HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. SA8CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 =3 CONTINUED
69. No building shall be constructed, maintained or used other
than for the purpose specified in the. approved Final
Specific Plan as required hereinafter.
70. All future proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a
project -by- project basis. If determined necessary by the
Community Development Director or designee, additional
environmental analysis will be required.
s
71. All habitat resources planned for removal, preservation,
creation, or enhancement are subject to the review and
permit issuance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Sections 1601 -1603 of the State
Department of Fish and Game, where these Agencies have
jurisdiction. Copies of all permits (404 and 1603) and
conditions attached to the permits shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director or designee for review
prior to the removal of any habitat.
72. Prior to the issuance of any -. building permits 'for
residential or commercial land uses, in any particular
phase of the project, Applicant, shall submit to the
Planning Commission for review and approval, a Master Sign
Program for all on -site signs in that phase, which shall
include but not be limited to commercial identification
signs, on -site residential and commercial directional
signs, and project area convenience signs. The sign
program shall provide text and exhibits in a bound format
containing all relevant sign criteria including but not
limited to sign construction material, colors, height, and
letter style.
73. Prior to Certificate of occupancy for any Commercial
project that could employ 100 or more persons, Applicants
shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) . Said TRP shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
All applicable_ development.,shall.incorporate facilities
and /or programs in.their development plans sufficient to
attain a 12% work related trip reduction from expected
number of trips related to the project as indicated in the
Trip Generation Handbook published by the Institute of
Traffic Engineers .(ITE). Trip- reduction shall be
calculated in accordance with standards established by the
Southern California Association of Governments. (SCAG)
and /or the.South Coast Air.Quality Management District
(AQMD). The plan shall'.address.the.following measures,
taking into consideration the nature, type and use'of, the
commercial development being proposed.
a) Preferential parking for.the vehicles .
b) Bicycle parking and shower facilities
C) Information centers for''transportation alternatives
74. Applicant shall- comply .with the City's approved
landscaping.standards in _effect at the time of approval of
this Specific Plan with respect to the landscaping in
medians, parkways,-expanded,parkways and-adjacent slopes
to be maintained by_the city or Landscaping Maintenance
District. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
approved by the" Engineering Department and City's
Landscape Architect.
75. Except as otherwise provided in theSpecific Plan or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer, roadway standards
for Lake Elsinore relating to the minimum local street
radii, maximum cul -de -sac length, maximum grade and
minimum sidewalk width must be followed.
76. Developer shall comply with all mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted
with the East Lake Final E.I.R. 93 -3.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE OF
Land Use Plan
AG i.1 '.7 .i ITEM teC?.
PAGE OI
uvnu�
°
•WN.LLIn
\
tYlsun
qL�
:...:1
®emu -
r�
.. Mo1FCF J:1
u.
Vicinity Map
Land Use Plan
AG i.1 '.7 .i ITEM teC?.
PAGE OI
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFICATION OF EIR
93 -3 AND APPROVAL OF EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS (EAST
LAKE) SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3
The Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore does
resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby certifies that
there has been filed with the City of Lake Elsinore an application
by Eastlake Community Builders,-for adoption of Specific Plan 93 -3,
which consists of approximately 3,000, acres, for a -mix of
residential, commercial, and open space uses along with
infrastructure and public service improvements. East. Lake is
located along the eastern shoreline of Lake Elsinore and is
generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on the north, Mission Trail
and Corydon Road on the east, the city boundary line on the south,
and the shoreline of Lake Elsinore on the west. Due notice of said
application has been given and public hearing- conducted thereon
pursuant to State Planning and Zoning Law and local ordinances;
Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. The East Lake Specific Plan meets the City's Specific
Plan criteria for content and required implementation of
the General Plan established by Section 65450 of the
California Government Code and section 17.99 of'the City
of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
2. The East Lake Specific Plan is consistent with the Goals,
Policies and Objectives of the General Plan, and with any
other applicable plan or policies adopted by the City for
the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 (pp.III -1 through
III -14) of the Specific Plan.
3. The Development Regulations contained within the Specific
Plan supersede otherwise applicable City ordinances and
codes, unless specifically stated to the contrary in the
Specific Plan.
4. The EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and is
complete and adequate. As set forth in the Statement of
Facts, Findings,, and Overriding Considerations, all
significant adverse impacts have either been mitigated to
acceptable levels, or have been found to be overridden by
economic, social, or other benefits derived from the
project.
5. This request will result in significant environmental
impacts associated with land use, air quality, biological
resources, energy resources, aesthetics, agriculture,
seismicity, water quality, traffic, school construction,
utilities and services which may be partially mitigated
but are anticipated to remain significant upon
development of the site as allowed under the General
Plan. These impacts are therefore found to be acceptable
under the General Plan, specifically the provision of
quality housing opportunities by the City, the
anticipated increase in local government revenues
generated by project residents and the provision of
significant infrastructure improvements, all of which are
expected to support local commercial and industrial
development efforts and generate measurable benefits to
the local economy and fiscal integrity of City
government.
6. The proposed location of the project allows the
development to be well- integrated with its surroundings.
FAsE 3 OF I� /
Resolution 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 2
7. All vehicular traffic generated by the development,
either in phased increments or at full build -out, will be
accommodated safely and without causing undue congestion
upon adjoining streets.
8. Except as limited by State Law, including SB 1287, the
Specific Plan identifies methodologies to allow land uses
to be adequately serviced by existing or proposed public
facilities and services. Suitable areas are reserved for
schools, parks and pedestrian ways.
9. The overall design of the Specific Plan will produce.an
attractive, efficient and stable development.
10. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the
persons residing or working-within the project area or.
within the City, nor will it be injurious to property or
improvements in the project area or within the City.
Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council certify Environmental Impact Report 93 -3, and approve
Specific Plan 93 -3, based upon the above findings and the
Conditions of,Approval listed in the Staff Report.
Section 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall
certify the adoption of this resolution and forward a copy to the
City Clerk for reference and consideration of the City Council.
Pamela Brinley, Chairwoman
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the preceding resolution was adopted by the
Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof conducted on May
5, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: - Commissioners:
Kevin Shear, Secretary to the
Planning Commission
C I T Y 0 F L A K E EL 0 1 N 0 R 2
X E M 0 R A N D UM.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chip Leslie, City Planner
DATE: Planning commission Meeting of May 5, 1993
SUBJECT: East Lake Specific Plan 93-3
The attached correspondence was- received by staff in regards to .a
specific property within ,the-East-Lake Specific Plan boundary.
Phi= SS OF
SPORTSMAN'S LODGE
c/o GREGORY A. BLACK
777 So. Pacific Coast Hwy. #105 �
Solana Beach, CA 92075 Inl� n
JAN j t lsj�
January 20, 1993�U -' --1
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main St.
Lake Elsinore, CA 92330
Attn: Ron Molendyke
Gary Washburn
Re: 2088 - 2090—
East Lakeshore Dr.
Map Enclosed
I represent the owners of the property referred to above.
This property (zoned C -1) runs alongside the inflow channel to
the lake stabilization plan. It is zoned commercial, was paid
for at commercial prices, has freeway visability and access, and
is presently being used for commercial purposes (The Lions Mane
Hair Salon, Canyon Lake Battery, and a thrift shop).
Under the proposed specific plan for the lakefront area, the
zoning for this property is identified as medium density
residential. This is clearly not appropriate. In 1984 City
Council approved construction of a 93,000 square foot shopping
center for this site.
Upon completion of the lake stabilization effort, we intend
to build a similiar shopping center. Please consider this as a
request to re- examine the proposed zoning of this parcel as it
relates to the specific plan. Please advise me of any additional
steps that I can take to obtain the proper results.
Sincerel
Gregory A. Block
General Managing Partner
Sportsman's Lodge
PAGE 5- -L CE /�9
1
i
Q �
r YY`
R
ti
1 �
v
e
b
b
m
b
A
M
� 32
a
e
m _
s
C
i
•�
a
�w�
A,( ?
a
\O�
a�
a
s
ur
�' 4y
�l \(f
:xa
w
v
c.,
n` b
I�\Z- .�.. .'E • tt f1
CND., 1 L...
FAG= 557 0
a
A,( ?
a
\O�
A to
1
a
%
It .
"i5Fr
1 T.e
a�
a
s
ur
�' 4y
�l \(f
:xa
w
v
c.,
n` b
I�\Z- .�.. .'E • tt f1
CND., 1 L...
FAG= 557 0
C I T Y O F L A K E E L B I N O R E
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chip Leslie, City Planner
DATE: Planning Commission Meeting of May 5, 1993
SUBJECT: East Lake Specific Plan 93 -3 and EIR 93 -3
t
Attached ate two letters received from Mr. Paul Pribble, Senior
Project Engineer and Managing Director of Mentor Aviation
International. The letters generally reiterate comments previously
submitted by Mr. Pribble and refer to previous correspondence.
These previous comments and correspondence are included in the
Response to Comments to the East Lake Specific Plan and EIR (dated
May 1993) previously distributed to you. The public review period
on the project Draft EIR ended on april 15, 1993, prior to the
submittal of these letters.
N
AGENDA ITEM ESQ.
PACE 93'
OFF
MENTOR AVIATION 32301 Corydon Rd.. Lake Elsinore, California U.S.A. 92330 FAX (714) 974 -2157
INTERNATIONAL
P.O. Box 180 (310) 869 -5029
Montevideo, Uruguay
MR. THOM RYAN
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
16700 ASTON. STREET
IRVINE, CA. 92714 -4834
DEAR MR. RYAN:
APREL 27, 1993
ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND SEVERAL SPECIFIC COMMENTS 'ON THE DRAFT EIR AND. THE EAST
LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN IN GENERAL. THIS IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT BOTH OF THESE SPECIFIC
DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY COMPETENT TECHNICAL AND LEGAL C(1NSULTANTS
IN EACH SPECTgIC FIELD. AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL AGENCIES INVOLVED WITH THE
REGULATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN SITE. A REVIEW
OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES' CLF,ARLY
INDICATE CERTAIN SPECIFICS WHICH WERE NOT IN EVIDL:NCEWITHIN THE BODY OF THE
DRAFT EIR. HAVING JUST CONCLUDED THE FEDERAL 404 PERMIT PROCESS FOR OUR NEW
AIRPORT PROJECT WE ARF WELL AWARE OF THE REQUIRED PARAMETERS FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE DRAFT EIR AS IT
PRESENTLY EXISTS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM CIRCULATION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT
THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR IS DEVELOPED FURTHER INTO A DOCUMENT
WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS A PLAN OF P CTION WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPLETE AND
APPROVED MITIGATION METHODOLOGY FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE LAKE
ELSINORE FLOODPLAIN.
WE HAVE ALSO HAVE MAJOR RESERVATIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF
THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT IN PARTICULAR SECTION 9.1 THRU 9.1.2 AND
SECTION 2.7.2. THERE EXISTS NUMEROUS OTHER SECTIONS WHICH ARE INCORRECT AND
OR MISLEADING. AS THE PROPONENT OF THE NEW MENTOR AVIATION AIRPORT, (WHICH IS
NOT A COMPONENT OF THE EAST LAKE PROJECT BUT IS PRESENTED AS A PART OF THE
EAST LAKE PROJECT IS TOTALLY MISLEADING, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ENCLOSED
COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DMSION OF AERONAUTICS, WHICH
CLEARLY INDICATES THE LEVEL OF CONFUSION INTRODUCED INTO THE EAST LAKE PLAN
BY THE WAY IT IS PRESENTED IN THE PROPOSED EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN. SINCE WE
HAVE REVIEWED THE TECHNICAL PREPARATION WITHIN THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN,
WE FIND THAT IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE INTENT OF MENTOR AVIATION TO PROVIDE A
NEW PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLIC USE, GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT. THE REFERENCES TO
A RECREATIONAL AIRSTRIP, DO NOT REFLECT OUR INTENT AS TO THE TYPE OF AIRPORT
WHICH WE INTEND TO BUILD AND THE PROPOSED PLANNING RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON
THE PROPOSED RECREATIONAL AIRSTRIP AS DETAILED IN THE EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN
ARE WITHOUT MERIT AND SHOW LITTLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXISTING FEDERAL AND
STATE REGULATIONS WHICH CONTROL THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND THE MANY
ENVIROMENTAL ASPECTS OF AIRPOPT AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS. AS THE PROPONENT OF
THE NEW MENTOR AVIATION AIRPORT AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SITE AS
WELL AS THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR OUR 404 PERMIT ISSUED BY THE U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW US TO DEPOSIT
FILL MATERIAL IN THE FEDERAL FLOODPLAIN TO ALLOW US TO CONSTRUCT A RUNWAY
AND TAXIWAY COMPLEX ON THE MENTOR AVIATION AIRPORT SITE, WE FIND THAT IF THE
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT EIR DO NOT MORE CLOSELY REFLECT THE TRUE AND
PAGE ' / OF
�� 9
CHAMBERS GROUP: PAGE 2
EVIDENT FACTS OF THE PROPOSED EASTLAKE PROJECT SITE THERE WILL BE A COMPLETE
REJECTION OF BOTH PROPOSED DOCUMENTS, ON TECHNICAL MERIT AND SPECIFIC CONTENT
ALONE. IF THE INTENT OF THESE DOCUMENTS IS TO PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE EAST
LAKE PROJECT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE THEN I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT A GREAT DEAL OF REVIEW BE CONDUCTED ON BOTH DOCUMENTS BEFORE THERE IS
ANY FURTHER ADVANCEMENT OF THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED EAST LAKE
PROJECT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE COMMENTS MADE IN THIS LETTER
WE OR OUR CONSULTANTS CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH FACTUAL DATA OR PERHAPS WE CAN
DIRECT YOU TO THE SPECIFIC FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES WHICH AS A
MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD HAVE DIRECTED THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TO INCLUDE IN
THE DRAFT EIR SPECIFIC AREAS OF INFORMATION, WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT
DRAFT EIR DOCUMENT. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LACK OF THIS INFORMATION WOULD
WITH OUT DOUBT RESULT IN ANY PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE EXISTING DRAFT
EIR TO BE DENIED. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US AT ANY TIME.REGARDING ANY OF
THE MATTERS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING TEXT.
MABAU NU ll11CC1:1 VK
MENTOR AVIATION INTERNATIONAL
cc: L.E. PLANNING COMMISSION
S.A.G. FILE
AGENDA iTE-M P0.
PAGE b " Or �a 9
MENTOR AVIATION 32301 Corydon Rd., Lake Elsinore, California U.S.A. 92330 FAX (714) 974 -2157
INTERNATIONAL (310) 869 =5029
P.O. Box 180
Montevideo, Uruguay
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PLANNING COMMISSION
130 SOUTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA. 92530
DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
APRIL 27, 1993
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING "EAST LAKE SPECIFIC
PLAN 93 -3, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT".
ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND COPIES OF NUMEROUS LETTERS TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTS. REVIEW
OF OUR LETTERS TO THESE SPECIFIC PARTIES WILL REVEAL THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL .
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY REGARDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN
AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RESPONSIBILITY TO A PRIVATE GROUP
WHO WOULD HAVE TOTAL CONTROL OVER ALL PHASES OF THE EAST LAKE PLAN, WITH
NO OVERSIGHT BY THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, ONCE THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS APPROVED
AS WRITTEN. TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF THIS AUTHORITY TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER
UNDER ANY CONDITION IS WITHOUT MERIT, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT ONCE THE
SPECIFIC PLAN IS APPROVED AS WRITTEN NO CITY OR VOTER ACTION COULD CAUSE THE
SPECIFIC PLAN TO BE MODIFIED IF THE DEVELOPER DID NOT WANT IT TO HAPPEN,
REGARDLESS OF CONDITIONS WHICH COULD BE ARISE OR EVEN INCOMPETENCE ON THE
PART OF THE DEVELOPER.
THE DRAFT EIR ALSO IS WITHOUT MERIT AS WRITTEN, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE LACK
OF ADEQUATE ATTENTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
ASSIGNED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL FLOODPLAIN SITE
AT LAKE ELSINORE, WHICH AS YOU ARE AWARE IS THE SITE OF THE EAST LAKE PLAN. AS
INDICATED BY THE ENCLOSED LETTERS FROM THE FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES WHO
HAVE REQUESTED SPECIFIC PARAMETERS FOR INCLUSION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE
DRAFT EIR. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THAT BODY OF THE DRAFT EIR IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE
IN THOSE TWO SPECIFIC AREAS REQUESTED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME. WE AGAIN MUST REITERATE THAT THE DRAFT EIR AS WRITTEN IS WITHOUT
TECHNICAL MERIT BASED ON THE LACK OF PLANNING TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED EASTLAKE PLAN AND ITS IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED SITE WHICH IS LOCATED
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF AN AREA SPECIFICALLY REGULATED BY THE U S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS AND IS DEFINED AS "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ". SINCE THE BASIC
PROBLEMS WITH BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE CORRECTABLE WE BELIEVE THAT A
MORE PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD
BE TO REMOVE THEM FROM CIRCULATION, REWRITE, AND REISSUE MORE ACCURATE
DOCUMENTS AT A LATER DATE. THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO BECOME A PART OF
THE PUBLIC RECORD TO INSURE THAT ANY DOCUMENTS ISSUED IN SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSED EAST LAKE PLAN WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO PRECLUDE
ANY PROTRACTED LEGAL DISPUTES WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES AS WELL AS
LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
AGENDA ITEM h0.
PAGE
4011 Or bp
PLANNING COMMSSION:PAGE 2
IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
SIN
SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER
MANAGING DIRECTOR
MENTOR AVIATION INTERNATIONAL
cc: SAG FILE
PAGE -L! OF
I
SPORTSMAN'S LODGE
c/o Gregory A. Block
777 So. Pacific Coast Rwy., Suite 105
Solana Beach, CA 92075
City of Lake Elsinore ,.Sportsman's Lodge
Planning Commission 12.37 Acre Parcel
AP - 373210001 -5
I represent the property owners of the "Sportsman's Lodge"
property, 12.3 acres of commercial land that runs alongside the
San Jacinto River channel. The Vons shopping center is on one
side of the channel, we are on the other side. Our property has
three commercial buildings facing Lake Shore Drive, the Lions
Mane Hair Salon, a thrift shop, and Canyon Battery Shop.
Under the proposed specific plan before you, our property's
zoning will be changed from commercial to medium density
residential.
Although we understand and appreciate the City's objective of
avoiding'fractured zoning where possible, the facts and
circumstances relating to this property are extraordinary.
* In 1984 City Council approved construction of a 93,000
square foot'shopping center for the site.
* The property is
* The current use
Or The property is
property across
zoning.
* The property ha
currently zoned as commercial.
of the property is for commercial purposes.
next to an existing shopping center. The
the street will retain its commercial
s freeway visibility and access:
* Although some portion of the property will be sold or taken
to widen the channel, the remaining portion should be large
enough to allow significant development.
We are extremely pleased to see the East Lake Specific Plan's ;
progress.: We are excited about the positive changes that it will
bring "to, the community. `
We su tithe plan subject to the change in zoning with respect
to r parcel from medium de sity residential to commercial.
Gregory A. Block
General Managing Partner
Sportsman's Lodge
AC =::�f.
R%r :c OF Ig 41
� w
1 �
M
•. w
1. V
1 �
.o
n >t
ti
r
l \'
b
a
G
O
b
Q
u
s
m
A
ti
V
n
M
o O
C
O
• e
ass
l an fy�.��� . • •_
>w ,
j
/1 INw.. �•I
_ I '
M
I •�
FOP LOT /
O
,IYaC �
L .
{ ! �:_� 1''1_'•1 -.'.� '���
P /tr c � dF
V O
a
9
/6
/5
LOT
O
a
>a >5�
aeoi�
- >p
�
L
IN-
A
V:
P /tr c � dF
317r/ a" w OOd
C^tCIPAi,���hwc
19`
T
136 5004� WN L;- ,. SA mot
:3) voo
cLC
vv�� C.C,.,,•n...�„V.��t s�,� �llu .,a�V�) � o�oJQe �C,Q.a.�Mr -��. .
CL C��n vw. ln� C1 �'e l L, O OLC-,- i Lti--LtP
LAJ
� .
e.CR' y�r
v 8 �
c�c,l�C d,ti cs1.cJ2..tiv- .
U
�:4'r >c�Lu� t�� Cove U2n..,, �'rLe- ,�,,.� • ..
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RFCFIVFn
m AV p S 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
PACEj_OF Iv
May 4, 1993
City Council
Planning Dept.
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main St.
Lake Elsinore, Co.
92530
We fully concurr in the statements, concerns, objections and
recommendations made by Mr. Paul Pribble in his enclosed letter.
We request specifically that these same comments be entered Into
the Public Record at the Public Hearings to be conducted on May
5,1993 and May 25, 1993 as concerns of M.W. Haskell.of Allied
Real Estate Co., 32295 -6 Mission Trail, #315, Lake Elsinore, Ca.
92530.
MAV." "Haskb I /
Agent, Allied Real Estate Co.
AGEICD `i I { E% -. NO.
PAGE 6 12-2
May 4, 1993
City Council
Planning Dept.
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main St.
Lake Elsinore, Ca.
92530
We fully concurr in the statements, concerns, objections and
recommendations made by Mr. Paul PrlbbJe In his enclosed letter.
We request specifically that these same comments be entered Into
the Public Record at the Public Hearings to be conducted on May
5,1993 and May 25, 1993 as concerns of Lake Elsinore Aviation,
Inc., 31957 Corydon St., Lake Elsinore, Ca. 92530.
"a-e
�.
Robert A. Vermillion
President
Lake Elsinore Aviation, Inc.
l ?_1:, itiO.
PAGE_IL_ OF L—L
BowEE, ARNEsoN, KADI, Wn.Es & GL4NNoNE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
4970 CAMPUS DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH CALIORNIA 9MW
AUXANDER BOWM'
JOAN G ARNFSON
WILLIAM J. KADI
WINDY N. WILES
PATRICIA B. GNANNONE
ROBERT E ANSI:OW
ERIC A DOERING
KE NNflTi 5. LEVY
ARTO J. NUITIINEN
MARY L DENNIS
JANET L MUELPR
•,eomo Cakrom x
via Messenger
Planning Department
City of Lake Elsinore
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92330
April 15, 1993,
Re: East Lake Specific Plan;
Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No
Dear Sir /Madam:
AREA CODE 714
TELEPHONE 851.1300
FAX (114) 851.7014
O1t.0{i Wi
ao
11027 I%8
92092027)
This firm represents the Lake Elsinore Unified School
District ( "District"). This letter is submitted with respect to
the impacts which the East Lake Specific Plan ( 'Project"') will
have on the District's school facilities and in response to the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (NDEIRN) for the Project dated
February 1993. We request that the Project be conditioned upon
full mitigation of the significant impacts which the Project will
have on the District.
A. School Impacts
In Section 4.17, the DEIR provides that seven elementary
schools and one middle school will be designated within the
Project. The DEIR then concludes that because there will be a
sufficient number of school sites designated for grades K -8, that
impacts for grades K -8 are not considered significant. The DEIR
fails to address the issue of how the District will pay for those
school sites and for the construction of the school facilities.
The mere designation of school sites does not constitute
mitigation of school impacts absent a specific source of funds
for acquisition and construction of such schools.
AG 4--,; i T'GiS, i:0.
PAGE &Y OFD
BOwIE, ARNFSON, KADI, WUM & GLANNONE
Planning Department
City of Lake Elsinore
April 15, 1993
Page 2
The Project, proposes 10,000 dwelling units ("DU"). Based
on a school facilities cost per single family DU of $8,857, the
Project will require additional school facilities at a cost of
$88,570,000. Using an average
Districts current residential
foot, the Project would genera
approximately 508 of the total
the Project. State funding to
in that there are currently no
Measures proposed and all past
all been allocated shortly..
DU of 1,600 square feet and the
school fee of $2.65 per square
to $42,400,000 in school fees, or
cost of the schools required for
make up the shortfall is unlikely
state -wide General Obligation Bond
state -wide bond monies will have
As is discussed in-Section B below, the conclusion in
Sections 1.3.17 and 14.17.2.1 that the exclusive mitigation for
school impacts is the collection of statutory school fees is .
incorrect. Therefore, the District ,is requesting that an
additional mitigation measure /condition be added to the Project
which requires any developer of property within the Project to
reach an agreement with the District prior to approval of the
first tract map for that property. _ Our suggested language for
that condition is as follows:
An
�
NPrior to approval of-et tentative map for
property within the'Specific Plan, applicant shall have
entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with
„the school district. City shall have considered the
adequacy of the school facilities or available means of
financing school facilities to meet the needs and
demands of new development proposed in such tentative
map to be approved by the City."'
In addition to the issue of mitigation of the school impacts
from the Project, the District has concerns regarding the
location of the airstrip with respect to any proposed school
sites within the Project. Education Code Sections 39005 -39007
pertain to the location of school sites near airports. Any
--------------------
1The District is currently in the process of, updating their
student generation rates. These figures have not been finalized.
However preliminary estimates show that the rates will be higher
than the ones used to calculate the $8,857/DU figure. Therefore,
we would anticipate that the impact from the Project will be even
greater than the $88,570,000 figure used herein.
ACEN 6, i I... :'
oPACE & / f /l
BOWIE, ARNESON9 KADIt WIIES & GiANNONE
Planning Department
City of Lake Elsinore
April 15, 1993
Page 3
proposed school site located within two miles of an airport
runway must be investigated by the Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics. If the Department of Transportation
does not recommend acquisition of such school site, Section 39007
of the Education code prohibits the use of state, county or
school district funds in connection with the acquisition or
construction of that school. If the proposed school sites can
not receive Department of Transportation approval, an adequate
number of school sites would have to be provided off -site to
adequately house the students to be generated from the Project.
If the City adopts the Project alternative including.the
elimination of the airstrip (DEIR Section 5.2.3), the issue with
respect to Department of Transportation approval would be moot.
B. SB 1287 and Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts
On January 1, 1993, SB 1287 became effective. SB 1287 made
several changes to the school facilities fees legislation which
is found in Government Code Section 53080 at sec. and 65995 at
2.e g. ("School Facilities Legislation -). One of the most
significant changes is the addition of Government Code Section
65995.3 which increased school fees from $1.65 per Square foot tc
$2.65 per square foot for unified school districts. In
addition, there has been considerable debate between school
districts, cities and builders regarding whether or not SB 1287
overturned the holdings in the Mira, Hart and Murrieta decisions,
which stand for the proposition that 7-'city or county is not
limited to statutory school fees when considering adequate
mitigation for legislative projects such as specific plans or
zone changes. Legislative Counsel opinion No. 30455 dated
December 4, 1992 (attached as Exhibit RAO) concluded that those
decisions were not overruled by SB 1287, and that cities and
counties still have the authority to consider the adequacy of
school facilities when adopting a legislative approval such as
this Project.
--------------------
2If ACA 6, which is proposed for the June 1994 statewide ballot
and which would lower the voting requirement for local General
Obligation Bond elections to a simple majority, fails, the
additional $1.00 residential fee authorized by SB 1287 would be
repealed.
PAGE � Or Jd
Bow E, ARNEsoNq KADiq WILES & GIANNONE
Planning Department
City of Lake Elsinore
April 15, 1993
Page 4
Subsequent to January-1, 1993, the effective date of SB
1287, <the Supreme. Court, rendered its decision in Grupe
Development Company v. Superior Court (February 11, 1993) Daily
Appellate Report of February 16, 1993, p. 2025 ("Grupe"'). One of
the holdings in the Grru pe decision isathat a city or county has
the authority to condition new development on the use of Mello -
Roos Community Facilities Districts (!NCFDs") to mitigate school
impacts. The Grupe decision is significant in that it
acknowledges the changes made by -.SB,1287 in coming to its
conclusion regarding the continued ability of cities and counties
to use CFDs for school impacts..
The ability.of the City to condition new development upon
the use of CFDs to mitigate school impacts is found in Section
65995(a) which provides that:
Except for a fee, charge,- dedication or other
requirement authorized under Section- .53080 . . ., no
fee, charge, dedication or other - requirement shall be
levied -by the legislative.body . of a local agency
against a development project whether by
administrative or legislative action, for the
construction -or'reconstruction of school facilities.
Section 65995(f) specifically exempts CFDS from the limitations
set forth in,-Section 65995(a) by providing:
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to
limit -or prohibit the use of [CFDs] to
finance the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities. .
This provision makes CFDs a feasible,method of, school financing
in that they have been specifically exempted from any dollar
limitation for school mitigation: SB 1287 did not alter the
authority the City has to require school. mitigation through CFDs.
