HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 2CITY OF
LADE
LSINORE
DREAM EXTREME�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ROBERT A. BRADY,
CITY MANAGER
APRIL 20, 2010
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2010 -02;
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY
SECTION 17.44.130(D) OF THE LAKE ELSINORE
MUNICIPAL CODE (LEMC) TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF
CHAIN LINK FENCE AS AN ACCEPTABLE FENCING
MATERIAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH DETACHED SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
APPLICANT: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE: 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET,
LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530
Purpose
This report is intended to present information to the Planning Commission in order to make
a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to
amend Section 17.44.130 (D); of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC). If approved,
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02 will prohibit the use of chain link fence as
an acceptable fencing material for either new or replacement fencing in association with
property perimeter fencing for detached single - family residential development.
Discussion
Each year staff receives several inquiries from residents regarding the use of chain link as
an acceptable fencing material for property perimeter fencing in association with detached
single - family residential development. LEMC Section 17.44.130(D), which addresses
acceptable fencing materials, is currently silent with respect to the chain link issue resulting
in confusion and misunderstandings. Staff believes the Municipal Code does not address
the chain link issue intentionally serving to prohibit its use for aesthetic reasons. Moreover,
staff concurs that chain link should not be permitted as a fencing material in association
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 1 of 47
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02
April 20, 2010
Page 2 of 3
with property perimeter fencing for detached single - family residences.
Therefore, to clarify the issue, staff recommends that specific language be added to LEMC
Section 17.44.130(D) stating that chain link fencing is prohibited (See Attachment No. 2
for draft language). Staff believes that adding this language will serve to address any
ambiguity or false interpretation regarding this issue in the future.
It should be noted that this prohibition will only apply to property perimeter fencing
associated with detached single - family residences. Staff believes that chain link fencing
material should continue to be an option in association with other types of residential
development throughout the City in accordance with LEMC provisions.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was
completed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The
Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant environmental
impacts. A Negative Declaration has accordingly been prepared and released for review.
The Negative Declaration review period began on March 30, 2010 and ended on April 19,
2010.
The City received only one (1) comment during the review period. On April 1, 2010, the
California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) provided a letterto the Citythatthe project,
based on the submitted Negative Declaration /Initial Study, had no potential effect on fish,
wildlife, and habitat. Thus, the project is exempt from the CDFG CEQA filing fee (See
Attachment No. 5).
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -_, recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02 and the adoption
of the Negative Declaration.
Prepared By: Agustin Resendiz, AC �or iY—
Associate Planner
Approved By: Robert A. Brady,
City Manager )�
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 2 of 47
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02
April 20, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. "Draft" Ordinance
3. Negative Declaration and Initial Study
4. Notice of Public Hearing and Availability and Intent to adopt an Initial
Study /Negative Declaration
5. California Department of Fish & Game "CEQA Filing Fee No Effect
Determination Form."
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 3 of 47
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVAL OF ZONING
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2010 -02 AND THE
ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
THEREFORE
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Lake
Elsinore has initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02, which amends
Section 17.44.130(D); to prohibit the use of "Chain Link" fence as an acceptable fencing
material for new fencing or replacement fencing in association with detached single -
family residential development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elsinore wishes to provide clear standards
for the utilization of chain link fencing materials associated with lot perimeter fencing for
detached single - family residential development, which can be applied throughout the
City of Lake Elsinore; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, Section 15070, the City of Lake Elsinore prepared a Negative Declaration
to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the City's adoption of
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.188.040 of the LEMC stipulates that the Planning
Commission render its recommendation on a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment,
including the reasons for the recommendation, to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing, held on April 20, 2010, the
Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Department and other interested parties with respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission considered the proposed Negative
Declaration before making its recommendation that the City Council approve the
environmental document.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15070 it was
appropriate to prepare a Negative Declaration for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
No. 2010 -02 since the initial study revealed that there was no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The purpose of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02 is to
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 4 of 47
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -
Page 2 of 5
prohibit the use of "Chain Link" fence as an acceptable fencing material for new fencing
or replacement fencing associated with lot perimeter fencing for detached single - family
residential development; and
SECTION 3. In accordance with Government Code Section 65855, the
Planning Commission sets forth the following findings for its recommendation that the
City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02:
1. The proposed Text Amendment to Sections 17.44.130(D); of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code will contribute to the aesthetics of the City of Lake Elsinore
and the comfort and the general welfare of the persons working and /or residing within
the City as it seeks to amend the aforementioned section of the LEMC to prohibit the
use of "Chain Link" fence as an acceptable fencing material for new fencing or
replacement fencing associated with detached single - family residential development;
and
2. The proposed Text Amendment will not be injurious to property or
improvements within the City as the proposed amendment will amend Section
17.44.130(D); of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code in order to prohibit the use of "Chain
Link" fence as an acceptable fencing material for new fencing or replacement fencing
association with detached single - family residential development; and
3. The proposed Text Amendment is consistent with the current General
Plan and will continue to serve as an important link between the City's built environment
and the natural environment. The proposed amendments to the section listed above are
only modifying language within existing codified Zoning Districts. Text Amendment No.
