Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ID# 14-601 Annexation No. 83 Nichols Road & Zone Change No. 2014-02
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor And Members of the City Council FROM: Grant Yates City Manager DATE: May 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Annexation No. 83 (Nichols Road Annexation) and Zone Change No. 2014 -02 — Applications to Pre -Zone and Commence Annexation Proceedings for 666.66 Acres Consisting of Eight Undeveloped Parcels and Temescal Canyon High School, Located North and South of Nichols Road and Generally Bounded by Interstate 15 to the West and South, and El Toro Road to the East into the City of Lake Elsinore. APPLICANT/ Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC, P. O. Box 77850, OWNER Corona, CA 92877 Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: Adopt Resolution No. 2015 - ; A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adopting Addendum #1 to General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for Annexation No. 83 and Zone Change No. 2014 -02. 2. Approve and Introduce by title only and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2015- _; An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California Approving Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 Changing the Official Zoning Map of the City of Lake Elsinore, Subject To Completion of Annexation No. 83. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2015 -: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Commencing Proceedings to Annex the Territory Designated as Annexation No. 83 Into the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 May 26, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Background The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed annexation on April 21, 2015. Public testimony at the Commission meeting consisted of a former Elsinore Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees member who lives near Temescal Canyon High School in support of the annexation and one neighboring property owner testifying about access issues to the property. The City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission considered the public testimony and unanimously voted (5 -0) to recommend approval of the proposed pre- annexation zone change and annexation. Project Location The proposed Annexation Area is generally bounded by Interstate 15 (Corona Freeway) to the west and south, and El Toro Road to the east. Nichols Road and an existing mining operation (Nichols Canyon Mine) bisects the Project site, with approximately 596.21 acres of the Project site occurring to the north of the mine, and approximately 70.45 acres (inclusive of the Temescal Canyon High School) occurring to the south. Proiect Description Annexation No. 83 Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC has submitted an application to annex 666.66 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence generally located north and south of Nichols Road and generally bounded by Interstate 15 to the west and south and El Toro Road to the east into the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore. The annexation area comprises the following assemblages of parcels, which are categorized based on ownership and /or location: 1) Harbor Lounge, BLM, and RCA Parcels (APNs 390 - 230 -005, 390 - 230 -008, 390 - 270 -007, and 390 - 270 -009), which comprise approximately 596.21 acres located north of Nichols Road; 2) Bowtie Parcels (APNs 389- 210 -032, 389 - 210 -036, 389 - 210 -008, and 389 - 210 -034), which comprise approximately 26.6 acres north of and abutting the Temescal Canyon High School; and 3) the Temescal Canyon High School Parcels (APNs 389 - 210 -037 and 389 - 210 -039), which comprise approximately 43.85 acres and encompasses the existing high school. Staff consulted with George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer of LAFCO regarding the proposed annexation. Mr. Spiliotis advised staff that because the applicant does not own all of the property proposed for annexation, the annexation process would be simplified if the City was the applicant. Therefore, if the City Council commences annexation proceedings, the LAFCO applications that are submitted will list the City of Lake Elsinore as the applicant. Mr. Werner has agreed to pay all LAFCO application fees and any subsequent fees required by LAFCO. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 May 26, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Zone Change No. 2014 -02 The Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Sections 56000 et seq.) requires that territory be "pre- zoned" prior to annexation. The pre- zoning process identifies any intended zoning changes and informs property owners and other interested parties of permitted land uses prior to finalization of the proposed action. As shown on Exhibit "A" (Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map), pre- annexation zoning that is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Plan has been identified for each property within the annexation area. The proposed pre- annexation zoning includes a mixture of the following zoning districts: CMU (Commercial Mixed -Use), O -S (Open Space), R -H (Hillside Single - Family Residential) and P -1 (Public Institutional). Discussion & Analysis As part of the new General Plan, the City of Lake Elsinore divided the City into eleven Planning Districts and the City's Sphere of Influence into five sphere districts. The proposed Annexation Area is located within the identified North Central Sphere District. The land use designations (see Exhibit "B ": City General Plan Land Use Designations Map) adopted for the Annexation No. 83 area are: • Open Space • Hillside Residential (1 dwelling unit per lot with 1/2 acre to 10 acre lot sizes depending on slope and utilities) • Commercial Mixed Use (Commercial uses with subordinate residential densities of 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre) • Public Institutional (Interstate 15 right -of -way) The subject Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 addresses the proposed zoning designations on the within the Annexation No. 83 area. Pre - zoning the property establishes a regulatory procedure to be followed for future development within the annexation area, subject to future City of Lake Elsinore approvals and environmental reviews. Appendix B of the City's General Plan is a General Plan /Zoning Compatibility Matrix (see Exhibit 'C ") which identifies those zoning districts that are considered to be compatible with each of the General Plan's land use designations. The zoning districts proposed for each General Plan land use designation for property within the Annexation area are listed in the following table: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 May 26, 2015 Page 4 of 5 CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CITY PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING General Commercial CMU Commercial Mixed -Use Hillside Residential HR Hillside Single-Family Residential Open Space OS (Open Space) Public Institutional PI Public Institutional As shown in the General Plan /Zoning Compatibility Matrix, the proposed pre- annexation zoning is considered to be compatible with the area's General Plan land use designations. The Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requires the preparation of a Plan of Services and a Fiscal Impact Analysis as documentation in support of an annexation. These documents have been prepared and are attached to this staff report for informational purposes. Environmental Determination On December 13, 2011, the City Council certified a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (RP -EIR) ") to address the potential environmental impacts of a comprehensive update of its General Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The potential environmental impacts of the General Plan's land use designations for property within the City limits and within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence were evaluated in the certified RP -EIR. In accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed annexation and zone change do not present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require Subsequent or Supplemental EIR analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information contained in the certified EIR is necessary in order to approve the proposed project. For this reason, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR)(SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR. The Initial Study /Addendum constitutes Addendum # 1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015121019) Fiscal Impact The time and costs related to processing Annexation No. 83 and Zone Change No. 2014- 02 have been covered by the Developer Deposit paid for by the applicant. No General Fund budgets have been allocated or used in the processing of this application. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 May 26, 2015 Page 5 of 5 As set forth in the Conditions of Approval for Annexation No. 83 and agreed upon by the applicant, the applicant shall be responsible for payment of all application fees required at the time of annexation application submittal to LAFCO, as well as any and all fees that might be required subsequent to LAFCO approval of the annexation. The applicant shall cooperate with the City and shall prepare at its own expense any and all documents required by LAFCO for completion of Annexation No. 83, including but not limited to Maps and Legal descriptions prepared in accordance with LAFCO requirements. Therefore, no General Fund budgets have been allocated or used for processing LAFCO applications related to the proposed annexation. Fiscal Impact Analyses were prepared for the proposed annexation (see Attachment 9). Although no development of the subject property is proposed at this time. The fiscal impact analyses evaluated potential fiscal impacts associated with development pursuant to the proposed pre- annexation zoning. The Analyses concluded that the Project will generate additional revenue for the General Fund primarily through increased sales tax, property tax, police and fire services CFD revenue, motor vehicle license fees and franchise taxes. The additional costs incurred to the General Fund as a result of the Project are less than the additional revenues generated, and consist primarily of police, fire, and administrative services. The Project is anticipated to generate a surplus of $138,220 to the City on an annual basis, once the Project is fully developed. Prepared by: Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate Planning Manager Grant Taylor Director of Community Development Approved by: Grant Yates City Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Aerial Map 3. City Council Ordinance and Resolutions 4. Conditions of Approval for Annexation No. 83 5. Exhibit "A ": Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map 6. Exhibit'B ": City General Plan Land Use Designations Map 7. Exhibit "C ": City of Lake General Plan, Appendix B — General Compatibility Matrix 8. Plan of Services 9. Fiscal Impact Analyses 10. Initial Study /Addendum 11. Planning Commission Staff Report 4 -21 -15 Plan /Zoning X .-r Q w P-I a i W Q O U _Z �. N %. Q .-7 Q�l G4 W ��rLrL� �.J sumpoold ■ O m 1puolleanag /aapdg uadQ ■ ■ ■ m CD ?plI011lljgsill O ■ ❑ ■ /jggnd N C pal!ull'1 ■ ❑ ■ ■ G� 6 1puolssalo.Id o 'v .G ssau?snq lsunoy ■ ❑ ❑ ■ m^ c u 1puo?Ipaaaag O U v umoiumoa O ? a v Z W R N U W L U [plaua'J ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ v � ■ O 2 N Q C si d pooglogll @i'3N ■ ■ ■ ■ U .� v v p dasn paxlw ■ ] 1plazawuloJ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ "v w p x asn -paXIN ■ C7 '� 1ppuap ?sag ■ ■ ■ a 611suaO g$?H ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ v 'o G 7 v Si!sllaQ uln?paw ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a .il?suaQ o ■ ■ ■ 7 2 um?paw -Morl p >, 1?suaQ Mot ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 'S. ap?sa�le7 ■ ■ G ap?sll ?H ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ rt h 00 � v u C b FY u w eA v E Q O o 0 C v" v a o vFi o y C u1 b y C w b C .'7 .0 z OP4 a w u z u u u :a C7 u N 9 G U ro �4 .d v w N c CD CITY OF LSINOR -E DREAM LX]REME CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE NICHOLS ROAD ANNEXATION (ANNEXATION NO. 83) LAFCO XXXX -XX -X PLAN OF SERVICES PREPARED FOR: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 CONTACT: RICHARD J. MACHOTT, PLANNING MANAGER (951) 674 -3124, EXT, 209 PREPARED 13Y: NICHOLS RD. PARTNERS, LLC PO Box 77850 CORONA, CA 92877 DECEMBER 2014 CITY OF .i� Plan of Services for Nichols F Road Annexation LAKE SIB � / R E City of Lake Elsinore J DREAM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... ..............................1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION AREA .................................................... ..............................1 2.1 Nichols Road Annexation Area .............................................................. ..............................1 2.2 City of Lake Elsinore ................................................................................ ..............................4 3.0 ANNEXATION PROCESS ............................................................................ ..............................6 3.1 LAFCO Review, Public Hearing and Project Procedures .................. ............................... 6 3.2 Annexation Fees ...................................................................................... ............................... 7 4.0 LONG RANGE PLANNING ......................................................................... ..............................7 4.1 County Planning and Zoning ................................................................. ..............................8 4.2 City Planning and Zoning ...................................................................... ............................... 8 5.0 MUNICIPAL SERVICES ............................................................................... ............................1.4 5.1 Police ....................................................................................................... .............................18 5.2 Fire Protection .......................................................................................... .............................20 5.3 Community Facilities Districts — Public Safety /Park, Open Space and StormDrain ............................................................................... ............................... 22 5.4 Water/ Sewer ............................................................................................. .............................22 5.4.1 Water ............................................................................................ .............................22 5.4.2 Sewer ............................................................................................ .............................25 5.5 Solid Waste ............................................................................................... .............................26 5.6 Regional & Local Flood Control ............................................................ .............................27 5.7 Schools .................................................................................................... ............................... 28 5.8 Parks and Recreation .............................................................................. .............................28 5.9 Streets /Public Works ............................................................................... .............................32 5.10 Code Enforcement ................................................................................... .............................32 5.11 Lighting and Landscaping ................................................................... ............................... 32 5.12 Library Services ....................................................................................... .............................32 5.13 Animal Services ....................................................................................... .............................33 5.14 Telecommunications ............................................................................... .............................33 5.15 Mosquito and Vector Control .............................................................. ............................... 33 6.0 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... ............................... 34 7.0 CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................... ............................... 35 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ ............................... 36 Juuy 2014 CITY ol" Z SI��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXFREME LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PAGE VicinityMap ............................................................................................. ............................... 2 Nichols Road Annexation Area Boundaries ........................................ ............................... 3 Existing County General Plan Land Use Designations ...................... .............................10 ExistingCounty Zoning ......................................................................... .............................11 City General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................... .............................12 CityPre - Zoning ....................................................................................... .............................13 Locationof Services Map ........................................................................ .............................17 Lake Elsinore Average Response Times (in Minutes) 2014 -2015 Fiscal Year ..............19 Cityof Lake Elsinore Parks .................................................................. ............................... 30 .)ULY 2014 CITY OF � LSln� E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LAKE R City of Lake Elsinore DREAM LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1A Projected Population in Lake El sinore ................................................... ..............................5 1B 2010 -2014 Population Estimates in Lake El sinore ................................ ..............................5 2 Projected Household Growth in Lake El sinore ................................... ............................... 6 3 Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations ........ ..............................9 4 Municipal Services Summary Table ..................................................... .............................14 5 Fire Department Response Time Goals, ............................................................................ 21 6 Fire Stations and Equipment Serving the City of Lake Elsinore ....... .............................21 7 EVMWD Existing and Projected Normal Year Water Supply (AF/Yr) ........................23 8 EVMWD Existing and Projected Normal Year Water Demand (AF/Yr) ......................24 9 EVMWD Projected Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand ............... .............................24 10 EVMWD Projected Multiple Dry -Year Supply and Demand ........... .............................25 11 EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan Wastewater Flows ...................... .............................26 12 Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities.. .......................................................................... 29 13 City of Lake Elsinore Projected Recreational Facility Standards ...... .............................31 Jui.v 2014 CITY OF LSI��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME 1.0 INTRODUCTION A Plan for Services dated October 2014 for Annexation No. 83 (also referred to as the "Nichols Road Annexation ") to the City of Lake Elsinore ( "City ") was prepared by Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC on behalf of the City for submission to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as part of its armexation application for Anmexation No. 83. This Plan of Services provides the City of Lake Elsinore, LAFCO, affected property owners, and other interested persons with current information regarding existing and proposed local government services for the proposed annexation area. Included in this report are a description of the area, a summary of city annexation procedures and requirements, and a comparison of the current level of services and facilities with those that would be provided when the area is annexed. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION AREA 2.1 NICHOLS ROAD ANNEXATION AREA The proposed Nichols Road Armexation Area is generally located in the northwest Lake Elsinore area. The annexation area is within the City's sphere of influence and comprises approximately 666.66 acres generally bounded by Interstate 15 (Corona Freeway) and Temescal Canyon High School to the south; open space to the north; a mixture of single - family homes to the east; and Interstate 15 to the west. Nichols Road bisects the anmexation area running from west to east (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map and Figure 2, Nichols Road Annexation Area Boundaries). The annexation area contains a mix of existing land uses including open space, public facilities, and hillside residential estates. Large portions of the annexation area are open space and vacant by default. California Government Code §56046 defines "inhabited territory" as "territory within which there reside 12 or more registered voters." Since there are no registered voters residing within the Nichols Road Annexation Area, the proposed annexation is considered "uninhabited ". The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a new General Plan on December 13, 2011. The General Plan . calls for a balanced mix of land uses and improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The Nichols Road Annexation follows the General Plan's land use plan by extending open space and public institutional land use designations into the annexation area. Land use changes include an introduction of a mixed -use commercial core. A more detailed discussion of proposed land use changes in the Nichols Road annexation area is included in Section 4.0 of this report. Ocror3r.a 2014 - 1 - CITY OF .ins L A E¢„ LS1�0 E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation _ City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME �• n Figure 1: Vicinity Map cr •r 0 2014 _ 2 _ CITY OF LSIn�E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM FXrREME Figure 2: Nichols Road Annexation Area Boundaries 389 -210 -036 (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) 2.02 AC Pivel'Side County ?LMA 389 -210 -034 (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) 0.81 AC 389- 210 -037 (Elsinore Union high) 0.81 AC oC roit cR 2014 3 - 389- 210 -039 (Elsinore Union High) 43.04 AC �°`:,"'"`�;' A - -- ` 390- 230 -008 (BLM)Q .. '<.W. 360 AC .. . __. 390 -270- 009 "1 - ,.._08A �✓ (RCA) v✓ 68.118 .. � �` - AC 0 _f •..., _. 390- 270 -007 a � s „> R 390- 230 -005 � 1Y - SPO OERSO Id (RCA) 8.13 AC ,,. �r -�- '� (NicholsRd Partners, LLC) ._- �” A8 - a.... -...,. .)� q 160 AC m t City oii i O lakeElsi6 &b 389-210-008 tt') ,�� 389- 210 -032 '? (Nichols Rd. j i.-"` 4L 1 (Nichols Rd. -; Partners, LLC) - t Partners, LLC) 15 AC z '`` °,NlONOf~S �0 "" 8.77 AC 389 -210 -036 (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) 2.02 AC Pivel'Side County ?LMA 389 -210 -034 (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) 0.81 AC 389- 210 -037 (Elsinore Union high) 0.81 AC oC roit cR 2014 3 - 389- 210 -039 (Elsinore Union High) 43.04 AC CITY OR LAKE ESI�� E Plan of Services for Nichols Annexation Ci of Lake Elsinoi e �� DRGAM EXrRE Mti Regardless of whether or not the entire Nichols Road annexation area is annexed into fine City, the recently adopted General Plan established land use designations for the land within the City's sphere of influence, including the annexation area. If the City's Nichols Road Annexation is not approved, one year must go by before a similar annexation proposal comes forward. However, denial of the Nichols Road Annexation does not prevent smaller annexations from occurring within this area. Private developers can propose other annexations involving land within the Nichols Road area that will allow them to develop under the City of Lake Elsinore's land use and zoning regulations. 2.2 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE The City of Lake Elsinore, incorporated in 1888, is located in the southwester portion of Riverside County. The City encompasses approximately 43 square miles (27,747 acres). Interstate 15 (1 -15) provides north -south regional access to the City and the Ortega Highway - State Route 74 (SR -74) extends in a northeast to southeast direction through the City. Surrounding cities include Canyon Lake and Menifee to the east and Wildomar to the south. The City of Lake Elsinore is also bordered to the north, east and southwest by unincorporated lands within the County of Riverside. United States Forest Service lands within the Cleveland National Forest border the City to the west. Along the 1 -15 corridor, the city of Corona is approximately twenty miles to the north and the cities of Murrieta and Temecula are within ten miles to the south. The City of Perris is within ten miles to the northeast of the City along the SR -74 corridor. 'The Lake Mathews Estelle Mountain Reserve is within the unincorporated areas immediately to the north of the City. The City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) is more than 72 square miles (46,565 acres); which includes the land within City boundaries as well as unincorporated land surrounding the City to the north, west, and south. The majority of the unincorporated land in the SOI is vacant, with limited residential, agricultural, and industrial land uses dispersed throughout. Lake Elsinore is considered a "full service' city and provides its residents with a full range of municipal services, including administration, planning, building, code enforcement, public works (park, free, and street maintenance), park and recreation programs, and economic development. The City provides police and fire services through contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and Riverside County Fire Department, respectively. The United States Census Bureau estimated the City's 2013 population at 55,430. In the ten years between 2000 and 2010, the City's population increased by 79.1 percent, from 28,930 to 51,821. During the same ten -year period, the housing stock increased 70.9 percent, from 9,505 to 16,253 units'. Growth within the City between 2000 and 2010 exceeded the average growth among western Riverside County cities and the County as a whole. Over the past ten years, from 2000 to 2010, the City has been among the 20 cities of the state that have experienced the most growth. From 2000 to 2010, Lake Elsinore has experienced a growth rate of 79.1 percent, which is above the 41.7 percent growth rate of Riverside County for the same period. The City's growth rate ' Source: State of California, Departineot of Finance, F -5 Population and Floasmg F,stimates,for Cities, Coainlies and IHe Snare, iWai, 2013. Oc' oueiz 2014 4 _ CITY OF LSI���E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME slowed in the later end of the decade compared to an approximately 10 percent growth rate from 2000 to 2002 and 2004 to 2005. Population Projections The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) periodically publishes growth forecasts for the seventeen member jurisdictions, as well as unincorporated Riverside County within the sub - region. The most recent growth forecast (approved January 1, 2013) shows a 2013 population in the City of 55,430, growing to 71,755 persons by 2020 and 93,834 by 2035 (see Table 1, Projected Population in Lake Elsinore). Table 1A, Projected Population in Lake Elsinore YEAR POPULATION NUMBER GROWTH FROM PREVIOUS PERIOD 2013 55,430 __ 2020 71,755 29.45% 2035 93,834 30.77% Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) 2013 Riverside County Projections 2010 -2014 Population Estimates The Demographic Research Unit of the California Department of Finance periodically publishes population estimates for Cities, Counties, and States. The most recent population estimates (released May 1, 2014) shows a 2014 population of 56,718 persons in the City of Lake Elsinore (see Table 113, 2010 -2014 Population Estimates in Lake Elsinore). Table 1B, 2010 -2014 Population Estimates in Lake Elsinore YEAR POPULATION NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE 2010 57.,821 __ 2011 52,294 0.91% 2012 53,183 1.7% 2013 55,444 4.25% 2014 56,718 2.3% Source: California Department of Finance (DOF) 2014 Lake FIsinm'e Projections Oc'roe>✓tx 2014 - 5 - crry of LSln� E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME Household Projections The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) periodically publishes growth forecasts for the seventeen member jurisdictions, as well as unincorporated Riverside County within the sub- region. The most recent growth forecast (approved Tanuary 1, 2013) shows 17,059 households in the City in 2013, growing to 22,792 households by 2020 and 28,704 by 2035 (see Table 2, Projected Household Growth in Lake Elsinore). Table 2, Projected Household Growth in Lake Elsinore YEAR HOUSING UNITS NUMBER GROWTH FROM PREVIOUS PERIOD 2013 17,059 2020 22,792 33.61% 2035 28,704 25.94% 6ource: Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) 2013 Riverside County Projections 3.0 ANNEXATION PROCESS LAFCO is authorized by State law as the agency responsible for approving annexations to cities and special districts. Created in 1963, LAFCO's are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local goverrunent boundaries and ensuring that services are provided efficiently and economically. Prior to submittal of an arulexation application for consideration, LAFCO requires: • Initiation of the annexation by landowner petition or city council resolution • Pre - zoning of the property by the affected agency • An exchange of property taxes between the city and the county • A map and legal description of the annexation area • Environmental review Further, the Cortese - Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000), the governing statute for LAFCO, requires that the City submit a plan for providing services to the annexation area. This report satisfies that requirement. An annexation of territory to a city can be initiated through either: (1) a resolution of the affected city council, or (2) a petition signed by five percent of the registered voters or (3) at least 5 percent of the landowner(s) owning at least five percent of the total assessed value of the proposed Oc'roni,iz 2014 6 _ CITY OF L SITiO�E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation) City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME annexation area. Once initiated, the applicant files an annexation application, along with processing fees, with LAFCO. 3.1 LAFCO REVIEW, PUBLIC HEARING AND PROTEST PROCEDURES LAFCO staff are responsible for reviewing the application to ensure its completeness, writing a staff report analyzing the proposal based on the evaluative criteria outlined in Government Code §56668, and scheduling a public hearing before LAFCO. The law requires that a public notice be published at least 21 days in advance of the hearing. At the LAFCO public hearing, staff presents the proposal to the LAFCO Commission. Affected and interested parties are invited to testify during the hearing. Following the public hearing, LAFCO can approve the proposal, deny the proposal or approve the proposal with modifications. The Riverside LAFCO Commission includes seven members: two members are from the Riverside Board of Supervisors; two members represent cities within Riverside County; two members represent special districts within Riverside County; and the seventh member is designated as a public member, representing the general public. If the annexation is approved by LAFCO, two scenarios are possible and are summarized below: 1. If 100% of the landowners consent to the annexation, no further notices, hearing or election will be required, and the annexation will be recorded with the County Recorder and become effective on the date of recordation. 2. If less than 100% of the landowners are in agreement, LAFCO staff is required to conduct what is called a "protest hearing ". The date of the protest hearing is set by LAFCO during the public hearing. During a designated period of time following the public hearing and leading up to the protest hearing, registered voters and landowners may file written protests with LAFCO if they disagree with LAFCO's approval of the annexation. If less than 25 percent of the registered voters within the annexation territory file valid protest, the annexation will be recorded with the County Recorder and become effective on the date of recordation. If 50 percent or more of the registered voters residing within the annexation territory or 50 percent or more of the landowner (value) file valid protest, all annexation proceedings are immediately terminated. If the amlexation is terminated by protest, Government Code §57090 precludes any party from submitting an application to LAFCO for annexation of the same, or "substantially the same" property, for a period of one year. 3.2 ANNEXATION FEES The City of Lake Elsinore is the applicant for the proposed annexation. Riverside LAFCO uses an "acreage- based" fee schedule for city annexations. For the subject 666.66 -acre Nichols Road Oc'ronnr,.n 2014 7 CITY OF LS1�� Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREMr annexation, LAFCO charges a $13,800 processing fee. However, because this annexation is significantly improving the City's boundary, LAFCO may reduce the fee or waive it. The State Board of Equalization (SBE) charges a one -fime fee of $2,000. The SBE fees are paid after LAFCO approval of the annexation. These fees are required to be paid by the annexation proponent (the City of Lake Elsinore) and are subject to change. The City also pays County Recorder fees. The Surveyor requires a deposit of $1,000 (time is charged at $137 /hour as of the current fiscal year). If a protest hearing is required, the fee is $500, plus $0.70 for each parcel and /or registered voter that must be notified. 4.0 LONG RANGE PLANNING The proposed annexation is within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence. A Sphere of Influence identifies the logical, long -term municipal service provider for this area. Annexation of this area has also been included in the City's long -range land use plans for many years. Riverside County LAFCO requires that annexation area be "pre- zoned" prior to anunexation. This permits property owners and other interested parties to be informed of future City zoning and permitted land uses prior to finalization of any proposed annexation. 