Section 65996 also lends further support to this proposition
and provides that CFDs are -one of the specific methods of
mitigating environmental effects. relating. to the adequacy of
school facilities when the City:.is considering the approval of or
the establishment of conditions on a development. SB 1287 did
L
PAGr Z/ aF IZy
Bown:, ARNEwN, KADI, Wn.ES & GLANNoNE
Planning Department
City of Lake Elsinore
April 15, 1993
Page 5
not change the ability of the City
mitigation under Section 65996, and
from the statutory dollar limits of
to use CFDs as a means of
CFDs are specifically exempt
Section'65995.
The Supreme Court's decision in Grupe is consistent with
this position. In Grupe, a voted special tax on new development
for school facilities, "Measure CO, was challenged. Measure C
had been approved by the voters within the Chino Unified School
District prior to the 1986 legislation which authorized
residential school fees originally at $1.50 per.square.foot
( "School Facilities Legislation "). The Supreme Court
distinguished special taxes levied by a CFD from the special
taxes of Measure C. One of the Supreme Court's key arguments
used to support its decision was that Measure C special taxes
were included within the scope of the limitations on "fees,
charges, dedications, or other requirements" found in Section
65995 and that CFD special taxes were specifically excluded from
the limitations of Section 65995 (Gr^ upE pq. 2027). Accordingly,
the Supreme Court held that the limitations of Government Code
Section 65995 applied to Measure C, and therefore Measure C was
invalid because the school district, was also levying the maximum
school fee allowed by Section 65995. It should.also,be noted
that the Supreme Court's decision was rendered while
acknowledging the recent enactment of SB 1287.
The holding in Grupe is a significant new development with
respect to confirming the City's ability to condition new
development'through the use of CFDs. The Supreme Court denied
review of the Mira, Hart and Murrieta decisions, and this is the
first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of school
facilities fees as authorized under Government Code Section 53080
and 65995.
C. Consistencv With General Plan.
The City's General Plan contains provisions which require
the consideration of the adequacy of schools for legislative
approvals, including specific plans. (A copy of the relevant
section of the City's General Plan is attached. as Exhibit "B").
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65300:5, a finding of
consistency between a specific plan and•the City's General Plan
is required prior to approval of that specific plan. Absent
PACE OF /�
BOwiE, ARNESONp KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
Planning Department
city of Lake_Elsinore
April 15, 1993
Page 6
mitigation of the school impacts from the Project, such a finding
cannot be made by the City and the City is required to deny the
Project.
Both before and after the effective date of SB 1287, January
1, 1993, the City has had the authority to condition new
development upon the use of CFDs to mitigate school impacts. The
Supreme Court's recent decision in Grupe has lent additional
support to such authority. Based on the foregoing, we request
that the City condition the Project by requiring that any
developers of property within the Project enter-into a mitigation
agreement with the District prior to approval of any tract maps
for that property by the City.
We would be pleased to provide you with any additional
information you may require.
Very truly yours,
BOWIE ARNESON KADI
ERD /lr
Enclosures
r.. r r
WILES & GIANNONEE
By.
Eric,R. Doering
C
cc: Ms. Carol Fisher
Mr. John Harper, City Attorney`
Mr. Alexander Bowie
MC.�t.JIY ./
OFILL
BOWIE. ARNESON, KADI,
Y:1LES GL GLANNONE
ALEXANDER BOWIE
ATTORM AT Law
4920 CAMPUS DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 91660
TELEPHONE (714) 851.1300 1 FAX (714) 851.2014
HOME (7141644.8(68
«•11 ::.r
•O[.O Te..••
a•a -,w• AuA
r tnr•r twr
11► G1rs sw. xt+
5K'1+•r+� 3Y laHi:4
��b�1 y1.t1�1
•eu:►r �'
[affi n C�Suun�P�
�
alifixrnia
ION M. GREGORY .
Sacr«aonto, Chiito:::ia
Cece«1he= 4, 1992
merle Aall.al., M
J,pKr4..w
4W VAIitIM
Mal'W �A..N'.
►.y AAr..
a � /�N mow+.
fiA�N 1i W.
11rN .w
rr � h/4
iw i awra•
..r.
Wr
wo'k 4
1Y14 NMUI'
Ytlw1• .1.a
vall"
owwo 6e.w•vra .
6Wa 1.
u.K Yrwra
4a► 49"1
j~d 4.1s.
444/x01 v &
Orrr441 ire
An i 6"S
f.y1 W v
iw1r.1W A MO—
Aso 1 044
&"W
JINN A 0a
J & wqr
P.M,& 6 Cobh .
7nlw:rr.
Ywai owl
M"M&Lr:
iA111A A i4Aw
p
YAAMIA N1'.
' 044
ra.w.It11r
law
Y iM
iAw .Y...:«••
0w1w d Ow .
4, foram
e 0molu
ivA
Aa a a
-AhrO ONU
d "-.
i Y/r1 e
,aww Anna
T.".
inwu0 w.rn
f r♦rwegll
1a1Aa1 aprsp
A 2or1A
talw.4t 1M/
164
.:►a
:one Willia L. Brown, zr.
.1a S- ata +_•tCl
. c.6^. l r.r : 1 44-4 og raAm — �'•lO�S� .
Caar
04.1d i ^MaA as""
Dees chapter 1384 of the statutes o! 1992 prohibit a
city, county, or city end eounty.from considering the adequacy o_
school !acilitias in the course of adopting or implemanting a
ceneral plan, zoning a ihangs, or other legislative laird use
1c .�
OPT —VTON NO, 1
Chapter 1354 of the "Statutas of 1992 does rot prcnibit a
City, county, or city and county from eonsiderinq the adequacy c -*
schc:l `ac.ies the course o! adopting or implementing a
general .Oning ordinance, or other legislative land use .
Eolicy.
ANATVCTS no, 1
Before. assessing t.:a effect c: chapter 1254 o: the
stet :tes c! 1 992'1 we consider the existing law regarding the
-elate °ship bet--Con the devalc-»ant of real property and school
tens-- _ct :-n
reasure :s the c:aptered varsicn cf Senate oil: :o•
,:;; c. 1 5 °1 -52 n2c la: sass :cr,.
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGEI:L._ OF
Honorable willie L. Brown, .7r. -`p. 2 - 430455
prior to January 1,'1987, development projects wero
potentially subject to school facilities fees or other
requirements imposed by citias ;and counties either pursuant to
. %apter 4,7 (comaeneirq with Section 65970) of DiVision l Of
Title 7 of the Government Code (hereattar "Chapter 4.711) or
pursuant to their police power generally "(sea candid_ rn e ,ri° °°-
`r • V. S•ee n Union High Jah2al p st -,.39 Cal. 3d 878). Where
school overcr :wdinq is demonstrated to exist, Chapter 4.7
generally prohibits a city or county from appaovinq a residential
development unless it first requires. except as specified, that
land be dedicated, fees be paid, or both, for classrooms and
related facilities; except as specified ,(Sacs. 65972 and 65974).
Approval of a residential development includes, for this purpose,
the approval of an ord:Lnanca razonina property to a residential
L,50, the cranting of a discretionary *=it for residential use, .
or the approval of a tentative subdivision, nip I for residential
purposes (906 Sae- 65972).
As of January 1, 1987, however, the 'law governing school
facilities fees and other requirements was amended by Chapter 887
of ;,:a Statutes of 1986. Under that chapter, the Legislature
added Section 53080, granting to school 'districts the express
authority to levy developer teas and other rsquireMentz as na
reasonable aethed of financing the expansion and eonstruetion of
school facilities resulting from new economic development within
the distract" (subd. (o), Sao. 71 Ch, 887, State. 1986 ):
That authority is expressly made subject, however, to
the restrictions set forth in chapter 4.9 (commencing with SActiOn
65995) o! rivision 1 of Title 7.(harsaftar "Chapter 4.9!'f para.
(a >, Sec'. 53080). Included among those restrictions is
Sect-,on 65995,. which limits the total adourit "of the developer teas
and other rsquirements to fund the construction or reconstruction
of scl.ccl facilities that may be levied by school districts under
section 63oso, by a city or county under Chapter 4.7, or both, to
$1.50 per square foot of assessable space, in the case. of
reside ^sial.'development, and 90.25 par square fact of chargeable_
covered ayd enclosed space, in the ease..'of. commercial, or
industrial development (subd. (b), Sac._.`65995). Those dollar
li=lts are Increased periodically. according to.a designated
sd; io i (pars._ (�) , subd. (b) , Sec. 69995) .
2 All section references are to
.. =ner lse ir.dleatad.
the Gcverraent Ccde, unless
PACE OF y /
oncrable Willie L. Brown. - P. 3 . 030453
Section 65995 also contains two provisions expressing
the Legislature's.- intent to forbid any local legislation, except
as expl ±citly auttorizad under the state laws discussed above,
that would condition the approval of development according to the
)
impact upon school Laci,, is$. First, subdivision (
65993 prohibits the legislative body of any local ngencY, fcrnia
including the govarninq board of a school district (6 0 2 2,� 22) �.
from levying any Pea or other requirement agalnat a development
ct to fund the construction or recenatruction of school
project o except as authori2ed under Section 57080 or Chapter 4.7
(subd, (a), Sec. 65995).
Second, subdivision (4)'of Ssdtian 65995 expressly
declares tus intent of the Lagislature to preempt local
legislation that would require fees of other elopmantder+a thisc be
paid as a condition of the approval
although 54ctica 65995 does not specifically exclude a
local measure that authorizes the den?al of a development project
en the basis tof the adequacy of school facilities, we 'chink that
the thatrw uld- requireathatbthe inpact ofta devalopmentlprbjectaanon
school facilities be mitigated would be construed to apply equally
to a local standard that a development project be denied in the
absence of that mitigation. A statute i9 to be construed so. as to
be qiven a reasonable result cons
istent witistlhtian4i�sidaits�
purpose, ii light of the context of the lag ii Cal. 3d
apparent objective (54u v• 21 La ram= �`�r.,1 a Cal �
726, 732 -1331 304 c1Qan =as •en -v V.
—mpg +rte ;,; , 11 Cal. 3d 801, 813)
:n addition to the school - related conditions upon
deveio -sent that may be established by local legislative action
pursuant to section 53080 or C.aptsr 4.71 a conditrocouupon the
generally possesses the authority to impose
approval of a development project . relative to the project's
potential burden upon public services or other environ ental
impact concerns) this authority may be
state law pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as
sat forth in Division 13 (ccmoaneing with Section 21000) of the.
public Resources Code (hereafter "CECA,I; see Sees. 21002 andtt
21002.1. ?.R.C.7 'J.t set t (rn.tw_n_t_r —G.7 an-, V.
93 Cal. Av;. 3d 515, 521) and the Subdivision Map Act (Div. 2
(com:.enct_r; +ith Sac. 66410), Title 7). However, Section 65996,
whic also is c- brained in Chapter 4.9, identifies section $3080
and other speci!ic statutory Provisions as the exelusivn methods
r.. ±t'_5a ='' -n5 envircnr..ePita, effects under CEQA with regard to
zf ccncitic ^inc the apprcval.of a development project on the adequacy _
of sc`ccl •acilitlea, and pr =h =bits any publlo agency free denying
ACEIcl7i... ®.ate
Pa�� 7G v a- /L9
I . 11 a
, L ... - _ .. - . — . — —
Ecnorable wiilie L. Brown. ter. - p. a - $30455
approval cf a development project on the basis of the adequacy of
school facilities pursuant to CEQA or tha Subdivision Map Act.
:'he first decision o! record in which Section 65996 was
judicially construed is �a nev" rant "�; v.a cast l which a
'ec , 205 cal. App. 3d 1201 (herelicationat was prerequisite
city council daniad a rezoning apP Project. In
to the approval of a proposed roe idantial,development
that cage, the city council's decision was alleged Ofbschool
developer to have been based upon the inadequacy prohibition get
facilities and, therefore, to have viola ed7jhe pr
Mi
forth in Section 65998 (_SL$ supra, P.
began its analysis by distinquishing
'!ha court in r3 " to which Section 6599d
an application for a "developmtoor aczoning amendmant. :'!ta
expressly applies. from a application for the
court held that a geverr=ntal response to an
erprcval Of a development project is an adjudicative act, meaning
an act t::at requires the application of an sea
specific not of existing facts (U=, . 3d 936. 936)• In
V. ^1• 21 Moncarey 129 Cal. App
contrast, the court charactarized a povsrnmantal which involve* to a
Proposed sorting amendment As a legislative act, iicyh(iMii't,vsupras
formulation of a.
o Mort_Or'9V� supra;rP 936)3•
P. 12181 L ! v. 1•iiI
Court
pursuant to that distinction, t2•.8 Mis
characterised Section 6599d as a restriction up
ad udicatistsauthorrgyo! Section ong65996 to include any. restriction
"broaden �
upon a pablic agency'* authority over proposeexarcise amen
Cr ever ocher matters involving the agency
lagislat:•;e powers (ai;3, supra.
In declining to overturn the city diod=cildiscussothen-
the basis 0. SACt -On 65996, the '21�L
applicability to the city sou. ~ell's action of subdivision (e) of
Sect-,= 65995# or of any other aspsC% of tea praarapcWhptdQ Tire.
bus, the dit3 decision Exiled to address axprmsslY
subdivision (e1 of Section.65995, rather than Section ,65996, would
be censtraed to preempt the city council, inathlieationsonothets
legislative powers, from denying a rezoning pp
basis of school facilitias impact.
legislative act, a morning decision is afforded more
As a defarer.ce t`an.a,publ :npve�e C -- adjudicative VCat� V decisions L: Z ;sa, ,e
cal. 3d
A1rrNDA 17-r;.1 1^y,.
PACC_L_L_ 0r
••- rorable Millie L. Brown, ,:r. - o. 5 - 490453
Subsequent judicial decisions have elaborated, however,
upon the scope of Sections 65995 and 65996 in that regard.
226 Cal. App. 9d 1612 (hereafter 11=") , involved t. sstusal of
a county to consider the school facilities impact of a proposed
zoning change, The court declared that subdivision (6) of Section
65995 preempts only "requirements for school finance that a local
agency will impose on a develocr..ent t" (emphasis in
original). The court explained that, because the local
legislative decision in MS:A did not involve requirements to be
imposed on a development project, but, rather, the legislative
enact_snt of "land -use balicies" (emphasis in original), that .
decision was rot preempted by $action 63995 or any other provision
of aapter 4.9 (see M+?Tr ±eta valley jinif;S.d Seheol Dist. v• Cgunty
• • , 228 Cal'. App. M 1212. 1230; hereafter "yourrieta"),
Based upon that distinction, the court concluded that the county
was rct restricted by state law from considering school facilities
in -act with respect to its decision to grant or deny the proposed
zonsrg change (Id., pp. 1626- 1627).
A similar analysis was employed in Muu:=ta, supra. 2n
that case, the county approved an amendment to its general plan to
wit additional development to occur as a matter of land use
lacy, without considering, pursuant to the requirements of CEOA,
the school facilities impact of teat general plan amendment (Sd.,
gyp. 1218- 1219). The court described a general plan as a "basic
land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the
local jurisdiction," and held that the amendment of a general plan
is a legislative act that does not involve the approval of a
"development project" for purposes of Section 63996 (Id., pp. Of
12995 was). Further, the court tomrelateionlybtovtheofinancing9Of ion
65595 was held by
School facilitiosencit cannot lineaude -in+a general eA an amendment
that a p,,..b -ic agency
land use and development objectives and standards toofmiittiigate the
a.9rd»ent's potential1nega fn, effects Gn adequacy
facilities" (Id., p
The court..cencluded, consequently, that neither
subdivision (n) of Section 65995 nor Section 65996 preempts a
ccur._i, when ccrsiderinq a gonsral plan amendment that ray
adversely aif2ct the 'existinq condition of inadequate school
facilities in a school district, from "considering and providing
feasible '_and use and development mitigating measures" as required
by Ty The court suggestad t.`.at these measures could include,
for example, 'he reduction oP resid3ntial densities or the
cunt :clled phasing o: residential development within the
.rendance area; of the school district having inadequate school
citiea (•... ,eta, supra, p.
z. --
AGENDA ITS . :
PAGE QE1-
Honorable Willie L. Brown; ;r. - p• 6. =.1130455
The restrictions established in chapter 4.9 have been
construed by tha courts, accordingly, to apply to the local
imposition o! conditions on the approval of individual development
projects, but not to the local adoption or amendment of general
land use policies.
To summarize, Section 65995 precludes local agencies,
including cities and counties, from adopting any legislative
requirement, except to the extent authorized by Section 52080 and
Chapter 4.71 that imposes lace as a condition to approval of a
development project in order to reduce the project'e negative
impact on school facilities (sae Marr ±eta, supra, p•.1224, fn.
16), section 65996, in our view, requires that, in the exerciaa
of local adjudicative authority to require under CEQA that the
school facilities impact of a development project; be mitigatad,
only the statutory remedies identified -in thhat section may be
utilized, with tra result that A local governmental Agency may not
employ CPQA to require individual development projects to
othordise mitigate school facilities as a condition Of receiving"
approval.
However, pursuant to the authority discussed above, we
conclude that Chapter 4.9 does not prohibit a city, county, or
city and eeunty from Considering the adecuacy of fiChOQl facilities
in the course of adoptinq or implementing legislative land use
policy in the tors, for example, Of a general plan or zoning
ordinance.
we next must dataraina the extant,to which the changes
in Chapter 4.9 made by Chapter 1354 of t:a Statutes of 1992_will
alter the axiatinq law described above.
T* rofe 'ea c%aoter »'K4 of the,etatutee at 1992 -
chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 - amends Sections
65995 and 65996, and adds and repeals those sections, with the
effect that additional lanVage is added to those sections,
effective wanuary 7., 1993, but if assembly Constitutional
Amend =eat No. 6 at the 1991.92 Regular Session !ails to receive
tho approval of a majority of the voters voting on that measure,,
sections 65995 and 65996 will revert to, the versions Of those
sections in atteet under axiatinq law as described above. This
analysis will address the changes made by Chapter 1334 of the
0
P;,c arL
Honorable Willie L. Brown, .r. - p. 7 - M30455..
Statutes of 1992 to Sections 65998 and 65996 that will take effect
on Janusry It :9934.
We initially consider the,provisions of Chapter 1354 of
t:e Statutes of 1992 ttat revise Section 65995.
Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 revises subdivision
(a) of Section 65995 to read as followss
"65995. (a) Except for a fee, charge,
dedication, or other requirement authorized under
Section 53080, or pursuant to Chaptar 4.7
(commencing with section 65970), no fee, charrgge,
dedication, or other requirement shall be levied by
the legislative body of a local agency against a
development project, as defined in Section 53080,
• gihetha= kJ adninistrntive 2X laaislative action,
for t:o conatractson or reconstruction of school
facilities.
If It *" (Now wording indicated
in underline.)
Thus, while the current provisions of Section 68995•
prohibit cities, counties, or other local agencies from levying
any fee or other requlramsnt,- except to the extant, authorized by
Sactian 53080 and Chapter 4.7, as a condition to Approval of a
development project in order to fund the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities, Chapter 1354 of the Statutes
of 1992 will ravine that section to specify. that this prohibition
applies to the lavyinq of fees or other requirements "whether by
administrative er legislative action."
uensraliy speaking, a legislative act is described as a
govarn-ental act that prescribes a now policy or plant an
administrative act, by.crnparison, is an act undertaken to carry
out the legislative policies and purposes established by.the
legislative body ( 's* n v, =, gI Pas &Lt2, 86 Cal. App. 3d
506, 509). An act,is administrative,. rather than legislative, if
it involves, for example, the determination of specific rights
under existing law with regard to a specific fact situation .
(V'o,4ntain cafenla Laigua v. Agnrdd sl fumerv12orst 65 Cal, App. 2d
723, 728729).
Captor :354 of t::e Statutes of 1992 also adds Section
E59S5.3, giCh 511
to discussed in Analysis No. 2.
onc:nbis Willis L. Brown, Jr. Q• 8 - #30455
Based upon_ t.`.at, disti. ^.ction, the approval Of a
develop =ent project, including the issuance of any'p stale, the
grantih9 oz zoning variances and conditional ' use permits, and the
approval Of tantative subdivision maps is considered an
administrative act ( =0 Supra, p• 15151 I. Li V. � 0.
% nterev, supra, p. 936). By cont.astr the approval of a.2oning
amend- -ant or the amendmant of a general plan is not limited in
scope to a Specific attempt to-develop, and ispch16a�ABQed►
thersfore, as a lagislative act (iia7tt, p
supra, Pp. 1230- 1231) .
Thus, Section 65995, as ;revised`by Chaptc -r 1354 of the
statutes of 1992, will expressly prohibit a city, county, city and
county, or other local agency from either establishing lagislative
standards, or applyinq any legislatively eatablishad standard, Be
as to require, as a condition of the approval of any davalopaant
project, tat a fat be paid or other requirament ba:mat for the
pur;cse 0! fundirq school facilities constrrcticn er
reconst:_ctien, other than ,as levied pursuant to Section 53080 or
Chapter 4.7.
As discussed abova, existitgg law already limits tha.
•exercise of legislative authority to iapeaa a school` facilities
fee or ether requirement against a development project. Sactien
65996, in its currant farm, prohibits the lagislativo body of any
local agency frees establishing any rtquiraazant that a development
project comply with a school facilities fee or other requirement,
other than pursuant to Section $3080 or Chapter 4.7, and preempts
the subject =attar of the financing of school facilities from that
source as a matter of statewide concern (subds. (a) and (e), sec.
65995). Furthar, section 65996 currently identifies Section 53080
and otter specific statutory provisions as the exeltsiva metrods,
-'per --itigatirq environmental effacts under CZQA with regard to
corditien:n; t»a approval of a development project on the adequacy
o: scaccl _aeilitiee, and prohibits any public agency from denying
approval e! a development project an tts basis of .the adequacy Of
schcol : acilities pursuant to CEQA or the Subdivision Map Act. .
Consaquently, while exiati.g law limits the authority of
a lccal agency to require that a development, projact provide
financial zitigatian of its school facilities impact -in the course
eE the scencyIs administrative iaplsmencation of Section 53080, and
C;QA, tea revision to SOCticn 65995 made by Chapter 1354 of the ;
Stat_tes c= 1992 further prohibits a local agency from requiring
that nitication in its administrativa iaplsmantation of any other
le?islat:•:a authority.
AGENDA 17-'r::..�.
Pr`, —I L-- 0 r—L =—
?:onorabla Willie L. E_as.'n, - p. 9 - 430455
We turn next to the provisions of Chapter 1354 Of the
Statutes of 1992 that amend Section 65996. Section 65996, as
revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992, reads as follows:
"65996.' Ley, :he fallowing provisions shall
be t °e exclusive methods of mitigating
environmental effects related to the adequacy of
school facilities when considering the approval or
the establishment of conditions for the approval of
a develoipment project-,--&2-6 ef's:ee
by =; -+mot - *gj gX iaa±sldtive seten pursuant to
Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
public Resoureas codes
".(.3} (I), Chapter 22 (commencing with Section
17700) o: Fart 10 of twe Education Code.
,41+ t P I Chapter 25 (cc=enci. -g with Section
17765) of Part 10 of tha Education Cade.
11+e-� 4" =ptar 28 ( coamancing with Section
17870) of Part 10 of t.`:a Education Code.
n+d* LU Article 2.5 (comsaancing with' Section
39327) of C:aptar 3 of Part 23 of the Education
Code.
„{+r 111 section 53080 of the Government
Code.
M-j (61 C: attar 2.5 (ccamancing wins section
53311) of Division .2 of Title 5 of the Government
Coda.
+{ } (7) Ch.:ptar 4.7 (cam-..aneimnq with Secticn
65970) of Division 1 0: Title 7 of the Government
Code,
fl!t1 no .public agency shall, pursuant to
Division 13 (commencing with Section 210001 of the
-
public Reaoureos CcCe Cr nI J J ! te_metle mg
I .• ..\ rhJ d 1 !a
Lq2a-
sqet4on 65000)., deny approval of a
protect on the basis of the adequacy of school
faeili:iaSi 3 1-,. -ose conditions Q; S,: L A-'=-Y. - 94
a nre� Q" 'fit the nurncsa of pr yleft =
exceed the an_ounts aVthor±zad
chatter.
Loncrabla Willie L. Bros,-n, Jr. - P- 10 • 430455
HLQI St?Ctinn gt 3Z 1. have nZnwt
qtr ar�
r A= �1
�4t,� �vB
yg,&�L.Dli, Q_1-11. iYr....PS� 3I' -31.1 c e �
take ta .alp► acency .a =
L41 ' SeCt4en e
rece ±vs S;S
approva S++ 8 mainrity �,Z1@ v '
vo �- 921 S :t measure, A = = 9l to
.: ig �enoaled." (changes in warding
indicated in strikeout and underline.)
we begin wit: the first substantive revision made to
Section 6 °.496 by Cnaptar.1354 of t2w Statutes at 1992, to the
offeet that the limitations set forth in that section expressly
apply to 100&1 mitigation "by administrative or legislative
action" c, school facilities impact pursuant to CEQA•
section 21082 of ihS public Resources Code? a provision
of CEQA, expressly authori2ss all publia agencies to adopt local
legislative . measures for the evaluation Of projects ,and. the
:
preparation of environmental impact raports and negative
deoiaratioas pursuant to CSQA. Consequently, this first revision
to section 63996 will specify that the restrictions -Wet forth in
that section - apply not only to local administrative action taken
under CSQA to require t.%At a development project -mitigate its
impact on school facilities, but also to mitigation reguiramsnts
under C3Qr► that may be imposed under local legislative measures,
as nay ba adopted pursuant to Section 21082 of ths._Public
Resources code.
The second subssantivs revision to Sectionao! by
Chapter 1:54 of the statutes of 1992 addresses the provision
that see t.. on that currently prohibits a public agQncY from. denying
that s ac . a- project an the basis of the adequacy of school
!ecilitisa pursuant to.CZCA or the Subdivision Map Act. This
revision deletes the specific reference "to the Subdivision Map
Act, as set forth in Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) cf
Title 7, : -stead applying that the in
10c31 authority under Title 7
its entir:ty(ha rea!ter the ,pianninq and Zoning Law ") -
?he Subdivision Map Act provides for the regulation and
concrcl c! the design and improvement of subdivisions and grants
rc�er fcr that purpose to. the legislative bodies of local
aggncies, including the authority to adopt
t", to regulate
the desi;^ and i-rrcverent of subdivisions (Secs. 66411, 66419,
66419, and E6421).
AGENDA 1 i Ei,, " O.
PAGE 2 OF / v /
gonarable Willie L. Brown, 7r. - P. 11 - 430455
The Planning and zoning Law, which includes the
Subdivisic. Map Act, also includes, :or example, chapter 3
(cc =encing with section 65100) of Division 1 of Title 71 which
contains various provisions governing the adoption or amendment of
a general plan. Every city or county, whether chartered or
general law, is required under that chapter to adopt a
comprehensive, long -te= general plan, containing specific
mandatory elements for the physical development of the city or
county (secs. 65300, 65302, and 65700). .
Also within the Planning and zoning Law is Chapter 4
(com'aencing with section 65800) of Division 1 of Title 7, which
sets forth certain limitations upon local authority over zoning.
The power of a city or county to zone is nor. grantad by Vne
Lagisiaturo, but derives fr= the broad "police powers" conferred
on them by $action 7 of Article XZ of the California Constitution
(TLsah= y. = ccu-neitg 21. Cal, App, 3d 48, 62, disapproved en
.. -..nds azaag � -et9 a .e g�_i 1 r4eae Jrxa.r TZ. V. Srisi� Sf
other g...- r .�.�r..�
yver oreI la Cal. ad 582, 596, fn, 14) and, in the case of
chartor citiaa, and cities and counties with authority over
tuniciial affairs, fro= the charter (Sees. 5 and 6. Art. Xi, cal.
Const.t t= ql = Anceles v• nenart -ene U Realth, 63 Cal. App.
3d 473. 479).
Thus, this revision to Section 65996 prohibits a public
agency fr= denyinq approval of a project on the basis of eto
adequacy of school xacilities,.not only when acting pursuant
the Subdivision Map Act, but also when acting pursuant to other
orovisiens of tha Planninq and Zoning Law, including, but not
limitad to, the adoption or amandzent of a general plan or zoning
law. Although the adoption or amandmant at a gsnerai plan or
zcninq law, as a legislative action, ordinarily involves the
establi5h=ant of categorical land use policy rather than the
approval ce a development project (see Mur_-ieta, supra, pp. 1230-
12311 tH , supra, pp. 1626 - 1627), the apparent effect at this
revision x111 be to specifically prohibit the inclusion within a
general plan or zoning law of any provision that would authorize
the denial o. individual development projacts on the basis of the
adequacy tf cchocl facilities.