2010 -02 is not proposing any new Zoning Districts that would require General
Plan /Zoning Code consistency findings.
SECTION 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented and the above
findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore amend the following sections of the LEMC:
17.44.130 Residential Development Standards
D. Fencing.
1. In new subdivisions or developments of four or more units a solid block wall a
minimum of six feet in height shall be provided along side and rear lot lines of less than
12,000 square feet to provide privacy and screening.
2. On infill development of less than four units a solid wooden fence, a minimum
of six feet in height, shall be provided along side and rear lot lines to provide privacy
and screening, unless adjacent to a street right -of -way where a block wall is required as
specified in subsection (D)(3) of this section. When there is an existing well- maintained
fence, new fencing requirements may be waived.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 5 of 47
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -
Page 3 of 5
3. Adjacent to a street right -of -way required fences shall be constructed of
decorative block, brick, or stucco, or similar decorative masonry material.
4. Wrought iron fencing or combination block and wrought iron fencing may be
utilized in place of the fences required above to preserve views or provide greater
openness.
5. The Planning Commission at design review may approve alternative fencing
materials along interior lot lines where a block wall is required (per subsection (D)(1) of
this section) provided the proposed wood fence is a minimum of six feet in height and
incorporates the following construction design style and site characteristics:
a. A galvanized steel post at least at every eight feet on center with
appropriate foundation;
b. A box - framed wood fence style with overlapping vertical (or horizontal)
members (plants) to avoid gaps in the fencing;
c. Wood fence shall be painted (a neutral color) or treated on both sides to
protect from weatherization;
d. Wood fence shall not be significantly visible or adjacent to the public
right -of -way;
(1) Except fencing between dwellings visible from the front yard which
may be permitted;
(2) Wood fencing on rear and side lot lines in a hillside development
(terraced or layered lots) shall not be permitted when the lot lines are located atop
slopes in excess of six feet high and would be significantly visible from a right -of -way;
(3) Any fencing that would normally be out of view on interior side and
rear property lines but due to development phasing will be in plain view from a public
right -of -way for a period longer than 90 days shall be either masonry or wrought iron
style construction or a combination thereof.
6 7. The Planning Commission may waive fencing requirements in hillside areas
where side and /or rear lot line slope is extremely severe and it can be shown that
fencing will serve no purpose.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 6 of 47
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -
Page 4 of 5
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of
its passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20 day of April 2010, by the
following vote:
Jimmy Flores, Chairman
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
Robert A. Brady,
City Manager
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 7 of 47
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -
Page 5 of 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
I, ROBERT A. BRADY, City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California,
hereby certify that Resolution No. 2010- was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 20` day of
April 2010, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Robert A. Brady,
City Manager
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 8 of 47
"DRAFT ORDINANCE"
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
17.44.130(D) OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF CHAIN LINK
AS AN ACCETABLE FENCING MATERIAL IN
ASSOCIATION WITH DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Laws of the State of California
authorize the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore to adopt ordinances that, among
other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City and its sphere of influence for industry, business, residences,
and open space; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore desires to amend
the Lake Elsinore Zoning Code (Title 17) to clarify the use of chain link fencing material
in association with property perimeter fencing for detached single - family residential
development; and
WHEREAS, based on evidence presented by the Community
Development Department and other interested parties at a duly noticed public hearing
on 2010, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve this ordinance amending section 17.44.130(D) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code regarding the prohibition of chain link fencing as an acceptable fencing material;
and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing, held on , 2010, the
City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and evidence
presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties
regarding the proposed Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. All amendments to Title 17 shall be reflected by the following
structure: additions are shown in underline and deletions are shown in 6#ikethreugh.