4.1 COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING Land uses in the annexation area are currently subject to the land use designations and policies outlined in the Riverside County General Plan. Currently, the approximately 666.66 -acre area is designated by the County General Plan for Business Park, Medium High Density Residential, Open Space Rural, Conservation Habitat, and Public Facilities. Figure 3, Existing County General Plan Land Use Designations, illustrates the location of each General Plan land use designation within the proposed annexation area. County zoning for the property (see Figure 4, Existing County Zoning) includes Residential Agricultural (R -A 20,000) and Natural Assets (N- A). The Nichols Road annexation comprises ten (10) uninhabited parcels totaling 666.66 acres located on the north and south side of Nichols Road east of and near the I -15 freeway. South of Nichols Road includes the almexation of Temescal Canyon High school and "Bowtie." "Bowtie" is owned by Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC and consist of four (4) uninhabited parcels totaling 26.6 acres. North of Nichols Road the four (4) northern annexation parcels include "Harbor Lounge ", Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Regional Conservation Authority property (RCA). Annexation of the RCA's 76.21 acres for conservation open space would increase the City's MSHCP open space conservation land allotment. "Harbor Lounge ", 160 acres, lies adjacent to and just north of Nichols Road and is owned by Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC. Surrounding land uses of the proposed amiexation area (along Interstate 1.5 to the south) include a mix of open space parcels, Temescal Canyon High School, and single family residential. Property to the north and east of the annexation area includes open space, vacant parcels and hillside residential, The nearest inhabitable single family residential areas lie just to the east of the "Bowtie" and Temescal High School parcels along Wood Mesa Court and El Toro Road. In Oc'ronra 2014 - 8 - crry of LAKE LSI���E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation —� --- City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME addition, there are large hillside residential estates along Lindell Road, which lies east of the "Harbor Lounge" property. 4.2 CITY PLANNING AND ZONING The City of Lake Elsinore adopted a new General Plan on December 13, 2011. As part of the adopted General Plan, the City of Lake Elsinore divided the City into eleven Planning Districts and the City's Sphere of Influence into five sphere districts. The proposed Nichols Road Annexation Area is located within the identified North Central Sphere District. The land use designations adopted for the City - initiated Nichols Road Annexation are: Hillside Residential (1 du per lot with 12,000 SF lot sizes depending on slope and utilities), Commercial Mixed Use (Commercial uses with subordinate residential densities of 7 to 18 du /acre), General Commercial, and Public Institutional (Interstate 15 right -of -way). The annexation area's existing and proposed General Plan and Zoning designations are illustrated in Table 3, Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations, below, and on Figure 3, Existing County General Plan Land Use Designations, Figure 4, Existing County Zoning, Figure 5, City General Plan Land Use Designations, and Figure 6, City Pre - Zoning. Ocronr.ia 2014 9 CITY OF i�A LAKE LSI�O E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinol e 7V DREAM Table 3: Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations Assessor's Owner Current Current County Current City Proposed City Zoning Parcel (AC) County General Plan Land General Land Number Zoning Use Designation Use Designatimu 389210 -032 ''- Nichols. Rd. Residential '.Business Park (BP)/ General Commercial; Mixed Use "Bowtie" Partners, IIC Agricultural Medium High Commercial (CMll) (8.77 AC) (R -A 20,000) Density Residential Institutional (P -1) (43.04 AC) (R- A20,000) (MHDR) 389 -210 -036 Nichols Rd. Residential 'Business Park (BP)/ General Commercial Mixed Use '. "Bowtie" 'Partners, LLC Agricultural Medium High Commercial (CMll) (2.02 AC) (R -A 20.000) Density Residential (MHDR) 389 -210 -008 Nichols Rd. .Residential ':Business Park (BP) General Commercial Mixed Use "Bowtie" (Partners, LLC Agricultural Commercial (CMll) -; (15 AC) (R -A 20,000) 389 -210- 034 ':Nichols Rd. Residential ,:Business Park (BP) General Commercial Mixed Use Bowtie" Partners, LLC Agricultural Commercial (CMll) (0.81 AC) (R -A 20,000) 390 -270 -009 RCA Natural Assets Open Space Rural Open Space / Open Space (O -S) (68.08 AC) (N -A) (OS -RUR) Extractive Overlay 390 -270 -007 RCA Natural Assets Open Space Rural Open Space / Open Space (O -S) (813 AC) (N A) (OS -RUR) Extractive Overlay "Harbor Lounge" Partners, LLC I (160 AC) .. (N -A) (OS -RUR) Residential/ Extractive. Overlay Residential (R -H)/ Extractive: Overlay 389 - 210 -039 :Elsinore Union .Residential Public Facilities Public 'Public Institutional.. High Agricultural (PFF) Institutional (P -1) (43.04 AC) (R- A20,000) 389 - 210 - 037 -- Elsinore Union Residential. Public Facilities Public. Public Institutional High Agricultural (PF) Institutional (P -7) ,(0.81 AC) (R -A 20,000) 0c'rorsra 2014 10 - CITY or LAKE LSINORE Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation —�� — City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXFREME Figure 3: Existing County General Plan Land Use Designations ,fit IF L Medium High Density Residential (5- 8dtrlaora) Business Park Public Facilities t)pon Space. Rural 0( rOIiER 2014 Conscn;uion - Habitat ® sulm%isoiial Dianict Boundary ., spCcilic Plans Nichols Road Annexation Boundary CITY OF 4F* �� �� E Plan of Services for Nichols ity of Annexation K` l City of Lake Elsinore \�=? DREAM EXTREME, Figure 4: Existing County Zoning = Natural Assets (N -A) O Residential Agricultural (R -A) 0cTOite;rt 2014 12 - CITY 0 1z Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LSINOR,�P City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXITEME Figure 5: City General Plan Land Use Designations L J. 5: 7 P W, Q, z "I z OC Z > n — — — — — — — — — — z 2 0 1 4 - 13 - CITY OF i7RA CT! LADE C L S I f 10 PJE DREAM EXITLME Figure 6: City Pre-Zoning Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore Z12 O- Z r, n r a 7, 7 2 5 % f 15 zi A011, Ot-,ic)Bi,,jt 2014 - 14 - g-, Ot-,ic)Bi,,jt 2014 - 14 - CITY OF LSIn��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXt'REME 5.0 MUNICIPAL SERVICES Table 4, Municipal Services Summary Table, below, summarizes the existing service providers to the Nichols Road Annexation Area and identifies any changes in providers and service levels if the area is annexed to the City of Lake Elsinore. Following the table is a map identifying the location of these service providers (Figure 7, Location of Services Map) and detailed discussion of the various service providers for the annexation area. The Nichols Road Annexation Area is un- inhabited, however this table presents changes in costs that would be incurred if there were residents and /or future residential development in the aimexation territory. Table 4, Municipal Services Summary Table MUNICIPAL CURRENT FUTURE DIFFERENCE IN LOCATION OF CHANGE IN COST, IF SERVICE PROVIDER PROVIDER SERVICE NEAREST ANNEXED LEVELS, IP SERVICE ANNEXED PROVIDER Police Riverside take Elsinore None 333 Limited Buyers of new homes County Sheriff Police Avenue, within the City of Lake Department Department Lake Elsinore Elsinore pay a special tax (under contract for both Police & File by the Riverside services. Public safely County Sheriff services for FY 2014/2015 Department the fee is: $487.40 per SF $243.70 per MF Fire Riverside Riverside None Station 10 Buyers of new homes County Fire County Fire 410 Graham, Lake within the City of Lake Department Departnent (by Elsinore Elsinore pay a special tax contract) Station 85 for bath Police & Fite. 29045 Grand Ave services. Public safety Lake Ielsinore, CA services for FY 2014/2015 the fee is: Station 93 5487.40 per SF 21775 Railroad 91243.70 per MP Canyon ]toad Lake Elsinore, CA Station 97 Rosetta Canyon Fire Station Wafer Elsinore Valley Elsinore Valley None 31315 Chaney No additional cost Municipal Water Municipal Water Lake Elsinore District District Sewer Elsince, Valley Elsinore Valley None 31315 Chaney No additional cost Municipal Water Municipal Water Lake Elsinore District District Library Riverside Riverside None 600 W. Graham No additional cost for County Library County Library Ave. existing residents. New System System Lake Elsinore residential development will be re, aired to �a 0 C"rO13G12 2014 - 15 - CITY OF 1. E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation S City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXLREME MUNICIPAL CURRENT FUTURE DIFFERENCE IN LOCATION OF CHANGE IN COST, IF SERVICE PROVIDER PROVIDER SERVICE NEAREST ANNEXED LEVELS, IF SERVICE ANNEXED PROVIDER $150.00 per dwelling unit capital improvement fee '.. For libraries upon issuance of building permit. Parks/ Riverside City of Lake Annexation area 130 Main St. $75 discount on annual Recreation County Elsinore residents will no Lake Elsinore lake use pass for longer have to motorized vessels, $150 pay non- resident discount on annual fees to access City commercial boat use recicational passes, no non- resident activities fee to join little leagues or adult leagues or attend classes at the community center. Lighting and Riverside City of Lake Streets within the 130 Main St. Lake Elsinore Landscaping County Elsinore City of Lake Lake Elsinore homeowners pay Elsinore will be approximately $25 per landscaped, year into the citywide Lake Elsinore Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District to fund City street lights, haffic signals, and landscaping maintenance. Owners of commercial property pay appl'oxmnately $150.00 per year and owners of vacant property pay approximately $30 for 1st acre and $5 for each additional acre. Streets/Public Riverside City of Like Response tine to 130 Main St. No additional cost Works County Elsinore public Lake Elsinore works/sheet related problems will improve because of proximity to City facilities. City has active graffiti rennoval program and sponsors City -wide cleanups twice annually. Code Riverside City of Lake Neighborhood 130 Main St No additional cost Enforcement County Elsinore linhancemenL Lake Elsinore 'Team projects, Household Occ'rooeta 2014 CITY OF LSI��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM E?PPREME MUNICIPAL CURRENT FUTURE DIFFERENCE IN LOCATION OF CHANGE IN COST, IF SERVICE PROVIDER PROVIDER SERVICE NEAREST ANNEXED LEVELS, IF SERVICE ANNEXED PROVIDER Hazardous Waste facility, Vehicle Abatement program, Weed Abatement program, Cleanup program 3 times a year 'trash Waste City of Lake CR&R provides 3 130 Main St. CR &R charges $22.90 per Collection Management Elsinore (by containers (trash, Lake Elsinore month for single family conh'act with green waste and homes; Waste CR&R Disposal) recycling) with Management charges weekly pick -up; $18.68 per month for Waste single family homes Management In ovides 2 containers (trash and recycling) with weekly pick- up of trash and bi- weekly pick -up of recycling. Regional Riverside Riverside None 1995 Market Street No additional cost Flood Control County Flood County Flood Riverside Control & Water Control & Water Conservation Conservation District District Local Flood Riverside City of Lake None 130 Main St. No additional cost Control County Flood Elsinore Lake Elsinore Conn of & Water Conservation District Animal Riverside Animal Friends Provides 24 -hour 33751 Mission "frail No additional cost Services County of the Valley enmrgency Wildomar (AFV) response Cable How Warner Lane Warner None 556 Birch Sheet No additional cost 'television Cable Cable Lake Elsinore Mosquito and Riverside Northwest None 1966 Compton Ave. Property owners will pay Vector County Mosquito and Corona, CA 92881 an annual per parcel Control Department of Vector Control assessment for Environmental Dishict mosquito /vector control Health based upon land use. For FY 2013/2014 the fee is $10.60 per year SF $14.10 for MF (24 du $53103 for MP (5+ du) $7.07 for General Commercial $]0.60 for Office Or 013 I,a 2014 - 17 - CITY OF � LADE ES1�� E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation �� City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME MUNICIPAL CURRENT FUTURE DIFFERENCE. IN LOCATION OF CHANGE IN COST, IF SERVICE. PROVIDER PROVIDER SERVICE NEAREST ANNEXED LEVELS, IF SERVICE ANNEXED PROVIDER Buildings $0.81 fm Vacant Land. Oc "ronrtx 2014 1 8 _ CITY OF LSINDP,,E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation ��— City of Lake Elsinore ? DREAM EXFREME Figure 7: Location of Services Map o ©0000aara r yA� Y �U i 1 1 O i Ct I x 2� a s 1 x � - r yA� Y �U i 1 1 O i Ct I Ocrou¢>Ix 2014 19 - x 2� s 1 � - yc a ?yam �E t?4�{ 9 � E z e f R 4 r 1 Ocrou¢>Ix 2014 19 - TY OF i, CI ZN D Plan of Services for NichoRoad Annexation (6 ��K + LSN� � City Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME. 5.1 POLICE Currently, the Riverside County Sheriffs Department provides law enforcement services for the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Upon annexation, police protection services to the Nichols Road Amrexation Area will be provided by the Lake Elsinore Police Department under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Lake Elsinore Police Department / Sheriffs Station is located within the City at 333 W. Limited Avenue {refer to Figure 7, Location of Services Map). For Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/2015, a total of 44 sworn officers operate out of the Lake Elsinore station. Police services are provided at a ratio of 0.91 sworn officer for every 1,000 residents. Average response times for City police protection vary due to the differing priorities of each call received by 911 and dispatched to officers. The average response times during FY 2014/2015 are shown in Figure 8, Lake Elsinore Average Response Times (in Minutes) 2014 -2015 Fiscal Year. Under current budgeted staffing levels (0.91 officers per 1,000 people), approximately 3 sworn officers would be necessary to provide staffing to serve the annexation area. Since the annexation area is uninhabited, there will be an over staffing of sworn officers to the annexation area. As additional police services are required to maintain the ratio of 0.91 officer per 1,000 population, the special tax levied for existing development within the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2003 -01 (Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services) and for Community Facilities District No. 2007 -01 (Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services) for new development within the City will be used to fund these services in addition to money from the City's General Fund. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the CFD 2007 -01 amlual special taxes which will be required of new development within the Nichols Road Annexation Area are $487.40 per single- family dwelling unit and $243.70 per multi-family dwelling unit. These rates will increase by 2 percent each year. O c-roracn 2014 - 20 - CITY OF LSIn��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME Figure 8: Lake Elsinore Average Response Times (in Minutes) 2014 -2015 Fiscal Year. Definition of Priority Calls: *If the call for service involves more than one crime, the call type with the highest priority shall be used. Priority 1 Calls: Involve circumstances that pose, or did pose in the immediate past, a clearly defined threat to human life or property and which involve a high level of violence or which have the potential for serious injury. These calls shall be entered by the Public Safety Communications Officer (PSCO) within 60 seconds (1 minute) of receipt, Priority 2 Calls: Involve circumstances of an urgent but not life threatening nature. They are general disturbances with a potential for violence, minor assaults and batteries, unknown circumstances, and certain thefts. These calls shall be entered within 120 seconds (2 minutes) of receipt by the PSCO. Priority 3 Calls: Involve circumstances which are neither urgent or life threatening. Many of these calls are simple disturbances of the peace. Priority 4 Calls: With the exception of several felonies, most past calls are considered Priority 4. Source: Communication with Chief Leonard Hollingsworth office, Chief of Police, Lake Elsinore Police Department on April 11., 2014. Oc'rola r.x 2014 - 21 - C I"ry oi' Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation ZAKE )LSINOKE City of Lake Elsinore DREAM --- � ----- _-_...____._,.._.__— _.._ 5.2 FIRE PROTECTION The City of Lake Elsinore contracts for fire services with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and the California Department of Forestry (CDF). RCFD operates 93 fire stations in 17 battalions, providing fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services. Equipment used by the department has the ability to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. Battalion 2 in the southwest division of RCFD services the City of Lake Elsinore. Figure 7, Location of Services Map, shows the locations of fire stations within the City and SOI. • Fire Station No. 10 (Elsinore), servicing the central area of the city, located on the northeast side of the lake at 410 W. Graham Ave; • Fire Station No. 85 (McVicker Park), located to the north at McVicker Park, slightly east of the Lake at 29405 Grand Avenue; • Fire Station No. 94 (Canyon Hill), located in the southeast section of the City, at 21775 Railroad Canyon Road, east of the I -15. • Fire Station No. 97 (Rosetta Canyon), located in the north section of the City on Rosetta Canyon Drive. The following stations are located outside city limits: • Lakeland Village Station No. 11, • El Cariso Station No. 51, • Wildomar Station No. 61, • Wildomar Station No. 74, and • Canyon Lake Station No. 60. Although the fire stations are operated by RCFD, CDF staffs firefighters and stores firefighting equipment at stations throughout the City, particularly during peak fire season. Both agencies respond to all types of emergencies, depending on the need and equipment available. Emergencies range from wildland fires, residential/ commercial structure fires, automobile accidents, medical aid requests of all types, search and rescue missions, hazardous material spills, floods, earthquakes, and more. Standard response times are established by RCFD guidelines. The response time goal is to arrive at any location within the City in seven minutes, with the intent to reduce that time to five minutes. Since October 2003, fire paramedics are required at each station. These specially trained firefighters are equipped to respond to medical emergencies and ride on all calls. Their arrival on the scene can ensure the timely start of emergency medical treatment until an ambulance arrives for patient transport. Each fire engine carries nearly $35,000 worth of state -of -flee -art emergency medic equipment. 0c'ronrza 2014 - 22 CITY of LSI���E Plan of Services fug• Nicbols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXFIZEME RCFD has set a response time goals based upon its 1986 Master Plan. These response time goals are based upon generalized land use categories and are described in Table 5, Fire Department Response Tiure Goals. The Annexation Area would fall within the Category II (Urban) land use category .2 Table 5, Fire Department Response Time Goals LAND USE DEFINITION RESPONSE TIME CATEGORY GOALS Category I - Intense commercial and industrial uses and higher 5 minutes Heavy Urban residential densities. Examples include regional and community commercial centers, heavy industrial uses and residential densities of 8 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Category II - Broad mix of uses including commercial, industrial and 7 minutes Urban residential land uses with a density of 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Category III - Rural land uses, including lower densities and fewer public 11 minutes Rural facilities and improvements. May include a variety of uses including agricultural, small -scale commercial, residential densities of 0.2 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. Category IV - Generally located near large tracts of publicly -owned land. 17 minutes Outlying Uses are often agriculture, nuning, industry or residential uses at a density of 1 dwelling unit per five acres or greater. Source: Riverside County Fire Department, 1986 Master Plan, as provided on April 11, 2014 by Ben R. lohnou, AICP, Feed Green Associate Planning & Development Supervisor, Strategic Planning Bureau, CAL FIRE & Piece Fire 2 Verified on April 11, 2014 with Ben R. Johnson, planning & Development Supervisor, Strategic Planning Bureau, CAL FIRE 8e RivCo Fire Occrotouor 2014 - 23 - CITY OF .i^n KE LSI�Q E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LA —��_ City of Lake Elsinore %' DREAM Ex "I'REME Table 6: Fire Stations and Equipment Serving the City of Lake Elsinore STATION EQUIPMENT PERSONNEL Station 10 1 Type 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 410 Graham Avenue 1 Fire Apparatus Engineer 1 Firefighter 1 Dual Purpose Firefighter /Paramedic Station 85 1 Type 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 29405 Grand Avenue 1 Fire Apparatus Engineer I Firefighter 1 Dual Purpose Firefighter / Paramedic Station 94 1 Type 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 21775 Railroad Canyon Road, 1 Fire Apparatus Engineer east of the 1 -15 1 Firefighter "I Dual Purpose Firefighter /Paramedic Station 97 1 Type 1 Engine 1 Fire Captain 41725 Rosetta Canyon Dr 1 Fire Apparatus Engineer 1 Firefighter 1 Dual Purpose Firefighter/ Paramedic Fire Engines from Station 10, Station 94, Station 97, and Station 85 currently respond to incidents in the Nichols Road area. The Nichols Road area is in the planned Rosetta Canyon Fire Station response area. 5.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS — PUBLIC SAFETYIPARK, OPEN SPACE AND STORM DRAIN The City of Lake Elsinore has three Community Facilities Districts (CFD) that provide funding for Public Safety Services and Park, Open Space, and Storm Drain Maintenance. In 2003, CFD No. 2003 -1 followed by the formation of CFD No. 2007 -1 in 2007. This levy is used to finance public safety services (police, fire and paramedic services) within the City. New developments constructed after the annexation into the CFD will be required to contribute to the CFD (CFD 2007 -01) through the payment of a special tax. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the CFD 2007 -01 annual special tax which will be required of new development within the Nichols Road Annexation Area are $487.40 per single - family dwelling unit and $243.70 per multi- family dwelling unit. These rates will increase by 2 percent each year. Non - residential property does not contribute to this CFD. The Park, Open Space, and Storm Drain Community Facilities District (CFD 2006 -05) funds park, open space, and storm drain maintenance. Again, this CFD only applies to new development constructed subsequent to the annexation. The cost for a typical single- family detached home during Fiscal Year 2014/2015 would be approximately $294.98 per year.'rhe cost per multi- family 0u'ronraa 2014 - 24 - crry or , LAKE L �SI���E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXrnEME unit is approximately $147.49 per year and non - residential developments are required to pay approximately $664.35 per acre per year. These rates increase by 2 percent each year. Vacant Land is exempt from this assessment. 5.4 WATER/SEWER The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) is the current water and wastewater provider to the annexation area. EVMWD will continue to provide these services upon annexation. Sewer and water rates will remain unchanged. EVMWD provides water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service to the City of Lake Elsinore, the cities of Canyon Lake and Wildomar, portions of the city of Murrieta, and unincorporated portions of Riverside County. Currently, the district has over 35,000 water, wastewater and agricultural service connections. 5.4.1 WATER EVMWD obtains its potable water supplies from imported water from Metropolitan, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. It has access to groundwater from Elsinore Basin, Coldwater Basin, San Bernardino Bunker I °Iill Basin, Rialto - Colton and Riverside -North Basin. Almost all of the groundwater production that is used for potable use occurs in the Elsinore Basin. Imported water supply is purchased from the Metropolitan via Eastern Municipal Water District and Western Municipal Water District. EVMWD's service area is broken into two divisions, the Elsinore Division and the Temescal Division (also known as Temescal Domestic Service Area). The division between the two valleys is approximately two miles north of Lake Elsinore, near the intersection of Love Lane and Temescal Canyon Road (where the Temescal Wash flows north). The water system currently includes 33 pressure zones. Within these zones, there are approximately 3,063,000 feet (580 miles) of pipelines ranging in diameter from 3 inches to 42 inches, 67 storage reservoirs with an approximate total storage capacity of 83 million gallons (MG) and 46 booster pump stations. The District currently obtains its water from 13 groundwater wells, the Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and imported water from Metropolitan through the Auld Valley and 'Temescal Valley Pipelines. EVMWD's existing recycled water demands are supplied by tertiary- treated wastewater from the Regional WRP, Railroad Canyon WRP, and Horsethief WRP. In the effort to minimize the need for imported water, EVMWD plans to expand its recycled water system to provide recycled water for irrigation users and to maintain water levels in Lake Elsinore during normal and dry years. EVMWD Water Demand and Water Supply Analysis According to EVMWD's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projected water demand is expected to increase from 27,584 acre- feet -year (AF /Yr) in 2005 to 62,426 acre- feet -year in 2030 in normal water years based upon an estimated population of 174,579 in 2030. EVMWD projects its water supply will increase from 51,928 AF /Yr to 70,581 AF /Yr in the years 2025 through 2030. Oc'rorsre 2014 - 25 - CITY OF ice, DE�;� LS E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LA City of Lake Elsinore �? DREAM EXTREME (Table 7, EVMWD Existing and Projected Normal Year Water Supply (AF/Yr), and Table 8, EVMWD Existing and Projected Normal Year Water Demand (AF/Yr)). Table 7: EVMWD Existing and Projected Normal Year Water Supply (AF/Yr) SOURCE 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Metropolitan 35,200 48,100 48,100 48,100 48,100 Supplier- produced groundwater' 2,978 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 Supplier- produced surface water2 4,900 4,900 4,900 41900 4,900 Recycled Water3 449 1,014 1,905 2,430 2,430 Lake Replenishment and Discharge to 8,401 8,401 8,401 8,401 8,401 Temescal Wash TOTAL 51,928 69,165 70,056 70,581 70,581 Source: EVMWD UWMP 2010 (page.4 -26, fable 4 -18 r Assumes that groundwater pumping in the Elsinore and Coldwater Basins will not exceed the natural recharge in the basins. Natural recharge in the Elsinore Basin is 5,500 acre -ft /yr while natural recharge in the Coldwater Basin is 1,250 acre- ft /yr. 2 Represents production from the Canyon Lake WTP during a medium year hydrology. I Assumes that all recycled water produced at EVMWD's Regional Plant is used for replenishment of water levels in Lake Elsinore and discharged along Temescal Wash for environmental enhancement. Oc rorarra 2014 - 26 - CITY 01' -�_ LAKE LSIIYOKE Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation - X -- City of Lake Elsinore 1_ DREAM fXTREME Table 8: EVMWD Existing and Projected Normal Year Water Demand (AF/Yr) WATER USE SECTORS 2005* 201.0* 2015 2020 2025 2030 Single Family 14,765 13,829 20,159 21,836 23,728 25,498 Multi - family 824 772 1,312 1,449 1,603 1,747 Commercial 552 517 945 1,052 1,173 1,285 Industrial 1,629 1,526 2,401 2,627 2,881 3,120 Institutional/ governmental 342 320 660 744 838 926 Landscape 5,193 4,865 7,220 7,839 8,538 9,192 Agriculture 2,316 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 Wholesale 540 505 501 542 588 631. Other 1,423 1,333 1,924 2,081 2,258 2,424 Additional water uses and losses 0 13,450 14,015 14,906 15,431 15,431 TOTAL 27,584 39,287 51,306 55,244 59,208 62,426 Source: EVMWD UWMP 2010 (pages.3 -9 through 3 -16, Tables 3 -7 through 3 -16) * Actual Water Deliveries for 2005 and 2010 In addition to its evaluation of projected normal year supply and demand, EVMWD evaluated potential supply and demand during single dry -year and multiple dry -year scenarios. As shown in Table 9, EVMWD Projected Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand, and Table 10, EVMWD Projected Multiple Dry -Year Supply and Demand, EVMWD has determined that it has current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient to meet the projected dry -year and multiple dry - year demand. Table 9: EVMWD Projected Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand 0k, t', it 2014 - 27 - 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply totals 77,765 78,656 79,181 79,181 Demand totals 56,027 60,326 64,655 68,169 Difference 21,738 "18,329 14,526 11,012 Difference as % of Supply 28.0% 23.3% 18.3% 13.9% Difference as % of Demand 38.8% 30.4% 22.5% 16.2 Source: EVMWD U WMP 2010 (pages.5- 14'Table 5 -15) 0k, t', it 2014 - 27 - CITY oP `—' Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LSINOIZE City of Lake Elsinore DREAM Exr REME Table 10: EVMWD Projected Multiple Dry -Year Supply and Demand The EVMWD UWMP indicates that there are sufficient water supplies and water shortage contingency plans to serve existing and future water needs within its service area. As shown above in Tables 7 through 10 EVMWD has determined that it has current and anticipated future supplies sufficient to meet the projected dry -year and multiple dry -year demand through 2030. These tables show that estimated water supply will be sufficient to meet the annexation area's projected water demand. Development within the Nichols Road Annexation Area will require water storage, distribution and supply improvements to comply with the 2002 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Distribution System Master Plan. Any water system improvements will be the responsibility of future developers, through a condition of project approval by the City, as the area develops. 5.4.2 SEWER The EVMWD has adequate sewer capacity to serve the project. Any sewer system improvements will be the responsibility of individual builders as the annexation area is developed. The City will require necessary sewer system improvements as conditions of approval on each development project. According to the EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan published in 2008, the existing annual average wastewater generation as of 2006 was 1.1.4 mgcP. In addition to identifying the average wastewater generation for the EVMWD service area, the Wastewater Master Plan also identifies existing and projected average dry weather wastewater flows and peak wet weather flows. These flows are shown in'rable 11, EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan Wastewater Flows. 'EVMWD, N�a .rtelraicrMas /erAlan,page3 -23 Olt, ra 2014 - 28 - 2015 2020 2025 2030 Supply totals 76,765 77,656 78,181 78,181 Demand totals 56,027 60,326 64,655 68,169 Difference 20,738 1.7,329 13,526 10,012 Difference as % of Supply 27.0 % 22.3% 17.3 % 12.87. Difference as % of Demand 37.0% 28.7% 20.90/. 14.7 Source: EVMWD UWMP 2010 (pages.5 -14, Table 5 -16) The EVMWD UWMP indicates that there are sufficient water supplies and water shortage contingency plans to serve existing and future water needs within its service area. As shown above in Tables 7 through 10 EVMWD has determined that it has current and anticipated future supplies sufficient to meet the projected dry -year and multiple dry -year demand through 2030. These tables show that estimated water supply will be sufficient to meet the annexation area's projected water demand. Development within the Nichols Road Annexation Area will require water storage, distribution and supply improvements to comply with the 2002 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Distribution System Master Plan. Any water system improvements will be the responsibility of future developers, through a condition of project approval by the City, as the area develops. 5.4.2 SEWER The EVMWD has adequate sewer capacity to serve the project. Any sewer system improvements will be the responsibility of individual builders as the annexation area is developed. The City will require necessary sewer system improvements as conditions of approval on each development project. According to the EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan published in 2008, the existing annual average wastewater generation as of 2006 was 1.1.4 mgcP. In addition to identifying the average wastewater generation for the EVMWD service area, the Wastewater Master Plan also identifies existing and projected average dry weather wastewater flows and peak wet weather flows. These flows are shown in'rable 11, EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan Wastewater Flows. 'EVMWD, N�a .rtelraicrMas /erAlan,page3 -23 Olt, ra 2014 - 28 - CITY OF LSI���E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lance Elsinore DREAM E?CTREMG Table 11: EVMWD Wastewater Master Plan Wastewater Flows PLANNING YEAR AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGDr) PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW (MGD) Existing (2006) 8.1 23.4 2030 22.5 49.7 Source: EVMWD, Wastewater Master Plan, page ES -3, Table ES.1 1 MGD = Million Gallons Per Day 5.5 SOLID WASTE Currently, CR &R, Inc. provides solid waste collection and hauling services within the City under contract with the City of Lake Elsinore. CR &R is responsible for trash disposal in the City of Lake Elsinore as well as in Temecula, Canyon Lake, and parts of the unincorporated County of Riverside. Residents are provided a 60- gallon trash container for garbage. Trash is taken to either a landfill within Riverside County or the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). There are no active landfills in the City. Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) manages the landfills used by the City of Lake Elsinore. Capacity levels of landfills within RCWMD's jurisdiction are calculated according to the system -wide capacity level. Landfills within their jurisdiction adhere to state guidelines, which specify that a minimum of 15 years of system -wide landfill capacity shall be provided. RCWMD facilitates waste management services for Riverside County. These services are provided on a countywide basis, and each private or public entity determines which landfill or transfer station to use. Typically, this determination is made based on geographic proximity. The landfills typically used by the City of Lake Elsinore are the El Sobrante, Badlands, and Lamb Canyon Landfills. All three of the landfills are Class III municipal solid waste landfills. The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of I -15 and Temescal Canyon Road, south of the city of Corona at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill is the only private landfill in Riverside County and is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The existing landfill encompasses 1,322 acres, of which 468 acres are permitted for landfilling. 'The El Sobrante Landfill is currently permitted to receive a maximum of 70,000 tons per 7 -day week of refuse, with a daily tonnage that shall not exceed 16,054 tons (of which up to 5,000 tons are in- County wastes) in any single day. The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 184 million tons, or 209.91 million cubic yards. Pursuant to the Second Amendment to the Second 'Landfill Agreement between the County of Riverside and the landfill owner, a maximum of 52.32 million tons of the landfill's design capacity and 5,000 tons of the permitted daily capacity are reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County. As of the end of 2010, the landfill had a remaining total capacity of approximately 110.783 million tons and OC,ronER 2014 - 29 - Crry of I• Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LSINORE City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME an in- county disposal capacity of approximately 44.313 million tons4. The landfill is expected to reach capacity by approximately 2045. The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the city of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue and accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tons per day and had an overall remaining disposal capacity of approximately 8,987,467 tons at the end of 2010. The Badlands Landfill is projected to reach capacity in approximately 2024. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the city of Beaumont and the city of San Jacinto. The landfill encompasses approximately 1,088 acres, of which 144.6 acres are permitted for waste disposal. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 5,000 tons per day of refuse and had a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 8,647,603 tons at the end of 2010. The current remaining disposal capacity is estimated to last until approximately 2021. Landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site. As mandated by the State of California, 50 percent of Lake Elsinore's solid waste was required to be diverted from landfills (recycled) by December 31, 2005. Due to the extensive amount of new homebuilding in the area at that time, excessive construction waste caused the City of Lake Elsinore to file an extension to receive more time to comply with the law. However, since 2006, the City has achieved the minimum 50 percent diversion rate required by State law. Solid waste disposal rates were originally negotiated and established as part of the City of Lake Elsinore's franchise agreement with CR &R Disposal, Inc. Rates are revised amhually on July 1 based upon cost -of- living increases and landfill fees. Residential customers pay a flat rate for services, and commercial rates are based on the size of the refuse bin and the number of pickups per week. CR &R currently charges residents of single family homes $22.90 per month for trash pick -up service. This includes 3 trash containers (waste, green waste and recycle) and weekly pick -up service. For mule- family developments, the trash service costs are determined by the size of the project and the needs of its residents. The current waste collection service provider for the Nichols Road Annexation Area is Waste Management through a contract with Riverside County. Waste Management charges residents of single - family homes $18.68 per month for trash pick -up service. Waste Management provides two containers (waste and recycle) with weekly pick -up for trash and bi- weekly pick -up for recycle containers. In accordance with California law, the County franchise hauler for the annexation area will have a 5 -year "sunset' time period to relinquish the refuse collection and hauling right to the City's franchise hauler. No additional waste management facilities or staffing would be required to serve the proposed Nichols Road Amnexaton territory. A household hazardous waste is any waste generated by households that can cause illness or death or pose a threat to health or the environment when improperly stored, disposed, or In- County capacity represents 40 percent of total capacity; verified oo April 22, 2014 with Mr. Sung Key Ma, Urban /Regional Planner IV, Riverside County Waste Management Deparunent. Ocrrronera 2014 - 30 - CITY of: r IrioE Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM Exi REME otherwise managed. Establishment of permanent collection centers or periodic collection events at temporary locations are the most common methods for gathering household hazardous waste for disposal other than through the municipal garbage collection system. Through ongoing cooperation between the City of Lake Elsinore and the Riverside County Waste Management District, the Lake Elsinore Regional Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility (PHHWCF) serves City and County residents. The PHHWCF is located at 521 North Langstaff Street within the City of Lake Elsinore. This service, which is currently available to residents surrounding the Nichols Road Armexation Area, will also be available to the future residents of the annexation area. 5.6 REGIONAL & LOCAL FLOOD CONTROL The Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District provides regional flood control services to western Riverside County. Created in 1945 by the State Legislature, the District provides regional dam and channel construction, regulation and public education services to help control flooding in Riverside County. Regional flood control planning and facilities construction are within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The district is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of flood control facilities including debris dams, storm charmels, and storm drains. The district's facilities may be characterized as the "backbone" system of flood control for the region. The City also owns and maintains certain flood control facilities in the City that are generally constructed as part of the drainage plans for individual projects and are not under the authority of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The City ensures that the construction of these facilities is consistent with the master plans of the District. If annexed, the Nichols Road area local flood control services would transfer from the County of Riverside to the City of Lake Elsinore's Public Works Department. Any pipes larger than thirty inches in diameter will remain Riverside County Flood Control District responsibility. There will be no change in regional flood control services. No additional local or regional flood control facilities or staffing are required to serve the proposed Nichols Road Annexation Area. 5.7 SCHOOLS The Lake Elsinore Unified School District ( LEUSD) serves most of the City of Lake Elsinore, all of the cities of Canyon Lake and Wildomar, and a portion of unincorporated Riverside County. The district covers a 1.40- square -mile area with a population of approximately 70,000 and is the largest employer in the Lake Elsinore Valley, with more than 2,201 full and part-time employees. The LEUSD serves the annexation area and will continue to do so. Required school development fees will be collected prior to the issuance of building permits on all new development. 5.8 PARKS AND RECREATION Upon annexation of the Nichols Road area, park and recreation services for this area will transfer from the County of Riverside to the City of Lake Elsinore. While the reality is that nearby Oc'root,,R 2014 - 31 - C ITY OF � Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LAKE C OfLS INORIE City of Lake Elsinore DREAM unincorporated residents use and enjoy the recreation facilities and programs provided by the City, there are certain financial benefits accrued to City residents, particularly for lake activities. For example, Lake Elsinore residents receive a $75.00 discount on the purchase of annual lake use passes for motorized vessels over non- residents; in addition, annual commercial use passes purchased by City businesses are discounted by $1.50.00 over non -City businesses. Currently, there are approximately 559 acres of developed parks and open space within the City and SOL There are 16 existing park facilities (approximately 125.1 acres) and four recreational facilities totaling 21,000 square feet (see Table 12, Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities) in the City of Lake Elsinore, with 12 additional parks and three recreational facilities slated for future development, as shown in Figure 9, City of Lake Elsinore Parks. Each park has a set of features with a variety of passive and active recreation. These features include fields for baseball, softball, football, and soccer as well as play equipment, beach areas, picnic areas, barbecue facilities, drinking fountains, tennis courts, skateboarding and skating arenas, dog park, and grass for passive recreation. 'There are 3,000 sports league participants who use the sports fields throughout the City. 01 C'r 013E14 2014 - 32 - Crly OF ������ Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM F&REME Table 12: Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities Oc'rora¢rt 2014 - 33 - F w 0 O z x CITY OF LAKE w i p ., $ ELSINORE PARKS & r o F a W RECREATION 5 ] H c h r m H a 6 m FACILITIES Z U ¢ F" ¢ ¢ m N > F a o a o u O w° a Q a F 1 Alberhill Park 2 Channel Walk 3 City Park '� ;a Cre.ekside Park - 5 Lake Point Park 6 Lincoln Street Park - 7 Linear Park B Machado Park` r 1 McVicker Canyon Park & Skate Park 10 Oak Tree Park Rosetta Canyon 11 Community Park & Do Park 12 'erenity Park 14 5 mmmi,erlake Park is wick & Matich Park °' 16 Tuscany Hills Park> 17 Yarborough Park r ^v Boys & Girls A Clubhouse Atberhill - Park B Cultural Center C Lake Community Centel' _ D enior Activity,,,, —Center E Youth Opportunity Center Oc'rora¢rt 2014 - 33 - CITY OF LSInO E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexatioi City of Lake Elsinore DREAM LXTREMI: Figure 9: City of Lake Elsinore Parks v i G; 0 " 1S / m l � % PARKS 1 - Alb,WW1 Ranch Comnaullly Park -26200 Lako Sheol h 2 - Canyon Hills Comnaurdy Park 34360 Canyon Hills Road a/ D- Channel Walk -HOptd Avonao pad Spdny Sfreof 4 -City Park � 243 S. Mahn Sid at 5 - Craoksida Park - 3200 Los! Rnad 6 - Lakopolnl Park - 420 E. L akashore Odvu ® PARKS d FACILITIES 7- LhrcMa Shaat Park- 14986 Lbrcnln Avenge INTERSTATE 15 6 - LhnoarPark - 31717 Canyon Ealah s Odvo P1/ HIGHWAY 74 9 - Mocpado Park- 15150 Joy Sirae! / J'CITY BOUNDARY 10- Moftker Canyon Comnumily Park- 29355 Grand Aveouo 11 - Oak Tien Palk - 15340 Lincoln Sd oot RECREATION FACILITIES 12 - Rosolla Carryon Community Park - 39423 Ardonwood Way A - Culhabl Center- 163 N. [chin Slraei t3- Serenity Park- 19605Pnlwoar Rond 8 -Lako CCrnnumrly Genlor 3f0 L7(Grnham Avenue 14- $arrrl11. WWI Pd,k- 31613 Canyon Esfales Dave C- Se.niorAc wily Cpna;r- 420 E Lakashnnl[)rive 15- Sanrme itka Park -900 W. Broadway D - Youth Opporl unify Cantor400 6rahoor l+ -vanes 16 -3wick and Molich Park- 402 LIrnilerl Id,,O F_ - Sharron Lindsay Ceramunity Center S Gym - 29291 Lake S(reel 17 - Tuscany Hills Perk' 30 Summorhllt Ddve 10- Yarbomuyh Park - 419 N. Poo Sdow OC "ronF. 12 2014 - 34 - CITY OF LSIn,��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXFREME In addition to parks, the City of Lake Elsinore is home to the Lake Community Center and a Senior Activity Center. Both centers are very active and feature a large number of programs. There are more than 40 recreational classes at the Lake Community Center, ranging from art to gymnastics, acting, dancing, music, martial arts, dog obedience, and more. More than 1,000 people per week currently use the Lake Community Center. The Senior Activity Center hosts more than 3,500 seniors every month and features clubs, health services, legal services, leisure activities, and a daily nutrition program. 'The City of Lake Elsinore's Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted July 14, 2009. The Master Plan guides the provision of park facilities within the City. It identifies the City of Lake Elsinore's park, recreation, and hail needs, makes recommendations to meet these needs and proposes an action plan, including funding strategies, to help facilitate the implementation of reconunendations.'The Master Plan also provides a framework for renovation and developments of park improvements and establishes a parkland standard requirement of five acres of usable park land per 1,000 persons. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of the Master Plan set forth recreational facility standards for different facility types. These standards are listed in Table 13, City of Lake Elsinore Projected Recreational Facility Standards. Table 13: City of Lake Elsinore Projected Recreational Facility Standards FACILITY TYPE STANDARD PER POPULATION Softball Field Orgardzed Youth Organized Adult 1 per 7,300 1 per 5,500 Baseball Field Little League Adult 1 per 5,300 1 per 8,000 Multi-Pur ose Fields 7 per 5,000 Picnic Table 1 per 1,000 Picnic Shelter 1 per 5,000 Tot Lot/Playground 1 2er 5,000 Swimming Pool 1 per 50,000 Tennis Court 1 per 10,000 Basketball Court 1 per 30,000 Volleyball Court - Sand 1 per 10,000 Racquetball Court 1 per 10,000 Exercise Court 1 per 10,000 I-lorseshoe Pit 7 per 5,000 Handball Court _ 1 per 10,000 Parkin - on site I acre per 5,000 — Restroom Facilities 1 Per 4,000 Classrooms 1 per 5,000 _ Sources: Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, City of Lake Elsinore Perks and Recreation Master Plan 0c'r013riR 2014 - 35 - CITY OF E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation LSINO R City of Lake Elsinore DREAM ExTREME It is anticipated that any additional park and recreation facilities needed to serve the annexation area will become available as future residential developments are built as developers would be required to comply with the provisions of Section 16.12.050 and Section 16.34.060 of the City's Municipal Code, which require the dedication of parkland and /or payment of in -lieu fees and the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund fees, which are used for park and recreation facility improvements. Regional Trail and Class II Bikeways will be provided through implementation of the policies and requirements set forth in the City of Lake Elsinore's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the City's General Plan. 5.9 STREETS/PUBLIC WORKS Upon armexation, responsibility for the operation and maintenance of local streets will transfer from the County of Riverside to the City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department under the direction of the Community Service Director. The City's Public Works Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, storm drains, traffic signals, alleys, dirt roads, street signs, street trees, streetscapes, and parks. Because of the proximity of the Nichols Road area to City facilities, response time to address public works /road - related issues will likely improve. The City also responds to requests for graffiti removal witlun 24 homy and sponsors a City -wide clean -up twice annually. 5.10 CODE ENFORCEMENT The City's Code Enforcement is proactive and staffed by one Code Enforcement Officer Supervisor, two Code Enforcement Officers and an Office Specialist II. The officers respond to complaints from the general public as well as acting upon their own observations to correct violations of the City's Municipal Code. The level of service provided by the City is more focused than the County because officers can target their efforts within the City's boundaries. This gives residents the ability to stay in closer touch with code enforcement activities and report their concerns about their neighborhoods. The City provides a number of ongoing resident programs including an ongoing vehicle abatement program to tow away abandoned and inoperable vehicles from private property and a weed abatement program. 5.11 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING In 1988, the City of Lake Elsinore formed a citywide Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District (LLMD). The original purpose of the district was to fund street lighting, traffic signals, landscaping, street trees and park maintenance. Residents pay District fees (through an annual assessment) according to the "benefit zone" in which their property is located. Costs are based on a formula that considers the type of property and the zone amenities. With the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, the statewide "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," District assessments were rolled back because the City could no longer charge properly owners for the cost of park maintenance without voter approval. Following completion of the Nichols Road Anmexation approval process by LAFCO, tine City will annex the annexation area into the City of Lake Elsinore Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance 0(: i orsrrz 2 01 4 - 36 - CITY Or LSI�DE Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME District (LLMD). The citywide LLMD fee is fixed at $24,90 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) per year. Single - family dwellings are 1 EDU ($24.90 annually), multi- family dwellings are 0.8 EDU per unit ($19.92 per unit am-mally), commercial property is 6 EDU /acre ($149.40 per acre annually) and vacant land is 1.2 EDU ($29.88) for the 1st acre and 0.2 EDU ($4.98) for each additional acre. These rates cannot be increased unless there is majority approval of the property owners within the City (Article XIII D of the California State Constitution). New and existing residents and commercial developments within the annexation area will be subject to the citywide LLMD upon annexation. 5.12 LIBRARY SERVICES The City of Lake Elsinore is part of the Riverside County Library System. Residents have access to 29 libraries and two bookmobiles. There are two libraries within city boundaries, including Lake Elsinore Library located on West Graham Avenue, northeast of the lake, and Lakeside Library on Riverside Drive, located northwest of the lake. The Canyon Lake Library is just outside the city boundary on Railroad Canyon Drive. Library facilities in the project area are provided by the branch located at 600 West Graham Avenue in the City. All branches of the county library system are supported by volunteer nonprofit "Friends of the Library" organizations. Dues, used book sales, rental books and video and the sale of novelty items are the primary fundraising activities. Funds raised are used to support library programs and to supplement library resources. The City does not directly fund or have any administrative relationship with the County library system. As a result, there will be no change in the level of library services to the Nichols Road territory upon annexation. Section 16.34.060 in Chapter 16.34 (Required Improvements) of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant pay fees for the purposes set forth in that section. Paragraph B of Section 16.34.060 describes the City's Library Mitigation Fee and states that "Upon the recommendation of the Community Services Director and the concurrence of the City Manager, an in -lieu fee for future construction of library improvements shall be paid to the City of Lake Elsinore to assure the necessary library facilities are provided the community. Such facilities are to meet the Riverside City /County Library standards. An in -lieu fee as established by resolution shall be paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance. That amount shall be determined by the Community Services Director and transmitted to the Community Development Department for collection," Therefore, all developers of new subdivisions, apartments, condominiums, fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, mobile homes, and single- family residences within the annexation area will be required to pay the one -time library fee at the current established rate of $150 per dwelling unit. 5.13 ANIMAL SERVICES Unincorporated Riverside County residents receive their animal control services through Riverside County Animal Services. Upon annexation, responsibility for this service would transfer to the City of Lake Elsinore. The City contracts with a private company called Animal Friends of the Valley (AFV) for all animal control services. Ot rc rove 2014 - 37 - CITY OF Plan of Services for Nichols Road AnnexationLSINO E City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME AFV also provides animal services to the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. AFV humane and animal services officers respond to calls from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and respond to all emergencies to the above cities 24 hours per day. AFV is located at 33751 Mission Trail in Wildomar, and open to the public from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with evening extended hours on Wednesdays until 7 p.m. The organization is dedicated to promoting humane care of animals through education and a proactive animal services program. 'The organization works to prevent animal suffering and ending pet overpopulation. No additional facilities or staffing are required to serve the animal services needs of the proposed Nichols Road Amlexation Area. 5.14 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Verizon provides the local landline telephone service, although long distance services may also be obtained from a number of other providers. In addition, a number of companies provide wireless or cell phone services. Time Warner Cable provides cable television and high -speed Internet. 5.15 MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL Vector control services for the armexation area are currently provided by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. The Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District provides comprehensive vector control services to over 230 square miles and to more than 400,000 residents, including those within the City of Lake Elsinore. The District is governed by an eight - member Board of Trustees appointed by the respective city councils and Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The District has a state -of -the -art laboratory staffed by trained scientists and researchers. The District conducts in -house research and collaborates with University of California and California State university scientists. The District library has the most recent scientific journals and books in stock. The District also provides public education and outreach to the community. The outreach program provides information to the residents about vectors and vector -borne diseases, how to reduce breeding sources on their property, and disseminates information regarding disease outbreaks and District activities. Services provided by the District to the City include year -round surveillance of vector populations and vector -borne disease. 'T'he District also conducts regular routine inspections of all vector breeding sites, and applies the most environmentally compatible materials to eliminate immature and adult vectors. The District staff utilizes the latest specialized control equipment to treat a wide range of breeding sources. The proposed annexation properties will also annex into the Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District when it is annexed into the City of Lake Elsinore boundaries, and the special assessment for District services which is based upon land use, will be extended to the annexation properties. 0, cror3rra 2014 - 38 - CITY or ������� Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EX[ RF.ME For Fiscal Year 2013/2014, the Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District assessment/ service charge is fixed at $7.07 per Benefit Unit per parcel per year. The total Benefit Units (BU) applicable to each individual parcel is based upon that parcel's land use. For example, single - family dwellings are 1.5 BU per parcel ($10.60 annually), multi- family dwellings (2 to 4 dwelling units) are 1.995 BU per parcel ($14.10 annually), multi- family dwellings (5+ dwelling units) are 7.5 BU per parcel ($53.03 annually), general commercial is 1.0 BU per parcel ($7.07 annually), office buildings are 1.5 BU per parcel ($10.60), and vacant land is 0.115 BU per parcel ($0.81 annually). 6.0 CONCLUSION The Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission has previously identified the City of Lake Elsinore as the logical service provider for the 666.66 -acre Nichols Road Annexation Area by placing the property within the City's sphere of influence. Annexation of the 666.66 -acre area is an integral part of the City's plan to implement a new land use pattern for the larger Nichols Road study area in accordance with the City's adopted General Plan. The City's General Plan provides for the logical expansion of the City in a marmer that complements existing and previously planned projects in this area. Ocro>ica 2014 - 39 - CITY Or LS1�� Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXI RE ME 7.0 CERTIFICATION Certification I hereby certify that the information furnished above present the data and information required for this Plan of Services to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Grant Yates, City Manager City of Lake Elsinore Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District Date Major S. Dhillon, Ph.D, District Manager Date City of Lake Elsinore 0, c'ro13 cn 2014 - 40 - CITY OF LSIn��E Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation City of Lake Elsinore DREAM EXTREME 8.0 REFERENCES b1 addition to other reference documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this Plan of Services: City of Lake Elsinore, City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, Adopted December 13, 2011. (Available at City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department - Planning Division, 130 South Main Sheet, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530.) City of Lake Elsinore, Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update (SCH #2005121019), Certified December 13, 201.1. (Available at City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department - Planning Division, 1.30 South Main Sheet, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) City of Lake Elsinore, Parks and Recreation Department Web Site. (Available at htip:/ /www. lake - elsinore.org /index.aspx ?page =202; accessed April 11, 201.4.) City of Lake Elsinore, Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2008 -2030, (Available at http:/ /www. lake- elsinore.org /index.aspx ?page =199• accessed April 11, 2014.) County of Riverside, Geographic Information System Database. (Available at http://www3.tlma.co.riverside,ca.us/i)a/rclis/index.html; accessed on Apri111, 2014.) Harris & Associates, Personal Convnunication with Dennis Anderson, Senior Project Manager on April 14, 2014, Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District, Personal Connnunication eoith Thomas Buckley, District Manager, on April 14, 2014. Riverside County Fire Department, Personal Conmzunication with Ben R. Johnson, AICP, LEED Green Associate, Planning & Development Supervisor, Strategic Planning Bureau, on April 14, 201.4. Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of Lake Elsinore, May 2013. (Available at http: / /www.scag.ca.gov /resources /profiles.htm; accessed on April 11, 2014.) State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001 -2010, with 2000 Benchmark. (Available a1 http: / / www.dof.ca. gov/ research/ demographic / reports/ estimates/ e -5/ 2011 -20/ view.plip; accessed April 11, 2014.) Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Growth Forecast for the WRCOG Subregion, November 7, 2013. (Available at www.wrcog.cog.ca.us /content / rowthforecasts.ast); accessed April 11, 2014.) O c'rouerx 2014 - 41 - ClIY OI LA1 -E LSINOZE -, DREAM @Xi R Mr FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS M THE NICHOLS ROAD ANNEXATION December 5, 2014 Draft Prepared For: Nichols Road Partners, LLC Table of Contents Page 1. Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis ................................................... ............................... 2 2. Project Description .......................................................................... ............................... 3 3. Limiting Conditions ......................................................................... ............................... 3 4. General Sources of Information and Methodology Used in FIA ..... ............................... 4 5. FIA Summary and Conclusions ....................................................... ............................... 5 6. Recurring Revenues ......................................................................... ............................... 7 6.1 Property Tax ............................................................................... ............................... 7 6. 1.1 Property Tax ......................................................................... ............................... 7 6.1.2 Fire Protection Property Tax .... .............................., :........... ............................... 7 6.2 Property Transfer Tax ... ............................... ......... ...::... ............................... 8 6.3 Sales and Use Tax ....................................................................:: ............................... 8 6.3.1 Property Tax In -Lieu of Sales Tax .............:........................ ............................... 9 6.3.2 On -Site Taxable Sales for Retail Land Use ......................... ............................... 9 6.3.3 Off -Site Retail Sales Tax ...... .......:r .. ......................... .......... ......... 9 6.4 Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fees ( "VLF') ......................................... 10 6.5 Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax /Public Safety . .............. ............................... 10 6.5.1 On -Site Public Safety Sales Tax ......... .......:` .............. ............................... 10 6.5.2 Off -Site Public Safety Sales Tax ......... ......... ...... ............................... 10 6.6 Transient Occupancy Tax ( "TOT') .......:1 ..... ..............................1 10 6.7 Franchise Tax .......................................................:.:........`......... ............................... 11 6.8 Towing Franchise Pee :. ......... ......... ......... ...... ............................... 11 6.9 Licenses and Permits .. ......... : ......................... . ..... . .................. ................ 11 6.10 Shared Revenue ................. ................................................... ............................... 11 6.11 Charges for Services .. ......... ...;. ..................... ............................... 11 6.12 Fines & Forfeitures..:. ..............: s.......,..................................... ............................... 11 6.13 Miscellaneous Revenue ......... ..................................... ............................... 11 6.14 Transfers -In ......................................................................... ............................... 11 6.15 Police and Fire Services CFD .... ........ . . . .. _ 1 l 7. Recurring Costs. .................. 7.1 City Council .................................... 7.2 City Attorney .... ...a` .......................... 7.3 City Clerk ... .... .. ............................ 7.4 City Manager's Office .......................... 7.5 Administrative Services ........................ 7.6 General Law Enforcement .................... 7.7 Fire Services .......... ............................... 7.8 Community Deve lopment ..................... 7.9 Public Works ......... ............................... 7.10 Lake, Parks and Recreation ................ 7.11 Non - Department Operating ................ S. Glossary ofDefned Terms and Acronyms Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 1 - Page 1 of 24 City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 1. Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis Development Planning & Financing Group has prepared this Fiscal Impact Analysis ( "FIA ") to determine the estimated fiscal impacts on the City of Lake Elsinore ( "City ") in connection with the proposed annexation of five of the ten uninhabited parcels ( "Project ") included in the Nichols Road annexation. The proposed Nichols Road annexation is a collection of ten parcels covering approximately 666.66 acres located in the unincorporated area of western Riverside County, California, as shown below. Deseti tion Parcel Numbers Acres Project Harbor Lounge 390- 230005 160.00 Bowtie 389- 210 -008. 389 - 210 - 032`" 389 -210 -034 389 - 210 -036 26.60 li Subtotal 186.60 Other parcels Regional Conservation Authority ('RCA ") (Open Space) 390- 270 -007 '!390 -270 -009 76.21 Bureau of land Management ( "BLM ") (Open Space) 390 -230 -008 360.00 Elsinore Union High School DisLict(a) (Public Facility /Public Institutional) 389 - 210 -039 ;:389-210-037 43.85 Subtotal 480.06 Total 666.66 (a) Ownership infppnation obtained fromtitlepro247.com The FIA does not take into account the five parcels owned by the RCA, BLM and Elsinore Union High School District. Because the RCA and BLM parcels are zoned as open space and will continue to be zoned as open space post annexation, and are uninhabited, no fiscal impact is anticipated through the annexation process. The existing Temeseal Canyon high School is not assumed to have an impact as the land use will not change upon annexation. The reader should be aware that the FIA contains estimates or projections of the Project's future revenue and cost impact on the City, and actual fiscal results may vary from estimates because events and circumstances can occur in a manner different than described in the FIA. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 -2- Page 2 of 24 City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal lnilmet Analysis December 5. 2014 Nichols Road Anne afire„ 2. Project Description The Project is a collection of uninhabited parcels, located within the unincorporated area of western Riverside County, California, and within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Lake Elsinore. The Project is located on the north and south side of Nichols Road east of and near the 1 -15 freeway. The " Bowtie" portion of the Project is located south of Nichols Road, and consists of form (4) parcels totaling 26.60 acres. The "Harbor Lounge" portion of the Project is located north of Nichols Road, and consists of one (1) parcel totaling 160.00 acres. The Harbor Lounge and Bowtie parcels as shown below are collectively the Project: 3. Limiting Conditions The FIA is subject to the following limiting conditions: • The FIA contains an analysis of recurring revenues and costs to the City from development of the Project. The FIA is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from DPFG's research, interviews, telephone discussions with City staff, and information from DPFG's database which were collected through fiscal impact analyses previously prepared by DPFG and others. • The sources of information and basis of the estimates are stated herein. While we believe the sources of information are reliable, DPFG does not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information. • The analysis of recurring revenues and cost impacts to the City contained in the FIA is not considered to be a "financial forecast" or a "financial projection" as technically defined by the - American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The word "projection" used within this report relates to broad expectations of future events or market conditions. • Since the analyses contained herein are based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DPFG cannot represent that results will definitely be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 Page 3 of 24 Residential Non - Residential Description Parcel Numbers Acres Units ., Square Feet Harbor Lounge 390 - 230 -005 160.00 59 - Bowtie 389- 210 -008 26.60 186 121,475 389 - 210 -032 389 -210 -034 389 - 210 -036 Total 186.60 245 121,475 3. Limiting Conditions The FIA is subject to the following limiting conditions: • The FIA contains an analysis of recurring revenues and costs to the City from development of the Project. The FIA is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from DPFG's research, interviews, telephone discussions with City staff, and information from DPFG's database which were collected through fiscal impact analyses previously prepared by DPFG and others. • The sources of information and basis of the estimates are stated herein. While we believe the sources of information are reliable, DPFG does not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information. • The analysis of recurring revenues and cost impacts to the City contained in the FIA is not considered to be a "financial forecast" or a "financial projection" as technically defined by the - American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The word "projection" used within this report relates to broad expectations of future events or market conditions. • Since the analyses contained herein are based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DPFG cannot represent that results will definitely be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 Page 3 of 24 City gf Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis Decemher S. 