;n addition to revising Section 65996 to prohibit a
public agency, pursuant t0 CECA or the planninq and Zoning Law, o
lore= denying approval ct a project on the basis of the adequacy at
school facilities, chapter 1354 at the Statutas.of 1992 adds an
express pr2hibitio, upon the imposition of conditions on the
approval ct a project for the purpose of providing school
facilities that exceed the amounts authorized pursuant to
PAGE - OF 122
1�1.
honorable willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 12 - 130455
Chapter 499. T! %.:s, Section 65996 will specifically preclude a
public agency from exercising its authority under CZQA or the
:la ^ring and Zoning Law, as discussed above, to require that
school facilities fees or other requirements, in excess Of the
amounts authorized under Chapter 4.9, be;.paid on behalf of any
development project as a condition of approval.
To summarize, while existing law limits the authority of
a local agency to require that a daveloplaent project provide
financial mitigation of its school facilities impact in the course
of the agency's administrative implementation of Section 53080 and
czQA, the revision to 80ction 63995 made by.chaptor 1334 of the
Statutes of 1992 further Prohibits a local agency :rem requiring
that mitigation in its administrative impiamentatian of any other
legislative authority.
The revisions made to Saetion 69996 made by Chapter 1354
Sttutes of
not Zorlyoto local administrative action forth
actiontakenin
under CZQA to require that a development.projeet mitigate its
impact. on school facilities, but else to mitigation requirements .
under CZQA that may be imposed under local legislative measures,
as may be adopted pursuant to Saetion 21082 of the Public
Resources Coda. in addition,. those revi$iOna $pacifically
prohibit tht inclusion within a general plan or coning law of any
provision that would authorize the denial of individual
development projects on the basis of the adequacy of school
facilities, and preolude A public agency from exercising its
administrative er legislative authority under CZQA or the Planning
and Zoning•Law, as discussed above, to roquire.that school
facil ±ties Paes or other requiMOnts, in excess of the amounts
authcr:zed under chapter 4.9, be paid on behalf of any development
project as a condition of approval.
The revisions made to Sections 65993 Arid 63996 by
Chapter 1.354 of the Statutes Of 1992 do not purport to address,
the context oth rtthanntheeapproval adequacy
individual development projects. Consequently, based upon the
analysis set forth above, it is our conclusion that chapter 1354
of the Statutes of 1992 does not prohibitr City, cfaetlitor my
and county fro =. do
ns_der_ag the adequacy o
the eourss of Adortinq or implem enting a general Plan, zoning
ordinance, or other legislative land use policy.
PAGE S!S� OF / L%
pnorable Willia L. Frown, ,'r. - P. 13 - 0304
you have asked that we consider an alternative
AA to sections 65995 and 65996
interpretation o. t -e revisions ma
by chaptor 1354 of the statutes of 1992. This alternative
argument posits that the legislative intent und■rlying V1030
revisions was to revise the meaning of the.term "development
project," as used in Sections 65995 and 65996, to include the
legislative action of a local agency in adopting or amending a
i 1 w to establish land use policy.
general plan or zcn ng a
According a iagencl would be prohibited by be that local eetionst &C
revised by Chapter 1254 of the Statutes Of 1992, from taking into
account the impact on school facilities in deciding on the
adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law.
^a gccted above, Chaptsr 1354 of the statutes of 1992
revises Section 63995 t0 state =%, except as authorized under
saction 530eo or Chapter 4.7, "no tee, charge, dedication, or
Other requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a
local agency against a development project, as defined in Section
62080, XhLt 8.Z = administrative 92 !Ai AA eve acti=n. for the
construction or raconstruction of school facilities" (emphasis
added to denote language inserted by M. 1354, Stets. 1992)@
To begin with, section
of the statutes of 1992, ."stairs
development project, as dafined
inconsistent with the contention
of 1992 should to irterprsted as
the ten "develcr..snt project."
65995, as revised by Chaptar 1354
from existing law the phrase "a
Ln Section 630so." This is
that Chapter .12S4 of the Statutes
a revision of the definition of
More i_por antsy, the only apparent reasonable
cons%- -=%j cn of the clause "whether by administrative or
legislative action" within the context of the provision of Section
6s99s quoted above, in our opinion, is that the clause modifies
the ,Iavyir.q" by a lagislative body of a fee, charge, dedication,
or other requirement. it is our view, as expressed in the
discussion above, that "whether by administrative or legislative
action', '.s clearly an adverbial clause in this context that
addresses the ^ethads pursuant to which that levying Of fees or
other roquiremIn may occur.
The alternative argument :squires an interpretation that
the phrase "whether by administrative or legislative action" was
inserted in Sectian 65995 attar "3 development project, as defined
in Section 2 308011 to further define "development project" to mean
any a3ninistrati:e or legislative action. In Cur opinion, it is
_.. re�scna�la c= _structi =n to suggest that the noun " development
PACE OF_.25
onoratla Willie L. brown, Jr- - P. 14 #30655 .
arojact" vas modified by the clause "whather by administrativa or
;gislative action" to express the meaning that "development
projoct",isdafined to include, for_ purposes .Of $ ection 65995, any
administrative or lagislatiVe action. Had the Legislature
actually intended that result, we think.it probable that t.%e
dafiriti :n of " development project" in Section 53080 would have
been amended or, altarrativaly, that a statement vould have been
added to Chapter 4,9 to the affect that " davelopment project"
incl� -udes any "administrative or legislative action."
Furthermore; this -altarnative interpretation would
result in the simultaneous combination within4eatien 65995 of two
ineersistant definitions of this term "davolopmant project -" As
noted above, Section 65995, as revised by Chapter 1354 of the
statutes of 19920, contains the express reference "a development
project, as defined in Section 53080." Section 53080 defines
"development project" to mean , "any project undartaken for the
purpose of davalopmant, and includas a project involving the
issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruet'ion, but not -a
permit t: operate" (pars. (2), subd. (a), Sec. 53080). Although
"project" is not dat ad by. section 530800 that to= is defined
elsewhere in the Planning and Zoning LaW to moan "any activity
involving the issuahce.to a person of a` leaaa',•parsit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public
agencies" (Sec. 65931). A phrase or expression may be interpreted
in aeeerdance with its use in other related =Mdiftni v.
=1 218 cal. App. Id 127, 133). • _ ,
:heretore, for purposes of Section 65995, "development
protect" =sans an activity undertaken for the purpose of
development that involves a public agoney's issuance to a person
of a lease, parait, license, certificate, or other entitlement for
Asa. As so defi .-ad, t..a term "development project" has been hold
5y the ccurts to axeluda legislative action by a public agency
involving the adoption o amendment of general plans and caning.
laws (soe *,.moo, supra, p. 12181 T-nndi V. o,nty at %Ighterev,
supra, p. 936), A construction to the affect that section 65995
pur;.crts to define " davalopment project".ns specified in Section
$3080 and, simultaneously, to mean any "administrative or
legislative action" of the, legislative body of a local agsney
would thus be internally inconsistent and, consequently,
C »re39cr.able. -
Sacti:n 65996 is revised by Chapter 1354 of the statutes
1992 __ etate that designated provisions "shall be the
sxcl,4sive mothcds of mitigating environmental effects related to
:he adegLacy of school facilities. when considering the approval or
zhe establishment of conditions !or the, approval of a development
crojec:, de -' � ,- - -- _,,.____....- � ,,,�m�n ±st- �t - +•,a
pers�ant tc [CEQA)" (changes in wording
PAGE D 7 aF �
Horcrable Willie L. Brotm, Jr. - p. 15 - 430453
indicated in strikeout and underline). Tha analysis eat fortis
above with regard to the inclusion in Section 65995 of the clause
"whether by y-admiristrative or legislative action" also applies in
this parallel context, to the effect. that the clause "by
administrative or legislative action" in $action 65998 may be
construed reasonably, in our view, to rotor only to the methods of
mitigation utilized by'local agencies when considering the
approval of a development project (sea Mtirr4 st", supra, pe 1233,
fn. 15) °.
Finallyr the legal impact of defining "development
project" in Sections 65995 and 63996 to. include any
"administrative or legislative action" would not appear to have
the alleged result of prohibiting a city or county from taking
into acecunt the impact on school- facilities in decidinq on the
adoption or amandmant of a ganaral plan or zoning law. In $Action
65995, defining "development ;Cojact" to include any
administrative or legislative act would have the literal offset of
;rohibitirq the Ugi9lative body of a local agency frost levying,
other than pursuant to Section $3000 or Chapter 4.7, a school
=acilitias fee, charge, dedication, or other requiroment against,
for example, the legislative act of adopting or amending a general
plan or zoning law. Similarly, in Section 65996, defining
"development project" to includa any administrative or legislative
act would have tha literal affect of rastrietiaq the mitigation
requirements that may-be imposed by a local agency under CEQA
against.its adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law.
T`.a daleticn by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 of the
;:rase °, as dafired in Section 53080," from Section 65996 could
b argued to reflact the legislative intent to revise the meaning
cf the tern "davalopaant project," as used in that section. The
Legislature cannot be presumed to have indulged in idle seas
(etA,P *^.? v, Bagity Bond ,Service rxL=,., 39 Cal, 2d 797, 8051
aA„y18 V. Foiav, 170 Cal. App. 3d 1039, 1056).
However, Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 does not
pur;ort tc add language to Section 65996 that reasonably may be
constraed to replace the definition of "development project" set
'crth in Section 53080. Consequently, pursuant to thQ rile of
sta.�tory const:_cticn t.. ".at a phrase `or expression may be
inter;retad in accordance with its use in other related statutes
(g-edian.i v: o a, 215 Cal. App. 2d 127, 133), we conclude that
"deveic ;::pent project" would have the same meaning in Section 65996
as i. does in section 65959, which defines.tha term by express
ref ; -ence ca Section. .3080 and by uZe of the 'definition o: the
term "=- ^ -.ect" in a related section, namely 'section 65931.
�
`-'r
PAC= OF-LLL
Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 18 - 130455
It is well settled that, in construing a statute, a
ccure may use a,wide variety o_* extrinsic aids, such as the
history of the statute, czmmittee report s,,staff bill reports,
legislative debates; unpaasad amendatory legislation, and even
lettors of legislative intent (see In YS M"� 'SSA 09 Wit• 13
Cal. 3d 583, 890 -891; People V. suuericr ou (Art ;.,1, 199
cal. App. 34 494, 499 - 500) In this case, for axampls, the Senate
Third Raadinq analysis Of July 309 1992,; states that "(bjy settiaq
the ice can as an exclusive method for a itigatinq_sehool impacts
when considering 'legislative' actions, P.B. 12871 reversas the
affect of the 4 " "% daeision.'t
It is equally true, however, that legislative intent may
be given affect only if it can reasonably he inferred .from the
larquaqe of the "Act.(sea Caulter.1o, $49.1, 187 Cal. 1810 185 -186;
:X Fr�a=e goodr , 160 Cal,, 410, 416 -417; ass a190 Arnderee1 V.
t•�t• passe n Qrm, j 7 Cal. 3d 60, 66 -68), in this case, for the
reasons set _orth.nbova, it is our opinion that the legislative
ir.tent suggested by the Senate Third Readinq, analysis, and by the -
alternative arrant addressed in this diaeussion, cannot
reasonably be inferred from the language in Sections 65995 and
65996 as,ravieed by Chapter 1354 of the, Statutes of 1942. We
conclude, accordingly, that this alternative, construction of those
sections would not be adopted by the courts..
en•rON NO. 2
Where a school district has imposed the-maxi==
supplemental school facilities fee authorized under section
65995.3 against a development project, is a second school
district, having common territorial jurisdiction with the first,
authorized to likewise impose that flee on that development
project?
OPINION NO, Z
Where a school district. has iapoaed the - maximum
supplemental school facilities too authorized under Section
6599s.3 against a davelcpment project, h second school district,'
having cc_-on territorial jurisdiction with the first, is not
authorized to likewise impose that fee, on that development
project.
nvA.�'sTs rro. z
As indicated in. Analysis No, if the authority of a
school cistrict to Larose fees or. Other, requirements against
development to nd'sehoal facilities construction is set forth in
Sectica 53080. :he authority under that section to inposa those
tees Cr ct:er requirements is expressly made subject to "a ^.y
PAC_
onorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - P. A17 - 430454
limitations sat forth in Chapter 4.9" (subd. (n), Sec. $3080).
The limitations set forth in Chapter 4.9 include the restriction
that "(1)n no event" shall the total amount of any fees, charges, .
dedications, or other requirements authorized under Section 53080,
or pursuant to Chapter 4.7, exceed designated dollar amounts.
^,hose amounts were eatablished, prior to adjustment for irtlation,
at $1.50 per square toot of assessable space, in the case of
residential develop-.lent, and S0.2S per square foot of chargeable
covered and enclosed space; in the case of commercial or
industrial development (subd. (b), sec. 65995)0.
The question here relates to a situation in which two
school districts have common territorial jurisdictione . as may .
occur when neither is a unified school district. Tha imposition
of a school facilities fee or other requirement pursuant to
Section 53080 under those circumstances is specifically addressed,
under existing law, by Section 53080.2. if the total amount -of
3c.�col facilities fees "authorized pursuant to Section 53080," as
levied by two.nonunifiad school districts having common
Carr �oriai jurisdiction, would exceed "the maximum.faa authorized
under Section 65995," Section 53080.2 requires the governing
boards•of the affacted school districts to enter into an agreement
specifying the allocation of the fee revenue or, alternatively ,.to
submit the dispute to the authority of an arbitration panel.
Section 65995.31 as added by Chapter 1354 of'the
Statutes of 1992, reads as follows:
"65995.3. (a)' in addition to the fee,
charge, dedicatidn, or ether requirement spneified
in subdivision (b) of section 65995, an additional
fee, charge, eadication, or other requirement of
one dollar (:1) par square foot of assessable space
may be levied by the governing board of a school
district against that residential construction
deacr :bed in subparagraphs (5) and (C) of paragraph
(1) o5 subdivision (a) of Section 53080 for the
construction or reconstruction of school
facilities.
"(b) :his section shall remain in affect only
until =e date that Assembly Constitutional
Anend °ant 6 0: the 1991-92 Regular Session fails to
receive the approval o: a majority of the voters
:t is our understanding that, as adjusted for in:iation,
those limits uurrerrly are $1.65 per, square foot for residential
avelopment. and ':0.27 per square foot for ccnmeredal or
industrial asvelcpaent.
OF 170
Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 18 - 430455
voti.q on tha measure and as o: that date this
section is. repealed. 'I
Section 65995,3 thus authorizes a school district
governing board to levy a "fee, charge, dedication, or other
requirement of one dollar ($1) per square foot of assessable
space" against residential construction "(i)n addition to the fee,
charga, dedication, or other requirement specified in subdivision
(b) of Section 65995." Because Section 65995 currently operates,
together with other provisions of Chapter 4.9, as a statement of
maximum dollar limits and other restrictions upon the authority
granted to school district governing boards in Section 53080 to
levy school facilities fees or other requirements (sea subd. (s),
sea. 530801 Caliacrnla Bldg. indust±^v Asyn. v. Govern ±na,,
supra, p. 233)1 we conclude that SBetion'65995.3, as an addition
to Chapter 4.90 likewise would be deemed to ocarsta.an a
restriction upon the authority granted in section 53080, by
revising the.dcllar limits identified in,that chapter. A statute
should be interpreted with reference to the system of law of which
it is a part •(P4gr14 v. CaTninyorA, 20 Cal, 3d 142, 147) .
We next must consider the affect of section 65995.3 upon
the scope of Section 63080.2. As discussed above, Section 53080.2
provides a method of distributing school facilities fees revenues
between two nonunifiad school districts having common territorial
jurisdiction, whan the total amount of the fees levied by those
two districts pursuant to Section 53080 would excised "the maximum
fee authorized under section 69995" (subd. (a), Sac, 33080.2),
When the language of a statute is clear, a court
interpretinq it should follow its plain meaning ( st Lakes
Prcflertie9. =,y^d, ve 9= U X+ Seaundn, 19 Cal, 34 152, 155)
except that the literal meaning of a statute may be disregarded to
avoid absurd results or to give affect to manifest purposes that,
'in light of the statute's legialative history, appear from its
provisions considered as a whole (Silver v, A"-gm, 63 Cal, 2d 841,
845). In this Casa, a literal intarpratation of Section 53080.2
would require that the distribution between two school districts
of the revenues from the imposition of school facilities fees be
governed by an agreement or arbitration when the total amount of
those fees would exceed "the maximum fee authorized under section
65995," even thcu5n Section 65995.3 will authorize a, school
T Like the revisions made by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of
:992 to Sacticrs 65995 and 65996, Section 65995.3 becomes
effective January 1, 1993, but is repealed if Assembly
constitutional Amendment No, 6 of the 1991 -92 Reqular Session
:ails to receive t`e approval of a majority of the voters voting
cn that measure (subd. (b), Sec. 65995.3).
Aug: �., ....... _...
PAGE-J?-,/—O; lz
-Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 19 - 430455
district to levy a school facilities tee against residential
co. ^.str:ction that exceeds iitha maximum fee authorized under
Section 65995" by $1 per square foot of assessable space.
This result, which would require that any total school facilities
fee exceeding 92.65 per square foot of assessable space for
residential construction be governed by agreement or arbitration
when levied by two ncnunifisd school districts, although a school
facilities-fee of 83.65 per square Loot of assessable space for
residential construction could be imposed by a single school
district, would constitute an absurd result, in our view, for
purposes o: the rule of statutory construction cited above.
Moreover, regardless of whether Section 53080.2 is
deemed to apply to the supplemental school facilities fad amount
authorized under Section 65995.3, -it is our opinion that the
additional $1 per square toot of assessable space authorized by
section 65995.3 may not be,dxceeded where t-da nonunifi•d school
districts have,comr_on territorial jurisdiction over the
development againcz which the school facilities See is levied.
An noted above, the amount authorized under Section 65995.9 is A
supplement to the total dollar amount of any fees or other
requirements "authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to
chapter 4.7" that maybe exceeded "(iln no event" (subd. (b),
Sec. 65995). Pursuant to the .rules of statutory construction that
when the language of a statute is clear, a court imterpreting it
should follow its plain meaning (Great !Akan °rogazt±.R. Inc. v.
S;= it E. Segundo, supra, p. 155), and that a statute should be
construed so as to her -oniza it, if possible, with other laws
relating to the same subject (Iso a v. "noma____ 1! nt 1".. B=eals,
IULj 12 Cal. 3d 584, 590), we conclude that tta, circumstance that
more than one school district has territorial jurisdiction aver a
development is not an event that would be deemed to superseud the
aggregate dollar limit Per school facilities tars established by
Sections 65995 and 65995.7.
This c.-inclusion is enhanced by reference to the
sit-atien in which one or both of the school districts having
com;ti:on territorial jurisdictions are applicants for state funding .
of school :aril :t :as construction under the Leroy F. Greane State
School Building Laase- Purchase Law of 1976 (Ch, 22 (commencing •
with sec. 17700), 2t. 100 W. C.). under Section 17705.5 of that
chapter. which, :i)ce sections 53080 and 65995, became effective
January 1, 1987 (see Ch. 887, Stats. 1986), the total building
cost portion of the state funding for any project approved by the
State allecatien Board under the Leroy F. Greene State School
auildin7 La3se- Purchase Law of 1976 is reduced by A matching share
PA. = 9z - -yz�
Conoratia Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 20
requirement imposed upon the school district for which the project
is approved. The amount.of that district -matching share
requirement, which 3s calculated on the basis of developer fee
revenues that t.. ".a applicant district is authorized to collect
under Section 53080, is reduced by the axpresa terms of Sections
17705.5 by an amount, described as followed
"17705.5. e • s
11(3) An amount reflecting tha axtent to which
the district is nreeluaad from collecting 'those
fees by reason of the levy and Collection of
developer fees by another school district having
cc=.cn territorial jurisdiction." (Emphasis
added.)
we think that this provision, exempting an applicant
district from matching share liability to the extent it is
"precluded" fro: collecting developer fees by the collection of
those fees by anotl:ar district in the circumstances described,
indicates the intent of the Legislature that the imposition and
collection of developer teas by a sehaol district under the
,.authority of Section 53060 limits or precludes the authority, of a
district :saving co--on territorial jurisdiction to impose and
collect those fees. The language of Section 17705.5 of the
Education Code thus supports the conclusion that the maximum
amounts set forth in section 65995 for any school facilities fee
may not be exceeded as to asyy develo ant, whether or not the
development lies in.the territorial Jurisdiction of more than one
school district. Furthermore, this provision of Section 17703.5
was enacted well before the enactment of Section 53080.2, which
merely governs the diatribution of school facilities revenues
between school districts having common territorial jurisdiction
(Ch. 1209, Stats. 1989).
we conclude, therefore, pursuant to the rule of
statutory construction cited above (see silver v. �SOlJ supra, P.
845), that the reference in Section 53080.2 to "the maximum fee
authorized under Section 65995" would be.eonstrued, subsequent to
January 1, 1993 (the effective data of Section 65995.2)1 to refer
to the dollar limit in Section 65995 as supplamenced by Section
65995.1.
�3
Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 21 - #0433
In accordance with that conclusion, and based upon the
foregoing discussion, it is our opinion that where a school
district has.isposed the maximum supplemental school facilities
fee authorized under Section 63995.3 against a development
project, a second school district, having common territorial
jurisdiction with the first, is not authorized to likewise impose
that foe on that development project.
Very truly yours..
Bion M. Gregory
Legislative Counsel
BY
Jafi°ra A. to Land
Deputy Legislative Counsel
JAD: sj:a
M
PP, E ( ark
OBJE=I T 2.4 Coart nate _pianamg.:_arid .deveiopmenc .proposals. inciudin¢
general: plan amettameats, cian¢u zn land use classiticarions.
deuek pmeat.. agoeements, aaaesaaons wp0H.C." .financing and
redeveiripinent�mpasaTs;as sveIlas appiica Ie determinations
of consisteacv_ with thg geneza7 piau kith tfe school d -strict.
_..v... _..:.. :.,
YE B, ..........................
sesanag:wtIie7ainiagarea Vin;; an; ~eiinrt;_..to, assur.. ine school
dimcrn�"pTOVt"sciinot? '>uestpeezhe neeas of the
ccmzm�. Wiryis °a:.wumt"`�""Tv_`°�maaaer.
.................
Polity 2.4.1 -- . _._I ... ...
T1 atytts; gnti. en_.__.. Iglu �elicim ::chatiaei in
................ ........
laa3iue...._asuucanoa......eve. 4Pmeat•::agreements :.aanexauons.
pub]i ncmg�aad... redeveiopmenG proposals as well "'as
a4 canle.deter*... ons of consistency vhth the renerai plan
r,...,.... .. fl shall shall corisiaer. adeguaivro fscizooi;faciliries:cr::ava... means
of finanang�schogHa"i�Wes to weer thEneeds aad. de-- --
olsew <developmenrpop" .os tr approyeily`ilie: city. -:gf
,.
Policy _.;=
..... aiym ........:. ...�coor._.""..........,.a --dn u"'spIaaa;ag.:„wcih: plaanui¢,
�ancin2:an- constnictioa ofT got ;:._iaaT.tus "for;:developirieat
p;opase Iora-Rp�v tlse atyoi Like .snore.
Policy _. =.= The: ctrn shall sevteui proDased dcvelgpiaenr is the comarr:.of
......... ... ............................ _
oaT`hcilities aad
d> s o rrts rr ._. de "pir.
ate school To assit;: §.... ... ....__._utc-u�o'....
f�.an..�tz4 er�+*�+-**er elanve.. osed eneral
P �. a............................ _ ....., ges ..';?ii . ..:..vase ciassu�cations.
devpmeataiseeiaeiiiiw a*+*+�,:�
.onsaa,.,.iiputilicdnazidnggnd
_.. ...... .
�erermiia
twa.:. afrons�sten�vv�i�ihcgeneia >.."p7,`"an:
OBJE=N*E ? Ensure that adequate electrical. natural gas and telecommuni-
cation systems are provided to meet. the demand of new and
edsune deveioament.
y5 = XHIBIT "B"
IT
FAG= =JEG=�LZ 7
8. EDUCATIONAL .FACILITIES
..�jj. of es. presently
R ..
. .........
.......... ... .... ... .....
....
. . q4;F;I ......
before thiMlY
avaflOIt to serve v e OP .
......
ao
es
b. ........ . .. kbI
as the .......... .. " &A 5
0�11t. status
... . ......... ........
.............. d.pending
of appucaaoas for state - . . ..... ...... .. ii ihd * d ... itate
........ ..felition.. to.- rize
...... ng:.in.
a .:to--- of-M
stajewi *6 ta ... Teques
bands-for suen. funding
...... .......... ... . .......... EWhore-- wit .of Lake ..........
.. ...........
Request school .. ............... ... .. . f
im ....... . .... .. .
C. .... ........ W 0 prop s
"oap .... 'ju .......... ...........
id................ ..................
dc4
. ...............
d. Cooratnate M.i.h.developers
. . ........... I -- sized, 'loci 4.
aje.,adequal .. . meet ...
.... I .... ... ........ .... ....
................
. ..... .. .
available .:zs.ucc .....
. I_ ...... .... ..........
such 'sch.661.* .4.
. Fr
.................. -.di. s. t. n.m
thGCtty ... .. ........ I .f .. .L. a
e co i ....
ensure adequate school
koe l
riot.. .... ... ............
.......... ............ .. ......................
stale - fund ....... ................
z4m -rrrWfrdi:.Scbo6l
f
assurea.:.:.or
..... ... ...
233
PAO"
locauoa:of:propoii<d sckagI_faai�tus:aad -ether as.. Weil as
sources. af'iunduig:: f°r •alLsich.:fac'ii`des:
Boromaie�thc p1ann�nQ Ioga schools aad: other related public
faciltues a*t tie ;zarLest po Ye sM 3� �f e° eveiopmesit:prncess
h, Gonrainaze' ; tip,. eve npmeat_ 'school seances ..data,
fins ;_;nezds�•assesssnents,;s"""�n ."avaiiablG� there %r, induduie
state.:fimd}nandeiior to acinevlst..P..osst"ble M pnonty forsucii
fundut8 poi- tTie;so�mitmry o%�aeaore:
:., es-in land :;;use c�asstuca-
Appucauons for generaLplan arnea�ments. than& ...,
tions:. deveiopment agreements: auaexations._.:.pnbitc fiAancutg..:. attd
reaevesopmentproposaIs,,a� well appltcable detezmiaanons.of consistency
evaluate as zo umely a.....b iIiiy
wtflt thc°genezal plaa:sital &- care�uZ1Y
at� a sciiooI` a�aitnes an assur.....
ce o ........ Vin. 9os such ciooi
facliites
1, pnalvsis; shouIduiclndtsnstmB�p. �nS, i 'u�uTe °capaatyexpanston.cvrrenc
demand, aao studesu geaerauan factois,to- determuie.psojea: iemaa3 on the
schooI:diimctis:
«rk" vnth 3e tone'is: school "3�.... o assist sc3toci dutncu to sees
k-
_.
ossiiite
Io: 8551IIe�" f1Il��u1L.'-S,CIl�a..a�l...... s.: -IOSIt 2 501IrtCS tIICILt 8.F .
pnniy��ersuc�fudinBand.wheie
234
PJAISS-00a O==
caascaer neat .. . ......
.9p.rn pq -.P.- c.
.p ............. 11 ............................ 7 . ........
p �isrriore and
thEidEol diFtri&
............
M. a*=,-* H-2-.E,
...
............
......... ..
use.Cali
Pr. ---fm ...... ...................
t
.... ... . . . ....... j�j nq ........
. . . . . . . . ...
......... . ............... . Ag�'q . .........
........ . . . ..................
tfie�
n. -�-id --1
.... ...... i6o
....................
frmliffc–s --tm ... e*
........ ..... ....... ................ . .. .............. ... ................... . ... . .............. —:.1 ............. .. ........ ......
of -..Lake
n
............................. . . . . .................... ........ . .. ...... Ps
fEMOIE
".1 ...............
3. LIBRARY SERVICES
a. Coordinate with the County of Riverside in the location, facilities and
services of new branch libraries needed to serve future development. ,
b. Cooperate with the County of Riverside to evaluate the need for and
establishment of new library branch facilities in the Wildomar area and
Cottonwood Hills project.