SECTION 2. That Section 17.44.130(D) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code be
amended as follows:
D. Fencing.
1. In new subdivisions or developments of four or more units a solid block wall a
minimum of six feet in height shall be provided along side and rear lot lines of less than
12,000 square feet to provide privacy and screening.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 9 of 47
2. On infill development of less than four units a solid wooden fence, a minimum
of six feet in height, shall be provided along side and rear lot lines to provide privacy
and screening, unless adjacent to a street right -of -way where a block wall is required as
specified in subsection (D)(3) of this section. When there is an existing well- maintained
fence, new fencing requirements may be waived.
3. Adjacent to a street right -of -way required fences shall be constructed of
decorative block, brick, or stucco, or similar decorative masonry material.
4. Wrought iron fencing or combination block and wrought iron fencing may be
utilized in place of the fences required above to preserve views or provide greater
openness.
5. The Planning Commission at design review may approve alternative fencing
materials along interior lot lines where a block wall is required (per subsection (D)(1) of
this section) provided the proposed wood fence is a minimum of six feet in height and
incorporates the following construction design style and site characteristics:
a. A galvanized steel post at least at every eight feet on center with
appropriate foundation;
b. A box - framed wood fence style with overlapping vertical (or horizontal)
members (plants) to avoid gaps in the fencing;
c. Wood fence shall be painted (a neutral color) or treated on both sides to
protect from weatherization;
d. Wood fence shall not be significantly visible or adjacent to the public
right -of -way;
(1) Except fencing between dwellings visible from the front yard which
may be permitted;
(2) Wood fencing on rear and side lot lines in a hillside development
(terraced or layered lots) shall not be permitted when the lot lines are located atop
slopes in excess of six feet high and would be significantly visible from a right -of -way;
(3) Any fencing that would normally be out of view on interior side and
rear property lines but due to development phasing will be in plain view from a public
right -of -way for a period longer than 90 days shall be either masonry or wrought iron
style construction or a combination thereof.
single - family residential development.
657. The Planning Commission may waive fencing requirements in hillside areas
where side and /or rear lot line slope is extremely severe and it can be shown that
fencing will serve no purpose.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of
this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance and are
hereby declared to be severable.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 10 of 47
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its
final passage. The City Clerk shall certify as to adoption of this Ordinance and cause
this Ordinance to be published and posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on this _day of _ 2010.
MELISSA A. MELENDEZ, MAYOR
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
ATTEST:
CAROL COWLEY,
INTERIM CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BARBARA LEIBOLD
CITY ATTORNEY
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 11 of 47
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 the foregoing Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore on the day of
, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Lake Elsinore held on the day of , by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL COWLEY
INTERIM CITY CLERK
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 12 of 47
CITY OE irc
LADE LL2"LSIIY0IZE
��u DREA
1 � �
INITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2010
for
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02
(Prohibition of Chain Link Fencing in Association with Single- Family
Residential Development)
Prepared By:
City of Lake Elsinore
Community Development Department
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
March 30, 2010
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 13 of 47
INITIAL STUDY
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 2100o, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Guidelines
for Implementation of CEQA (14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000 et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines "). According to
Section 15o63(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Lake Elsinore) with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration; and
to
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR
is prepared, thereby enabling the project to quality for a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and to
3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; and to
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; and to
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the findings in a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and to
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and to
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 14 of 47
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, California 92530
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner
(95 674 - 3124, ext. 232
4. Project Location
Citywide, applicable to detached Single- Family Development.
5. Project Applicant Name and Address
City of Lake Elsinore
13o South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
6. General Plan Designation(s)
Mountainous (M), Very Low Density (VLD), Low Density (LD), Low Medium Density (LMD),
Medium Density (MD), Medium High Density (MHD), High Density (HD) and Mixed Use (MU).
7. Zoning
R -M -R (Rural Mountainous Residential District), R -R (Rural Residential District), R -E (Estate
Single - Family Residential District), R -H (Hillside Single - Family Residential Development
District), R-1 (Single-Family Residential District), R -2 (Medium Density Residential District) and
R -3 (High Density Residential District).