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 4. General Sources of Information and Methodology Used in FIA The FIA was prepared to estimate the allocable revenue and cost impacts to the City's general fund ( "General Fund ") as a result of the Project's development. The FIA uses a combination of case study methods and multiplier methods to estimate Project impacts. When projecting fiscal impacts using a multiplier method, the FIA determines per capita /employee impacts by applying the appropriate per capita, per employee and per capita and employee factors ( "Factors ") to the Project's land use assumptions. The FIA calculates equivalent residents by adding residential population plus 50% of employees ( "Equivalent Residents "). Employment is reduced by 50% to account for the estimated less frequent use of City public services by employees than residents. The Factors were calculated using the City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Adopted Budget ( "Budget "). Cost and revenue Factors are projected in 2013 dollars, and are not adjusted for inflation. Information used in preparing the FIA was obtained from the following sources: L City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Adopted Budget 2. City of Lake Elsinore 3. The Planning Associates (land use information) 4. The California Department of Finance (population information) 5. The California Employment Development Department (employment information) 6. Riverside County Auditor - Controller's. Office (fiscal year 2013 -14 share of the basic tax information) 7. U.S. Department of Labor (household expenditure data) The following table shows selected ,assumptions used in the FIA: City Residential Population (a) 56,718 Residents Per Household a) 3.560 City Employment b) 16,400 City Shame of the Basic Tax c) 3.421% County Structural Fire Fund Share of the Basic Tax (c) 5.709% (a) Per the Cal iIontia.Deparbneot ofFiraince as offrouary 1, 2014. (b) Per the California Eoiploynrent Development DeparOnem, May 2014. (c) Per Riverside Comity AuditodController, See 2xhlbll A, Table 2. The FIA is orsanized as follows: Exhibit Table Desetiption A 1 Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary A 2 Post -ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation A 3 Proposed Land Use Assumptions A 4 Property Tax Calculations A 5 Sales and Use Tax and MVLF Calculations A 6 General Fund Revenue Calculations A 7 General Fund Expenditure Calculations A 8 Fire Services Cost and Police and Fire Services CFD Revenue B - Nichols Road Annexation Area Boundaries Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 -4- Page 4 of 24 City ofLake Elsinore Fiscal ImImet Analysis December 5. 2014 Nichols Road Annevatiorr 5. FIA Summary and Conclusions The FIA examines the financial impact the Project will have on the General Fund. The Project will generate additional revenue for the General Fund primarily through increased sales tax, property tax, police and fire services CFD revenue, motor vehicle license fees and franchise taxes. The additional costs incurred to the General Fund as a result of the Project are less than the additional revenues generated, and consist primarily of police, fire, and administrative services. The results of the FIA are shown in the table below: Description Table Ref.':, (ExbibitA) Buildout General Fund Reenning Revenues Property Tax 4 $ 25,559 Fire Protection Property Tax Revenue ;4 42,654 Properly Transfer Tax - r4 <. 5,320 Property'fax In Lieu of Sales 'Pax '4 21,303 On -Site Sales and Use Tax 5 51,931 Oft -Site Sales and Use Tax 5 -, 20,926 Property 'lax In -Lieu ol'VLI? 5 67,839 On -Site Public Safety Sales Tax 5 30369 Oft Site Public Safety Sales Tax 5 12,237 Transient Occupancy Tax 6 3,768 Franchise Tax 6 28,638 Towing Franchise Fee . 6 30 Licenses & Permits 6 11,462 Shared Revenue 6 Charges 161 Services 6 2,679 Fines & Forfcitures 6 6,631 Miscellaneous Revenue ,'. 6 1,776 Transfers - I n 6 _ Police and Fire Services CFD 8 74,085 Total Recuning Revenues >" $ 407,207 General Fund Recuniag Costs City Council (i) 7 $ 2,051 City Attorney (i) 7 2.449 City Clerk (i) 7 2,752 City Manager's Office (i) 7 3,579 Administrative Services (i) 7 16,856 General Law Bnforcement 7 160,795 Fire Services 8 66,767 Community Developnxmt 7 - Public Works 7 4,653 Lake, Parks, and Recreation 7 - Non- Department Operating 7 9,084 Total Recuning Costs $ 268,987 Net Annual Surplus /(Deficit) $ 138,220 Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 5 - Page 5 of 24 City gl'Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5. 2014 Nichols Road Annexation The Project's direct impact to the General Fund is summarized as follows: $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 Impact to General Fund Total Recurring Total Recurring Net Annual As seen in the table above, the Project is anticipated to generate a surplus of $138,220 to the City on an annual basis, once the Project is fully developed. The FlA does not consider the impact of potential revenues and /or reduced General Fund costs due to a Project Homeowner's Association which could serve to increase the ongoing annual surplus. REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK Nichols Road City FIA Report 12-5-2014 -6- Page 6 of 24 City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis Decenaher 5. 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 6. Recurring Revenues 6.1 Property Tax In additional to other ad valorem charges imposed by various local agencies, land owners in the State of California ( "State ") are required to pay annual property taxes of 1% on the assessed value of their property pursuant to Proposition 13. Each county in California is divided into tax rate areas c -I-RA" or "TRAs "). After the basic 1% property tax is collected by the county, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on each agency's share of the basic tax within the property's applicable TRA. Exhibit A. Table 2 shows the share of the basic tax applicable to each of the three`TRAs applicable to the Project. In 1992, to meet its obligations to fund education at specific levels under Proposition 98, the State enacted legislation that shifted partial financial responsibility for funding education to local governments (cities, counties, and special districts). The State did this by instructing county auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues to educational revenue augmentation funds ( "ERAF ") to support schools. As such, the FIA calculates a weighted average share of the basic tax after the shift of revenue to ERAF. This analysis assumes that Library and Regional Flood Control Services will continue to be provided by the County, and that the County will receive the share of the 1% basic property tax allocated to fund such services. 6.1.1 Property Tax It is anticipated that upon annexation, the County will require the City to enter into a tax sharing agreement. For purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that upon annexation, 25% of the County General Fund allocation will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. Since the Project is within three different tax rate areas, the FIA calculates weighted average post -ERAF shares of the basic tax of 3.421% for the General Fund as shown in Exhibit A, Table 2. Assuming a 3,421 % weighted average share of the basic tax, the Project is anticipated to generate $25,559 per year in residential and non - residential property taxes at buildout, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 4. 6.1.2 Fire Proteetion Property Tax Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after annexation. Since the Project is within three different tax rate areas, the FIA calculates weighted average post -ERAF shares of the basic tax of 5.709% for the Fire Fund as shown in Exhibit A, "fable 2. Assuming a 5.709% weighted average share of the basic tax, the Project is anticipated to generate $42,654 per year in residential and non- residential property taxes at bUildout, as shown in Exhibit A. Table 4. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 7 - Page 7 of 24 City gf'Lake Flsinore FiscallmpactAnalysls December 5 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 6.2 Property Transfer Tax The City receives property transfer tax revenue as new or existing property is sold and ownership is transferred. In accordance with California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11911, a county may levy a transfer tax at the rate of $0.55 for each $500 of assessed value. A city within the comity that levies this tax can levy a transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000. If both the county and city levy the transfer tax, a credit shall be allowed against the amount imposed by the county in the amount of tax that is imposed by the city. The City's share of the tax is $0.55 per $1,000 of value transferred. The FIA assumes a residential turnover rate of 14.00% of total assessed value per year (i.e. properties change ownership every 7 years on average) and a non- residential turnover rate of 10.00% of total assessed value per year (i.e. properties change ownership every 10 years on average). Using these assumptions, the 'City `is anticipated to receive approximately $5,320 in annual property transfer tax revenue at'buildout, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 4. 6.3 Sales and Use Tax Under the California Sales and Use Tax Law, the sale of tangible personal' property is subject to sales or use tax unless exempt or otherwise excluded. When the sales tax applies, the use tax does not apply and the opposite is also true. The sales tax is imposed on all retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal, property in the State and is measured by the retailer's gross receipts. Use tax is imposed on purchasers of tangible personal property from any retailer for the purpose of storage, use, or other consumption in this state and is measured by the sales price of the property purchased. However, if an out -of -state retailer is engaged in business in this state, such retailer is required to register with the State and collect the use tax from the purchaser at the time of making the sale. Purchases made over the Internet or out -of -state are the most common transactions subject to a use tax. There is a 7.50% statewide sales and use tax base rate that is collected by the State. Since January 1, 2013, the State government has received 6.50% of the 7.50% and local governments receive the remaining 1% which is transferred to the local government's general fund. "< REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK Nichols Road City F1A Report 12 -5 -2014 - 8 - Page 8 of 24 Cify of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analvsis December 5. 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 6.3.1 Property Tax In -Lien of Sales Tax This analysis assumes that 25% of sales and use tax is redirected to property tax per the Triple Flip ( "Triple Flip "). In March 2004, voters approved Proposition 57, the California Economic Recovery Bond Act which allowed the State to purchase bonds to reduce the State budget deficit. The legislature enacted provisions that changed how sales and use taxes and other revenues are distributed to schools and local governments on and after July 1, 2004. These changes will remain in effect until the State Director of Finance notifies the Board of Equalization that the State's bond obligations have been satisfied. Under the revenue "swapping" procedures commonly referred to as the Triple Flip, the local government portion of the statewide sales tax rate will .decrease by 25 %, and the State portion will increase by 25 %. The County Auditor in each county uses property tax revenues to reimburse the county and cities within the county. County Auditors set aside a portion of funds from the County Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund and place them in a Sates and Use Tax Compensation Fund. In January and May of each year, the State Director of Finance instructs County Auditors to allocate revenues from the Compensation Fund to the county and to the cities .within the county. Based on the on- site and off -site sales tax calculations, the City is anticipated to receive $21,303 in property tax in -lieu of sales tax revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, 'fable 4. 6.3.2 On -Site Taxable Sales for Retail Land The FIA assumes that the City will receive made within the Project. The FIA assumes s. review comments from other FlAs prepared' only 25% of non - residential commercial sift This analysis assumes use tax revenue at I methodology, the Project is estimated to g taxable sales at buildout. as shown in Exhibiti ties tax revenue from taxable purchases s at $200 per square foot, based on peer thin the Rivet-side County area, and that e feet will generate taxable retail sales. i %n of sales tax revenue. Applying this crate approximately $51,931 in annual Table 5. 6.3.3 Off -Site Retail Sales Tax The City will receive sales tax revenue from taxable purchases made within the City but outside the Project area by the Project's residents. The FIA assumes that households within the Project will have an average annual income of $62,436 per the U.S. Census Bureau for the City of Lake "Elsinore. The FIA assumes that 32% of household income is spent on retail taxable expenditures and that 50% of retail taxable expenditures made outside of the Project area are captured in the City. After calculating total Project retail taxable expenditures captured in the City, the FIA assumes the City receives sales tax revenue of 1% of taxable sales. This analysis assumes use tax revenue at 10.5% of sales tax revenue. Applying this methodology, the City is anticipated to receive approximately $20,926 in annual off -site sales and use tax revenue at buildout after the Sales Tax Triple Flip, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 -9- Page 9 of 24 City gf'Lahe Elsinore Fiscallnapact Analysis December s 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 6.4 Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fees ( "VLF ") Revenue amounts are calculated on a valuation basis as illustrated in Table 5. Based on this valuation method, the Project is anticipated to generate $67,839 annually in property tax in -lieu of VLF revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5. 6.5 Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax /Public Safety To cushion the impact of ERAF shifts, the California Legislature and Governor Wilson submitted Proposition 172 to voters, which proposed a new half cent sales tax to be dedicated to local public safety. Proposition 172, the Local Public Safety Protection and Improvement Act of 1993 was approved by 58% of voters. Proposition 172 provides cities with a half cent sales tax 'that must be used to pay for public safety services. Eligible services include sheriff, police fire, county district attorney, corrections, and life guard services. 6.5.1 On -Site Public Safety Sales Tax The FIA assumes that the City will receive sales tax revenue from taxable purchases made within the Project. This analysis assumes a public safety sales tax revenue at .50% of on -site taxable sales revenue. Applying this methodology,; the Project is anticipated to generate $30,369 annually in Proposition 172 half cent sales tax/public safety revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5. 6.5.2 Off -Site Public Safety Sales Tax The City will receive sales tax revenue from taxable purchases made within the City but outside the Project area by the Project's residents. The FIA assumes that households within the Project will have an average annual income of $62,436 per the U.S. Census Bureau for the City of Lake Elsinore. The FIA assumes that 32% of household income is spent on retail taxable expenditures and that 50% of retail taxable expenditures made outside of the Project area are captured' in the City. This analysis assumes a public safety sales tax revenue at .50% of off -site taxable sales revenue. Applying this methodology, the Project is anticipated to generate $12,237 annually in Proposition 172 half cent sales tax /public safety revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 5. 6.6 Transient Occupancy Tax ( "TOT ") The TOT (hotel, motel, campground or bed tax) is authorized under State Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280, as an additional source of non- property tax revenue to local government. According to the Budget, the City receives $3.85 per Equivalent Resident in franchise tax revenue. Based on this multiplier, the Project is anticipated to generate $3,768 annually in franchise tax revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 6. Nichols Road City PIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - to- Page 10 of 24 City gjLake Elsinore Fiscal lnilmetAnalpsis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 6.7 Franchise Tax The City receives utility franchise tax revenue from utility franchises which service the local area and the Project. According to the Budget, the City receives $29.27 Pei- Equivalent Resident in franchise tax revenue. Based on this multiplier, the Project is anticipated to generate $28,638 annually in franchise tax revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, 'fable 6. 6.8 TowinL Franchise Fee According to the Budget, the City receives $0.03 per Equivalent Resident in towing franchise fee revenue. Based on this multiplier, the Project is anticipated to generate $30 annually in towing franchise fee revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 6. 6.9 Licenses and Permits Based on various applicable per capita and employee multipliers calculated per the Budget, the Project is anticipated to generate $11,462 annually in total licenses and permits revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 6. 6.10 Shared Revenue The Project is not anticipated to impact on City shared revenue. 6.11 Charees for Services Based on various applicable per capita and employee: multipliers calculated per the Budget, the Project is anticipated to generate $2,679 amorally in total charges for services revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 6. 6.12 Fines & Forfeitures Based on various, applicable per capita and employee multipliers calculated per the Budget, the Project is anticipated to generate $6,631 annually in total fines and forfeitures revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, 'fable 6. Based on various, applicable`` per capita multipliers calculated per the Budget, the Project is anticipated to generate $1,776 annually in total miscellaneous revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 6. 6.14 Transfers -In The Project is not anticipated to have an impact on City transfers -in revenue. 6.15 Police and Fire Services CFD Based on the Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, the Project will be subject to a police and fire public safety services tax. Fiscal Year 2014 -15 special tax amounts are anticipated to generate $487 for each single family unit and $244 for each multi - family unit, totaling $74,085 annually in police and fire services CFD revenue, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 8. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 11 - Page 11 of 24 City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5. 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 7. Recurring Costs 7.1 Citv Council The FIA assumes a 50% marginal increase. City council costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the Project's relatively small size compared to the City. After adjusting for a 50% marginal increase, the City spends $2.10 per Equivalent Resident on City council costs. Based on this multiplier, City council costs are anticipated to be $2,051, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 7. 7.2 City Attorney The FIA assumes a 50% marginal increase. City attorney costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth 1'om the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the Project's relatively small size compared to the City. After adjusting for a 50% marginal increase, the City spends $2.50 per Equivalent Resident on City attorney costs. Based on this multiplier, City attorney costs are anticipated to be $2,449, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 7. 7.3 City Clerk The FIA assumes a 50% marginal increase. City clerk costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the Project's relatively small size compared to the City. After adjusting for a 50% marginal increase, the City spends $2.81 per Equivalent Resident on City clerk costs. Based on this multiplier, City clerk costs are anticipated to be $2,752, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 7. 7.4 City Manager's Office The FIA assumes a 50 % marginal increase. City manager's costs are not anticipated to have a 1 :1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the Project's relatively small size compared to the City. After adjusting for a 50% marginal increase, the City spends $3.66 per Equivalent Resident on City manager's office costs. 'Based on this multiplier, City manager's office costs are anticipated to be 1$3,579, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 7. 7.5 Administrative Services The FIA assumes a 50% marginal increase. Administrative services costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the Project's relatively small size compared to the City. After adjusting for a 50% marginal increase, the City spends $17.23 per Equivalent Resident on administrative services costs. Based on this multiplier, administrative services costs are anticipated to be $16,856, as seen in Exhibit A, 'fable 7. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 12 - Page 12 of 24 City of Lake F,Isinore Fiscal Impact Analysis December S. 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 7.6 General Law Enforcement Per the Budget, the City spends $164.33 per Equivalent Resident on general law enforcement costs. Based on this multiplier, general law enforcenents costs are anticipated to be $160,795, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 7. 7.7 Fire Services Fire protection costs are allocated based on Elsinore Battalion 2 service calls, per the Riverside County Fire Department in Cooperation with Cal Fire 2013 Annual Report. Fire protection costs are anticipated to be $66,767, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 8. 7.8 Community Development The Project is not anticipated to have an ongoing development costs. Community development coy development fees and charges. 7.9 Public Works The FIA assumes marginal increases from 0 % to 25% x 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Projet assumed to be offset from Project revenues generated more City lighting and landscape maintenance districts. capita and employee multipliers calculated per the I anticipated to be $4,653, as shown in Exhibit A, Table 7. City's community to be offset by ublic work costs do not have a A portion of the costs are also trough participation in one or aced on various applicable per dRet, public works costs are The FIA assumes marginal increases from 0% to 25% as lake, parks, and recreation costs do not have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project. All costs are assumed to be offset from Project revenues generated through participation in one or more City lighting and landscape maintenance districts as shown in Exhibit A. Table 7. With the exception of retiree health premiums, the Project is not anticipated to have an impact on non - department ,operating costs. The City spends $9.28 per Equivalent Resident on retiree health premiums. Based on this multiplier, retiree health premium costs are anticipated to be $9,084, as seen in Exhibit A, Table 7. Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 13 - Page 13 of 24 City gfZake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis ec Inher S 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 8. Glossary of Defined Terms and Acronyms Budget City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Adopted Bud *et city City of Lake Elsinore DPFG Development, Plaunin r & Financin Group Equivalent Residents Per Capita plus 50% of Project Employees ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Factors Per Capita and Employee Factors FIA Fiscal Impact Analysis General Fund City of Lake Elsinore General Fund Project Bowtie and Harbor Lounge Parcels State State of California TOT Transient Occu ancy Tax Triple Flip Revenue "Swapping" Procedures TRA/ TRAs Tax Rate Area VLF Vehicle License Fees Nichols Road City FIA Report 12 -5 -2014 - 14 - Page 14 of 24 Exhibit A City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 1 Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary Nichols Road Annexation f _JE, r-] December 5, 2014 -� Table Percent Ref. Buildout of Total General Fund Recurring Revenues Property Tax 4 $ 25,559 6.3% Fire Protection Property Tax Revenue 4 42,654 10.5% Property Transfer Tax 4 5,320 1.3% Property Tax In Lieu of Sales Tax 4 21,303 5.2% Ou -Site Sales and Use Tax 5 51,931 12.8% Off-Site Sales and Use Tax 5 20,926 5.1% Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF 5 67,839 16.7% On -Site Public Safety Sales Tax 5 30369 7.5% Off -Site Public Safety Sales Tax 5 12,237 3.0% Transient Occupancy Tax 6 3,768 0.9% Franchise Tax 6 28,638 7.0% Towing Franchise Fee 6 30 0.0% Licenses & Permits 6 11,462 2.8% Shared Revenue 6 - 0.0% Charges for Services 6 2,679 0.7% Fines & Forfeitures 6 6,631 1.6% Miscellaneous Revenue 6 1,776 0.4% Transfers -In 6 - 0.0% Police and Fire Services CFD 8 74,085 18.2% Total Recurring Revenues $ 407,207 100.0% General Fund Recurring Costs City Council 7 $ 2,051 0.8% City Attorney 7 2,449 0.9% City Cleric 7 2,752 1.0% City Manager's Office 7 3,579 1.3% Administrative Services 7 16,856 6.3% General Law Enforcement 7 160,795 59.8% Fire Services 8 66,767 24.8% Community Development 7 - 0.0% Public Works 7 4,653 1.7% Lake, Parks, and Recreation 7 - 0.0% Non - Department Operating 7 9,084 3.4% Total Recurring Costs $ 268,987 100.01%, Net Annual Surplus /(Deficit) $ 138,220 Surplus /(Deficit) Per Residential Unit $ 564 Revenue /cost Ratio age 15 of 24 P: \RCL \Werner - Elsinore \City FIA \Report \Elsinore FIA Report Template Footnotes Source: FY 2013 -14 rates by Riverside County Auditor - Control lei's Office. (a) In additional to other ad valorem charges imposed by various local agencies, land owners in California are required to pay annual property taxes of 1% on the assessed value of their property pursuant to Proposition 13. Each County in California is divided into tax rate areas ( "TRA "). After One basic I %. property tax is collected by the county, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on each agency's share of the basic tax within the property's applicable TRA. This exhibit shows the share of the basic tax applicable to each of the three TRAs applicable to the project. (b) Shares of the basic tax that are received by the City for its General Fund and by the County for Pine Protection for each tax rate area are highlighted in bold print. (c) For purposes of One analysis, the weighted average tax rates were calculated based on the acreage of the TRAs within the Project. (d) Per land use information provided by the Planning Associates in May 2014. (e) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 25 °% of the County General Fund allocation will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis also assumes that County Structure Fire Protection shares of the tax will shift to One City since it is anticipated that the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after vmcxation. This analysis also assumes that Library and Regional Flood Control Services will continue to be provided by the County. Page 16 of 24 P: \RCDWerner- Elsinore \City FINReporkElsinore FIA Report Template Exhibit A City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 2 Post -ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 Share of Tax Prior to Annexation Transfer to City of Lake Elsinore Tax Rate Area (a) Weighted City after Share after Agency (b) 065 -001 065 -029 065 -090 Average (c) Annexation (e) Annexation GENERAL 13.4027°/ 13.7308% 13.4027% 13.6840% 25.0000% 3.4210% COUNTY FREE LIBRARY 13677% 1.4012% 1.3677% 1.3964% 0.0000% 0.000 0.0000% 0.0000% COUNTY SIRUC I- RE 111 E PIZO'TECTION 5.59170/ 5.7286% 5.5917% 5.7091% 100.0000% 5.7091% IAKEFLSINOREUNIFIED 31.4919% 322628% 31.4919% 32.1529% 0.0000% 0.0000% M I' SAN JACINI OJUNIORCOILEGE 3.7769% 3.8693 ° /a 3.7769% 3.8561% 0.0000% 0.0000% LLSINORP AREA FLEM SCHOOL FUND 6.9027% 7.0716% 6.9027% 7.0475% 0.00000/ 0.00000/ RIV, CO. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 3.8987% 3.9942% 3.89870/ 3.9806% 0.0000% 0.00on. RIV CO REG PARK & OPEN SPACE 0.3308% 0 3389% 0.3308% 0.3378% 0.0000% 0.00001y. FLOOD CONTROL ADM_INIS7RATION 0.2237% 0.2292% 0.2237% 0.2284% 0.00000/ 0.0000% 1 L OOI) CONTROL ZONE 2 0.00000/ 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.00000/ 0.00000/ FLOOD CONTROL ZONES - - 3,1963% 32745% 3.1963% 3.2634% - 0.0000% - -- 0.0000% COUNTY OR 11-GA TRAIL REC & PK 1.4290% 0.0000% 1.4290% 0.2037% 0.0000% 0.00000% ELSINORE VALLEY CEMETERY _ 0,9547% 0.9781% 0.9547% 0.9748% 0.0000% 0.0000% ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICII AL WA'I FR 9.6177% 9.8531% 9.6177% 9.8195% 0.0000% 0.0000% WESTERN MUNICIPAL WA FEI2 1.29380/ 1.3255% 129380/ 1.3209% 0.0000% 0.0000% WIS IERN MUNICIPAL WATER I STFRINGE. 0.00000/ 0.00000/ 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.00000/. 0.0000% RIVERSIDECORONA RESOURCE CONSER 0.0000 %. 0.0000% 00000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENT hUND 16.5217% 15.9422% 16.5217% 16.0248% 0.0000% 0.00000/ Total 1.0000 %n 1.0000% 1.0000% 1.00000/. 9.1301% Acres (d) 24.58 160.00 2.02 186.60 %of'Total 13.17% 85.74% 1.08% 100.00% Footnotes Source: FY 2013 -14 rates by Riverside County Auditor - Control lei's Office. (a) In additional to other ad valorem charges imposed by various local agencies, land owners in California are required to pay annual property taxes of 1% on the assessed value of their property pursuant to Proposition 13. Each County in California is divided into tax rate areas ( "TRA "). After One basic I %. property tax is collected by the county, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on each agency's share of the basic tax within the property's applicable TRA. This exhibit shows the share of the basic tax applicable to each of the three TRAs applicable to the project. (b) Shares of the basic tax that are received by the City for its General Fund and by the County for Pine Protection for each tax rate area are highlighted in bold print. (c) For purposes of One analysis, the weighted average tax rates were calculated based on the acreage of the TRAs within the Project. (d) Per land use information provided by the Planning Associates in May 2014. (e) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 25 °% of the County General Fund allocation will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis also assumes that County Structure Fire Protection shares of the tax will shift to One City since it is anticipated that the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after vmcxation. This analysis also assumes that Library and Regional Flood Control Services will continue to be provided by the County. Page 16 of 24 P: \RCDWerner- Elsinore \City FINReporkElsinore FIA Report Template Es L{bll A Car of Labe L)Isinm'e riscnl Ingram Anniysis Iobla3 Prnposad Land Ilse Assumptions Nichols Road Anne.calinn ' \ f Avg. liesidents Avcragc Itasidentinl ' - Sgntpo P. Vnlnc Assessed 'Ibm reel units ❑ ousehold Residents Per unit Vnhuuian Ilesidmrtial Land Ilse (a) (n) (b) Harbor Loongc 11i11slde Residential S tglc Faintly (a) 4,000 iQ 3 56 210 S (c) 400,000 $ 23,600,000 Subtotal 4,000 59 356 210 S 400,000 S 23600000 13nmic Product I Multi- Family (d) 703 46 3.56 164 S (d) 169,000 S 7,774,000 Ptnduct 2 Multi- Family (d) 675 32 356 114 S (d) 169,000 5,408,000 Produm3 Mule- Family (d) 739 ]OR 3.56 384 S(d) 169,000 18252000 Submml 719 186 356 662 S 169,000 S 31,434,000 I 'o lnl/Waighted Average 1,509 245 3.56 872 S 224629 S 55,034,000 Lm pinyee Assessed Nnn- Rasidontinl Nmt- Residential Non- Iesidential Pt jadion Value Assessed 'rune Sn. F[. Fwn NI aasrve lint plovees Per Sa. Ft. Vnhtatimt 60 (a) (a) h) Boona 13uiIdi',I Canon"'t.11 3,100 570 S, Itl -per ]it tploycc 5 S 16200 S 502.200 Ridding 2 Cmnntercial/Mlaed Used 2 32,320 570 Sg. I :t. per Employee 57 162.00 5,235,840 Building3 Commcmial3 3,350 570 Sq. Ft. per Empleyce G 162,00 542,700 Boilding4 Cott.... vl /MisedWod4 21,600 570 Sq. Ft. per Employee 38 162.00 3,499,200 Bnildin85 Conu.o,o,ol /Mixed 0Sed5 39,890 570 Sq. Ft. per F ioployee 70 16200 6,46 2,I90 Ruilding6 Commercial6 11,890 570 Sq. Ft per lonployce 21 162.00 1,926,180 Building 7 Coonncroial 7 9,325 570 Sq. Ft. per 6mploya 16 162.00 1,510 650 '1'mal 121,475 213 S 19,678,950 I otal Residential and Nan- Reidential S 74,712,950 Population Sununnry Iiasidcnts [1] 872 Lntployccs [2] 213 egrdvalam Residents@ 50% of Rmployeas [23x509A [3] 107 '1'oml Equivolem Residents ]13 +[31 979 footnotes (n) Per ]mtd use Infortnmion provided by the Planniug Associmes on 7/22/2014_ (b) City of Laka 131sinote average pct son, por household per California Dryortmam of 3$tancn, J inuury 2014_ (e) For illostratiot poll poses, obmin,d par san,a, ation with Client and review of DPFG dmnbase_ (d) N, the conceptual h d use plan pmpnrul by the Planning Assoomtes, dated 7/22/2014 tmd amnail, damd 7/23/2014. For illustration purpasos assumes hotne prices ranging Bonn $129,000 to $199,000. Page 17 of 24 P'. \RCh\Wernnr- ElsinorOCty FINRepodlElslnore FIA Report Template Exhibit A City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis Table 4 _ Property Tax Calculations Nichols Road Annexation Footnotes (a) See Table 2 for calculation. (b) Assumes Residential property is sold approximately every 7 years and Non - Residential property is sold approximately every 10 years. (c) The County may levy a transfer tax at the rate of $0.55 for each $500 of assessed value. A City within the County that levies this tax can levy a transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000. If both the County and City levy the transfer lax, a credit shall be allowed against the amount imposed by the County in the amount of tax that is imposed by the City per California Revenue and Taxation Code 11911. (d) 25% of sales and use taxes arc redirected to property tax per the Sales Tax Triple Flip. See Table 5. (e) Riverside County receives approximately 5.7091% share of the basic 1% property tax to fund structural tine protection services. Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis also assumes that County Structure Fire Protection shares of the tax will shift to the City since it is anticipated that the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after annexation. Page 18 of 24 P: \RCL \Werner - Elsinore \City FIA\Report\Elsinore FIA Report Template U \ \11 t.lU 1_J Table Property 'Tax Ref. Residential and Non - Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 74,711950 Basic Rate 1.000% Basic "Pax Paid $ 747,130 City Share of Basic Tax (a) 2 3.4210% Total Property 'Tax $ d. 25,559 Fire Protection Revenue Residential and Non Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 74,712,950 Basic Rate 1.00% Basic fax Paid 747,130 Structural Fire Fund Share of the Basic Tax (e) 2 5.7091% Total Fire Protection Revenue $ .42,654 Property Transfer Tax Residential Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 55,034,000 Residential Turnover Rate (b) 14.00% Value of Annual Turnover $ 7,704,760 Transfer Tax Rate (c) 0.0550% Total Residential Property Transfer Tax [1] $ 4.238 Non - Residential Non - Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 19,678,950 Non - Residential Turnover Rate (b) 10.00% Value of Annual Turnover $ 1,967,895 Transfer Tax Rate (c) 0.0550% Total Non - Residential Property Transfer Tax [2] $ L082 Total Property Transfer Tax [11+[21 [21 $$ '5,320: Property Tax In -Lieu of Sales -Tax Off-Site Sales Tax Redirected to Property Tax (d) 5 $ 6,119 On -Site Sales 'fax Redirected to Property Tax (d) 5 15.184 Total Property Tax In -Lieu of Sales Tax $ - 21,303 Footnotes (a) See Table 2 for calculation. (b) Assumes Residential property is sold approximately every 7 years and Non - Residential property is sold approximately every 10 years. (c) The County may levy a transfer tax at the rate of $0.55 for each $500 of assessed value. A City within the County that levies this tax can levy a transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000. If both the County and City levy the transfer lax, a credit shall be allowed against the amount imposed by the County in the amount of tax that is imposed by the City per California Revenue and Taxation Code 11911. (d) 25% of sales and use taxes arc redirected to property tax per the Sales Tax Triple Flip. See Table 5. (e) Riverside County receives approximately 5.7091% share of the basic 1% property tax to fund structural tine protection services. Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis also assumes that County Structure Fire Protection shares of the tax will shift to the City since it is anticipated that the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after annexation. Page 18 of 24 P: \RCL \Werner - Elsinore \City FIA\Report\Elsinore FIA Report Template I. On -Site Sales Tax Revenue Taxable Sales for Retail Land Use Building I Bidding 2 Building 3 Building 4 Building 5 Building 6 Building 7 Subtotal Taxable Stiles for Retail Land Use Tolol'rasable Sales Sales Tax (LI % of taxable sales) Use Tax ( @10.50 "% of sales tax) (b) Less 0,25% Reclassified to Property Taxes (d) 'Total On -Site Sales 'I'ix Revenue II. Off -Site Sales Tax Revenue Exhibit A City of Lit he Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis 'Table 5 Sines and Use Tax and MV1.F Calculations Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 Commercial I Commercial /Mixed Used 2 Commercial 3 Commercial/Mixed Used 4 Conunetcial /Mixed Used 5 Conuncroial 6 Commercial 7 Household Income (a) Retail Taxable Silos ((q32% of Household Income) (b) Projected Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured in City (n )50 %of Rebut taxable Silas) (c) Sales Tex (n I.00 %of taxable sales) Use Tax (Qa ] 0.50% of sales tax) Less 0.25 %Reclassified to Property Taxes (d) Total Off -Site Sides Tax Revenue 111. 1/2% Sales'Tax /Public Safety (Proposition 172) On -Site Public Safety Sales Fax Commercial Retail Taxable Sales 'total Direct Public Safety Sales Tax (f) Off -Site Public Safety Sales Tax Retail Taxable Sales 'Total Indirect Public Safely Sales fax (1) IV. Motor- Vehicle license Fee ( "MVLIr ") A. Nominal Dollm's Pioperty'Fix Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Assessed Valuation VLF Increase pet Assessed Valuation (AV) Increase VLF Increase lie" $1,000,000 increase in AV R. Prol erty "Tax In -Lien of Vehicle License Fee Assessed Valuation (Table 3) Assessed Vibration / 1,000,000 VLP Increase per 51,000,000 Increase in AV Properly Tax In4,Ru of Vehicle License Too Footnotes NonResidential Sq. Ft. 'Taxable Sales Total Generating Retail Sales(i) Per Se. Ill. Taxable Sales (e) FY 2004 -05 1 FP 2013 -I4 775 8A80 838 5,400 9,973 2,973 2,331 30,369 200 S 155,000 200 1,616,000 200 167,500 200 1,080,000 200 1,994,500 200 594,500 200 466,250 $ 6,073750 $ 6,073,750 13)0% 60,738 10.50% 6,377 0,25% (15,184) R .51931 f. $ (h) 1,998,027 S (g) 3,442,400 (11) 2,290339,805 (g) 3,880,458,820 =111 $ 6,073,750 0.50% $ . 1 30,369 =[21 2,447,491 0,50%77-71 I!... 12,232 Change HI 1,444,373 [21 1,590,119,015 `[11 /[21 0.000908 [31 $ 908 141 .$ per Fair Ammnt 25.0 5fi S 62,436 $ 15,296,820 32.0% 19,980 4,894,982 50.00/6 9,990 [2) 2,447,491 1.00% S 100 S 24,475 10.50% 10 2,570 0,25% (0) (6,119) $ 110 -20,9245 i $ (h) 1,998,027 S (g) 3,442,400 (11) 2,290339,805 (g) 3,880,458,820 =111 $ 6,073,750 0.50% $ . 1 30,369 =[21 2,447,491 0,50%77-71 I!... 12,232 Change HI 1,444,373 [21 1,590,119,015 `[11 /[21 0.000908 [31 $ 908 141 .$ 74,712,950 [51[41/1,1100,000 75 =[31 908 --[31`[8 $ (,7,539/ (a) 2008 -2012 median household income for the City arrive Elsinore per the US Census Bureau. (b) FlelU,S. Bulea0 of Libor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Snivel, 2008 which indicates that relail taxable purchases lepoesent approximately 32% oftotal household income for the average U.S. household. (c) Preliminary estimate for illustration purposes. (d) 25 %ofsales and use taxes are redirected to properly tax per the Sales Fix "triple Hip. (c) The PIA assumes sales at 5200 per square foot, based oa pear review continents from other FIAS prepared within the Riverside Cooney area O Represents the Proposition 172 half -cent Public Safety Sabes'I'ax, (g) Based on City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Adopted Budget. (h) Tel Division of Accounting and Reporting it the California State Controller's Office. (i) Assumes 25% of conunercial square feet is generating taxable relail sales. According to "I -able 17.134.010 of (he Lake Elsinore Municipal Code dated 3 /20/2012, uses such as financial institutions and medical offices are permitted under the Commercial Mixed use zone even though they are not sales tax generating establishments. Page 19 of 24 P9RCLMerner- Elsinore \City FIA\Report Elsinore FIA Report Template 1311.i1A CIp nR:d,a HIII.Irce 1111.1 All'. MWI C ..ern l l'u 7131 R..'.e¢vu ('al l¢l11'¢71 / \ �� N,,I In 117171,1 An „.v' 1)111 1711. �S S(IJ , �� III 121 !117121 °121 I41 °I71 \IAI 11(IA lly IN EIII I �IJ N.Y 1Y15 Pr¢l ecl Pnpu AA,rpmrl Mmr pL,ml C.nrnrl fq vl.nlenl t]prnalwn 4.71''711 l \rn rl ltnamrr H.fi 1171 tle¢1 Inamrc 4unrl M1im mm Uril. Feelna' Urr ila , \nro rrnt tm a) nn I I iI Y -rr -Sacv rtd I lJ S I M91,5'1(I Ir1J:. - .. -. -.. — _ ..Se. TV N-1 . .. ........ .. ._. 1 1• , li z-1 7113 1 .- ler[.rvN IpOga S..'I �lyt. ..._.......... _ ........ 1 In r. '(7111 or Y.-e S c eet AC 11 w e.d 71 7) 1111 () ((111 :0 IUU "o'I'oldr -- 1 I"rinIn err el Vl.II 71 I nr.l „Ic 71 2(I if71 c. bl., lux 7) 5,7.,iG 71 1111 °b "I", ec 111115 ji,I .P 1I. I2 Svlcrf a/I Il cln l.:) 71 )911100 100% ____. .._.__ \c l'"N' S lu l.a I.. L- i¢3 in l.ico 1151) 115 1lllll'r - ,1 ..............._. .ye'fnl.l[ 5 1 ae I.nln\'TOx 11 iii 25) ,01 111171 1 -,,l, ti 5J ".na 4,lon" IJIY lY5 )( WIG- 'lai 19 ooi000 l00% 9111, l000pu tur„I S51l-lpl ee ryn' z2n 7( .638 mJ$F30 1 ;,1 en ,c l'ti 71 )) to o9 r. 271.1 f' 5710so,.e npme elylx Iv )o; TnMl Trlavr $ 15 9i0fi1n . 215 $10111 >21J] 1.11111 &Rnnil. M-- 74 i$ 12410011 IoU% S 124 ItHl Ir:r cnfle('a If1 AO0 S I'll, 21) 5 1211, li Jel ,Flee ul Ill 74 11911(4-0 17: .._..... .- . -.._.. _._. .e Fw nrlc l.) .... ...- _._. -. . -..... I3ofl,1 ji 31'11 ivl in ¢rycairm l'ee 71 421 IA(. .SCC F,nru,melel N I, .111',1 ^1y R¢i.rrorn 74 11iflo u% ._ ....... .. ....__ .5- f•n.rr¢m 1p - _..... .. ..... rm1 ,1, 1¢111 i, I, 74 2ioW IUU" 2 Oft 0 ...... r1n 11,711 ool x71 n s lI 1^e 7171711 1 71 to Oun m495 Ill 1 uh5 `4er In I 0. rl¢R'^ 71916 u1S 919 151 . ...__.. .. t cr, el a ler \ -.l Ml .v inn 75 I(, L]U ..._ _.... Fanro,a(1J ......._ ......_. 1 cl „ I 75 IF< 0110 1h, U "/. l.. l'.aA ,IC (1.1 i ,,PO . 1 ell, abrioli¢uuln_v 75 5(lou rvs AAA ( S hz- NVUla'.7171; ry 75 oM ._..__- — .. 1 1, ar v,¢,mcO 75 "Ill 21.000 Ir„mlrilu Sti ]11 oli ]07 1 11 Il.11t 75 4(.100 'Oitl, 1011% p:(alrira 1R.I II 7,II "I fi, ISM1 i-I Avvu¢l l'a.,ea 75 �IO,000 IooY Ii U11LL I*"c "1'1171 711 0.71 Ili o15 II Ill I.alinclr l2-- Prone 75 1% [`''1171'71 Irt 5.714 172 M72 I II nn.nk l'v'lm llry $ 51040.025 F 74('.910 As& 5 � !11:J42� filll-]Rese¢oe st"ll icv 71, $ - 11191 S pc. cn pilu 1,;718 1 - 172 f ( 10 ] ,mrull[R 71 21,000 U: P.,IUm nIJ1 - - - -- - -- .,¢Mi 0¢.I Rc .emrnl 73 25,000 4% -Sa llo .ve . liv7e ,v ]l � U% I) ,. Fx m¢(JI -_- r.� JGl 71 I:r,�imnn,en rn l tic...... i,,, 75 U;: ..................... ............................... lca l "n,u,e.1e 141 .... I., I..W Ill Rl,hill,l l 75 LR00 01 .._.._.._. ..._...... _ ......... ...... .. ......... \V',i¢(l ant II'vlI 75 ),500 ll, 1clp -`I,,,l ,(I) • rnnu 6,¢n'll,. ,fI lit 75 luoo0 0% M, -ca to olc(r0 .' F IU- la„n)(trenl 75 - 0'h -"" m,(4 - Ill S13_J213,alc ]hit ('[Inl 75 11,2117 ti,v l'o: m,0 S U(i l'(I lemtl ontl Gr¢nQ 75 7.000 (11 (114 .__....__.......... _ .... ................. _.._ 1'„ 11,71 171 me( o)._.._........._... ................... ........... . IM1n .i...it nl lie,(nue 75 ]0.000 Sal- IA III -I,, I.AAn IJV" .r l2Jiel 75 ,100110 hly Uh il,"(J) -.sre 1113 1¢(J1 TM MW lt W-- $ I41L107 S ) 11'11' eca fa, Srn'" swil, I'Lu.n.c4� moil 75 $ IMlilI i -Y.v-I Faa:. 75 50,100 UYn "I'llm1, 2115&(7`lie, /I'lun¢inp 71 270.11 Ill 8a l'wlo ............................ ....... ..... II Ii F re T1, 75 TilkU ...... 5e. 1'v.rnit( 1 Pi'm R ¢il I"i lm fva 74 lo2,700 It. 0% fir<Px 1cm(I) -I (, ¢r 5vn2.� 74 2.740 )11 -__.. .._.. ..Sm! ^. mau (c� ap.NaTwFa 74 7,111 0% -vuJx 7113 (e fit, ., :II'll, .m Pe¢ n 74 11,200 I'Il e,c l'av 4 OLN1 1'h Sca l'r.� rna fe) 1',.1.1". ..r lF, 14 74 ilt, o% hvl r.- „n¢fcJ 1 IM.- P.c 74 0"71 t.,1 _.___._... nos. C'oPiea 74 'Ill, )nm Us l", gee 141��m, 1. w) Far 11,, 1I'l.111 7J 101 OY. -YevY 1- AtIll A4 e . 1'e,. IS ti2Ilil ItIl'i A eAM1 . .'nl l'.a7 71 2i 010 I'll - .- .__ -. -.- .. .... h.Fm� a1c l 1J .......... .- .- .._.. -._. L. '-Alo 71 2io0U 0% I-I .�1 71.(11 V 1 -Lnm . -I .... 74 11 I'll, 1w. ___... ..__. v.v Fv „e( l i'l.,ce.crw V,1-1, r rMelana¢ji 74 711)1 a Y .__._ ..... .. ......__.. .... ,m¢m( ) nl eirt +i ru 74 - 11 1.1 'meta I i ( 1v," 11,111 x 21veu 74 - -:aI n1,m ll.I'd 14AHJ5mul Llcvw Fm 76 - Ill R`r6 -Sec llv 1)m (JI Park Ua'1'ecc 74 2(I0J0 IOJwe 20000 Ini wlri,u SI,I IN f.L 1 µI2 )pI Ili 11 liti 1)31)1 P�rl II Ill, 70 2110 Y. "'I nnl¢fol -_I A,1-11. 14:-alx ei e.., n¢m5,5 7!. (,IXO ll wU% J for opo¢ 31:71, 11 0.71 eu 12 1 ill,g R¢nn¢e 7e 112, 1111'/. rs N:J 1712 evpim Hrn, 2 i e72 :p>rs N"15 1,. -1111 ww 7e ill z110 1: A:e F n, ,,,e (m 3161 U.m1 74 _11)00 111095 1 1 „¢sa5 o^PO7.x .1911 1115 979 .i, IN 11 '/U 1_ 01 IUOV 1011 7 1 1 a,e "il 1)`1'71 e, 11 "1 0.15 9]9 151 1141,.1. AI �I kmP Cila lirmr 71 511 10046 S 1 „C X„6 1.111, II „I 9]9 Admi, Ia m upl]el'e 75 "I'll) 9 - ',. "n 111) nl In. {11 mue lTpl. Mi - Ye. P,e y,1 711 r s4 14 74 711)1.00 1✓ -Sel'+ ,.I, (al 13 II FII' l4„kr ,Mal 74 I7 \10 U:b _. .. _._ .... Fa nma 1.1 .....__. .. _..._. -.- �11', ,111¢ 4,3 75 2(14111 196 wrye(1) '141 t'o'A 75 15,.)00 0% "I1 ]�. I' 43,4:(,1 Ill,1 5 I.' A -.'nt 11 111 no IS ,O.((0 (IY. sxRl 1 ..1 , ra s, mem 16 70,1011 m4 J 1'1 nli.c 7.1 IOO 1011 U?: :. F nn la ltll ... ..._.._ ..._... I ,"i...r 'I I(I' 4' ^fu 1' &�n5,e, ) 521 I.IOU 1115( C )_II,[- S «fi I9.: Page 20 of 24 I 1i 11AIRIIII'Ll, 111t, Ill hill II1111 Y \Mbil A ' I III 1111.x11. ENi- v Fil-I lrnllxl1111x11'111 1x111.4 4,nl,i 1'1111,1 lEa'r.lnle CulrlJxli11ns A3. f PI 121 111411 = -1;1 N] °I`IXIII n,lne.r I'r 11111 -IA N,, 1111' rrllJ.a r114x nnxplm Nn, 111..1 Gnlnvl rlpl6al11rll Allxiaxlnl, lk. -111Il. dR- x 1?,L Mid, Inane 0md Mm IAid I'numr Vnlln 01 1.) 871..1 F.I'M, ... l 11,11, F u): 919 S S)t 1]OiWC le + 55956 m11111a�)'c 1. 1 Ice 1 5.10 S ly:all 1003:. r A ... 1i.lxhl, 14 "1 370 ItIO IOIF /n ( V`1u1ic l5 35 ->0 In7y. NA .1 SIi1, /A li.o ,11x11111 'Ifi v1v 120](011 0% Mill 1.141, 1 ,il 979 S 1'19 9(10 M TIC it luli.,x, ]1 5 111[)0 IOa °4 1' II" tiY VRielrcr F MPrellxn,n,ls Ill...... -- -tiaJ' 11 _ 1!aminl,x ]: 5 INS.100 -.. L ., lil Im -111111 IzN (,' rl. a¢) 11 S 10,0I0 aryl k' W,F, r:ldilma 7: 100000 IM iA, iPral*�l, 91 s n °h Il 1 IA .11,,1 11 S (11 li v ]i 20,001 1111 I Jz lro, RIJA .__... ]]1],11 .amt. tA 111211 I :e 11 "1 -sr'1; 111111.. 0 I.MIIII'IJ= -Mnim1 P - a ?4 F t I'oc Cmlin iJ 20001 110 Il9 °/ 1.1 1 1 - s -vlxx chat ]J 1111111. 0 ?l, 1.1 1 ill I111 I'll I VI ]J ]1 1155 1150 Iwo 11.11- rl - ]J N71 lo[ - C /: k'1 t- Aw 15 11,111 .aa1 *•IC n L11 ll .'.rl 11111h 1 111,.11. ti 1,000 1 01 Il f" ,S�fiin R.,a x. 'I± Ala 47 0011 Ill rza I1 Jtu6 -lrFc ovm >; % o% Itull1,I,, 111 KR i00 100% A N,ll ]fi x91 .11 16 t1100 r orilx 11 1 n 74 Prz 7 -.o mnM k.nmIx:xr111on11ns color 19 F'I2 ]1000 mar. k.m1m -11xM1, ]n 1I1 gwo loo °6 km1A {1JlurnlCwv ]fi 172 0,0110 m0 "/n a.nlm.cm.x 14 111,1100 IM "G a.gcul:- ............. 1Lau0 100 °� lt......1, 11 r. s. 5.1111.1.. -cJ.x "I ]rs __ ..__ _. ...... a I I 1 ]a __ __.. "I'll O I'll, -1 1.14 I.. or 13....e1111{'µ - IOa% C l n(Il11oa - 109 "!a A 'S u M J / , 1111 e.miJeox 90 . . .. PA1, r It, aMmlmxly ]J - I(091i 1 It l.rc Y1x,himl ]R - 10.911 M ( v NI 'IR 2,0110 101911 'h 1 CI IJ'n rnrks ]R 6549afi Ion% R. l -P 1111..111: kx At Ra. ]n 9_..... 11111)0 10055 Nnrl1p l ..111x1 71 5,311,110 IaU% '1'111 IMI 11 n,m 13-11111] F 5,19] 119 Tmllslereln r,ealtr m.Ymm 1115 1; s 1 11 15,..11 o% I h4l 11165 I. 1 0105 n offi ..lf- rr ml rrx .r.m -m s 55,501 'r"I AL GFNe1En1. I`IioD kFNI-0NUG, s 2]115511 S 111001 1. 11,11, F u): 919 S S)t 1]OiWC le + 55956 m11111a�)'c JI'll, 5.10 'P9 1,51 Lai000 1 I , (SOYn rn111!.10: (J 41A II.i9 "1 J]] .. 5 1 rle(JI -' - -' - ryas agV'l< 41. IN v1v 100). 5 1,.11 - ,]11, 979 S 1'19 9(10 I. ]9 5 :fi�fi91 fl) -- -tiaJ' -.. .... 1 V 1111) .__... 1 Se.. FV+ 1111(1) .__... .amt. ViV (JI_ -sr'1; 111111.. t9 I 15001 Ix a'1I'a 51,711 rA)E ]1 1150 Iwo 11.11- 54716 (1 12 N71 lo[ - ._... _._._ _. .SU lilV 110 .m (d) - - - -- Soo 11,711 l m Ala x _. .__ 5.c 1'1x, , qd) 111. I"TrW , IN 11.52 KR 3,000 Iwr apllx 11] s5,91N 1151 x91 .11 16 t1100 r orilx 51,711 1109 Prz 11 3,1100 llm.. x1`111 51,711 F'I2 1g00o IV'"PLl. 54]19 17i 1I1 limo I I,00S h -�xrJx 54]IN o.lv 111 172 1e9 pp ............. ... 4mI" meld) .. .. __ ..__ _. ...... s (d) .....__ __ __.. __.._. .._. I s,.. r., ,mute) -sw Pm -ao(J1 _ ..__... _.. ._. SVare, (J) - -. _. __.... . . . . .. .V ..... $ IIS,NO 9 2111 9_..... ?I: }]fi: "I . _._ 4w 11ro ,mld)- -.. ........ .. ...._._ z F s S 1,17 7 9111 va ,lMl� (.1r<r 1151111-... mtill.l. vmml v�mr zau -zulJ nn.,9�.unw7xl __ ._ _ ml'1'11ry 1,71 ,1 V. .1,, 11- I)r f ill 21111 n II, 'i IlG11 I:11kyr,md 0.N p,mi 11"l v1,11fNW lmi rar l`-ra (; -J5Le 112, Ill- I'll y11.1 .n ,.d „"1.51 ` 1 11..111 :.d lxr .I. rtrr ll ..ly.rll. all 10il "'All.11 (e1 A, I'll ..II.. a 1 1+. Jla'Inlacl 11 1,x:11 p1mg 1 -- I .-1111. (Aj A, :I ,Jlll I'll oml 1- 111 111115 Page 21 of 24 C 10CtWR, e, 11 r,ll, 11A11l,10111, mill Rmul irm Wl. Exhibit A City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal I,npoel Analysis fable 7 Cenend build Ea'pmtditnrc Caladmlurss Nickals build Anncxntion CityClcfl, 112 S 365,181 50% S 182,591 let a,oti &50 %enploycc 64,918 S 2.81 970 S I..� City Manager's Office 122 $ Dl [2] 10421`[37 141 131x147 979 ;S budget FY 2013 -14 \'e, City Prolecl Page Gm,eral ilivai General Equivalent 887,322 kgni.mlead S Genefal Fund ExPCnditorrs Iief. Farad Inmeasa JV I Measm v Cuts 10¢Im Units A,nonnl (a) (it) 979 2,279 (It) 140 465,540 City Cnnncil 232,770 par capita & 50 % employee 64,918 3.59 1179 3,569 In fonnmloll lochnology Division 143 City Council 83 S 255,681 50% S 127,841 pet capita S 5W%nnpinyca 64.918 S 1 07 979 S 1,927 Public Safely Advisory ('.otnnh, 86 6/155 5WN, 3,225 pet capim & 50%emplayoe 64018 005 979 49 (coon Cogt 89 IO,000 50% 5,000 pct capita & 50 %anploycc 64.918 0,08 979 75 'foal City Council 167 S 272,131 6,241233 S 136,066 $ S 2.10 SecTableA <S 21051: City AM, ney 103 S 325,000 50% S 162,5001 oc, ,,ota &50 %employoo 64,918 S 2.50 979 .S 2.449`, CityClcfl, 112 S 365,181 50% S 182,591 let a,oti &50 %enploycc 64,918 S 2.81 970 S 2,752, City Manager's Office 122 $ 474,952 50% $ 237,4761 le, apla &50ao amployaa 64,918 S 360 979 ;S 3,579] A Lhi t ive Services Finance Division 133 $ 887,322 50% S 443,661 percapita &50 %employee 64,918 S 683 979 S 6,697 Human Resources 137 302,425 5M, 151,213 per capita R 50 %en,Ployee 1 233 979 2,279 Risk Managemenl Division 140 465,540 50% 232,770 par capita & 50 % employee 64,918 3.59 1179 3,569 In fonnmloll lochnology Division 143 581,277 50% 29(1,639 percapita &50 %anploycc 64918 448 979 4,381 Tat of A,bnntsh attic, Set vices S $tiG,5G4 S 1,119,282 S 17.23 IS 16,856' Genelnl live Enfm annul 153 S 10,667,850 100 °o S 10,667,8501.' pim &50 %cipl,,,, 04,918 S 16433 979 S 160,795' Fit, Services(1) 167 S 6,241233 100% $ 6,241233- SecTableA Cnnvnnnily yv%vh moad Planning Commission 181 S 14,941 0% S Sce FOOtnofc(c) Plano' m, 184 920,384 0% __- ___---.-....--- Sca Foolnme(c) &, Weing &Sole 187 930,364 0% - - Sae Footnote (c) ('.doing Code Enl'ome,nm,t 191 353,589 0% - -- -Sec Fumnote (c) - - - ---- - - - - -- Cc000miel)evel9pment 195 194,545 0% _ ------- --- .-- .--- -- ------- - - - -soc Footnote (o)- ------- .- ...- .... ---- ----- -- Ti l Conlin it, Devittapment S 2,413,823 S - >3 Pnhlie Ill ks Petinearin, 206 S 1541938 ON S -------------- Sac17.1 IV) ---- -------------- -------------- Grvironn victual Set ,ces 210 35,895 25% 8,9]4 per caplm&50 %employee 64,918 0.14 9919 135 Emergency Se ... ecs 214 63,000 25% 15,750 percapita &50 %culli 64,918 0,24 979 237 Public Works AdminisvnGou 217 277,176 0% ------ - - - - - -- Se, l'outicto(g) Sheet& Side xolR Mocioucteo 221 720,548 25% 1vi137 per cali to &si %anplo)ea 64,918 2,77 979 -. 2,715' Vehicle& Equipmcnl Maintenance 225 476,375 25% 119,094 it, vcpim &51 anploycc 64.918 183 979 I ?95 Grolfdi Moue,lance 229 168,599 25% 42,150 pu epim &50 %ongdoyce 64,918 0,65 979 635 Well Abatemout 232 490,928 25% 122,732 par capim&51 anploycc 64,918 189 979 1,850 Offset f n Emulated Cly LLMD Reveotos(If) (2,715). 'total Public Win hs S 3 ?79,459 .S 498,836 $ 7.53 Sa.. _4,653 Y- 1mlei Packs, and 12wrol Cmmnunity Set ,. All stra0iun 246 $ 332,148 0 ^/o S - per capim & 50% ,nployce 64,918 - 979 - Lake Conic n,nityC,.i 250 459,693 25% 114,923 percapita &50 %employee 64,918 177 979 1,732 S,uuv Ce've, 254 203,700 25% 50,925 percapita &50 °o employee 64,918 078 979 76S Paeility Maintenance 258 315,431 __% 71 per cap its le 50 %amPloyre 64,918 121 979 1,189 Parks Mninlananeo 263 1,212,337 25% 303,084 percapita &501 %employee 64,918 467 979 4,568 Lake Ad fifteen 267 808,102 cei S - ,I, apita &50 %empluyce 64,918 - 979 - Beat Leitch Facility 272 2 7,020 25% 6,755 per capita& 5096 en...Ili 64,918 0 t 979 102 Lake Waver Opemtioos &Mainta,oti 275 650,000 25% 162,500 1. ercapita &50 %cmployce 64918 250 979 2,449 Lake Acrntloo.Symicn, 0 &if(it) 278 257,303 71% ---- - - - --- --See Foomole i --- ---- Attnnal (•onmil 281 738,624 25% 189656 per capita & 50 %enployee 64918 2.84 979 2,783 01fmt from Estimated City LI MD licvulues (h) (13,591) Total Lake, Pat ka, and live'eation S 5,004 358 5 901,701 S 13.89 ?S - Nun -li Intent 0,i lit ing Personnel C9str lteti,xe Health Premiums 286 S 602,700 100% S 602700 per ri,ov.f &50 %employcc 64,918 S 9,28 979 S 9,084 ('ontmemal Services 286 1;200,000 0% Sec Fe'lnnle(e) ------------- -- AVatcnaHmdSu,i 286 1,500 0% --- - - - - -' -See Fnotome(c) - - "- Debt Service 286 1,200,0001 0'1,,) See Ireotome (c) Tubil Nan Dep t'I nv i Op,aalmg -- ,004,200 S 602,700 S 9.28 '$ 9,084:: Gr send '1'ubd General Fund S 34,784,751 S 20,739,235 S 202,220 (a) Per City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Yeaf 200 -2014 Adopted BLidgel. (b) "I lit( Population of5e,718 pa the eahf9nlia Dept_ of Fance ax of 3mwary 2014.'fol al enploy,uam of 16,400 per dlc Calif mia Gnploymenl Developmad Depa,Ine I as of May 2014. For per capim and 50% anploycc fmtors, cmpleymcut av:rs reduced by 50% to account Ib, the eslinm W Icss frcqucm use ofcity Public mrvicca by anpl0'cca than "V iloau. (c) COmmunity Do"It"' :veal and Engincaring expenses are assumul to be onset by fees and charges. (d) Aestnes Poajeel will not i,npzet costs u,ociated ,11, ll,o ibuns and maiatili of lake aeration s,loci, of With the esccption of rebrec hcnitb pre :nitn,v, tl,c Prolem is not aminpxted Io Ill, ,,cu, ton non- departnem operating coss . iPerthePFh, e l Setvus for Melodic Road Annca(u, to of like I -viu, axa'glry sot , set , e.v l he 11 alect a-hh xla at c based o, a )e -e4, I resident appoch. (g) Assumes Project xvill not nnpact costs associated with public works admi lotlitlon. (It)Axv ors sm.orant lit by Poled1.ptlafal fic tech hill he o(Iset tlhohuh fill fcp,(oh ill a LT Lightll tad Lntd,alv Nb termccDst'ct_Icr Itollau of Scn'ecs le' NVI.. is 11.(t,exafoh to the City of lake blsuhac died Ad, 2014. tia,.I -rd the Po...t ,,Ilpr i,.'i. ohe, it c(.t,f'l(,,, dlund 1 r( ortat a d st'..1, It,, uc -b tc-Ied crot ch City fglffg std l: td"c"ve maintenance distria Fatlicipatl nn are expected I n"fl," Plojcct Co'I, Page 22 of 24 PNCL,Werner-eslnoreAeny PIAU:eI,ortElslnme Fw (iepod Teotplale Exhibit A City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis fable 8 Fire Services Cost and police :laid Fire Services CFD Revenue Niebols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 1. Fire Services Cost Service Calls by Land Use (a) Service Call Allocation by Land Uw Fire Budget Allocated by Land Use Unit ol Measure City Residents /Employees (b) Cost per Resident/Employee Project Residents /Employees Fire Cost 11. Police and Fire Services CFD Revenues Revenues per Unit (FY 2014/15) (c) 'Total Units 'Total Services CFD Revenues Footnotes (a) Per lire Elsinore Battalion 2 response data in the Riverside County. Fire Department in Cooperation with Cal Fire Annual Report 2013. (b) Total population of 50,718 per the California Dept. of Flounce as of January 2014. Total employment of 16,400 per the California Employment Development Department as of May 2014. (c) per the Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation to One City of Lake Elsinore, dated July 2014. P: \RCL\ Werner- ElsinorelCily FIA\Repor lsinore FIA Report Template Page 23 of 24 Table Ref. Total Residential h9111ti- Family Residential Non - Residential 27 19 4 4 100% 70% 15% 15% [1] 7 $ 10,667,850 $ 7,507,006 $ 1,580,422 $ 1,580,422 City Population City Population Employees [2] 56,718 56,718 16,400 13 l°[ $ 132 $ 28 $ 96 141 2 210 662 213 �[3] °141 ? $ x,167 $ R 27,795 $ 18A46 S 20,526 'Total / W(d. Avg. Detached Attached $ 302 $ 487 $ 244 245 59 186 $ 14,0W y $ 28,757 $ 45 328 (a) Per lire Elsinore Battalion 2 response data in the Riverside County. Fire Department in Cooperation with Cal Fire Annual Report 2013. (b) Total population of 50,718 per the California Dept. of Flounce as of January 2014. Total employment of 16,400 per the California Employment Development Department as of May 2014. (c) per the Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation to One City of Lake Elsinore, dated July 2014. P: \RCL\ Werner- ElsinorelCily FIA\Repor lsinore FIA Report Template Page 23 of 24 Exhibit B City of Lake Elsinore Fiscal Impact Analysis Nichols Road Annexation Area Boundaries Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 s90 +za -an? (RC'.) 533 AC 389-210-008 (N kho1; Rd. Ps x LLC) IS AC 3S9 -210 -436 (Ni <hal: Rd. Fnrmers LLC') 1x02 AC 390 -21 (BLk2) '?i 120 A 120 Ac 396 -270- 009 (RCA) es.0s Ac 359 -210 -031 (Nkhols Rd. P., tuers,. LLC') 0.91. AC {'il<hnL Rd. Fanners, LLC) 160 Ac 359 - 310 -RF {El;iuore Union High) (,.Sl A( ' + 389 -210 -032 {ti<hata Rd. { Pnefnere, LLC) 339- 210A39 tEtsioure L'nian High) 48.04 acs Per the Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, dated July 2014. Page 24 of 24 FISCAL IMPA FOR THE NICHO ,Vql,q irtners, LLC By: DIL DEVE[OPMFNT PLANNING , FINANCING GROUP TION County of Riverside Fiscat Impact Analysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Table of Contents Page Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis ProjectDescription .............................................................................. ............................... 2 LimitingConditions ............................................................................. ............................... 3 General Sources of Information and Methodology Used in FIA ......... ............................... 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis Conclusions .................................................... ............................... 5 General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Revenue ............................. ............................... 6 1. Existing County Zoning Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B- 1) :............... 6 PropertyTax ..................................................................................... ............................... 6 Property Transfer Tax ..............................................................:::....... ............................... 6 Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fees ("VLF"). ......... ............................... 7 Salesand Use Tax .......................................................................::.. ............................... 7 Property Tax In -Lieu Sales Tax ................... ......................... ......................... 7 On -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax ..................::............................ ............................... 8 Off-Site Retail Sales and Use Tax ................................................ ............................... 8 Interest Earnings .................................................... s::....................... ............................... 8 Other Revenue Sources ................................................................... ............................... 8 2. Proposed Project Use Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B- 2) :.................. 9 Property' Fax ..... ............................... ......................... .......... ............................... 9 Property Transfer Tax ...................... ......... ......... .......... ............................... 9 Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (" VLF "). ......... ............................... 9 Salesand Use Tax .......... ............................... ................................. ............................... 9 Property Tax In -Lieu Sales Tax... ......... .......................... ............................... 9 On -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax .............`.................................... ............................... 9 Off -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax ........ ........................ ............................... 10 Interest Earnings ......... ......... ......... ........................ ............................... 10 Other Revenue Sources ... ......... .....` ................................... ............................... 10 General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Costs ................................ ............................... 11 1. Existing County Zoning Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B- 1) : ............. 11 General Financing Requirements ................................................... ............................... 11 PublicProtection ............................................................................ ............................... 11 .Judicial ........................................................................................ ............................... I 1 PoliceProtection ......................................................................... ............................... 1 1 Detention and Correction ............................................................ ............................... 12 Fire Protection ( Forest) ............................................................... ............................... 12 Protection and I nspection ............................................................ ............................... 12 OtherProtection .......................................................................... ............................... 12 Flood Control / Soil and Water Conservation ............................. ............................... 12 Public Ways and Facilities ............................................................. ............................... 12 Healthand Sanitation ..................................................................... ............................... 13 PublicAssistance ............................................................................ ............................... 13 Education, Recreation and Cultural Services ................................. ............................... 13 DebtService ................................................................................... ............................... 13 2. Proposed Project Use Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B- 2) :................ 13 Page 1 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation General Financing Requirements ................................................... ............................... 13 PublicProtection ............................................................................ ............................... 14 Judicial........................................................................................ ............................... 14 Detentionand Correction ............................................................ ............................... 14 Protectionand Inspection ............................................................ ............................... 14 OtherProtection .......................................................................... ............................... 14 Flood Control / Soil and Water Conservation ............................. ............................... 14 Public Ways and Facilities ............................................................. ............................... 15 Healthand Sanitation ..................................................................... ............................... 15 PublicAssistance .......................................... ............................... i ;.............................. 15 Education, Recreation and Cultural Ser vices ........................:.: Y..... ............................... 15 DebtService ........................................... ............................::: : ..... ............................... 15 Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Fire Fund............ .......: ..... ............................... 16 Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Library Fund ...... ......... ......... - ..................... 16 Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Flood Fund......... ......................... ..................... 17 Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Transportation Fund ...................................................... 17 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A: Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario Summary Exhibit B -1: Existing County Zoning Fiscal Impact Analysis Exhibit B -2: Proposed Project Use Fiscal Impai Exhibit C: Nichols Road Annexation Area Bou Page 2 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Analpsis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Purpose of Fiscal Impact Analysis Development Planning & Financing Group has prepared this Fiscal Impact Analysis ("FIA ") to determine the estimated fiscal impacts on the County of Riverside ( "County ") in connection with the proposed annexation of five of the ten uninhabited parcels ( "Project ") included in the Nichols Road annexation as shown below. 'The Project proponent is currently pursuing annexation into the City of Lake Elsinore ( "City "). The primary purpose of this FIA is to estimate the Project's fiscal impact to County fiords for two development alternatives: 1) Project remains and is developed in the unincorporated County under the current County General Plan land use and zoninlr designation ( "Existing County Zoning °) and 2) Project is annexed to the ON and developed under the current City's General Plan The proposed Nichols Road annexation is a collection of ten parcels covering approximately 666.66 acres located in the unincorporated area of western Riverside County, California, as shown below. Description ParcelNumber s Acres Project Harbor Lounge 390 - 230 -005 160.00 Bowtie 389- 210 -008 389- 210 -032 389 -210 -034 389- 210 -036 26.60 Subtotal 186.60 Other Parcels Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") (Open Space) 390- 270 -007 390 - 270 -009 76.21 Bureau oflnnd Management ( "BLM ") (Open Space) 390- 230 -008 360.00 Blsinore Union High .School District (a) (Public Facility /Public Institutional) 389 -210 -039 389 -210 -037 43.85 Subtotal 480.06 Total 666.66 (a) Ownership information obtained fiomtitlepro247.com The FIA does not take into account the five parcels owned by the RCA, BLM and Elsinore Union High School District. Because the RCA and BLM parcels are zoned as open space and will continue to be zoned as open space post annexation, and are uninhabited, no fiscal impact is anticipated through the annexation process. The existing Temescal Canyon High School is not assumed to have an impact as the land use will not change upon annexation. Page 3 of 67 County gfRiverside 1 7iscallruhactAua4ysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation A side -by -side summary of the key results under each development alternative is provided in the Fiscal Impact Conclusion on page 5 and Exhibit A. A detailed analysis of the Project fiscal impacts on the County funds is provided in Exhibit B -1 for the Existing County Zoning alternative and Exhibit B -2 for the Proposed Project Use alternative. The reader should be aware that the FIA contains estimates or projections of the Project's future revenue and cost impact on the County, and actual fiscal results may vary from estimates because events and circumstances can occur in a manner different than described in the F1A. Project Description The Project is a collection of uninhabited parcels, lo, of western Riverside County, California, and within of Lake Elsinore. The Project is located on the north of and near the 1 -15 freeway. The "Bowtie" portio Nichols Road, and consists of four (4) parcels totalin portion of the Project is located north of Nichols R totaling 160.00 acres. The Harbor Lounge and Bi collectively the Project: iteda within ;the unincorporated area lie Sphere of Influence of the City nd south side of Nichols Road east of the Project is located south of 2660 acres. The I Jarbor Lounge" ad, and consists of one (1) parcel vtie parcels as shown below are REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK 2 Page 4 of 67 Residential Non - Residential Description Parcel Number(s) Acres Units Square Feet Harbor Lounge 390 -230 -005 150.00 59 - Bowtie 389 -210 -008 26.60 186 121,475 389- 210 -032 389- 210 -034 389-210-036 Total 186.60 245 121,475 REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK 2 Page 4 of 67 County ofRinerside Fiscal lmpactAnalysis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Limiting Conditions The FIA is subject to the following limiting conditions: • The FIA contains an analysis of recurring revenues and costs to the County from development of the Project. The FIA is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from DPFG's research, interviews, telephone discussions with County staff, and information fi-om DPFG's database which were collected through fiscal impact analyses previously prepared by DPFG and others. • The sources of information and basis of the estimates are stated herein. While we believe the sources of information are reliable, DPFG does not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information. • The analysis of recurring revenues and cost impacts to the County contained in the FIA is not considered to be a "financial forecast" or a "financial projection" as technically defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The word "projection" used within this report relates to broad expectations of future events or market conditions. • Since the analyses contained herein are based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DPFG cannot represent that results will definitely be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections. General Sources of Information and Methodology Used in FIA The FIA was prepared in accordance with the general methodologies outlined in the County of Riverside Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports ( "County FIA Guide "), dated January 1995. Per the County FIA Guide, the methodology used to determine the allocable revenue and cost impacts to County Funds as a result of the Project's development is a combination of case study methods and multiplier methods. When projecting fiscal impacts using a multiplier method, the FIA determines per capita /employee impacts by applying the appropriate per capita, per employee and per capita and employee factors ("Factors") to the Project land use assumptions. The Factors were calculated using the County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recommended Budget; Factors for the entire county were calculated for revenues and costs that affect the entire County and unincorporated Factors were calculated for revenues and costs that only affect unincorporated parts of the Comity. Cost and revenue factors are projected in 2013 dollars, and are not adjusted for inflation; however, in accordance with the County of Riverside Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports, each year the cumulative residential and nonresidential assessed value from prior years, which is used to calculate property tax revenue, is deflated at a rate of 0.45 %(Calculated by subtracting the 2.00% limit on annual increases in assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 from the historical average U.S. inflation rate from 1993 to 2013 of 2.45 %, per lnflationData.com). 