C. Continue to utilize a developer fee to fund the city's library facility needs.,
235
A p. , M:7. N,
C=
PAGEZOI--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -131
AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO, 92 -164
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGARDING SCHOOL
FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION
WHEREAS, rapid population growth in recent years in Riverside
County has resulted in. large increases in the numbers of students
that the - County's school districts are required to educate, and has
resulted in the need to enlarge existing school plant facilities and
construct new facilities to house, the students in accordance with
the standards requited by state'law, and
WHEREAS, financing the construction of school plant facilities
is the ultimate responsibility.of.;the -State of California, and
WHEREAS,. the State of California has been unable to adequately
.fulfill its :obligation toward school plant facilities financing and
has shifted the: primary responsibility for financing of them to
local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986, and
Chapter,'1354, Statutes 1992 may establish developer mitigation fees
for residential, commercial and industrial uses, and may establish
Mello -Roos Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) to provide for
school plant facilities financing as authorized and limited by the
laws of the-,State of California, -and
WHEREAS; the combination of state school bond monies, school
district imposed developer fees, local school bond monies, and other
sources of financing have generally been inadequate to provide for
the enlargement and construction of school plant facilities
sufficient to adequately-house new students in accordance with the
minimum standards set forth by the State of California, and
WHEREAS, adequate school facilities are of benefit to both new
developments as well as -the community at- large, and are necessary
components of a community's social and infrastructure systems, and
3
AGENDA ITEM NO. V
PAGE -4 O --IL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WHEREAS, the inability of many school districts to provide
adequate school plant facilities due to limitations on their ability
to finance them has resulted in school overcrowding that 'is a
detriment to the public health and welfare, and
s:
WHEREAS, new student impacts on school plant facilities are due
primarily to residential uses, except senior citizen and resort -
oriented development, and
WHEREAS, impacts due to commercial and industrial development
are less significant than residential development, may be partially
mitigated through -developer fees _authorized by the State 'of
California under Chapter 867, Statutes 1986, and furthermore,. are
partially offset by the contributions of commercial and industrial
uses toward a strong tax base in the County to support public
services, including schools, and
.WHEREAS, school funding sources under current state laws and
available• funding are oriented toward the provision of interim
school facilities, and a need exists to fund - permanent K -12 school
facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of
special or disadvantaged students, and ,
WHEREAS, the County, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act_, has the authorityto review development proposals for
impacts on school facilities, and
WHEREAS, the State of California, has limited the permissible
methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy
of school facilities when considering the approval or conditioning
approval of projects to the items listed in Government, Code
§65996(a), and
WHEREAS, the County, pursuant to Chapter 1354, Statutes.1992,
has the authority to condition administrative and legislative acts,
including general plan amendments, specific plans and amendments
thereto, development, agreements., and changes of zone, if it finds
that, impacts on schools have not been mitigated to- a level of
insignificance.
Oq
AGENDA 17W`.. MJ "_<� —9
1 BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Board.of
2 Supervisors of the. County of Riverside, in regular session assembled
3 on that..Resolution No. 92 -164, adopted June 30, 1992
4 is.amended to read:.
5 A. Any school district located partly or .totally, within the
6 unincorporated area of the of Riverside .may present
7 requests to the County that ..impacts, on school facilities
8 resulting from new residential developments and the associated
9 increases in the. number of. students within its district: be
10 mitigated, and the County shall review.and consider granting
11 such requests, in accordance with the provisions and procedures
12 established ,herein. Any, school• district that requests 'the
13 County to, consider financial. mitigation in conjunction with any
14 proposal,,that.,exceeds that provided for .under Government Code
15 §53080, 65995(.b) and 65995.3, shall have received prior
16 certification from the County that a school district mitigation
17 plan prepared by,or on behalf,of the school district conforms
18 to the content requirements for such plans as specified herein.
19 B... Any residential development proposal for which an agreement has
20 been executed, prior to the effective date of this resolution,
21 between the.developer and the.school district, the provide for
22 mitigation of.the student generation impacts of the proposal on
23 the school.facilities of the district, and said agreement has
24 been. acknowledged as adequate mitigation by the County in the
25 _ adoption of the resolution, ordinance, and /or conditions of
26 approval for the proposal, is _exempt from consideration of
27 mitigation under this, resolution.,
28 C. Any residential development proposal made in conjunction with
29 the S.C.D. (Senior Citizen Developments) zone shall be exempt
30, from.school facilities mitigation that exceeds any limits for
31 such mitigation - as,established by state law for recognized
32 senior citizen residential developments.
33 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that all
II 3
1
I school district mitigation plans shall be prepared and considered in
2 accordance with_the'following provisions and procedures:
3 A. The mitigation plan shall contain "documentation of the need for
4 any level of mitigation that exceeds the 'total of revenue
5 anticipated to be received by the school district from the
6 development mitigation fee established pursuant to Chapter 887,
7 Statutes 1986, and Chapter 1354, Statutes 1992 plus any other
8 source of funding available or anticipated to be available to
9 the school district for the provision of school facilities.
10 Said plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
11 1. Student Generation Factors (SGF).
12 a: The SGF are to be established based on a� household
13 survey taken within the school district.
14 'b. The SGF survey" parameters shall include:
15 1) Dwelling units constructed within 'the last
16 'three years shall be surveyed.
17 2)' A minimum sample of 250 dwelling units shall, be
18 surveyed.
19 3) The sample taken should be representative of
20 the current' or anticipated future
21 characteristics of the community, including
22 - consideration for the resort and second home
t3 characteristics of the community.
24 4) The housing product' types surveyed 'shall be
25 identified, including' whether single - family
26 multi- family and single- family attached, and
27 mobile home product types are included.
28 5) The -SGF for 'elementary, middle, and high
29 schools shall be included.
30 6) -The 'SGF shall be based on an 'assessment of
31 student "pass through" from new homes over a
32 five -year period.
33 7) The SGF shall reflect peak student loading.
i
AGENDA IT= �f��NO.
1�0
1.
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
e
10
11
12
i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
4T
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
2.
3 .,
4.
8) The household survey used to. develop the SGF
shall exclude senior citizen housing from
consideration: z-
9) The school district shall retain the
opportunity to identify special conditions -that
affect the SGF, and accordingly present a case
for modification '. of the parameters affecting
development of the SGF.
Typical School Factors (TSF).
a. v Land Cost
1) ., shall -be based on.state standard or agreement,
and
2). ,.Shall be based on finished and improved school
sites, construction .ready, including the
extension of necessary infrastructure.
b. Development of school., sites shall be based on
California Department of Education standards for
infrastructure, location, and acreage.
C. School construction costs shall be as authorized by
the State Office of Local Assistance (OLA) , or as
required by local and state codes.
d. All costs for plans, test, inspections, furniture
and equipment, and contingencies shall be,
accordance with OLA requirements.
Optimum Facility Utilization..
a. The school district shall demonstrate, in the
mitigation plan, optimum utilization of its
facilities. - I I '
b. The mitigation plan shall include consideration of a
year- round, multi -track education program, double
school sessions, and alternative student loading
programs.
Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources.
5
%0. ',q
r .103
I a. The school district shall certify, and provide
2 supporting evidence in the mitigation plan that it
3 is pursuing state and alternative facilities
4 financing.
5 b. If the school district is not pursuing or does not
6 anticipate pursuing alternative financing, it shall
7 explain in the mitigation plan its rationale for not
8 doing so.
9 C. The mitigation plan shall include considerations of
10 methods of financing the payment for and
11 construction of school facilities, to ensure the
12 provision of adequate facilities and to minimize
13 actual costs to future residents, including the,
F use
14 of developer loan funds based on anticipated state
15 bond funds reimbursement and community facilities
16 districts..
17 5. Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim
18 Facilities.
19 a. A school district shall have the opportunity,
20 through the mitigation plan, to present an argument
21 justifying mitigation for impacts on administration
22 and support facilities and interim facilities.
23 b.. If the school district elects to present an argument
24 pursuant to Section A.S.a., above, its mitigation
25 plan shall demonstrate that -the mitigation requested
26 is proportional to the impacts directly attributable
27 to new development.
28 6. Level of Support From New Development.
29 The mitigation plan may provide for total
30 mitigation, from_all potential funding sources, of
31 the impacts on school facilities that are shown'to
32 result from new residential developments. The
33 mitigation plan shall not be used to provide for
6
Pn =-
OF IZ'q
1 mitigation of, impacts, attributable to existing
2 development.
3 7. Coordination of Plannincr Review for School Site
4 Development. --
5 The. mitigation plan shall include provisions "for
6 consultations between the school district and -the
7 County agencies on school facility location and site
8 development plans, in order to promote. compatibility
9 with County land use, circulation, and other plans,
10 and. coordination on public improvements, including
11 streets, sidewalks, and traffic control mechanisms.
12 B. The mitigation plan,-shall be_ adopted by the school district
13 board of trustees.
14 C. -The school district shall submit its adopted mitigation plan to
15 the County for its - review, and certification as to whether.it
16 conforms to the required content specified herein „ in
17 accordance -with the following procedures:
18 1. The school district shall submit the adopted mitigation
19 plan, accompanied by the appropriate fee as set forth in
20. Ordinance No. 671, to, cover- the County's costs of
121 reviewing, the -plan, to the Planning: Director. Upon
22 receipt of the mitigation. plan, the Planning Director
23 shall - provide- written notice -to the Riverside County
24 Superintendent of Schools and the. Riverside County Chapter
25, of.the Building Industry Association, that the plan has
26 been received by the Planning Director. -
27 2. Within 30 days following;;receipt of the school district's
28 mitigation plan, the Planning Director shall review the
29 plan to determine whether it conforms to the required
30 content as specified herein.- The Planning Director may
i
31 request -the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools to
32 provide an independent review „of,the mitigation plan with
33 regard to technical matters. After reviewing the
7
AGENDA ITEM NO. �
PAGE LS OF-101.
_1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
mitigation plan, the Planning Director shall take one of
the.following actions:
a. Certify, by written notice to the superintendent of
the applicant school district, that the mitigation
plan conforms to the -requirements for content as
specified - herein The Planning Director shall
provide a copy of the notice to each of the
following:
1) Clerk of the Board of 'Supervisors `
2) County Counsel
3) County Superintendent of Schools
4) Building Industry Association, 'Riverside County
Chapter
b. Notify," in " writing, the superintendent of the
applicant school district that the school district's
mitigation -plan will not be certified as conforming
to the requirements specified herein, and describing
the deficiencies 'that will need to be corrected
before the mitigation'plan can be certified.
3. The applicant school district or`any other interested
party may appeal any decision of the Planning Director
regarding certification of any school district mitigation
plan. Any such `appeal' shall be made to the Board of
Supervisors. Any "such 'appeal shall be limited to
considerations of whether the content and effect ofIthe
school district mitigation plan conforms to the
requirements specified herein.- Any "such appeal shall be
made- and considered in accordance with the following
procedures:
a.: The appeal shall be filed with the Clerk of the
Board,-of Supervisors within 10-calendar days after
the notice of the Planning Director's decision
appears on the Board's agenda.
8
AGENDA ITEM NO. q
PAC=_ L OF a9
1 b. The appeal shall be filed in ,writing, stating the
2 basis for appeal,and shall be accompanied by the
3 appropriate fee for the appeal as set forth in
4 Ordinance No. 671.
5 C. Upon the filing, of the, appeal, the Clerk of the
.6 Board shall set.the matter for public hearing before
7 the. Board of ,Supervisors on a date within 30
B - calendar days after the;date of, the filing of the
9 appeal.;
10 d. The Board of Supervisors.shall render its decision
11 on the appeal within 10 calendar .days after: the
12 _ close :of the public hearing.
13 D. Upon certification by the Planning Director, and following the
14 -period within which appeals therefrom may be filed, .or
15 following action by -the. Board of- Supervisors to certify any
16 school district mitigation -plan upon the filing and hearing of
17 an appeal, such plan shall thereafter be regarded as being the
18 basis,for the identification by the applicant school district-
19 - of specific :impacts attributable to individual residential
20 development,proposals, and - mitigation measures appropriate to.
21 eliminate or reduce to a level of insignificance the impacts
22 - attributable to, such residential- development proposals. The
23 County shall not adopt:any financial mitigation in excess of
24 the district imposed development mitigation fee, unless it is
25 - found to. be consistent with the provisions of _a school district
26 mitigation plan previously certified by the County and the
127 mitigation measure or measures are permitted by state law.
i26 The County shall consider -for adoption financial mitigation
29 proposed by a school district,!, where a mitigation plan prepared
30 -by or, on behalf of the district has been certified by the_
31 County, in project environmental assessments and decisions for
32 - project approval, or. to the extent permitted
33 under applicable state laws.
g
AGENDA ITEM! NO.
PAGE 1_L OFJ�i-
I E. A school district may request, at any time, that the County
2 certify an .amendment to its previously certified mitigation
3 plan, in 'accordance With the -- provisions and procedures
4 described above.
5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND,'DETERMINED AND ORDERED that all
6 residential development proposals that require legislative and /or
7 administrative action and that are subject to initial environmental
8 study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
9 (CEQA) and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA shall be
10 reviewed for potential impacts on school facilities, and mitigation
11 for such impacts, in accordance with the following procedures:
12 A. The Planning Director shall notify, by means of written notice,
13 the school district or districts within whose boundaries the
14 - proposed project is located, either:
15 1. Prior to the first LDC meeting, when-a: proposed project
16 requires administrative action, and prior to completion. of
17 the initial environmental assessment, or
18 2. Prior to the completion of the environmental assessment,
19 when no administrative action is required on the proposed
20 project, that an application for the proposed project has
21 been filed and that the school district's comments and
22 recommendations with respect to the proposed project are
23 requested prior to the first LDC meeting, if applicable,
24 and prior to completion of the environmental assessment.
25 B. The Planning Director's notice to each school district shall
26 include information regarding the proposed project, including'
27 a site plan, -in sufficient detail to enable the school district
28 to determine what potential impacts, if any, on school
29 facilities could result if the proposed project is implemented.
30 The information provided shall identify- the- developer, the
.31 location of the project site, and the number of dwelling units
32 proposed or that could result from the proposed project. The
33 notice shall also include - a - statement'that all comments and
M
09 OF 17,1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
28
29
30
31
32
33
recommendations regarding the proposed project must be received
by the Planning Director prior to the date of the first LDC
meeting,.-if .applicable, .. and prior to a. specified date for
completion of the environmental assessment. in nrAar rn I,.
included in the environmental assessment and /or staff report
for the proposed project.
C. The project application shall not be deemed complete and filed
for purposes of the Planning & Zoning Law or_Subdivision Map
Act or CEQA,.. unless the status of school impacts and
mitigation, if needed, has been determined. If such., ;a
determination cannot be made within 30 calendar days following
the submittal of the project application, the Planning Director
shall notify. the, - developer that. additional information or
special study or an EIR is required to assess the status of
school impacts and mitigation. Mitigation shall be evidenced
by :a legally binding written,.. agreement between the school
district and developer, where such an agreement has been
reached between the.school district and developer. Within 30
calendar days .following the submittal by the developer of an
application, to the Planning Director for the proposed project,
any one of the following actions may occur:.
I. The status of the potential school - facility impacts due to
the proposed project has been determined,, and it has been
determined that either impacts will not occur, or will
occur but can be eliminated or reduced to a level of
insignificance as evidenced by legally enforceable,,
executed agreement between, the school district and
developer, or other appropriate documentation.
2. The status of the potential school facility impacts due to
the proposed project has not been determined, and either
the developer has -been notified that additional
information or special study is required prior to
completion of the environmental assessment, or a Notice of
11
hG =:: IT E..,
1 Preparation for an EIR has been issued to require an
2 analysis of the specific nature of project impacts and the
3 potential mitigation measures available. 'The developer
4 may appeal to the Riverside County Planning Commission
5 from the Planning Director's decision to issue the Notice
6 of Preparation for an EIR in accordance with the Riverside
7 County Rules to Implement..CEQA.
8 3. The status of the potential school facility impacts due to
9 the proposed project -has not been "determined. As an
10 alternative to the submittal of additional information or
11 special study or the preparation of an BIR, if the
12 -developer believes that adequate mitigation has been or
13 will be provided, the developer may request that his
14 project be scheduled for a hearing before the appropriate
15 hearing body in lieu of responding to an additional
16 information request, or 'submitting �a special study or
17 prior to responding to a Notice of Preparation for an EIR,
18 even though the "Planning Director has determined that an
19 initial study cannot be completed', and a negative
20 declaration or a mitigated negative declaration cannot be
21 adopted. Under this alternative, the'Planning Director
22 shall recommend denial of the project, based on the
23 project proponent's non - compliance with CEQA.
24 D. The Planning Director shall include in the environmental
25 assessment and in the staff report to the hearing body for the
26 proposed project an analysis of any potential impacts of the
27 proposed project on school facilities, and steps which have
28 been taken or will be taken -to mitigate such impacts. The
29 Planning Director shall include in the environmental assessment
30 and staff report any written comments or recommendations that
31 have been provided to the Planning Director by any school
32 district that believes that its facilities will be impacted'by
33 the proposed project. The Planning Director shall recommend
12
AGENDA {1'E?., 1�� 0. �I 7 q
PAGE OFD
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
181
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
28I
29
30
31
32
33
that one of the following actions be made by the hearing body
with respect to school facilities impaction:
1. Recommend adoption of a negative declaration, based on a
finding that the proposed project will not significantly
impact school facilities.
2. Recommend adoption of a mitigated negative declaration,
with a finding that the project, could result in
significant impacts on school facilities, but that
mitigation has occurred or will occur, as evidenced by an
.agreement between the,school district and the developer,
or other appropriate documentation, which has been
identified in the initial environmental assessment, that
will eliminate potential impacts or reduce them to a level
of insignificance.
3. Recommend certification of an EIR, and approval of the
proposed project; with or without mitigation measures, and
with. or without a statement of overriding considerations,
as appropriate.
4. Recommend denial of any appeal from a requirement by the
Planning Director to prepare an EIR to address the
potential impacts of the proposed project on school
facilities.
E. The hearing body shall act in accordance with one of the
following alternatives:
1. Adopt a negative declaration for the proposed project
based on a, finding that the proposed project will not
significantly impact school facilities.
2. Adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed
project, based on a finding that the project could result
in significant impacts on school facilities, but that,
mitigation has occurred or will occur that will eliminate
potential impacts or reduce them to a level of,
insignificance.
13
1 3. Certify an EIR, based on a finding that the EIR has
2 adequately addressed the potential impacts of the project
3 on school facilities in accordance with CEQA and the
4 Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA. Under this
5 alternative, the hearing body may either conclude that
6 full mitigation is proposed and is appropriate, or may
7 conclude that full mitigation is infeasible or concludes
8 that less than full mitigation is appropriate. A statement
9 of overriding considerations shall be made if full
i0 mitigation is feasible but less than full mitigation is
11 appropriate.
12 4. Require that an environmental impact report be prepared in
13 accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
14 (CEQA) and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA,
15 based on a finding that the proposed project could result
16 in significant impacts on school facilities.
17 F. If the hearing body's action is appealed, the appeal body,,or
18 the Board of Supervisors if it eventually assumes jurisdiction over
19 the matter and orders the project set for hearing, shall adopt one
20 of the same alternative actions with respect to school facilities as
21 required of the original hearing body.
22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that any
23 legislative residential proposal that would constitute the final
24 legislative action taken by the County that is necessary to permit
25 development of a property at a higher residential intensity than is
26 currently permitted, shall be-
accompanied by the filing of a quasi -
27 judicial project or projects that demonstrate specific and full
28 utilization of the legislative action proposed, except under the
29 following circumstances:
30 1. 'Any quasi- judicial residential projects that have been
31 approved by a hearing body prior to the effective date of
32 this resolution, that include in the conditions of
33 approval thereof, a requirement for the filing of 'a
14
AGENDA { 1 E'.'r' f �.
PAC- r ILI
1
;2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
28
29
30
31
32
33
general plan amendment or zone change .prior to the use
permitted, or . ,
2• Any quasi- judicial residential project that,includes in
its conditions of approval, the requirement -for the filing
of -a general plan amendment or ,a change of zone, where it
is determined by the hearing body that the general plan
amendment or zone change will not result in significant
impacts on school facilities, or mitigation has occurred
or will occur that will eliminate school facility impacts
or reduce them to.a level of insignificance.
3.
Any specific -plan, or development agreement, where a
specific, legally enforceable agreement has been executed
between the developer, and ;school- district, regarding
mitigation, phased or not, of any school_ facility impacts
resulting from residential: uses, has been included in the
conditions of; approval of the specific plan or the terms
of- the - development agreement. -
4. Any legislative action that would result in equal or less
intensive residential- impacts on school facilities than is
currently permitted.
5. Any- legislative action where it; can, be seen with
certainty, as determined by, the Planning - .Director or
hearing body, that either there will be no significant
impacts on, school facilities., or mitigation has occurred
or will occur that will, eliminate -the impacts -or reduce
them to a level of insignificance.
Any quasi- judicial - project hereby required to be filed
concurrently with any legislative action proposal,. is thereafter
required to proceed together with the referenced legislative action
to any and all required - public. hearings before the appropriate
hearing body and, the. Board of Supervisors. In the event that an
applicant developer for a legislative- proposal refuses to file the
required quasi- judicial projects, the proposed legislative action-
15
AGENDA ITEM, NO•
Gnu_ ...-
1 shall proceed to the appropriate hearing body with a recommendation
2 for denial, based on a finding that significant impacts on school
3 facilities could result'from the proposed project; but sufficient
4 mitigation for such impacts cannot be determined and required in the
5 absence of a quasi- judicial development proposal that makes full use
6 of the legislative action proposed.
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that for
8 administrative and /or legislative actions including but not limited
9 to general plan amendments, specific plans, specific plan
10 amendments, changes of zone and development agreements, evidence
11 that adequate mitigation has occurred or will occur may be
12 established as follows:
13 A. For general plan amendments, "evidence of a legally enforceable
14 agreement between the school district and developer that
15 specifies the exact nature, amount, process, and conditions of
16 mitigation to be provided by the developer, shall be provided
17 to the Planning Director and incorporated by reference into the
18 resolution adopting the general plan amendment.
19 B. For specific plans and specific plan amendments, evidence of a
20 legally enforceable agreement between the school district and
21 developer that specifies the exact nature, amount, process, and
22 conditions of mitigation to be provided by the developer, shall
23 be provided to the Planning Director and incorporated by
24 reference into the conditions of approval of the specific plan
25 and the resolution adopting the specific plan, or into the
26 terms of the development agreement.
27 C. For changes of zone, evidence of a legally enforceable
28 agreement between the school district and developer that
29 specifies the exact nature, amount, process, and conditions of
30 mitigation to be provided by the developer, shall be provided
31 to the Planning Director and County Counsel prior to the
32 adoption by the Board of Supervisors of the ordinance effecting
33 the change of zone. 1.
16
AGENDA ITEM HO. O
PAC -_1W7 I y
1
2
3
4
5
6I7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
D: For administrative project approval, evidence of a legally
enforceable agreement between the school district and developer
that 'specifie"s the exact nature, amount, process and conditions
"of mitigation to be provided to: the Planning Director and
incorporated by reference into the conditions of approval of
the project:'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,:BOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED
that any legislative residential proposal that would not constitute
the final legislative action taken by the County that is necessary
to permit development of a property at a higher residential
intensity that is currently permitted, shall be evaluated under the
assumption that the property. will be developed to the maximum
density and intensity of use that would be permitted if legislative
approval of the proposal were granted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the
only mitigation measures the Planning Director, Planning Commission,
East Area Planning Council or Board of Supervisors shall consider in
mitigating the environmental effects related to the adequacy,. of
school facilities shall be those specified in Government Code
§65996(a).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the
Planning Director, Planning Commission, East Area Planning Council
and Board of Supervisors shall not condition approval of any project
to provide mitigation in excess of the amounts authorized by
Government Code 565995 and 565995.3 unless the school district.has
a school district mitigation plan which has been certified in
accordance with this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that
nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted as limiting or
restricting the ability of the Planning Director, Planning
Commission, East Area Planning Council or Board of Supervisors to
require additional information, special studies or an Environmental
Impact Report on environmental issues, other than adequacy of school
17
PAGE S7 OF
1 ,facilities, that may be associated with residential projects
2 submitted to the County of Riverside for,approval.
3 BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND.ORDERED that'it
4 is the intent of the Board of .Supervisors that this Resolution be in
5 force and effect until amended, rescinded , - suspended,. superseded or
6 until a subsequent resolution or ordinance enacted which
7 supersedes this Resolution.,
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 JGV:re_res \92131 \040693
II 18
Phu ^ =JLLCT 49
May 14,1993
WHITESTONE PROPERTIES, INC.
»x»caelx
SANTA ANA, CAUfORNI4 92701
(714) 8349400
506 SOUTH BROADWAY
BY U.S. CERTIFIED (NAIL
ARTICLE NO. P 561 554' 501
MR. DUANE MORITA
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92330
RE: DRAFT EIR LAKE ELSINORE
SPECIFIC PLAN SCH # 92092027
Dear Mr. Morita:
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RECEIVED
MAY 17 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
In the absence of more information regarding the above stated matter, I am
PROTESTING any further development and activities, especially properties I own,
inclduing but not limited to Skylark Airport, Cereal Partnership (95 acres), 80
Acre Partnership (80 acres), etc.
A request is hereby made to provide a copy of:
EIR Report
Specific Plan of East Lake Community Builders
Development Agreement.
In addition, I need more time to study all the related documents stated above, to
be reviewed by our attorney.
Since we are the majority owners of 3000 acres, the items above has a large impact
o: our property, and these items need to be addressed accordingly. ..
incerely,
KRIS KAKKAR
ON BEHALF OF SKYLARK AIRPORT
CEREAL PARTNERSHIP
80 ACRES PARTNERSHIP
DR. SHAH
KK:bgo
cc: Sandy Hesnard, Environmental Planner
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics,
Sacramento, CA
t, S*ZA ITEi,f NO.
P.AC_.L_L C. -1
JACKSON,
FC.r..D J .L {.[C «• a[OTT J.Cw{Ow
..c ...... .
.. ..C. D...[w ...ILLS
u.o.LL e. Flu
uo.o[ a w.. { •.D.0 a Fcu[...ua.
rrcn.0 . co.rme ..n D. w
LOrvd.D A wLLOw..
DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH
A LAW CORPORATION
A PARK PLAZA - 16•• FLOOR
POST OFFICC BOX 19704
IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92713-9704
471.1 762 -6666
May 12, 1993
CITY OF L E1VED ELSINORk
MAY 13 1993
PLANNING DEPT.
VIA FACSIMILE
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
Bowie, Arneson,'Kadi, Wiles
& Giannone
4920 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
......
.La . ..arTT.r[w
FAX: M., 162 -0697
WRITCR'C DIPCCT OIAL NL.DCR'.
851 -7412
OUP IILC NNNOCA
22961
Re: East Lake Specific Plan /Draft Environmental
Impact Report ISCH No. 920920271
Dear Mr. Doering:
Last Wednesday, May.B, 1993, prior to the City of Lake
Elsinore Planning Commission Hearing on the above- referenced
project, our client, East Lake Community Builders ( "ECB"),
informed you, and later informed the Planning Commission at its
hearing, that ECB would be proposing modif-icst3ons to the
language for a Condition of Approval to the Specific Plan
requested by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District
( "District "). Specifically, in your letter of April 15, 1993,
to the City Planning Department, you proposed the following
condition:
Prior to approval of the first tentative map for
property within the Specific Plan, applicant shall
have entered into a school impact mitigation agreement
with the School District. City shall have considered
r,G= rDA iTEIM
PACE-J9 OF �Z
JACKSON, DEMARCO 6 PECKENPAUGK
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
May 12, 1993
Page 2
the adequacy of the school facilities or available
means of financing school facilities to meet the needs
and demands of new development proposed in such
tentative map to be approved by the City.
As you know, on'the afternoon'•preceeding the Planning
Commission hearing on May 5,'1993, representatives of both the
City and East Lake Community Builders met with Superintendent
Long to discuss mitigation of school impacts created by the East
Lake Development. Following further discussions with our
client, we propose that the. following condition be included to
the approval of the Specific Plan by the City Council. We
believe that this condition addresses both the issues of diverse
ownerships_ within the Specify Plan Areajn mitigating school
impacts, as well as providing the framework for a future
agreement between the District and various landowners to
mitigate school impacts. Therefore, we propose the following
condition:
Prior to approval of the first Tentative Tract Map
`filed'by.each individual landowner or developer of
property within the_Specific Plan Area, each such
individual landowner or developer shall have entered
into a mutually agreeable School Impact Mitigation
Agreement with the Lake Elsinore Unified School
District ( "District "). City shall consider the
adequacy of school facilities or available means of
equitably financing school facilities to meet the
needs and demands of new development proposed in such
Tentative Tract Map to be approved by the City. For
purposes of this condition, acceptable mitigation
provided for in the School Impact Mitigation Agreement
may include, but is-not "limited to the following:
('a) Agreement by the District and the landowner
or developer concerning (i) student
generation rates and other factors; (ii)
- school facilities °which will need to be
constructed due to the proposed- development;
and (iii) the costs associated with
constructing such school facilities.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE 11 q OF Z
JACKSON, DEMARCO S PECKENPP.UGH
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
May 12, 1993
Page 3
(b) Construction by the landowner or developer,
separately or jointly with other.landowners
and developers in the Specific Plan Area, of
".turn key " - school facilities to be dedicated
o the District; provided, however, that.if
such school facility, so constructed by a
landowner(s) or developer(s) and dedicated
to the,District contain capacity in.excess
of that required to serve the applicable
development, then the District shall make
provision for reimbursement to such
landowner or developer for the pro rata
portion of costs associated with the excess
capacity from the payment of developer fees
or other financing mechanisms applicable to
school construction financing upon receipt
by the District of such funds.