8. Description of Project
The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is proposing to modify Section 17.44.130 (d) (Residential
Development Standards) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) to prohibit the use of
chain link fence as an acceptable fencing material for new or replacement fencing in association
with residential developments Citywide. Currently, the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) is
silent with respect to chain link fencing. However, it does address other types of permitted
fencing materials. The proposed amendment will serve to clarify this issue.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Varies by location as Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02 applies Citywide to
all properties in residential zones.
io.
None.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 16 of 47
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Agricultural Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology /Water Quality
❑
Land Use /Planning
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population /Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
[
❑
Utilities /Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the 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 or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ 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 i) 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.
❑ 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.
4
Si ` tdre
M 3 0, 201
Date
Agu Rese
Print Name
Associat Planner
Title
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 16 of 47
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION CHECKLIST
i. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of 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.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
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
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
"Earlier Analyses," cited in support of conclusions reached in other sections may be cross -
referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used — Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed — Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures —For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific
conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used
to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to
less than significance.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 17 of 47
A. AESTHETICS Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant
Significant Significant No Impact
Would the project: Impact M
Mitigation Impact
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? ❑ ❑ ❑
2. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a ❑ ❑ ❑
state scenic highway ?)
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its El El El surroundings ?)
4.
Create a source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑
views in the area?
❑
❑
B.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES* Potentially
3 ss Thant
Less Than
Significant
nth
Significant
No
Impact
p
Would the project: Impact
Mitigation
Impact
5.
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 nonagricultural use?
6.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural El
El
El
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
7. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use?
* In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 18 of 47
C. AIR QUALITY* Potentiall
Less Than Less Than
Significant
No
Significant
Significant
mpact
Im
Would the project: Impact
Impact
Mitigation
8. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑
❑ ❑
the applicable air quality plan?
directly or through habitat modifications, on
g. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
any species identified as a candidate,
substantially to an existing or projected air ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
quality violation?
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
lo. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
the California Department of Fish and Game
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
project region is non - attainment under an
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑
❑ ❑
standard (including releasing emissions
community identified in local or regional ❑
El ❑
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
plans, policies, regulations or by the
ozone precursors)?
California Department of Fish and Game or
11. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑
❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations ?)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
12. Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑
❑ ❑
substantial number of people ?)
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not ❑
❑ ❑
Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable
air quality
management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following
determinations.
D.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant Less Than
Significant No Impact
Impact
With
Mitigation Impact
Would the project:
13.
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?
14.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional ❑
El ❑
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
15.
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?
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 19 of 47
D. BIOLOGICAL
16.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the project:
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?
17. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
18. 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 Less Than
Significant Significant No Impact
With Impact
Mitigation
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
El
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
19.
M
21.
22.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section15o64.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Sectiont5o64.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
23. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
Less Than Less than
Significant
With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant Impact With
Mitigation
❑ ❑
Less than No
Significant pact
Impact
■ /5
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 20 of 47
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Less Than
Potentially Significant
WJ
Would the project: Significant Impact Mitigation
Less than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
water disposal system where sewers are not
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
available for the disposal of waste water?
❑
❑
State Geologist for the area or based on
❑
❑
❑
other substantial evidence of known fault?
Potenti all y
Less Than
Significant
Less than
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
With
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
Special Pub. 42.
Impact
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
c. Seismic - related ground failure, including
❑
❑
❑
liquefaction?
d. Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
24. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of
❑
❑
❑
topsoil?
25. 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,
❑
❑
❑
N
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse
26. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 -i -B of the Uniform Building Code
❑
❑
❑
N
( 1 994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
27. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
❑
❑
❑
G. HAZARD AND HAZARD
MATERIALS
Potenti all y
Less Than
Significant
Less than
Significant
With
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
28. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, ❑ ❑ ❑
use or disposal of hazardous materials?
29. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
up -set and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 21 of 47
G. HAZARD AND HAZARD
MATERIALS Potentially Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Significant No Impact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
30. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ 1:1 El waste within one - quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
31. 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?
32. 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?
33• 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?
34• Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
❑ ❑
❑
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
35• 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?
