:rhip
Initial Study/Draft "litigated N~gati\.c Declaration
5
City of Lake Elsinore
August 200M
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 57 of 174
II.PROJECf DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The proposed project site (APNs 363-130-085 and -087) is approximately 9.34 acres and is
located in an area southwest of Interstate 15 (1-15), bound by the San Jacinto River channel
to the east and Lakeshore Drive to the south (Figure 1). Primary access to the site would be
from Lakeshore Drive. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the west, and
residential to the south. The approved Toyota dealership is located directly north of the
proposed project site. There are also residential uses to the northwest of the proposed
project site, which are also directly west of the Toyota site. The project site is currently
designated as General Commercial with a portion of APN 363-130-087 designated as
Floodway under the City's current General Plan. The entire area is zoned C-2 General
Commercial (Auto Mall Overlay).
Of the 9.34 acres, 6.34 acres is proposed for development with the remaining 3.0 acres
ultimately being donated to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The
6.34-acre portion to be developed is currently subjected to repeated disturbance from
automobile parking, disking for fire hazard abatement, and areas of illegally dumped trash
and soils. Little if any vegetation occurs on this portion of the site. Further, much of the
6.34-acre portion is currently being used as stockpiling facility for the approved Toyota
project. Approximately 12,000 cubic yards of fill material have been spread across the site.
No jurisdictional drainage features occur on the 6.34 acres to be developed. The 3.0-acre
area to be donated to the MSHCP contains open water and riparian woodland dominated by
Goodding's black willow.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The total proposed project site encompasses 9.34 acres, and would include the development
of approximately 50,000 square feet (sO of general commercial use on an approximate 6.34-
acre parcel (Figure 2). In addition to the 50,000 sf building, the design includes 379 parking
spaces to be used by visitors and for vehicle inventory.
The additional 3.0 acres located to the east of the 6.34-acre parcel will remain undisturbed,
and ultimately be dedicated as MSHCP conservation land (Figure 3). A portion of this 3.0
acre area is classified as jurisdictional waters by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and the California Fish and Game Department (CDFG). No temporary or permanent
structures are proposed within this area.
As part of the approval process, the Applicant will be required to obtain a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) to remove the portions of the 6.34-acre site that are designated
Floodway under the City's General Plan. Since the adoption of the City's General Plan, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the 100-year flood zone along
the San Jacinto River channel. The revised maps have removed all but a small portion
(10,745 square feet or 0.025 acres) of the 6.34-acre area from the lOo-year flood zone,
specifically Zone AE. The project will not be allowed to grade or develop within this small
area designated Zone AE. The land use changes have been reflected in the Draft General
Plan; however this document has not yet been adopted. Because the proposed project will be
approved prior to the adoption of the General Plan Update, a GPA is required.
TheAIIJoGronpDtuler.rhip
Initial Study/Draft MitigateJ Negative Declaration
6
City of Lake Elsinore
August 20ng
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 58 of 174
---------
=--~YLVESi""
.. . -."'~.~i
REGIONAL VICINITY MAP
THE AUTO GROUP PROJECT
PEtE
'--J:EI:IR 0
---</?
FIGURE 1
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 59 of 174
-..--.. ..-..-..--..
1 i PROPOSED AVENUE 1
./
I
! 1 ~
i J
"-.-...J '! ! II
'=u., sr. .::
! PI
.~l .... C4l
-" ):. ~
;: Of ~, C)
~ ! ~l
is I ~t
I ~.
I ~ '
"'C ~
52 .., f'
~ ! '::
~ I I
-
I
~ ! f I
In ..
Ii i
..
.....
~
......
!~ - --~ -
~
t.....
, .'
\ ';',
"~ ~
", 1\\:1
1
.
~ ~. .
~~~'1\
..
"
"
~. ,
.' I
. .\
....
"
, .
',:~
';"
,
,
j ;.
/;),.
.L
,....
..i, .
-Ii';
";.l,,.
''I
i~
~"t
.
" I
J ,
'~
, ~,
. ...t
.
.
, 1
" !
I
d..
t,~
,
~--'-l~
. ...,
t'
,I
'Q> ,I
- ~
!lt~
lJ",.,
i
--iO;:,.. ,
- ....
- . ~
' '. l>.
I
'"
.
-. I
-,
...
.
t,
"
.
'.
,;'
. -
~ .
'-~
'"w'
,
r;
- ~ ::--=-~ -:::: ~-~
o
,
FRET
L SA
DARY (6.34 Acres)
O PROJECT BOUN REA (3,0 Acres)
SERVAllON A
I2l PROPOSED CON
SA, 2007 (08/11/08)
SOURCE: AirPholoU HCp\rolClient\figJ_Aerial.mxd
I:\T AP0801\Repons\MS
The Auto Group
AnQjysis
MSHCP Consistency
Aerial Photograph
. Parcels
Showmg
No 13
Agenda Iteam1 of 174
Page
Design Considerations and Applicable Regnlatory Requirements for the Project
The. project incorporates se~eral design measures which would minimize project impacts.
Addl~lOnally, ad!,erence to applicable regulatory requirements will also minimize or prevent impacts.
Spec.lfical!y, d~slgn measures and applicable regulatory requirements are provided for aesthetics, air
quality, bIOlogICal resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials
hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and servic~
systems. A list of the design considerations for the. project site and applicable regulatory requirements
is presented below.
Aesthetics
Lighting and Glare
All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting ordinance
including the siting and direction oflight fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in excess of
60 watts would be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto
adjacent properties or streets. Low-pressure sodium lighting in accordance with the Mount
Palomar Observatory lighting standards would be required. Individual lighting for building
entrances would also be restricted to small wall mounted fIxtures that use low wattage (60
watts or less) incandescent lighting. No lighting shall be directed towards the 3.0-acre area
to be donated for conservation.
Air Quality
Construction-Related
The project must adhere to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rules; Rule No. 401(Visible Emissions); Rule No. 403 (Fugitive Dust Control); Rule No.
1113 (Architectural Coatings); Rule No. 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel); and Rule No. 1186/1186.1
(Street Sweepers) during construction-related activities.
Contractors shall utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators
rather then temporary generators where feasible.
Operational-Related
The building(s) shall be equipped with ENERGY STAR qualifIed appliances, where
applicable, and shall exceed California Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for water
heating and space heating and cooling to the extent feasible.
Energy efficient lighting, which exceeds the California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards,
shall be installed to satisfy interior lighting requirements within the building(s) to the
extent feasible.
Shade producing trees shall be planted at the project site to the extent feasible.
The project shall incorporate fans to assist natural ventilation, centralized water and space
conditioning systems, high efficiency individual heating and cooling units, and automatic
setback thermostats to the extent feasible.
Biological Resources
The project will comply with all requirements of the Western Riverside Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan.
The project will pay appropriate Multiple Species Habitat Conservation fees, including
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat fees.
The Anlo Grrmp Dedlmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitig.ned Nq,>atiyc Declaration
10
City of Lake Elsinore
August 200H
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 62 of 174
'~
~
Geology and Soils
The proposed project shall adhere to all recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical
report for design and construction, and in accordance with applicable structural
requirements of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) and the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC). Compliance with these requirements, the California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore
(Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code), would ensure that the proposed project would be
designed to withstand adverse seismic activity.
Ground Shaking
The project shall implement recommendations outlined in the geotechnical evaluation for
the proposed project in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and 2001
California Building Code (CBC) requirements for resistance to seismic shaking.
Erosion
During construction, soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant
impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the California State Water
Resources Control Board Order No. 92-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002. The SWPPP shall comply with best
available technology (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BeT) to
reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project would comply with existing federal and state standards in place for the
handling, storage and transport of hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrology
The project is prohibited from grading or developing with the 0.025-acre area that will
remain designated as Floodway even after adoption of the City's General Plan Update.
Water Quality
In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Drainage Area Management Plan (SAR-DAMP) and
NPDES requirements, an applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP. In addition, the
City shall ensure that construction activity is in compliance with the State's General Permit
for Construction Activities administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board located in Riverside (Santa Ana, Region 8) (SARWQCB). The site-specific SWPPP
shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs), Best Available Technology (BAT) and
Best Conventional Technology (BeT) to reduce/eliminate erosion and sedimentation
associated with construction.
All construction period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the California
Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbookfor
Construction.
The State's General Permit for Construction Activities also requires that management
measures be incorporated into new development to ensure that once construction is
completed, the residential land use does not contribute substantially to water quality
problems in water bodies that receive storm water and non-storm water runoff from the
projects. The proposed project would address post-construction (operational) water quality
impacts on a parcel by parcel basis through construction of facilities that would filter the
The Auto Gro1If> Dtakrship
Initial Study/Draft l\fitigatcJ Negative Dcdarntion
II
City of Lake Elsinore
August zonR
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 63 of 174
storm water and convey it into the proposed project's storm drain system or the river
channel before leaving the property. The design features for each parcel's water quality
facility are outlined in the project's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
Noise
City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance
The City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary source noise impacts does not permit
operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or
demolition work between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am
The project shall adhere to the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance governing construction
hours.
Public Services
Fire
The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance
requirements. The project would comply with the 2006 International Fire Code, California
Building Code, and applicable Riverside County Fire Department Code requirements and
standards for construction, access, water mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants.
In addition, all new development projects are required to contribute to the City's CFD No.
2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services).
Police
All new development projects are required to contribute to the City's Community Facilities
District (CFD) No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services).
Schools
The project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by LEUSD
pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, cA07).
Transportation and Traffic
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
The Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program evolved
from the need to establish a comprehensive funding source for regional arterial highway
improvements for western Riverside County. This program (adopted December 2002)
establishes a single uniform mitigation fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of
new development on the regional arterial highway system. It was adopted with the
intention to avoid multiple, discrete fee programs with varying policies, fees, and
improvement projects. The project proponent would contribute the required amount per
dwelling unit TUMF for funding regional transportation improvements.
Per City of Lake Elsinore Resolution No. 2007-80, the project proponent must pay traffic
impact fees (TIF) to offset any cost to the City from added traffic to City roads caused by the
project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water
Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD).
The project shall incorporate drought-tolerant plants into the landscaping palette and use
Th~ Auto CroHp Deukrxhip
Initial Study/D1'<lft Miti~>ated Negative Declantion
12
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 64 of 174
water-efficient irrigation techniques.
The project shall install U.S. Environmental Prote<;tion Agency Certified WaterSense
labeled or equivalent faucets and high-efficiency toilets to the extent feasible.
Wastewater
Sewer-related infrastructure will be connected in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, EVMWD, Riverside County Department of Health, and the
RWQCB.
Solid Waste
The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and
regulation related to solid waste, including the County's Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste'Element (HHWE).
Gas
Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with
the requirements and specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities
Commission under existing roads and rights-of-way.
The Auto Group Dealm"hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
13
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 65 of 174
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: The Auto Group Dealership
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore; 130 South Main Street; Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Wendy Worthey, Principal Environmental
Planner, (951) 674-3124 ext. 288
4. Project Location: APNs 363-130-085 and -087; The project site is located north of
Lakeshore Drive, and west of the San Jacinto River channel.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Automotive Group, Inc., 450 West Vista
Way, Vista, CA 92083
6. Existing General Plan Designation: APN 363-130-085 is designated Floodway; APN
363-130-087 includes both Floodway and General Commercial designations. Since
adoption of the 1995 City's General Plan, FEMA has updated mapping along the San
Jacinto River channel, thus removing all but 0.025 acres within APN 363-130-087 out of-
Zone AE.
7. Existing Zoning: C-2 General Commercial (Auto Mall Overlay)
8. Draft General Plan Update: APN 363-130-085 is designated Floodway; APN 363-130-
087 is designated General Commercial with the exception of 0.025 acres that will continue
to be Floodway.
9. Description of Project: Please see Section II for project description.
10. Surrounding land uses and setting: Residential to the south, vacant land to west
designated as General Commercial, San Jacinto River channel to the east, and commercial
(approved Toyota dealership) to the north.
The Allto GroHp Dealmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitig,tted Ne!,rative Dccbmtion
14
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt.!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 66 of 174
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages. All impacts identified for the project will be
mitigated to below a level of significance.
o Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality
~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources 0 Geology & Soils
o Hazards & HazMat 0 Hydrology & Water Quality ~ Land Use & Planning
o Mineral Resources ~ Noise 0 Population & Housing
o Public Services 0 Recreation ~ Transportation & Traffic
o Utilities & Service Systems ~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
C. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[g] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Wendy Wo nvironmental Planner
August 20. 2008
Date
The AJlto Group Dealn:rhip 15
Initial Study/Draft Miti!,'lltcd Negative Declaration
City of Lake Elsinore
Agend"a'l~;:;' No. 13
Page 67 of 174
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would tt.eproposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In'determil1lhg.whether impacts to.agricultural'resources ar~ significant
environmentaleffects,lead agencies, may 'refer tathe Californla,Agrlcultural,land Evaluation anc'Site Assessmerit
Model (1997) prepared by the 9alifornia Cept. of Conservation as an optional<.model to use in. assessing impacts on,.
agriculture ,andfarmlar:ad. Would the pr:oject:. ,
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Iii. AIR QUALITY. Where available, thesigl'lifica,nce Cfiteri'aes~ab,iiShedbY the' applicable'air quality management or al'r '
pollution control district may. be<relied'l:!p()l"!,to,make the f4?lIowing'determinations. Would the proje,ct: '
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: " " . .. .
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or X
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California X
Department of Fish and Game or U,S. FiSh and Wildlife
Service?
The AIIM Group Dealership
Initial StuuyjDraft Mitigated Negative Declamtion
16
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 68 of 174
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X
Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
.V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would thO project: ., ,
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource as defined in ~15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
vi: GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would ihe project: '.' . .. .
,
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map,
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on X
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
Iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soit that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial X
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
The AHJO Group Dcakl)-hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitignted Nq,>:J.tive Declaration
17
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt}st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 69 of 174
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the,project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or disposal X
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and X
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
or a public airport or public use airport, would the project X
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
n For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
,'. ,".'.: . .d '. ','" '<.... 'F, '. "'m . .
VIII. HYDROLOGY A,ND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:. ". .
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a towering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g" the production rate X
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
The Aulo Group Deakr:rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
18
City of Lake Elsinore
AUgt:lH 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 70 of 174
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage X
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
n Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures, which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
,IX., LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tlieproject:, '," T,: : ,. " ' , "
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific X
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the, project: ,,_ ," , ' ", ' , - , ,
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be a value to the region and the X
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. N9ISE. ,Wo,uld the project result il'!: , ',', i, , ," ,
',' '" , , ~",o: "
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan X
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
cJ A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The Auto Group Dea/er.rbip
Initial Stuoy/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
19
City of Lake Elsinore
Au~st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 71 of 174
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the X
project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:. '. '.' ". . . . .
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
.
XIII. PUBLlC'SERVICES. Would the project result ii'"substantial adverse'physlcallmpacts associated.with.the provision
of.ne~_ or physic~IIy', alteredgovernmental facilities, n~df.forn~w (:>rJ)~yslc~lIy :altered goyernmental facilities, the,.,
constructlonofwtllch c~uld causesi~nificant.environmental Hnpacts"ln order;,to,ma,lntain'acceptable-servlce
, ratios.~sponsetimes or other perfd'rma,!1ce objectives for ahy,?fthepublicservices,; " ,',_ _ .
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
XIV. RECREATION. . '.. .... '. . .
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, X
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC.Would th~~rojehi' .:: .5...... .- ,: .' . .' : ......
. '. .
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either X
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion X
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location X
resulting in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
The Aulo Group Deakr.rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Neb':Jtive Declaration
20
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 72 of 174
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: '.
, ,
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or are X
new or expanded entitlements needed?
0) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected X
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
n Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDiNGS OF SIGNIFICANC~., ,,", . ,
'., ' " . ..
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate X
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with X
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
21
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 73 of 174
The Auto GmlljJ DealerxNp
Initial Study IDraft Miti!,>atcd Negatiye Declaration
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the
Environmental Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Silffiificant
Impact
A scenic vista generally provides the following: focal views of objects, settings, or features of
visual interest; or panoramic views of large geographic areas of scenic quality, primarily
from a given vantage point. A significant impact to a scenic vista would occur if the project
introduced an incompatible use that would obstruct, interrupt or diminish a valued focal
point and/or panoramic view. Scenic resources within and surrounding the City of Lake
Elsinore include the lake, Cleveland National Forest, rugged hills, mountains, ridgelines,
rocky outcroppings, streams, vacant land with native vegetation, buildings of historical and
cultural significance such as the cultural center, bathhouse and military academy, parks, and
trails.'
The proposed project site is located in an area substantially surrounded by development.
The exception is the San Jacinto River channel to the east. Currently, the project site is
undeveloped but is partially covered by 12,000 cubic yards of fill material, being stockpiled
for use at the adjacent approved Toyota dealership. The existing site does not provide a
scenic vista nor does the proposed project diminish a valued scenic vista. As such, there is
no impact identified for this issue area.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No ImDact
The proposed project would not significantly damage scenic resources, including trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings (see discussion for Section La. above). The site
encompasses scattered disturbed vegetation, trash and other debris, and now is the location
of 12,000 cubic yards of fill material to be used for the adjacent approved Toyota dealership
project. No rock outcroppings or trees are present on the site. The project site is located
approximately 1000 feet southwest of 1-15 for which certain segments are eligible to be
designated as State Scenic Highway. Although the proposed project site can be seen to some
degree from 1-15, this site is located behind another approved automobile dealership, and is
located at a much lower elevation than the approved dealership. In addition, this area OfI-1s
is not one of the designated State Scenic Highway segments. As such, no impacts are
identified for this issue area.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? Less Than SifPlificant Impact
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surrounding. Please refer to the discussion for Section La. and b. above for
details.
City of Lake Elsinore, Draft City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, prepared by Jones & Stokes,
December 2007.
The AuJo Group Dealm-hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
22
City of Lake Elsinore
Augu~t 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 74 of 174
The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2) and currently has two land use
designations: General Commercial and Floodway. Please refer to Section II. Project
Description for additional details about the proposed GPA. The Draft General Plan Update
designates the entire 10.34 acres as General Commercial. These zoning district and land use
designations are intended to provide locations for uses serving the needs of both local and
regional consumers. The parcels abutting the northern boundary and those vacant parcels
to the west of the project site are also zoned General Commercial (C-2). The San Jacinto
River channel is located to the east. Aesthetic impacts resulting from the land uses
permitted by the existing General Plan and Draft General Plan Update have been previously
evaluated in the existing General Plan EIR and the Draft General Plan Update Draft EIR.
In addition, the proposed project is required to undergo "design review" pursuant to Section
17.82.020 of the City's municipal code. The City's design review process is intended to
ensure that new development, or the alteration of existing development, occurs in a manner
which enhances the character and quality of surrounding properties and that the scale,
spatial relationships and architectural treatment of structures, including materials, colors,
and design, visually contribute to the area and environment in which they are located.
Furthermore, the project proposes to strategically incorporate landscaping to improve the
visual quality of the project site and screen views of the site from off-site vantage points.
Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and
other scenic resources.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Si~ificant Impact
The proposed project would introduce commercial uses that would include lighting for safety
and security. All lighting would comply with the requirements of Policy 7 of the Community
Design Element of the City's General Plan. This policy requires low lumen lighting, as well as
shielding on lighting to ensure that lighting does not spill over onto adjacent lots, including
MSHCP conservation areas. The proposed project would be required to comply with the
MSHCP's Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, which require that night light be directed
away from conservation areas. With regard to glare, the project would not include
architectural treatments or finishes that would be glare-inducing. Therefore, project lighting
would have a less than significant impact on day and nighttime views in the area.
The City of Lake Elsinore is located within proximity to the Palomar Observatory. To prevent
"skyglow" condition, the observatory requires nighttime lighting restrictions, as skyglow
condition would adversely impact the use of the telescope at the observatory. Generally,
observatory sites impose restrictions to a 30- to 40-mile radius, so that the nighttime sky
will not be brightened.
Lake Elsinore adheres to Riverside County's Ught Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655,
which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of
Palomar Observatory. The proposed project site is located within a 45-mile radius of the
observatory (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone), and is required to comply with
Ordinance No. 655. In conformance with Ordinance No. 655, all artificial outdoor light
fixtures shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance, the Building
Code, the Electrical Code, and lighting requirements specified in the Zoning Ordinance of
the County of San Diego, along with any other related state and federal regulations such as
California Title 24. Section 59.105 of Ordinance No. 655 sets forth specific requirements for
lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting for on-
premises advertising displays shall be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the
23
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 75 of 174
The AHlo Group Dea/mhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
night sky or adjacent properties. Thus with conformity to Ordinance No. 655, proposed
project lighting would have a less than significant impact on the Palomar Observatory.
Aesthetics Mitieation Measures
None required.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Imoact
The project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of
these types of farmland. No impact to farmland is identified for the proposed project.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. There are no conflicts with existing
agricultural zoning as the proposed project is identified for development with commercial
use. No impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No
Imoact
The project site is not utilized for agricultural cultivation, nor are there any agricultural
operations located on adjacent parcels. The project site does not have a history of
agricultural use, either. Therefore no impact associated with agricultural conversion is
identified for the project.
Amculture Resources Mitieation Measures
None required.
III. AIR QUALITY
The following report has been prepared to analyze potential air quality impacts resulting from
the proposed project and was used in the preparation of this section:
Lake Elsinore TAG Property, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Prepared by Urban
Crossroads, May 22, 2008.
A copy of the full report is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Silmificant Imoact
The Auto Group Deu/mhip
Initial Study IDrnft Mitigated Ncg:nivc Declaration
24
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 76 of 174
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD has developed a series
of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet state and federal ambient air quality
standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions,
accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on
the economy. The most recent AQMP was adopted by SCAQMD in June 2007.
Criteria for consistency with the AQMP are guided by the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. There are two criteria:
Consistency Criterion NO.1: The proposed project would not result in the increase in
the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to
new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards of the interim
emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS). As further detailed in Section III.b. below, the project is not
expect to exceed the CAAQS during short-term construction or long-term operational
activity. Additionally, the proposed project is not expected to exceed SCAQMD regional
thresholds during short-term construction or long-term operational activity. Therefore, the
proposed project is considered to be in compliance with Consistency Criterion No.!.
Consistency Criterion No.2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumption in
the AQMP in 2012 or increments based on the years of project build-out phase.
The AQMP growth assumptions are generated by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). SCAG derives its assumptions, in part, on General Plans of cities
located in the SCAG region. Therefore, if a project does not exceed growth projections in the
General Plan, then it is considered consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP.
Although the proposed project is in compliance with current zoning, the applicant will still
be required to obtain a GPA for a portion of the 6.34-acres that is still considered Floodway.
Once the GPA is adopted along with approval of the project, that portion will become
consistent with the General Plan. As such, this amendment is considered minor, and it can
be assumed that the proposed project is in compliance with Consistency Criterion NO.2.
In summary, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable air quality plans and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? Less Than Silmificant ImDact
The SCAB is in attainment of federal and state standards for carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (N02), and sulfur dioxide (S02). The SCAB is in non-attainment for federal
and state standards for particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less (PMlO), particulate
matter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). one-hour ozone and eight-hour ozone. Particulate
matter is comprised of solids or liquids suspended in the air. Table 1 summarizes the highest
pollutant levels recorded at the closest identified monitoring station for the last year
available (Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station 2007).
The Aulo Group Dea/er:rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitig.ttcd Negative Declaration
25
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 77 of 174
Table 1
Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2005.2007
Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Observed Concentration
Ai,Pollutant . Standa'd' ~ 2005> 2006 2007
, .