(c) Utilization of developer fees, Mello -Roos
Community Facilities District financing or
other special district financing, singley or
in combination, to fully fund the
construction cost of school facilities
necessitated by the proposed development.
(d) Payment to the landowner for the acquisition
of a school site located on such landowners'
property.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no school fees or other
mitigation requirements shall be,required for the
construction of municipal facilities, including, but
not limited to, the proposed baseball stadium within
the Special Use Area. -
ECB is proposing this condition to the Specific Plan
in good faith to try to arrive at an amicable method of
financing schools necessitated by the development in the East
Lake Specific Plan. ECB.is offering.this condition even though
it believes that compliance with such condition will be in
excess of requirements authorized by the School Facilities Act
as amended in 1992 by SB 1287.
AGENDA ITcbt NO
PAGE OF --L21=
JACKSON, DEMARCO 6 PECKEN PAUGH
Eric R. Doering, Esq.
May 12, 1993
Page 4
We would appreciate''your early review and comments so
that this matter may be finalized as early as possible prior to
the May 25, 1993, City Council meeting.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Otherwise, we look forward to your early consideration and
response.
Ve7 truly your
s,
avid L Colgan
DLC /mmd
cc: Dr. David Long, Superintendent
Mr. Ronald Molendyk, City Manager
Ms. -Pam Brinley, Vice Chairman'
Mr. Richard.Bullard,.Planning Commissioner -
Mr. Donald Neff, Planning Commissioner
L. Wilsey, Planning Commissioner
Mr. Chip Leslie, City Planner
Mr. Dan Young
Mr. Tom Weigel
I1 Ill �.� YJ.
f14�1`J
PAGC JZ-1 O` 1Z-
May 19, 1993
CITY OP LAKE ELSINORE
City of Lake Elsinore, RECEIVED
130 S. Main St., MAY 2 1993 Lake Elsinore, Ca. 92330
Dear Sirs:
PLANNING DEPT.
Re: Parcel Nos.. 373233004 =9- Lakeshore Dr.(btw. Herbert & Lakepark
it 373233001 -6 it
it 373233002 -7 it
it 373233008 -2 It
it 373233003 -8 " it
We the undersigned Harry & Anoosh Sarkissian owners of the above
mentioned parcels located above, protest against East ^.IAke;Specific Plan.
This project is doing a great injustice'to our properties by lowering it from
commercial zone to R3 residential zone.
In 1989 when we purchased this property we recieved a tax bill
that showed an assessment twice the amount we had bought and have been taxed
accordingly because the properties are commercial. This has caused us a lot
of hardship since we could not sell or build on these properties but we had
to pay the high taxes.
We,along with other owners of commercial properties in the same
area, are against changing our commercial zones into residential.
SiincLeErely,
HHafiy & Anoosh Sarkissian ,
AGENDA ITEM NO. �._ ---
PAC- Lam` t
RESOLUTION NO. 9 3 -2-9-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, - -CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3 FOR EASTLAKE
COMMUNITY BUILDERS /CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE (EAST
LAKE)
WHEREAS, there has been an application by Eastlake Community
Builders /City of Lake Elsinore, which consists of 3,000 acres, for
a mix of residential, commercial, and open space uses along with
infrastructure and public service improvements. East Lake is
located along the eastern shoreline. of Lake Elsinore and is
generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on'the north, Mission Trail
and Corydon Road on the east,,the city boundary line on the south;
and the shoreline of Lake Elsinore on the west. Due notice of said
application has been given and public hearing conducted thereon
pursuant to State Planning and Zoning Law and local ordinances;
WHEREAS, the Planning.Commission has previously reviewed the
EIR and has recommended that the City Council (1) certify that the
EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City's CEQA
Guidelines; and (2) approve the Specific Plan for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and has
considered the information contained therein and in the other
documents referred to therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that:
1. The East Lake EIR has been prepared, submitted and
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City's CEQA
guidelines, and is complete and adequate in that it
addresses all environmental effects of the Project and
all discretionary approvals required therefore.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
VICKI L. KASAD,- CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
JOHN HARPER, CITY ATTORNEY
GARY M. WASHBURN, MAYOR
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PACE OED —i-
NO. �SS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE
EAST LAKE SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 (EASTLAKE
COMMUNITY BUILDERS /CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:,
WHEREAS, there has been an application by Eastlake Community
Builders /City of Lake Elsinore, which consists of 3,000 acres, for
a mix of residential, commercial, and open space uses along with
infrastructure and public service improvements. East Lake is
located along the eastern shoreline of Lake Elsinore and is
generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on the north, Mission Trail.
and Corydon Road.on the east, the city boundary line on the south,
and the shoreline of Lake Elsinore on the west. Due notice of said
application has. been given and public hearing conducted thereon
pursuant to State Planning and Zoning Law and local ordinances;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the
EIR and has recommended that the City Council (1) certify
requirements of the California Environmental Quality. Act and the
City's CEQA Guidelines; and (2) approve the Specific Plan for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and has
considered the information contained therein and in the other
documents referred to therein; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the EIR and has made
the Findings required by the State CEQA Guidelines:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE THAT:
Section 1: Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and based upon the Findings adopted hereby with regard to the
approval of the Project, the City Council hereby (i) finds that the
Specific Plan for the Project area attached hereto as Attachment A
is consistent with the General Plan of the City, (ii), finds the
adoption of the Specific Plan is in the public interest, (iii)
approves and adopts the Specific Plan based on the following
Findings:
1. The East Lake Specific Plan meets the City's Specific
Plan criteria for content and required implementation of
the General Plan established by Section 65450 of the
California Government Code and section 17.99 of the City
of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
The East Lake Specific Plan is consistent with the Goals,
Policies and Objectives of the General Plan, and with any
other applicable plan or policies adopted by the City for
the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 (pp.III -1 through
III -14) of the Specific Plan.
The Development Regulations contained within the Specific
Plan supersede otherwise applicable City ordinances and
codes, unless specifically stated to the contrary in the
Specific Plan. Approval of the Specific Plan shall not
be interpreted as waiving compliance with other Federal,
State, or City Codes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. -z-1
PACE 17-q OP 1
Ordinance No. q S5
Page two
4. The EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and is
complete and adequate. As set forth in the Statement of
,Facts, Findings, and Overriding Considerations,,, all
significant adverse impacts have either been mitigated to
acceptable levels, or have been found to be overridden by
economic, social, or other benefits derived from the
project.
5. This request will result in significant environmental
impacts associated with land use, air quality, biological
resources, energy resources, aesthetics, agriculture,
seismicity, water quality, traffic, school construction,
utilities and services which may be partially mitigated
but are anticipated to remain significant upon
development of the site as allowed under the General
Plan. These impacts are therefore found to be acceptable
under the General Plan, specifically the provision of
quality housing opportunities by the City, the
anticipated increase in local government revenues
generated. by project residents. and the provision of
significant infrastructure improvements, all of which are
expected to support local commercial and industrial
development efforts and generate measurable benefits to
the local economy and fiscal integrity of City
government.
6. The proposed location of the project allows the
development to be well- integrated with its surroundings.
7. All vehicular traffic generated, the development,
either in phased increments or at full build -out, will be
accommodated safely and without causing undue congestion
upon adjoining streets.
8. Except as limited by State Law, including SB 1287, the
Specific Plan identifies methodologies to allow land uses
to be adequately serviced by existing or proposed public
facilities and services. Suitable areas are reserved for
schools, parks and pedestrian ways.
9. The overall design of the Specific Plan will produce an
attractive, efficient and stable development.
10. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the
persons residing or working within the project area or
within the City, nor will it be injurious to property or
improvements in the project area or within the City.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after the date of its 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, UPON FIRST READING this 25th day of May 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE IVY OF 17
Ordinance No.�
Page three
PASSED,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND
READING this 8th
day of June
1993, by the following voter
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTENTIONS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
GARY M. WASHBURN,
MAYOR
ATTEST:
VICKI L. KASAD, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS
TO -FORM'AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
JOHN HARPER,
D
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE IZ16OF
!Z-5
ORDINANCE NO: 9SG.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore
held a duly noticed public hearing 'on a' proposed Development
Agreement between the City of Lake Elsinore and Eastlake Community
Builders on May 19, 1993, and found-that the, Development Agreement
is consistent with the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore held a
duly noticed public hearing on the Development Agreement. on May 25,
1993, and found that (1) the Development Agreement is consistent
with the City's General Plan and the East Lake Specific Plan, and;
(2) the previously certified Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the East .Lake Specific Plan is adequate and complete for the
Development Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE.ELSINORE
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Development Agreement between the City of Lake
Elsinore and Eastlake.Community Builders, as set forth in Exhibit
A attached hereto, is hereby approved. "The Mayor is authorized to
execute the Development Agreement_ and, following such execution,
the City Clerk,shall cause a copy, thereof to be recorded with the
Riverside County Recorder within ten (10) days.
Section 2._ The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published
in the manner required by law. This- Ordinance shall become
effective upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from and after
its passage.
PASSED UPON FIRST READING this 25th day of May 1993, upon the
following vote:
.AYES: Councilmemberse r
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:,,
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June 1993, upon
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: ,Councilmembers:,.
Gary M. Washburn,.Mayor
City of Lake Elsinore
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO.FORM AND LEGALITY:
Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk John Harper, City Attorney
City of Lake Elsinore City of Lake Elsinore
(SEAL)
AGENDA ITEM NO._�.
PACE QJ 07 I v 1
RESOLUTION NO. �r
RESOLUTION R.D.A. NO.'
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE ELSINORE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ( "RDA ") AUTHORIZING. THE EXECUTION OF
THE REDEVELOPMENT DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.( "DDA ") BY AND BETWEEN THE RDA, AND
EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS
BE.IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE RDA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The DDA was considered by the City Council and the RDA at
a properly noticed joint public hearing on May 25, 1993. At the
hearing, the City Council and the RDA staff, recommended approval of
the DDA.
2. The adoption of the DDA is deemed to be in the interest of
the orderly redevelopment of the City of Lake Elsinore and is
consistent with the goals,' objectives and policies of-the existing
General Plan for the City of Lake Elsinore ( "General Plan "), the
East Lake Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") and the Redevelopment
Plan for the Rancho Laguna Redevelopment Project, Nos. II and III
( "Redevelopment Plans ").
.3. The City Council and the RDA can approve the DDA as they
are within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR
prepared for the Specific Plan which EIR was certified on May 25,
1993. Given this, no new CEQA document is required. Pursuant to
14 CCR Section 15162, no new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the DDA.
4. The City of Lake Elsinore incorporates, in their entirety,
the feasible mitigation measures developed in the May 1993 Program
EIR as requirements for the DDA.
5. The DDA will promote the welfare and public,interest of
the City of Lake Elsinore.
6. The DDA will govern the development of the projects which
are specifically described in the DDA, copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The DDA shall be
effective immediately upon execution of this Resolution.
7. The DDA is hereby approved by the City Council and the RDA
Board and the Mayor of the City of Lake Elsinore is hereby
authorized and directed to execute the DDA on behalf of the RDA.
AGENDA ITEM� NO. - --E� --
Page 2
n L1
Resolution No.0
Resolution RDA No.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION IS HEREBY APPROVED UPON THE FOLLOWING
VOTE THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1993.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
AYES:
BOARDMEMBERS:
NOES:
BOARDMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
BOARDMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
BOARDMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Vicki Lynne Kasad, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
John R. Harper, City Attorney
City of Lake Elsinore
(SEAL)
Gary Washburn, Mayor
City of Lake Elsinore
Jim Winkler, Chairman
Redevelopment Agency
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGcjz'q u:
0
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FROM: RON MOLENDYK, CITY MANAGER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR /RDA
DATE: MAY 25, 1993 -
SUBJECT: EAST LAKE.SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (EAST LAKE) EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS /CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT -AGREEMENT
At their meeting on May 5, 1993 -the Planning Commission recommended
the following to City Council (Minutes and Staff Report- attached):
• Certification of Environmental Impact Report;
• Approval of East Lake Specific Plan (SP 93 -3) and
adopted Resolution No. 93 -3.
The Planning Commission at their May 5, 1993, meeting continued
their consideration of the associated proposed development
agreement to their May 19, 1993, meeting. At this meeting, the
Planning Commission then.-recommended City Council approve the
following (separate staff report and draft minutes attached):
Development Agreement between Eastlake Community
Builders (ECB).and the City of Lake Elsinore.
In conjunction with their review of the Development Agreement, the
Planning Commission also reviewed the proposed Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) between ECB, the City and the
Redevelopment Agency. - This draft document was included in the
Commission's review because.of the interrelationship of the two
documents and the many cross references contained in them. The
Planning Commission did not take any action on the DDA because they
are not required to._
DISCUSSION
Staff has been working with ECB on development of the Specific Plan
since 1992. More recently, staff has- been working with ECB
relative to the content and terms of the Development Agreement and
DDA, which cover the property within the Specific Plan that ECB
actually has a legal interest in.: .The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the requests with just a few modifications
which are discussed below.
specific Plan
Based on the Commission's own concerns (relative to
school impacts and on testimony given at the Planning
Commission hearing by an attorney for the Lake Elsinore
Unified School District, the Commission recommended the
following condition of approval be added:
77. Prior to approval of_ any tentative map for property
within the Specific'Plan,.applicant shall have entered
into a school impact mitigation agreement with the school
district.- The developer shall submit a -letter to the
School District within seven (7) days (May 12, 1993)
indicating any additional language.
On May 12, 1993, ECB's attorney sent a letter to _the
School District proposing revised wording to this
condition. The revised wording can be reviewed in the
l.'E \DA ITEM NO.
PAC= OF /�`/
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 2
copy of ECB's letter to the School District, attached
to this report as Page ;ig ofJ 29 . As of the time of
the preparation of this report, staff had not received a
response from the School District regarding the
acceptability of this revised condition wording.
The Commission also suggested the' zoning (proposed
specific plan land use designations) on two parcels be
referred back to staff for comment and suggestion prior
to City Council hearing. The Planning Commission's
direction was in response to testimony and correspondence
received regarding these two parcels. The following are
staff's comments regarding the requests:
Sportsman's Lodge Property: This property is
located on the south side of Lakeshore Drive
and on the west side of the .San Jacinto
Rivers. The property is currently zoned
commercial (C -1); however, the East Lake
Specific Plan proposes medium density
residential (Res. 2). The property owner
would like to retain commercial zoning. Staff
feels a commercial zoning of this property
would not be detrimental to the integrity of
the proposed East Lake Specific Plan and it
would still be consistent with the proposed
goal and objectives of the Plan. Staff,
however, does recommend that the entire
Specific Plan. Planning Area No: 6, of which
this property is a portion of, be similarly
zoned, and that there is an attempt to develop
the entire planning area as a cohesive
project. The other properties in this
planning area are those existing parcels on
the east side of Elm Street. The appropriate
East Lake Specific Plan land use designation
to allow commercial on this property is Mixed
Use (which allows residential also) or General
Commercial.
Default Property: This property is located on
the south side of Lakeshore Drive opposite the
intersection' of Country Club Boulevard. The
property is currently zoned commercial;
however, the East Lake Specific Plan currently
proposes low density residential (Res.l). The
property owner would like to retain commercial
zoning. Staff feels there may be some merit
to having a limited commercial site along this
portion of Lakeshore Drive at a significant
intersection. However, staff would recommend
that any commercial development of such a site
be designed to provide an adequate buffer
between the commercial use and the surrounding
existing and future residential uses. The
existing commercial use of this property
would be allowed to be maintained within the
residential zoning proposed by the East Lake
Specific Plan under non - conforming use
regulations.
Development Agreement
The Planning Commission did not recommend any specific
AGENDA ITEM N10.
PACs O? OF 1.29
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 3
,modifications to the . Development. Agreement in their
recommendation of approval of,, it. ..The,Commission did ask some
questions which staff and the applicant made an attempt to
answer. _The Commission did request that a draft - transcript of
their questions be given to the City Attorney for his -,review
and comment if necessary prior to the City Council hearing.
The draft transcript, was transmitted to the City Attorney.
Noted below is a summary of one specific comment /question the
Commission had on the Development Agreement that; they
requested the City Attorney.to comment on prior to City
.Council:,
Section 12.5 Financing of Public Facilities
and /or Services:. The Commission was concerned
that wording towards the end of this section
was indicating that there may be a, real chance
that the proposed 2% capon property taxes and
aggregate public debt service may be exceeded.
The Commission indicated they felt tht a if the
2% is exceeded this would have a negative'
effect on the marketability and success of the.
.project.
..Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) „
As with the Development Agreement, Planning Commission did not
recommend any modifications to the -DDA and as_ mentioned
previously, they did not take any action on it. .However, as
also with the Development Agreement, questions,they. asked on
the DDA have been forwarded to the City Attorney for review
and comment if necessary. One section of the DDA they
specifically asked the City Attorney for clarification on was
Section 706 regarding no- cross- defaults.
MENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following based
upon the Findings and Conditions as recommended by the. Planning
Commission:
1. Certify the East Lake.E vironmental Impact Report (93-3) and
adopt Resolution, No. __.•
2. Approve the East Lake Specific Plan and adopt Ordinance No.
�l5 5 (possibly subject to revised school impact mitigation
condition wording and revised, land use designations for
certain parcels)
3. Approve the Development Agreement with the,Eastlake Community
Builders and adopt Ordinance No. Q Sin
4. Approve the Disposition and Development Agreement with East
Lake Community Builders and adopt Resolution No. Q 3-01 9
It is recommended that the Redevelopment- Agency concur with City
Council action.
FINDINGS - SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3
1. The East Lake Specific Plan meets the: City's Specific Plan
criteria for content and required implementation of the
- General Plan established by•Section 65450 of the California
Government Code and section 17.99 of the City of Lake.Elsinore
Municipal -Code.
ACENDA ITEM NO. 1L--
F�G�� -Or %
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 4
2. The East Lake - Specific Plan is consistent' with the Goals,
Policies and Objectives of the General Plan, and with any
other applicable plan or policies adopted by the City for the
reasons set 'forth in Section 3.1 (pp.III -1 through III -14) of
the Specific Plan.
3. The Development Regulations contained within the Specific Plan
supersede otherwise applicable City ordinances and codes,
unless specifically stated to'the contrary in -the Specific
Plan. Approval of the Specific Plan shall not be interpreted
as waiving compliance with other .Federal, State, or City
Codes.
4. The EIR has been- prepared in-compliance with CEQA' and is
complete and adequate. As set forth in the "Statement of
Facts, Findings; - and overriding Considerations, all
significant adverse impacts have either been mitigated to
acceptable levels, or have been found to be overridden by
economic, social, or other benefits derived from the project.
5. This request will result in significant environmental impacts
associated with land use, air quality, biological resources,
energy resources, aesthetics, agriculture, seismicity, water
quality, traffic, school construction, utilities and services
which may be partially mitigated but are anticipated to remain
significant upon development of the -site as allowed under the
General Plan. These impacts are therefore found to be
acceptable under the General Plan, specifically the provision
of quality housing opportunities by the City, the anticipated
increase in local government revenues generated by project
residents and the provision of significant infrastructure
improvements, all of which are expected to support local
commercial and industrial development• efforts and generate
measurable benefits to the local economy and fiscal integrity
of City government.
6. The proposed location of the project allows the development to
be well- integrated with its surroundings.
7. All vehicular traffic generated by the development, either in
phased increments or at full build -out, will be accommodated
safely and without causing undue congestion upon adjoining
streets.
S. Except as- limited by State Law, including SB .1287, the
Specific Plan identifies methodologies to allow land uses to
be adequately serviced by existing or proposed public
facilities and services. Suitable areas are reserved for
schools, parks and pedestrian ways.
9. The overall design of the Specific Plan will produce an
attractive, efficient and stable development. '
10. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, comfort, or general' welfare of the persons residing or
working within the project area or within the City, nor will
it be injurious to property or improvements in the project
area or within the City.
FINDINGS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3-
1. The East Lake EIR has been prepared, submitted and reviewed in
accordance - with the requirements of the - California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's CEQA guidelines, and
AGENDA ITEM NO.
C
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993 '
Page 5
is complete and adequate in that it 'addresses all
environmental effects of the Project and.all discretionary
approvals required therefore.
FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
1. The proposed Development Agreement between Eastlake Community
Builders and the City of Lake Elsinore is consistent with the
City's General Plan and with the East Lake Specific Plan.
2. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the East Lake
Specific Plan is. adequate and complete for, the proposed
Development Agreement.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
APPROVED BY:
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA LISTING:
AGENDA ITEM NO. D
PAGE 'S OF /22
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3
EAST LAKE
1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant
shall submit a final grading plan, subject to all requirements
of the City Grading Ordinance, and a geo- technical report to
the Public Services Director for approval. The geo - technical
report will primarily involve assessment of potential soil -
related constraints and hazards such as slope stability,
settlement, liquefaction, or related seismic impacts where
determined to be appropriate by the Public Services Director.
The report shall also include evaluation of potentially
expansive soils and recommended construction procedures and /or
design criteria to minimize the affects of these soils on the
proposed development.
2. Grading shall not be. permitted outside the area of the
designated project boundary unless appropriate approvals have
been obtained.
3. Prior to the recordation of a final tract /parcel map or prior
to the issuance of any grading permits, whichever comes first,
the Applicant shall design the following improvements and
provide necessary dedication in a manner meeting the approval
of the Public Services Director:
• All provisions for surface drainage; and
• All necessary storm drain facilities to a satisfactory
point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of
storm runoff.
4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, grading and
construction plans shall incorporate erosion control measures.
5. All structures shall be designed to incorporate all state and
local water conservation regulations, subject to the approval
of the Community Development Director.
6. Applicants shall incorporate energy- efficient features and
passive design concepts, whenever feasible, in the design and
construction of the project.
7. Applicants shall incorporate the use of solar energy and waste
heat recovery systems to reduce energy consumption into the
project design wherever it is feasible.
S. Applicants shall consult with SCE and SCG in the selection of
effective energy conservation techniques and the installation
of additional, project - related infrastructure.
9. Applicants shall install building and energy conservation
measures in compliance with Title 24, CRC Sections 2- 5307(b)
and 2 -5452 (i) and (j), and Title 20, CRC Sections 1604 (f)
and 1601 (b).
10. The development shall include facilities to promote
circulation efficiencies, such as bus stops and turnouts.
Plans for these facilities shall be incorporated into the
street improvement plans for each development phase.
11. All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated
against present and projected noise which shall be the sum of
all noise impacting the Project so as not to exceed an
exterior standard of 60 Ldn in outdoor living areas, and an
interior standard of 45 Db CNEL in all habitable rooms.
12. Public buildings, particularly schools, shall be located in
areas free from hazards and safety threatening considerations.
13. The design of the East Lake project shall meet all Riverside
County Fire Department standards for fire protection and any
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE —& OF 121
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93- 3- CONTINIIED
additional requirements requested by the County Fire Marshall
14. Applicant shall obtain all necessary State and Federal
permits, approvals, or other entitlements, where applicable,
prior to each phase of development, of the project.
15. The development of park facilities shall be directly linked to
the phasing of .residential development as further described in
the Disposition and Development Agreement.
16. Applicants of future projects within East Lake shall acquire
the necessary permits for development, including grading and
building permits.
17. Applicants shall comply with applicable redevelopment and
displacement law relative to property acquisitions within the
East Lake Specific Plan area.
18. Prior to approval of each tentative map, a fault hazards
investigation shall be conducted which will include fault
trenching and utilize precursory geophysical methods within
areas enclosed by the State of California Special Studies
maps,.if any structures are proposed in or near these areas.
This study shall be provided by the` Applicant and shall
include discussion, of potential hazards on -site associated
with Glen Ivy North fault and previously theorized buried en
echelon faults. '
19. Due to the known or potential presence of active .faults;
potentially capable of surface rupture, structures for human
occupation shall not be permitted within 50 feet, of any
capable faults or_ fault . zones now documented or ultimately
documented during further geologic /geophysical investigation'
of the site during the design of tentative maps.
20. Documentation of slope stability shall be required when the
type of fill material has.been determined prior to issuance of
a grading permit.
21. Use of sulphur resistant concrete "Type V" or-equivalent with
fly -ash will be required per Standard Specifications for _
Public works Construction for areas containing near - surface,
high - sulfate content soils.
22. Prior to tentative map approval, the project geotechnical,
civil, and structural engineers shall.review. seismic seiche
design parameters and incorporate appropriate design - standards
into the site plan.
23. The construction of the portions of East Lake presently below
elevation 1265 are conditional upon completion of the IMP
components affecting flood control. -
24. Future developers shall prepare a comprehensive Flood Storage,`
Retention and Operations Plan which provides design - level.
detail on operation of the flood storage system within East
Lake. The plan shall be approved by LEMA, Riverside County
Flood Control, and the City of Lake Elsinore Public Works.
For those areas under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of
Engineers, this plan shall be submitted with the, Section 404
permit application.
25. Prior to conducting any dredging' in Lake Elsinore, the
Applicant shall obtain necessary Federal, State, and County
approval.
a) Standard toxicity -tests shall'be conducted of sediments
in potential dredge locations: Only locations that pass
standard toxicity tests shall be dredged.
�N
n(. i
AGENDA iTEm. (*,b. '
PAGE OF ���
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
b) Measures (including the use of silt curtains around
dredge equipment) shall be taken to reduce turbidity
impacts. The City shall review and approve any turbidity
abatement measure developed by the, Applicant and the
Corps of Engineers prior, to initiation of dredging.
Dredging shall be monitored to ensure turbidity plumes
— will only occur around the immediate area of the dredge..
C) Measures shall be taken to prevent any release of
hydrocarbons into the lake during routine dredging
operations as well as uncontrolled accidental spillage of
petroleum products into the lake from dredging machinery.
Such measures shall include the use of floating oil booms
to collect any petroleum hydrocarbons that might escape
and to develop a dredging petroleum-spill avoidance and
contingency plan.
26. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall
develop a Spill Prevention, Containment and Cleanup Plan for
potential accidental spills of petroleum prevention products
from `.machinery or above ground storage tanks during
construction.
27. In order to mitigate the potential impacts to water quality
from nutrient loading by an emergency overflow of Upper Lake
waters to Lake Elsinore, the Applicant shall develop a Lake
Management Plan for Upper Lake prior to its construction.
Such a plan would outline a water quality sampling and testing
program in order to monitor plant nutrient levels in the Upper
Lake, and it would describe what lake management options were
available to minimize eutrophication of ,.Upper Lake.
28. Applicants for individual projects requiring 401 Water Quality
Certification an NPDES construction and storm water permits
shall obtain such permits prior to issuance of city grading
permits..
29. All construction equipment shall utilize properly working
mufflers and be kept in a proper state of tune to alleviate
backfires. Stationary equipment such as. generators, shall be
equipped with noise shrouds and shall be placed as far as
possible from sensitive receptor locations. Finally, when
working within sensitive areas, portable noise barriers shall
be utilized to reduce produced noise to the extent feasible.
30. Contractors shall implement the measures detailed in Section
4.6.3.1 of the EIR to reduce the impacts of exhaust and dust
emissions during construction. ,
31. The impacts of equestrian use shall be mitigated by
implementing operational measures including but not limited to
regular watering of the facility and daily removal of manure.
The Applicant shall demonstrate how these and other measures
will be implemented during the design review stage.
32. Prior to the approval of individual tract maps, future
applicants shall incorporate, to the extent feasible, the
measures detailed in Section 4.6.3.2 of the EIR to reduce the
impacts of mobile and stationary source emissions.
33. Prior to removal, it shall be determined if the creosote poles
on -site contain hazardous materials and any building slated
for demolition (namely residences) shall be inspected by an
AHERA approved inspector to ascertain.if ACMs are present.
34. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore,
the Riverside County planning staff, and California Department
of Fish and Game in the design and development of the Multi-
AGENDA ITE,
PAO-E
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
habitat Corridor to ensure consistency and compatibility with
the regional corridor system. `
35. The existing .356 acre wetlands area shall be operated as
shallow pond habitat while phases 1 1 21 3 and 5 of the project
are being constructed.