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
36. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
El
Less than No
Significant Impact
Impact
� MR
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 22 of 47
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially
LesssTh Less than
Significant
No
Si Significant
With Impact
Would the project: Impact
Mitigation Impact
37. 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 ❑
❑ ❑ IK
rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a
❑
level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
38. 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site?
39• Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
El
El
El
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
40. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
❑
41. Place housing within a loo -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
❑
❑
❑
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
42. Place within a ioo -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
❑
❑
❑
flood flows?
43. Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
❑
F-1
El
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
44• Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
I=111l111tra1141W11 .n»w:1% .Iau.Lei
Would the project:
45• Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
El
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
El
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
/1
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 23 of 47
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially
Significant
Would the project: Impact
46. 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?
47. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑
conservation plan?
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
48. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
49. 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
u
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Im
No Impact
Less than No
Significant Impact
Impact
■ /1
K. NOISE
Would the project result in:
50. 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?
51. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -
borne noise levels?
52.A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
53• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project?
Potentially S ss Thant Less than No
Significant j,V. P
Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 24 of 47
K. NOISE
Would the project result in:
54• 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?
Potentially Less Than
Significant �t scant
Impact Mitigation
X
55• For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose ❑
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially
Significant
Would the project: Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Lessthan No
Significant Impact
Impact
/1
■ //
Less than
Significant No
Impact Impact
56. Induce substantial population growth in an
❑
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
❑
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ❑
❑ ❑
example, through an extension of roads or other
❑
infra - structure)?
57. Displace substantial numbers of existing
❑
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑
❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
62. Parks?
58. Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑
❑ ❑
housing elsewhere?
❑
M. PUBLIC SERVICES*
Potentially ess Than Less than
S . Would the project result in substantial adversesignificant With
Mitigation Significant No Impact
physical impacts to the following: Impact Mitigation Impact
59• Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
60. Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
61. Schools?
❑
❑
❑
62. Parks?
❑
❑
❑
63. Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
* Include potential effects associated with the provision of
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.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 25 of 47
N. RECREATION
Potentially
Less Than
Significant
Less than
No
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Impact
p
Mitigation
Impact
p
64. 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?
65. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
1:1
F1
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Potenti ally
Less Than
Less than
I
Significant
vwtii
I Paficant No Impact
Would the project:
pactant
Mitigation
66. 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
El
❑
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
67. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
El
El
El
County congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
68. Result in a change in traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
❑
❑
❑
location that results in substantial safety risks?
69. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑
El
El
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
70. Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
71. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
72. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation
❑
❑
❑
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No. 2
Page 26 of 47
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than
Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant pact
Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact
73. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑
Board?
74. Require or result in the construction of new
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
❑
❑
❑
waste disposal needs?
of which could cause significant environmental
79. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑
❑ ❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
effects?
Less
ant
Sign fican Less than No
SIGNIFICANCE Significant
Significant Impact
Wi th
Impact
75. Require or result in the construction of new
80.Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑
❑
❑
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a El
existing facilities, the construction of which
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant
could cause significant environmental effects?
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
76. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
❑
❑
❑
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
77. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑
❑ ❑ EK
the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
78. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑
❑ ❑
waste disposal needs?
79. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑
❑ ❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially
Less
ant
Sign fican Less than No
SIGNIFICANCE Significant
Significant Impact
Wi th
Impact
Mitigation Impact
80.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 El
El
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 27 of 47
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potenti ally
Less Than I ess than
SIGNIFICANCE Significant
No
Significant Significant
With
Im act
p
Im
act Impact
Mitigation p
81. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project El
El ❑
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)?
82.Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑
❑ ❑
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
-End of Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist -
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 28 of 47
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION DISCUSSION
The following is a discussion of the potential impacts associated with the propose project, as identified
in the above Environmental Impact Evaluation Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item
below.
A. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista
or scenic resource.
2)
No Impact: See A -1 above.
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or guality of the site and its surroundings?
No Impact: The proposed text amendment involves no physical development and is limited
to the prohibition of chain link fencing materials in association with residential development.
Therefore, the project will not serve to substantially degrade, but rather improve the existing
visual character of a site and its surroundings, and the project will have no impacts.
4)
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.i3o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit-the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and light and
glare.
Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics None.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
5)
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 29 of 47
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and the
conversion of prime farmland to urban uses.
6) Conflict with existing zoning f or agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact: See B -5 above.