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.149 0.140 0.129
Max. a-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.119 0.109 0.109
State 1-Hour Standard>O.09 ppm 37 40 NA
Ozone (0,) State 8-Hour Standa,d>0.07 ppm 46 58 NA
Federal1-Hour Standard>O.12 ppm 4 3 3
Federal8-Hour Standard>O.12 ppm 15 24 19
Health Advisory>0.15 1 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 2.0 1.0 1.6
Max. 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.0 1.0 1.4
Carbon Monoxide State 1-Hour Standard>20 ppm 0 0 0
(CO)
State/Federal 8-Hour Standard>9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Federal1-Hour Standard>35 ppm 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.07 0.070 0.064
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentration (ppm) 0.0142 0.0151 0.014
(NO,)
State 1-Hour Standard>O.25 0 0 0
The Auto Crozp De"ler.rhip
Initial Study/Dmft Mitigated Negative Declaration
26
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 78 of 174
Air Pollutant I , Standard T 2005 ,2006, 2007
80 125 167
Max. 24-Hour Concentration (lJg/m3)
Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10)1 Number of Samples 60 54 44
Number of Samples Exceeding State Standard>50 1J9/m3 19 19 NA
Number of Samples Exceeding Federal Standard 0 0 1
>150(~g/m3)
Maximum 24-Hour concentration (lJg/m3) 95,0 55,3 50,0
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.S)2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (lJg/m3) 18,Q 17,0 16,8
Number of Samples Exceeding federal 24-Hour 1 0 1
Standard >65 1J9/m3
NOTES: 1 Data obtained from Perris monitoring station
2 Data obtained from Metropolitan Riverside County 2 monitoring station
ppm = Parts per million
jJg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
NA = Data not available
SOURCE: SCAQMD Air Monitoring Summaries, Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
SCAQMD establishes significance criteria for air quality emissions. The aggregate project-
related maximum levels are shown in Table 2. These standards are currently enforced within
the City of Lake Elsinore and County of Riverside. Any project with daily construction- or
operation-related emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be
considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.
Table 2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
. PoH~tal1t .' - " _-Constructiori'Ttir~sl1old '.' . Qp~rClt.iQn~rThreshold : ,
NO, 100/lbs/day 55 Ibslday
VOC 75 Ibslday 55 Ibslday
PM10 150 Ibs/day 150 Ibs/day
PM2.5 55 Ibslday 150 Ibs/day
SO, 150 Ibs/day 150 Ibs/day
CO 550 Ibs/day 550 Ibs/day
Project Construction
Construction activities would include grading, infrastructure and paving activities, building
construction, architectural coatings, and construction worker commutes. These activities
will result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, sax, PMlO, and PM2.5. For the purpose of the
air quality analysis, construction activity is estimated to begin 2008 and is to be completed
by 2010. It is assumed that all grading will involve balancing the cut-and-fill onsite without
the need for import or export of fill materials. In addition, the analysis is a "worst-case"
scenario for daily construction. Estimated construction emissions for the proposed project
are as follows:
The Allto Group Dealmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Neg.uive Declaration
27
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 79 of 174
Table 3
Emissions Summary of Construction Activities
(pounds per day I without mitigation I peak activity)
Construction Activity VOC NO, I CO SO, PM,o I PMu
Grading
Fugitive Dust 0 0 0 0 4.47 0.98
Off Road Diesel 7.39 57.33 31 31.57 3.34 3.07
Worker Trips 0.08 0.15 2.48 0 0.02 0.01
Peak Day Mass Emissions 7.47 57.48 34.05 0.00 7.83 4.06
SCAOMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Underground Utility Construction
Off-Road Diesel 3.01 24.24 10.81 0 1.38 1.27
Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.24 0 0.01 0.01
Paving
Off-Gas Emissions 0.20 0 0 0 0 0
Off Road Diesel 2.99 17.76 9.04 0 1.54 1.41
On Road diesel 0.07 0.97 0.35 0 0.04 0.04
Worker Trips 0.08 0.15 2.48 0 0.02 0.01
Building Construction
Off Road Diesel 4.07 18.22 11.80 0 1.33 1.22
Vendor Trips 0.05 0.62 0.50 0 0.03 0.02
Worker Trips 0.13 0.24 3.97 0 0.03 0.02
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating 3.77 0 0 0 0 0
Worker Trips 0 0 0.05 0 0 0
Peak Day Mass Emissions 14.41 62.27 40.60 0.00 4.38 4.00
SCAOMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
SOURCE: URBEMI$ 2007 v 9.2.4 model outputs
Project-related short-term construction emISSIOns do not exceed the SCAQMD regional
emissions thresholds, thus mitigation is not required to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels. However, it should be noted that the project is required to comply with
SCAQMD standard regulatory requirements.
Project Operation
A summary of projected peak operational emissions is provided in Tables 4 and 5.
The AliJo GrtJJIj> Dttllerrhip
Initial Study/Draft ~litigatcJ Negative Dcclumtion
28
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 80 of 174
Table 4
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
(summer I pounds per day)
Operational Activities VOC NO, CO SO, PM,o PMu
Vehicle Emissions 11.96 20.08 150.08 0.16 26.05 5.22
Natural Gas Use 0.02 0.33 0.28 0 0 0
landscape Maintenance Emissions 0.12 0.02 1.55 0 0.01 0.01
Architectural Coatings 0.29 0 0 0 0 0
Operational Emissions 12.39 20.43 151.91 0.16 26.06 5.23
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 v 9.2.4 model outputs
Table 5
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
(winter I pounds per day)
Operational Activities VOC NO, CO SO, PM,o -PMu
Vehicle Emissions 13.47 23.83 146.51 0.14 26.05 9.14
Natural Gas Use 0.05 0.70 0.58 0 0 0
Landscape Maintenance Emissions 0.12 0.02 1.55 0 0.01 0.01
Architectural Coatings 0.29 0 0 0 0 0
Operational Emissions 13.90 24.18 148.34 0.14 45.62 9.15
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
SOURCE: URBEMIUS 2007 v 9.2.4 model outputs
Project-related operational emISSIOns would not exceed SCAMD thresholds. Therefore,
mitigation is not required for the operational phase of the proposed project. However, it
should be noted that the project is required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations.
CO "Hot Spot" Analysis
A more specific CO impact analysis is required to assess the localized impacts on sensitive
receptors that are situated adjacent to congested roadways and intersections. The SCAQMD
recommends performing a CO hotspot analysis if the level of service (LOS) declines from C
to D or worse. Taking the project into account, of the roadway improvements which are
required as part of project mitigation, only three study intersections will have a LOS rating
of D or worse for the Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions
scenario (refer to Section XV. Transportation/Traffic below).
Based on this analysis, none of the locations reviewed is expected to experience CO levels in
excess of the allowable concentration of 20.0 ppm. The highest one-hour CO "hot spot" level
is predicted to be 10.2 ppm. The analysis also indicates that none of the locations experience
CO levels in excess of the 8-hour allowable concentration of 9.9 ppm; the highest predicted
The ANM Gnmp D(ulmhip
Initial Study/Draft ~Iitih>atcd Negative Declaration
29
City of Lake Elsinore
l\Ugust 20tlR
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 81 of 174
8-hour concentration is 3.2 ppm. There will be no significant impacts associated with CO
emissions generated by project-related traffic.
Global Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases
Global climate change, including the emission of greenhouse gases, is an emerging
environmental concern being raised on statewide, national, and global levels. Regional,
state, and federal agencies are developing strategies to control pollutant emissions that
contribute to global warming, including the recently-adopted California Assembly Bill 32,
which requires the California Air Resources Board CARB to develop regulations and market
mechanisms to ultimately reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions.
Scientific evidence suggests that global climate change is the result of increased
concentrations greenhouse gas emissions in the earth's atmosphere, including carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions
associated with the development and operational of the proposed project were estimated
using the URBEMIS 2007 model, and include emissions resulting from project construction,
project-generated traffic, project natural gas use, and emissions resulting from gasoline
powered landscape maintenance equipment. Table 6 presents the project related short-term
and long-term CO2 estimates.
Table 6
Construction and Operational CO, Emissions
(tons per year)
I " l"'. . CO, ,', .
. Source " (tOri~ per ye~t)
I , . , . .
Construction
Year 2008 229.56
Year 2009 253.20
Total 482.76
Operation
Vehicle Emissions 2,809.77
Natural Gas 73.50
landscape 0.51
Total 2,883.28
SOURCE: URBE:MIS 2007 v 9.2.4 model outputs
Based on project greenhouse gas emissions estimates, it is not anticipated that the
proposed project alone would substantially contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions
inventories. It is estimated that long-term project operations would result in emissions of
approximately 2,615.65 metric tons per year of CO2. Compared to California's estimated
2004 greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 492 million metric tons, the project's
contribution would represent approximately 0.00053 percent of statewide emissions.
Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact upon global climate change.
Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all applicable policies, ordinances,
and regulations (including Title 24) that would increase building energy and water use
efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be noted that the proposed
The Auto Group Dealer:rhip
Initial Study/Dmft Mitigated Negative Declaration
30
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2lX)8
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 82 of 174
project is consistent with the SCAQMD's 2007 AQMP as well as growth forecasts for the
area. Lastly, it should be noted that California has created a strategy to deal with
managing greenhouse gas emissions through Title 24 energy performance standards and
regulatory requirements such as AB1493, AB1368, and AB32 that create design guidelines
to ensure that each project in California does not contribute significantly to cumulative
impacts.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Silffiificant Imoact
The proposed project area is designated as non-attainment for ozone, PMlO and PM2.5. The
results of the air quality analysis indicate that the air quality impacts for the proposed project
are significant on an individual project basis. CEQA Section 2100(e) addresses evaluation of
cumulative effects allowing the use of approved land use documents in a cumulative impact
analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3) indicate that for an impact involving a
resource that is addressed by and approved plan or mitigation program, the lead agency may
determine that a project's incremental contributions are not cumulatively considerable if the
project complies with the adopted plan or program.
The proposed project is consistent with the currently adopted AQMP; therefore, the project's
incremental contribution to criteria pollutant is not considered cumulatively considerable. It
should also be noted that project emissions are not significant on an individual basis for either
short- either short-term construction or long-term operational activity.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than
Silffiificant Impact
Local sensitive receptors include residences located to the south, and possible those located
more than 500 feet to the northwest. These receptors could be affected by pollutant
concentrations during both construction and operation of the project. The SCAQMD has
developed local significance thresholds for the City of Lake Elsinore. These thresholds are
presented in Table 7.
Table 7
SCAQMD Localized Thresholds for Lake Elsinore
Pollutant Construction ' .' '. Oper~tlonal
NO, 574 Ibs/day 0.18 ppm
CO 1,991 Ibslday 20 ppm (1 Hour)
9 ppm (8 Hour)
PMIO 13 Ibslday 2.5 ~g/m'
PM2.5 8 Ibslday 2.5 ~g/m'
Construction
Based upon rates obtained from the URBEMIS modeling, localized emissions of criteria
pollutants during construction activities were calculated and are summarized in Table 8.
Tht Alllo Grr}J(p Dealmhip
Initial Study/Draft r-.Iitigatcd Negative Declamtion
31
City of Lake Elsinore
l\uh'Ust 20tl8
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 83 of 174
Table 8
Localized Significance Summary Construction
(peak pounds per day)
Construction Activity I NQx I CO I PM10 I PMu
Grading
Fugitive Dust 0 0 4.47 0.98
Off-Road Diesel Equipment 57.33 31.57 3.34 3.07
Peak Day Mass Emissions 57.33 31.57 7.81 4.05
SCAQMD Re9ional Threshold 574 1.991 13.00 8.00
Significant? No No No No
Underground Utility Construction
Off-Road Diesel I 24.24 10.81 I 1.38 I 1.27
Paving
Off Road Diesel I 17.76 9.40 I 1.54 I 1.41
Building Construction
Off Road Diesel 18.22 11.80 1.33 1.22
Peak Day Mass Emissions 60.22 32.01 4.25 3.90
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 574 1,991 13.00 8.00
Significant? No No No No
SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 v 9.2.4 model outputs
Based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis, emissions of CO, NO.. PMw and PM..5 do not
exceed localized threshold concentrations for construction activities. Therefore, impacts
resulting from the proposed project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations due to construction would be less than significant.
Operation
Sensitive receptors could be affected by vehicular emissions on nearby roadway segments.
According to Air Quality Impact Analysis, off-site mobile emissions from the proposed
project were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model and found to be below a level of
significance for CO, NO., PMw and PM..5. The results of the URBEMIS 2007 model are
summarized in Table 9.
Table 9
Localized Significance Summary Operations
(peak pounds per day)
Operations
Peak Day Localized Emissions
Background Concentration
Total Concentration
co NO.
Averaging Time
-1-Hour a-Hour 1-Hour
0.02 0.01 1.05E.()5
2.0 1.4 0.07
2.02 1.41 0.07
20 9 0.18
No No No
0.13 0.12
2.5 2.5
No No
PM10 PMu
Localized Significance Threshold
Significant?
SOURCE: URBEMtS 2007 v 9,2.4 model outputs
The AllIn GroNjJ Dea/er.rhip
Initial Srudy/Drnft 1o.1itih'1ltcd Negatiyc Dcclaration
32 City of Lake Elsinore
:\uh'llst 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 84 of 174
Operational emissions are projected to be below ~e ~CAQMD sig?ificance thresh~l?s.
Therefore, the proposed project would have less than sIgmfica~t potentIal to. expose sensItive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to operatIOn of the project.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less
Than Silffiificant Imnact
The project has the potential to generate objectionable odors in the form of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from off-gassing during architectural coating (painting) and asphalt-
paving, as well as diesel exhaust during construction of the project. However, any odor
impact generated during construction activities would be short-term in nature and would
cease upon completion of the respective phase (paving or building construction). Typically,
the types of land use development that pose potential odor probleIns include agricultural
uses, refineries, chemical plants, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting
facilities, and transfer stations. As proposed, no such uses would occupy the project site.
Therefore the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial
number of people.
Air Ouality Mitieation Measures
None required.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following information has been used to analyze potential impacts to biological resources
resulting from the proposed project, and was used in the preparation of this section:
MSHCP Consistency Determination Application for "The Auto Group" Project.
Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. August 2008.
The above information is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Silmificant Imnact with Mitieation
Protected sensitive species are classified by either state or federal resource management
agencies, or both, as threatened or endangered, under the provisions of the State and
Federal Endangered Species Acts. The presence of protected, regulated, or otherwise
sensitive plant and wildlife species occurring or potentially occurring within the project site
is based on an evaluation of the habitat present. For the purposes of this evaluation, the
project site has been divided into two portions which follow existing lot lines.
The larger of the two, encompassing 6.34 acres, is the area to be developed. This area has
been subjected to repeated disturbance from automobile parking, disking due to fire hazard
abatement, and small areas of dumped trash and soils. The biological assessment
determined that there were no sensitive species on the site, nor sensitive habitat, including
those species and habitat covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The site does contain a few scattered non-native
Peruvian pepper trees. The remainder of the site contains only ruderal vegetation. As
Tbe AJlln Croup f)(dkr..rhip
Initial Study/Draft Miti!-,>atcd Negative Declaration
33
City of Lake Elsinore
AU/.,'tiH 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 85 of 174
discussed in Section II. Project Description, and since the time of the biological assessment,
the site is now the location of 12,000 cubic yards of fill material to be used on the adjacent
approved Toyota dealership project. This "stockpiling" was permitted through a non-
discretionary action via the City's Public Works Department. There are no species present
on the 6.34-acre site identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, because there is still the possibility that the non-
native trees may provide nesting habitat for species protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA), and because burrowing owls can move onto sites following the biological
assessment, additional surveys for these species will be required within 30 days prior to any
construction activities, including the grading. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BI-1
and BI -2 will ensure that the potential impacts to burrowing owls or species protected under
the MBTA will be reduced to less than significant levels.
The smaller 3.0-acre parcel to the east is along the San Jacinto River cl1annel and will be
donated to the MSHCP as part of the project. Representative vegetation communities found
within the 3.0-acre area include mulefat and southern willow scrub. This area will be
avoided during construction, and will be protected during operation due to the
implementation of measures outlined in the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
In conclusion, impacts are potentially significant on the 6.34-acre parcel only, but the
implementation of mitigation will result in less than significant impacts.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.s. Fish and Wildlife
Service? No Impact
The biological assessment concluded that there are no drainage features, riparian habitat, or
other sensitive natural communities present on the 6.34-acre parcel. As mentioned above,
the site is highly disturbed. The 3.0-acre site does contain riparian habitat associated with
the San Jacinto River channel. However, this area will be avoided and conserved. As such,
there will be no impacts identified for this issue area.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? No Imoact
As designed, the proposed project would avoid all jurisdictional waters. There are no
wetlands within the 6.34-acre area to be developed. Further, the 3.0-acre area that does
encompass jurisdictional waters will be avoided and conserved. As such, there will be no
impacts identified for this issue area.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than
Silmificant Imoact with Mitil!:ation
There are no fish or wildlife species known to use the proposed project area for wildlife
movement, as an established corridor, or for use as a native wildlife nursery site. However, a
portion of the project site does fall within Linkage 8 of the MSHCP. For this reason, the
applicant has agreed to donate the 3.0-acre parcel along the San Jacinto River channel to the
The Auto Group Dealer:rhip 34 City of Lake Elsinore
Initial Study/Draft l\Iitigated Negatiye Declaration AUgl,Ist 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 86 of 174
MSHCP. 'Illis 3.0-acre parcel connects to another parcel to the north recently donated to the
MSCHP as part of the Toyota dealership project.
The 6.34- acre area to be developed has very limited suitable habitat potential for native
migratory species. 'Ille one exception could be .nesting bird. and ~aptor species.. Nest~ng
activity typically occurs from mid-February to mId-August. DIsturbmg or destroym~ actIve
nests is a violation of the MBTA. In addition, nests and eggs are protected under FISh and
Game Code Section 3503. The removal of vegetation during the breeding season is
considered a potentially significant impact in light of potential impacts to species protected
by the MBTA; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures BI-l and BI-2, which
require preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls and other protected bird species, would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact
The project would comply with the MSHCP, as discussed below in Section IV.f. No tree
preservation policies or ordinances would apply to the proposed project, as no trees
currently exist on-site. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances, and thus, no impact would result.
t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? Less Than Silmificant ImDact with Mitilffition
'Ille project site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan of the MSHCP. 'Ille MSHCP
consistency analysis determined that the project is consistent with the MSHCP, as detailed
below. Further, the City has determined that the project is consistent with the MSHCP and
proceeded with the Joint Project Review (JPR) process with the Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). For this project, the City will make findings of
consistency as part of approval, and not before receiving similar findings from RCA.
~. Criteria Areas: 'Ille project site is within the Elsinore Area Plan, specifically Criteria
Ce1l4743. Conservation in this cell is 45-55 percent of the land focusing in the southern and
northeastern portions. Achievement of this goal is unlikely as much of this cell has already
been developed, prior to the initiation of the MSHCP. Although further development in this
cell would conflict with the minimum reserve assembly requirements, there is already
development to the north and south of the 6.34-acre area. Conservation of this area would
not provide the benefits the MSHCP is seeking in this area. However, the applicant has
agreed to donate the 3.0-acre parcel to the MSHCP as this would connect to an existing
parcel already donated for conservation. 'Illis donation would contribute to Proposed
Linkage 8, and would focus on the existing riparian scrub. As such, the proposed project is
consistent with this provision of the MSHCP.
2. Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools: 'Ille 6.34-acre parcel to be developed
does not encompass any drainage features, riparian areas, vernal pools. Further, this parcel
does not contain or have the potential to contain other suitable habitat for fairy shrimp.
There are riparian/riverine resources present on the 3.0-acre parcel to be avoided and
conserved. As such, the proposed project is consistent with this provision of the MSHCP.
3. Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area: 'Ille project site is not within the
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area; therefore, no assessments and/or surveys were
The Alllo Crollp Deolmhip
Initial Stuuy/Draft Mitigateu Nq,>-atiw Declaration
35
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 87 of 174
required. This provision of the MSHCP is not applicable to the proposed project.
4. Additional Survey Needs and Procedures: Assessments were performed to
determine additional survey needs or procedures. No suitable habitat for Criteria Areas
Species occurs on-site. These species include San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Parish's
brittlescale, Davidson's saltscale, thread-leaved brodiaea, round-leaved filaree, smooth
tarplant, Coulter's goldfields and little mousetail. The soil map for the site shows that
Travers soils, which would potentially support some of the Criteria Area species occurs in a
small portion at the southern end of the site. However, due to previous grading,
disturbance, and imported fill being routinely dumped and compacted on the site, the
natural site conditions no longer exist.
The project site is also within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. The biological
assessment revealed that the site conditions do not support suitable habitat for the
burrowing owl. In addition, no burrowing owls were observed on or adjacent to the project
site. However, due to the possibility that owls can move onto the site prior to the
commencement of construction activities, mitigation has been incorporated to ensure that
nay potential impacts to burrowing owls will be less than significant. As such, the proposed
project is consistent with this provision of the MSHCP.
5. Vegetation Mapping: Vegetation mapping requirements are applicable to
riparian/riverine areas within the 3.o-acre parcel. As part of the submittal requirements to
RCA, a map was provided showing the riparian resources to be conserved. As such, the
proposed project is consistent with this provision of the MSHCP.
6. UrbanjWildlands Interface: The Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands
Interface guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address
indirect effects associated with locating developments in proximity to a MSHCP
Conservation Area. Guidelines addressed include the quantity and quality of any runoff
generated by the development, night lighting, and noise generating land uses. The project
design features and best management practices incorporated into the proposed project
address and minimize edge effects associated with the Urban/Wildlands Interface.
There are two areas that would be considered MSHCP conservation areas, either currently or
proposed to be as part of this project. The 3.0-acre area will be donated to the MSHCP. In
order to ensure that no impacts will occur to land being donated to the MSHCP, the 6.34-
acre development will need to comply with these guidelines. Any development on the 6.34-
acre parcel will also need to ensure that no impacts occur to the existing conservation land to
the north of the 3.0 acre parcel. Because the project will implement the Urban/Wildlands
Interface Guidelines as required, the project is consistent with this provision of the MSHCP.
In summary, the proposed project is consistent with all provisions of the MSHCP, with the
exception of receiving the official findings of consistency from RCA. The project will not be
taken forward for approval before receiving findings from RCA. MSHCP consistency
provides "take authorization" for those species fully covered under the MSHCP. No other
mitigation is required with the exception of pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl and
nesting raptors. In addition, mitigation measures have been included to ensure that impacts
to conservation areas during both construction and operations are less than significant.
The Auto Croup J)mlmhip
Initial Study/Dmft Mitigatt:d Ncgatiyc Declaration
36
City of Lake Elsinore
AUg\!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 88 of 174
BiolOlllcal Resources Mitil!ation Measures
Burrowing Owl
BI-l Due to the possibility that burrowing owls can move onto or become established on a
site after the initial biological assessment has been completed, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 3o-days prior to any ground-
disturbing activities at the project site. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy
the project site during pre-construction surveys, CDFG shall be consulted and a
passive relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls to an area outside
the impact zone. The relocation shall be conducted following accepted protocols and
would occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows
shall be destroyed once they are vacated.