36. The retained open space - areas= on and adjacent to, those-
portions of Rome Hill within East Lake, shall be fenced and
signs shall be placed to designate the areas as open space
wildlife habitat. This will serve to eliminate off - highway
vehicle disturbances and some of the disturbances caused by
human intrusion into the natural area.
37. Construction or heavy grading adjacent to Rome Hill and the
planned natural open space areas shall not occur during the
months of March through July. By avoiding this time frame,
impacts to wildlife in the natural areas during the breeding
season shall be kept to a minimum. "
38. Diversion, obstruction'of the natural flow, or changes in the
bed, channel, or bank °of any river' stream, - or •lake shall
require notification to the CDF as called for in the Fish and
Game Code. Notification shall be made after the project is
approved by the lead agency.
39. A qualified paleontologist shall monitor ground disturbing
activities in high potential areas. Monitoring would I occur
for 2 to "3 hours per week in area mapped as Quaternary
Alluvium (Qal), with increased monitoring activity occurring
should fossils be located. A greater monitoring effort of 4'
hours per day would occur in the late Pleistocene deposits
(Qc)
a) The monitoring paleontologist•shall salvage fossils as
they are unearthed and remove bulk samples of sediments'
which may contain small remains, such as rodents, to an
off -site location for screen washing. The monitor shall
be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment o
allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
b) All specimens removed by the': paleontologist shall be
prepared to the point of identification and described in
a report' of the findings, with an appended itemized
inventory "of the recovered specimens. Specimens would
then be accessioned into an established museum repository
with retrievable storage.
40. Traffic impacts shall be mitigated in accordance to the
measures detailed in Section 4.13.3 of the EIR.
41. Recycled water shall be utilized where feasible. Where
implemented, recycled water shall be used in accordance with
Title 22, California Administrative Code and is also subject_
to the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County
Health Department, EVMWD "and the RWQCB through issuance of an
MPDES waste discharge permit. .
42. Applicant shall-assist EVMWD in finding additional funding
sources for short- and long -term financing for construction of
on -site and regional water and sewer facilities. _
43. All development proposals shall be reviewed by' the City of
Lake Elsinore and Riverside County Fire Department to ensure
that adequate fire services are ,available to serve the
development.
S-S -13A,
- AG'_NDA ITEM, NO.
PAGE pr ��
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC FLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
44. The proposed fire station shall follow the standards of the
Fire Master Plan. Fire Station location and access shall be
approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.
45. Prior to occupancy, the Applicant and the City shall cooperate
with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department to ensure that
adequate police service will be provided for the project,
including mitigation fees, if necessary.
46. The proposed police substation shall comply with all
applicable Riverside County Sheriff Department standards.
47. The Applicant shall pay to the Lake Elsinore Unified School
District the developer fee in the amount set by State law.
48. Special event traffic control shall be provided during major
events at the stadium.
49. Design of the specific facilities within the Sports Park, such
as the equestrian facility, shall be subject to design review
by the City of Lake Elsinore and with particular consideration
for waste disposal, site drainage, and vector control.
50. Applicant shall. ensure adequate utility service prior to
occupancy.
51. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable measures as
specified by the city including those found in the city
programs including the City Source Reduction and Recycling
Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element, the county
Solid Waste Management Plan and new county..Integrated.Waste
Management Plan.
52. Development of the new library facility shall conform to
applicable RCCPL standards. Applicant shall pay any
applicable fees for library services prior to issuance of
building permits.
53. Applicants shall provide all project- related on -site
improvements as specified in the Specific Plan.
54. The use of some native vegetation shall be incorporated into
landscaping. Native bunchgrasses, wild buckwheat, and coastal
sagebrush are examples of native grassland, and coastal sage
scrub species that shall be utilized -so as to create as
diverse a plant palette as feasible. Implementation of this
measure would partially mitigate for unavoidable impacts of
the project on natural vegetation in the area.
55. Dust control methods shall be employed during construction so
as to minimize the amount of dust that could settle on Rome*
Hill. Implementation of this measure would reduce dust
impacts to .a nonsignificant level.
56. All future development including tentative subdivision maps
shall be consistent with the design standards and guidelines
proposed in the Specific Plan.
57. All future development is subject to the City of Lake Elsinore
Design Review process.
58. Three sites, CA -RIV -4042, CA-RIV -4647 AND CA -RIV -4648, require
archaeological test excavations to determine their _- importance.
The COE, Los Angeles District, shall conduct test excavations_,
at CA -RIV -4042 and determine that site's importance.
59. CA -RIV -4647 may be eligible for the Sparse Lithic Scatter
Program as defined by Jackson et al. (1988) and will require
a more extensive test excavation program.
AC_aso„ F, er:. h 0.
PAC= /D OF Ia 9
60. If subsurface deposits are found in conducting the excavation
of Subsurface Exploratory Excavation Units''(SEEUs) for the
Sparse Lithic Scatter Program; CA -RIV -4648' requires
archaeological test excavation to determine its significance
under CEQA.
61. The Applicant will work with'EVMWD to ensure that there is an
adequate supply of water an & pressure` to meet fire -flow
requirements. All water mains and hydrants shall be provided
in accordance with City of "Lake Elsinore Municipal Code,
subject to the approval of the Riverside "County Fire
Department.
62. Any uses-within, the East Lake project ' which involve or
generate hazardous waste ' shall prepare a Hazardous
Materialsywaste Handling, Storage, and `Disposal Plan for "
approval by the California Department of Health, Riverside
County Fire Department, and City of Lake Elsinore. An
emergency evacuation plan shall be prepared for uses which
involve hazardous waste.
63. As a condition of land use approval or land use permits issued
under the Specific Plan, Applicant shall be required to grant
an avigation easement for airport operations. Avigation
easements shall not restrict'- airport, operations`, but shall
specify the types of activities included within the easement
designation. Avigation easements will specifically include
reference to airport vicinity effects which include noise
impact, accident potential, fly- overs, miscellaneous effects
such as potential damage from accidental fuel spills and
airport expansions.
64. The Department-of Real Estate Report (DRE) and property title
reports shall inform prospective buyers of the existence of
avigation easements. All properties within' the vicinity of
the airstrip shall be subject to the avigation easement
restrictions. Avigation easements are attached to the title
of properties and hence are transferred to subsequent owners.
65. Residential structure and other hazards to avigation-(such as
light standards), shall meet FAA Part 77 requirements.
66. Height limits within-the clear''and approach-zones shall
recognize the 20:3 approach and departure ,slope which is a '
condition of airport operation as, permitted' by California
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
67. Residential uses within any established airport pattern area
shall' be limited to suggested densities in the Airport Land-
Use Planning Handbook or other appropriate planning standard.
68. The approved, Final Specific Plan shall be filed in the office
of the City Clerk and in the City Planning Division.
69. No building shall be constructed, maintained or used other
than for the purpose specified in the approved Final Specific .
Plan as required hereinafter:
70. All future proposals shall be reviewed by the City' on 'a
project -by- project basis. If determined- necessary by the
Community Development Director or designee,' additional
environmental analysis will be required.
71. All habitat resources planned for removal, preservation,
creation, or enhancement are subject to the review and permit
issuance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Sections 1601 -1603 of the State Department of Fish
and Game, where these Agencies have jurisdiction. Copies of _
ACZaOA 11
FkGZ � i OF � �
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
all permits (404 and 1603) and conditions attached to' the
permits shall be submitted to the Community Development.
Director or designee for review prior to the removal of any
habitat.
72. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential
or commercial land uses, in any particular phase of the
project, Applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission
for review and approval, a Master Sign Program for all on -site
signs in that,phase, which shall include but not be limited to
commercial identification signs, on -site residential and
commercial directional signs, and project area convenience
signs. The sign program shall provide text and exhibits in a
bound format containing all relevant sign criteria including
but.not limited to sign construction material, colors, height,
and letter style.
73. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy for any Commercial project
that could employ 100 or more persons, Applicants shall submit
a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP). Said TRP shall be reviewed and
approved by, the City Traffic Engineer: All applicable
development shall incorporate facilities and /or programs in
their development plans sufficient to .attain a 12% work
related trip reduction from expected number of trips related
to the project as indicated in the Trip Generation Handbook
published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Trip
reduction shall be calculated in accordance with standards
established by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and /or the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD). The plan shall address the
following measures, taking into consideration the nature, type
and use of the commercial development being proposed.
a)- Preferential parking for the vehicles
b) Bicycle parking and shower facilities
C) Information centers for transportation alternatives
74. Applicant shall comply with the City's approved landscaping
standards in effect at the time of approval of this Specific
Plan with respect to the landscaping in medians, parkways,
expanded parkways and adjacent slopes to be maintained by the
city or Landscaping Maintenance District. Landscaping and
irrigation .plans shall be approved by the Engineering,
Department and City's Landscape Architect.
75. Except as otherwise provided in the Specific Plan or as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer, roadway standards for
Lake Elsinore relating to the minimum local street radii,
maximum cul -de -sac length, maximum grade, and minimum sidewalk
width must be followed.
76. Developer shall comply with all,. mitigation measures identified
in the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted with the East
Lake Final E.I.R. 93 -3.
77. Prior to approval of any tentative map for property within the
Specific Plan, applicant shall have entered into a school
impact mitigation agreement,with the school .district. The
developer shall submit a letter to the School District within
seven (7). days .(May 12, 1993) indicating any additional
language.
C�
5x-93 Pc ;
PA` OF
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1993
2. Development Agreement - East Lake Community Builders
(Continued from May 5; 1993) = City Planner Leslie explained
that the consideration of this Development' Agreement was
continued from the last Planning Commission meeting on May 5,
1993, to allow additional time for City Staff to review the
document and to allow for the submittal of a Draft Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) 'by the applicant. He then
explained that the proposed " = Development -Agreement is
associated with the East Lake Specific Plan, Environmental
Impact Report and the DDA is based on and consistent with the
Memorandum of Understanding that was approved by the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency, on December 22, 1992. The
proposed Development Agreement provides for vesting of the
proposed Specific Plan project, and the DDA like the Develop-
ment Agreement only applies to- property that Eastlake
Community. Builders will have 'a legal interest in. He then
detailed 'staff concerns and; the modifications'made to the
documents addressing same: -
Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m., and
asked for any written communication. The Secretary reported
no written communications. She then asked for anyone wishing
to speak in favor.
Mr. Dan Young, representing East' Lake' Communities Builders,
gave a background report and'highlighted the concept'of the
East Lake Specific, Plan, and the relationship with the
Redevelopment Agency. He commented on State Law requirements
for Development Agreement, and their option relationship with
the,Lehr property and future annexations to this agreement.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing-to speak in
favor. The following persons spoke!
Ms'.'Carmela Loelkes, 23508 Gingerbread Drive, Murrieta,
representing Mr. Lehr, agrees with the developer.
Mr. Peter Lehr, Jr:,- 41871'Murrieta,,in support of the
project.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, she,asked for those opposed.
Receiving no response,'she asked for anyone wishing to speak
on the matter. Receiving no response; the public hearing was
closed at 9:16 p.m.
Chairwoman Brinley requested. a verbatim transcript of the
Commission's concerns be submitted to City Council, since
legal counsel is not present this evening:
Commissioner Neff inquired whether the letter from Jackson,
DeMarco- and Peckenpaugh' addressing the school district's
condition for the project, should be included for the- record.
Mr. Young responded this was discussed at the previous
meeting, and we indicated that we would submit a letter within
seven days proposing additional language.
°Commissioner Neff then commented on the Development Agreement,
as follows:
• Tax increment financing: As I understand it, in areas
described to be a Redevelopment Agency Area, the taxes
are locked at a certain °level at'the conception of the
project and' once it is built out any increase in tax
revenues' then goes back to repay the debt on that
particular project and are, used- throughout the
"general part of the community, correct?
AGENDA ITEM NO. U
PAeE 13 OFD
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Young, close. Rather than it be just within the project,
it would be in the project area; so when we,generate tax
increment it goes to the Redevelopment Agency to pay off debts
within that project area.,,
In this case, the project area would include all of those
areas where the desired public facilities would be, even
if those may be beyond the Lehr option property and the
other 3.14 property owners, correct?
Mr. Young, responded that is right. . East Lake is actually
split between two Redevelopment Project Areas.
• So then, the,ultimate build out use, public and private
facilities, establish some value and taxing revenues
generated will go back into paying off the debt underline
which is a public finance debt mechanism, correct - -not a
privately finance instrument.
Mr. Young, responded that is correct.
• Tax ,increase financing will apply only to public sector
facilities and regional improvements - -not any specific or
individual, where a residential type merchant builder
would acquire and develop.
Mr.- Young detailed the financing mechanism and how it works
and the cost savings to the City.
Interested in how that is divided- -who takes'it and who
uses it for what. It was mentioned that 180 million
comes back to the Redevelopment. Agency and we have
profits above and beyond the initial investment. But is
that not ,given out to other participating agencies?
Mr. Young responded in the negative, and explained the
establishment of the.project area and the collection of taxes
for 'a period of time in order to effectuate the redevelopment
of the area, and this changes from to time as the General Plan
or- priorities for public facilities change.
The mechanism established by the Redevelopment Agency
through the tax increment bond financing makes this work
for the community and profitable for the developer. .
Mr. Young responded in the affirmative.
• Who is paying for what and why,is the City paying to the
development interests? Mechanics of annexation, since
.this really is specific only to the Lehr option, and
rights, of other outside owners. Asked Mr. Young -if they
have optioned any other property, at this time.
Mr. Young responded that they have no other.options;at this
time.
• So likely you would do so only after all the entitlement
are in place and would be optioning at fair market value.
Mr. Young responded private negotiations.
• Page 2, paragraph G, if for whatever reason, negotiations
stall, and you are not able to pile up these other
properties, is there some mechanism that the Redevelop-
ment Agency can go in and assist you to'the detriment of
the existing property owner outside this development
agreement.. Concern is that the Agency might be able to
enforce compliance to annex.
AGENDA ITEM NO. O
PA OF -/'
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Young responded not to their detriment. But, the
Redevelopment Agency has the power of eminent domain. If _a
private negotiation were to fail and it was essential for us
to move forward with some component of the project, then we
would ask the Redevelopment_ Agency to begin 'proceeding of
eminent domain.
Page 5, subparagraph 1.13, effective date, didn't know if
this has any substance with respect to. annexing these
other parcels. What started it and finished it.
Mr. Young stated that Dave Colgan is the author and attorney
and he might be able to better answer that.
Dave Colgan, attorney for East Lake, Section 1.13 also has to
relate to Section 8, which deals with the annexable parcel
itself. Once we have acquired a legal or equitable.interest
on property it then becomes eligible for annexation into this
agreement; which must be approved by the reviewing bodies.
The effective date is to this agreement, because State Law is
30 days after Council adopts it in order to allow for the
referendum period. Since the annexable parcels will occur
later and not subject to the agreement now will have-to go
through the same process.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that they are doing abase value on
the property with regard to the 30 days- -that is the base
price they are using for evaluation of this property.
Dave Colgan responded in the negative, and explained that the
30 day pertains to annexable parcels at a future date and
gives the same legal protection.
Commissioner Neff stated his concern is that they would be
able to buy or option the property before the entitlement are
in place.
"Mr. Young stated that it would have been-to his benefit to
option the property prior to it obtaining its zoning and
environmental clearance, and negotiations would occur with the
property owners.
• Page 15, 7th line down, aggregate public debt service may
not exceed 2% of average appraised real property value.
This might be a manageable max, though it might be better
to be less.
Page 15, half -way down, with the City's approval more
debt could be levied to take it above- the'2%.- Why would
we want to do that?
Dave Colgan responded this paragraph came from City Attorney
Harper, which has been incorporated into every development
agreement. It is a concept that we are going to try -and keep
at 28 or below.
Commissioner Neff stated that he would encourage that we
communicate, as Planning Commission to City Council, the need
to par down our wish list, if the risk is that it is going to
go above 2 %, because the housing market will evaporate.
• Page 17, section 12.6.2, 9 lines up from the bottom,
ordinance and resolutions'as are necessary to- impose a
Specific Plan fee on developers of property within the
Specific Plan area, other than yours, to defray the costs
of preparing, adopting and administering the Specific
Plan, the document you would basically be paying for.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PACE �SOF_ L
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Colgan responded that the City and Eastlake Community
Builders have paid.for that jointly. He then commented on
the discussions with staff and Mr. Harper and the section of
the Government Code which authorizes.the adoption of such an
ordinance for reimbursement of proportionate share of cost of
preparing and adopting a Specific Plan.
Page 17, section 12.8, Development Agreement Fee. No
reference to a CPI for- adjustments, assumes this is
something that was,not done in the past.
Mr. Young stated that there was considerable discussion over
the DAG Fee. There are two ways to impose a DAG Fee. One is
to impose a period of time, and time .periods are probably used
more frequently. The incentive will be there to get these
implemented early as these fees will increase dramatically as
the project is implemented.
Page 26, Transfer and Assignments, Right to Assign. Asked Mr.
Young if there were examples around Orange County that they
could go and look at. Entitling a property is one thing,
building a product once entitled is sometime entirely a
different matter.
Mr. Young responded that he would probably bring before the
Commission a tract map and the tract map will be prepared in
conjunction with a home builder with a track record.
Mr. Young gave a brief history on his building activity, and
indicated that a tract map would be prepared and developed in
conjunction with a developer with a track record.
As a joint venture partner in that entitlement process
and public financing. process, do we share in the revenue
of those deals?
Mr. Young stated the City is not a partner when it comes to
selling a piece of land and whether or not there is a profit
to be made. The City's profit comes in the traditional sense
of the Redevelopment Agency.
No description or definition of regional improvements
versus local improvements that typically Mello Roos
financing would apply to - -the regional, is that in a
separate document that hasn't been developed yet?
Mr. Young responded in the affirmative, and explained that a
financial structure for the first Mello Roos would be brought
back before the Commission.
Chairwoman Brinley asked how the figures were reached for the
DAG Fees.
Mr. Bob Boone, Administrative Services Director, responded
these figures were negotiated between the developer and the
City.
Commissioner Wilsey stated that in the past on previous
agreements,• there were numerous City Council /Planning
Commission Study Sessions held to work out details where
everyone was comfortable. This is an extremely important
financial document to this community and believes that
adequate review time was not provided to, ensure that this is
the best document that could be done for the community.
Informed staff that he would not like this to happen again;
would like to be informed and be a part of the process that
develops these programs.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE /� 07
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1993
Page 5
Commissioner Bullard stated that Commissioner Neff covered
most of his questions. He then commented on affordable
housing, and the developer having the right to determine the
type of ownership for the affordable units, whether for sale
or rental, asked for clarification.
Mr. Young stated they have to provide affordable housing
within the project, as the developer we have to provide 15 %,
under Redevelopment Law it. is actually ,20 %. This could be
based upon financing in the market and market demand, and this
might be condominiums, single - family homes or apartments.
Commissioner Metze-commented on the Special Deposit and time
line to reimburse the City for the Lake Economic /Feasibility
Study. Inquired whether this study has to be done in order to
develop the property.
Mr. Young provided a history on the discussions with staff
with regard to the contribution for studies on property that
he doesn't own and running the risk of never owning. This
study has nothing to do with whether. or not East Lake gets
built.
City Planner Leslie stated the East Lake project itself could
proceed without this study, but the marina, as proposed by
Eastlake, would need this study completed. The $150,000
special study deposit is just for the Lehr option property
that this Development Agreement is for. As other Development
Agreements come in there could be other special deposits
required.,
Mr. Young stated they.anticipate that the marina will not be
started for another five years.
Chairwoman Brinley commented on the following:
• Asked staff if the Community Services Director was
satisfied with the modification to the Park Design
Consultant, reference Section 12.6.1.
City Planner Leslie stated the Community Services Director was
satisfied with negotiated wording on this condition and has
signed off on the revisions.
• Reiterated comment on the DAG Fee and how the figures
were reached.
Mr. Boone explained that due to the number of amenities
planned we thought it a negotiating item, and could do with
half of the DAG Fee in place of the $2,000.
• Requirement for developer to contribute to the City for
any negative impact to the General Fund.
Mr. Young stated that on occasion as the project is developing
there would be potentially a negative impact to the General
Fund, and an annual review was established with City Council.
• Page 70, paragraph F, Disposition and Development
Agreement, No Cross - Defaults. Asked for explanation.
Mr. Colgan stated that he was not the author of this document,
but would try and explain. He then provided an explanation
of the default concept.
Commissioner Neff inquired about same ownership.
AGENDA ITEM NO. �p
FE.CEn z
OF /
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 19, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Colgan responded he would have to check with the author,
but the way it is written there is no cross- defaults between
separate legal parcels within the site or phases.
Chairwoman Brinley suggested this section be reviewed by the
City Attorney and clarification provided, and this carried on
to City Council as a concern.
MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -7, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
NEFF WITH A MINOR AMENDMENT THAT THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT GO TO
COUNCIL AND A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE, PLANNING COMMISSION MEET
WITH ONE OR TWO OF THE COUNCIL TO EXPLAIN IN DETAIL SOME OF
THIS AS WELL.
Discussion ensued on the transcript to be provided to Council. It
was the consensus of the Commission to provide Council with
detailed minutes on the Development Agreement, not a verbatim
transcript due to time constraints.
There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called for
the question.
Approved 5 -0
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
AGENDA ITEM NO.
FAGc 16 OF 17-9
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
FOR: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING..OF MAY.191 1993.
SUBJECT: EAST LAKE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
APPLICANT
Eastlake Community Builders
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1900,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
REQUESTED USE
A request to.;,adopt'a Development Agreement between the Eastlake
Community Builders (ECB) and the City of Lake Elsinore for property
within the East Lake Specific Plan:
SIZE AND LOCATION
I
The East Lake Specific Plan area consists of approximately 3,000
acres, and is located along the east shoreline of Lake Elsinore.
The site is generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on the north,
Mission Trail and Corydon Road on the east; the 'city boundary line
on the,south, and the shoreline,of Lake Elsinore 'on the west.
The Developer's (ECB) Property which= will be subject to this
proposed -Agreement- are those portions or parcels within the East
Lake Specific.Plan that will be under the direct legal or equitable
ownership of ECB, Initially,_this should include the 644.27 acre
group of parcels known.as-the Lehr Option Property and then may
also include,. through annexation, .as'sallowed in the proposed'
Agreement, any other property within the Specific Plan that the'
Developer acquires a legal or equitable ownership in. The Lehr
Option Property is a majority of -what is designated as Phase 1 in
the East Lake -Specific Plan-Area, located in more =or less the
northeast corner of•the project. (S'ee Figure 19, "Conceptual,
Phasing Plan ", from the East Lake Specific Plan attached as Exhibit
"A" and attached .Exhibit "B" which delineates the Lehr Option
Property,, taken from Exhibit "E" of the proposed Development
Agreement.)
The General Plan :designation for the ,project area is "Specific
Plan ". In addition, East- Lake falls. entirely within portions of
Redevelopment Area II and Redevelopment Area III of the City's
Redevelopment Area Plan:
AGENDA ITEM NO. E
PAGE 0 OX-122
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1993
PAGE 2
SUBJECT: EAST LAKE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT .WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed Development Agreement is associated with the East Lake
Specific Plan (SP 93 -3) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93 -3).
The consideration of this Development Agreement was continued from
the last Planning Commission meeting on May 5, 1993. At this
previous meeting the Planning Commission ,recommended to City
Council approval of the East Lake Specific Plan and the EIR. The
Development Agreement was continued to allow additional time for
City Staff to review the document and to allow for the submittal by
the applicant of a Draft Disposition and. Development Agreement
(DDA) .
The DDA is required because. the project Is within City Redevelop-
ment Project Areas. The Development Agreement and the DDA are tied
together by reference. Many items that would normally be covered
in the Development Agreement are required and found in the DDA.
For this reason, we are submitting copies of the Draft DDA to the
Planning Commission for your information. The DDA is approved by
the City Redevelopment Agency and City Council,
The DDA is an agreement between -the developer and the City and *City
Redevelopment Agency. ,The DDA is based on and consistent with the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was approved by, the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency on December 22, 1992 -(a copy of
this MOU is enclosed with the proposed Development Agreement as
Exhibit "C"). The terms of the 'DDA are nearly identical to the
MOU. The DDA like the Development Agreement only applies to
property that ECB will have a legal interest in.
The proposed Development Agreement as submitted to the Planning
Commission has been reviewed by the City Attorney and has been
revised to reflect his comments. The Draft DDA as also been
reviewed by the City Attorney and reflects his comments.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE '?o OF /;Zf
EXISTING LAND USE
ZONIN G
GENERAL PLAN
Project Site
Mix of Commercial,
R
Specific Plan
Industrial &
C -P
Residential along
C -1
perimeter areas.
R -1
Majority of site
is vacant
North
Commercial/
C -2
LMD, HD
Residential
R -1
Residential,
General
Commercial
East
Commercial/
County
LD, MHD, VLD
Residential
Residential-,"
General
Commercial,
Business Park
South
Residential
R -1,
LMD, LD
.County,
Residential
West
Lake
Lake
Lake
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed Development Agreement is associated with the East Lake
Specific Plan (SP 93 -3) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93 -3).
The consideration of this Development Agreement was continued from
the last Planning Commission meeting on May 5, 1993. At this
previous meeting the Planning Commission ,recommended to City
Council approval of the East Lake Specific Plan and the EIR. The
Development Agreement was continued to allow additional time for
City Staff to review the document and to allow for the submittal by
the applicant of a Draft Disposition and. Development Agreement
(DDA) .
The DDA is required because. the project Is within City Redevelop-
ment Project Areas. The Development Agreement and the DDA are tied
together by reference. Many items that would normally be covered
in the Development Agreement are required and found in the DDA.
For this reason, we are submitting copies of the Draft DDA to the
Planning Commission for your information. The DDA is approved by
the City Redevelopment Agency and City Council,
The DDA is an agreement between -the developer and the City and *City
Redevelopment Agency. ,The DDA is based on and consistent with the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was approved by, the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency on December 22, 1992 -(a copy of
this MOU is enclosed with the proposed Development Agreement as
Exhibit "C"). The terms of the 'DDA are nearly identical to the
MOU. The DDA like the Development Agreement only applies to
property that ECB will have a legal interest in.
The proposed Development Agreement as submitted to the Planning
Commission has been reviewed by the City Attorney and has been
revised to reflect his comments. The Draft DDA as also been
reviewed by the City Attorney and reflects his comments.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE '?o OF /;Zf
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1993
PAGE 3
'SUBJECT: EAST LAKE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The East Lake Specific Plan is a master planned community
consisting of approximately 3,000 acres, and provides a mix -of
residential, commercial, open space, recreational and institutional
land uses. The residential component consists of four residential
land use categories allowing up to 10,000 dwelling units project
wide through a variety of housing types within-the project. Four
commercial categories are planned to provide for the retail needs
of the project, as well as providing for social and civic
opportunities. The open space consists of'a variety of natural and
man -made open space to meet the active and passive recreational
needs of the community.
As mentioned previously, the portion of- the East Lake Specific Plan
which the subject agreements apply to; include only that property
under direct legal or equitable ownership of the Applicant (ECB).
ANALYSIS -
The proposed Development Agreement provides for vesting of the
proposed Specific Plan project. Unless otherwise provided in the
Development ,Agreement, the rules, regulations, and official
policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvements,
and construction are those in effect when the agreement is
executed. Specific provisions of the agreement are as follows:
• Agreement Applicability: This proposed agreement applies
only to property that will be under the direct legal or
equitable ownership of the Applicant (ECB) . This
includes property that ECB or its successors annex to
this agreement pursuant to the provisions contained in
the agreement. Property, owners /developers of other
Parcels within the East Lake Specific Plan will have to
negotiate separate development agreements and DDA's with
the City and Redevelopment Agency.
• Development Agreement (DAG) Fee:
Number of Residential DAG Fee Amount
Building Permits Issued
00000 to 2,500 _ $ 1,000 per unit
2,501 to 5,000` - $ 2,000 per unit
5,001 to 7,500 $ 3',000 per unit
7,501 to 10,000 $ 4,000 per unit
(Taken from Section 12.8 of proposed agreement)
Non l - residentia development shall be exempt from payment of
any DAG Fee. " The DAG Fee will be used at the City's
discretion to fund the cost of public capital facilities and
improvements including, without'limitation, park facilities,
recreation facilities and municipal buildings, regardless of
the location of those facilities or their benefit to the
Project.
Please note that the DAG Fee the Applicant "(ECB) will be
paying, at any point in time, for residential permits on their
property will be based on the total amount of permits pulled
on all properties within the Specific Plan Area at that .time.