3 Page 5 of 67 December 5, 2014 Coanty qf Riverside Fiscal Impact Analysis Nichols Road Annexation Information used in preparing the FIA was obtained from the following sources: 1. County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Recommended Budget 2. County of Riverside 3. The Planning Associates (land use information) 4. The California Department of Finance (population information) 5. The California Employment Development Department (employment information) 6. Riverside County Sheriff's Department (police cost case study information) 7. Riverside County Auditor - Controller's Office (fiscal year 2013 -14 share of the basic tax information) The following table shows selected assumptions used in the FIA: Assumptions Existing County Zoning -.. Proposed Project Use Residential Units (1) 186.= 245 Weighted Average Price (f) $._ =' 169,000 $ <. 224,629 County Share ofthe Basic Tax (c) 13.6840% 10.263000% Library Fund Share of the Basic Tax (e) 1.3964% 1.3964% Fire Fund Share ofthe Basic Tax (c) 5.7091% 0.0000% Flood Control7Anie 3 Operations Share oftlie Basic Tax (e) 3.2634°/ 3.2634% Fiscal Year Budget 2013 -14 2013 -14 County Residential County Population (a) :,. 1279.967 2.279967 Residential Population in Unincorporated Section (a) 363.590 363,590 Residents Per Household (a) 3.56 3.56 County Employment (b) 869,600 869,600 County Employment in Unincorporated Section (b) 116,500 116,500 Property Tax Deflation Factor (d) 0.45% 0.45 Non - Residential Square Feet (n ., $ 121.475 $ 121,475 On -Site Sales and Use'I'ax Gerieration Rate per Sq. Ft. (e) $ 200 $ 200 % Non - Residential Square Feet Gehemting Sales (g) 25% 25°% (a) Per the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2014. (b) Per file California Employment Development Department, May 2014. (c) Per Rivet-side County Auditor /Controller, See Table 2 in Exhibit B -I and B -2. (d) The FIA assumes an annual assessed value deflation factor of 0.45% (Calculated by subtracting the 2% limit oil annual increases in assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 from the historical average U.S. inflation rate from 1993 to 2013 of 2.45 %, per hlflationData.colil). (e) Source: DPFG estimate based on peer review comments on other Riverside County FIAs. (1) Per the Planning Associates, See 'fable 3 in Exhibit B -1 and B -2. (g) Assumes 25% of commercial square feet are generating taxable sales, See Table 5 in Exhibit B -1 and B -2. Page 6 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Conclusions The FIA examines the financial impact the Project will have on the County's General Fund ( "General Fund "), Fire Fund ( "Fire Fund "), Library Fund ( "Library Fund "), Flood Control Zone 3 Fund ( "Flood Fund "), and Transportation Fund ( "Transportation Fund "). If developed in the County, the Project is anticipated to result in a net annual deficit of $(26,942), The Project will generate income for the General Fund primarily through property taxes and property tax in -lieu of MVLF while increasing the need for County on -going public services. If annexed into the City, the project is anticipated to result in a net annual surplus of $23,661 to the County. The County will receive General Fund revenues mainly through property taxes, but the County will still be required to provide some public services, such as public health and sanitation, judicial, and general finance. The results of the FIA are summarized in the table below: Description Table Ref. Existing f'onnty :Zoning I'mposea Project Use Exhibit Reference ' B-1 13 -2 Recurring Revenue 4 5.6 1 $ 213,925 $ 86,169 Recurring Costs 8,9 `- $ 153,421 - `$ 70.135 Surplus / (Deficit) $' 60.504 $ 16,035 Per Unit $ '325 65 fit - Recurring Revenue 10 $ 29,794 $ RecurringCosts 10 $ 81,276 $ - Surplus /(Deficit) $- (51,482) $ - Per Unit $ (277) $ - Recurring Revenue 11 ` $ 7,392 $ 10.651 Reem ing Costs 11 $ 5,944 $ 7,568 Surplus / (DefieiO - $ 1,448 $ 3,084 Per Unit $ 8 $ 13 T'ralls.inni -t- 71�' 1114' Reewring Revenue 12 $ 16,137 $ 21,244 Recurring Costs - 12 $ 13,118 $ 16 -702 Swplus/(DeficI)`.:: $ 3,019 $ 4,542 Pel Unit $ 16 $ 19 Tiooa)Cortitril7piie- 3()Ixtntions - - N' Recurring Reventie 13 $ 17,030 $ 24,580 Recurring Casts 13 $ 17.030 $ 24,580 Surplus /(Deficit) $ - $ - Per Unit - NedTisenl Impact ofproject - RecurringRevenuc $- 284,278 $ 141645 Reclining Costs $ 270,789 $ 118,984 ' Surplus / (Deficit) $ 13 -489 $ 23_,661 Per Unit $ 73 $ 97 5 Page 7 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal lmlmctAnalysis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Anne_eation General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Revenue 1. Existing County Zoning Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B -1): Property Tax In addition to other ad valorem charges imposed by various local agencies, land owners in the State of California ( "State ") are required to pay annual property taxes of I% on the assessed value of their property pursuant to Proposition 13. Each county in California is divided into tax rate areas ( "TRA" or "TRAs "). After the basic 1% property tax is collected by the county, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on each agency's share of the basic tax within the property's applicable TRA. Exhibit B -1, Table 2 shows the share of the basic tax applicable to each of the three TRAs; applicable to the Project. In 1992, to meet its obligations to fund education at specific levels under Proposition 98, the State enacted legislation that shifted partial financial responsibility for funding education to local governments (cities, counties. and special districts). The State did this by instructing county auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues to educational revenue augmentation funds ( "ERAF") to support schools. As such, the FIA calculates a weighted average share of the basic tax after the shift of revenue to ERAF. Since the Project is within three different tax rate areas, the FIA calculates a weighted average post -ERAF share of the :basic tax based on acreage. The FIA assumes that the County wil l receive 13.6840 %, post -ERAF, of the I% ad valorem property taxes assessed to property owners within the Project (See Exhibit B -1, Table 2). The County will receive $71,413 per year in residential and non- residential property taxes at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 4. The County's share of non - residential property tax also includes an unsecured property tax component estimated at 10% of the secured property taxes levied on non - residential property pursuant to the County FIA Guide. The County receives the property transfer tax as new or existing property is sold and ownership is transferred. According to the Riverside County Recorder, property transfer tax is collected upon the sale of property at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of valuation. The FIA assumes a residential turnover rate of 14% of total assessed value per year and a non - residential turnover rate of 10% of total assessed value per year. See Exhibit B -1, Table 4 for the detailed calculation. Property transfer tax is projected to total $6,883 at buildout. 6 Page 8 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Analysis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Property Tax In -Lien of Vehicle License Fees ( "VLF ") Revenue amounts are calculated on a valuation basis. Property tax in -lieu of vehicle license fees is projected to total $48,888 at buildout. See Exhibit B -1, Table 5 for the detailed calculation. Sales and Use Tax Under the California Sales and Use Tax Law, the sale of tangible personal property is subject to sales or use tax unless exempt or otherwise excluded. When the sales tax applies, the use tax does not apply and the opposite is true. The sales tax is imposed on all retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property in the state of California and is measured by the retailer's gross receipts. Use tax is imposed on purchasers of tangible personal property from any retailer for the purpose of storage, use, or other consumption in this state and is measured by the sales price of the property purchased. However, if an out -of -state retailer is engaged in business in this state, it is required to register with the State of California and collect the use tax from the purchaser at the time of making the sale. There is a 7.50% statewide sales and use tax base rate that is collected by the State of California. Since January 1, 2013, the State government has received 6.50% of the 7.50% and local governments receive the remaining I% which is transferred to the local government's general fund. This analysis assumes use tax revenue at 10.5% of sales tax revenue. Property Tax In-Lieu Sales Tax This analysis assumes that 25% of sales and use tax is redirected to property tax per the Sales Tax Triple Flip ( "Triple Flip "). In March 2004, voters approved Proposition 57, the California Economic Recovery Bond Act which allowed the State to purchase bonds to reduce the State budget deficit. The legislature enacted provisions that changed how sales and use taxes and other revenues are distributed to schools and local governments on and after July 1, 2004. These changes will remain in effect until the State Director of Finance notifies the Board of Equalization that the State's bond obligations have been satisfied. Under the new revenue "swapping" procedures commonly referred to as the Triple Flip, the local government portion of the statewide sales tax rate will decrease by 25 %, and the state portion will increase by 25 %. The County Auditor in each county uses property tax revenues to reimburse the county and cities within the county. County Auditors set aside some funds from the County Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund and place them in a Sales and Use Tax Compensation Fund. In January and May of each year, the State Director of Finance instructs County Auditors to allocate revenues from the Compensation Fund to the county and to the cities within the county. Revenue amounts are calculated based on the on -site and off -site sales tax calculations. See Exhibit 13-1, Table 4 for the detailed calculation. Property tax in -lieu of sales tax is projected to total $15,184 at buildout. Page 9 of 67 County of'Rineside Fiscal Impact Analysis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation On -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax The FIA assumes that the County will receive sales tax revenue from taxable purchases made within the Project. The FIA assumes sales at $200 per square foot, based on peer review comments from other FIAs prepared within the Riverside County area, and that only 25% of non- residential commercial square feet will generate taxable retail sales. This analysis assumes use tax revenue at 10.5% of sales tax revenue. See Exhibit B -1. Table 5 for the detailed calculation. On -site retail sales and use tax is projected to total $51,931 at buildout. Off -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax The County will also receive sales tax revenue from taxable purchases made by Project residents within the unincorporated areas of the County. - 73owever, such revenues have not been projected in the FIA as it is assumed to be a negligible amount based on the location of the Project relative to likely retail shopping destinations. The primary retail outlets serving the Project are located in the City of Lake Elsinore and other surrounding cities. Interest Earninas The County earns interest on dollars held in the General Fund and other County Funds. Investment earnings, as specified in the County FIA Guide, are estimated using the historic average interest rate of the 90 -day Treasury Bill. The analysis assumes a rate of 1.58 %, the I0 -year historic average interest rate of the 90 -day `treasury Bill. In 1994, the County FIA Guide calculated a historic average interest rate of 6.98 %. Interest earnings are calculated on property tax, property transfer tax, and sales tax. See Exhibit B -1, Table 5 for the detailed calculation. Interest earnings are projected to total $2,063 at buildout. Other Revenue Sources Certain fines and penalties and miscellaneous revenues are projected to total $17,564 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B-1, Table 6. All other General Fund Revenue sources including, federal revenue sources, state revenue sources, charges for services, license and permit revenue, and other revenue have been netted against the costs that they are earmarked to offset in the Budget. The remaining net cost to the general fund in each major cost category is described in detail in the following section. 8 Page 10 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation 2. Proposed Project Use Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B -2): Property Tax It is anticipated that upon annexation, the County will require the City to enter into a tax sharing agreement. For purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that upon annexation, 75% of the County General Fund allocation will remain with the County and the remaining 25% will shift to the City. Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after annexation. This analysis also assumes that Library and Regional Flood Control Services will continue to be provided by the County. The FIA assumes that the County will receive 10.2630 %, post -ERAF share, of the I% ad valorem property taxes assessed to property owners within the Project. The County will receive $77,303 per year in property taxes at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 4. Property Transfer Tax The County receives the property transfer tax as new or existing property is sold and ownership is transferred. Post Annexation, the County's portion of the tax will be $0.55 per $1,000 of value transferred. The FIA assumes a residential property turnover rate of 14% of total assessed value per year and a non- residential turnover rate of 10% of total assessed value per year. See Exhibit B -2, Table 4 for the detailed calculation. Property transfer tax is projected to total $5,223 at buildout. This analysis assumes that upon annexatior license fees will shift to the City of Lake detailed calculation. Sales and Use Tax Property Tax In -Lien Sales Tax This analysis assumes that upon annexation will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. calculation. On -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax 100% of the property tax in lieu of vehicle Elsinore. See Exhibit B -2, Table 5 for the 100% of the property tax in I1CL1 of sales tax See Exhibit B -2, Table 5 for the detailed This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 100% of the on -site retail sales and use tax will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. See Exhibit B -2, Table 5 for the detailed calculation. Page 11 of 67 December 5, 2014 County of Riverside Fiscal ImImet Analysis Nichols Road Annexation Off -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax The County will also receive sales tax revenue from taxable purchases made by Project residents within the unincorporated areas of the County. However, such revenues have not been projected in the FIA as it is assumed to be a negligible amount based on the location of the Project relative to likely retail shopping destinations. The primary retail outlets serving the Project are located in the City of Lake Elsinore and other surrounding cities. Interest Earnines Investment earnings have been projected for the County using a rare of 1.58 %. Interest earnings are calculated on property taxes, property transfer taxes, and sales taxes and are projected to total $1,307 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 5. Other Revenue Sources Other revenues such as franchise fees, certa miscellaneous revenues are projected to total $2,3 2, 'Fable 6. All other General Fund Revenue sour state revenue sources, charges for services, license have been netted against the costs remaining net cost to the general fu the General Funding Projected Recr fines and penalties,, and certain at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B- -- -,: A• mg federal revenue sources, it revenue, and other revenue to offset in the Budget. The > ory is described in detail in REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK to Page 12 of 67 County O'Riverside FiscallmPact Analysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation General Fund Projected Recurring Fiscal Costs 1. Existing County Zoning Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B -1): The FIA assumes that many costs will increase marginally as population and employment increase as a result of the Project. General Financing Requirements General government costs are used to establish and maintain legislative, executive, financial, and non- departmental positions within the government. In the FIA, these costs are calculated as a percent of direct general fund costs. As seen in Exhibit B -1, Table 7, the FIA assumes a 50% marginal increase for most general government costs since general government costs are not anticipated to have a I:I relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature, and relatively small size of the Project. Legislative and Administrative related costs are assumed at a 100% marginal increase. Based on the Budget, general government costs are anticipated to be $20,475 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Public Protection Judicial The FIA uses a per capita; approach to project increases to recurring judicial costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County judicial costs of 25 %. Judicial costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring judicial costs of $9,856 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Police Protection Projected recurring police protection costs are estimated using the case study approach. The FIA estimates a cost per sworn officer based on total police costs identified in the Budget and the estimated number of sworn officers included in the Budget and multiplies the cost per sworn officer by the number of additional officers required to service the Project. The police protection calculation is based on a service standard of 1 officer per 1,000 residents, per conversations with the Riverside County Service Goals and Strategies. The FIA projects recurring police protection costs of $79,244 at buildout as illustrated in Exhibit B -1, Table 9. Page 13 of 67 County afRiverside FiscallmpactAnalrsis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Detention and Correction The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to recurring detention and correction costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County detention and correction costs of 50 %. Detention and correction costs are not anticipated to have a 1:I relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring detention and correction costs of $20,723 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Fire Protection (Forest) The FIA assumes that the Project will not increase the County Forest Fire Protection Costs that are budgeted to protect undeveloped land. Increases to structural fire protection costs will affect the Fire Fund, which is examined in a separate section later in this report. Protection and Inspection The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to protection and inspection costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County protection and inspection costs of 50% for agricultural commissioner, and 0% for code building & safety. Protection and inspection costs are not anticipated to have a I:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring protection and inspection costs of $119 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Other Protection The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to other protection costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable other protection costs of 100 %. Administration related costs are assumed a 50% marginal increase. Other protection cost: are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the - Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring other protection costs of $7,657 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1. Table 8. Flood Control / Soil and Water Conservation The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to flood control costs, and assumes a marginal increase of 100% in applicable flood control costs. The FIA projects recurring flood control costs of $301 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Public Ways and Facilities As seen in Exhibit B -1, Table 7, all public ways and facilities costs are non - General Fund expenditures, and are completely offset by incoming revenue. The fIA projects no recurring costs at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. 12 Page 14 of 67 County (#'Riverside Fiscal bry)act Analysis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Health and Sanitation The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to health and sanitation costs and assumes marginal increases of 50% to 100% in the applicable health and sanitation costs. Health and sanitation costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth fi-om the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring health and sanitation costs of $13,448 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Public Assistance This analysis assumes that future Project residents will require minimal aid from the Riverside County Department of Social Services and projects 'a marginal increase in aid program costs of 10 %. The FIA assumes that the project will affect a 1:1 increase on all other applicable public assistance costs. Using a per capita approach, the FIA projects recurring public assistance costs of $1,405 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Education Recreation and Cultural Services Using a per capita approach, the FIA projects recurring education costs of $194 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -1, Table 8. Debt Service The FIA assumes that the Project will not have a fiscal impact on the County's debt service costs. 2. Proposed Project Use Development Program Alternative (Exhibit B -2): The FIA assumes that many costs will increase marginally as population and employment increase as a result of theProject. General Financing Requirements General government costs are used to establish and maintain legislative, executive, financial, and non- departmental positions within the government. In the FIA, these costs are calculated as apercent of direct general fund costs. As seen in Exhibit B -2, Table 7, the FIA assumes a 50% marginal increase for most general government costs since general government costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature, and relatively small size of the Project. The FIA also assumes a 25% marginal increase for most Legislative and Administrative related costs as it is anticipated that many of these services will be provided by the City post annexation. Based on the Budget, general government costs are anticipated to be $3,618 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. 13 Page 15 of 67 County of'Riverside FiscallmpactAnalysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Public Protection Judicial The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to recurring judicial costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County judicial costs of 25 %. Judicial costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring judicial costs of $12,982 at buildout as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. Detention and Correction The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to recurring detention and correction costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County detention and correction costs of 50 %. Detention and correction costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring detention and correction costs of $26,385 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit -B -2. Table 8. Protection and Inspection The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to protection and inspection costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable County protection and inspection costs of 50% for agricultural commissioner, and 0 %r for code building & safety. Protection and inspection costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring protection and inspection costs of $152 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. Other Protection The FIA uses a per capita? approach to project increases to other protection costs, and assumes a marginal increase in applicable other protection costs of 100 %. Administration related costs are assumed a 50% marginal increase. Other protection costs are not anticipated to have a 1:1 relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring other protection costs of $6,796 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. Flood Control / Soil and Water Conservation The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to flood control costs, and assumes a marginal increase of 100% in applicable flood control costs. The FIA projects recurring flood control costs of $383 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. 14 Page 16 of 67 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Analysis December S, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Public Ways and Facilities As seen in Exhibit B -2, Table 7, all public ways and facilities costs are non- General Fund expenditures, and are completely offset by incoming revenue. The FIA projects no recurring costs at buildout, as shown in Exhibit 13-2, Table 8. Health and Sanitation The FIA uses a per capita approach to project increases to health and sanitation costs and assumes marginal increases of 50% to 100% in the applicable health and sanitation costs. Health and sanitation costs are not anticipated to have a l :I relationship with population growth from the Project given the infill nature of the Project and the relatively small size of the Project. The FIA projects recurring health and sanitation costs of $17,713 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. Public Assistance This analysis assumes that future Project residents will require minimal aid from the Riverside County Department of Social Services and projects a marginal increase in aid program costs of 10 %. The FIA assumes that the project will affect a 1:1 increase on all other applicable public assistance costs. Using a per capita approach, the FIA projects recurring public assistance costs of $1,851 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. Education, Recreation and Cultural Services Using a per capita approach, the FIA projects recurring education costs of $255 at buildout, as shown in Exhibit B -2, Table 8. Debt Service The FIA assumes that the Project will not have a fiscal impact on the County's debt service costs. REST OF PAGE LEFT BLANK 15 Page 17 of 67 County gfRiverside Fiscallny)actAnalysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Road Annexation Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Fire Fund To calculate the Project's fiscal impact on the Fire Fund, which is used to fight non- forest fires and provide paramedic service, the FIA projects recurring revenue and costs to the Fire Fund. Under the Existing County Zoning alternative, the FIA projects recurring revenue by determining the Fire Fund's share of the basic 1 % property tax for the tax rate area in which the Project in located, as shown in Table 10 of Exhibit B- 1. The share of the basic tax of 5.7091% yields recurring Fire Fund revenue totaling $29,794 . The FIA uses the per capita method to calculate recurring costs to the Fire Fund. At buildout, the Project is projected to have a negative annual fiscal impact of $(51,482) on the Fire Fund. A summary of the Project's fiscal impact on the Fire Fund for the Existing County Zoning alternative is shown in Exhibit B -1, Table I0. Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis assumes that County Structure Fire Protection share o$the tax will shift to the City since it is anticipated that the City will assume the responsibility for providing these services after annexation. Therefore, there will be no Fire Fund revenues generated by the County, and fire protection costs will be shifted to the City. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Library Fund Exhibit B -1, Table I I summarizes the Project's fiscal impact on the Library Fund. To calculate the Project's fiscal impact on the Library Fund, the FIA projects recurring revenue and costs to the Library Fund. The FIA projects recurring revenue by determining the Library Fund's weighted average share of the basic I% property tax for the tax rate areas that compose the Project, calculated in Exhibit B -1, Table 2. The weighted average share of the basic tax of approximately 1.3964% yields recurring Librarv.Fund revenue totaline $7392 . The FIA also projects the Project's share of revenue related to fines and forfeitures and use of library assets using a per capita approach. Recurring library costs were projected using a per capita approach. The Project's fiscal impact on the Library Fund is summarized in Exhibit B -1, Table 11 for the Existing County Zoning alternative and Exhibit B -2, 'fable 11 for the Proposed Project Use alternative. 16 Page 18 of 67 County of'Riversirle Fiscal Impact Analysis December 5, 2014 Nichols Roar/ Annexation Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Flood Fund Per the Adopted Budget, Flood Control Zone 3 Operations are funded using a reserve approach. Each year a portion of the revenues are allocated to fund current year expenditures through a share of the 1% property tax rate for the tax rate area, with the remainder allocated to fund the Fund Balance. In years when expenditures exceed revenues, the Fund Balance is used to pay the difference, maintaining a balanced fund. As such, DPFG assumes this fund remains balanced, with financial requirements equaling financing sources. Under both the Existing County Zoning and Proposed Project Use alternatives the Flood Control Zone 3 share of taxes is 3.2634% yielding recurring revenue of $17,030 under the Existing County Zoning alternative and $24,580 under the Proposed Project Use alternative. This money is shifted into a °fund that fully funds any financing requirements. The Project's fiscal impact on the Flood Control Zone 3 Fund is summarized in Exhibit B -1, Table 13 for the Existing County Zoning alternative and Exhibit B -2, Table 13 for the Proposed Project Use alternative. Recurring Fiscal Impacts to the Transportation Fund The Transportation Fund funds ongoing road maintenance costs as well as the construction of large transportation projects. To estimate recurring road maintenance revenue, the F1A projects gas tax using a per capita method. According to the Transportation Fund administrative office, the. transportation expense line item listed in the Budget includes all of the Transportation fund's road maintenance costs as well as some non - recurring expenses. however, the FIA does not adjust for non - recurring expenses and projects ,recurring -road maintenance costs using a per capita method and assumes 100% of the transportation expense amount is used to pay for recurring road maintenance costs under both development alternatives. Under both development alternatives the Project is projected to have a positive annual fiscal impact on the Transportation Fund. At buildout, the Project's positive fiscal impact on the Transportation Fund is $3,019 under the Existing County Zoning alternative and $4,542 under the Proposed Project Use alternative. The Project's fiscal impact on the Transportation Fund is summarized in Exhibit 13-1, Table 12 for the Existing County Zoning alternative and Exhibit B -2, 'Table 12 for the Proposed Project Use alterative. 