Nesting Raptors
BI-2 To avoid impacts to nesting raptors, the removal of potential nesting vegetation (Le.,
trees, shrubs, ground cover) that could support raptors should be avoided during the
nesting season, recognized from February 15 through August 31. If vegetation
removal must occur during nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would not impact any active
nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation
removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys, then that
vegetation used for nesting shall be avoided until the nesting event has completed
and the juveniles can survive independent of the nest. The biologist would be
required to flag the occupied nest and establish adequate buffering (e.g. construction
fencing). The size of the buffer would be based upon the type of species nesting.
Construction
BI-3 The project shall avoid all conservation areas, both the 3.o-acre parcel as well as the
conservation area to the north of the 3.o-acre parcel. The conservation areas shall
remain undisturbed. The boundaries shall be clearly delineated with temporary
fencing such as orange construction fencing to define the limits of grading and
clearing during the construction period to ensure that all construction activity
remains outside of the conservation area. Further, all applicable best management
practices shall be implemented to ensure that erosion and siltation do not affect the
conservation areas.
Operation
BI-4 The project shall comply with all proVISions of the MSHCP Urban/Wildlands
Interface Guidelines. As part of this, the applicant shall clearly delineate the
boundary between the project and surrounding areas and restrict project to ensure
that offsite areas are not impacted by project activities.
The Aulo Group J)riJ/m-hip
Initial Study/Dmft t\litigated NCb>:1tin: Declaration
37
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2(K)8
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 89 of 174
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following report has been prepared to analyze impacts to cultural resources resulting from
the proposed project and was used in the preparation of this section:
Cultural Resources Assessment for The Auto Group 6-Acre Project. Prepared by LSA
Associates, Inc. March 2008.
The report is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as deimed in li1so64.S? Less Than Silffiificant Imnact with Mitigation
The cultural resources survey prepared for the proposed project included results from a
records search, Native American scoping, and a field survey. The study focused on the 6.34-
acre area to be developed. The 3.0-acre parcel to the east will not be disturbed. The cultural
resource records search was conducted through the Eastern Information Center, University
of California, Riverside. Additionally, pedestrian field surveys were conducted on February
15, 2008. The survey was conducted by walking transects spaced 15 meters apart. Other
sources consulted include lists for the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Inventory of Historic Resources, California Register of Historical Resources Index, Office of
Historic Preservation Directory of Properties, and historic US Geologic Survey (USGS)
topographic maps.
Data from the records search indicate that 22 archeological resources and seven built
environmental sites are located within a one-mile radius of the proposed project site, three
of which are located within the project boundaries. These are Site 33-14711, a historic footing
and refuse site; and, Sites 33-14713 and 33-14714, both of which are isolated prehistoric
artifacts. An isolated artifact is spatially separated from other cultural features on the
landscaped. These sites were previously evaluated and recorded in 2005, and the records for
these sites were updated on current Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms.
The refuse associated with Site 33-14711 was relocated but Sites 33-14713 and 33-14714 were
not relocated. Isolated artifacts have no scientific significance although they may have
traditional significance from the Native American perspective. None of the resources were
determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or the
California Register of Historical Resources. None of the sites were considered significant
under CEQA in 2005, and the current LSA study concurs with the 2005 determination.
A letter dated February 25, 2008 was sent by LSA to the ten Native American Tribes
provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). One Tribe (Soboba)
responded requesting further consultation and a copy of the cultural resources report, and
one Tribe (Cahuilla) requested monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. In addition
to the Native American scoping process conducted by LSA, it has been determined that this
project will need a GPA, thus triggering the requirement of Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)
consultation. The SB 18 consultation process will run concurrent with the MND process.
Although the cultural resources study does not indicate that resources on the site are
significant, there continues to be a potential to encounter buried historical or archeological
resources during earth-moving activities. Given that the survey was limited to due to dense
vegetation at the time of the survey, the presence of 22 recorded cultural resources within a
one-mile radius of the project site, and the riparian setting, archeological monitoring is
recommended. Further, one Tribe recommended Tribal monitoring for project construction
The AJllo Group Dtalmhip
Initial Study/Draft r>.Iiti!.'lltcd Negative Declaration
38
City of Lake Elsinore
l\uh'llst 200H
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 90 of 174
in areas where there is a potential to uncover prehistoric resources. As such, mitigation has
been proposed to bring any potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Althoulili SB 18 comDliance is a process seDarate from CEOA. some of the
comments received on the Draft IS/MND also included references to SB 18
compliance. For this reason. communication with the Tribes durinl!: and after
the Draft IS/MND Dubic review Deriod will be briefly summarized here. The
City consulted with the Native American Herital!:e Commission to obtain a list
of Tribes that may be interested in Drojects in this area. The City sent letters to
those Tribes Dursuant to SB 18. Three Tribes resDonded to the City's invitation
to formall!:overnment to ~overnment consultation: 1) Pechanl!:a: 2) Soboba: and
~) Pala. The Pala indicated that the Droiect is beyond the boundaries of their
reservation and Tribal Use Area. Both the Pechanl!:a and Soboba have
requested consultation which has already been scheduled or is in the Drocess of
being scheduled.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to !i 15064.5? Less Than Sil!:Dificant ImDact With
Mitil!:ation Incornorated
Please refer to V.a. above.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature? Less Than Sil!:Dificant Impact with Mitigation
According to the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the County of Riverside General Plan,
the project site is located within an area of undetermined paleontological sensitivity. All
earth-moving activities will be monitored by both an archeologist and a Tribal Monitor. In
addition, a contingency measure has been included as a full paleontological study was not
conducted. Mitigation Measure CR-5 would ensure that implementation of the proposed
project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a
unique geological feature.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? Less Than Significant ImDact with Mitil!:ation
Based on the records search, it is unlikely that development of the project site would disturb
any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, there
is still the possibility that human remains may be encountered during project grading. If
human remains are encountered during project grading, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance
until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside
County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timeframe. Subsequently, the
Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The
most likely descendant shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations
concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than
significant. Mitigation Measure CR-3 has been included to ensure that potential impacts to
human remains will be less than significant.
The AHlo Grollp DeiJkt:.hip
Initial SlUJy/Dr.lft Mitih'<1tl.'d Negati,.c Declaration
39
City of Lake Elsinore
:\u~,'ust 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 91 of 174
Cultural Resources Mitie:ation Measures
Archaeological Resources
CR-l
CR-2!!
CR-2b
CR-3
CR-4
At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant shall contact
the appropriate Tribe' to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring
program, and to coordinate with the City and the tribe to develop a Cultural
Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the
treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and
participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and
ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of
compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred
sites, and human remains discovered on the site.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project archaeologist shall file a pre-
grading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading
activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified
archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect
grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in CR-l, the
archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading would be exercised in
consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed
to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have
the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project
archaeologist.
Should the Tribe and developer be unable to aeree to the significance or
mitie:ation of archeological resources discovered during: eradine:. these
issues shall be presented to the Community Develonment Director (CDD)
for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based upon the
provisions of CEOA and shall take into account the religious beliefs.
customs and practices of the Tribe.
If human remains are encountered during project grading, California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the
Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further,
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be
left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and
disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains
to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted
within a reasonable timeframe. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant
shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the
treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred
items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area
to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition.
,
It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the "appropriate" Tribe due to its prior and extensive
coordination with the City and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the project area.
40
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 92 of 174
Tbe Aut!) Croup Deli/el)-hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitig.:Jted Nq,>ativc Declaration
Paleontological Resources
CR-S
In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent
shall notify a qualified paleontologist, who shall document the discovery as needed,
evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If a breas3 or other fossil is
discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards).
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that
should be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the
find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall
prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the proposed project on the
qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval prior to implementation.
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following report has been prepared to analyze potential geology and soils impacts resulting
from the proposed project and was used in the preparation of this section:
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Automotive Dealership,
Located on East Lakeshore Drive at Elm Street in the City of Lake Elsinore, County of
Riverside, California. Prepared by LGC Inland. June 20, 2008.
The report is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk ofIoss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than
Si2nJficantlmDacf
The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project concludes that the
project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone or a State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting.
Furthermore, no active faults are known to traverse the project site and vicinity. However,
there are major active faults within 25 miles of the site that could produce secondary effects
such as seismic shaking, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, shallow ground rupture, and/or
seiches and tsunamis. These are Elsinore-Temecula Fault, Elsinore-Glen Ivy Fault, Chino
Central Avenue Fault, San Jacinto-San-Jacinto Valley Fault, San Jacinto-Anza Fault,
Whittier Fault, San Jacinto-San Bernadino Fault, and the Elsinore-Julian Fault. The
proposed project will comply with the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical
report for design and construction, and in accordance with applicable structural
requirements of the CBC and DBC. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that
the proposed project would be designed to withstand adverse seismic activity to the greatest
extent possible. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of these standard
3
A seep of natural petroleum that trapped now extinct animals, thus preserving and fossilizing their remains.
"fhe Aulo Group Deuler/hip
Initial Study IDrnfr Mitil-;ated Negative Declaration
41
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 93 of 174
design measures.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Silmificant Imnact
Please refer to VI.a.i. above. The project site is located in seismically-active Riverside
County and is considered likely to be subjected to moderate to moderately high ground
motion from regional seismic activity. Given that the project site is not within any Fault-
Rupture Hazard Zone and the distance to the above mentioned fault, it can be concluded the
site would not be affected by ground shaking to a greater extent than other areas in
seismically-active southern California. A less than significant impact is identified for this
issue area.
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Significant Impact
Please refer to VI.a.i. above. Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in
saturated soil, usually taking place when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow
groundwater, 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils, and 3) high-intensity ground
motion. Liquefaction is also associated with lateral spreading, excessive settlement, and
failure of shallow bearing foundations. Based upon the liquefaction analysis, the soil layer
between approximately 40 and 43 feet has a potential for liquefaction. However, due to the
volume of overburden materials, no surface manifestation or sand boils are anticipated. As
such, ground failure including liquefaction is unlikely. Impacts are less than significant.
Less Than
iv) Landslides? Less Than Silmificant Imnact
Please refer to VI.a.i. above. There are no known landslides impacting the site. Further, the
site design does not incorporate any slopes steeper than 2:1 in inclination. As such, a less
than significant impact is identified.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Silmificant
Imnact
Soil erosion can result during construction, as grading and construction can loosen surface
soils and make soils susceptible to effects of wind and water movement across the surface.
Cut and fill slopes at a horizontal to vertical ratio of 2:1 are considered stable by LGC under
normal conditions of maintenance and rainfall. Nonetheless, erosion would be controlled on-
site in accordance with City standards including preparation, review, and approval of a
grading plan by the City Engineer. In addition, a construction projects that is greater
than 1 acre is required to prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan (SWPPP) that
would include measures to minimize erosion and siltation. Upon completion of
construction, the potential for on-site soil erosion would be eliminated since developed
areas would be either paved or landscaped. Thus, implementation of existing City
standards and the SWPPP would bring impacts to below a level of significance.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than
Significant Imnact
Please refer to VI.a.i. through iv. above. Incorporation of standard geotechnical
recommendations set forth in the preliminary geotechnical report would ensure impacts
The Auto Group fJerJkrJhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Nq,7fltive Declaration
42
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 94 of 174
related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would remain
less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than
Silffiificant ImDact
Please refer to VI.a.i. through iv. above. Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay
particles which can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume
can exert stress on infrastructure including roads placed on these soils. The occurrence of
these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. Soil tests
indicate a very low expansion potential. As such, and with implementation of the
recommendation in the preliminary geotechnical study, impacts are less than significant for
this issue area.
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? No ImDact
The proposed project would not be serviced by either septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. The project site is located within the EVWMD service area and would
receive wastewater service from the City. Therefore, there is no impact associated with this
issue.
Geoloev and Soils Mitil!:ation Measures
None required.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following report has been prepared to analyze potential hazards and hazardous material
impacts resulting from the proposed project and was used in the preparation of this section:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 6.34-Acre Vacant Parcel (APN 363-130-
087)North of East Lakeshore Drive, Lake Elsinore, California 92532. Prepared by ATC
Associates, Inc. December 11, 2006.
The report is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Silffiificant ImDact
through the
Less Than
Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that, because of their
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could pose a
threat to human health or the environment. Hazards include the risks associated with
potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or
natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness,
or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment.
In January 1996, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) adopted
regulations, which implemented a Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials
The Auff! Group Dealm-bip
Initial Study/Draft Mitihl':l.ted Negative Declaration
43
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 95 of 174
Management Regulatory Program. The program includes regulations for underground
Storage Tanks (USTs), above-ground Storage Tanks (ASTs), hazardous materials release
response plans and inventories, risk management and prevention programs, and Unified
Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The plan is implemented
at the local level; the agency responsible for implementation of the Unified Program is called
the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). In Riverside County, the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health is the designated CUP A. It is not known at this time if
there will be a fueling facility on the site. If so, any USTs or ASTs would follow all Federal
and State regulations during its construction and use, including hazardous materials
provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and Cal-EP A.
Because the proposed project includes construction equipment as well as a vehicle service
facility during operations, the project would involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and
various other liquids. These would be transported to the construction site on an as-needed
basis by equipment service trucks, and would transported to the site depending on the use of
the inventory by the vehicle service facility. In addition, workers would commute to the
project site via private vehicles, and would operate construction vehicles/equipment on both
public and private streets. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive
environments would be present during project construction of the buildings, and during
operations. These materials include diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete,
cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets.
The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from
accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment
during construction of the buildings, and during operations; however, the proposed project
would be required to comply with Federal, State, and City Municipal Code regulations which
regulate and control those materials handled onsite. Compliance with these restrictions and
laws ensure that potentially significant impacts would not occur. Implementation of a Spill
Prevention and Control Plan (SPCP) that addresses transport, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials during construction and operation of project facilities would further
reduce the potential for hazards to occur. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Silmificant Impact
While the potential exists for hazardous materials to be present on the project site during
construction and operation, there is no significant potential for a significant release of
hazardous materials from accidental conditions with compliance of applicable federal, state,
and City restrictions and laws. The Spill Prevention and Control Plan (SPCP) would be
implemented and would include spill response, notification, and cleanup of hazardous
materials accidentally released during construction and/or operation of project facilities.
Adherence to federal, state, and City restrictions coupled with implementation of the SPCP
would ensure that the potential for hazards to occur to the public or the environment is less
than significant.
It should also be noted that there is scattered trash and debris including tires, plastic,
cardboard, and undocumented soils on the site. However, the applicant would be required to
remove and properly dispose of these materials under state and federal guidelines and
regulations.
Tbe A#lo G17!Hp Deu!u:rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
44
City of Lake Elsinore
Au~~t 2()()H
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 96 of 174
c) Emit hazardous ermsslons or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? Less Than Simificant Imnact
The nearest established school, Railroad Canyon Elementary, is located less than one-
quarter mile northwest of the project site. Section 15186 of the CEQA Guidelines requires
that before adopting an MND for a project located within one-quarter mile of school for a
project involving construction that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air
emissions or that would handle an extremely hazardous substance, the lead agency must
consult with the affected school district and notify the affected school district in writing not
less than 30 days prior to adoption of the MND. The proposed project does not have the
potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials in a manner
that could impact the school. The proposed project is required to comply with applicable
federal, state, and City restrictions and laws including implementation of a SPCP.
Regardless, the affected school district has been included on the distribution list for this
MND. As such, they will have 30 days to provide comments as appropriate. Impacts are
considered less than significant for this issue area.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than
Significant Impact
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment concluded that there is no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the proposed project site. Historical
aerial photographs indicate that the project site has been vacant since prior to 1941. The
proposed project is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5. There were five sites identified
within l/2-mile of the site; however, based on distance, topography, assumed groundwater
gradient, and/or current regulatory status, none of the sites listed are considered to result in
a past, present, of future material threat of release on the property. As such, the proposed
project site would not be affected by anyon-site or off-site sources. Impacts are considered
less than significant for this issue area.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? No Imnact
The closest airport facility is located within the East Lake Specific Plan area, greater than two
miles from the proposed project site. This small private airstrip is under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, is not within the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard to people residing
or working in the project area. Therefore, no impact would result.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Imnact
Please refer to VILe. above.
The Aulf) Group Dl!lilm'hip
Initial Study/Draft r-.{itiJ.,r:ltcd NC!-,r:lti\'(: Declaration
45
City of Lake Elsinore
AUh'llH 200fl
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 97 of 174
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Imnact
The City adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in 1982 to meet the requirements of
the California Emergency Services Act of 1951 (Section 8550 et seq., Government Code). The
most recent version of the EOP was promulgated in March 2007. The City's EOP addresses
the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters,
technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City. While the
EOP is the authority for emergency actions within the City, it recognizes and supports the
general concepts contained within Riverside County and the State of California Emergency
Plans.
The proposed project does not propose any changes to the circulation system that would
potentially affect emergency access for the fire or police departments. Additionally, the
proposed project is not of a type or scale that would interfere with the goals of the EOP.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation
plans. No impact is identified for this issue area.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than
Silmificant Imnact
According to the West Riverside County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map prepared by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2007) the project site is not zoned as
an area of risk. Therefore, development of the project site will not expose people or structures
to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire. There is no impact identified
for this issue area.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitil!:ation Measures
None required.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following reports have been prepared to analyze potential impacts to hydrology and water
quality resulting from the proposed project and were used in the preparation of this section:
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for The Automotive Group Lakeshore
Property, Lake Elsinore. Prepared by Madison-FCS, Inc. August 13, 2008.
Hydrology Study for The Automotive Group Lakeshore Property. Prepared by Madison-
FCS, Inc. May 1, 2008.
The reports are available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less
Than Sil!:Dificant Impact
The proposed project has the potential to create urban pollutants typical of any development
including bacteria, viruses, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash and debris, oxygen
The AI/to crollp Deuler...hip
Initial Study/Draft i\Iiti,l,F.itcd Ncp;atiye Declaration
46
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!~t 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 98 of 174
demanding substances, and oil and grease. The proposed project and associated
development activities could result in two types of water quality impacts: 1) erosion/
sedimentation and discharges of other pollutants during construction, and 2) long-term
effects from runoff associated with this type of development and land uses. To ensure water
quality standards and discharge requirements will not be violated compliance with the City's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required. Compliance
with NPDES regulations, including the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Best Management Practices (BMPs), Best Available Technology
(BAT), and Best Conventional Technology (BeT) to reduce or eliminate storm water
pollution is required. The applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Cal-
EPA State Water Resources Control Board prior to construction. In addition, the proposed
project would comply with the City of Lake Elsinore development guidelines. Furthermore, a
Conceptual Water Quality Management plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the proposed
project, which includes site-specific information on hydrology and water quality as well as
required BMPs.
Site design BMPs include maximizing permeable areas throughout the site in the form of
landscaped areas, including between streets and sidewalks. Landscaped areas will be
designed with native or drought-tolerant trees and large shrubs. Streets and sidewalks will
be constructed to minimum widths. Where feasible, roof run-off will be directed to
landscaped areas. Sidewalks are designed to drain towards landscaped areas.
The WQMP for the project also identifies a series of source control BMPs, including non-
structural and structural source control BMPs. Non-structural source control BMPs include
education of property owners and tenant, activity restriction, irrigation system and
landscape maintenance, common area litter control, street sweeping private streets and
parking areas and drainage facility inspection and maintenance. Structural source control
BMPs include MS-4 stenciling and signage, landscape and irrigation system design,
community carwash racks, trash storage areas, maintenance bays, and vehicle and
equipment wash areas.
The primary treatment control BMP is a Precast Contech Stormfilter Water Pollution
Control Unit used in conjunction with CDS Hydrodynamic Separators for large trash and
debris removal. These units address the expected pollutants of concern identified as
sediment/turbidity, nutrients, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding
substances, bacteria and viruses, oils and grease, pesticides and metals. The units are located
in the southeastern portion of the development, and provide capture and filtration of
suspended solids, floatables, oil and grease, and other pollutants prior to storm water
leaving the site. Supporting engineering calculations for the BMP design details are included
in the WQMP.
Runoff created on the project site would ultimately discharge into Lake Elsinore. Lake
Elsinore is listed as an impaired waterway on the 2002 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List
of Water Quality Limited Segments for nutrients (most notably nitrogen and phosphorous),
organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, sedimentation/siltation, and unknown toxicity.
However, as mentioned above compliance with NPDES regulations would ensure that
significant water quality impacts to Lake Elsinore would not result from development of the
proposed project.
Compliance with all applicable regulations, including NPDES, and implementation of the
WQMP would ensure that significant water quality impacts would not result from
The Auff} Group Dealet:rhip
Initial Study/Draft MitigattJ Negative Declaration
47
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 99 of 174
development of the project, and violation of standards and requirements would not occur.
As such, potential impacts to water quality standards and waste discharge would be less than
significant for the proposed project.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less
Than Silmificant Impact
The proposed project site is located within the service area of the EVMWD and would be
eligible for water service. The proposed project would not use groundwater supplies.
Impervious surfaces would be created with development of the proposed project and given
that the project site is undeveloped, absorption rates could be potentially affected. Existing
flows in this area are sheet flow directed easterly towards the San Jacinto River channel. In
the proposed conditions, the site would sheet flow to concrete gutters that convey flows to
inlets where run-off is then conveyed in pipes, filtered, and discharged to an outlet on the
east side of the site. Because flows continue to be directed to the same ultimate location, and
because the proposed impervious area is not considered substantial, there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level there would be no
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts are
considered less than significant for this issue area.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than
Significant Imoact
As discussed in Section IV., Biological Resources, there are no drainage features on the 6.34-
parcel to be developed. All cut and fill will be balanced on site, and as noted in VilLa.
above, the drainage pattern of the site before and after development is sheet flow directed to
the east. The proposed project will implement BMPs during both construction and
operations that prevent or reduce erosion and or siltation on- and off-site. As such, impacts
are considered less than significant.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas by 100 Year
Flood as shown on FEMA Map No. 060636 2066F revised August 18, 2003. The easterly
portion of the site lies within Zone X with an associated maximum elevation of 1270' on the
northeast side of the site to an associated maximum flood elevation of 1268' on the southeast
side of the site. One small area within the 6.34 acres to be developed remains in Zone AE.
This area in the southeastern corner of APN 363-130-087 is approximately 10,745 square
feet or 0.025 acres in size, and is prohibited from being developed.
The Rational Method was used to calculate the runoff discharge. A lO-year and 100-year, 1-
hour storm frequency was analyzed for the onsite storm drain system and flood levels
"11)( Allfo GroJljJ DetllmhiP
Initial Study/Draft rvfitib'UteJ Nq,'ll.tivc Declaration
48
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 100 of 174
respectively. The existing site generates 9.6 CFS and 25.9 CFS for the lO-year and 100-year
storms respectively. The project site, once developed, will generate 11.9 CFS and 18.6 CFS
for the lO-year and 100-year storms respectively. Due to the relatively small drainage area
and resulting flows, development of the site as proposed would not result in flooding on- or
off-site and does not pose a hazard to the surrounding property, structures, or residents. As
such, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Silmificant Impact
Please refer to VIlLa. and d. above. Not only are flows after development considered within
normal ranges, but implementation of the WQMP would prevent the proposed project from
creating additional sources of polluted runoff. Further, the proposed project will be
reviewed by the City's Engineering Department to ensure the adequacy of the storm water
system infrastructure. As such, the project as proposed would not contribute surface runoff
which would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems or provide
polluted run-off. Impacts would be less than significant.
o Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Silffiificant Imnact
One definition for pollution is provided in Section 13050(1) of the California Water Code
(ewC) as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree that
unreasonably affects either the waters for beneficial uses or the facilities that serve these
beneficial uses. CWC 13050(f) defines beneficial uses as "uses of water that may be
protected against degradation, including domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial
supply, power generation, recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, navigation, and preservation and
enhancement of fish, wildlife and other aquatic resources and preserves.