The DAG Fees contained within this agreement apply only to
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE 121 OF /� %
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19, 1993
PAGE 4
SUBJECT: EAST LAKE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
permits pulled within the ECB's property. DAG Fees contained
in future agreements on other properties within East Lake may
not necessarily be similar to the fees contained in this
agreement.
Term of Agreement: 20 years maximum.
Annexations to Agreement: The agreement allows for additional
property within the Specific Plan to be annexed to this
agreement if the applicant acquires legal interest in those
properties. The Planning Commission and City Council must
approve all annexations to this agreement.
Benefits and Amenities to the City: Exhibit "G" of the
Development Agreement lists perceived. benefits to the .City .
from the Specific Plan project. Attachment Number 4 to the
DDA lists amenities to be provided by the Specific Plan.
project by phase as identified in the East Lake Specific Plan.
Section 402 of the DDA addresses the phasing of amenities:
The benefits and amenities listed include school sites, fire
station, sheriff /police substation, parks, recreation centers,
public golf course, open space, habitat corridors and other
items. Please note that the listed amenities are Specific
Plan wide amenities and that the Applicant (ECB) will. not
necessarily be providing all of, these amenities with the
development,of their portion of the East Lake Specific Plan.
The provision of amenities by ECB will be in dependent upon
the Specific Plan phase they are developing and the amount of
development they are proposing in that phase.
Affordable Housing: Pursuant to the Draft DDA (Section 407),
the project is proposing that a minimum of 15% of the - dwelling
units developed shall be made available at affordable housing
cost to persons and families of low or moderate income,-in
accordance. with Health and Safety Code, Section 33413(b). _
A minimum 40% of such affordable units (i.e., 6% of the total
dwelling units) shall be made available at affordable housing
cost to very low income households. The developer shall have
the right to determine the type of ownership for the
affordable units (whether for sale or rental)..
SPECIAL PROJECT CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 1.
Staff had the following concerns and discussed these recommended
changes with the applicant on May 12th and 13, 1993. The applicant
submitted a revised Development Agreement and DDA on May 14, 1993,
with the changes made as requested to the satisfaction of staff in
regards to our concerns. The revised agreements distributed to the
Planning Commission have been "redlined" to reference the changes.
Park Design Consultant: Staff requested that wording be added
to Section 12.6.1, Construction of Facilities and Provision of.
Public Services, of the Development Agreement, relating to the
City having the right to approve the consultant retained by
the developer for the precise layout and design of public park
improvements. This request was made to better insure that the.
City acquired parks that meet the City's standards. Under
this condition the City could suggest that the City's own
Landscape Architect be used in the design work. This
provision is similar to other development agreements approved
by the City.
Pubic Facilities Modifications: Staff requested that wording,
be added to the same section of the Development- Agreement _
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE 'E"? OF �°��
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 19,. 1993
PAGE 5
SUBJECT: EAST LAKE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY
BUILDERS
mentioned above in item 2, that retains the right for the City
to ` adjust, modify or change park, recreation or public
facilities designated on Attachment, Number 4 to the DDA to
meet the needs of the public.
3. Future City -wide Assessments and. Fees: Staff requests that
wording be added to Section 12.9, Assessments and Fees, of the
Development' Agreement, relating to this development still
being subject to any future City -wide assessments or impact
fees that may be adopted. This provision is similar to other
development agreements approved by the City.
4. Special Deposit Lake `Econordd /Feasibility Study: Staff
requested that wording be added to the Development Agreement
requiring the applicant to submit to the City within five (5)
years from the date of the Agreement a $150,000 special
deposit _to.reimburse the City a?for its costs incurred in
preparing a Lake Economic /Feasibility Study. The City is
required to prepare this -study as''part of their obligation in
taking over the Lake.' This study, pursuant to the Lake
Transfer Agreement between the City and the .State, must be
done before the City'can allow additional economic use of the
Lake itself. The East Lake project will receive a direct
benefit from the completion of this study because the marina
uses as proposed by'the East'Lake.Specific Plan can not be
implemented until the study is done.
5. General Fund, Contribution: Staff requested that wording be
added to the Development Agreement that requires developer
contribution to the City for :any negative ..impact to the
General Fund due to the impacts of the applicant's project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The East Lake Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93 -3) was prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and has adequately analyzed'the potential environmental impacts of
the East Lake specific Plan and this associated Development
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City
Council approval of the Development Agreement between the City of
Lake Elsinore and Eastlake Community Builders, and adopt
Resolution 93 -7, based on the following findings.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed Development Agreement between Eastlake Community
Builders and the City of Lake Elsinore is consistent with the
City's General Plan and with the East Lake Specific Plan.
2. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the East Lake
Specific Plan is adequate and complete for the proposed
Development Agreement.
Prepared by: Chip Leslie, City Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Shear, Comm ty ` e op ent aneg
Approved for Planning Commission:
P yllis R rs
Assista t City Manager
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE °? 3 OF /�
FIGMM 19
CONCEPWA . PrumaG Purr
V -55 . Section V.- The Plan
EXHIBIT "R" r _-
AGENDA ITEM ENO.
PAGE _L OF /L
u '
17
LA� � .• -.�a = —:ter: :::::. =.. . .. 1 II. .. i � 4 i� _ ..
lNbA ORIV aa�q bO4 a]a t1
°a,0u•oaoe ip'ua; ?y ^t]t
t
o-
;1
,; fit . ' If r�r �1' '� � _ •. _ ,
r `
37,03000 l 671
ar b
• 4•Qaaea
37,030602 a] w•a°pj i
b troa a• 7 007 e
N; 000 A
2
ii/ 51K.•a - .: "v10a 0 771030 0Q va' 7],Ob_o
.S b•4..ea r
3710300 agCwea
5
J'
6 ys�w ws npgp, rY i ��
10
23 ,oft,..
a)10�0 Op•
�-
MrIN°py LEEM�D_ /
.. .�
^_
•
,. ....
A
25
3P, 040
..��••
007
'.' a
3710
Oft
w .
�•
a] i °j0 .. _
tss...ea
a)Lo o " � i/
4)007°
. 1
oat
280 X „ate
t1 woos
b a
�] m �
52°02009
310 02p 001
_ L 'a •uer
N
7]10.000) \. 7710.000.
II egOCCP'O'lc q `;
CF / \� �•
�a9`.ST� a)0 /,/ 308007001 •��_ST9
�EarE"e")wa FFT .4 ®e
37iWo003
•0 tlp -
•
"LEHR OPTION PROPERTY”
EXHIBIT "B"
AGENDA ITEM NO.�1��
PAGE of OF �� 9
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE,
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WITH EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS
WHEREAS, Eastlake Community Builders has made application to
the City of Lake Elsinore for a Development Agreement with respect
to the East Lake Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore
held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Development
Agreement at its regular meeting on May 19, 1993, and considered
the evidence and testimony presented in connection with the
proposed Development Agreement, including but not limited to the
environmental documentation therefore;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Lake Elsinore as follows:
Section 1. The proposed Development Agreement between
Eastlake Community Builders and the City of .Lake Elsinore is
consistent with the City's General Plan and with the East Lake
Specific Plan.
Section 2. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
East Lake Specific Plan is adequate and complete for the proposed
Development Agreement.
Section 3. It is recommended that the City Council of the
City of Lake Elsinore approve the proposed Development Agreement.
Section 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall
certify to the adoption of this resolution and forward a copy to
the City Clerk for reference and consideration of the City Council.
Pamela Brinley, Chairwoman .
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission
I hereby certify that the preceding resolution was adopted by the
Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof conducted on May
19, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
Kevin Shear, Secretary to the
Lake Elsinore Planning Commission
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE 7 OF �� %
Planning Commission
.May 5, 1993
Page 7
SPECIFIC PLAN 92-1 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27223
Condition No. 17: The City's Noise Ordinance must bd met
during all site preparation activity..
Construction shall not commence before
7:00 a.m. and cease at 5:00 p,.i., Monday
through Friday. The,/ Mitigation
Monitoring Program shall be modified to
reflect said condition.
:di ion No. 51: The applicant shall provide for permanent
secondary .access from the easterly
boundary of the tract that will connect
to Terra Cotta across APN.389- 190 -002.
The connection to Terra Cotta will take
place when APN;389- 190 -002 is developed,
in the interim, ,emergency secondary
access shall be provided to Cherry
\ Blossom LaAe, the connection shall be
urf block with appropriate landscape;
s secondary access shall only be used
foft, emergencies and it shall have a
lock gate to be approved by the
River 'de County Fire Department and the
Cityy' Engineer. This secondary access
shall be permanently closed by means of a
cul -de -sac when the access to Terra Cotta
Condition No. 52: J' Storm runoff frork,the easterly boundary
of the site must'k; drain to a drainage
j easement through APN 389- 190 -002 to a
natural water - course:,, If it becomes
necessary to add a,storm.ldrain pipe down
i ..Cherry Blossom Lane, the'street will be
/ re -paved curb -to -curb where,.the pipe is
placed the street. `,
Conditio# No. 54: Construction equipment shall `npt use
/ Cherry Blossom Lane and will use MI ntain
Street for access to the ite.
/ Construction equipment. will only b `ion
Cherry Blossom Lane to build the sto
drainage system. \\
AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -4, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -4 "
/ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
PLAN 92 -1 (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE) FRIENDLY GROUP
VII
At this time, 8:30 p.m. the Commission recessed.
At this time, 8:38 p.m. the Commission reconvened. .
3. Specific Plan 93 -3, Environmental Impact Report 93 -3 and
Development Agreement - Eastlake Community Builders /City of
Lake Elsinore - City Planner Leslie stated that he would keep
his report brief and would request that the Commission allow
representatives of East Lake Community Builders to present the
project in more detail. He then explained the project is a
3,000 acre master planned community containing a diverse mix
of residential, commercial, open space and public uses, the
site is generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on the north,
ACENDA ITEM NO. p
PAGE
Planning Commission
May_.5, 1993
Page 8
Mission Trail and Corydon Road on the east, the city boundary
line on the south, and the shoreline of the Lake on the west.
Chairwoman Brinley referred to the memorandum requesting that
the Development Agreement be continued to the meeting of May
19, 1993.
MOVED BY CHAIRWOMAN BRINLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY AND
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO CONTINUE THE EAST LAKE DEVELOP-
MENT AGREEMENT TO THE MEETING OF MAY 19, 1993.
Mr. Dan Young, Managing General - Partner of East Lake
Communities Builders, gave a background report highlighting
the desires to secure the Lake and create recreational and
community uses over the years, and the coordination between
all governmental agencies to make the project work. He then
gave an overview of the Specific Plan and detailed the
conceptual plan, amenities and mitigation with school
district.
Chairwoman Brinley opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m., and
presented for the record a letter from M. W. Haskell and
Robert A. Vermillion concurring with the statements and
concerns stated in Mr. Pribble's letter. She then asked for
any further written communication. The Secretary reported the
following written communication was received:
Sportsman's. Lodge, Gregory A. Block, requesting re-
examination of the proposed zoning;
Mr. Paul Pribble, Senior Project Engineer and Managing
Director of Mentor Aviation, expressing numerous concern on
the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report;
Genevieve Craft (Alma Rafnsan) , expressing concern on
quality of life with regard to air quality and health.
Philip A. Manuell, in support of the project.
Chairwoman Brinley then asked for anyone wishing to speak in
favor. The following persons spoke in favor:
Rudolph Martin, stated any city or community should be
grateful for such a development. This development will
generate revenue that is needed.
John Greenhut, 22629 Gearsen Avenue, Wildomar, Chairman of
the new Wildomar Municipal Advisory Council, extended their
full cooperation with the City on this project. In return,
it is hoped that we would be invited to participate in
decisions that concern the Wildomar community. He then
expressed the following concerns on the Environmental Impact
Report and the project itself:
1. Could support the project with a lower density
alternative.
2. Construct impacted sections of the arterial
infrastructure prior to beginning mass grading
and /or construction activities, and believes the
Certificate of Occupancy should be based on
completion of the construction phasing.
3. Begin -Cal Trans permit and plan check process
immediately after project initiation.
AGEIZA ITEM NO.
PAST °� g OF °d�/
Planning Commission
May 5, 3993
Page 9
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
4. Mitigate the loss of storm water retention capacity
to the satisfaction of downstream residents in
Wildomar, Murrieta and Temecula.
5. Provide the County of Riverside with a bond to
ensure completion of infrastructure within
Wildomar, but also a maintenance bond for roadway
repairs during construction activities.
6. Insure that the project will .generate enough
revenue to support the 'school district, fire and
police protection operations, not just the
construction of the facilities.
Carmela Loelkes, 23508 Gingerbread Drive, Murrieta, stated
she has' been involved with this project since 1983,
representing Mr. Lehr, and worked with developers involved
and everyone has to work as a group.
Joanna Sherer, 20182 "Hill Spring' "Road, Lake- Elsinore
(Wildomar), recently elected to the new Wildomar Advisory
Council, hopes that we can work together and believes this
is a valuable project.
Greg Block, 777 South Pacific Coast Highway, Solana Beach,
representing property owner of the Sportsman's Lodge, stated
that it is a fantastic project and something the City needs
to get moving. He then submitted .a letter reiterating, their
desire to retain commercial zoning.-
Fred "Fienberg, 26361 Columbia Drive, Sun City, owns land in
the floodplain; and all for the project.
Jackson Helton, 33102 Lime Street, Lake Elsinore, owns land
in the floodplain, hopes this project gets developed in the
near future.
Roger Chen, 20460 Summer Drive, Lake Mathews, owns property
in floodplain, impressed with the project; there are some
benefits-for all land owners.
Marylin Default, 31150 Machado Street,Lake Elsinore, all for
the project, it is a fantastic and something the City needs.
She then stated she received notification, but was not
notified that her property on Lakeshore Drive would be
involved, and would like to discuss this with staff.
Janice - Martin, 30650 Brookstone Lane, Lake Elsinore, in
favor of the project, Elsinore has been asleep long enough.
H. John Kelly 14845 Amarose, Lake Elsinore, feels whatever
needs to be worked out should be worked out. " Should have
something were we can draw people and the tax base grows
which is needed.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak in
favor. Receiving no response, she asked for those opposedr.
The following people spoke:
Mr. Eric Doering, of Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles & Giannone,
stated it is his understanding that the School District
Superintendent and Eastlake Communities Builders met this
afternoon to discuss the issue of school mitigation.
However, there has-been no agreement reached or adequate
condition to provide mitigation so must goon record
AGENCA ITEM NO.._iG�_g_
PAG_._L OF
Planning Commission
May 5, 1993
Page 10
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
opposing the project at this time. He stated that the
school district would be looking for agreements with each
property owner or that the project itself be adequately
conditioned. The school district proposes the following
condition "Prior to approval of any tentative map for
property within the Specific Plan, applicant shall have
entered into a school impact mitigation agreement with the
school district ". On this basis,. if the project were
conditioned with that condition we would remove out
opposition. He then submitted a letter and. copy of
Resolution 93 -133 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
'April 20, 1993.
Mr. Paul Pribble, inquired about the approval of the
Environmental Impact Report, and compliance with State and
Federal Agencies..• requirements. for a 404 Permit, and
requirement for a.EIS.
Dick Knapp, 29690 Dawn Drive, Lake Elsinore, questioned the
maps exhibited, they don't coincide. Questioned the
wildlife preserve transfer and .associated compaction
problems, and location of schools. Against this concept,
but would like to see a much better thorough presentation
and with less housing.
Katie Reidmeir, concern is with the wetlands and loss of
wildlife, believes the wetlands should remain as they are;
elevation of proposed homes around the golf course. In
favor of all the other development.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone, else wishing to speak in
opposition. Receiving no response, . she asked for anyone
wishing to speak on the matter. The following people spoke:
Hank Ottway, District Engineer for Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District, stated for the record they submitted
comments in a letter dated April 15, 1993, and understands
that the developer has already provided a response. Looks
forward to working with the developer and City to resolve
any issues regarding water and wastewater facilities.
Phil Williams, P.O. Box 519, Lake Elsinore, not for or
against the project; development for. Elsinore is good and we
need it. Concerns are:'
1. We own the property next to Burger King: which is
marked for Open Space. No one has contacted us
about it and we want to know what effect on our
,property is going to be.
2. Displacement.of floodwaters.. We want to make sure
the Outflow Channel is adequate and can handle the
flows or storage behind the dike; we .own the
property on the north side of the Lakeshore Bridge
that is going to be constructed.
Chairwoman Brinley asked for anyone else wishing to speak on
the matter. Receiving no response, the public hearing was
closed at 9:39 p.m. She then asked Mr. Young to address the
concerns raised.
Mr. Young addressed the following; concerns:
School Impact: What is before the Commission this evening
are the land use documents.which are within the control•.of
AGENDA 1: EM P.O.
PA?= 3� C17. 0
Planning Commission
May 5, 1993
Page 11
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
the local jurisdiction. Federal and State Agencies want
local jurisdiction approval prior to their review. He
detailed the procedure process and permit requirements. He
then stated they will comply with each and every rule the
school district has with regard to schools and a letter will
be sent to "the`school district before May 25th.
Chairwoman Brinley stated she would like the school district's
letter regarding mitigation be added as -a condition.
-_Conceptual Plan: When you, do a master plan community of
3,000 acres you start with a concept plan: The concept
plan is not hard line—when-the property is zoned it has -to
be hard lined so we translated that plan into that zone; so
the lines do not tract because of the community, property
owner and staff input. When 'we went to hardline that
concept things moved, but in concept it is exactly the same
plan.
• Compaction: There is not a single house that is.going.to be
built on any land that .is not properly compacted. Any
grading that is done will meet every .modern test of geologic
science, to ensure adequate compaction.
• Wetlands: We simply proposed the habitat corridor, the one
for 'one trade of land in the habitat' corridor, for one
reason and that is the Resource Agency said here a better
way' "to approach a habitat corridor. So when we sit down
with the Resource Agency •and say here is -our -.notion,
interpreted as drawn in concept, do you still want to go
forward with that, they will determined whether they see
that as adequate. It is more or less their decision from
the standpoint of the Department of Interior and Fish and'
Game. At that point in time, we will be consulting with
surrounding property owners and they can express their
opinion /concerns and also when the plan is presented to the
.Resource Agency for public hearing.
• Notification of property owner: We have worked since April
1991 to find each and every propertyowner. There have been
those occasions where we have a wrong address, the property
was traded or something has happened. We will get together
with the property owners and make sure that they-are
adequately briefed on the project.
Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Young to comment on the pre -
zoning, under the Specific Plan, as there have been inquiries
from property owners in the area expressing concern.
Mr. Young stated there is "every opportunity for someone who
owns a piece of property to come before the Commission /Council
and argue their case for a change of zone. You would be
looking at it not only as a change of zone but in•the context
of the integrity of the overall Specific Plan.
Mr. Young stated they have no objection to the Sportsman's
Lodge retaining its commercial zoning',`because of'the unique.
nature-of the property.
Commissioner Bullard commented on the number of conditions _
placed on this project and a number of the conditions require
compliance with all State and Federal' requirements; letter
received from -the Army Corps of "Engineering and response
included in-the Responses to Comments.,:
ACENDA ITEM NO. ( -
PAC_E_1LOF 1ZZ
Planning Commission
May.5, 1993
Page 12
SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
Commissioner Wilsey stated he was supportive of the project.
Chairwoman Brinley. inquired about the financing plan, and time
line for the golf course, first phase.
Mr. Young stated a, detailed briefing of how financing plan
works will be presented at the next meeting. In concept, we
will be formulating a Community Facilities District and adding
to that developers fees, the normal Community. Facilities
Financing and the Redevelopment tax increment. In terms of
timing on the golf course, it is our intent to begin design as
early as July. We believe it will take approximately twelve
months to get through the flood control conditions and would
hope.to start by next summer.
Chairwoman Brinley inquired about zoning of the property.
Mr. Young stated they can not re -zone any property not owned
by them without the full knowledge and participation of the
underlying property.owner.
Commissioner Bullard stated..he would like to. see the school
district's letter regarding mitigation be added as condition
number 77.
Mr. Eric Doering stated.their concern with a letter is that
Mr. Young and his group do not own the - property; so a letter
from him will not bind future development of the property.. We
are looking for either and - agreement with each and every
property owner, which is not possible, or a condition on the
project, as suggested.
Mr. Young stated what he means by a letter is not representa-
tion of what they would do would be final by virtue of a
letter. We want the benefit,of.a follow -up discussion,. as we
had with the superintendent, to say there are certain things
that are very important to us to include. We are prepared to
say to City Council, we will accept a condition for full
mitigation,. We will write a letter, as to what our proposed
additional language might be to the condition proposed and he
will have that.letter within the next seven working days.
Chairwoman Brinley stated this will be added as condition
number 77, and inquired about adding condition number 78
regarding the Sportsman's Lodge retaining its commercial
zoning.
Commissioner Wilsey suggested the zoning for the Sportsman's
Lodge be referred back to the developer and staff for comment
and suggestion prior to City Council hearing.
There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Brinley called
for a motion.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER WILSEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BULLARD
AND CARRIED BY.UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO, CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3, APPROVAL
OF SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Condition- No.. 77: Prior to approval of any tentative map:
for property within the Specific Plan,
applicant shall. have entered into a
school impact mitigation agreement with
AC_ MA ITEM N14.
PACE `3�G��^
Planning Commission
May 5, 1993
Page 13
CPECIFIC PLAN 93 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
the school district. The developer shall
submit a letter to the School District
within seven (7) days .(May 12, 1993)
indicating any additional = language.
AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 93 -3, ENTITLED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION.NO. 93 -3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE CERTIFICATION OF EIR 93 -3 AND
APPROVAL OF EASTLAKE COMMUNITY BUILDERS (EAST
LAKE) SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3
At this time, 10:15 p.m. the Commission recessed.
At this time, 10:25 p.m. the Commission reconvened: .
BUSINESS ITEMS
Commercial Project 92 -1 - Rancon Development. (The .Nadel-
Partnership, Inc.) - Assistant "Planner villa presented a
request for Design Review of a retail commercial shopping
nter which includes a 54,698 square foot market ;,127;600
square feet of retail stores; 14,000 square feet of
restaurants, and gasoline /mini -mart with.a carwash;-a 25,810
square,foot theater and associated improvements as proposed.
Ten separate' structures will, comprise the entire .shopping.
center. tke project is called Lake, Elsinore Plaza and located
on the northwest corner of.Collier and.Central. .
Chairwoman Briley asked if there was anyone representing the -
applicant and if` there were.any concerns:
Mrs. Martha Cannon, ` representing Rancon, questioned the block
wall fencing along the Freeway, condition number 30, stating
they have no problem with the height the main concern . is with
maintenance. Felt a better screen for the loading docks would
be chainlink with heavy landscaping.
Chairwoman Brinley_ commented by visibility from the "freeway;
and this being an entry point Into the City..and, feels it is '
necessary to have the block wall. She then informed Ms.
Cannon that the City has a.graffiti,� program._
Commissioner Wilsey" ,commented on `condition number 17,
regarding the three -foot wood fence, and suggested. the --
condition be amended to read "all undeveloped building pads
along Collier and Central Avenue shad be hydroseeded,
irrigated and maintained by the' developer unNil such time they
are ready to be developed ".
Commissioner Bullard referred to the condition�,of approval
and need,to correct the numbering. He then commented on:
• Whether the theater concept could be altered fozanother
type of use; suggested a bowling alley in the event Apother
theater should be built prior. to construction of this phase.
•.+'Whether a major 'food -chain !.was interested in any - of t
/ buildings. ,
Ms. Cannon responded Dennys will be along Collier, Lot B. We
have a signed lease, and our lease has a contingency_ for
financing.
FAG- 3 3 CF
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: KEVIN SHEAR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
FOR: 'PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 5, 1993
SUBJECT: EAST LAKE SPECIFIC 'PLAN 93 -3 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT 93 -3
APPLICANT`
The City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency
and
Eastlake Community Builders
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1900
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Contact: Mr. Tom Weigel
REQUESTED USE
A request to approve::
Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93 -3);
The East. Lake Specific Plan (SP 93 -3) and associated
resolution (Resolution 93 -3).
SIZE AND LOCATION
The East Lake-project area consists "of approximately 3,000 acres,
and is located along the east shoreline of Lake Elsinore. The site
is generally bounded by Lakeshore Drive on the north, Mission Trail
and Corydon•Road.on the east, the.city boundary line on the south,
and the shoreline of:Lake Elsinore on the west.
The General Plan designation for the project area is "Specific
Plan ". In addition, East Lake; falls within portions of
Redevelopment Area II and Redevelopment Area III of the City's
Redevelopment. Area Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Lake Elsinore has long recognized the opportunity /
of utilizing the undeveloped plain adjacent to the lake to CZ7�
AGENDA ITEM NO. c,
PAGE OF 17- /
EXISTING LAND USE
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN
Project Site
Mix of Commercial,
R
Specific Plan
Industrial &
C -P
Residential along
C -1
perimeter areas.
R -1
Majority of site
is vacant
North
Commercial/
C -2
LMD,�HD
_
Residential
R -1
Residential,
General
Commercial
East,
Commercial /"
LD, MHD,.VLD
Residential
County"
Residential,.
General
Commercial,"
Business.Park
South
Residential
R -1,
LMD, LD
County
Residential
West
Lake
Lake
Lake
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Lake Elsinore has long recognized the opportunity /
of utilizing the undeveloped plain adjacent to the lake to CZ7�
AGENDA ITEM NO. c,
PAGE OF 17- /
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 2
enhance the community. In conjunction with the improvements of
the Lake Elsinore Management Project, this area now has the
opportunity to be reclaimed for development, resulting in.the
creation of a recreational waterfront community for the City.
The project area consists of a multitude of parcel ownerships.
However, to ensure the physical and financial success of the
project, the,site needed to be planned as-one cohesive unit.
In a public /private participation with the City's Redevelopment
Agency, Eastlake Community Builders was retained to'coordinate
the planning and development of the project in April 1991.
COMMUNITY AND PROPERTY OWNER MEETINGS
1. Property Owner Meetings
The East Lake project site is comprised of: approximately
625 parcels owned by over 300 individuals, public
agencies, corporations, or partnerships. - Meetings with
property owners began in January 1992, starting with those
who own in excess of 40 acres: Twelve owners in -this
category attended individual meetings.with the project
Applicant. The remaining ' property owners were divided
into five geographical groups with a sixth group for those
owners living on -site. Group meetings were conducted in
July, August and September of 1992. The presentation to
property owners - included an introduction to the
development team, a slide show of the conceptual master
plan, an overview of property owner participation options, _
and discussion of the development schedule. Three update
letters from the Applicant (ECB) have been mailed to keep
owners posted on the progress of East Lake. .
2. Community Meetings
Three 1community meetings -were conducted in August and
September 1992 at Withrow and Railroad Canyon Schools.
Notice of these meetings was given through, local
newspapers and King Cablevision video calendar. The
community meeting presentations included an introduction _
to the development team, a slide show of the conceptual
master plan; and a discussion of the development schedule.
3. Topics Discussed
The following topics represent the areas of concern most
often expressed throughout these meetings. Each of these
topics was analyzed further byithe project consultants,
and incorporated into the Specific Plan where; appropriate.
A'discussion of how development will respond to�each of '
these is provided in the PROJECT CONCERNS section of the
Staff Report.
• Flood
The primary concern expressed by those attending the
meetings was to understand how development would
occur within the existing floodplain areas of East
Lake, and still provide the flood protection that
the Lake Elsinore Management Project levee was
designed to accommodate.
• Earthwork
Meeting participants "inquired as to the 'source. of,
fill material required'for the development of East
Lake.
AGENDA {TE10 NO. —
3SOF
PAGE—
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 3
•
Project-Phasing
Meeting participants inquired as to the phasing of
project development.
• Traffic /Circulation
The traffic and circulation issues raised during.the
meetings focussed primarily on access to parcels
within -East Lake.
• Wetlands
Meeting participants inquired about the status of
the existing wetlands behind the levee.
SCOPE OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN , .
The Specific Plan sets forth the development plan for East Lake
including, land use',' - infrastructure, public facilities and
public services. It also establishes the development._
regulations and design guidelines under which development may
occur within the project area. In addition, implementation
methods are discussed in the Specific Plan regarding the
financing of public improvements. ;.Finally, the Specific Plan
establishes, the administration process of subsequent
development proposals within the East Lake,project area.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The proposed Development Agreement for this, project is to be
combined and considered together with the,proposed Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) currently being prepared. The
DDA is required because the project is within two Redevelopment
Project Areas. For this reason, the proposed Development
Agreement has,been pulled from consideration at this time and
will betaken together with the proposed DDA.directly to the
City Redevelopment Agency and the City Council at a later date.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
East Lake is a master planned community ,consisting .of..
approximately 3,000 acres, and provides a mix of residential,
commercial, open space, recreational and institutional land
uses. The residential component consists of four residential
land use categories providing a variety of housing types within
the project. Four commercial categories are planned to provide
for the retail needs of the project, as well as providing for
social and civic opportunities. The open space consists of a
variety of natural and man -made open space,to meet the active,
and passive recreational needs of the community.:,
Four major concepts form the basis of the land use plan
including:
Lakeside Location /Recreational Orientation
• District Level Planning _
• Environmentally Sound Planning
• Historical Context
• Lakeside Location /Recreation orientation.