17 Page 19 of 67 Raddb'd A Itiva rm, Cmn01 Fiseal 11npnct An,dysis Pisenl lnqumt AIInIysLa Seemaill Sent nutty Nmb lk Road At nexmlon _Decem6u 5,2014 Rcsidenb' 1ltnln 6n.Ployccs Ref. Key Aullmptimts 'fable 3 It".dcntial lJeit, 'fable3 NV,i81a,d A,e,a, bunt, Price Table 3 Non- Itesldem,,,l Squme FaG Tnblc 3 % Non - Residential Syuale Fcel Gm+amting 9nlca 'I'vble5 Retail Sgovrc Pcm 'febl,5 1'00061, S,ler Vkr Sgmm Feat 'fnblc 5 '1'oml OnSitc'lasable Sales 'I able 5 AbsoTtiot +Period Table3 'Puler Assured Rcnidnniel Veil, (130ke, Dc160ian) "fable 3 '1'9ml Afiur «I N.,i Re,edenti,l Vnluv (13dtre DeOvb9n) "fable3 I elal Ansessed Value (13efure Dctlation) T,ble3 Rcsidenb' Table 3 6n.Ployccs Tablc3 'Toler Residents and Lmploycu 'fable 3 'focal Resident, and 50% Fdapl9yees '1061,, 3 1.Genend Rind S cenertd F +Ind rmaneina s,tme,a '1',619 I1 h c,,Jly Tac -fable 4 I +r.PCny I'ne Ill Lieu of Sale, -l'aa "fable 4 Doemnenmry'frnafcr Tax 'fnbl,4 Pmpcny'I'ax W -Lieu u(NIVL17 Table 5 On -Slur Retell Seles and USC "far '10619 5 Interest 17"1 gs Table 5 Other Disorclionnry Revenue 'I'eble 6 Toth Financing Some,, Tame 13 cenend Fend Financing Regttinentents 'fable 13 Gmtevvl P in,n9mg Requirements '1,61,8 Public Protection S ,judicial Table 8 Parke Prmecti0n 'fable 9 Dot,ne.,,,ed Qrtrcdicn 'fable 8 Fire Protection (n) Protection and Ins0ecG9n :able 8 Other Pr9tection Table 8 hood Convol /Soil and Water Conservation 'fable e Pnblic W,y, R fncilitics fable 8 14,mdt,nd Sanitaton Table 8 P,bhe Assistance Table 8 Rdueenrii, Ree',il Imul Cultural .Services Table 8 Debt Scrvicc Table 8 'I otal Finnncing Re(limetneltts 1,223 Net Aaanal Surplus / (Deceit) 48,888 Rove�me /Cost R.,1 II. Inv FnnA Scet iol: Financing Soure,a '1'0619 10 Finmtcing Itequiremclnx 'fable 10 Net Aanmtl Surplus / ( Defeit) 186 Ill. Library Fund S Puna l,,, Sel,,,r '1',619 I1 Flemming Requiremens 'fable I1 Net Annn >II Snrpbls I (Deficit) LY 'ilantsnormtlon Fund 25','� Finxnme, Sources ' lable 12 1'invncinB Req,limmemc Table 12 Net Atnntnl Surplus /(DerciO S 200 V. Flood Canenl' /., e 3 0,einfieles Illind 6,073,750 he;le', Sanmex Tame 13 linanking ltclnje.11 1011 'fable 13 Net Annnnl Sill Plus / (De0cil) 31 434,000 VI. Net Pisenl lm oct t f 11, e S 1: aneie, Smil," $ 19,678,950 Fie..,,, Rcsµlirclnenls 51,112,950 Net Apt l lid Sin li , (Deficit) F991n91cr. (n) See analysis nl'Coun.. Fir, Fund in'I'nble 10. PlFilL. n-11lzlnolo+eaumv FNIReeMl111 nme 111 "'.1 Page 20 of 67 Scet iol: Sunnrill 2: Cxisling Cnm,lr' /,onin8 Propnmd Proi"( use 186 245 S 169,000 S 224,629 121,495 121,415 25% 25','� 30,369 30,369 200 S 200 S 6,073,750 S 6,073,950 10 la S 31 434,000 S 55,03 000 S 19,679,950 $ 19,678,950 $ 51,112,950 S 74,71 950 662 8'12 213 213 875 085 769 979 S 71,413 S 77,303 15,184 6,893 1,223 48,888 - 5I,931 2,063 1,307 17,564 2,337 S 213,925 S 86,169 S 20,475 S 3,618 S 9,856 $ 12,982 79,244 - 20,723 26,385 119 152 7,657 6,796 301 383 13,448 17,713 1,405 1,851 194 255 S 153,421 $ 70,135 $ 60,504 _ S IQ035 1.39 1.23 S 29,794 S 81,276 S (51,482 ) S S 7,392 S 10,651 5,944 7,568 S 1,448 S 3,084 S 16,139 $ 21,244 13,118 16,702 S 3,019 S 4,542 S 17,030 S 24,580 17,030 24,580 _ s S 284,278 S 142,,645 270,789 118984 23,661 Page 20 of 67 Exhibit 13 -1 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario I: Existing Comity Zoning Table I - Riverside. County Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 1. General Fund General Fund Financing Sow ces Property Tax Property Fax In -Lieu of Sales -Tax Documentarv'fransfa Tax Property'fax In -Lieu ofMVLF On -Site Retail Sales and Use Tax Interest Earnings Other Discretionary Revenue Total Financing Sources General Fund Financing Requirements I'able Per Percent 12ef. Unit Ruildmtt of Total Table 4 $ 384 $ 71,413 33.4% 'Pable4 82 15,184 7.1% Table 37 6.883 3.2% Table 5 263 48,888 22.9% Table 5 279 51.931 243% Table 5 11 2,063 1.0% I'able6 94 I7564 8.2% - $ 1.150 $ 213.925 100.0% General Financing Requirements Table 8 $ 110 $ 20,475 13.3% Public Protection Judicial Table8 53 9,856 6.4% Police Protection Table 9 426 79,244 51.7% Detention and Correction Table 8 111 20,723 13.5% Fire Protection (a) - - 0.0% Protection and Inspection Table 8 1 119 0.1% Other Protection Table8 41 7,657 5.0% Flood Control /Soil and Water Conservation fable 8 2 301 0.2% Public Ways &. Facilities Table 8 - - 0.0% Health and Sanitation fable 8 72 13,448 8.8% Public Assistance Table 8 8 1,405 0.9% Education. Recreation and Cultural Services Table 8 1 194 0.1°% Debt Service Table 8 - - 0.0% Total Finaoeing Requirements $ 825 $ 153,421 100.0% Net Annual Surphts / (Deficit) $ 325 S 60,504 Revenue /Cost Ratio 1.39 11. Fir c Fund Financing Sources Table 10 $ 160 $ 29,794 Financing Requirements 'fable 10 437 81,276 Net Annual Surplus /(Deficit) S (277) S (51,482) Ill. Library Fund Financing Sources 'fable II $ 40 $ 7,392 Financing Requirements Table 11 32 5.944 Net Annual Surplus /(Deficit) S 8 S 1,448 IV. Transportation Fund Financing Sources Table 12 $ 87 $ 16,137 Financing Requirements Table 12 71 13,118 Net Annual Surplus /(Deficit) S 16 S 3,019 V. Flood Control Zone Operations Fund Financing $OnrceS Table 13 $ 92 S 17,030 Financing Requirements (able 13 92 17.030 Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) S S - VI Net Fiscal Impact of Project Financing Sources $ 1,528 S 284,278 Financing Requirements 1,456 270-789 Net Annual Sur plus /(Deficit) S 73 S 13,489 Footnotes: (a) See analysis ofCounty Fire Fund P: \RCL \Werner - Elsinore \County FIANRoporeElsinore FIA Report Template Page 21 of 67 Exhibit B -1 Riverside Calmly Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario l: Existing County Zoning Table 2- Riverside County Post -ERAF Share of the Basic Fax Calculation Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 NTO JUNIOR COLLE( .E AREA HI.EM OFPICE Of ED RIV CO 7.071 o� 0.3378°/ i., wry h KUL /1Unu. L Share of Tax Prim' to Annexation 400001% Transfer to County FLOOD OOD CON I ROI ZONE 3 Tax Rate Area (a) 3.2745 % Weighted City after Share after Agency (b) 065 -001 065 -029 065 -090 Average (c) Annexation (e) Annexation GENERAL 13.4027% 13.7308% 13.4027% 13.6840% 25.0000% 10.2630% C OUN'I'1' FREE LIBRARY _ 1.3677 /0 1.4012% ].3677% 1.3964% 0.(10(10 % 1.3964 %_ COI s'112IiCTURF; FIRE 1'12O' F CTION 5.5917% 5.7286 % 5.591T% 5.71M1 % 100.0000 % 0.00(111 " /° LANE. ELSINORE UNIFIED 31.4919% 32.2628 % 31.4919 °/ 321529% _ _. -... NTO JUNIOR COLLE( .E AREA HI.EM OFPICE Of ED RIV CO 7.071 o� 0.3378°/ i., wry h KUL /1Unu. L 0.0000% 400001% 0.0000% 0.0000% FLOOD OOD CON I ROI ZONE 3 3.1963 % 3.2745 % 3.1963% _ 3.2634'% 0.110(10% 3._2634% COIIN TY ORIFGA IRAIt REC' &1'K_ 1.4290% 0.0000% 14290% 02037% I LS1NO128 VAI I I,Y C HMI: fl?RY 0.9547% 0.9781 % 0 9547% 09748%__ 11 SINORI;VALLEY MUNICIPAL 96177% 9.8531% 96177% _ 98195% WESTERN MUNICIPAL WAl I R _ - 1.2938% 1.3255% 1 2938% 1 3209% WESTE RN MUNICIPAL WAIT IL 7STIgiINGh . - -_ - _- _..._. 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% --___- 0.0000 %_ RIVERSIDE, CORONA RBSOURCF, CONSER - 0.0000% -- 0.0000 % -6 owi/ _ OOOn0% - UUCA '1'IONA3,RHVHNUEAUGMENCI'UND 16.5217% Total 1.0000% Acres (d) % of Total Footnotes 24.58 160.00 13.17% 85.74% 2,02 186.60 1.08% 100.00% Source : FY 2013 -14 rates by Riverside Courtly Auditor- Controller's Office, (a) In additional to other ad valorem choges imposed by various local agencies, land owners in California are required to pay annual property taxes of 1% on the assessed value of their properly pursuant to Proposition 13. Each County in California is divided into tax rate areas ( "TRA "). After the basic 1% property tax is collected by the county, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on each agency's share of the basic tax within the property's applicable TRA. This exhibit shows the share of the basic lax applicable to each of the three TRAs applicable to the Project. (b) Shares of the basic tax that arc received by the City for its General Fund and by the County for Fire Protection for each tax rate area are highlighted in bold print. (c) For purposes Of the analysis, the weighted average tax rates were calculated based on the acreage of the TRAs within the Project. (d) Per land use information provided by the Planning Associates in May 2014. (e) This analysis assunhes that upon annexation, 25% of the County General Fund allocation will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore. Per fable 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis also assumes that County Structure fire Protection shares of the tax will shift to the City since it is anticipated that the City will assunhe the responsibility Cor providing these services after annexation. This analysis also assumes that Library and Regional Flood Control Services will continue to be provided by the County. R,RCL,we, Eloncr°, e°"" rvrArReaohMsin°reFIARer°dTemnae Page 22 of 67 24.0529% \ \ \� ]!) }§ � / »1 e r =. /\\ \2 }\ \ \ \\ )]C[ % % \ \ 2 �\jj\� \� 9 ! !!) r =. /\\ \2 }\ \ \ \\ )]C[ % % \ \ 2 Exhibit B -1 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 1: Existing County 'Zoning Table 4 - Riverside Comity Property Tax and Documentary Transfer Tax Calculations Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 1. Property Tax 'Fable Residential Property Tax Ref. 'Total Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 31A34,000 Total Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (FY 2039/40 Buildout) (a) 30,817,117 Basic Rate 1.000% Basic Tax Paid - Residential [I] $ 308,171 Non - Residential Property'Tax "Total Non - Residential Assessed Value 3 $ 19.678.950 Total Non - Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (FY 2039/40 Buildout) (a) 19,427,046 Basic Rate 1.000% Basic Tax Paid - Non - Residential [2] $ 194270 Non - Residential Unsecured Property Tax as a% of Secured 10% Total Unsecured Property'fax [3] $ 19,427 Total Basic Tax Paid - Non - Residential [2] +[3] =[4] $ 213.698 'Total Basic Tax Paid - Residential and Non - Residential [l] +[4] =[5] $ 521,869 County General Fund Post -ERAF Share of Basic Tax [6] 2 13.68403% Total County General Food Tax Share [5]X[61 =[71 $.[ 71,g13 =. n, Property Tax Inn -Lien of sales -Tax Add On -Site Sales Tax Redirected to Property 'Fax (b) 5 $ 15.184 Total Property Tax I» -Lieu of Sales Tax (e) $ 4 Ill. Documentary Transfer To Residential Turnover Rate (d) 14% Total Residential Assessed Value Adjusted Im-Deflation Factor of 0.45% (Table 14) (a) $ 30,817,117 Value of Annual Turnover 4,314396 Transfer'I'ax Rate (o) 0.1100% Total Residential Documentary Transfer Tax $ 4.746 Non - Residential' Turnover Rate (d) 10% Total Non - Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% ('Table 14) (a) $ 19,427,046 Value of Annual Turnover 1,942,705 Transfer Tax Rate (c) 0.1100% Total Non - Residential Documentary "Transfer Tax $ 2,137 Total Documentary Transfm- Tax (1) $ j 6,983 Footnotes (a) This analysis assumes an annual assessed value dcflation factor of 0.45% (Calculated by subtracting the 2% limit on annual increases in assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 from the historical average U.S. inflation rate iiom 1993 to 2013 of 2.45 %, per hnflationData.com). (b) 25% ofsales and use taxes are redirected to property tax pet the Sales Tax Triple Flip. See "fable 5. (c) 'The County may levy a transfer tax at the rate of $0.55 for each $500 of assessed value. A City within the County that levies this tax can levy a transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1000. If both the County and City levy the uansfer lax, a credit shall be allowed against the amount imposed by the County in the amount of tax that is imposed by the City per California Revenue and'Taxation Code 11911. (d) Assumes residential property is sold approximately every 7 years and non - residential property is sold approximately every 10 years. (e) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 100% of the property tax in -lieu of sales tax will shift to the City. PARCL\ Werner - Elsinore \Cow,Iy FIA\Repoa\Elsmore PIA Report Template Page 24 of 67 Exhibit 11 -1 1iverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 1: Existing County Zoning Table 5 - Riverside County Sales And Ilse Tax, Interest Earnings, & MVL.F Calculations Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 1. On -Site Sales and Use Tax Taxable Sales Commercial I Commercial /Mixed Used 2 Commercial 3 Commercial /Mixed Used 4 Commercial /Mixed Used 5 Commercial 6 Connnercial 7 Total Direct Taxable Sales Project On -Site Sales and Use Fix to Count Sales Tax (n l% of Taxable Sales) Use Tax ((d,110.5% of Sales Tax) Less 0.25% Reclassified to Property Taxes (b) Net On -Site Sales and Use Tax (b) 11. Interest Earnings County Share of Residential and Non - Residential Property Tax (fable 4) Documentary'Tiansfer Tax ('table 4) Net On -Site Sales and Use fax (h) Total Revenue Generating Interest turnings Interest Earnings C 1.58 %, (c) 111. Motor Vehicle License Fee ( "MVLF") A. Nominal Dollars properly Tax Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Assessed Valuation VLF Increase per Assessed Valuation (AV) Increase VLF increase per $1,000,000 increase in AV Taxable Sales Per Sq. Ft. Generating Taxable Square Feet (a) Sales (Table 3) (g) Sales 200 775 $ 155,000 200 8,080 1,616,000 200 838 167,500 200 5,400 1,080,000 200 9,973 1,994,500 200 2,973 594,500 200 2331 466250 30.369 $ 6,073,750 FY 2004 -05 1 FY 2013 -14 $ (f) 128,200,332 $ (d) 192,900,000 (1) 138,771,615,256 (e) 205,288,091,104 R. Pronertv'Pax In -Lien of Vehicle License Fee 'iota[ Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45 %(FY 2039/40 Buildout) (fable 3) Total Non - Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45 %(FY 2039 /40 Buildout) (Table 3) Total Assessed Valuation (Table 3) Assessed Valuation / 1,000,000 VLF Increase per $1,000,000 Increase in AV property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (i) Footnotes: (a) Source: DPFG estimate based on peer review comments on other Riverside County FIAs (b) 25 %of sales and use taxes are redirected to property tax per the Sales fax Triple Flip. 1.001y" $ 60,738 10.50% 6,377 0.25% (15.184) $ 51,931 r. $ 71,413 6,883 5L931 $ 130,226 Change [I] $ 64,699,668 [2] 66,516,475,848 [[]7[21 0.000973 [31 $ 973 [41 $ 30,817,117 [41 19,427,046 141 $ 50,244,163 [51= [4]/1,000,000 50 x[31 973 = [31"[51 $ 48,858: (c) Investment earnings, as specified in the Guide to Preparing Fiscal impact Reports. are estimated using the historic average interest rate of the 90 -day Treasury Bill. The analysis assumes a rate of 1.58% the 10 -year historic average interest rate From 2004 through 2013 ofthe 90 -day 'I- reasurp Bill. In 1994, the Guide to Preparing Fiscal impact Reports calculated a historic average interest rate of6.98 %. (d) Per page 80 of the County of Riverside FY 2013/14 Recommended Budget. (e) Per the Riverside County Assessor, assessed value by base year for the 2013/14 tax year. (1) Per the Division ol'Accounting and Reporting at the California Slate Controller's Office. (g) Assumes 25 %of commercial square feet is generation taxable sales. According to Table 17.134.0[0 oflhe Lake Blsioorc Municipal Code dated 3/20/2011 uses such as financial institutions and medical offices are permitted under the Commercial Mixed use zone even though they are not sales tax generating establishments. (h) This analysis assumes- that upon annexation, 100 %ofthe on -site sales and use lax will shill to the City. (i) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 100 %of the properly tax in -lieu of MVLF will shift to the City. PVRCL,Wemer ElslnoreCounly rIAnRepotl\Clslno,e FAA RSVptl nen, plate Page 25 of 67 Footnotes (a) Based ou County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recnminended Budget (b) Based on 0) 2,279,967 total Riverside County residents and 363,590 resideets in the unincogwr aced sections of Riverside County pet the California Department of Fitlunce, J ao,ay 1, 2014, (2) 869,600 total Riverside County employees and 1 16,500 employees in the uninc..loomed sections of Riverside Courtly per the Califaona Employment Developn ew Department, May 2014, and (3) county employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated less frequem use of county public services by elnployecs than residents. (c) See'1'able 3 - Land Use ASSmnpuens. (d) Discretionary revenue detailed line items provided by Riverside County Fxecuoive Office, 11 012 0 1 3. Page 26 of 67 1318(1,MC11101 EhlaoiMCOean Flnnicoonlflrnlole Fln ligmn'rcmpla, Exhibit R1 His" All, County Fisch finpact Analysis Seunarill I: Iixisliag Coonly Zoning '['able 6 - 121verside Comity Other General Fond Discrdio Ia y Revenuc Calealatimis Nichols Road Annexation Dcccnlbm 5,2014 County Project ],age Budget Equivalent Equivalent Financing Descrilo o11 Ref. F1' 2013/14 (a) Units (b) Factor Meavnrement (b) Units (c) Regoirenlenb, [1] 121 [111(2) —[31 [4) [3]X(4) GmlmIll Too Discretionary Revcnne(d) Props ty Tax NtIp Tax Cuncat Sealed 78 S 173 250,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- See Table 4 ----------------- . .. Prop Tax Ctmenl Unsecured 78 8,400,000 ------------- _------------------------- --------------------- See 'I "able 4------ - - - - -. ..------ Prop'Fax Prior Ulaecured 78 453,202 - - not owd _ - 1'Irop Tax Curter( Supplemental 78 1,100,000 - - not used Toop'I ax Prior Supplemental 78 2,000,000 - - not used _ - Coatractnal Revenue 88 81,017,867 - not used Total Property I as $ 266,221,069 S q Sales & llse'I'axes 78 S 29,250,501 .------ ------------------------- _.__-------- __.__ - - - - -- Sec "fable 5 ---------------------- . ---------------------- _--------------- Docmomllmy Transfer' Fax 78 $ I1,5U0,000 .. -- ---------------- See'J"ble4 , -. .. .... Franchises 78 S 5000,000 421,840 S 1 1.85 per capila & 50% employee, unincorporated only 769 S 9,111 Fines and Pelalties Fee4POC'.1lansaelion 79 S 272,212 2,714,767 b 0.10 pet capita &50% employee, entire connly 769 S 77 Fine- ltaffe Motor Vehicle MC 79 1,833,000 421,840 435 pet capita 50% employee, uoiucopol'ated only 769 3,340 Flealth- Safety Pees 79 22,230 - - not Itself - Adnato lmtioo Costs 79 - - - not used - - FineTrafficSchool 79 1798,250 421,840 4.26 per capita & 50% employee, uniocorpomed only 769 3,277 A13233 Reldignmeal 79 17,500,000 - - nor used - Other Coal Pines Non Dept 79 - 2,714,767 - percapita & 50% employee, entire county 769 - CH .... nal- Cu.25% 79 80,000 2,714,767 003 pet capita &50% employec, entire county 769 23 Penalties & lot On Del Taxes 79 2,500 000 2,714,767 0.92 per capila & 50% employee, entire county 769 708 Total Floes and Penalties $ 24,005,692 S 9.66 S 7,425 Teeter Ove, noo, 79 S 31,000,000 - S - not used S - Interest Interest - Invested Funds 79 S 2,602825 .---_-__--_ .............. ____--------------------- __ - - -- See Table 5 ..------------------ .-------------------- 'total Intel Ill S 2,602,825 5 S C'A -Motor Vehicle hl -Liao Tlel 80 $ 192 900,000 .._..... ......__- ------------------------- ------ - - - - -- See Table 5 ------------ _...------------------------------------------- Miscellaneous Federal and Stntc CA -1 omecwners'Tax Relief 80 $ 2,669,000 - .S - not used S _ CA -Suppl 14omeavners Tax Relief 80 42,600 - - not umd _ - CA- Mandate Reimbursement 81 54,792 - - not used _ - Federalln Itoo'1'axes 82 2,050,000 - - lot esed Ill ],tell -Tax firth, 5o Cal Fall 87 - nol used ]'all[ Fedual and State $ 4 816 392 S S 'Tobacco Tax Settlement 88 $ 10,000,000 - S - not used _ $ - Misselbincoas Revunle Transient Occupancy 78 S 1,686,000 - S - norused _ S Non Comm. Aircraft 78 210,000 - - not used - - Racchmse Tax 78 11,500 - - not used - Corot Pees & Costs 83 620,000 2,714,767 0.23 percapita & 50 % employee, enliro county 769 176 Superior Court Pees 83 9,000 2,714,767 0.00 1,e1 capita &50% enployee, enliro connly 769 3 Uacho ... Ill Money 88 - - - not used _ - ladgmems 88 2,000 - - nor used - Cash Over -Short 88 74,000 - - not uled _ - El Wattlle Land Fill 88 1,700,000 - - ool used Sale OfReal Fslale 88 - - - not used _ - Rebates & Refunds 88 3,000,000 2,714,767 1 11 per capital & 50 % employee, clone county 769 849 'Total Miscclhulcons Rcvmule S 7312500 S 134 S 1,028 Told General Food Disc, ctimuu'y licvennc $ 584 608,979 $ 22.85 S 17,564? Footnotes (a) Based ou County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recnminended Budget (b) Based on 0) 2,279,967 total Riverside County residents and 363,590 resideets in the unincogwr aced sections of Riverside County pet the California Department of Fitlunce, J ao,ay 1, 2014, (2) 869,600 total Riverside County employees and 1 16,500 employees in the uninc..loomed sections of Riverside Courtly per the Califaona Employment Developn ew Department, May 2014, and (3) county employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated less frequem use of county public services by elnployecs than residents. (c) See'1'able 3 - Land Use ASSmnpuens. (d) Discretionary revenue detailed line items provided by Riverside County Fxecuoive Office, 11 012 0 1 3. Page 26 of 67 1318(1,MC11101 EhlaoiMCOean Flnnicoonlflrnlole Fln ligmn'rcmpla, I- 0 N N (6 U G _ _ — p a i t' `o ¢) ry � X !i tJKenF %P UJ I- 0 N N (6 e U � 4 � - U � E � u o - d 2 - t r � E � N a E i o If 7 ,g - o F C m' - LL ry m c e a` rt�V E;G C hpaY -u M o_C5 `u way�o i o If 7 0 00 N N ^RS LL Y ,g - LL t�or -a V o qo oa - m N O 0 00 N N ^RS LL Y C W v <' t � E L' a" z L ro E z N I U L � c„9 _ a' r Is iF 0 rn N 4 �p f L cE E w o f 5 r F J F f K K K P C N F- 0 rn N 4 �p f ,� e� U _ N C m E 'c a r _ ti u h �� �'I Ili l �li E _ cal of C C i m _ o m' C C` 4 �cNV VUG✓ =.EF Fu'V0._ ?5 4 Linn L' V Q U V Y�i i "rya "J F !- l] 9 N� S �V i O E t c .. �� �_ ME 4'c mw�azo na o. �S _CCr __ Utz w`c v, E'7. a` �� h �� �'I Ili l �li 0 O ('7 ^f0 LL z u s j9 _ cal of L T�� '_ n� ° s E n� x z nc �C r u �'a °VJ�UV�vO =.EF Fu'V0._ ?5 �S _V Linn V Q U V Y�i i "rya "J F !- l] 9 N� S �V i O E t c .. �� �_ ME 4'c E pt. na o. �S i G'�x Utz N �� = T�zzzzzi z °c w3a �Ji�x "� im�z �z ~ vv_ _ a �~ Z � OPOO ��^ vv - ii'xVE 'VV F2 wan �zruaadnov�'a load e� .3 - E c 2 2 i� n F x 0 O ('7 ^f0 LL z u s U � U — x � — V — � u - e - 2 - - t N � h E �h e PIC E - z` - L - _ E IS �' n_° G U rc a a ^. Z [� e 9 'S w o p e— E➢ .L �i E2 /) ./ � I fl- I d yI % » / \ / � - �)) ) / \\ ±(( ; /\\ }/ / } Exhibit 13-1 12ivnr idc County fiscal linpact Analysis Scenarin l: Existing Cnanty Zoning 'I Mile 8- liivvr'ridc Cnunly General Fund Eillnneing Re,nirenenla OlIculnllnne Nichols Road Annexation n.rrna, r„ c znl J County Iler"l 'Pahl, Budget Net Equivalent G1p,lenient fimlaeing Diecipnon Ref. FY 2013/141x1 Ali .... nIbI Unils(c) fnetm Mm, eal(c) Until, (It) lIt"n anlx 11) [2] [17/[2]'13) 141 13)X14] General financing Regnicemenes L1,,n1lmive and Adn,inlslralivc Cnmrsol Pe ,el lccb<na Cnnn„aaicarcna Pdnpeny M"'ll"nent Plant Acquisition Pm'crwen Olhm General Debt Scrxoee- Pdnoipel 'road GrIe,al fnmang Permit einenls Public Pfolmtim, Judicial Police Pwteclinn Delenfo, a,d(n ,,inne Fim Yinge,di)n P olesfon d ¢I I nyecl'n, Other yllile ion I Inlet COVdnVSM and Wide Co uc.air, 'I fit full is Pad ecliun 'I,ble7 _ 113,346,664 S 61,528,003 2,]14,'16] S 24.51 per rPidn &50% employer, en" e curry Will 1 ble 7 50,926,496 (901,460) 2,714, 767 (1 07) percnpim & Rel rnnpleyeo, ontire wm,dy 769 'I -ablc 7 C4257,010 1,434,526 2,714,767 0.53 par eapiL R 50% re ple'e" w,li e caunly 769 Table 7 6,766,830 - 2,714,707 - ,c, lapin, & 50 %unployee, refine anent, 769 'I'able7 8,434,202 3,401,163 2,714,767 125 per cvpila &50% empley ce, ere, e caunly 769 "Fall,7 - - 2,714,767 - ,in rennitn& 50% ennployer, enli:'e eounly 769 'rahle7 27,853,827 3846,674 2,714,169 1.42 )" entre,& 50% employe" mnne caunly 769 1.61.7 119,689,907 - 2,714,767 - per enpim& 50% employae, moire caunly 769 "1 a1ble7 5,494,111 - 2,714,767 - per capim &50% employee, entire annoy 769 '1alle7 30,280,235 - 2,714,767 - ,In elpiw &so% employee, entire county 769 'fable] 662 4,854 2,714,767 ,in eapiin &50 %en Irlyce, entire county 769 S 30,049342 $ 72,308,906 5 2664 1,853 'I'ride7 S 21'7,828,746 S 33,93(321 '1 All,7 374,898,127 106,210,930 Table? 285,050,999 73,184341 '1""ablo7 226,648,738 - 'I 'able 7 11 326,772 421,311 Table 7 79388,613 27,041 390 'ruble 7 1,062,124 1,062,124 S IJ 96,204119 S 24191541E S 18,838 (822) 40" 963 1099 S z- 20,575 2,279,967 .S 14.88 per en re neumy 662 $... 9,,S5uz ____. _-------------------------------- See'I'able 9 ------------------------ _. 2,714,767 2696 leer capila &50 %employer, enf e county ----------------------- S,, I able 10 --- .--- " --- " 2,714,767 0.16 I'll capm &50 %cnpoycccnn c 9,n 1, 2,714,761 9.96 per, elp'ta & 50 %p nploYec e nre eounly 2,714,767 039 e,''i"nt &50 %cnploycc en. county s 52,35 7611 i.20,723'j 769 1911;- 769 �; 7,657:: 769 301 ' 38,456 Public Ways & facilities Poblie N1nys 'I " "able 7 S 209,226,389 S - 421840 S - per capilo & 50 %employe.. unincorponled only 769 $ - CaparlOutlay 'fnbic7 7,716,167 421,840 per cepida &50 %cnploycc, m I")venied on ly 769 'font Public W,p5 and rar:Ures S 216 942,556 S S s Healll, ant Sanitation Iicallh 'fable? $ 410,074,228 S 232 10,596 2279,967 $ 1018 per capita, enti re county 602 S 6,741 HospimICme "ra1ble7 66,358,750 16,712,080 2,279,967 7.33 per capita, emite eounly 662 4,854 California children's Services l'ablo7 18,(33,467 6,380,365 2,279,967 2.80 per wpid" ontire eounly 662 1,853 Sannotmn i'ah],7 800,000 2,279,967 pm capita, entire counry 662 Told HCdth and Sandat,ml S 489,866,445 S 46,30 3,041 $ 2031 S - :13448+ Public A,,mwnec Ad :ninwaonn, Table? S 401,322,421 S 944,827 2,279,967 S 041 per capita entire cernty 662 S 274 Aid 11, 'I'ab1e7 420,836,512 2,695,859 2,279,967 1 I per cvpila, entire eounly 662 7S3 Cale of Con. I W,, Table? 294,706 294,766 2,279,967 0.13 pIn pan, inclinecnnty 662 86 Velermis Services '141,7 1,243,102 902,950 2, 279,967 0.40 per c,cty, entire county 662 262 Other Aasislance 'fable 7 71,622,46S 2,279,967 par eapila, entire County 662 Total Public 5 915319,266 S b838,402 S 2.12 S 1,405: Lduemmn, Ree,'rntinr and Culnnvd Sr,'vwle Lib,"Serviws 'fable 7 $ 20,990,394 S - 2,279,967 - per capita, undue county 662 - Agdoulhml Exdcnsiun I able 7 593,064 593,064 2,279,967 0.26 per capita, entire county 662 172 Rccrea c,, and Odin. A Sculls 'fable? 792,984 73,381 2,279967 003 per eapila, entire wont, 6G2 21 Total Educator Ru and Gdtnd Svc. S 22.370442 S 666,445 S 0.29 s 394 Debt Service Debt Service ll,ne,pal Table 7 $ 3,430,976 5 - - S nod used - OflerGenernl Tahle7 20,000,WO - - - nmomd - - Retne cnI If L,ngTerm Dam "rable7 34,16 2634 - - - nod ,sed - - In( mesd on L1mg -lbnn Dam 'ra1,1e7 4,894,823 - nod aced - 'Potal Debt Set vice S 62,483,433 S S S 'anal General flint Pdmmcing Re"Hil ennnL 5 3.272,2461603 S 366,032,209 S 101.71 _ 74,177 (a) Per the Ccendy of Riversde Piscal Ye,e 20 13- 14 licco:nmcnded 13u I,ed. Id Seel ablo 7 " General Fund Tinaner, Iicqui :c.neels I)r n11. (c) Bared (1) 2,2711,967 anal RIve. -de Cor ,ry ins dents and 363,590 ell.,11.111 l the uni, 1 mad seel io :. f It,vinence Co r t1, prrthe Cld'Inri a Dep :anent of Fin)aece, January 1, 2014, (2) 861),600 dotal Rivwside County mnplcyccs end 116,500 employees in We unlnmrponnd scedlnnx o- Riverside ('linty ae, tire Cahill n,in I3mploymmv De.. enmv Dcpnnmcnt, Kv, 2014, and (3) counry...... anent was rcducul by 5(% n) vacuum far the esdimaled Icss frequent use nfmunt, polite services by employees Wan residents_ (d) See 'I'He 3 - land (Ise Assumptions. 1%JZ,[,e. 11 , Page 33 of 67 vm 1 : -una tan l;r r.�,r1,�n� Exhibit B -1 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 1: Existing County Zoning Table 9 - Riverside County Police Protection Cost Calculation Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 FY 2013/14 Police Protection Costs Ref. Budget Net General Fund Contribution Table 7 $ 106,270,930 City Contracts for Sheriffs Services Pg. 210 157,014,010 Net Police Protection Budget $ 263,284,940 Total Sworn Officers 2,200 (a) Cost per Sworn Officer $ 119,675 Projected Residents Table 3 662 Service Standard: Sworn Officers per 1,000 residents 1.00 (b) Additional Sworn Officers Required cv buildout 0.66 Total Police Protection Costs (c) $ 79,!44,- Footnotes: (a) 2,200 sworn officers per Riverside County Sheriffs Department press release, dated 2/4/13. The County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recommended Budget includes training for additional sworn sheriffs deputies. (b) Per the Riverside County Service Goals and Strategies, the Board of Supervisors commits to continue efforts to maintain law enforcement services at a targeted staffing ratio of one deputy sheriff per 1,000 population in the unincorporated area. (www.countyoft-iverside.us/ government/ strategicplan/ servicegoalsaudstrategies.htiul) (c) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 100% of the police protection costs will shift to the City. Page 34 of 67 P:ARCL\ Werner- L5lsinoreVComlly FIATeportAElsinore PIA Report Template Pineal to Fife fund Rianaving Soifces Ad VoIi,,,, 'I Ri,... iial and Non- licsldcntlal Basic "fax Ad, for Didatlon Snvcmnd fire Pond Post -GRAN Share of 13asic'I 'Iola] Sfuw... al fire'!., Exhibit B-1 Rivirsidc Courtly Fiscal hnpnet Annlysls Scanaflo l: Existing County Zoning Tible 10 - Itn.crsidn Cnnnty FL,cnl Bnpncl lo Fur Fund Nidmin Rnnd Annexnlion rabic Pr"j"I Mnfginnl Pfnjmt Intnal In I. It 11 Int llafl 521,869 100% $ 29,794 Nflnon al SO, plod Nerdy I'cr Dcvcl opmcnt Lail S (51;482) 5_ (277) (n) I'm the Cm; nryofRner. ld el 'iarall'car2013- 141teeom;nendcd Bud8ct. (b) R;SCdot(1)227)11711'd R,,cld( nOwy rcsidm,id363,590 resdettsm1hctfs p7l A: ctioimffit,iside County per the(a1Tofi Dgmtniv llfF .lnlry L 2014,(2) 869,600 mtal liirmside Chanty mnployics and 116,500 ,..... ,, in the lmincorpmnled sections ofliivers.di, County pe, the Cnlifornla I`mploymmtt Divelnrynem Depmmionl, Miy 2014, ind (3) county empinyntenn"u mdaced b' 50% m iccoum for tho istimawd less Gcgucnt use of wumy public services by cmplayms Wan ,,idcnle. (c) 8ec'1'abla3- Lind lisn Assumptions. (d) Pe We Plnn of 9e- ..f,,Nahcls]toad Aumx:nbn to the Cm, ,,f Lake IC o', sisfng fo atnliot scr :lb,, P;njenl, O,l, ire base) I feq,,al I : -I nnppreiib_ (c) 'Phis Doily'] c;casunlca shat upon innccatien, IUMI% of thi frc protce6011 cods will shift to lbi City e rinnec,19l nlmo I AlsnrMn mmvlat� Page 35 of 67 Bntlget Cuanly Project Page Budget Marginal NiO Egnivnlent Egnlvolcnl 11, j t Ref. Ammnat(a) lnnmtse An.omtl units Op Factor Menstn Units (q Intranet CMHonmownef's Tax Rcliif 93 5 509,321 0% S - - S - not u,,d S - Qnwamuil ltmenue 93 10,418,838 045 - - - not - IicdcvclapmcnlPasaThn. 93 - 0% - - - not used - 'I emI Fnnnci tg 5mn ees C 39,9943 fianaciag l2egn0'entems(d) Fit, Prometian Costs 217 5 44,600,984 I )W% S 44,600,984 421,840 S 105.73 per cepili K 50% ,..... yce, uninem.....wd only 969 S 81,296 Total Fniiiicing liegt w acme 5 $1.274 Nflnon al SO, plod Nerdy I'cr Dcvcl opmcnt Lail S (51;482) 5_ (277) (n) I'm the Cm; nryofRner. ld el 'iarall'car2013- 141teeom;nendcd Bud8ct. (b) R;SCdot(1)227)11711'd R,,cld( nOwy rcsidm,id363,590 resdettsm1hctfs p7l A: ctioimffit,iside County per the(a1Tofi Dgmtniv llfF .lnlry L 2014,(2) 869,600 mtal liirmside Chanty mnployics and 116,500 ,..... ,, in the lmincorpmnled sections ofliivers.di, County pe, the Cnlifornla I`mploymmtt Divelnrynem Depmmionl, Miy 2014, ind (3) county empinyntenn"u mdaced b' 50% m iccoum for tho istimawd less Gcgucnt use of wumy public services by cmplayms Wan ,,idcnle. (c) 8ec'1'abla3- Lind lisn Assumptions. (d) Pe We Plnn of 9e- ..f,,Nahcls]toad Aumx:nbn to the Cm, ,,f Lake IC o', sisfng fo atnliot scr :lb,, P;njenl, O,l, ire base) I feq,,al I : -I nnppreiib_ (c) 'Phis Doily'] c;casunlca shat upon innccatien, IUMI% of thi frc protce6011 cods will shift to lbi City e rinnec,19l nlmo I AlsnrMn mmvlat� Page 35 of 67 Exhlhil II -1 Rivcreid, Caonty Hoeid h pact Analysis Sfm . do I: Existing Coolly ZuNog "I able 11 - Riverside Cm:nty Fiscal bnpac( rn Libi ta) Fnnd Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 Fiscal Innmet to Libfafv F 1117 Immncing Sources 'I dilf Pru J ett Mar canal Pfujfcl Ad VPlorel„'rfla Ref. In,anft hie! case Ilnnact Residnod and Nnn- Rcsidcmial l3os11 "I a, Ad,. fat Deflation 4 S 521,869 Coanly library Posl-ERAIt Share of Basic 'ax 2 139642% Tcml County Librory'fav S 7,288 IOfF/ S 9,288 13adgal County Projeel Pace Budget Nlmginal Net Eft llvnlmtl F,,dwalem Rnject Rd Aiio.UF1(,) itmease Alnounl Unit, (h) Factor Measm'e Units (e) Impact Pin es Pad F.CO1 rfs Library Pines nod Pees 96 S 35.,000 700% S 350,000 2,914,969 S 0.13 p,, eopita & 5D %mapbycg esth'o emnvv 969 S 99 Use of Money & Progeny Inmrest- loved 17 ds 96 5,o0n 0% - - - not used - - Rem, 96 19,196 100% 19,196 2.714,969 0,01 percapim &50% employee, entire County 969 5 Admissions o% - - - not nsed Exhibits - 0% - - - not seal - _ Industrial & Conci curial Space - 0% - - - not ascd - - Leascto Non -Count Agency 96 124,699 0% - - - not used - - Misc Event Charges - 0% - - - not used _ - Cpnoessmin - D% - - - not axed I 'It algovetnn,enml -Slate CA -SIPIe Rcvcnuc 96 25,000 Os; - - - flat used CA -l1 avvae,', I'a, Relief 96 165,920 0% - - - not used CA- Other Operating Grants 9G - o% - - - ,cta,od I ed- (......rally R'd"do it Hm 96 65,000 0% - - - not .,ed - - ChPrgcsl'orSCrvmes Edward Dean Masmua - 0% - - - not used - - Interfnnd Leases 96 159,475 0% - - - not used file, fand -Mired lmwons 96 - 0% - - - not oil Imerfund - Solo,, Fill burscmwt 96 - O% - - - "trifled - - MiscellanconsRovonue OtherGov_- City Govennpents 99 695,016 O% - - - "lased - - othorl'axoble3ales - 0% - - - iot nod - - CamwaalRevenua 99 5,991,526 0% - - - not used Cash Over -Short 99 - 0% - not nsed Rebates& RefeaF, 99 9,000 0% - - - not used Convbutims &Donation, 99 10,000 0% - - - ,atared - Coth'ib- From Non-county Ageaoies - o% - - - not nsed - Cm,Ub. From Other Cpaot,y Funds - o% - - - not used - I did 1'nau,e,g Sam ces 5 F,392::. Financing Rognirmncllts Library Sc,,cc, 128 S 20,99Q394 l00% 20,990394 2,914,969 S 7,73 percapim& 50% employee, cnGrc coanry 969 S 5,944 fatal 11nanmagJ a 'at" W, S 5944':1 Net Annual 5n, pL s/ (Debdo S4,448? Pcr Dcvalop toil Unit 5 tl Footnotes (a) Per be County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Reco oinended Badger -_ - -- (b) Based on (1)2,299,969 total Riverside Coanly residents and 363,590 residents In the unincorp,,amd "onens of Riverside County perthe Gdifo n,a Department OFPinaneq but I, 2014, (2) 869,6001am1 Riverside County cmployeas and 116,500 employees in the k ,,,a ryommd sections of Riverside County per the Calil'omia Employment Development D...... meat, May 2014, and (3) coanry c ..... I ennv;cs iedtmed by 50% to oeeonnt for the esGmmed le" Be0uent use of eopnty public services by employees that, residents_ (c) See Table 3 - Land Use Asanmptions . vvrouwo :na: nn ai,pon ra,an'mo Page 36 of 67 F."A I nrolln.. I I ......... rip IS I ,IS lll1-ci her Snlrrtr. Mat4Lrn A files DI (11) Mile, mN bed-c' "IA.v3MC sales hall Fri., I uli 1,0, ln", Tila 'I If mcu...I, A Eoke Illy I'n" bend Tnne,keldlim: A,1 F) LICr r6 r1 11 rn... 15 PomdHiwdI'i [1,11 palre, Fes Om of A—O - I111—It leflell,he'll Plutls CA-H W cnlnl CA-H W1' UscdCps'Ins Eve 21044 (p CA -II W 1' IISaOCS Tex Fw 2111tH (q CAJnvv III Pas 4c 2167 (0 CAJVmr uscnars Te.v sec 21n4C (0 CA- I W ) 'S c2lD (p CA-I W Y Ll'- O 2I'l5 ( CA.HV) oxr/GnSlike AS zm410 CA -0e0m G lls Cm M4m.il Pif 141671-6. led- Fascsl Rest0 I'd-I'll" I R RclndrllnalP11 Ife, NkSri FnOnciPiull Life, 6ribel,scs S)I,Sk VMn IelDr -I Ool�ireil l'ee macs S16dirihi , PCe0onfcs GnaoecLmm�l FemrilPms cIP IFCv Im1d .6767 exwlrsc Ranm Rmd Mond Lrlx'I E, Bond II Mninl FZV Reie16 Fleet fees Dud Sekx FJ.S DIrllreld Dec: Reil once R1., 1 M , RoiFiere -mnl fa.6sm RNminl0 -111 of 5'alooioss Tl11rieRC(DOX; OCrcloy:.r l'aas LdoPON -(SAD F11nGltl- CSA lnlncounlY II1mrclda4cil1m1al1m Jelcrid -RDA 11AIMO115 Inlc,fied I IA Lie'll" ei1M ror111t hdcAld SrI it Oiclu n ellcmld- s:ll:lly RcinMlrUnlrul Inrerind-IlPlniPnrenlllslrpc her"fivid Fr el S,I,usl eno19d RIdlgnlos InICRlxbstlalmm Misdate raruRmnnoc Selca(Sir" ', M'ells smcLr snrr PrO �IJ RMnlrs AllOOUds Garin. m IoomlioP� e�nrn.e ar�n� ON-O wer Misc R1:...1 Wllmss)up'Pecs- LlnPlmc<s CVA4 11.11. Orl Sryri t A10.1. Lwrona C-In( AUk.1 F-1.1 110. lull C1)'1 1lionProm Olimr Cw11ry IlmPtr '1 .1.11 )'1 dn4 Sonrccr Pin,r 11-11 lkPlni 11-11 a .LM4','1 1 on(l) (1) 'I'LMA. ( Pr i P, GOerd '1SAIA:'In........ eon Lrr ILe(G -Prfe) IIMA_ I kerrla'PI',I11o11 CLInILWiou PIO011l(11) 'fowl Fie: inp ilcgl.L'cnrcnlx Net A n A O.,AO1P(DiNii Pcr Gmele"ncnl UP F.IIaIiI n -1 .Ill a::dllrll P: O,fin Allnn:, ... 0ESi. sme(Pl 1l)Il'i GLnnq ZOnine 'I'a Lle lE - Ilinlside Nikkei, l'iKW In:P a tl In 1}: ncPU rl1-111-1-16,:1-1 Nirlmin !!1-111 Arrneznlion l'a d, Nel Ifin C0e0 I'rn iccl r PSn n5ww F 1119!9 IIW c Bld, ::r.1, IhrlLc 1-1F0 I1 rul "1 1UP"PA Nei I:ynirltlrin F.,Oiracnl Pr:llccl lief. Anlomllln) 1 ..:_.111, Amom 111-11(11) 1 ;.,1.. Mau Unii,(d fired 6e S 4O�nnn e6 - 1-;6 fti - red - nounm S6 '115126 We Ilscd 69 2,181 (Sl. - Iwlused R9 26285£ P11% - - rIll Old 89 21,151.111 100'N, 11 153,47 2279,90 Io66 p cnPi...........cooly 69 - IUd% 2.379447 IS, I cull !.....lire. nn. I 110,14F9411 IOd 11 111,111.540 2279y4I 1111 er fairer, ear ire earlill)' b9 - DII% 2274967 ,kfi. ..!lire Ill 89 ter, - 21-9,191 - µr cenadf cmnc.Onnp' el - 100 'le 2,279.967 - Mr O,kI PIA !671-6, F9 100',v„ - 2,279.947 - lOr Cr Illikry x9 L:v oun if r lm 19 4111,492 59 149992 Mli - r SAd li d 25,2451927 '1. ten - - - red 19 59 - 06 _ nal 1-x1-1 59 10.441 0% - let uud 99 12111966 1196 Of red] 90 21143 M. Off 1'v R9 428105 IPA .111 LOOPS 99 33%12 FA - - - Lwd 69 9511.29s o% .11, Old 89 69.760 loO% Sq;xd ?714,767 (lot Icrrnnil1 IffO! OPPl%<e, cnd¢ mmn,v x9 799.146 WIM TNj4A 2,714 7e7 1,$9 Ice ..kill SO AIS mIfOl'11, Lnlho 671111!)' S9 12.X10 Flo - nal 1.-1 S9 109.162 O'Y. it, ei S9 655 111 PON used 69 412.1 OY• - _ _ rer, ri 11 I$zLLnbx 0% llo'rd 89 - e% - - ii hied 99 12,472,(00 Oft, sed 90 - 0% III,, I ...1 90 3,7981611) 0Y P. Pwd W, 12,915 096 - _ red 9O %SRS Ile - - - like mcd 90 1322,670 0% Prit sm 91, 2.166,912 of _ 1-.n rI d 90 9I x13 ON: - - _ link 91, 369.171, n% - - Iu10 -1 90 70.380 P& I,, Old "1 21 ,729,6,1 09:, red ired 91, 211,759 11% St Old 9O 12,474 Pike - - - ll,I J 9O 9 ikon m1- - Illrtmd 90 21,174 0°6 NI nsd el ISO, aM III 90 4.PSIrr0 1196 - - - rued "I 21,12s 096 - it 1-671 90 10 Or - - Of reed 90 29.109 0/ I., Li,cd •)0 50 0% - InSl-d 90 10,646,000 O'r - - - m.d 90 )1416.969 - ISel and 0o xsP,noP .If - - - Pike led 'JO IOISS, 0'ft - re red RA 46,121,415 IIIIIik 11-1214F S,714 7t,7 11 ke, 11 'I "m lrOF: II_ 67111-0' 12 Ixd 126 6971794 M I Inscd 126 123497.967 MA - - - met O,d 1110 11171 647 d62 8.811 662 11,2 fi62 663 719 25 719 225 5 16.1172 769 11.114 b 14 OI) I'll 11w11,I) 2 allincr See it""Se:r 2011-I41tn:a Idr1.1911 u_ 1 11 1 0 r n1P I11si2L_W m ' l l i i r 4SO I r nJC I ' l I I I eI1m. er s e 11. e J r el In .d .. sof I'll C eJ.I0.11111 -r 1 1 11 f D 1 ` G l e n cell o f t ' lamt,'IOf21111(2) 1 1 1 ,l011olO !3167!64. CP o Plo\cs' 1111! f I'll e Of CON'es Inr Sell lS-I, larel t fR rue: Pl, CO r) 0.P Iv C'If ri' It lyllPr '111 IJ.rvIPP .III P. rl O .M 5201; ul l])cP 0-e PIOS r s ....... d LI - U 610 -.w 1-1 I'or lL1 rJlnumd less fr.qunll nsc of mluvy Public sn'ims be enlPl @COS 1pauPfldnils. (c) tics foes I.Inul US, ASUinl"k— Of III eCIC Willer ASite POi, I, I nld ill n 8nyi11aI InJ e I "I I. I I I I I I l I IS I I I I I I I l I I I . I 111111 fel nmiP 17 111111 ' 1101"11 k) Is I'r- e AI�IAa udSedl3( I pr,apilnr n, l'r 1-I I.1 rW o 1 O] Ol edfir" 1 If, All efln fill Ill n IIII11ITIld f r. rr,.....I OOP SO ef", l rr41 I 1.I I r I olnra I I I I I 8011 111.. 