The state anti-degradation policy is titled the "Statement of Policy with Respect to
Maintaining High Quality Waters in California" and is codified in 23 CCR Section 2900.
Commonly referred to as Resolution 68-16, this policy requires that where ground or surface
waters are of higher quality than necessary to protect beneficial uses, the high quality of
those waters must be maintained unless otherwise provided by the policies. The state policy
also incorporates the federal anti-degradation policy. This policy establishes a two-step
process to determine if discharges that would degrade water quality are allowed. The first
step requires that where a discharge would degrade high quality water, the discharge may be
allowed if any change in water quality: (1) would be consistent with the maximum benefit to
the people of the state; (2) would not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial
uses of such water; and (3) would not result in water quality less than that prescribed (e.g.,
by water quality objectives). The second step is that any activities that result in discharge to
high quality waters are required to use the best practicable treatment or control necessary to
avoid a pollution or nuisance and to maintain the highest water quality consistent with the
maximum benefit to the people of the state. The state anti-degradation policy further
establishes that if the discharge, even after treatment, unreasonably affects beneficial uses or
does not comply with all applicable provisions, the discharge would be prohibited.
Runoff created on the project site would drain to the San Jacinto River channel and
ultimately into Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore is listed as an impaired waterway on the 2006
CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. For the purposes of
addressing this question in the Initial Study, the potential impacts to beneficial uses will be
TJu Auto Group Dealtr.;hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
49
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 101 of 174
used as the indicator for "otherwise substantially degrade of water quality." The San Jacinto
River (specifically the reach from Lake Elsinore to Canyon Lake) has been identified as
having intermittent beneficial: uses, including municipal and domestic supply (MUN),
agricultural supply (AGR), groundwater recharge (GWR), water contact recreation (RECl),
non-contact water recreation CREC2), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), and wildlife
habitat (WILD). Lake Elsinore has been identified as having beneficial uses including
RECl, REC2, WARM, and WILD.
,
As explained in VIII.a. and e., the project would not contribute to the continued degradation
of Lake Elsinore. Compliance with NPDES regulations, including the implementation of a
SWPPP, BMPs, BATs, and BCTs to reduce or eliminate storm water pollution,' would be
required during construction. During operations, the project would adhere to the WQMP
and would implement the use of stormfllters, catch basins, and separation units.
Implementation of post -constru<;tion BMPs may improve the water quality downstream over
the existing conditions which include sediment and runoff being directly discharged into the
river channel. In addition, the pt,oposed project would comply with the City of Lake Elsinore
development guidelines. As such, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue
I
area. ,
I
g) Place housing within a lod-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? Less Than Silmificant Impact
I
According to the Lake Elsinore General Plan, a portion of the site to be developed is located
within an area designated as Flobdway. This designation was originally determined by using
the same map delineations provided by FEMA for their 100-year flood hazard area. Since
that time, FEMA has revised their maps for this area pulling all but 0.025 acres out of the
Zone AE designation. Per FEMA maps, the 0.025-acre area still remains as Zone AE but
development on this portion is prohibited. The majority of the site is now within Zone X.
This designation is assigned to, "areas outside the l-percent annual chance floodplain, areas
of one percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than one
foot, areas of one percent annmi! chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage
area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the one percent annual chance flood
by levees" (FEMA, 2008). As srtch, this area is considered be of low to moderate risk of
flooding potential. The City's G~neral Plan has not yet been updated to reflect the revised
FEMA maps. Regardless, no hqusing or other structures will be placed within a 100-year
flood hazard area. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact in the
issue area. I
h) Place within a loo-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows? Less Than Silffiificant Impact
As stated in Section VIII.g. abovel, the proposed project will not place development in a
FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. The proposed project would have a less than significant
impact with regard to this issue area.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam? Less Than Silmificant ~mDact
The Auto Group DcalerJhip
Initial Study/Draft Miti,l:,1"Jtcd Negative Declaration
50
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 102 of 174
The nearest levee to the project site would be the Lake Elsinore levee, which was constructed
in 1995 and is located south of the project site. The project site elevation is higher than the
lake level, and is not located within the area susceptible to flooding should this levee fail.
Should the levee fail, the lake levels would actually drop and flood the areas east of the levee.
As such, no people or structures associated with the proposed project would be subject to
significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam. A less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant ImlJact
Seiches are periodic oscillations of water in confined basins, typically caused by earthquakes.
As noted in the Lake Elsinore General Plan, a seiche in Lake Elsinore could occur during an
earthquake, causing the lake level to rise by 10 inches to 20 feet. The proposed project's
distance and location up-stream from Lake Elsinore would preclude the site from
experiencing flooding resulting from a seiche. Tsunamis are not considered a threat to
inland areas, and there are no areas on or above the site that would generate mudflows.
Please also refer to Section VI. Geology and Soils above for a discussion on potential impacts
related to seismic activity, including landslides. A less than significant impact is identified
for this issue area.
HvdrololN and Water Quality Mitigation Measures
None required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Silmificant ImlJact
The proposed project site is located in an area adjacent to an approved auto dealership to the
north, with other auto dealerships to the north and east along Auto Center Drive. The parcel
to the west is currently vacant and is being considered for a commercial use. The City's
current General Plan designates of the site as General Commercial with a portion of it along
the San Jacinto River channel being Floodway. The City's Draft General Plan Update
designates the entire area to be developed as General Commercial. Zoning for the entire
proposed project site is C-2 General Commercial. Therefore, the proposed project is located
within an area planned for commercial uses, and as such, would not divide an established
community. Impacts would be considered less than significant for this issue area.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than
Significant Impact
The proposed project encompasses two parcels. One of the parcels, approximately 3.0 acres,
will be left undeveloped, and will ultimately be donated to the MSHCP. The second parcel,
approximately 6.34 acres, is the area to be developed as part ofthe proposed project. Under
the City's current General Plan, the 3.0-acre parcel is designated Floodway. The 6.34-acre
parcel has two designations: 1) General Commercial, and 2) Floodway. According to FEMA,
the San Jacinto River channel has been remapped and has in essence removed all but one
small 0.025-acre portion of the 6'.34-acre parcel out of the lOo-year floodplain. The 0.025-
acre area continues to be Zone AE in which development is prohibited. Although the FEMA
51
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 103 of 174
The Aulo Group D~a/m.hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Detb.mtion
map revisions are reflected in the City's Draft General Plan Update, this Plan has not yet
been adopted. As such, the project as proposed is inconsistent with the City's current
General Plan. The applicant does not want to wait for adoption of the General Plan Update,
and is requesting a GPA as part of the project's approval process to allow development in the
area consistent with FEMA mapping. With approval of the GPA, the project will be
consistent with the City's current General Plan.
Two regional plans that are also applicable to the project include the Riverside County
Integrated Project (RCIP) in relation to TUMF and the MSHCP. The City of has agreed to
participate in both TUMF and the MSHCP, and the project would be required to adhere to
all requirements of these plans. Traffic generated by development of the proposed project
would have some impact to countywide transportation corridors; therefore, the proposed
project would be required to contribute to TUMF. With the payment of fees, the proposed
project is in compliance with the Community and Environmental Transportation
Acceptability (CETAP) portion of the RCIP. Section XV.b. discusses further the TUMF fees
the project would be required to pay. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Please see the response in Section !V.f. for the complete analysis of the project's consistency
with the MSHCP. Therefore, no significant impact is identified.
In conclusion, the project approval process will include the processing of a GPA and
resulting in the project being consistent with the City's General Plan. The project will not
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project. Impacts are less than significant.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? Less Than Silmificant Impact with Mitil!ation
Please refer to Section !V.f. Biological Resources above.
Land Use and Planninl! Mitil!ation Measures
None required.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a
value to the region and the residents of the state? No Imvact
The site is not located within a MRZ-3 zone as identified in the City's General Plan. Areas
designated as MRZ-3 are areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrence of
undetermined mineral resource significance. Furthermore, according to the State
Department of Conservation, no geothermal resources are located on the project site and
there are no plugged or abandoned oil wells located in the vicinity of the project site.
According to the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency
(TLMA) Surface Mining Operations Graphical Map, there are no working or abandoned
surface mines in the area. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan? No ImDact
The Auto Group DfiJkrJhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
52
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 104 of 174
Please refer to X.a. above.
Mineral Resources Mitigation Measures
None required.
XI. NOISE
The following report has been prepared to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from the
proposed project and was used in the preparation of this section:
Lake Elsinore TAG Property Noise Analysis, City of Lake Elsinore, California. Prepared
by Urban Crossroads. May 28, 2008.
The report is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitil!ation
IncorDorated
Noise Fundamentals
The minimum change in sound level that the human ear can detect is approximately 3 dBA.
This increment, 3 dBA, is commonly accepted under CEQA as a rule of thumb threshold
representing the point where a noise level increase would represent a noticeable difference.
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Noise Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, sets
acceptable limits for vehicular noise for various land use categories. The element establishes
60 dBA as the maximum "Clearly Compatible" exterior noise level for sensitive residential
use areas (45 dBA for interior areas). Therefore, if the proposed project were to increase the
noise levels by more than 3 dBA in an area where the ambient noise environment is in excess
of the City's "Clearly Compatible" 60 dBA exterior (45 dBA interior) threshold, then a
significant impact would be identified.
Section 17.78.010 of the City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code provides performance standards
and noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating non-transportation, or
stationary, nuisance noise source impacts to residential properties. The purpose of the noise
ordinance is to protect, create and maintain an environment free from noise and vibration
that may jeopardize health or welfare, or degrade the quality of life. According to the
stationary source exterior noise standards, no person shall operate or cause to be operated,
any source of sound at any location within the incorporated City or allow the creation of any
noise on a property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which
causes the noise levels to exceed the exterior noise limits at the property boundary. The
noise ordinance standards set noise limits for single-family residential land use of 50 dBA
Leq for the daytime hours and 40 dBA Leq for the noise sensitive nighttime hours. For
general commercial uses the daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards are 65 dBA Leq
and 60 dBA Leq, respectively. These standards cannot be exceeded for a cumulative period
of more than 30 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 5 dBA Leq for a cumulative
period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 10 dBA Leq for a
cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 15 dBA Leq
for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. When ambient noise levels
The AKlo Group Deakr.ihip
Initial Study/Draft ~Jitigated NCf,'lltivc Declaration
53
City of Lake Elsinore
August 200H
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 105 of 174
exce~d the limits of the o;d~nance, for the purpose of determining project impact, the
ambIent levels become the I1mIt pursuant to the ordinance.
Noise Measurement Locations
The noise analysis selected measurement locations based on impact potential to existing and
future development in the study area. Two measurements were taken at each end of the
proposed project along Lakeshore Drive, and another taken at the existing homes to the
north on Parkway, and another taken at the northern property line of the project site.
Off-Site Transportation Noise Analysis
The off-site project impact noise analysis indicates that for the future year 2011 conditions,
the proposed project will not create a noise level increase of 3.0 dBA or greater, or exceed
the City's 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard on the study area roadways. An increase of
less than 3.0 dBA CNEL is generally considered to be "barely perceptible" in terms of
community noise impacts. The results of the off-site noise analysis show that the proposed
project's noise level contributions would not result in significant impacts to the existing or
future sensitive noise receptors identified in the project study area.
Off-Site Stationary Noise Analysis
Project-related operational noise impacts would consist primarily of typical automobile
dealership operations that include speakerphones, truck deliveries, vehicle maintenance
activities, and the seasonal use of the rooftop mounted air conditioning units. Hours of
operation are typically from 7 AM to 8 PM however the project would be conditioned to
adhere to the City's noise ordinance. Noise sensitive areas in the vicinity of the proposed
project include the existing single-family residential land uses located northwest of the
project site and the multi-family residential units across Lakeshore Drive to the south.
Although the nearest noise sensitive residences are 100 feet from the proposed project, the
hours of operations would occur only during daytime hours. It is also expected that traffic
noise coming off of Lakeshore Drive, Auto Center Drive, and 1-15 will overshadow noise
impacts generated by the proposed project.
On-Site Noise Analysis
The proposed project would experience exterior noise level impacts from traffic noise on
Lakeshore Drive and Auto Center Drive. The transportation-related exterior noise level
criteria provided in the City of Lake Elsinore Noise Element does not identify on-site noise
level limits for commercial land uses. However, the noise compatibility matrix provided in
the noise element does provide guidelines for commercial uses according to the predicted
noise exposure level. The noise measurements taken in the study area show that the existing
noise levels range from 52.6 to 61.6 dBA CNEL. With future traffic volume increases, the
noise levels in the project site are expected to approach 67 dBA CNEL. Using the City of Lake
Elsinore noise compatibility matrix in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, the
development of this commercial project is considered to be in the range of "normally
acceptable. "
Construction Noise Analysis
Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete
mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Grading activities typically represent
one of the highest potential sources for noise impacts. The City has specific requirements for
The AHlo Group Dea/n:fhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitig.Ited Negative Declaration
54
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 106 of 174
both short-term and long-term construction noise levels.
Sensitive noise receptors are located to the northwest and south of the proposed project site.
The single family residences, approximately 500 feet to the northwest, would be exposed to
an estimated 68 dBA Leq from temporary noise impacts generated from grading. For these
homes, grading activities will create noise impact levels that are below daytime level criteria
of 75 dBA Leq, but above the nighttime noise criteria of 60 dBA. The multi-family
residences, approximately 100 feet to the south, would be exposed to an estimated 83 dBA
Leq from temporary noise impacts generated from grading. The multi-family uses are
exposed to noise that exceeds both the daytime and nighttime level criteria.
Construction activities would only be allowable during the weekday daytime hours of 7 am to
7 pm and should be minimized as much as possible along the southern border of the
proposed project site in order to reduce impacts to the noise sensitive uses. Construction
noise is of short-term duration and would not present any long-term impacts on the project
site or the surrounding area. Mitigation is proposed that would reduce temporary
construction noise impacts to the surrounding community.
Summary
In conclusion, all impacts associated with off-site transportation noise, off-site stationary
noise, and on-site noise have been determined to be less than significant. However,
construction noise generated from grading activities would have a potentially significant
impact on the multi-family uses to the south. Mitigation has been proposed that will reduce
temporary construction noise to less than significant levels.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels? Less than Silmificant ImDact
Vibration impacts typically occur near railroad activities, heavy industrial equipment,
mining, and construction activities such as rock blasting and pile driving. Although the
project would likely create ground borne vibration during the construction phase, this phase
would be temporary and any vibration-causing activities would be limited. The project
proposes a commercial use and no feature of the project would generate excessive ground
borne vibrations during operation. As such, a less than significant impact is identified for
this issue area.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant ImDact
Please refer to XI.a. above. The proposed project would not contribute to a permanent
increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts associated with noise that are considered
potentially significant are related to construction only and are temporary in nature. As such,
impacts are less than significant for this issue area.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Silmificant
ImDact With Mitigation Incornorated
As discussed in Section XI.a., the proposed project would result in a substantial temporary
or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
55
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 107 of 174
J'l;e Aulo Croup Dealenhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
during construction. However, with mitigation incorporated, the project's potential impacts
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? No Impact
The closest related facility to the project site is the privately owned Skylark Airport to the
south, within the East Lake Specific Plan area. This facility is not considered to be a public-
use airport, and is not covered by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. As such, no
impact identified for this issue.
o For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No
Impact
The Skylark Airport is a privately owned airport that occupies approximately 150 acres of
land located at the southern City limits boundary on Corydon Road. The proposed project is
located outside the airport's sphere of influence for potential impacts on adjacent land uses.
Therefore, the project area would not be exposed to noise emitted from Skylark Airport.
Noise Mitigation Measures
Construction Noise
To mitigate project related construction noise impacts the following shall be implemented:
N-1: During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall
equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction
contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
N-2: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the
greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
N-3: The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would
result in high noise levels according to the construction hours to be determined by City
staff. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would
result in high noise levels between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays and public holidays.
N-4: The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified
for construction equipment. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
The Auto Group Deillmhip
Initial Study /Draft Mjtib~ted Negative Declaration
56
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 108 of 174
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Sienificant Impact
According to the California Department of Finance (CD F), the estimated population for the
City of Lake Elsinore as of January 1, 2008 was 49,807. The proposed project includes new
but small automobile dealership, not considered a source to employ substantial number or
workers. In other words, this development would not need a specialized workforce that
would draw new residents to the area. Furthermore, the project would not be characterized
as growth inducing as it is represents development that has been anticipated consistent with
the adopted City General Plan. Additionally, the project does not propose any infrastructure
beyond that required to adequately serve the project. Therefore, a less than significant
impact is identified.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact
The project site is currently vacant. As such, the proposed project would not result in the
displacement of existing housing or substantial numbers of people, nor would it necessitate
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact
Please refer to XII.b. above.
Pouulation and Housinl!: Mitil!:ation Measures
None required.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Imnact
The RCFD and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) provide fire
protection and safety services to the City. Current minimum staffing levels presently meet
existing demand for fire protection services. Based on the adopted Riverside County Fire
Protection Master Plan, one new fire station and/or appropriate fire company is
recommended for every 2,000 new dwelling units. Since the proposed project does not
include residential uses and would not generate a significant increase in population, it does
not meet the requirements for a new station. The proposed project, would, however, result in
an incremental increase in the need for fire protection services. The proposed project is
required to pay into the City's CFD No. 2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic
Services). Contribution into the City's CFD would alleviate the additional burden placed on
'Fix Auto CmJljJ Deulmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
57
City of Lake Elsinore
Au~st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 109 of 174
police services by the development of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant
impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Police protection? Less Than SilPlificant Impact
The Riverside County Sheriffs Department (RCSD) provides police protection for the City.
The observed level of service county-wide is 1.2 officers per 1,000 citizens. The Lake Elsinore
Police Department and Sheriffs Station is located at 333 W. Limited Avenue in the City of
Lake Elsinore. There are currently 126 sworn officers and 32 non-sworn personnel for the
Lake Elsinore Station. Response times for emergency calls for service are less than five
minutes. The proposed project is not expected to result in any unique unforeseen law
enforcement problems. The proposed project is required to pay into the City's CFD No.
2003-1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services). Contribution into the City's CFD
would alleviate the additional burden placed on police serves by the development of the
proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Schools? Less Than SilPlificant Imuact
Because the proposed project would not generate an increase in the general population, it is
not expected to generate any students that would attend LEUSD facilities. Nonetheless, the
project would be required to pay applicable development fees levied by LEUSD pursuant to
the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407) to offset the impacts on
school facilities resulting from development of the project. SB 50 provides limitations on
development fee exactions for school mitigation purposes, specifying that it is the exclusive
method for financing school facilities and provides the exclusive method for mitigating
environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities. Compliance with SB 50 is
considered to be full and complete mitigation of impacts on adequate school facilities. Per
communication with LEUSD, school fees of $0-47/sf shall be levied on the proposed project.
In the event that the school fees change at the time of building permit issuance, the applicant
would be required to pay the fees that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Payment of required school mitigation fees would ensure impacts to schools are less than
significant.
d) Parks? No Imuact
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan identifies a standard of five acres of parkland for
every 1,000 residents. Per Quimby Act guidelines, development of the proposed project
would not generate any additional residents. As such, this would not result in the need for
any additional park space. The project proponent would not be required to pay fees to the
City of Lake Elsinore for the purpose of establishing, improving, and maintaining park land
within the City. The proposed project would have no impact on City parks.
e) Other public facilities? No Imuact
The proposed project would not increase population, and thus, would not have an impact on
the use of the regions libraries, hospitals, or other public facilities. No impact is identified for
this issue area.
The A1IIo GmHp Dealmbip
Initial Study/Druft l\1iti,!.,7fltcd Negatiyc Dcclamtion
58
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 110 of 174
Public Services Mitieation Measures
None required.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated? No ImDact
As discussed in Section XII. Population and Housing above, the proposed project would not
result in an increase to the overall population of Lake Elsinore. As such, there would be no
substantial increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other
recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of these facilities would occur. No
impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? No Impact.
Please refer to XIV. A. above. Development of the proposed project would not require the
construction or expansion of recreation facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment. No impact is identified for this issue area.
Recreation Mitieation Measures
None required.
XV. TRANSPORTATIONjTRAFFIC
The following report has been prepared to analyze potential impacts to transportation and
traffic resulting from the proposed project:
Lake Elsinore TAG Property Traffic Impact Analysis, Lake Elsinore, California.
Prepared by Urban Crossroads. May 22, 2008.
This report is available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division.
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Sie:nificant ImDact With
Mitieation Incoroorated.
Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which the operating conditions
of a given roadway segment are measured on a scale of A to F. LOS A represents the best
operating conditions and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions. LOS F facilities
are characterized as having forced flow with many stoppages and low operating speeds.
Table 10 gives a description of each LOS. Table 11 summarizes the LOS definitions for
intersections.
The AIIII! Group Dra/m/;ip
Initial Study/Draft ~litigateJ Nq.,~ti\'c Dedat:ltion
59
City of Lake Elsinore
Auh'Ust 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 111 of 174
Table 10
level of Service Descriptions
lOS Description ' -, - . .' .
. . "
A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically,
the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a
substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.
This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more
C than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so.
This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays
0 to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period: however, enough
cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing
excessive backups.
Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular
E intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter
how great the demand.
This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These
F conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are
reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In
the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Table 11
Intersection level of Service Definitions
:', :.,'.... . ......'".:...,.. .'. .':'", ....F..._..:.. ...... .': ,sj~'nanzed" Illtersecticm [)~i~y,p~F:.
Level of Servic~ ;Vnsignali~~dlntersection[)elay per ,
Veliicl~Jiri~kecond~)' "_' , . Vehicle (in seconds)
,
A <10 <10
B >10,15 >10--20
C >15,25 >20,25
0 >25,35 >35,55
E >35.50 >55-80
F >50 >80
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 2000.
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) concluded that the proposed project would generate a net
total of 1,667 trip-ends per day with 103 AM peak hour trips and 132 PM peak hour trips.
Traffic trip generation rates were taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual and are shown
in Table 12. The traffic analysis for this project used ITE Code 841 (New Car Sales) for traffic
generation purposes.
The Aulo Group D(akrsbip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigattd Negative Dtclaration
60
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2{X)8
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 112 of 174
Table 12
Proposed Project Traffic Generation
" " Peak Hour
. ",
",- AM, , .. PM
Land Use Quanllty Units hihounct Oulbound Total Inbound Outbound ,Toial 'Daily
Shopping 50 TSF 76 27 103 52 81 132 1,667
Center
SOURCE: InstItute of Transportation Engmeers (lTE), Tnp Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003
T$F = Thousand Square Feet
Existing Conditions
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Circulation Element requires that all intersections
operate at LOS D or better. The TIA indicates that under existing conditions, the one existing
study intersection operates at a LOS better than LOS D (see Table 13, below). Study Area
intersections include: 1) Main Street at Lakeshore Drive, 2) Avenue 6 at Lakeshore Drive, 3)
Railroad Canyon Road at Summerhill Drive/Grape Street, 1-15 northbound and southbound;
and, 4) Diamond Drive at Auto Center Drive/Casino Drive and Lakeshore Drive/Mission
Trail.