The East Lake plan provides major water recreation
opportunities for the City, including a resort, marinas,
and public park land along the lake edge within East Lake.
In addition, other recreational opportunities include golf
courses, neighborhood parks, a regional sports park,
equestrian facilities, multi- habitat corridor, natural
open space, and trails. Q�
AGENDA ITEM NO.
PAGE '3 �y OF /a /
District Level Planning
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 4
East Lake is composed of three districts including the
Marina District, Lakeside Resort, and the--Recreation
Village. This district level planning provides a strong
integration between the existing City and East Lake. Each
district features a distinct focus or identity.
Environmentally Sound Planning
Environmental factors have been considered in the design
of East Lake. As *a result; the land use plan incorporates
environmental features, such as wetlands, flood plain, and
biological habitat into an open space system designed as
an integral part of the overall development concept.
Historical Context
East Lake has been designed to maintain a link to the
community's past. Historical influences include the early
Indian inhabitants and their respect for the land, the
ranching and rodeo era of the late 1800s, and the resort
visions of the City's founders.
A statistical summary of the East Lake land use plan is-
presented below:
LAND USE ACRES
Residential
Residential 1 735.5
Residential 2 478
Residential 3 -162
Residential 4 : 12
Subtotal 11387.,5
commercial
General Commercial 125
Mixed Use 53
Commercial Park 31
Airport Use Area 197
Subtotal 406
Special Alternative Use
58.5
Subtotal
58.5
Open Space .
Marina
26.5
Park
216.5
_Lake
33
Golf Course
347
Multi- Habitat Corridor
259
Sports Park
26
Natural Open Space
55
Sub -total
963
Roads 185
'TOTAL 3,000
PROJECT CONCERNS
1. Flood Storage
An earthen levee has been constructed as part of the Lake
Elsinore Management Project's comprehensive effort to
stabilize the water surface elevation of Lake Elsinore.
The area behind the levee was designed to accommodate 100 -
ACENDA ITEM, NO. Ap 9
PAGE 3 OF �a 9
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 5
year flood conditions, requiring approximately 26,000
acre -feet of water storage.
The East Lake Specific Plan provides approximately 900
acres of land for flood storage. It is estimated that the
resulting total water storage volume available is 26,636
acre -feet within East Lake. Therefore, there is no
reduction in flood storage capacity as a result of
development. Land uses in the flood storage areas are low
intensity, non - habitable uses such as parks, golf courses,
drainage swales and the multi- habitat corridor.
2. 8arthwork
In conjunction with providing flood protection within East
Lake, proposed habitable development areas will be filled
with earth to a minimum elevation of 1,265 feet. This is
above the projected 100 -year inundation level of
approximately 1,263.3 feet. As a result, construction of
the project will require movement of up to 38 million
cubic yards of earth, mostly fill material. Some areas
will receive as much as 25 feet of fill. No actual
sources of fill have been identified, although potential
sources include existing and future grading projects in
the Elsinore Valley, establishment of specific borrow
sites, and use of material dredged from the lake bottom.
3. Wetlands
As part of the Lake Elsinore Management Project, a 356
acre manmade wetlands area has been set aside. Although
the land has been set aside to create manmade wetlands, no
other physical improvements, such as the establishment of
wetland biological habitat, has yet occurred in this
designated area. The master plan for East Lake, however,
would relocate the manmade wetlands area and incorporate
it into the multi- habitat corridor. According to the EIR,
the net impact of the multi- habitat corridor is expected
to be beneficial.
4. Phasing
Project development within East Lake is anticipated to
occur in approximately five 3 -year phases in response to
market conditions. Each phase of development, however, is
functionally and financially independent so that
development need not occur sequentially from Phase 1 to
Phase 5. As a result, there may be some overlap between
phases, or certain facilities in one phase could be
constructed prior to the completion of a previous phase.
In any case, however, infrastructure and other public
facilities will be constructed prior to or concurrent with
incremental development to ensure that each area of
development is properly serviced.
In addition, certain areas within East Lake, as will be
established by the Army Corps of Engineers, are subject to
the jurisdiction of the Corps and require Section 404
permits prior to development. The status of these
Section 404 permits, however, shall not affect the ability
to develop other areas of East Lake which are not subject
to the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. .
AGENDA ITENO. la!,
PAGE OF
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 6
S. Traffic /Circulation
The Circulation Plan provides a comprehensive circulation
system which integrates well with the City's General Plan
Circulation Element, and provides adequate, on -site
circulation as well,. through its provision of urban
arterials, major, collector,. and. local -streets. The land
use assumptions in.the preparation of the City's General
Plan Circulation Element (adopted in 1990). were similar to
the land uses proposed by the East Lake Specific Plan. In
fact, the total dwelling units proposed in the Specific,_
Plan are actually less than that modelled in the General
Plan.
The Specific Plan traffic study modelled future
intersection configurations and roadway configuration to
determine if the road system would operate at an
acceptable level of service. Even though the Specific
Plan 'land use distribution was similar to that modelled by
the General Plan, the analysis, indicated improvements
could be required that are substantially beyond the
General Plan Circulation Element configuration.
Based on -the discussion below, however, it is concluded
that the East- Lake Specific Plan can operate
satisfactorily at the levels of. improvement specified in -.
the General Plan Circulation Element.
• I Railroad Canyon Road
Modelling indicates that up to 9 lanes between
Lakeshore Drive and I -15 would be required to handle
projected traffic under worst case conditions.
However, due to planned regional improvements, City
`improvements including OHV• lanes; and. the City's
efforts to implement a TDM ordinance, it is
'reasonable to assume that the General Plan
circulation element. configuration for :Railroad
Canyon is sufficient to `handle future traffic
including East Lake.
• Bundy Canyon Road
Modelling indicates that a seven lane road section
would be required to handle traffic -flows from
Corydon Road to east of I -15. The general plan
designates this roadway as a 'six lane urban
arterial. Future region.wideroad projects, such as
a potential north -south roadway- presently under
study which, would parallel, 1-15' between Lake
Elsinore and Temecula and traverse west of the lake,
could reduce traffic volume An, this . area.=
Considering also that the - modelling analysis is
worst .case and that TDM. measures will also be
implemented, it is - reasonable to assume that the
general plan configuration will be sufficient for
East Lake traffic distribution.-
Grand.Avenue
Modelling indicates that eight lanes for a relative
short segment on either side of Stoneman Street are
needed, whereas six lanes are indicated by the
circulation element of the general plan.
AGENDA ITEM NO
OF
PAGE 3 � _ a y
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 7
Approximately 18% of the traffic on Grand at this
location is due to East Lake. Potential traffic
volume reductions afforded by the regional corridor .
mentioned above are likely at this. location as well.
As a developing area, there will be other roadways
provided which will redistribute traffic flows.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the general
plan configuration at this location is sufficient
for East Lake traffic.
The traffic study will be updated to address specific
traffic issues and impacts associated with the development
of the minor league stadium in Planning Area 102.
6. Fiscal Impact
A Fiscal Impact study has been prepared to determine the
development's impact to the City's fiscal resources. The
fiscal impacts are projected for the first year, mid-
point, and build -out conditions.
At build -out of East Lake, the projected. annual surplus to
the City is estimated to be $521.9 thousand on projected
revenues of $7.20 million and projected costs of $6.67
million. Deficits to the General Fund are projected during
some interim years of development phasing. This deficit,
however, is largely a result of residential phasing and
the lag of non - residential development, particularly
retail development which generates substantial revenues to
the City's General Fund in terms of sales tax.
7. Airport Use Area
The plan for East Lake includes a private airport facility
within the community. The airport site, containing 197
acres, is intended for private use and may be used-for
recreational air sport activities upon permission by the
airport owner. The airport facilities are planned to
include a take -off and landing strip, terminal facilities,
and associated industrial uses in support of the.airport
operations. These associated industrial uses may include
facilities such as warehouses, storage, maintenance.and
repair facilities, and hangars.
S. Special Alternative Use Area
A Special Alternative Use Area containing 58.5,acres has
been.designated on the East Lake plan. This designation
has a base land use of Residential 1. In lieu of
residential development, however, the Special Alternative
Use area also permits, subject to a Conditional Use
Permit, Commercial Park and Open Space category uses. The
purpose of this provision is to provide an alternate
location for the minor league baseball stadium and related
commercial uses. The location of the stadium in the
Special Alternative Use Area would not adversely- impact
the Sports Park (Planning Area 66). The Sports Park would
still be developed with other active recreation
facilities, such as but not limited to athletic fields,
equestrian facilities, tennis courts, multi - purpose
courts, and swimming facilities.
AGENDA ITEM! NO
PAGS.L01 OFLl
1.
2.
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 8
CEQA Compliance
The East Lake Environmental Impact Report was prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states
that an EIR must describe any environmental impacts which
cannot be avoided or eliminated if the project is
implemented as presently proposed
• Project Related Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Land Use: Compatibility impacts associated
with the airport use cannot be completely.
mitigated.
Air Quality: Air quality impacts will occur
during construction, and the regional air cell
will be incrementally degraded from increased
traffic and energy consumption.
Biological Resources: Loss of 2,639 acres of
foraging .habitat for raptors cannot be
mitigated.
Energy Resources: Consumption of non- renewable
fossil fuel for construction and operation of
the project cannot be fully mitigated.
Aesthetics: Light and, glare impacts from
recreational uses .(i.e., stadium)- remain
potentially significant for nearby residents.
Agriculture: Although . not in current
agricultural use, development. of East Lake will
result in the loss of approximately 15 acres of
prime agricultural soils.
• Cumulative Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Impacts from .seismic shaking and associated
secondary impacts are potentially significant
for the Elsinore Valley.
water quality in major drainages will be
degraded by pollutants from.urban run -off.
Regional air quality will be degraded through
construction activities :and vehicular
emissions.
Conversion of open space to urban uses will
eliminate natural open areas that have
important.recreational, ecological, and scenic,
value.
Urbanization will eliminate raptor foraging and
nesting habitat and will place additional
AGENDA ITEM NO.—
PAGE 4L GF.LLI
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 9
pressures on sensitive species that occur in
the area.
Cumulative projects will increase demand for
non - renewable resources used to supply
gasoline, natural gas, and electricity.
Cumulative development of projects will have
significant impacts on traffic volumes on the
city's arterial system as well as regional
transportation corridors.
Cumulative projects will place additional
demands on utilities and services that are
either scarce, in short supply, or at capacity
for current levels of demand. Included are
water supply, wastewater treatment capacity,
schools, and solid waste disposal capacity.
3. Response to comments
The Applicant has submitted a "Response to Comments"
document for the EIR for comments provided by the public
agencies and individuals who have reviewed the EIR for the
proposed project and its impacts. The agencies and
individuals include:
- Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
- Mentor Aviation International
- U.S. Department of Transportation
- Southern California Association of Governments
- California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics
- Riverside County Sheriff, Lake Elsinore Station
- Sportsman's Lodge
California Department of Conservation - Office
of Governmental and Environmental Relations
Mr. Jack Cohen
Ms. Cathrine Redmeier
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Maxson Investments /Columbia Development Company
Southern California Edison Company
Department of the Army
Wildomar Municipal Advisory Council
Lake Elsinore Unified School District
City of Murrieta
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to
City Council:
1. Certification of Environmental Impact Report 93 -3;
2. Approval of Specific Plan 93 -3 by adoption of Resolution
93-3.
Based on the following findings and attached, conditions of
approval.
PRGE �� 0
OF /_
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 10
FINDINGS - SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3
1. The East Lake Specific Plan meets the City's Specific Plan
criteria for content,and required'implementation of the _
General Plan established by Section 65450 of the
California Government Code and section 17..99 of the City
of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
2. The East Lake Specific Plan is consistent with the Goals,
Policies and Objectives of the General, Plan, and with any
other applicable plan or policies adopted by the City for
the reasons set forth in.Section 3:1 (pp. III-1 through
III -14) of the Specific Plan.
3. The Development Regulations contained within the Specific
Plan supersede otherwise applicable City ordinances and
codes, unless specifically stated to the contrary in the
Specific Plan. Approval of the Specific Plan shall not be
interpreted as waiving compliance with other Federal,
State, or City Codes.
4. The EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and is
complete and adequate. As set forth in the Statement of
Facts, Findings, and Overriding Considerations, all
significant adverse impacts have either been mitigated to
acceptable levels, or have been found to be overridden by
economic,- social," or other benefits derived from the
project.
5. This request will result in significant environmental
impacts associated with land use, air quality, biological
resources, energy resources, aesthetics, agriculture,
seismicity, water quality, traffic, school construction,
utilities and services which may be partially mitigated
but are anticipated to remain significant upon development
of the site as allowed under the General Plan. These
impacts are therefore found to be acceptable under the
General Plan, specifically the provision of quality
housing opportunities by the City, the anticipated
increase in local government revenues generated by project
residents and the provision of significant infrastructure
improvements, all of which are expected to support local
commercial and industrial development efforts and generate
measurable benefits to the local economy and fiscal
integrity of City government.
6. The proposed location of the project allows the
development to be well- integrated with its surroundings.
7. All vehicular traffic generated by the development, either
in phased increments or at full build -out, will be
accommodated safely and without causing undue congestion
upon adjoining streets.
8. Except as limited by State Law, including SB 1287, the
Specific Plan identifies methodologies to allow land uses
to be adequately serviced by existing or proposed public
facilities and services. Suitable areas are reserved for
schools, parks and pedestrian ways.
9. The overall design of the Specific Plan will produce an
attractive, efficient and stable development.
AGENDA 1TEN1 N3.0
PAGE OF�
Public Hearing
EIR 93 -3,
SP 93 -3
May 5, 1993
Page 11
10. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the persons
residing or working within the project area or within the
City, nor will it be injurious to property or improvements
in the project area or within the City.
FINDINGS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 93 -3
1. The East Lake EIR has been prepared, submitted and
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City's CEQA
guidelines, and is complete and adequate in that it
addresses all environmental effects of the Project and all
discretionary approvals required therefore.
Prepared by:
Approved for Planning Commission:
. ��z
Phyllis CAogers,
Assistant City Manager
AGENDA ITE%11 No.
PAGE OF �y /
i
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3
EAST LAKE
1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the
Applicant shall submit a final grading plan, subject to
all requirements of the City Grading Ordinance, and a geo-
technical report to the Public Services Director for
approval. The geo- technical report will primarily involve
assessment of potential soil - related constraints and
hazards such as slope stability,'settlement, liquefaction,
or related seismic impacts where determined to be
appropriate by the Public Services - Director. The report
shall also include evaluation of potentially expansive
soils and recommended construction procedures and /or
design criteria to minimize the affects of these soils on
the proposed development.
2. Grading shall not be permitted outside the area of the
designated project boundary unless appropriate approvals
have been obtained. -
3. Prior to the recordation'of a_ final tract /parcel map or
prior to the issuance of any grading permits, whichever
comes first, the Applicant shall design the following
improvements and provide necessary dedication in a manner
meeting the approval of the Public Services Director:
• All provisions for surface drainage; and
• All necessary storm drain facilities to a
satisfactory point of. disposal for the proper
control and disposal of storm runoff:
4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, grading and
construction plans shall incorporate erosion control
measures.
5. All structures shall be designed to incorporate all state
and local water conservation regulations,-subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
6. Applicants shall incorporate energy - efficient features and
passive design concepts, whenever feasible, in the design
and construction of the project.
7. Applicants shall incorporate the use of solar energy and
waste heat recovery systems to reduce energy consumption
into the project design wherever it is feasible.
8. Applicants shall consult with SCE and SCG in the selection
of effective energy conservation techniques and the
installation of additional; project- related
infrastructure.
9. Applicants shall install building and energy conservation
measures in compliance with Title 24, CRC Sections 2-
5307(b) and 2 -5452 (i) and (j) , and Title 20, CRC Sections
1604 (f) and 1601_(b).
10. The development shall include facilities to promote
circulation efficiencies, such as bus stops and turnouts.
Plans for these facilities shall be incorporated into the
street improvement plans for each development phase.
11. A11 residential lots' and dwellings shall be sound
attenuated against present and projected noise which shall
be the sum of all noise impacting the Project so as not to
exceed an exterior standard of 60 Ldn in outdoor living
areas, and an interior standard of 45 Db CNEL in all
habitable rooms.
12. Public buildings, particularly schools, shall be located
in areas free from hazards and safety threatening
considerations.
AGEND A ITEM, NO.�
PAGE.. OF 9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
13. The design of the East Lake project shall meet all
Riverside County Fire Department standards for fire
protection and any additional requirements requested by
the County Fire Marshall.
14. Applicant shall obtain all necessary. State and Federal
permits, approvals, or other entitlements, where
applicable, prior to each phase of development of the
project.
15. The development of park facilities shall be directly
linked to the phasing of residential development as
further described in the Disposition and Development
Agreement.
16. Applicants of future projects within .East Lake shall
acquire the necessary permits for development, including
grading and building permits.
17. Applicants shall comply with applicable redevelopment and
displacement law relative to property acquisitions within
the East Lake Specific Plan area.
18. Prior to approval of each tentative map, a fault hazards
investigation shall be conducted which will include fault
trenching and utilize precursory geophysical methods
within areas enclosed by the State of California Special
Studies maps, if any structures are proposed in or near
these areas. This study shall be provided by the
Applicant and shall include discussion of potential
hazards on -site associated with Glen Ivy North fault and
previously theorized buried en- echelon faults.
19. Due to the known or potential presence of active faults,
potentially capable of surface rupture, structures for
human occupation shall not be permitted within 50 feet of
any capable faults or fault zones now documented or
ultimately documented during further geologic /geophysical
investigation of the site during the design of tentative
maps.
20. Documentation of slope stability shall be required when
the type of fill material has been determined prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
21. Use of sulphur resistant concrete "Type V" or equivalent
with fly ash will be required per Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction for areas containing near -
surface, high - sulfate content soils.
22. Prior to tentative map approval, the project geotechnical,
civil, and structural engineers shall review seismic
seiche design parameters and incorporate appropriate
design standards into the site plan.
23. The construction of the portions of East Lake presently
below elevation 1265 are conditional upon completion of
the LMP components affecting flood control.
24. Future developers shall prepare a comprehensive Flood
Storage, Retention and Operations Plan which provides
design level detail on operation of the flood storage
system within East Lake. The plan shall be approved by
LEMA, Riverside County Flood Control, and the City of Lake
Elsinore Public Works. For those areas under the
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, this plan
shall be submitted with the Section 404 permit
application.
AC -16D ; ITEMI NO.
�. PAGE !�y Of fag
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
25. Prior to. conducting any,
Applicant shall obtain
County approval.
a) Standard toxicity
sedim- ents..in 'pote
locations that pass
dredged.
b)
C)
dredging in Lake Elsinore, the
necessary Federal, State, and
tests shall be conducted of
ztial dredge locations. Only
standard toxicity tests shall be
Measures:(including the use of silt curtains around
dredge equipment) shall be taken to reduce turbidity
impacts. The City, shall review" and approve any,
turbidity abatement measure developed by the
Applicant and. the Corps of Engineers prior, to
initiation of dredging. Dredging shall be monitored
to ensure turbidity plumes will only occur around.,
the immediate area of the dredge.
Measures shall be taken - to' prevent any release of
hydrocarbons into the lake during routine dredging
operations as well as uncontrolled accidental
spillage of petroleum products into the lake from
dredging machinery. Such measures shall include the
use of. floating oil booms to collect any petroleum
hydrocarbons that might escape and to develop a
dredging petroleum spill avoidance and contingency
plan.
26. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall
develop a Spill Prevention, Containment and Cleanup Plan
for potential accidental spills of petroleum prevention
products. from machinery or above ground storage tanks
during construction.
27. In order to mitigate the _potential impacts to water
quality from nutrient loading by an emergency overflow of
Upper Lake waters to Lake Elsinore, the Applicant shall'
develop a Lake Management Plan for Upper Lake prior to its
construction. Such a plan would outline a water quality
sampling and .testing program in order to monitor plant
nutrient levels in the Upper Lake, and it would describe
what lake.'management options were available to minimize
eutrophication of Upper Lake.
28. Applicants for individual projects 'requiring `401 Water
Quality Certification an NPDES construction and storm
water permits shall obtain such permits prior to issuance
of city grading permits.
29. All construction equipment shall utilize properly working
mufflers and be kept in a proper' state of tune to
alleviate backfires. `Stationary equipment such as
generators, shall be equipped with noise shrouds and shall
be placed as far as possible 'from sensitive receptor
locations. Finally, when working within sensitive areas,
portable noise barriers shall be utilized to reduce
produced noise to the extent feasible.
30. Contractors shall implement the measures detailed in
Section_ 4.6.3.1 of the EIR to reduce' the impacts of
exhaust and dust emissions during construction.
31. The impacts of equestrian use shall be mitigated by
implementing operational measures including but not
limited to regular watering of the facility and daily
removal of manure. The Applicant shall demonstrate how
these and other measures will be implemented during the
design review stage.
32. Prior to the approval of individual- tract maps; future
applicants shall incorporate, to the extent feasible, the
AGEP1[)A ITc!ti'• NO
PAGE fl 7 tir I Z
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
measures detailed in Section 4.6.3.2 of the EIR to reduce
the impacts of mobile and stationary source emissions.
33. Prior to removal, it shall be determined if the creosote
poles on -site contain hazardous materials and any building
slated for demolition (namely residences) shall be
inspected by an AHERA approved inspector to ascertain if
ACMs are present.
34. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Lake
Elsinore, the Riverside County planning staff, and
California Department of Fish and Game in the design and
development of the Multihabitat Corridor to ensure
consistency and compatibility with the regional corridor
system.
35. The existing 356 acre wetlands area shall be operated as
shallow pond habitat while phases.1, 2, 3 and 5 of the
project are being constructed.
36. The retained open space areas on and adjacent to those
portions of Rome Hill within East Lake, shall be fenced
and signs shall be placed to designate the areas as open
space wildlife habitat.. This will serve to eliminate off -
highway vehicle disturbances and some of the disturbances
caused by human intrusion into the natural area.
37. Construction or heavy grading adjacent to Rome Hill and
the planned natural open space areas shall not occur
during the months of March through July. By avoiding this
time frame, impacts to wildlife in the natural areas
during the breeding season shall be kept to a minimum.
38. Diversion, obstruction of the natural flow, -or changes in
the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream,_or lake
shall require notification to the CDF as called for in the,
Fish and Game Code. Notification shall be made after the
project is approved by the lead agency.
39. A qualified paleontologist shall monitor ground disturbing
activities in high potential areas. Monitoring would
occur for 2 to 3 hours per week in area mapped as
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal), with increased monitoring
activity occurring should fossils be located. A greater
monitoring effort of 4 hours per day would occur in the
late Pleistocene deposits (Qc).
a) The monitoring paleontologist shall salvage fossils
as they are unearthed and remove bulk samples of
sediments which may contain small remains, such as
rodents, to an off -site location for screen washing.
The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt
or divert equipment o allow removal of abundant or
large specimens.
b) All specimens removed by the paleontologist shall be
prepared to the point of identification and
described in a report of the findings, with an
appended itemized inventory of the recovered
specimens. Specimens would then be accessioned into
an established museum repository with retrievable
storage.
40. Traffic impacts shall be mitigated in accordance to the
measures detailed in Section 4.13'.3 of the EIR.
41. Recycled water shall be utilized where feasible. Where
implemented, recycled water shall be used in accordance
with Title 22, California Administrative Code and is also
subject to the requirements and specifications of the
Riverside County Health Department, EVMWD and the RWQCB
throuah issuance of an MPDES waste discharge permit.
AGEND IT— i.i id.�.
PAGE OF �Z
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
4-2. Applicant shall assist EVMWD in finding additional funding
sources for short- and long -term financing for
construction of on -site and regional water and sewer
facilities.
43. All development proposals shall be reviewed by the City of
Lake Elsinore and Riverside. County Fire Department to
ensure that adequate fire services are available to serve
the development.
44. The proposed fire station shall follow the standards of
the Fire Master Plana Fire.Station location and access
shall be approved by -the Riverside County Fire Department.
45. Prior to occupancy, the Applicant and the City shall
cooperate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department
to ensure that adequate police service will be provided
for the project, including mitigation fees, if necessary.
46. The proposed police substation shall comply with all
applicable Riverside County - Sheriff Department standards.
47. The Applicant shall pay to the Lake Elsinore Unified
School'District the developer fee in the amount set by
State law.
48. Special event traffic control shall be provided during
major events at the stadium.
49. Design of the specific facilities within tthe Sports Park,
such as the equestrian facility, shall be subject to
design review by-the City of Lake Elsinore and with
particular `consideration for waste disposal, site
drainage, and vector control.
50. Applicant shall ensure adequate utility service prior to
occupancy.
51. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable measures as
specified by the city including those found in the city
programs including the City Source Reduction and Recycling
Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element, the county
Solid Waste Management Plan and new county Integrated
Waste Management Plan.
52. Development of the new library facility shall conform to
applicable RCCPL standards. Applicant shall pay any
applicable fees for library services prior to issuance of
building permits.
53. Applicants shall provide all project - related on -site
improvements as specified in the Specific Plan.
54. The use of some native vegetation shall be incorporated
into landscaping. Native bunchgrasses, wild buckwheat,
and coastal sagebrush are examples of native grassland and
coastal sage scrub species that shall be utilized so as to
create as diverse a plant palette as feasible.
Implementation of =this measure would partially mitigate
for unavoidable impacts of the project on natural
vegetation in the area.
55. Dust control methods shall be employed during construction
so as to minimize the amount of dust that could settle on
Rome Hill. Implementation of this measure would reduce.
dust impacts to a nonsignificant level.
56. All future development including tentative subdivision
maps shall be consistent with the design standards and
guidelines proposed in the Specific Plan.
ACE ED A ITEM, NO.�
PAGE.2-1. C� Z
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 93 -3 CONTINUED
S7. All future development is subject to the City of Lake
Elsinore Design Review process.
58. Three sites, CA -RIV -4042, CA -RIV -4647 AND CA -RIV -4648,
require archaeological test excavations to determine their
importance. The COE, Los Angeles District, shall conduct
test excavations at CA- RIV -4042 and determine that site's
importance. I
59. CA -RIV -4647 may be eligible for the Sparse Lithic Scatter
Program as defined by Jackson et al. (1988) and will
require a more extensive test excavation program. .
60. If subsurface deposits are found in conducting the
excavation of Subsurface Exploratory Excavation Units'
(SEEUs) for the Sparse Lithic Scatter Program, CA -RIV -4648
requires archaeological test excavation to determine its
significance under CEQA.
61. The Applicant will work with EVMWD to ensure that there is
an adequate supply of water and pressure to meet fire flow
requirements. All water mains and hydrants shall be
provided in accordance with City of Lake Elsinore
Municipal Code, subject to the approval of the Riverside
County Fire Department.
62. Any uses within the East Lake project which involve or
generate hazardous waste shall prepare a Hazardous
Materials /waste Handling, Storage, and Disposal Plan for
approval by the California Department of Health, Riverside
County Fire Department, and City of Lake Elsinore. An
emergency. evacuation plan shall be prepared for uses which
involve hazardous waste.
63. As a condition of land use approval or land use permits
issued under the Specific Plan, Applicant shall be
required to grant an avigation easement for airport
operations. Avigation easements shall not restrict
airport operations, but shall specify the types of
activities included within the easement designation.
Avigation easements will specifically include reference to
airport vicinity effects which include noise impact,
accident potential, fly - overs, miscellaneous effects such
as potential damage from accidental fuel spills and
airport expansions.
64. The Department of Real Estate Report (DRE) and property
title reports shall inform prospective buyers of the
existence of avigation easements. All properties within
the vicinity of the airstrip shall be subject to the
avigation easement restrictions. Avigation easements are
attached to the title of properties and hence are
transferred to subsequent owners.
65. Residential structure and other hazards to avigation (such
as light standards) , shall meet FAA Part 77 requirements.
66. Height limits within the clear and approach zones shall
recognize the 20:1 approach and departure slope which is
a condition of airport operation as permitted by
California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics.
67. Residential uses within any established airport pattern
area shall be limited to suggested densities in the
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook or other appropriate
planning standard.
68. The approved Final Specific Plan shall. be filed in the
office of the City Clerk and in the City Planning
Division.
ACENDA ITEM NO.�
PAGE 'w OF lg