7)
No Impact: See B -5 above.
Mitigation Measures for Agricultural Resources None.
C. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or airpollution control district may be relied
upon to make thefollowing determinations. Would the project.
8) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality In an?
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and air quality
standards.
9)
No Impact: See C -8 above.
10)
No Impact: See C -8 above.
11) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact: See C -8 above.
12) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople�
No Impact: See C -8 above. PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 30 of 47
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impacts None.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
13)
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and any adopted
City, County, Regional, State or Federal Policy, Goal or Plan pertaining to the preservation
and /or conservation or biological resources in the City of Lake Elsinore.
14)
No Impact: See D -13 above.
15)
No Impact: See D -13 above.
16)
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact: See D -13 above.
17)
No Impact: See D -13 above.
18)
No Impact: See D -13 above.
Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources None
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 31 of 47
E.
19)
20)
21)
22)
F
23)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as de ned in
CEOA Guidelines Section1i7o64.,t;
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project involves no physical land use changes within the City of
Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and cultural or
archeological resources.
Cause a subst adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEOA Guidelines Section1.5o64..5?
No Impact: See E -19 above.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
f eature?
No Impact: See E -19 above.
Disturb anu human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact: See E -19 above.
Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources None.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a.)
Publication 42.
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d)
(Residential Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in
association with residential development. Therefore, no relationship exists between the
project and geology or soils.
b.) Strong seismic ground shaking
No Impact: See F -23 (a) above.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 32 of 47
c.) Seismic- related around failure including liquef action?
No Impact: See F -23 (a) above.
d.) Landslides?
No Impact: See F -23 (a) above.
24) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoilz
No Impact: See F -23 (a) above.
25)
No Impact: See F -23 (a).
26) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code OgQ4)
creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact: See F -23 (a) above.
27)
No Impact: See F -23 (a) above.
Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils None.
G. HAZARD AND HAZARD MATERIALS. Would the project:
28)
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d)
(Residential Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in
association with residential development. Therefore, no relationship exists between the
project and hazards or hazardous materials.
29)
M It i No. 2
Page 33 of 47
environment?
No Impact: See G -28 above.
30)
No Impact: See G -28 above.
31)
No Impact: See G -28 above.
3 2 )
No Impact: See G -28 above.
33)
No Impact: See G -28 above.
34)
No Impact: See G -28 above.
35)
No Impact: See G-28 above.
Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials None.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 34 of 47
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
4 2 )
43)
Violate any water q uality standards or waste discharge requirements
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project involves no physical land use changes within the City of
Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and hydrology or water
quality.
granted)?
No Impact: See H -36 above.
site?
No Impact: See H -36 above.
No Impact: See H -36 above.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. See H -36 above.
No Impact: See H -36 above.
Place within a loo -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
fl ows?
No Impact: See H -36 above.
No Impact: See H -36 above.
44) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud ow?
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 35 of 47
No Impact: See H -36 above.
Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Ouality None.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project.
45) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project does not involve permanent or physical separation of the
community.
46)
Less Than Sign}ficant Impact: See I -45 above.
47) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
No Impact. See I -45 above.
Mitigation Measures for Land Use None.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
48) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project involves no physical land use changes within the City of
Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and mineral resources.
M
No Impact: See J -48 above.
Mitigation Measures for Mineral Resources None.
K. NOISE. Would the project result in:
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 36 of 47
50)
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.i3o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project involves no physical land use changes within the City of
Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and the generation of noise.
51) Exposure of persons to or generations excessive ground borne vibration or around borne
noise levels?
No Impact: See K -5o above.
52) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
No Impact: See K -5o above.
53)
No Impact: See K -5o above.
54)
people residing or working in the proiect area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact: See K -5o above.
55) For a proiect within the vicinity of private airstrip would the proiect expose people residing
or working in the proiect area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact: See K -5o above.
Mitigation Measures for Noise None.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
56)
infrastructure)?
No Impact. The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing mate" l April o 2'a2010 Item No. 2
Page 37 of 47
residential development. The project involves no physical land use changes within the City of
Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists between the project and population or housing
resources.
57) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: See L -56 above.
58) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact: See L -56 above.
Mitigation Measures for Population and Housing None.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES.