Table 13
Existing Intersection Delay and level of Service
-c- ' .--:;: ,~ji1tersectIJn Approach, la'ne;1, ,> . :i>eakHour ",'
, "..'..'" "-. , -.," ", ...,.... ~..... " ','
. :eNB ," ',.'C' EEL ' " Oelay,C05' '
, . Traffic ... ";' .' 5B ; <,WB "
Intersection . Control 'T. 'L". . t .T' T ~ : AM'
T R 'R l R ' l' .R" PM
Main Sir (NS) al:
. Lakeshore Dr (EW) AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1> 11.3.B 15.0.C
Avenue 6 (NS) al:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 13.7.B 20.9.C
Railroad Cyn Rd.
(NS) at:
- Summerhill Dr/Grape
Str(EW) TS 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 42.0.D 98.6.F
.1.15 NB ramps (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 28.5.C 19.6.B
.1.15 S8 ramps (EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 18.4.8 30.6.C
Diamond Dr (NS) al:
- Auto Center Or/
Casino Dr (EW) TS 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 42.7.D 37.3.D
- Lakeshore Drt
Mission Trail (EW) TS 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 32.8.C 45.3.D
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for
right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right;
The AJllo GrolljJ Dealmhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Ne~,'atiYe Declaration
61
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 113 of 174
-~
Delay and lever of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.8.0115 (2006). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For
intersections with cross street stop control. the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single
lane) are shown.
AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS == Traffic Signal
Traflie Signal Warrant Analysis
Based upon the traffic data, no traffic signals are currently warranted at the non-signalized
study area intersections.
Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Conditions (2011)
For the purposes of this traffic study, the proposed project is anticipated to open by 2011.
The expected project-opening year was used to assess near-term (2011) conditions. To
estimate near-term project traffic was combined with existing traffic, other development
traffic, and area wide growth. This scenario is referred to as Existing Plus Ambient Plus
Project (EAP) Conditions.
62
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 114 of 174
The Auto Group Dealer.rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 14
EAP Conditions (2011) Intersection Delay and level of Service
. , . iriiersecti~n Ap~roach Lanes 1 Peak,Hour' , !
, . . . .
Traffic NB SB EB WB Delay-lOS'
Intersection Control L 'T. , R,: . L ,.t R L T R L T R . AM PM
Main Str (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW) AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1> 12.2-B 17.Q-C
Avenue 6 (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 14.7-B 23,9-C
Driveway 1 (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW)
wI improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 9.9-A 11.1-B
Driveway 2 (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW)
wI improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 15.2-C 33.4-0
Railroad Cyn Rd. .
(NS) at:
- Summerhill Dr/Grape
Str(EW)
w/out improvements TS 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 45.6-0 F
- Summerhill Dr/Grape
Str(EW)
with improvements TS 2 ~ 1 1 3 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 44,9-0 53.2-0
-1-15 NB ramps (EW)
w/out improvements TS 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 36,0-0 21.6-C
- 1-15 SB ramps (EW)
with improvements TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 19,9-B 37,6-0
Diamond Dr (NS) at:
- Auto Center Dr!
Casino Dr (EW)
w/out improvements TS 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 48.4-0 39,5-0
- Lakeshore Drl
Mission Trail (EW)
w/out improvements TS 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 34.7-C 53,6-0
When a right turn is designated. the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for
right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. l = left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Current Phase Improvement; 1 = Previous
Phase Improvement
Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.9 R3 (2007). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual, overall average Intersection delay and level of sel"lfice are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop con\rol. For
intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single
lane) are shown.
AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
The Auto Group Dealer.rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Ne.!:,'ative Declaration
63
City of Lake Elsinore
f\Ugust 2008
Agenda Item No, 13
Page 115 of 174
As shown on Table 14, it is anticipated that all study intersections would operate at
acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during peak hours, with the exceptions of the
intersection of Railroad Canyon Road at Summerhill Drive/Grape Street. This intersection
is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. This is consistent with peak
hour operation results reported for existing (2008) traffic conditions at this intersection.
With the addition of a through lane, this intersection will operate a LOS D.
Trqffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Based upon the EAP (2011) conditions, no additional traffic signals are projected to be
warranted at the study intersections as compared to existing (2008) conditions.
Construction Trqffic
Construction-related traffic includes equipment and material delivery trucks and employee
vehicles. Heavy construction equipment would be delivered to the site and remain onsite
during the grading and excavation phases. All cut and fill material will be balanced on site,
and no fill material will be imported to or exported from the site. Construction workers will
travel to and from the site, but this is not expected to result in a substantial number of
additional trips. The construction period is considered short -term, and impacts to traffic
during construction are considered to less than significant.
Summary
The proposed project, in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system,
will not result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections. Impacts would be less than
significant with the implementation of improvements identified for Railroad Canyon Road at
Summerhill Drive/Grape Street.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways? Less Than Silmificant ImDact With Mitie:ation IncorDorated
Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions (2012)
This scenario, Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) Conditions with
project delay and level of service, is shown in Table 15.
The AJlto GrrJJlp Deakr.rhip
Initial Study/Draft ~[itig.1tt:J Ncgati\'c Declaration
64
City of Lake Elsinore
AUI-,>tlst 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 116 of 174
Table 15
EAPC Conditions (2011) Intersection Delay and Level of Service
Intersection Approach Lanes 1 Peak Hour
Traffic NB S8 '.EB . WB Delay-LOS'
Intersection Control L T R L 1; R L T R L T R AM
PM
Main Str (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW)
w/out improvements AWS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1> 21.9-C F
with improvements AWS 0 0 0 g 0 ,1 0 1 0 0 1 1> 11.1-B 14.7-B
Avenue 6 (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 17.7-C 58.o-F
- Lakeshore Dr (EW) TS 0 0 0 ! 0 ! 1 2 0 0 2 0 l1.7-B 15.1-B
Driveway 1 (NS) at:
- Lakeshore Dr (EW)
wI improvements CSS 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 g 0 0 g 0 13.0-B 18.l-C
Driveway 2 (NS) at: .
- Lakeshore Dr (EW)
wI improvements TS 0 0 0 ! 0 ! ! g 0 0 g 0 11.3-B 18.7-B
Railroad Cyn Rd.
(NS) at:
- Summerhill Or/Grape
Str(EW)
w/out improvements TS 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 1> 2 2 0 F F
with improvements TS 2 ~ 1 g ~ ! g g 2> 2 2 2> 49.4-0 53.4-0
-1-15 NB ramps (EW)
w/out improvements T5 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 F F
with improvements TS 0 ~ g g ~ 0 2 1 1> 0 0 0 20.0-C 29.4-C
Diamond Dr (NS) at:
- Auto Center Drl
Casino Dr (EW)
w/out improvements T5 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 55.4-E 70.2-E
with improvements T5 1 3 0 2 ~ ! 1 2 0 1 2 0 41.o-B 47.1-0
- lakeshore Dr'
Mission Trail (EW)
w/out improvements T5 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 77.6-E F
with improvements T5 1 2 1 2 2 ! g 2 ! 1 2 2> 31.5-C 46.7-0
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for
right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. l = left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Current Phase Improvement; 1 = Previous
Phase Improvement
Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.9 R3 (2007). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For
intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single
lane) are shown.
The AHlo Grrmp DeakrJhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
65
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 117 of 174
AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Cross Street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal
As shown on Table 15, all of the intersections will operate to unacceptable LOS. With
improvements, they will operate at successful LOS. .
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
With implementation of the project, traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the
following study area intersections for EAPC conditions: Main Street at Lakeshore Drive
,
Avenue 6 at Lakeshore Drive, and Driveway 2 at Lakeshore Drive. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure TR-1, which includes signalization of these intersections, would reduce
these impacts to below a level of significance.
Summary
Under EAPC conditions, the project would be required to pay fair share funding for the
project's incremental contribution to circulation impacts. In addition, the proposed project
would ultimately be responsible, all or in part, for the installation of traffic signals at Main
Street/Lakeshore Drive, Avenue 6/Lakeshore Drive, and Driveway 2/Lakeshore Drive.
Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact
Skylark Field, a private aviation facility, is located south of the proposed project site outside
the airport's influence area. No feature of the proposed project would not result in a change
to existing air traffic patterns, or to levels of services, or to changes in location. No impact is
identified for this issue area.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less
Than Silffiificant ImDact
The proposed project design does not incorporate any feature that would increase hazards.
The proposed intersection improvements, traffic signals, and internal roadway widths and
turning radii would be designed in accordance with City standards. Sight distance at each
project ingress/egress point will be reviewed with respect to standard California Department
of Transportation/City of Lake Elsinore sight distance standards at the time of preparation
of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. Impacts for this issue are
would be considered less than significant.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Silffiificant Impact
The proposed project would be accessible from two project driveways on Lakeshore Drive.
No feature of the project design would affect emergency access. The proposed development
will require commercial design review approval by the City, ensuring adequate emergency
access is provided. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No ImDact
Sufficient parking would be provided in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore's Chapter
The Alllf) Grrmp DeakrJhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitignted Neh1'Jtivc Dcclaration
66
City of Lake Elsinore
^llhru~t 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 118 of 174
17.66 Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the parking requirements by land use. The project
includes 379 parking spaces, many of which will be needed for vehicle displays. However,
the site design includes ample parking for customers as well. Therefore, no impact related to
parking capacity is identified.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Imoact
The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update provides for, and encourages the use of,
alternative modes of transportation. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides public
transportation within a 2,500 square mile service area, including the City of Lake Elsinore.
The project site is within an RTA bus route. The proposed project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. A less than
significant impact is identified.
Trans{lortation/Traffic Mitil!ation Measures
Project Access and On-Site Circulation
TR-1
The project shall construct the following on-site intersection improvements:
. Construct Lakeshore Drive from the westerly project boundary to the easterly
project boundary at its ultimate half-seCtion width as an urban arterial roadway
(120-foot right-of-way and 96-foot curb-to-curb width) in conjunction with the
development. The street half section shall contain a raised median for a Dart of
the imProvement. to be determined by the City Engineer.
. Construct the intersection of Driveway 1 and Lakeshore Drive as a cross-street
stop controlled intersection with right-in/right-out access only.
. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Driveway 2 and Lakeshore Drive with
a 100 foot eastbound left-turn lane before first occupancy. The left turn pocket
shall be 1<;0 feet long with a QO foot taDer for eastbound traffic. A westbound left
turn lane is also needed for westbound traffic as driveway 2 is to line-uD with the
Broadstone drivewav.
. On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in construction with
detailed construction plans for the project site.
. Site distance at each project access driveway shall be reviewed with respect to
standard Caltrans and City sight distance standards at the time of preparation of
final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
II
I
I
The Auto Group Deu/mhip
Initial Study/Drnft Mitigated Negative Declaration
67
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 119 of 174
Off-Site Improvement Recommendations
TR-2
The applicant shall pay for the project's fair share contribution to impacts resulting
at seven intersectionsJramps. The project's fair share is nominal and can be paid in
the form of TIF or direct financial contribution in lieu of construction. All
intersections are included in the City's TIF program with the exception of Main
Street at Lakeshore Drive.
EAPC (2011) Conditions
TR-3 The project shall participate in the phased construction of the following off-site
intersection improvements through payment of established City of Lake Elsinore fees
(TIF), payment of TUMF, payment of the project's fair share traffic contribution,
assessment district andJ or community facilities district financing, andJ or
construction of the following off-site facilities under appropriate fee credit
agreements:
. Install traffic signal at Main StreetJLakeshore Drive bv contributing a fair share fee
of $8600 ($200.000 X 4.<1%).
. Install traffic signal at Avenue 6JLakeshore Drive
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board? Less Than Shmificant Impact
Sewer infrastructure within the proposed project site would connect to existing EVMWD
sewer district facilities. Collected wastewater would then flow to the Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facility (WRF) located in Lake Elsinore. EVMWD prepared a district-wide
Water Supply Assessment (WSA) pursuant to Senate Bill 610, which describes existing and
planned water supply and demand. According to the WSA, of the facility's nine million
gallons per day (mgd) capacity, the WRF currently treats approximately 4.5 mgd of
wastewater to tertiary standards and discharges the effluent into Temescal Wash (Lake
Elsinore Outlet Channel). The current RWQCB-issued NPDES permit for the Regional WRF
requires that a minimum of 0.5 mgd of flow be discharged into the wash for environmental
habitat needs. The remaining treated wastewater Jrom the district's reclamation facility is
expected to be recycled for irrigation or industrial purposes.
The proposed project is eligible for sewer service from the EVMWD, which has adequate
capacity to serve the project increase in wastewater service. Sewer-related infrastructure
would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City,
EVMWD, Riverside County Department of Health, and SARWQCB. Adherence to these
standard guidelines would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects. Less Than Sil;Dificant ImDact
Development of the proposed project would marginally increase the need for water and
The Auto Croup Dea/mihip
Initial Study/Draft r-.fitigattd Negative Declaration
68
City of Lake Elsinore
Augu~t 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 120 of 174
wastewater service due to the future construction of an auto dealership on the project site.
However, as sta~ed above,. EVMWD ha~ adequate capacity to serve the projected increase in
wast~water servIc~ due to ImplementatIOn of the proposed project, and, therefore, would not
reqUire construction of new wastewater facilities. Additionally, according to the WSA,
EVMWD serves a total of 33,400 potable service connections with an annual demand of
26,939 acre feet per year in the project vicinity as o~ January 2005. Existing supply is 48,900
acre feet. per year. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the
construct~on of n~w water supply ~acilities ~r expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause slgmficant enVironmental effects. A less than significant
impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? Less Than Silffiificant ImDact
The development of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less
Than Silffiificant Impact
The proposed project is eligible for water service from the EVWMD. According to the WSA,
EVMWD serves a total of 33,400 potable service connections with an annual demand of
26,939 acre feet per year in the project vicinity as of January 2005. Existing supply is
currently 48,900 acre feet per year. Therefore, EVMWD has adequate capacity to serve the
project increase in water supply service due to implementation of the proposed project.
Furthermore, all water supply-related infrastructure would be installed in accordance with
the requirements and specifications of the City, EVMWD, Riverside County Department of
Health, and SARWQCB. A less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less
Than Silffiificant Impact
Sewer infrastructure within the proposed project site would connect to existing EVMWD
sewer district facilities. According to the EVMWD-prepared WSA, of the facility's 9 mgd
capacity, the WRF currently treats approximately 4.5 mgd of wastewater to tertiary
standards and discharges the effluent into Temescal Wash (Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel).
The proposed project is eligible for sewer service from the EVMWD, which has adequate
capacity to serve the projected increase in wastewater. Sewer-related infrastructure would be
installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, EVMWD,
Riverside County Department of Health, and SARWQCB. Therefore, a less than significant
impact is identified for this issue area.
The AU/II r;ronp Dealtr.rhip
Initial StuJy/Draft J\litib>-Jted Nqt:\tive Declaration
69
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!~t 200S
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 121 of 174
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Si~ificant ImDact
No solid waste is currently generated or collected from the project site as the site is currently
undeveloped. In the City of Lake Elsinore, CR&R, Inc. is responsible for waste management
and disposal. CR&R is a private company that provides refuse hauling, recycling, and green
waste disposal and is the operator of the Perris Material Recovery Facility (MRF) located at
1706 Goetz Road in the City of Perris. Solid waste generated within the area of the proposed
project is hauled to the 1,322-acre El Sobrante Landfill, which is located at 10910 Dawson
Canyon Road in Corona. This is the closest facility to the project site, and is permitted as a
Class III landfill, which only accepts non-hazardous municipal solid waste for disposal.
According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), the EI Sobrante
Landfill has a permitted capacity of 109 million tons and is currently permitted to receive
10,000 tons of refuse per day (tpd). Four thousand tons of this daily refuse capacity is
reserved for Riverside County. As of June 2006, the landfill had a remaining disposal in-
county capacity of approximately 37 million tons. The landfill is expected to reach capacity
by approximately 2031, exceeding the Is-year capacity threshold established by CIWMB.
Table 16 demonstrates that the proposed project would generate 120 tons per year (0.33 tons
per day). It should be noted that solid waste generated by an auto dealership would not be
typical of all commercial uses, and this estimate may be higher than actual waste generation.
The El Sobrante Landfill would be able to accommodate the daily solid waste generated by
future development of the proposed project because the project's yearly solid waste
generated represents a fraction of the landfill's remaining capacity. Therefore, impacts
during operations would be considered less than significant.
Table 16
Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Commercial
120
Daily S~Jld Waste
'Generated .
. {ions/day)'" .,
0.33
Land Use
Square Footage
, . (sl)
50.000
"ll
<11'
- ,GemiratlohFactor*
.{tons/sf/ye'''l,.. .
0.0024
YeartYSolid:Wa~ite' -i
.' Generated
. (tons/year)
Total
120
0.33
SOURCE: Riverside County, General Plan Final Form EfR Vol. 1, Section 4.15.3 Public Services.
Minor amounts of non-hazardous solid waste including wood and concrete would be
generated in the short-term by construction of the proposed project. CIWMB prepared a
waste characterization study which quantified and characterized disposal and diversion rates
from construction and demolition activities (CIWMB, 2006). According to the study, for new
non-residential construction, approximately 86 percent of the waste material is able to be
recycled. Therefore, on average, approximately 86 percent of waste generated during
construction of the proposed project could be diverted, thereby substantially reducing the
total amount of waste that could be disposed of at the landfill during construction of the
proposed project. Impacts to existing landfills would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? Less Than Silmificant ImDact
With the passage of CIWMB Model Ordinance (per [AB] 939), solid waste management
practices were redefined by requiring: (1) each California City and County to divert 50
The Aulo Group Dculer.rhip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Nq,oatiye Declaration
70
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 122 of 174
percent of the solid waste that is disposed, and (2) local governments to prepare a SRRE.
The SRRE identifies how to improve waste resource management by integrating solid waste
management principals including source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting before
landfill disposal or regulated incineration. This ordinance requires recycling conditions on
new developments and adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in
development projects.
The City's SRRE requires all proposed developments to reduce their respective stream of
solid waste generation. Regardless of the environmental process, the proposed project is
required to comply with regulations and requirements contained in the SRRE, HHWE, and
City Ordinance 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding construction debris
removal. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any federal, state, or local
statutes or regulations related to solid waste and a less than significant impact is identified
for this issue area.
Utilities/Services Svstem Mitif,1:ation Measures
None required.
The Aut/} Group Dmimhip
Initial Study/Draft I\Iitigated Nq,,>ative Declaration
71
City of Lake Elsinore
Augt!st 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 123 of 174
Tht /INfo Group DtllkrJmp
Initial Study/Drnft Mitig.lteU Nq.,~ti\'c Declaration
72
City of Lake Elsinore
AUh'l.l~t 200R
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 124 of 174
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Si~ificant ImDact With
Mitie:ation IncorDorated
As indicated in the analyses undertaken in support of this Initial Study, implementation of
the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As detailed in Section IV, Biological
Resources, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to biological
resources with the incorporation of mitigation measures and compliance with the MSHCP.
As detailed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the proposed project would not result in any
impacts to historical or archaeological resources with implementation of mitigation
Therefore, with incorporation of biological and cultural resources mitigation, a less than
significant impact is identified.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.) Less Than Sil!:llificant ImDact With Mitie:ation IncorDorated
Based upon the analysis conducted in Sections I through XVI, implementation of the
proposed project would create impacts to traffic that may be considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of other projects. However, with the incorporation of prescribed
mitigation, the effects of the proposed project would not be significant. The required
mitigation includes specific roadway and intersection improvements as well as the payment
of funds to local and regional transportation funds. No other environmental issue areas
would have impacts that are cumulatively considerable. Therefore, with mitigation, a less
than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Sitmificant ImDact With Mitigation IncorDorated
substantial
Less Than
Based upon the analysis conducted in Sections I through XVI, implementation of the
proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on humans. Impacts identified
for the project that could have a potential adverse effect on human beings relate to air
quality and noise. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce all impacts to below a
level of significance. Issues relating to flooding and flood hazard were determined to be less
than significant. Issues relating to hazard and hazardous materials were also determined to
be less than significant through the incorporation of project design features or adherence to
The Auto Group f)(rJlm-hip
Initial Study/Draft I\Jitihrated Negative.: Declaration
73
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 125 of 174
regulatory requirements. Further, all earthwork ,and grading at the project site shall be
performed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements, the CaIJOSHA, and
the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore (Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code), and
the project shall implement recommendations outlined in the geotechnical evaluation for the
proposed project in accordance with the 1997' UBC and 2001 CBC requirements for
resistance to seismic shaking. Mitigation or project design features included throughout this
ISjMND would bring mitigate any potential adverse effects on human beings to a less than
significant levels.
The Aulo Group DfrJlmihip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declarntion
74
Ci.ty of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 126 of 174
VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this
document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
. Tom Weiner, Planning Manager
. Wendy Worthey, Principal Environmental Planner
. Kirt Coury, Contract Planner
. Alisha Santana, Deputy City Attorney
B. CONSULTANTS
Madison-FCS, Inc. (Hydrological Analysis and Water Quality)
. Patrick Crask, Principal Engineer, President/CEO
. Michael P. St. Jacques, PE
Urban Crossroads (Air Quality, Noise and Traffic Analyses)
. Aric Evatt
. Haseeb Qureshi
. Michael Tirohn
. Fernando Sotelo, INCE
. J.T. Stephens, INCE
. Charlene S. Hwang, PE
. Ina Kain
LSAAssociates, Inc. (Biological Resources)
. Sarah Barrera, Consulting Biologist
LSAAssociates, Inc. (Cultural Resources Report)
. FrederickW. Lange, Ph.D. and RPA
. Virginia Austerman, M.A., RPA
ATC Associates (Geotechnical Investigation and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment)
The /III/t) Group f)euler-,hip
Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Nq.,>ativt: Declaration
75
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 127 of 174
VII. REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways Home Page.
http:j jwww.dot.ca.gov jhqJLandArchjscenic~highwaysj.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2006. Detailed Characterization of
Construction and Demolition Waste.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). FacilityjSite Summary for El
Sobrante Landfill http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/.
California Resources Agency. 2007. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Appendix G.
City of Lake Elsinore. 1990. City of Lake Elsinore Zoning Code. October, 1990.
City of Lake Elsinore. 1995. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. Lake Elsinore, California.
Adopted November 27, 1990. Revised March 1995.
City of Lake Elsinore. 2007 (Pending Adoption). Draft General Plan Update. Prepared by Jones
and Stokes.
County of Riverside. 2004. Riverside County Integrated Project - General Plan.
County of Riverside. 2004. Riverside County Integrated Project - Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA). Surface Mining
Operations Graphical Map. http://www2.tlma:co.riverside.ca.us/mines.html.
Riverside County Transit, 2007. http://www.riversidetransit.comjbus_info/schedules.htm
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. CEQA
Handbook.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Air Quality Management Plan.
The Aulo Group Deukr.ihip
Initial Study/Draft Mitih'Iltcd Negative Declaration
76
City of Lake Elsinore
AU,gust 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 128 of 174
This page intentionally left blank.
Tbe Auto Group DelJlcrJhip
Initial Study/Draft M.itigated Negative DedaC;ltion
77
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 129 of 174
VIII. MITIGATED NEGATivE DECLARATION
City of Lake Elsinore
The following Mitigated Negative Declarationis being circulated for public review
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and
21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Public Review Period: August 20 - September 19, 2008
Project Name: The Auto Group Dealership
Project Applicant: The Automotive Group, Inc. 450 West Vista Way, Vista, CA 92083
Project Location: The proposed project site (APNs 363-130-085 and -087) is
approximately 9.34 acres and is located in an area southwest of Interstate 15 (1-15), bound
by the San Jacinto River channel to the east and Lakeshore Drive to the south. The project
site is currently designated as General Commercial with a portion of APN 363-130-087
designated as Floodway under the City's current General Plan. The entire area is zoned C-2
General Commercial (Auto Mall Overlay).
Of the 9.34 acres, 6.34 acres is proposed for d~velopment with the remaining 3.0 acres
ultimately being donated to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The
3.0-acre area to be donated to the MSHCP contains open water and riparian woodland
dominated by Goodding's black willow.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed would include the development of approximately 50,000 square feet (sf) of
general commercial use on an approximate 6.34cacre parcel. In addition to the 50,000 sf
building, the design includes 379 parking spaces to be used by visitors and for vehicle
inventory.
The additional 3.0 acres located to the east of the6.34-acre parcel will remain undisturbed,
and ultimately be dedicated as MSHCP conservation land. A portion of this 3.0 acre area is
classified as jurisdictional waters by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
California Fish and Game Department (CDFG). No temporary or permanent structures are
proposed within this area.
As part of the approval process, the Applicant will be required to obtain a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) to remove the portions of the 6.34-acre site that are designated
Floodway under the City's General Plan. Since the adoption of the City's General Plan, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the 100-year flood zone along
the San Jacinto River channel. The revised maps have removed all but a small portion
(10,745 square feet or 0.025 acres) of the 6.34-acre area from the lao-year flood zone,
specifically Zone AE. The project will not be allowed to grade or develop within this small
area designated Zone AE. The land use changes have been reflected in the Draft General
Plan; however this document has not yet been adopted. Because the proposed project will be
approved prior to the adoption of the General Plan Update, a GP A is required.
The Auto Group Dea/mNp
Initial Study/D~ft Mitigated Neh'{ltive Declaration
78
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 130 of 174
This page intentionally left blank.
The AuJo Group DetJler.ihip
Initia.l Study/Draft i\litigateJ Ncgatj,.c Declaration
79
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 131 of 174
FINDINGS
This is to advise that the City of Lake Elsin?re, acting as the lead agency, has
conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect
on the environmental and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based
upon the following imdings:
o The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
[2g The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but:
(1) Proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
(3) Mitigation measures are required to ensure all potentially significant impacts are
reduced to levels of insignificance.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental
Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in
the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available
for review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Planning Division, 130 South Main Street,
Lake Elsinore (951) 674-3124. Please send all comments to the attention of Wendy
Worthey.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
during the review period.
August 20. 2008
Date of Determination
~~~
Wendy W~rthey, Principal Environmental Planner
The AJlln CmJIjJ Dealmhip
Initial Study/Dr.lft ivritig.itcd NCh>ativc Declaration
80
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2008
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 132 of 174
This page intentionally left blank.
The /lull) Grollp Dealen-hip
Jnitial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Dtclaration
81
City of Lake Elsinore
August 2tXl8
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 133 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-_
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 '
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore is considering an amendment to the
Ge~er~~ Plan La~d Use Map, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03, which will change
a significant portion of the land use designation of Assessor Parcel Number 363-130-
087 .from "Floodway" to "General Commercial" (the "General Plan Amendment")
allowing for the future development of an automobile dealership "Auto Sales and
Service Center"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular
meeting held on October 21, 2008 made its report upon the desirability of the proposed
project and made its recommendations in favor of said project by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2008-85 recommending to the City Council approval of
. General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the General Plan Amendment has been given, and
the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this
item on November 11, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed General Plan
Amendment, prior to making a decision to approve the proposed amendment to the
City's Land Use map. The City Council finds and determines that Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2008-04 is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 2. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning law and the
City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings for
the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be: a) detrimental to the health,
safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the
neighborhood of the proposed amendment.or within the City, or b) injurious to the
property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City.
a. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the
100-year flood zone along the San Jacinto River channel. The revised
maps have removed all but a small portion (10,745 square feet or 0.025
acres) of the 6.34-acre area from the 100-year flood zone, specifically
Zone AE. The project will not be allowed to grade or develop within this
small area designated Zone AE. The proposed General Plan Amendment
creates consistency between the City's General Plan and the identified
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 134 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-_
PAGE 2 OF 3
FEMA 1 DO-year flood zone map and Zone AE.
b. The proposed change would allow economic use of an otherwise non-
beneficial area that, according to FEMA, is no longer is considered to lie
within a floodway. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
c. The General Plan Amendment does not propose any significant change
from surrounding land use designations and will not result in any
significant environmental impacts as explained in Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2008-04.
SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, and the above findings,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore approve General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11TH day of November 2008.
DARYL HICKMAN
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 135 of 174
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2008-_
PAGE 3 OF 3
I, Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. was'adopted by the Ci~ Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 111 day of November
2008, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 136 of 174
r--- )
I-- -?c-
t-- ~
Ck
~/::
~
a
~t,;
~
"
~ AL ~ ~ ~
R ~
-
-
FLOODWA
- ~l
711TI- r-- _
,
- \ 'E' -
..........,
-..J ..... ) -
--,
.....
-,
- i-.
1
I I
GENERAl PLAN AMENDMENT MAP
EXIS11NG LAND USES
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 137 of 174
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP
) ~v
~
o~
"1--A
~
0
-- ~h
<<'
~ "'
:!:!
~
~
~
, ~
ilL A -:
I,oI.lMMC.RC
- -
-
- ~ FLOODWA Y
- ~f\
7fll ~ 1 MKESHORE ~ ~
--i I
- U 'RIVE
-
-
1
I
I
!/ / I
PROPOSED LAND USES
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 138 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2008-07
WHEREAS, Casino One, JEC, LLC., has initiated proceedings to request the
approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2007-07 for the design and establishment
of the a new automobile dealership site ("the Commercial Design Review"), which will
be located at on the north side of Lakeshore Drive between the San Jacinto River
Channel and Avenue 6 (the "Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of, the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular
meeting held on October 21, 2008 made its report upon the desirability of the proposed
project and made its recommendations in favor of said project by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2008-86 recommending to the City Council approval of
Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Commercial Design Review has been given, and
the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this
item on November 11, 2008.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed request for
Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07 prior to a decision to approve the project. The
City Council finds and determines that the Commercial Design Review request is
consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 for the Project is adequate and has been completed
in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for
implementation of CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment of the City.
SECTION 3. That in accordance with Section 17.82 (Design Review) of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the
approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07:
1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General
Plan and the Zoning District in which the project is located.
The proposed Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore
Drive between the San Jacinto River Channeland Avenue 6 complies with the goals
and objectives of the General Plan in that the approval of this automobile dealership
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 139 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
PAGE20F3 -
will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land
uses as well as encouraging commercial land uses to diversify Lake Elsinore's
economic base.
2. The project complies with the design directives contained in Section 17.82.060 and
all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
The proposed Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore
Drive between the San Jacinto River Channel and Avenue 6 is appropriate to the
site and surrounding developments in that the automobile dealership project has
been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property.
3. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore
Drive between the San Jacinto River Channel and Avenue 6 as reviewed and
conditioned by all applicable City Divisions and Departments and Agencies, will not
have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to attached Conditions of
Approval.
4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code,
including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been
incorporated into the approval of the subject project to ensure development of the
property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82.
Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the proposed
Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive between
the San Jacinto River Channel and Avenue 6 has been scheduled for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and
the conditions of approval imposed upon the Commercial Design Review, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Commercial Design
Review No. 2007-07.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 140 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
PAGE 3 OF 3-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11TH day of November 2008.
DARYL HICKMAN
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. was adopted by the Ci~ Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 111 day of November
2008, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 141 of 174
lli(J)II!I~II~~I~II~ i I~I
. I .
)_1
'! ,- !-,
-!
r--
I
I
I
I
. '"
/,lJ
.~. I
.Q
~
. . ts I
~
! L
........
C\l
~
i
't
I
~
~
c;;
~
111;.
I
!l
;!
Q,;
da Item No. 13
Page 142 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
THE AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND SERVICE CENTER
GENERAL
1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and its Consultants from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, or Agents to
attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal
boards, or legislative body concerning implementation and construction of General Plan
Amendment No. 2008-03, Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07, Mitigated Negative
Declaration No 2008-04, or any other action taken or made in connection with these
entitlements. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully with the defense.
PLANNING DIVISION
2. Approval of the identified project applications will lapse and be void unless building permits
are issued within two (2) years, of the City Council approved date.
3. All Conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their
acceptance by Building Division. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities.
4. All site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on the
approved site plan. Revisions to approved site plan shall be subject to the review of the
Director of Community Development. All plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check
shall conform to the submitted plans, as modified by Conditions of Approval, the Planning
Commission or the City Council. All future development of the project site relating to, but not
limited to, building architecture, landscaping, lighting, noise, traffic circulation, product
delivery, hours of operation, signage, shall be subject to a new and complete Design
Review application and process.
5. The applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. Except that all construction
activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and
no construction activity shall occur on Saturdays, Sundays or legal holidays.
6. The Planning Division shall approve construction trailers utilized during construction. All
construction trailers shall require a $1,000.00 cash bond for each.
7. All loading zones shall be clearly marked with yellow striping and shall meet City standards
for loading zones.
8. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District. Proof shall be presented to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of building
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 143 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 2 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
permits and final approval.
9. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall pay the appropriate MSHCP Fee.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required fees to
the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid.
11. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all requirements of
the Riverside County Fire Department have been met.
12. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, the applicant shall sign and
complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed original
to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records.
13. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04.
14.AII development shall occur within the General Commercial Zoning and General Plan land
use designation area. No grading or development shall occur with the Floodway Zone AE
designated area.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
15.Applicant shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) for the area of the proposed development which lies within the 100-year
Flood way Boundary as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map, panel 2041 of 3805.
Prior to issuance of Grading Permit, Applicant shall delineate the floodway areas to be
avoided. Grading in the f100dway areas shall be allowed only after FEMA approval of the
CLOMR application. The LOMR application shall be approved by FEMA prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
16. Dedicate full half width right-of-way along the project frontage of Lakeshore Drive prior to
the issuance of the building permit. Centerline to right-of-way shall be measured to be 60-
feet.
17. Construct full half width street cross section along Lakeshore Drive, consistent with the
General Plan Circulation Element prior to the issuance of the building permit. Half width
street shall measure 48-feet from the centerline of Lakeshore Drive to the face of curb
adjacent to the project.
18. Provide a striping and signing plan for striping from the project's southerly boundary to the
Lakeshore Drive bridge with special attention to the design and adequate tapers of traffic
lanes to and from the bridge. This plan shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer prior to
issuance of the building permit.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 144 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 3 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
19. Pay cash-in-Iieu for the construction of the median on Lakeshore Drive along the project
frontage prior to the issuance of the building permit. The project is responsible to pay for
half the construction of the median.
20.Align the Northerly driveway with Elm Street.
21. Align the Southerly driveway with the entrance to the River's Edge apartment complex.
22. Relocate the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District facility such that the curb and
sidewalk alignments along Lakeshore Drive is consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element prior to the issuance of the building permit.
23. Comply with all proposed mitigation measures identified in the traffic study approved by the
City of Lake Elsinore.
24. Provide for onsite loading and unloading of inventory from the delivery trucks.
25. Provide truck turning templates to show that onsite circulation will work for the anticipated
types of delivery trucks.
26. Provide detention facility sized to detain the increase in the 100 year storm flow between
the developed and undeveloped site condition.
27. Provide water quality control measures to comply with the Santa Ana Region Water Quality
Control Board requirements.
28. Process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (COLMR) and Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) showing the 1 DO-year flood event will be contained within the San Jacinto River
banks. This requirement applies if the project impacts the 1 DO-year flood plane.
29. The slope on the north side of the project shall be improved with long-term erosion control
planting.
30. The outlet drainage pipe on the east slope of the project shall be improved such that the
outlet condition slows the discharge to a non-erosive velocity and that the down stream
property owner is protected from the 1 DO-year storm flows. The existing outlet restriction
shall be removed unless the applicant can demonstrate that the pipe was designed and
constructed to accommodate pressure flow.
31. Sight distance for ingress I egress at all driveways shall be unobstructed.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 145 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 4 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
32. Und~rground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of
Section 16.52.030 (LEMC) and be consistent with the City's agreement with the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District.
33.AII street improvements shall be installed and functioning prior to certificate of occupancy.
34. Pay all Capital Improvement and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34, Resolution 85-26),
mitigation fees, area drainage fee, traffic impact fee (TIF), Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF), encroachment permit fees and inspection fees associated with the
project and its development. Fee amount to be paid shall be consistent with the current
amount as stipulated in each fee ordinance.
35. Submit a "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water
agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project.
Submit this letter prior to issuance of a building permit.
36. Construct all public works improvements per approved street plans (LEMC 12.04). Plans
must be approved and signed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit
(LEMC 16.34).
37. Street improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a California Registered
Civil Engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Road
Department Standards, latest edition, and City Codes (LEMC 12.04 and 16.34).
38. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the construction of public works
improvements and shall post the appropriate securities prior issuance of a building permit.
39.AII compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes
delineated on 8 Y:z" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final
inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved.
40. The applicant shall install permanent survey monuments in compliance with the City's
municipal code.
41. Applicant shall obtain all necessary off-site easements for off-site grading or construction
from the adjacent property owners prior to issuance of a building permit.
42.Arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the
roadway or alley shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent.
43. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by the Riverside County Fire
Department.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 146 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 5 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
44. Provide street lighting and show lighting improvements as part of street improvement plans
as required by the City Engineer.
45.Applicant shall install blue reflective pavement markers in the street at all fire hydrant
locations.
46.Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all permanent traffic control devices for
the project to be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. All permanent traffic
control devices shall be installed prior to final inspection of public improvements. This
includes No Parking Signs for travel ways within the development.
47. Construction traffic control plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Traffic
Engineer prior to issuance of encroachment permit.
48.AII improvement plans and tract maps shall be digitized. At Certificate of Occupancy
applicant shall submit tapes and/or disks which are compatible with City's ARC Info/GIS or
developer to pay $300 per sheet for City digitizing.
49.AII utilities (electrical, cable television, telephone) except electrical over 12 kv shall be
placed underground, as approved by the serving utility.
50. Apply and obtain a grading permit with appropriate security prior to building permit
issuance. A grading plan signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer
shall be required if the grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or the existing flow pattern is
substantially modified as determined by the City Engineer. If the grading is less than 50
cubic yards and a grading plan is not required, a grading permit shall still be obtained so
that a cursory drainage and flow pattern inspection can be conducted before grading
begins.
51. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recommendations.
Provide final soils report showing compliance with recommendations.
52.An Alquis-Priolo study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake
faults and/or liquefaction zones present on-site.
53. All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. All slopes
steeper than 2 to 1 shall be approved by the City Engineer and certified for stability and
proper erosion control requirements by a licensed Geologist or licensed Geotechnical
Engineer. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 ft. in height shall be contoured and
have a six (6) foot wide bench with a three (3) foot wide terrace drain constructed for every
thirty (30) vertical foot of slope.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 147 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 6 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
54. Prior to commencement of grading operations, applicant to provide to the City with a map
of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. Such routes shall
be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
55. Applicant to provide to the City a photographic baseline record of the condition of all
proposed public City haul roads. In the event of damage to such roads, applicant shall pay
full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. A bond may be required to
ensure payment of damages to the public right-of-way, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
56. Individual lot drainage shall be conveyed to a public facility or accepted by adjacent
property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance or conveyed to a drainage easement.
57. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way should be contained within
drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map
stating: "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions".
58.AII natural drainage traversing site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected
and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer.
59. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.64 regarding flood hazard regulations.
60. Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.68 regarding flood plain management.
61. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer and the
Riverside County Flood Control District as a submittal requirement of the rough grade plan
check. Applicant shall mitigate any flooding and/or erosion caused by development of site
and diversion of drainage.
62. All drainage facilities in this site shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control
District Standards.
63. Storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately stenciled to prevent illegal dumping in the
drain system, the wording and stencil shall be approved by the City Engineer.
64. 10-year storm runoff should be contained within the curb and the 1 DO-year storm runoff
should be contained with the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria is exceeded,
drainage facilities should be installed.
65.A drainage acceptance letter shall be required from the downstream property owners for
out-letting the proposed storm water run-off on private property if the flows are inconsistent
with the historic flow details.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 148 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 7 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
66. Applicant will be required to install BMP's using the best available technology to mitigate
any urban pollutants from entering the watershed.
67. Applicant shall obtain approval from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for
their stormwater pollution prevention plan including approval of erosion control for the
grading plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide a SWPPP for
post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and
including maintenance responsibilities.
68. Education guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided to the
manager of the business in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other
environmental awareness education materials on good housekeeping practices that
contribute to protection of stormwater quality and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement
"An in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan.
69.Applicant shall provide first flush BMP's using the best available technology that will reduce
stormwater pollutants from parking areas and driveways. These provisions include the
development and compliance with a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
70. Driveway intersection site distance shall meet the design criteria of the CAL TRANS Design
Manual (particular attention should be taken for intersections on the inside of curves). If
site distance can be obstructed, a special limited use easement must be recorded to limit
the slope, type of landscaping and wall placement.
71. Reciprocal access agreements shall be processed with adjacent property owners.
72.AII waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning,
demolition, clear and grubbing or other phases of the construction must be disposed of at
appropriate recycling centers. The applicant shall contract with CR&R, Inc., in accordance
with the City's Franchise Agreement.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
73. The Developer shall pay park fees in the amount of $0.10 per square foot for all interior
commercial space.
74. Developer shall participate in the City-wide Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District.
75. Developer shall comply with all City Ordinances regarding construction debris removal and
recycling as per Section 8.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 149 of 174
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PAGE 8 OF 8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
76. The applicant shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Departments requirements and
standards. Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by the Riverside County
Fire Department.
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
77. The applicant shall request a "will serve" letter from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District. Submit the "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable
water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project.
Submit this letter prior to issuance of a building permit.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 150 of 174
CITY OF ~
LAKE 6LSiN.O~
\ I
"?t.- DREAM EXTREME.
FROM:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TOM WEINER,
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER 21, 2008
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07 "AUTO
SALES AND SERVICE CENTER"
TO:
DATE:
PROJECT TITLE:
OWNER:
ADRIAN KULINSKI, CASINO ONE JEC, LLC. 450 WEST
VISTA WAY, VISTA, CA 92083
CASINO ONE JEC, LLC. 450 WEST VISTA WAY, VISTA,
CA 92083
APPLICANT:
Proiect Reauest
The applicant is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03 and
Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07 to allow for the future development of a 50,000
square foot automobile dealership on a 9.34 acre site. Environmental clearance for the
proposed project is provided by Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04, in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Review is pursuant to
the applicable Chapters of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC).
Proiect Location
The project site is located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive between the San Jacinto
River Channel and Avenue 6. (APNs: 363-130-085, and -087).
Environmental Settina
The proposed project site (APNs 363-130-085, and -087) is approximately 9.34 acres and
is located in an area southwest of Interstate 15 (1-15), bound by the San Jacinto River
channel to the east and Lakeshore Drive to the south. The site is bounded on the north by
the approved but currently vacant "Toyota Project Site," and vacant commercial land to the
AGENDA ITEM
PAGE~OF~
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 151 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 21, 2008
PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
west. The project site has a current General Plan Land Use designation of General
Commercial with a portion of APN 363-130-087 designated as Floodway under the City's
current General Plan. The entire project area is zoned C-2 (General Commercial).
Of the 9.34 acres, 3.0 acres have been donated to the Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A 6.34 acre portion is proposed for future development.
This 6.34 acre site is currently being subjected to repeated disturbance from automobile
parking and disking for fire hazard abatement. Further, much of the 6.34 acre portion is
currently being used as a stockpiling facility for the approved Toyota project.
Approximately 12,000 cubic yards of fill material have been spread across the site.
EXISTING. ZONING GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE . ,
Project Vacant C-2 (General Commercial) General Commercial and
Site Floodwav
North Approved C-2 (General Commercial) General Commercial
Automotive
Dealership
South Street Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive
East Flood San Jacinto River San Jacinto River Channel
Channel Channel
West Vacant C-2 (General Commercial) General Commercial
Backaround
The project identified as "The Auto Sales and Service Center" was submitted to the City for
the consideration of a new automotive dealership site. The project proposes General Plan
Amendment and Commercial Design Review applications. It should be noted that the
applications are to establish a "building footprint" for the site for future development. No
architectural building elevations are proposed for consideration at this time. The applicant
is seeking project approval and environmental clearance to allow for rough grading and
stockpiling between the project site and the adjacent and approved Toyota Automobile
Dealership site.
Additionally, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City
prepared an Initial Study, whose findings determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be required in order to assess the potential environmental effects associated with
this project. In compliance with CEQA, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent
to the State Clearinghouse to be circulated for the thirty (30) day public review period,
which ended on September 19, 2008. Five (5) comment letters, identified in this staff
report, were received as a result of this public review period.
AGENDA ITEM
PAGEAgen~ Itpm No. 13
Page 152 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 21, 2008
PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
Proiect Descriotion
General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03
The applicant requests approval to amend the General Plan Land Use Map with the
ultimate intention of establishing a 50,000 square foot automotive dealership on the 6.43
acre site (for APN 363-130-087). The General Plan Land Use Element identifies a land
use designation of Floodway for a portion of the identified parcel and does not allow a
development density or intensity assigned to it, prohibiting a development of this type.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment from Floodway to
General Commercial (GC), permitting a maximum commercial floor area ratio of 40
percent.
Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07
Site Plan
The total project site encompasses 9.34 acres, and would include a building footprint area
of 50,000 square feet for a future automotive dealership use on the 6.34 acre parcel.
Circulation and Parkina Space Lavout
Main access to the site will be made available through the two (2) driveways proposed
along Lakeshore Drive. Three hundred and seventy nine (379) parking spaces will be
provided, including four (4) handicap spaces. Vehicle display spaces are provided along
the frontage of Lakeshore Drive. Customer parking spaces are identified near and around
the sales and service buildings. Employee parking will be provided at the rear portion of the
site.
Analysis
The request is being made with the intention of establishing an automobile dealership on-
site. As part of the process, the applicant is required to obtain a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) to remove the portions ofthe 6.34 acre site that are designated Floodway under the
City's current General Plan. Since the adoption of the City's current General Plan, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the 100 year flood zone
along the San Jacinto River channel. The revised maps have removed all but a small
portion (10,745 square feet or 0.025 acres) of the 6.34 acres are from the 100 year flood
zone, specifically Zone AE. The project will not be allowed to grade or develop within this
small area designated Zone AE. It should be noted that the land use changes have been
reflected in the Draft General Plan Update; however, this document has not yet been
AGENDA ITEM
PAG~llerrLNo. 13
Page 153 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 21, 2008
PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
adopted. Because the anticipated project approval will occur prior to the adoption of the
General Plan Update, a General Plan Amendment is required.
In reviewing the requested land use map amendment (General Plan Land Use Element
Amendment), it is necessary to analyze potential implications to other Elements of the
General Plan. The General Plan is required to. be internally and laterally consistent;
therefore, an amendment to anyone of the required Elements of the General Plan is
required to be consistent to the rest of the elements. Staff feels that this amendment to the
Land Use Element may have an impact to the Circulation Element, however, those impacts
have been deemed minimal.