59 - 63) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project serves as a regulatory amendment and involves no
physical land use changes within the City of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists
between the project and public services.
Mitigation Measures for Public Services None.
N. RECREATION
64)
No Impact: The proposed text amendment to the City's Municipal Code results in no physical
land use changes and will have no impact on City park facilities.
65)
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 38 of 47
No Impact. Refer to responses N -64 above.
Mitigation Measures to Recreation None.
O. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project.
66)
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project serves as a regulatory amendment and does not involve
the construction of new roads nor induce additional use of public /private roads or other forms
of transportation.
67)
No Impact: See 0 -66 above.
.:
No Impact. See 0 -66 above.
69)
No Impact. See 0 -66 above.
7o) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact: See 0 -66 above.
71) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact: See 0 -66 above.
72) Conflict with adopted policies plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact: See 0 -66 above.
Mitigation Measures for Traffic None.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 39 of 47
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
73) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact: The project proposes an amendment to LEMC Section 17.44.13o(d) (Residential
Development Standards) to prohibit the use of chain link fencing materials in association with
residential development. The project serves as a regulatory amendment and involves no
physical land use changes within the City of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, no relationship exists
between the project and utilities or service systems.
74)
No Impact: See P -73 above.
75)
No Impact: See P -73 above.
76)
No Impact: See P -73 above.
77)
the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact: See P -73 above.
78)
No Impact: See P -73 above.
79) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact: See P -73 above.
Mitigation Measures for Utilities None.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 40 of 47
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
No Impact: The project involves regulatory changes to the Municipal Code and no physical
development activity that could affect biological resources. Therefore, the proposed amendment
will have no impact on any sensitive plant or animal species or habitat. Likewise, there will be
no conflict with any adopted City, County, Regional, State or Federal Policies, Goals or Plans
pertaining to the preservation and /or conservation of biological resources in the City of Lake
Elsinore.
81)
No Impact: The project involves a Municipal Code Amendment with no associated
development activity and, as such, there are no related or cumulative projects to be considered.
82)
No Impact: This text amendment involves changes to the Municipal Code with no physical
development activity that could directly or indirectly affect human beings.
-End of Environmental Impact Evaluation Discussion -
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 41 of 47
REFERENCES FOR ENIVRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study:
i. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan.
2. City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, as amended.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 42 of 47
CITY OF i
LADE LSIHORE
DREAM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(95 674 Voice (95 471 -1419 Fax
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Entitlement No(s): Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No 2010 -02
Applicant: City of Lake Elsinore
Address: 130 S. Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
None
TRUSTEE AGENCIES (i.e., the California Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission,
State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California):
Notice Pursuant to Section 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code
A public hearing before the Planning Commission has been scheduled for April 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at
the City of Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 to consider
this project. At that time, all interested parties are welcome to address the Planning Commission on this
matter.
Prior to the public hearing, the public is invited to submit written comments on the proposed Negative
D claration to the Planning Division, attention Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner, 130 South Main
tr et, Lake Elsi ore, CA 92530 or phone (951) 674 -3124.
March 30, 2010
Date
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 43 of 47
Project Location: Citywide
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES (i.e., any agency that has discretionary approval power over the
project):
PROPOSED DRAFT LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
AMENDMENTS
17.44.130 Design — Single - Family Detached
D. Fencing.
1. In new subdivisions or developments of four or more units a solid block
wall a minimum of six feet in height shall be provided along side and rear lot lines
of less than 12,000 square feet to provide privacy and screening.
2. On infill development of less than four units a solid wooden fence, a
minimum of six feet in height, shall be provided along side and rear lot lines to
provide privacy and screening, unless adjacent to a street right -of -way where a
block wall is required as specified in subsection (D)(3) of this section. When there
is an existing well- maintained fence, new fencing requirements may be waived.
3. Adjacent to a street right -of -way required fences shall be constructed of
decorative block, brick, or stucco, or similar decorative masonry material.
4. Wrought iron fencing or combination block and wrought iron fencing
may be utilized in place of the fences required above to preserve views or
provide greater openness.