Lastly, the applicant is only seeking conceptual site plan project approval and
environmental clearance. This will allow for rough grading and stockpiling between the
described project site and the adjacent Toyota site. All future development of the project
site and operations will be subject to a complete and thorough Design Review process (Le.
building architecture, landscaping, lighting, noise, traffic circulation, vehicle and product
delivery, hours of operation, signage, etc).
Environmental Determination
The Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 has been prepared pursuant to Article 6
(Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or
Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Pursuant to Section 15073 (Public Review of a Proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the intended
Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 20,
2008 for the required thirty (30) day review period.
Comments on the MND were received from the 50boba, the Morongo, and the Pechanga
Tribes, and from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFCWCD). Comments received from the three Tribes primarily focused on the need for
Tribal monitoring, appropriate steps to implement should human remains be accidentally
uncovered, and compliance with Senate Bill 18 (5B 18). The City's standard practice is to
include mitigation to address Tribal concerns and to comply with SB 18 as is required by
statute. As such, all required mitigation ahs already been included as part of the proposed
project's mitigation. The RCFCWCD indicated they have no concerns regarding the
proposed project.
Based on staff's evaluation, the proposed project will not result in any significant effects on
the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is adequate and has
been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
procedures for implementation of CEQA
AGENDA ITEM
PAGEAgen@!iJtemNo. 13
Page 154 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 21, 2008
PROJECT TITLE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008-04
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03 AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
RECOMMENDATION
a. Waive further reading and adopt a resolution adopting findings that the project is
consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and
b. Waive further reading and adopt a resolution approving Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2008-04, and
c. Waive further reading and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval
of General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03, and
d. Waive further reading and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval
of Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07 for "The Auto Sales and Service
Center", based on the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed Conditions of Approval
Prepared by:
Kirt A. Coury
Project Planner
Approved by :
Tom Weiner,
Acting Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit 'A': Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission Resolutions
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Exhibit'S': Reduction of Site Plan
5. Exhibit 'C': Reduction of Grading Plan
6. Exhibit'D': General Plan Amendment Map
7. Exhibit 'E': Full Size Exhibits
AGENDA ITEM
PAG~~O. 13
Page 155 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-83
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE EL~INORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT
FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE AUTO GROUP
DEALERSHIP PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
WHEREAS, The Automotive Group, Inc. (the "Developer") filed an application
with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Commercial Design Review No.
2008-07 and General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03 (the "Project") for the design and
construction of a 50,000 square foot facility a 9.34-acre site, located on north side of
Lakeshore Drive, adjacent east of the San Jacinto River channel, known as Assessor's
Parcel Nos. 363-130-085 and -087 (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that all projects which are
proposed on land within an MSHCP criteria cell and which require discretionary
approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process
("LEAP") and a Joint Project Review ("JPR") between the City and the Regional
Conservation Authority ("RCA") prior to public review of the project applications; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects within or
outside of a criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide
Requirements"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and
approval by the Planning Commission and/or City. Council; and
WHEREAS, the Project is within a MSHCP criteria cell of the Elsinore Area Plan,
and therefore, the Project was processed through a LEAP and JPR as well as reviewed
pursuant to the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements"; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency
findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of
property that is subject to the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility
of making recommendations to the City Council regarding the consistency of
discretionary project entitlements with the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this
item on October 21, 2008.
1
Agenda Item No. _
Page_of_
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 156 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-83
PAGE 2 OF 5
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed
application and its consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to
recommend that the City Council adopt findings that the Project is consistent with the
MSHCP.
SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the
MSHCP, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project is a project under the City's MSHCP Resolution, and the
City must make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval.
The Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell. As such, the Project has
been processed through the LEAP and JPR, as well as reviewed for consistency
with the MSHCP "Plan Wide Requirements, " including Section 6.1.2
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pool Guidelines.
2. The proposed project is subject to the City's LEAP and the County's Joint Project
Review processes.
As stated above, the Property is located within a MSHCP criteria cell and
therefore the Project was processed through the LEAP and JPR.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the RiparianlRiverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Guidelines.
Of the 9.34-acre project site, 3.0 acres that encompass riparian/riverine habitat
are being avoided and donated for MSHCP conservation. The remaining 6.34-
acre area to be developed does not encompass riparian/riverine habitat nor
vemal pools or other fairy shrimp habitat. Currently, most of this 6.34-acre area
is the location of a 12,000 cubic yard stockpile of fill to be used at the adjacent
approved Toyota Dealership project. As such, the Project is consistent with the
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vemal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of
the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Guidelines.
Per MSHCP requirements, the Property is not subject to the Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.3. No further action regarding
this section of the MSHCP is required.
5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures.
2
Agenda Item No. _
Pa,A'genda:>ftem..No. 13
Page 157 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-83
PAGE 3 OF 5
The Property was assessed for suitable habitat for Criteria Area Species, set
forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. No suitable habitat for any of these
species, including Burrowing Owl, exists on the project site. As required by the
MSHCP, mitigation has been included to conduct a Burrowing Owl survey 30
days prior to any ground-disturbance, including the removal of vegetation or
other debris. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
6. The proposed project is consistent with the UrbanlWildlands Interface
Guidelines.
Because 3.0 acres are being donated to the MSHCP for conservation, there
would in effect be an "urban/wildlands interface between this area and the
adjacent 6.34-acre area to be developed. Project design features and best
management practices are incorporated into the Project to address and minimize
edge effects associated with run-off, night lighting, and noise-generating land
uses. As such, the Project is consistent with UrbanNVildlands Interface
Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding
this section of the MSHCP is required.
7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The 3.0-acre area to be donated to the MSHCP does encompass
riparian/riverine resources for which the vegetation mapping requirements are
applicable. This area has been mapped in accordance with the MSHCP
requirements. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required.
8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The MSHCP acknowledges that brush management to reduce fuel loads and
protect urban uses and public health/safety shall occur where development is
adjacent to conservation areas. The Property is adjacent to open areas that may
require on-going brush abatement to reduce fire risk. One of the scenarios in the
Fuels Management Guidelines is that any new development planned adjacent to
a MSHCP conservation area or other undeveloped area shall incorporate brush
management guidelines in the development boundaries and shall not encroach
into MSHCP conservation areas. Because the Project is non-residential, has
incorporated building setbacks and will not encroach into MSHCP conservation
areas, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set
forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the
MSHCP is required.
9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City's MSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee.
The developer will be required to pay the City's MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
3
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~sfltem.No. 13
Page 158 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-83
PAGE 4 OF 5
10. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.
The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further
actions related to the MSHCP are required.
SECTION 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
conditions of approval attached to the Resolution approving Commercial Design Review
No. 2008-07 and General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore adopt findings
that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of October 2008.
Axel Zanelli, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
4
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~pnrla>~tem...No. 13
Page 159 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-83
PAGE 5 OF 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
)
)ss.
)
I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of Commynity Development of the City of Lak~
Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution ,No. 2008-83 was
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City o,f Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting
held on the 21st day of October 2008, and that the 'same was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
Chairman Axel Zanelli, Vice-Chairman Jimmy Flores, Commissioner's
John Gonzales, Phil Mendoza, and ry1ichael O'Neal
No
No
No
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tom Weiner
Acting Ditector of Community Development
"
5
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~~fltem.No. 13
Page 160 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-84
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. 2008-04 FOR THE AUTO GROUP DEALERSHIP
PROJECT
WHEREAS, The Automotive Group, Inc. (the "Developer") filed an application
with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approv~1 of Commercial Design Review No.
2008-07 and General Plan Amendment No. 2008,-03 (the "Project") for the design and
construction of a 50,000 square foot facility a 9.34-acre site, located on north side of
Lakeshore Drive, adjacent east of the San Jacinto River channel, known as Assessor's
Parcel Nos. 363-130-085 and -087 (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to, the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code SS 21000, et seq.: "CEQA") and the
State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations SS
15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines") because the 'Project involves an activity which may
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment, arid involves the issuance of a lease,
permit license, certificate, or other entitlement fo~ use by one or more public agencies
(Public Resources Code S 21065); and '
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 'Section 15063, the City conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the Project woul~ have a significant effect on the
environment. The Initial Study revealed thati the project would have potentially
significant environmental impacts but those potentially significant impacts could be
mitigated to less than significant levels; and
WHEREAS, based upon the results of the Initial Study, and based upon the
standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 1 $070, it was determined appropriate to
prepare and circulate Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 for the Project (the
"Mitigated Negative Declaration"); and .
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15072, on August 20, 2008,
the City duly issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt the' Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA G~idelines section 15073, the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was made available for public review and comment for thirty days
beginning on August 20,2008, and ending on September 19, 2008, and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of!,the City of Lake Elsinore has been
delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council
regarding mitigated negative declarations; and
1
Agenda Item No. _
pa!AgePda>~tem..No. 13
Page 161 of 174
PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2008-84
PAGE 2 OF 4
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by
the Community Development Department and rother interested parties at a public
hearing held with respect to this item on October 21, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated into these findings by this reference. .
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has evaluated all comments, written and
oral, received from persons who have reviewed: the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Written responses to comments received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during
the public comment period were prepared and circulated. The Planning Commission
hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been
completed in accordance with CEQA, the Stat~ CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
procedures for implementation of CEQA. The PI~nning Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration represeilts the independent judgment of the
City.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission f~rther finds and determines that none
of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are present and that it would be appropriate to
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as propdsed.
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates
the following findings regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the
applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are
released for public review would avo,id the effects or mitigate the effects to
a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial
evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting
from the Project can be mitigated tb the less than significant levels. All
appropriate and feasible mitigation lias been incorporated into the Project
design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an
implementation program for each mitigation measure. After
implementation of the mitigation con~ained in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to
less than significant levels.
2
Agenda Item No. _
Pa!PlgendafltemNo.13
Page 162 of 174
PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2008-84
PAGE30F4
2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before
the agency, that the Project as revi~ed may have significant effect on the
environment. ;
Pursuant to the evidence received) and in the light of the whole record
presented, the Project will not haves significant effect on the environment. .
SECTION 6. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the
conditions of approval attached to the Resolution .,approving Commercial Design Review
No. 2008-07 and General Plan Amendment 200~-03, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect:from and after the date of its passage
and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of October 2008.
Axel Zanelli, Chairman
City of L~ke Elsinore
ATTEST:
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
3
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~F!nd~ltem.No. 13
Page 163 of 174
PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2008-84
PAGE 4 OF 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
)
)ss.
)
I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of CommLjnity Development of the City of Lake
Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2008-84 was
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting
held on the 2151 day of October 2008, and that the:same was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairman Axel Zanelli, Vice-Chairman Jimmy Flores,
Commissioner's Jo~n Gonzales, Phil Mendoza, and
Michael O'Neal
No
No
No
Tom Weioer
Acting Di~ector of Community Development
4
Agenda Item No. _
Pa9l!gendSfLtem No. 13
Page 164 of 174
II
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-85
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2008-03
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore is considering an amendment to the
General Plan Land Use Map, General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03, which will change
a significant portion of the land use designation of Assessor Parcel Number 363-130-
087 from "Floodway" to "General Commercial" (the "General Plan Amendment")
allowing for the future development of an automobile dealership "Auto Sales and
Service Center"; and '
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been
delegated with the responsibility of making reco,mmendations to the City Council for
changes to the approved General Plan Land Use tv'!ap; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the General Plan Amendment has been given, and
the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community
Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with
respect to this item on October 21, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING CQMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission ~as considered the proposed General
Plan Amendment, prior to making a decision to recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed amendment to the City's Land Use map. The Planning
Commission finds and determines that Mitigated!Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 is
adequate and prepared in accordance with 'the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 2. That in accordance with St~te Planning and Zoning law and the
City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Plann,ing Commission makes the following
findings for the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be: a) detrimental to the health,
safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the
neighborhood of the proposed amendment ,or within the City, or b) injurious to the
property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City.
a. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revised the
1 DO-year flood zone along the San Jacinto River channel. The revised
maps have removed all but a small portion (10,745 square feet or 0.025
acres) of the 6.34-acre area from 'the 100-year flood zone, specifically
Zone AE. The project will not be allowed to grade or develop within this
small area designated Zone AE. Th~ proposed General Plan Amendment
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 165 of 174
PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION 2008-85
PAGE 2 OF 3
creates consistency between the City's General Plan and the identified
FEMA 1 OO-year flood zone map andiZone AE.
b. The proposed change would allow economic use of an otherwise non-
beneficial area that, according to FEMA, is no longer is considered to lie
within a floodway. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
c. The General Plan Amendment does not propose any significant change
from surrounding land use designations and will not result in any
significant environmental impacts as explained in Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 2008-04.
SECTION 3. Based upon all of the evidence presented, and the above findings,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore approve General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of October 2008.
Axel Zanelli, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 166 of 174
PLANNING COM MIS ION RESOLUTION 2008-85
PAGE 3 OF 3 ~.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
)
)ss.
)
I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of Community Development of the City of lake
Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution iNo. 2008-85 was
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City qf lake Elsinore at a regular meeting
held on the 21st day of October 2008, and that the:same was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
Chairman Axel Zanelli, Vice-Chairman Jimmy Flores,
Commissioner's John Gonzales, Phil Mendoza, and
Michael O'Neal
NOES:
No
ABSENT:
No
ABSTAIN:
No
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 167 of 174
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-86
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2008-07
,
WHEREAS, Casino One, JEC, LLC., ha~ initiated proceedings to request the
approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07 for the design and establishment
of the a new automobile dealership site ("the Cd'mmercial Design Review"), which will
be located at on the north side of Lakeshore lDrive between the San Jacinto River
Channel and Avenue 6 (the "Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of: the City of Lake Elsinore has been
delegated with the responsibility of reviewing and making recommendations to the City
Council for Design Review of commercial projects; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Commerci~1 Design Review has been given, and
the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community
Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with
respect to this item on October 21, 2008.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING CqMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERJVlINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission ~as considered the proposed request
for Commercial Design Review No. 2008-07 prionto recommending approval to the City
Council. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Commercial Design
Review request is consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-04 for the Project is adequate and has been
completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
procedures for implementation of CEQA. The Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment of the
City. .
SECTION 3. That in accordance with Section 17.82 (Design Review) of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the
approval of Commercial Design Review No. 2008~07:
1. The project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General
Plan and the Zoning District in which the proje~t is located.
The proposed Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore
Drive between the San Jacinto River Channe/l'and Avenue 6 complies with the goals
and objectives of the General Plan in that the approval of this automobile dealership
will assist in achieving the development of a well-balanced and functional mix of
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 168 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-86
PAGE 2 OF 4 '
residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and institutional land
uses as well as encouraging commercial Ifind uses to diversify Lake Elsinore's
economic base. .
2. The project complies with the design directive~ contained in Section 17.82.060 and
all other applicable provisions of the MunicipallCode.
The proposed Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore
Drive between the San Jacinto River Channel and Avenue 6 is appropriate to the
site and surrounding developments in that the automobile dealership project has
been designed in consideration of the size and shape of the property.
3. Subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
The proposed Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore
Drive between the San Jacinto River Channel and Avenue 6 as reviewed and
conditioned by all applicable City Divisions arid Departments and Agencies, will not
have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to attached Conditions of
AWro~{ .
4. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070 of the Zoning Code,
including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been
incorporated into the approval of the subject 'project to ensure development of the
property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.82.
Pursuant to Section 17.82.070 of the Lake E(sinore Municipal Code, the proposed
Commercial Design Review located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive between
the San Jacinto River Channel and Avenue 6 has been scheduled for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and
the conditions of approval imposed upon the Corilmercial Design Review, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Commercial Design
Review No. 2008-07. .
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of October 2008.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 169 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-86
PAGE 3 OF 4 I'
Axel Zanelli, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 170 of 174
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-86
PAGE 4 OF 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
)
)ss.
)
I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of Community Development of the City of Lake
Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution!No. 2008-86 was
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting
held on the 21st day of October 2008, and that the!same was adopted by the following
vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tom Weiher
Acting Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 171 of 174
(
NONE
ABSTAIN:
(
"
It was motioned by Commissio . r Gonzales, seconded by Com issioner Mendoza
o adopt Resolution No. 200 - , ..
mercial Design Review No. 2008-
4.
mendment No. 2008-03
and Service Center".
_~aJ)riEl~ oy'_ . ___Qfth~pr()lecl. lieJlI:>QIs~QUb~JjJl~I..
. c1ud t~e packet, however was provided to
ning of the meeting. Staff recommends
ted the applicant is available to answer any questions
nt a . eed to the Con<jitions of Approval and indicated he
er any questions the Commission may have.
the Public Hearing at 6:31 p.m.
doza indicated that he had no comments.
Vice Chairman Flores had no comments.
Commissioner O'Neal asked how much land will! need to be dedicated.
(
Project Planner Coury stated the total would be three (3) acres that would be
dedicated to RCA for MSHCP purposes. .
Commissioner O'Neal agreed with staff recomm~hdations.
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 172 of 174
Commissioner Gonzales asked what would be done with the original property.
(
Adrian Kulinski stated that area total of thre~ parcels. He stated ten ACRES were
sold to Toyota which would be developed into; a Toyota Dealership. He stated it is
their plans to develop a another import dealership.
Chairman Zanelli pointed out that the three; (3) acres in question could not be
buildable because it is in the flood plain.
It was motioned by Commissioner Mendoza, seconded
adopt Resolution No. 2008-83, recommending': the Ci
the project known as the Auto Group Dealershi oj
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (M9
The following vote resulted:
AYES:
NOES:
NONE
/
(
, secpnded by Commissioner Mendoza to
, recommending to the City Council adoption of
o. 008-94 forithe Auto Group Dealership Project.
HAIRMAN ZANELLI
ICE-CHAIRMAN FLORES
COMMISSIONER GONZALES
COMMISSIONER MENDOZA
COMMISSIONER O'N~AL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
c
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 173 of 174
( It was motioned by Commissioner Mendoza, ~econded by Commissioner Gonzales
to adopt Resolution No. 2008-85, recommending to the City Council approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2008-03.
The following vote resulted:
STAFF
AYES: CHAIRMAN ZANELLI
VICE-CHAIRMAN FLORES
COMMISSIONER GONZALES
COMMISSIONER MENDOZA
COMMISSIONER O'NEAL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
( The following vote resulted:
AYES:
Public Works Direc ICity Engineering Manager Seum
following:
He indicated that Chuck Mac ,Traffic Engineer for the City for ten rs passed
ay suddenly on Thursday Oc er 16th. 8e stated funeral arrange nts for
Ch would be held on Wednes ,October 22nd at the Veteran Na' nal
Cemete .' Riverside. He noted that Ch was a great mentor and will be grea
missed.
c
Agenda Item No. 13
Page 174 of 174
CITY OF ~
LAKE ,6,LSiNORf:
~~_. DREAM E;(TREME_
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28,
AMENDMENT NO.1 FOR 'PARKSlpE TERRACE"
LOCATED WITHIN THE CANYON t;lILLS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Discussion
On October 21, 2008. the Planning Commission approved by unanimous vote various
resolutions recommending approval to amend the project design and architecture for
Residential Design Review No. 2005-28. The project site is located on the north side of
Canyon Hills Drive, west of Hillside Drive within i:the Canyon Hills Specific Plan area.
I,
The project site is further identified as Planning Area 36 within the Canyon Hill Specific
Plan.
The list of architectural and site design revision1> can be categorized as 1) those so
minor as to be indistinguishable or equal to the ,approved features; and 2) those of a
significant nature as to alter the quality or appea~ance of the buildings. The applicant's
description has been separated into these two categories:
Minor Revisions
1. In all Plans and Elevations, changing out two regulation windows with one large
window is an equal feature.
2. Proposed roof gable ends are replaced with a two-story pop-out element. It
should be noted that the overall roof line incorporates variation avoiding an
expansive 'straight' roof line. This change-out could be considered minor.
3. Increase the size of the on-site club house outdoor pool.
4. Add a tot lot at the pool area. .
5. Reduce on-site decorative paving by thirty percent (30%). Some of the reduction
is a cause of meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
6. Add a pedestrian connection to the park. ::
7. Replaced the wall along the northern property line with a tubular steel view fence
at the park edge.
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 1 of 21
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO RDR 2005-28
November 11, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Significant Revisions
1. The elimination of stone veneer on applicable internal building elevations. It
should be noted that building elevations ""hich had required stone veneer will
keep such element on elevations visible from Hillside Drive and Canyon Hills
Drive.
2. Elimination of window shutters on certain building elevations. Elimination of
window shutters may create an expanse of wall area, however, pot shelves and
window stucco surrounds have been ad~ed and/or replaced to mitigate this
scenario.
3. Building composites consist of Plans 1, 2" and 3. Plan 4 has been omitted. In
addition, each unit plan has been reduced in overall square footage.
4. Increase on-site landscape common areas: by fourteen percent (14%). This has
been achieved by omitting Plan 4, ther!3by reducing the amount of on-site
building coverage and increasing area landscaping coverage
5. Add private walled patio areas to each!' ground floor unit, thereby creating
additional private open space.
Recommendations
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2008-_ approving Amendment No. 1 to Residential Design
Review No. 2005-28.
Prepared By:
Kirt A. Coury, ~
Project Planner
Approved By:
Robert A. Brady.oi\?[
City Manager 'W
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution No. 2008-_ approving Amendment No. 1 to Residential Desian
Review No. 2005-28 !
3. Visual Comparison of Approved and Propo~ed Elevations
4. Conditions of Approval ,
5. Staff Report and Minutes for the Planning Commission, October 21, 2008
Page 2 of 2 .
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 2 of 21
a..
<(
~
>-
I-
-
Z
-
()
-
>
Z a: a:
... ...
0 III O'
,. ~~-
~ :::0 '0-.
z III
U ~ ~
0 z Z
...J ~ O' :::0 :::0.
I- ~ " ",.
U a: z z
W a: a: Z Z
(3 0 ~ z :z
:::l :S :S
D:: ,. ~ Q. Q.
,
.
.
.
.
.
. ID
.
. -
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
I
I
I
I
I
_______.J
"'t3
5i
CU
......
~
...
a:
""
!:;
Z
:::0
"
Z
Z
z
:S
Q.
. .
........
. . .
...-..
..'
.. .. .. ~
...
... ,.
. ..
.. ... .. ..
. . .
... ..
.....+.t...
...
... ,+
. .,
.. .. .. ..
..,
.... .
..,
...
u
""
Q.
II>
Z
...
Q.
o
...
""
a:
:::0
~
""
z
...
II>
a:
::::0
o
u
,a:
...
!<
~
~
,
Canyon
Hills
'Z
...
'"
Q.
o
...
~
o
"
z
~
)(
....
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
Agenda Item No, 14
Page 3 of 21
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28
AMENDMENT NO.1
WHEREAS, Mr. David Dunham, Pardee Homes has filed an application with the
City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of ani Amendment to a Residential Design
Review for the Parkside Terrace Condominium Community (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of !he City of Lake Elsinore at a regular
meeting held on October 21, 2008 made its repor;t upon the desirability of the proposed
project and made its recommendations in favori.of said project by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2008-79 recommending to the City Council approval of
Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment No.1; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the City Council has
considered evidence presented by the CommunitY Development Department and other
interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on November 11,
2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered the proposed amendment to the
design and building elevations for the Parkside l'errace Condominium Community and
has found them acceptable. The City Council finds and determines that the Parkside
Terrace Condominium Community design is con~istent with Amendment NO.2 of the
Canyon Hills Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that environmental
analysis and clearance for the project is provid~d by Addendum No. 2 to the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Hills Specific Plan. In accordance with
California Environmental Quality Act Guideli~es Section 15162, the proposed
amendment does not present a substantial change or new information that would
require further CEQA analysis. The environmental. impacts associated with development
of the project were contemplated by Addendum N.c. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact
Report, and were fully analyzed and mitigated th~rein. No new CEQA documentation is
necessary for this project
SECTION 3. That in accordance with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter
17.82, the City Council makes the following findings for the approval of Residential
Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment NO.1:
1. The project complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan
and the Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No.2, as approved.