5. The Planning Commission at design review may approve alternative
fencing materials along interior lot lines where a block wall is required (per
subsection (D)(1) of this section) provided the proposed wood fence is a
minimum of six feet in height and incorporates the following construction design
style and siting characteristics:
a. A galvanized steel post at least at every eight feet on center with
appropriate foundation;
b. A box - framed wood fence style with overlapping vertical (or
horizontal) members (plants) to avoid gaps in the fencing;
c. Wood fence shall be painted (a neutral color) or treated on both
sides to protect from weatherization;
d. Wood fence shall not be significantly visible or adjacent to the
public right -of -way;
(1) Except fencing between dwellings visible from the front yard
which may be permitted;
(2) Wood fencing on rear and side lot lines in a hillside
development (terraced or layered lots) shall not be permitted when the lot lines
are located atop slopes in excess of six feet high and would be significantly
visible from a right -of -way;
(3) Any fencing that would normally be out of view on interior
side and rear property lines but due to development phasing will be in plain view
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 44 of 47
from a public right -of -way for a period longer than 90 days shall be either
masonry or wrought iron style construction or a combination thereof.
6. Chain link fencing shall be prohibited as an acceptable fencing
material for all new or replacement fencing in association with all single - family
detached residential development.
6--7. The Planning Commission may waive fencing requirements in hillside
areas where side and /or rear lot line slope is extremely severe and it can be
shown that fencing will serve no purpose.
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 45 of 47
CITY OF
LADE LSII`IOIZE
DREAM EXTREME.
Notice of Public Hearing and Availability
and Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/
Negative Declaration
(In compliance with Section 15o72 of the Public Resource
Code) L 0 L F D
1 I
!`�` R(VRRS[DE couNrY
MAR 3 ! 2010
Project Title: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 2010 -02 LARRY WAVARD' CLERK
BY u7 B_Raesc
Project Location: City-wide as appropriate
Project Location (City): City of Lake Elsinore Project Location (County): Riverside County
Description of Project: The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is proposing to modify Section 17.44.13o(d);
of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) to prohibit the use of chain link fence as an acceptable
fencing material for new fencing or replacement fencing associated with residential development.
Name of Lead Agency: City of lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, Planning Division
Lead Agency Contact Person: Agustin Resendiz, Associate Planner
Telephone Number: (95 674 - 3 12 4, ext 2 3 2
Address where document may be obtained: City of Lake Elsinore,
13o South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Copies also available at the following libraries: Lake Elsinore Library
Public Review Period (2o days):Begins: March 31, 2010 Ends: April 19, 2010
A public hearing before the Planning Commission has been scheduled for April 20, 2010 at 6:oo
p.m. at the City of Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 9
to consider the project.
Anyone interested in this matter is invited to comment on the document by written response or
by personal appearance at the hearing. For inquires please contact: Agustin Resendiz, Associate
Planner (951) 6 74 - 3 12 4, ext 232
Signed:
�� C WED
APR a 1 no
CIP , N NG DIVISION
Title: Associate Planner
COUNTY CLERK
Neg Declaration /Ntc Determination
Filed per P. R.C. 21152
POSTED
MFR 31 2010
Removed:
By: Dept.
CountvnfRiverside.3tate otC;Jifornia
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 46 of 47
FROM :DEPT OF FISH 8 GAME ONTARIO FA\ NO. :9094512945 Apr. 01 2010 03:50PM P2
NEIIJON State of Cal i .la TThe,[tesources Agen� ARNOLO S Governor
IV DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
Environmental Review and Permitting
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1260
Sacramento, California 96814
CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form
Applicant Name: City of Lake Elsinore Date Submitted: March 30, 2010
Applicant Address: 130 S. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, Ca 92630
Project Name: Text Amendment No. 2010 -02
CEQA Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore
CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration (ND)
SCH Number and /or Local Agency ID Number: N/A
Project Location: Citywide in all residential districts.
Brief Project Description: The City of Lake Elsinore (City) is proposing to modify Section
17.44.130(d); of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) to prohibit the use of chain link fence
as an acceptable fencing material for new fencing or replacement fencing associated with
single- family residential development.
Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and
Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F &G Code
711.4(c)) the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as
described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any
way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any
potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA.
Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this
determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the
CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this
determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing
fee will be due and payable.
Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project
operative, vested, or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid,
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). .
DFG
Title•
DFG 753.5 (01107)
will not be
pursuant to
Date: L 2616
Conserving California's Wif fife Since 1870
PC April 20, 2010 Item No. 2
Page 47 of 47