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 4 of 21
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
PAGE 2 OF 3
The General Plan designates the project site !as "Canyon Hills Specific Plan." The
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No. 2iidesignates the project site as "MF2."
The Parkside Terrace Condominium Community will ultimately lead to the
construction of a multi-family condominium development that is consistent with
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No.2.
2. This project complies with the design directives contained in Chapter 17.82.060 and
all other applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that it will
result in the construction of multi-family 'attached units in accordance with
appropriate development and design standards contained in Canyon Hills Specific
Plan Amendment No.2. The Project, as amended, creates interest and varying
vistas as a person moves along any street within the Parkside Terrace Community.
The amended Project also complements the quality of existing neighboring
development and will continue to provide visually-complimenting and compatible
design and architecture within the project area.
3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82,070, including guarantees and
evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of
the project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the General
Plan, Municipal Code, and Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No, 2,
The Planning Commission has considered the Project and finds that with the
attached conditions of approval, the ProjeCt complies with the purposes and
objectives of the General Plan, Municipal Code and Canyon Hills Specific Plan
Amendment No.2.
SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evident;:e presented, the above findings, and
the conditions of approval imposed upon the Residential Design Review, the City
Council of the City of Lake Elsinore hereby approves Residential Design Review No.
2005-28 Amendment No.1. .,
SECTION 5. This Resolution shaU take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 5 of 21
I
,il.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
PAGE 3 OF 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11TH day of November 2008.
I
DARYL HlICKMAN
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA ZEID LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby
certify that Resolution No. was ~dopted by the Ci~ Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, at a regular meeting held on the 111 day of November
2008, and that the same was adopted by the follo~ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 6 of 21
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28 AMENDMENT NO.1
FOR PARKSIDE TERRACE
GENERAL CONDITION
1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acc~ptable to the City), indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or Agents to attach, set
aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or
legislative body concerning Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment No. 1
(Parkside Terrace) project attached hereto.
2. In addition to complying with these new conditions, the project shall continue to comply
with all conditions of approval associated with! Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment
No.2, Tentative Parcel Map No. 34442, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-29, and
Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 (Parkside Terrace).
3. The applicant shall at all times comply with Section 17.78 (Noise Control) of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code which requires noise or sound levels to be below 50 decibels
between the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and below 40 decibels between the hours of
10:00 pm to 7:00 am in nearby residential areas.
4. All exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create
glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal
plane of the fixture. All light fixtures shall match the architectural style of the building.
5. Each unit owner shall have full access to commonly owned areas, facilities and utilities.
6. The applicant shall continue to comply with those mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted with the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the Canyon Hills Specific Plan.
7. The developer shall continue to comply with the terms and requirements contained in
the BO and CO issued by the USFWS in 1992 for the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan
and was subsequently amended on April 19, 2002 and July 16, 2002.
8. Construction traffic shall be prohibited from the segment of Lost Road south of the
project site as a construction truck route.
9. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3' x 3' sign at the entrance to the project site
identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity and a statement that
complaints regarding the operation can be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code
Enforcement Division (951) 674-3124.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28
Planning Commission Approval
October 21. 2008
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 7 of 21
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ~005-28 AMENDMENT NO.1
FOR PARKSIDE T~RRACE
10. Design Review approval for Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 will lapse and be
void unless building permits are issued within two (2) years of City Council approval.
11. Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans submitted to
the Building Division Plan Check. All Conditi,ons of Approval shall be met prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and rel~ase of utilities.
12.AII site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on
the approved site plan and elevations. Revisions to approved site plans or building
elevations shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Director. All
plans submitted for Building Division Plan Check shall conform to the submitted plans
as modified by Conditions of Approval, or' the Planning Commission/City Council
through subsequent action.
13. The applicant shall incorporate windows app(opriate to the building architectural style
and subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or
designee.
14.AII roof mounted or ground support air conditiqning units or other mechanical equipment
incidental to development shall be architectur~lIy screened or shielded by landscaping
so that they are not visible from neighboringiproperty or public streets. Any material
covering the roof equipment shall match the primary wall color.
15. No exterior roof ladders shall be permitted.
16.Applicant shall use roofing materials with Class "A" fire rating.
17. The Planning Division shall approve the location of any construction trailers utilized
during construction. All construction trailers shall require a cash bond processed
through the Planning Division. '
18. Materials and colors depicted on the plans and materials board shall be used unless
modified by the Community Development Director or designee.
19. Decorative paving shall be included at the drive entryways and shall be shown on the
construction drawings submitted to Building and Safety.
20. On-site surface drainage shall not cross sidewalks.
21. Parking stalls shall be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Canyon Hills
Specific Plan.
22. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have a permanent irrigation
system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division.
Planning Commission Approval
October 21, 2008
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 8 of 21
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
"
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28 AMENDMENT NO.1
FOR PARKSIDE TERRACE
PRIOR TO BUILDING/GRADING PERMITS
23. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permits, the applicant shall sign and
complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form and shall return the executed
original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records.
24. Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the applicant shall provide a map of
all proposed haul routes to be used for movem~nt of dirt material. Such routes shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Eingineer. A bond may be required to pay
for damages to the public right-of-way, subject ~o the approval of the City Engineer.
25. Three (3) sets of the Final Landscaping/Irrigation Detail Plan shall be submitted,
reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and the
Community Development Director or designee, prior to issuance of building permit. A
Landscape Plan Check & Inspection Fee will be charged prior to final landscape
approval based on the Consultant's fee plus for:ty percent (40%) City fee.
a) All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system with
100% plant and grass coverage using a combination of drip and conventional
irrigation methods.
b) Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City's Street Tree List, a
maximum of forty feet (40) apart and at least twenty-four-inch (24") box in
size.
c) All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six inch (6")
high and six inch (6") wide concrete curb.
d) Planting within fifteen feet (15') of ingress/egress points shall be no higher
than thirty-six inches (36"). .
e) Landscape planters shall be planted with an appropriate parking lot shade
tree to provide for 50% parking lot shading in fifteen (15) years.
f) Any transformers and mechanical or ;electrical equipment shall be indicated
on landscape plan and screened as ~art of the landscaping plan.
g) The landscape plan shall provide fpr ground cover, shrubs, and trees and
meet all requirements of the City's ~dopted Landscape Guidelines. Special
i
Planning Commission Approval
October 21, 2008
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 9 of 21
,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28 AMENDMENT NO.1
FOR PARKSIDE TERRACE
attention to the use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with
combination drip irrigation system to be used to prevent excessive watering.
h) All landscape improvements shall be bonded 100% for material and labor for
two years from installation sign-off by the City. Release of the landscaping
bond shall be requested by the applicant at the end of the required two years
with approval/acceptance by the 'Landscape Consultant and Community
Development Director or Designee. ,
i) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within affected portion of any
phase at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for any building. All
planting areas shall include plantings in the Xeriscape concept, drought
tolerant grasses and plants.
j) Final landscape plan must be consistent with approved site plan.
k) Final landscape plans to include planting and irrigation details.
26.Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District (EVMWD). Proof shall be presented to the Chief Building Official prior to
issuance of building permits and final approval.
27. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all required
fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District have been paid.
28. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide assurance that all
requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department have been met.
29. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fee in effect at time
of building permit issuance.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
30. The Home Owner's Association shall be established prior to the occupancy release of
the first dwelling unit.
ENGINEERING
31. The project shall continue to comply with all conditions of approval associated with
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No.2, Tentative Parcel Map No. 34442,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-29, and Residential Design Review No. 2005-28
(Parkside Terrace).
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Commission Approval
October 21, 2008
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 10 of 21
,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28 AMENDMENT NO.1
FOR PARKSIDE TE~RACE
32. The project shall continue to comply with alii, conditions of approval associated with
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No.; 2, Tentative Parcel Map No. 34442,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-29, and Residential Design Review No. 2005-28
(Parkside Terrace). i'
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRA TIVE SERVICES
33. The project shall continue to comply with all!' conditions of approval associated with
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No: 2, Tentative Parcel Map No. 34442,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-29, and Residential Design Review No. 2005-28
(Parkside Terrace). '
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
34. The project shall continue to comply with all conditions of approval associated with
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No, 2, Tentative Parcel Map No. 34442,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-29, and Residential Design Review No. 2005-28
(Parkside Terrace).
Planning Commission Approval
October 21, 2008
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 11 of21
CITY OF ~
LAKE ,6,LSiN.ORf:
~.~ DREAM E;ITREMEw
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
TOM WEINER
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,
PROJECT:
OCTOBER 21, 2008
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-28,
AMENDMENT NO.1 FOR "PARKSIDE TERRACE"
DATE:
APPLICANT
& OWNER:
DAVID D. DUNHAM, PARDEE HOMES,
10880 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1900
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
Proiect Reauest
The applicant proposes to amend approved Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 in
an effort to meet current market conditions.
Proiect Location
The project site is located on the north side of Canyon Hills Drive, west of Hillside Drive
within the Canyon Hills Specific Plan area. The project site is further identified as
Planning Area 36 within the Canyon Hill Specific Plan.
Environmental Settina
EXISTING . ZONING II GENERA\:. PLAN
LAND USE r.
Project Vacant Multiple Family Residential Canyon Hills Specific Plan
Site (MF2) (PA 36), Canyon Hills
Soecific Plan '
North Vacant Open Space (OS) Canyon Hills Specific Plan
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 12 of 21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RDR 2005-28 Amendment No. 1
OCTOBER 21, 2008
South Single-Family Open Space (qS) and Canyon Hills Specific Plan
Residential Single Family Residential
and (SF3), Canyon HiII~ Specific
Recreation Plan
Area ,
East Single-Family SF3 (PA 21), Canyon Hills Canyon Hills Specific Plan
Residential Specific Plan
IPA21\
West Vacant OS (Open Space) Canyon Hills Specific Plan
(Designated Park),. Canyon
Hills Soecific Plan '
...
Proiect Backaround
On April 10, 2007, the City of Lake Elsinore City,'Council approved Residential Design
Review No. 2005-28, in conjunction with the Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No.
2, Tentative Parcel Map No. 34442 for Condominium Purposes, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2005-29, and Addendum No. 2 to the' Canyon Hills Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report.
In March of 2008, Staff began meeting with the: applicant's representatives to review
proposed alterations to the architectural and siting features of the project. After several
meetings, Staff believed that the accumulated proposals were of sufficient quantity and
,.
effect that the applicant needed Planning Commission approval (as prescribed in the
,
Canyon Hills Specific Plan) of an amendment to t~e Residential Design Review.
During this time, the approved Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 was due to
expire, and Pardee Homes requested relief from this condition. The Director of
Community Development determined that the project expired because of the pending
issues related to the applicant's request for ch~nges. On September 30, 2007, the
applicant submitted Amendment NO.1 to Residential Design Review No. 2005-28.
Project Description
Amendment No. 1 includes a project description :of architectural revisions, attached as
Exhibit 'B.' The applicant also provided, as instructed by Staff, a visual comparison
between the approved elevations and proposed elevations, attached as Exhibit 'C.'
Analvsis
The list of architectural revisions can be categbrized as 1) those so minor as to be
indistinguishable or equal to the approved featur~s; and 2) those of a significant nature
as to alter the quality or appearance of the buildings. The applicant's description has
,
been separated into these two categories, with a brief explanation by Staff.
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~a>~tem.No. 14
Page 13 of 21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RDR 2005-28 Amendment No. 1
OCTOBER 21, 2008
Minor Revisions
1. In all Plans and Elevations, changing out two regulation windows with one large
window is an equal feature.
2. Proposed roof gable ends are replaced ""ith a two-story pop-out element. It
should be noted that the overall roof line incorporates variation avoiding an
expansive 'straight' roof line. This change~out could be considered minor.
3. Increase the size of the on-site club house :outdoor pool.
4. Add a tot lot at the pool area.
5. Reduce on-site decorative paving by thirty percent (30%). Some of the reduction
is a cause of meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
6. Add a pedestrian connection to the park.
7. Replaced the wall along the northern prop~rty line with a tubular steel view fence
at the park edge.
Significant Revisions
1. The elimination of stone veneer on applicable internal building elevations. It
should be noted that building elevations which had required stone veneer will
keep such element on elevations visible :from Hillside Drive and Canyon Hills
Drive.
2. Elimination of window shutters on certain building elevations. Elimination of
I'
window shutters may create an expanse of wall area, however, pot shelves and
window stucco surrounds have been added and/or replaced to mitigate this
scenario.
3. Building composites consist of Plans 1, 2, and 3. Plan 4 has been omitted. In
addition, each unit plan has been reduced in overall square footage.
,
4. Increase on-site landscape common areas by fourteen percent (14%). This has
"
been achieved by omitting Plan 4, thereby reducing the amount of on-site
building coverage and increasing area landscaping coverage
5. Add private walled patio areas to each: ground floor unit, thereby creating
additional private open space.
Staff finds that cumulatively the proposed changes meet the minimum quality and
attractiveness of the original project, which wa~ presented to and approved by the
Planning Commission. The City of Lake Elsinore IMunicipal Code refers to designs that
create interest, provide varying vistas, and demo'nstrate quality and originality (Section
17.82.060). Staff feels that the applicant has suggested acceptable alternatives without
the loss of quality to the overall project design 'and amenities. Therefore, staff is in
support of the proposed changes.
Environmental Determination
Environmental analysis and clearance for the Rardee Homes project is provided by
Addendum NO.2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Hills Specific
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~end@qtem...No. 14
Page 14 of 21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RDR 2005-28 Amendment No. 1
OCTOBER 21,2008
Plan. Addendum No.2 was approved by the City' Council on April 10, 2007, to address
changes associated with Canyon Hills Specific Amendment No.2.
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162, the
proposed amendment does not present a substantial change or new information that
would require further CEQA analysis. The environmental impacts associated with
development of the project were contemplated by Addendum No. 2 to the Final
Environmental Impact Report, and were fully analyzed and mitigated therein. No new
CEQA documentation is necessary for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
a. Waive further reading and adopt a resolution recommending City Council
approval of Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment No.1, based on
the Findings, Exhibits, and proposed Conditions of Approval.
Prepared By:
Kirt A. Coury, Project Planner
Approved By:
Tom Weiner, Acting Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1. Exhibit 'A': Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Exhibit 'B': Applicant's Description of Proposed Changes
5. Exhibit 'C': Visual Comparison of Approved and Proposed Elevations
Agenda Item No. _
Pa~a>~tem-No. 14
Page 15 of 21
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-79
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. 2005-28 AMENDMENT NO.' 1
WHEREAS, Mr. David Dunham, Pardee Homes has filed an application with the
City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of an Amendment to a Residential Design
Review for the Parkside Terrace Condominium Community (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been
delegated with the responsibility of reviewing and recommending to the City Council of
the City of Lake Elsinore whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny multiple
family Residential Design Review projects within the Canyon Hills Specific Plan area;
and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the Planning
Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this
item on October 21, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed
amendment to the design and building elevations for the Parkside Terrace
Condominium Community and has found them acceptable. The Planning Commission
finds and determines that the Parkside Terrace Condominium Community design is
consistent with Amendment NO.2 of the Canyon Hills Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
environmental analysis and clearance for the project is provided by Addendum NO.2 to
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Hills Specific Plan. In
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162, the
proposed amendment does not present a substantial change or new information that
would require further CEQA analysis. The environmental impacts associated with
development of the project were contemplated by Addendum No. 2 to the Final
Environmental Impact Report, and were fully analyzed and mitigated therein. No new
CEQA documentation is necessary for this project'
SECTION 3. That in accordance with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter
17.82, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of
Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment NO.1:
1. The project complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan
and the Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No.2, as approved.
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 16 of 21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-79
PAGE 2 OF 4
The General Plan designates the project site as "Canyon Hills Specific Plan." The
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 designates the project site as "MF2."
The Parkside Terrace Condominium Community will ultimately lead to the
construction of a multi-family condominium development that is consistent with
Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment NO.2.
2. This project complies with the design directives contained in Chapter 17.82.060 and
all other applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
The Project is appropriate to the site and surrounding developments in that it will
result in the construction of multi-family 'attached units in accordance with
appropriate development and design standards contained in Canyon Hills Specific
Plan Amendment NO.2. The Project, as amended, creates interest and varying
vistas as a person moves along any street within the Parkside Terrace Community.
The amended Project also complements the quality of existing neighboring
development and will continue to provide visually-complimenting and compatible
design and architecture within the project area.
3. Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.82.070, including guarantees and
evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of
the project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the General
Plan, Municipal Code, and Canyon Hills Specific Plan Amendment NO.2.
The Planning Commission has considered the Project and finds that with the
attached conditions of approval, the Project complies with the purposes and
objectives of the General Plan, Municipal Code and Canyon Hills Specific Plan
Amendment NO.2.
SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and
the conditions of approval imposed upon the Commercial Design Review, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council for the City of Lake Elsinore
approve Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment NO.1.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its
passage and adoption.
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 17 of 21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2i008_79
PAGE 3 OF 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of October 2008.
Axel Zanelli, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 18 of 21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-79
PAGE 4 OF 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
)
)ss.
)
I, TOM WEINER, Acting Director of Community Development of the City of Lake
Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2008-79 was adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on
the 21st day of October 2008, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Chairman Axel Zanelli, Vice-Chairman Jimmy Flores, Commissioner's
John Gonzales, Phil Mendoza, and Michael O'Neal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Tom Weiner
Acting Director of Community Development
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 19 of 21
Chairman Zanelli opened the Publ
(
It was moved by Commissioner M oza, and,seconded by Vice Cha
a rove the Consent Calendar Item . 1.
NOES:
CHAIRMAN ZANELLI
VICE-CHAIRMAN FLORES
OM MISSIONER GONZALES
C ISSIONER MENDOZA
COM SIONER O'NEAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM/S)
2.
(
n h a brief overview of the \.
approved. He noted this is a
David Dunha ,
. . was-completed-on.
'ssion and staff for the hard work that
hey have read and approved the Conditions
stated he would be available to answer any questions that
ve.
Jay Skinner, ap. cant, noted he would be available to answer any questions that
the Commission may have. ;
Chairman Zanelli closed the Public Hearing at 6:12 p.m.
Commissioner O'Neal concurred with staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Gonzales spoke of the design of the project and agreed with staff's C
recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 14
Page 20 of 21
(
(
c
Commissioner Mendoza agreed with Commissioner O'Neal. He thanked the
appli.cant for working so hard with staff and coming up with changes that the City
requires.
Vice-Chairman Flores welcomed the applicant.
Chairman Zanelli concurred with staff and the Commission and thanked the
applicant.
3.
It was motioned by Commissioner Mendoza, seconded by
to adopt Resolution No. 2008-79, recommending to th
Residential Design Review No. 2005-28 Amendment
missioner Gonzales
ouncil approval of
The following vote resulted:
AYES:
NOES:
NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Chairman Zanelli closed the ublic Hearing at 6:19 p.m.
Co issioner Gonzales asked ab t the ladder on the outside 0 e building
Assoc e Planner Carlson indicated ladder would be located 0 the inside the
building. genda Item No. 14
Page 21 of 21
CITY OF ~
LAKE 6LSiNO~
, I
~.4 DREAM EXTREME.
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS Of THE CITY COUNCIL
fROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2008
SUBJECT: SUMMARY VACATION AND RELATED RESOLUTION OVER A
PORITON Of STREET RIGHT-Of-WAY KNOWN AS WASSON
CANYON ROAD.
Backaround
Wasson Canyon Road is a street right-of-way within Centex Homes' Rosetta Canyon
development within the "Ramsgate" Specific Plan. A portion of Wasson Canyon Road
between Riverside Street and Rosetta Canyon Drive ("the Vacation Segment") is not
generally used by the public for street purposes and the segment proposed for vacation
is not a city maintained road.
Traffic circulation in the area surrounding the Vacation Segment is accommodated by
alternative roads that have been or will be built as part of the Ramsgate Specific Plan.
Consequently, the Vacation Segment exists only on paper and is not essential to the
circulation system in Ramsgate Specific Plan or the surrounding area.
Discussion
Wasson Canyon Road is no longer necessary because alternative streets have been or
will be built to accommodate traffic that Wasson Canyon Road was anticipated to
accommodate. The alternative roads are: Rosetta Canyon Road, Elsinore Hills Road,
and local access roads proposed in connection with Tract 25476, Tract 25478, and
Tract 25479. A majority of the original land dedicated for Wasson Canyon Road now
lies within a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Area, rendering the dedication
unsuitable for use as right-of-way.
In accordance with Streets & Highways Code section 8313, the Planning Commission
considered the summary roadway vacation and whether it conforms to the General Plan
Circulation Element and found it in concurrence by a vote of 5 to O.
Agenda Item No. 15
Page 1 of 5
Summary Vacation of Wasson Canyon Road
November 11 , 2008
Page 2
The summary vacation complies with all other requirements of Streets and Highways
Code sections 2381, and 8300-8363 and staff has determined that no properties will be
landlocked as a result of the abandonment
Fiscal Impact
None.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No.
,
Summary Vacation of a Portion of Wasson Canyon Road.
approving the
Prepared by:
Ken A. Seumalo '{J6
Director of Public Works, City Engineer
Approved by:
Robert A. Brady
City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution
Vicinity Map
Agenda Item No. 15
Page 2 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, FOR THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF WASSON
"
CANYON ROAD
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore has determined that a
certain street right-of-way is no longer necessary to be utilized as public right-of-way, said
easement being more particularly described as follows:
That the portion of Wasson Canyon Road described as follows:
Being portions of Wasson Canyon Road, declare,d a public highway January 8, 1890 by
the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and depicted by map number 52 of
Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the Riverside County Surveyor, lying within
Sections 28, 29, and 32, Township 5 South, Range 4 West S.B.M., County of Riverside,
State of California, having a basis of bearing of North 31030'44" West and said portion
being more particularly described as follows on exhibit "A" and illustrated on exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part of:
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Lake Elsinore desires to vacate said
right-of-way pursuant to the procedures set forth in Streets and Hiahwavs Code Section
8335, et sea.:
WHEREAS, the vacation is permitted by law under pursuant to the conditions set
forth in Streets and Hiahwavs Code Section 8333; !
WHEREAS, That from and after the dateJhe resolution is recorded, the street,
highway, or public service easement vacated no longer constitutes a street, highway, or
public service easement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore
as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. That based on the evidence submitted at said public hearing, the City
Council hereby finds that the street and alleys described in this Resolution is
unnecessary for present and prospective use.
3. That the street and alleys right-of-way more particular described above is
hereby ordered to be vacated.
4. That the City Clerk I hereby ordered to record the Resolution of Vacation in
the Riverside County Recorder's Office.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thi~ 11th day of November,
Agenda Item No. 15
Page 3 of 5
2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTENTIONS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
DERYL HICKMAN, Mayor
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk
City of Lake Elsinore
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
BARBARA LEIBOLD, City Attorney
City of Lake Elsinore
Agenda Item No. 15
Page 4 of 5
RIVERSIDE SlREET
PROJECT SITE
~ROIIll
Il~
VICINITY MAP
VACATION OF PORTIONS OF WASSON CANYON ROAD
November 11, '2008
Agenda Item No. 15
Page 5 of 5
,