10 1111 11, 11 Ofle._ I,1) Tv J AIA I OPOk r -1 1 Pelll SEeSit y -I[u ffclo S -11 A adiOnSIOPI., . O9*ses'iS Srl.d frinl rerr P'l eel v.'duP — I Per C'P"d '11.111S. Or I'.11e n:IrtyrSdnuon Fend n00n11m,,O, ii no rill IAIAr'11muP CmN FI11III.1fle. nttmin ndc minnras exlx!Pier lee O.11-1oillg On P11a11e"'f'. In 'rmnswnrlmn-15 etc alamlN Ixrrervle lied SOY, cnllnme 10111 OC nalml' Imm —11 mr »er4 r, nnbldcLl IF, ( I itI.. Page 37 of 67 Exhibit 134 Rivea side County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scen r l: Existing County Zoning 'Fable 13 - Riveeside County Fiscal Impact to Flood Control Zone 3 Operation.s Fund Nichols Road Annexation December 5 2014 Flood Control Zone 3 0aeralimis F it it (I Financing Sources Ad Valorcm Tax '['able Marginal Projcct Ref. 111cItoSe Impact Residential and Non -P. esidential Basic Tax Adj. for Deflation 4 $ 521,869 0% $ - Flood Coup at Zone 3 ]'ast -ERAF Share of Basie Tax Intergovernmental 3,26336% 157,000 Total Flood Control Zone 3 Tax - - not used $ 17,030 100% $ 17 -030 Budget County - - not used Project Page Budget Marginal Net Equivalent 0% - Equivalent Project Ref. Amount (a) Increase Annount Units B) Factor c Meusnre Units (b) Impact Use of Money a- Properly 408 $ 265,800 0% $ - - $ - not used Intergovernmental 408 157,000 0% - - - not used Charges for Services 408 141,000 0% - - - not used Miscellaneous Revenue 408 1,405,000 0% - - - not used l'otal Financing Sources Financing Requirements (d) Total Financing Requirements Net Amoral Surplus/ (Deficio ]'or Development Unit Footnotes $ 17.030 S 17,030 S (a) Penile County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2613 -14 Recommended Budget. - -- -- (b) Based on (I ) 2,279,967 total Riverside County residents and 363,590 residents in the unincorporated sections of Riverside County per the California Departnent of Finance, January 1, 2014, (2) 869,600 total Riverside County employees and 116,500 employees in the unincorporated sections of Riverside County Per the California Employment Development Department, May 2014, and (3) county employment was reduced by 50% to account for the cstimated less frequent use of county public services by employees than residents. (c) See'fable 3 - Land Use Assumptions_ (d) Per the Recommended Budget, Flood Control Zone 3 Operations appear to be funded using a reserve approach. Faeh year it portion of the revenues are allocated to fund current year expenditures, with the remainder allocated to the Fund Balance. In years when expenditures exceed revenues, the Fund Balance is used to pay the difference, maintaining a balanced fund. As such, DPPC assumes this fund remains balanced, with financial requirements equaling financing sources_ PARWWer ne ,El5leorenCormlyFWRepomElsinore FIA Report Template Page 38 of 67 r d Ito i i I� tit ,, o _ - � 0 3 .., __ S_�- ---. - .,� __ _ � > €� c Ss i 0 0 d- rn 0 0 d- rn 0 v d LL - - oW -_ o =__ VE =- V 2 _ v i I 6 E J LL .. V F `J U `J l F _ f�J _v _ _ _ V [iv_ _q �C� 0 0 N rt' N 0) m IL 0 CY) M 0- 1, 17 �I 2 r r i- u j u 0 CY) M 0- Exhibil 11 -2 Riverside County Fiscal lnpact Analysis Scenario 2: Proposed Project Ilse '''able I - Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary Nichols Road Annexation December 5. 2014 1. General Fund General Fund Financing Sources Property Tax Property Tax In -Licu of Sales -Tax Documentary Transfer Tax Property 'Fix In-Lieu of MVLF On -Site Retail Sales and Use "Pax Interest Famings Other Discretionary Revenue Total Financing Sources General Fund Financing Regnirenuents Table per Percent Ref. Unit Rnildout ofTotal ']'able 4 $ 316 $ 77303 89.7% Table - - 0.0% Table 4 21 5,223 6.1% 'Fables - - 0.0% 'Table 5 - - 0.0% Table 5 5 1 -307 1.5% 'Table 6 10 2337 2.7% $ 352 $ 86,169 100.0% General Financing Requirements 'fable 8 $ 15 $ 3,618 52% Public Protection Judicial Table 8 53 11982 18.5% Police Protection Table 9 - - 0.0% Detention and Correction 'fable 8 108 26,385 37.6% Fire Protection (a) - - 0.0% Protection and Inspection ''able 8 1 152 02% Other Protection Table 8 28 6,796 9.7% Flood Control /Soil and Water Conservatioi Table 8 2 383 0.5% Public Ways M. Facilities Table 8 - - 0.0% Health and Sanitation Table 8 72 17,713 25.3% Public Assistance 'fable 8 8 1,851 2.6% Education, Recreation and Cultural Services Table 8 1 255 0,4% Debt Service Table 8 - - 0.0% Total Financing Requirements $ 286 $ 70,135 100.0% Net Annual Surphus /(Deficit) S 65 $ 16,035 Revenue /Cost Ratio 1.23 11. Fire Fund Financing Sources Financing Requiroments Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) 111. Library Fund Financing Sources Financing Requirements Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) IV.'I'ransnortatinn Fund Financing Sou Ices Financing Requirements Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) V. Flood Conlvl Zone 3 Operations Fund Financing Sources Financing Requirements Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) NIL Net Ilccal Impact of-Project Financing Sources Financing Requrements Net Annual Surplus / (Deficit) Footnotes: (a) See analysis oTCounty Fire Fund in Table 10, R RCLMerner- Elslnnr0Counly FWReporaBsinore FIA Report Template 'Fable 10 $ - $ Fable 10 - - $ $ Table 11 $ 43 $ 10,651 Table 11 31 2568 $ 13 $ 3,084 Table 12 $ 87 $ 21,244 Table 12 68 16,702 S 19 $ 4,542 Table 13 $ 100 $ 24.580 Table 13 100 24,580 $ S $ 582 $ 142,645 486 118984 S 97 S 23,661 Page 44 of 67 Exhibit 13-2 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 2: Proposed Project Use Tablet - Riverside County Post -ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation Nichols Road Annexation 2014 Share of Tax Prig' to Annexation Transfer to County Tax Rate Area (a) Weighted City after Share alter Aecacv (b1 065- 001 065 -029 065 -090 Average (e) Annexation (e) Annexation GENERAL 13.4027% 13.7308% 13.41127% 13.6840% 25.0000% 10.2630% COUNTY FREE LIBRARY 1.3677/ 1.4012% 13677% 1.3964% 0.0000% 1.3964 " " /0 COUNTY S FRIICTIIRE FIRE PROTECTION 5.5917% 5.7286% 5.5917% 5.7091% 100.0000% 0.0000% _ LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED 31.4919% 32.2628% 31,4919% 32 1529% 9.6177% 9.8531% MT SAN .JACIN O JUNIOR COLLEGE 3.7769% 3.81,6913% 3.7769% 3.8561% 12938% 13209% ELSINORE AREA ELEM SCHOOL FUND 6.9027°/ 7.0716% 6 9027 % 7,0475% RIVI?RSID1, CORONA RESOURCE CONSER 0.0000% RIV CO. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 3.8987% 3.9942% 3,8987% 3 9806% _ RIV CO REG PARK & OPEN SPACE 0.3308% 0.3389% 03308% 03378% FLOOD CONTROL ADMINISTRA'T'ION 0.223700/ 02292% 0.2237% 0.2284% FLOOD CONTROL ZONE 2 0.0000 °G _ 0.0000°/ _ 00000% 0,0000% _ FLOOD CONTROL LONE 3 3.1963%, 3.2745% 3. 1963°/ 3.2634% 0.0000% 3.2634% COUNTY ORF1:6A TRAIL REC & PIC 1.4290% 0,0000% 1.4290% 02037% I.LSINGRE VALLEY CEMETERY _ 0.9547% 0.9781% 09547 %, 09748% ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER 9.6177% 9.8531% 9 6177% 9 8195% WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 12938 % 13255'% 12938% 13209% WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER I ST FRINGE 0.0000% 0.0000% 00000% 00000% RIVI?RSID1, CORONA RESOURCE CONSER 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 00000% F_.DUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENT. FUND Total Awns (d) % of Total 24.58 160.00 2.102 186.60 13.17% 85.74% 1.08% 100.00% Footnotes: Source: FY 2013 -14 rates by Riverside County Auditor - Controller's Office. (a) In additional to other ad valorem charges imposed by various local agencies, and owners in California are required to Pay annual property taxes of 1% oil the assessed value of their property pursuant to Proposition 13. Each County in California is divided into tax rate areas ( "TRA" ). After the basic 1% properly tax is collected by the county, the tax is allocated to various local agencies based on each agency's share of the basic tax within the property's applicable'FRA. 'This exhibit shows the sham of the basic tax applicable to each of the three TRAs applicable to the Project. (b) Shares of the basic tax that are received by the City for its General Fund and by the County for Fire Protection for each tax rate area are highlighted in bold print. (c) For purposes of the analysis, the weighted average tax rates were calculated based on the acreage of the'fRAs within the Project. (d) Per land use information provided by the Planning Associates in May 2014. (e) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 25% of the County General Fund allocation will shift to the City of Lake Elsinore, Per Table 4 of the Plan of Services for the Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, this analysis also assuncs that County Structure Fi,e Protection shares of the tax will shift to the City since it is anticipated that the City will assunhc the responsibility 1'or providing these services alien annexation. This analysis also assumes that Ulaary and Regional Flood Control Services will continue to be provided by the County P.VRQAWe,ne,.Elsl „o,1AC.., „r FWR,e ,hEis.n..e rw Reno „Tama[a,a Page 45 of 67 14111215% 2 % ? \ 2 F 11 p 11 \\) \!!!!z! °\ 2 % ? \ 2 Exhibit B -2 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 2: Proposed Project Use Table 4 - Riverside Comity Property Tax and Documentary Transfer Tax Calculations Nichols Road AnnexaNmr December 5, 2014 I. Property Tax Residential Property Tax 'fetal Residential Assessed Value Total Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (FY 2039/40 Buildout) (a) Basic Rate Basic Tax Paid - Residential Non - Residential Property Tax 'Total Non - Residential Assessed Value 'fable Ref_.__ 3 $ 55,034,000 53.95 1,844 1.000% [I] $ 539,518 Total Non - Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (FY 2039 /40 Buildout) (a) Basic Rate Basic Tax Paid - Non - Residential Non - Residential Unsecured Property Tax as a %ofSeemed 'role] Unsecured Property fax Total Basic Tax Paid - Non - Residential Total Basic Tax Paid - Residential and Non - Residential County General Fund Post -ERAF Share of Basic'Fax Total County General Fund Tax Share II. Property Tax In -Lien of Sales -Tax Add On -Site Sales fax Redirected to Property Tax (b) Total Property Tax In -Lieu of Sales Tax (e) III. Documentary Transfer Tax Residential Turnover Rate (d) Total Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (Table 14) (a) Value of Annual Turnover Transfer "Tax Rate (c) Total Residential Documentary "fransfcr'I'ax Non - Residential Turnover Rate (d) Total Non - Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (Table 14) (a) Value of Annual Turnover 'Transfer Tax Rate (c) Total Non - Residential Documentary'IYansfei "fax Total Documentary Transfer Tax (0 Footnotes: [21 $ 19,678,950 19,427,046 1.000% $ 194,270 10% 131 $ 19.427 121 +[3114] $ 213.698 111 +[41 =[51 $ 753,216 [6] 2 10.26303% [51X[61 =[71 S [ 77,303 5 $ 15,184 14% 53,951,844 7,553,258 0.0550% 154 10% 19,427,046 1,942,705 0.0550% (a) This analysis assumes an annual assessed value deflation factor of 0.45% (Calculated by subtracting the 2% limit on annual increases ill assessed value imposed by Proposition 13 Gom the historical average U.S. inflation rate from 1993 to 2013 of2.45 %, per InflationData.com). (b) 25% of sales and use taxes are redirected to property tax per the Sales 'fax Triple Flip. See Table 5. (c) The County may levy a transfer tax at the rate of $0.55 lot- each $500 of assessed value. A City within the County that levies this tax can levy a transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $'1,000. If both the County and City levy the transfer tax, a credit shall be allowed against the amount imposed by the County in the amount of tax that is imposed by the City per California Revenue and Taxation Code 11911. (d) Assumes residential property is sold approximately every 7 years and non - residential property is sold approximately every 10 years. (c) This analysis assumes that upon annexation. 100% of the propcity tax in -lieu of sales tax will shift to the City. 11 \RCL\ Werner- Gisinore \County FIA\Repor[Osinore r[A Report Temphle Page 47 of 67 Exhibit R -2 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 2: Proposed project Use Table 5 - Riverside County Sales And Ilse Tax, Interest Earnings, & MVLF Calculations -'i Nichols Road Annexation 1. On -Site Sales and Use Tax 'Taxable Sales Commercial I Commercial /Mixed Used 2 Connnercial 3 Commercial /Mixed Used 4 Commercial /Mixed Used 5 Commercial 6 Commercial 7 ]oral Direct Taxable Sales Prgjecl On -Site Sales and Use Tax to Coin Sales Tax ((II %of Faxable Sales) Use Fax ((a10.5 % of Sales Tax) Less 0.25% Reclassified to Property Taxes (b) Net On -Site Sales and Use Tax (h) 11. Interest Earnines County Share of'Residential and Non - Residential Property "Tax ('fable 4) Documentary Transfer Tax (Table 4) Net On -Site Sales and Use Tax (h) Total Revenue Generating Interest Earnings Interest fiarnings L 1.58% (c) III. Motor Vehicle License Feu f "MVLF" Taxable Sales Per Sq. Ft. Generating Square Fect (a) Sales ('Table 3) (g) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 A. Nominal Dollars FY 2004 -05 FY 2013 -14 Property'I'ax Vehicle License Fees (VLF) $(f) 128200,332 $ (d) 192,900,000 Assessed Valuation 138371,615,256 (e) 205,288,091,104 VLF Increase per Assessed Valuation (AV) Increase VLF Increase per $1,000,000 increase in AV R. Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Total Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45% (FY 2039/40 Buildoul) (I able 3) Total Non - Residential Assessed Value Adjusted for Deflation Factor of 0.45 %(FY 2039 /40 Buildoul) (Table 3) 'Fatal Assessed Valuation (Table 3) Assessed Valuation /1,000,000 VLF limease per $1,000,000 Increase in AV Property Tax In -Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (i) Footnotes Taxable Sales 775 $ 155,000 8,080 1,616,000 838 167,500 5,400 1,080,000 9,973 1,994,500 2,973 594,500 2331 4661,250 30.369 $ 6,073.750 1.00% $ 60,738 10.50% 6,377 0.25% (15,184) $ 77,303 5,223 $ 82.526 Ci mrge p] $ 64,69068 [z1 66,516,475.848 { p/[21 0.000973 [3] $ 973 [41 $ 51951,844 141 19.427.046 [41 $ 73.378.889 [�d - 141/1,000,000 73 =[31 973 131 "[s]i $ (a) .Source: DPFG estimate based on peer review comments on other Riverside County FIAs. (b) 25% of sales and use taxes are redirected to property lax per the Sales Tax Triple Flip. (c) Investment earnings, as specified in the Guide to Prepaying Fiscal Impact Reports, are estimated using the historic average interest rate of the 90 -day 'Treasury Bill. The analysis assumes a rate of 1.58 %, the 10 -year historic average interest rate Rom 2004 through 2013 of the 90 -day I icasuiy Bill. In 1994, the Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports calculated a historic average interest rate of 6.98 %. (d) Per page 80 of the County of Riverside FY 2013 /14 Recommended Budgctt (e) Per the Riverside County Assessor, assessed value by base year for the 2013/14 tax year (1) Per the Division of Accounting and Reporting at the California State Controller's Office. (g) Assumes 25% of eommiereW square feet is generation taxablc sales. According to Table 17.134.010 of theLike Elsinore Municipal Code dated 3/20/2012, uses such as financial institutions and medical offices are permitted under the Commercial Mixed use zone even though they are not sales tax generating establishments. (h) This analysis assunnes that upon annexation, 100 %ofthe on -site sales and use tax will shill to the City. (i) ']-his analysis assumes that upon annexation, 100% of the property tax in -lieu of M VLF will shift to the City. P9RCL\ Werner- Elsinore\County FIMRepoR\Elsinme PIA Report Template Page 48 of 67 Exhibit 13 -2 - -- Rlvel'slde Cennty Fiscal In,p.d Analys15 8,400,000 ------------ Sfenal'In 2: Mepwd PI'ofed U1,, - - - - -- See 'I We 4 ------- --------- 'fable 6 - Rwersdde County Otbet General Fund Discretionary Revenue Calculations - - not used Nichols Road Annexation 1,100,00o December 5, 2014 - - County Project Page Rndget Equivalent Equivalent ltinoming Desm;Pfion Ref. FV 2013/14 PQ units b Factor Measurement (I) Unit, (c) flegntrincnt, 1l] 121 D]/[21 =131 141 131X[41 Gcncral Fund Dis,, tion..y Idcvcnac (d) Rmpu9y Tax Plop Tax Cun'enl Semlied P, op Cimem Unsecured Prap Tax Prior Unsecured PI'ep' Fax Current Supplanental Plop Fax Prier Supplemental Contractual Revenue 10a11'roperly "Ilex Sales & Use Taxes DocumenIoy'I1'nnsfer Tax Fro¢hiscs Film's and Penalties F.-110C 'fe'allsaclmti Fine 'ira ffic Motor Vchide MC lent th- Safely Pees Administration Costs Fine -I lafic School AB233 Rendignmcw Other Court Pines Non Dept Ctimmal -Co. 25% Penalties & hit On Del 'I mes Toted Fines and Penalties T ecmr Ovo Ro,v Interest Interest- Invasmd Ponds 'total Interest CA -Moto' Vehkk ❑, -Llm, Tax Miscellaneous Federal and Slat, CA- Homeowners Tax Relief CA -Suppl I lomeowners'Fas Relief CA- Mandmc Reimbm'semem Feder al In Lien Taxes In Licu =fax from So Cal Fair Total belle, a] and Slate 'Cobacca Tax SOth,.nmt Miscellancolu ltevenne Transienl Ocmipancy Non Conan. Aile,.tl Racehorse Iis Court Fees & Co5t5 Supelio Coma Fees Unclaimed Money Cash Ovcr -Shota F.I SoNints Land Pill Sale Meal El me Rebme, & Retiods 'fetal Miscclla11 erns 11,,, ae "fatal Generrd Fund Discl Obnary Revemle 79 78 78 78 78 88 78 78 78 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 80 80 80 81 82 87 S 173,250,000 --- - -- See' fable4 ------------------------------ --------------------------------- 8,400,000 ------------ --- - - - - -- See 'I We 4 ------- --------- 453,202 - - not used - - 1,100,00o - - nolused - - 2,000,000 - - nolused - - 81,017,867 - nm laed - - S 266,221 069 S S - S 29,250,501 - _ - See Table S - S 11 ,500,000 — -------------- - - - - -- See'fnble 4 S 5,000,000 - S - not used - S - S 272,212 2,714,767 S 0.10 per ewpita & 50% employee, entire c01111ty 1,833,000 - - not used 22,230 - - not used - - - not used 1,798,250 - - nolused 17,500,000 - - not used - 2,714,767 - percq,itn &50% employee, entim county 80,000 2,714,767 0,03 per capita &50% employee, entire county 2,500,000 2,714,767 0.92 per eapita & 50 % employee, entire wuwy S 24,005,692 S 1,05 S 31,000,000 - $ - not used S 2,602,825 S 2,602,825 S 192,900,000 S 2,669,000 42,600 54,792 2,050,000 S 4,R7 fi 392 88 S 10,000,000 78 S 1,686,000 78 210,000 78 11,500 83 620,000 83 9,000 88 88 7.000 88 74,000 88 1,700,000 88 88 3,000,000 S 7 312 500 ------- - - - - -- See'rable 5 S - - - -- See 'fable5 S not used not used not used not used not used S S not used - S - nol used nolused nolused 2,714,767 0.23 percapita &50% empl oyee, ent i re county 2,714,767 0.00 per capita & 50 % employee, entire wunty - nolused I'm used nolused not used 1101 used 2,714,767 1 -I I per capita & 50 % employee, entire wumy S 1,34 2.39 979 5 98 979 979 29 979 901 S 1,028 g ----------------------------- S g 5 S S 979 224 979 3 979 1,082 1,308 S z< 2,337 (n) Dased o l County of Riverside Fm,,I Yem 2013 -14 Remeinended Budget. (h) Based on ( I ) 2,279,967 total M,mide County residents and 363,590 residents in the unincorpl abed sections of Riverside R ),nny per Ilse Ci lifonlia Department of Finance„lanumy I, 2014, (2) 869,600 total Riverside Counp- employees will 116,500 employee, in the Imincoq,ormed sections of Riverside County per the Culifomia I`:nryloymenl Development Depamnem, May 2014, and (3) county employment was reduu:A by 5U °i, to nwunt for the estimated less frequent use of,oimy public services by empleyees than rwidems. (c) See 'I able 3- Land Use Assumptions. (d) Discretionary revmnw doniled line 1, 111, provided by 12ivcrsi(te County Executive Office, 4/10/2013. Page 49 of 67 11IR, I_AW,,,,el 1lainora,C"late I MRII,1NJSillom I IA Rel,)Il'I nnVlale r z U lu 1 E m w 1 $ W 2 r r Fj 6 VL � E i E Y n E r e� � a" 1 m E -- Y', z OU ' - P. L• e y a U ✓ III Vt I- 0 0 O LO a) 0) ^^M 0— 3 e � i F pc iw V pp m -KJU V aiu5 o0 2 -'f' V c K ' v p. m tr Gg U I- 0 0 O LO a) 0) ^^M 0— 3 II i C - E C a` L 5 - 2VG e o� 9�c c uKnF /P II i O r LO LL 5 E t C - 2VG e E E o n a mmnG50 _ _.3U�V(]G V� =�. 17 mmmmmmmmmw a O r LO LL 5 E t n m m m LO CD u t 4 ry W y V z �..-, , ,, .- rc,-, 11 E. C C V� rc - n' EEO C4H YFKC C0 K 2 - a _ L%KNFIO y rc - M LO w u ,y 4 l »J y _ n m E C` 4iKV,r'i. c` 5 a / % \ / \ j \/ % \ / \ j -1 2 Eandbil 11 -2 Rlvcrsidu Coaaly Fis'cnl lmpael Anal a, Scenario 2: Propoxnl Projeol Ilse tables - Riverside County Genelml fund Financing Re,un cmenls Calealalioas Niebola Road Aanesalinn Decunher 5. 2014 .. -. '... ._ Dn, i tl'o '1]lble WE 13n,1,1 IN 2013/14 (a) Net Ara .. I 1 , (Q nM Faun(, Iignivnlenl Unit s(<) foci or p1c,u,nmmrnl (c) Project Iignlvalamt Financing Unils [tD Reamremads 121 lIF121 -l3j L4] i3XI4] .aunt,, Glnnna.ng Rmairealem. Leg.slm.,c and Administauy, "fable] S 113346,664 S 4253,816 21914,767 N 1.57 per onpitx& 50%mnplcyce, cntlrc .arty 979 $ 1,534 Flounce Table] 50,924496 (2,901460) 2,714,767 (1,0'7) per cup. to &50 %employes, ..ours want, 979 (1,046) Counsel 'Tablc7 6,257,010 1434,526 3714,]6] 0.13 .... capita &56% cenplevee, mare . ..net, 979 517 P.lsaaael 'fable? 6,266,830 - 2,711767 pu" a@50 %tan n_y cc. entre comy 979 - Ilelins n 7 8,434,262 3,401,16,3 3,714,767 al LS u,d, &SO %mema, sauna , u 979 1,226 Conavuvicet 'fable 7 - - 2,]14,]67 - per capita & 50% employee, enure county 979 - pec",1y Manogemeal Table 7 27,853,827 3246,674 2,714,767 1.42 percalita & 50% em ..loyca, enure .naaty 979 1,387 Plant Acquisition Table 7 119 689,907 - 2,714,767 - pe1caplm & 50% cieployee, emim county 979 - "e'am"a 'fable 7 5,494,111 - 2,714,767 - p.. cnpito .@ 50% cnlployoe, emire roanty 9]9 - OtherGenotal Tablc7 30,280,235 - 2,714,767 - pereapila &50% mnployec, entire count, 979 - DebtServlce - Principal 'fable ] 2,714,767 - jeer capita & 50% ...... q entire roanty 979 'fatal Geaeaj aaaaeia, Itegtreac h, S 369,049342 S 10034719 -S -L70- 5 k3,018f Pablic Pirotalion 3 hc,l Table 7 S 217,828,746 S 33,9353 .1 2,279,967 S c 1488 1 llata,olf c county 872 S :12,982'x Police Pretoction 'fable 7 374,898, 127 1(16,270,93(1 - - - - - -- -- - ---------- . _ _ ---------- Sce'rable 9 --------- __ _ ----------------------- Dele a. a cold( n<eb t, 'Tablc7 285,050,999 73,184,341 2,719]67 2696 per eq, la &50 %e.... cc oa`, a>unry 279 263 @5E 17", 11romel.., Table 7 226,648,738 1 '. ad llspen ma Table 7 11 326,7]2 421,311 2,714,767 0.16 1 aI la& 50 11 y f -. ..t ay 979 1ST Ol P"atnea I`,ble 7 79,388,613 1$840,096 2,714,767 6.94 1 1 T _ 6 C I ( ."mar, 979 36,796: PL ,A Cma- oIS 4a,dVSate -Co ,etioa T,ble7 1,062,124 1062124 2,714,767 0391 unlit, &50ra Idol e. 1,l 11 c corny 979 ,:389; 'Pohl Ih,blic P,meetwn S 1 196,204 119 $ 233 721122 S 4933 S 46,698 Public Ways & Facilities PubhcA4ays l'able7 S 209226,389 S - - 5 - nta,ed - S I,ap.ad Outlay Table 7 ],]16,167 'fnml Public 4Nn3 s� aad l'nellitles S 216.942556 S - S S , Wait, and Sanitntim, Health Table 7 $ 410,074,228 $ 23,210,596 2,279,967 $ 10.18 per capita, enure county 872 S 8,879 Hos ..ilal Qnc 'fable 7 60,358,750 16,712,080 2,279,90 7.33 per capita stain county 872 6,393 California Children's Services Table 7 18,633,467 6,380,365 2,279,967 2.80 jeer capita, entire county 872 2,441 Sen.lation table 7 800,000 7,279,967 pereap.II, entire .malty 872 'F., llealtl,n at Saat.mon $ 489,866445 5 46,303,041 S 2031 S 34,9133 Public Assislnnw A,aaa,,ttat eca Table 7 $ 421,322,421 S 944,827 2,279,967 S 0.41 per capita, enure county 872 S 361 Aid Programs feble7 420,836,512 2,695,859 2279,967 1.18 per cap.,,, ealire 1,,a 1, 872 1,031 Cam of Coup wards Table? 294,766 294,766 2,279,967 0.13 per carat, entire coumy 872 113 Veteran, services Table 7 1243,102 902,950 2,279,967 0A0 per r.'ala, eat,. ceunty 892 345 Othe, A .... lance 'table? 71,622465 - 2,279,967 pc, ,na, enti re counq 872 'l,al Public Assistance $ 915- 319,266 S 4838402 S 2._12 S +d.RSla Ldauldon, Rem'eatiml and Gdlat'al Set vices L.bmry Scrv.ees 'fable 7 S 20,990,394 $ - 2,279,967 - pereapita enure county 872 - A,.,,ultnral Fat ens..a 'fable 7 593,064 593,004 2,2]9,96] 0.26 per caplla, cam rc county 872 227 Rut,cndoa and Cultural services 'fable ] 792,984 73,381 ? 279,967 0,03 percep.ta enti. cealay 872 28 Total (daemon, 11". It uI Caltacal Sees. 9 32_1]6,442 S 666,445 S 0.29 S - "255 DO), Service Debi Se,v.cc P..n..... '.able ] S 3,430,976 S - - S - natured _ S _ Other Ocmm,l 'fable 7 20,000,000 - - coned Rclireinenl M 1-1, -Penn Debt 'fable 7 34,162,634 - - - urn used Interest on Loag -Tem, Debt 'fable 7 4,894 823 oat used 'fetal Debt Suvi,c $ 62,488,433 .S S S , Tmnl General Fond Fiavmia, Ilegniremeat, S 3,272 24fi 603 S 295,565,728 S 75.75 S 70,135 Fo9laatca_ (n) 1". the Count, of Rni ...de Pisaal Yea, 2013 -14 Recommended Dudgcl. (b) See 'I'alae 7 - Geneal Fund f ... notng l2cgturmnenls Dem.l. (e) Baled (1) 227911,7 tad llnem... C lyre,,d,al, i ad 303590 reside tlsh rho talwl .. wd sed inis of RVc sine CeLlal, '11. tl Cal.f0111aD l',nent of Flealace, 3au1) I, 2014,(2) 869,600 Iota[ line ...de Cn nat. un.. lo,,, end 11(, 5110 employees in the I c..poated sections ,f R.vms.de County ,,, the Cahfon,la ldlapleymcat Development Dcpanmeat, May 2014. and (3) cnaaty claplo alelt,vas reduced by 50 %l9 account for fl , estimmed le, f c,acat use of county Vuhlie services by mnployres Wan ..,.dens. (d) See 'I able 3 -Land Use Assuntptians_ 1.1 [1. ,V,.,n n.11 an.IaNa q ll cIJA aua ^a reu,pl..t, Page 56 of 67 Exhibit B -2 Riverside Comity Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 2: Proposed Project Use Table 9 - Riverside County Police Protection Cost Calculation Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 Police Protection Costs Net General Fund Contribution City Contracts for Sheriffs Services Net Police Protection Budget Total Sworn Officers Cost per Sworn Officer Ref FY 2013/14 Budget Table 7 $ 106,270,930 Pg. 210 157,014,010 $ 263,284,940 2,200 (a) $ 119,675 Projected Residents Table 3 872 Service Standard: Sworn Officers per 1,000 residents 1.00 (b) Additional Sworn Officers Required a buildout 0.87 Total Police Protection Costs (c) Footnotes: (a) 2,200 sworn officers per Riverside County Sheriff's Department press release, dated 2/4/13. The County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recommended Budget includes training for additional sworn sheriffs deputies. (b) Per the Riverside County Service Goals and Strategies, the Board of Supervisors commits to continue efforts to maintain law enforcement services at a targeted staffing ratio of one deputy sheriff per 1,000 population in the unincorporated area. (www.couiityof-ivei-side.us/ government/ strategieplaii/ servicegoalsandsu•ategies.litml) (c) This analysis assumes that upon annexation, 100% of the police protection costs will shift to the City. Page 57 of 67 P:ARCI,AWeiner- LlsinoraACounty l�IA \ReportAPlsinoro PIA Report Template Fiycal Impact to Fir, Fund l+innnclag S.", y" At valorem Tas 12esldemial and Noo- Residential Bwic'I is Adj_ fur Depotion Sbvauml Fim Fund Post -ERAP .Share of Ba4ic lay 'Ttal Snoetwal Fit, 1". lWlihil 11 bit". ide Coallly Pisod Impact An>dyel, Scenario 2: Proposed 11, jecl U,, 'I'ible 10- Riverside County Fiscal Impact lo Rire PmW Nol 1, Bond Anneantipn D i 'S 2011 'fable Project lief. Impact 4 S 753,21f, 00000% Marginal P, jwt Inc Impact Ion% S ftinoncing Re4nitentmds (d) pile Pmi.elian Costs Z 1 S 44,600,984 100X. S 44,600,984 421.840 S 105.]3 per capim & 50"8 employcq ,it i.. ... t nted only 999 S 103,484 1oCd 1iallyingl omnonts Net Ann. n1 Snfpinsl (IJCBcit) S Pcr Umvlopmcm lhtii G - 17o.tnmer (a) Pct tlm County of 11....st(to Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recommended Budget- __ -- (h) B ... dot(1)22]9,9a] told R,,co,de Couny loodents ald 303590 residents to the tcoq i d soclitw ifR.. .... d County so lo, C.l'forn'., Dopottne I cfrioo z,hpey 1,2014,(2)869,600 will Risersido County enydoyces and 116,500 eaydoyccs in We unincpptm it'd ... iens of Ilirtiiside County pct Om ('aho)...lo ISmployment Dovelopi Icot D.parooent, Mny 2014, and (3) ceuny employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated Icss fmgawn use of county pubic........ by employe.. than reddahs. (c) Scc Table 3 -Land Ilse Also ill s. (d) Per the Plan of S,. slow, forNichols Road Annexntioo to the City ofLcke Elsinore, an esisung fie station 'cues the Project, as each cwt' are bused mi a per cquivalem resident approach. (c) 'this aoaly'is assn.. .. that upon mm ... it." 100% of the fine piotc.tion costs will shift to thc City . Pseurwa.coel.m.retc.,,my pinumrcmEia;oae nn arnan mcip'.a10 Page 58 of 67 Bndgct Cmmb Projret Page Bodgm Morginai Not V ivabnt Ggnivalnot Projeet lief. Amonnt(a) In,lto, Atli Iloits(b) li Measu Unit, b,) Impom CA- llonmowaii s'I'os liellef 93 S 509,321 O% 5 - - S - oot used - S ('omramoal R,vanue 93 10,418,838 0% - - - not cool - Redcvcippnwnt Pass Thm 93 - 0% - - not used - 1'otal finxoc ng Smmces 5 , ftinoncing Re4nitentmds (d) pile Pmi.elian Costs Z 1 S 44,600,984 100X. S 44,600,984 421.840 S 105.]3 per capim & 50"8 employcq ,it i.. ... t nted only 999 S 103,484 1oCd 1iallyingl omnonts Net Ann. n1 Snfpinsl (IJCBcit) S Pcr Umvlopmcm lhtii G - 17o.tnmer (a) Pct tlm County of 11....st(to Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recommended Budget- __ -- (h) B ... dot(1)22]9,9a] told R,,co,de Couny loodents ald 303590 residents to the tcoq i d soclitw ifR.. .... d County so lo, C.l'forn'., Dopottne I cfrioo z,hpey 1,2014,(2)869,600 will Risersido County enydoyces and 116,500 eaydoyccs in We unincpptm it'd ... iens of Ilirtiiside County pct Om ('aho)...lo ISmployment Dovelopi Icot D.parooent, Mny 2014, and (3) ceuny employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated Icss fmgawn use of county pubic........ by employe.. than reddahs. (c) Scc Table 3 -Land Ilse Also ill s. (d) Per the Plan of S,. slow, forNichols Road Annexntioo to the City ofLcke Elsinore, an esisung fie station 'cues the Project, as each cwt' are bused mi a per cquivalem resident approach. (c) 'this aoaly'is assn.. .. that upon mm ... it." 100% of the fine piotc.tion costs will shift to thc City . Pseurwa.coel.m.retc.,,my pinumrcmEia;oae nn arnan mcip'.a10 Page 58 of 67 fiscal Inp.rel to 1, b ar v I W ... Financing Snmxes Ad valorem'fas R,od —wd nod Nno- Resid,00,d 13asic'1'n.a Ad,l- for Deflation Connry Library Posl{RAF Share ol'13iulu'fas 'Ilaal County Library l'an Pines and F., rvm res Lihfm'y Run and Pees Ilse of Money & 13mpe11y Inwood -hov m Fo'ld' Bents Adnn.. lt ns Pshlldts Indusnlal& Coolo' co nl Slnce Lcasato Non Count Agency M l.w. I!venl Ch:vyes l:enQFMOII] Inlc,SOVentmcnlal - Slnle CA -Stale R, -.,u, CA- Ilomemvnors Ta.e Rclicf (A Other Opoddi..g crams Fed- Coon nunity Ituinvelopmam Hot Chn,", Ion Services Ld'md Demt Nluseunt Inter fund Leases ntertbnd - Ni sadlpndn.. Interfund -salmy ltcimbursemm�t Nl"v' lanc9us Ravcnua Other Gov. - C'ily Govarn ...Is Other "I'asnblc salts Contnclaiol Itevanue Cavh 0,v -Short Rcbatcs& Rotlmds Contributions R Donations Co,inj, Prom Notaceuoty Agencies Coctrib. Prom Othet Coway Funds 1'otal billancingsoutces Financing liegnireanmrts Library Services I Mal 1 nnrarg liegnnene rls NN Annn n1 tin n p1os7 (Deficit) Pev Devc opmmn hail FC hihil Ii -2 liivea side Cnnnly l:iscal lmpacl Analysis Sommer. 2: Proposed Proj «t Ilse Table I I - Rivm'ide County Fisod Ingmcl to Lihrary l o ld Nichols Bond Anoc:ntlnn 'fable Project Mafgioal 1),njocl lie, Impael Lterease Impart 4 S 753,216 Equivalent Rquivalenl 11.rojv,I 2 139642% Lrcrense Anraont q 10,518 _ 100% 5 I0,518 - - - nor nsud Dudgal 0% - - - urn used 19,176 Connry Pfojcrl Page 13ndgot Marginal Net Equivalent Rquivalenl 11.rojv,I lief. Amount (a) Lrcrense Anraont Unit" (h) Pactm Mea". llnily c Lnpaa - 0% - - - nor nsud - 0% - nor used 96 $ 350,000 100% $ 350,000 x 714,767 $ 0.13 par aapim ft 50% enploycc, erdirc counry 929 S 126 96 96 9G 96 96 96 96 96 96 97 97 97 97 97 5,000 0% - - - urn used 19,176 100% 19,196 2,714,969 q0 per capita k 50% employc.�, moire county - 0% - 0% - - - not used - 0% - - - not mml 124,679 ll% - - - net nswl - 0% - - - nor nsud - 0% - nor used 25,000 09 165,720 0 °r 6S 000 0 °i - 0% 159,495 0% p? o% 695,016 5,791,526 9 ono 10,000 0% n% o% ns% n ^s o% 0 °6 0% not used nut nscd not usN not used not used nolused notusad not uvcd npl used nm used not nscd m nscd not naad not nscd not nscd not nscd 999 7 $ -. 11),6511i 128 S 20,990,394 100% 20,990,394 2714,767 S 7.73 pei capita & 5M, employee, entiro noway 979 S 7,568 S. 7,568 f. S 13 (a) Penhe Coamy of lilverside Iniseal Year 2013- 1412acmnmu,ded Audyel. (b) Dnsed oo (1) 2,27? 967 tom[ Aivmsido County residems an. 1363,590 raaidenls in Iha nnlncoryomtcA soetion,e of IG,v tide Cmwy per thm Cnhfomia Dupamncm of Plnana, January I, 2014, (2) 869,00 1.4.1 Riverside County mnployccs and 116,506 cotployces in tho u i,00,,,awd swio o, of Riverside Couory perthc CelObrnii Einployment Developnmol Uep...I. t, May 2014, od (3) county mnploymenI wan reload by 50 % to account for the csGmntcd Icss (rcqucnt use of couny public services by employees than re5idents- (c) See'I'able 3 land Use Assumptions I'6Uly"",... .aaa Caanly Yinncav„a. ...ni,m Page 59 of 67 V: xlllli, ll -3 Ili"'i", Cnnnlf l i ... IlI pI... AsAl'Gx sacnxdn a: empnrcd rrgkcl um I All, Ii -Ri". I'll (:.I my Fis"S lml,ll rl l n 'rrl,ll glnc,nlin I]z Nfcllulx Road Am,rxlllinn NI... 5.211 Fsc'111 I' x IODA 11 1 - -.. 1'al", st 11a,finul 11. c1 Fill in, Snlnem Ilex. .... .lee !..._ SAA— A Selcl'1'u RD _M_nnnlll I.- Iuld1.11 -1 A.,,IiaSala 5 S 40)1,3511 HWrcuf I'Inlulw,lndan CAR, 111, Il tp ^4 Tnlnl atcuumA S11cs 1i11 N 101149 n' ✓, s .I I'll Gllllny veiled rhea if Hit elllI NO ligllivnml, H "Inalerll eenim I'av !(If, Anlnn A(A) Inuvu_ Amn1n UOIle00 oacmr mclunl ill's c) Imnncl Lnll Tnu¢Ix^llAlicn A,,(tl S, 5 11,1 1.1111 All S - - S - 11.1161 - .1 _ 111, 12 - I'nnca congsaun 31 ,1,,, _ 11., -d _ LSCC1nusAF -.mdu PCI11n1- 1lwdemflu(ss 3,e 16.1 Px Iwa _ enIDSIA, 19 21i1 11'30 - - At, ASCII - U. Of nssW,- L9ucs1 nnertsl- h."II100ds rcv 212,151 nY - - A., Old _ 11nc1eolrmneln:d CA.HWY USCtlas Tav SIC 2 1114A m xo 2431's 1,17 IOn: 24 131,117 2,22 9,961 hall lwc caellry catlm 1.ClnU 132 9.114 CA -IIWY US<r/GdN T11.cSm 210JU If NO - Ill% 2329,962 R,raaPlla undm alnlal' GI - C.A'11WYUeoI /GRS Tnx.1. 2 IOl rH .4) Sill If, NJO IOII'C 1NOJNJO 2329,912 1_1 11 R,ACCi1a'll.ec.It 122 114113 CA -H1VY 01-C.. 1w, 12I11JC(1) S, IOO91 - 2,22 1.962 - 1wl All nnlim mung F22 - ( A -HWY U ... /C- Tax 1ef 2lAIn1 -J'(I) 19 - 111111: - 2329,962 - VHr [11111;1, C. im Ill 332 - CA HWY U111,011 'As 12105 (14 N9 - IORM - 2,229,962 - Ic,...P;la. It CcnnnK 122 (A HWY 111110611, III, IS, 2106(0 39 - 1➢0% - 23291112 _ IxI rnPiln Cmim mild, 311 - CA- 11141110 Glad .I Gmae 1`9 Ln -11101 ns sal - CA.Rw16N1am111Mfl Cxdlln2c 39 4111124 11 1 AS, All, _ - Pco-h'crtHRCxnv N9 1 1 4uz Af Abed _ P,d IifC. Rdllml.lsen.c111 N9 251/5922 IM - _ - lwlmm - - Fcd -ARRn SIC ill, N9 - C.s lwni -d _ ChS.",l'nr 5111X11, sllc of Plmr- SI <ananiSt. 10.61 1 - - - Ill, n:ua - luNl6luve Poe b'1. 111 I'll 0'a - _ nod Su lllgnzllon IS S9 24.11 - aal lI" IIIKI"ielon Pcralil l'ccs CC N9 AIRS 1112 ny6 - lad - COP IIO¢ CITIlC, N9 11,98 _ 1x11 CIUd Road PnIH CxP1nm 111004 39 ASIA 2`8 11 116 - _ _ mCAI RAW NIIn IV EH-tsa Rd n IS 39 3'1_ill, IOM6 NQ]NO 2.214,262 a0f Ill upi1a 8511% onglb)cg eupl'C 1.01111 329 i2 RA,] S.,vul Mah01 L'xP Rdmb 19 294116 IOO'N, 291,146 1121,242 029"All" 5C% m0P101vc, 011Cmmlmly 979 232 Die�slIAC NO 12 %311 O' %, _ - - n0AI.CId _ l7acic0la S9 110.161 . 0% - - - to, Clmd - D"Il rtm ROUS sv 655 0'Y, 1.l _ I1ll, Uglily AIOIAh 39 6.n, At ¢0d lCia1A0C5cnm111 fill SC I— N9 MIA 143 All - - Isla Re nll6als lnrsman6 39 - 096 II _ TUMe nO[aalu. GCxvmw, I I, IS ¢422.000 C "/a - _ Ad - InOldid 11", 91, - 1111 - - IwnuCd _ I111uf1W- COCA Inlrrcu111y NO A 711111 1114 ASIA Iwd IIIII&M- NAA.1.11 ... Is, 90 12915 1lis - - All, uk`d _ IIIIIH - MO.uvlln —1, 110 3.535 ...d - IIdO'RW'RDA 911 1322,130 0: - _ 0011 I - InIC1f0d -RImb ROTS 'SCC 90 2.133 ,912 - ,if "A1 _ e0mfm111"1d D.SR.lS 4 90 if 213 11% Alt lace e0cif11dsamnaSCIAlA1,ulrem 9O 119.121, IM - 1w111utl _ R11nfIW.l'9111P11w1n USCG SO 211130 Ox, is, IOCH _ IlaCifil i0c1CCS1s 90 2102422 C ?6 _ - - wnb-d _ 11acm1MI III S1ki 9O 214359 0'11 _ - -I .Ad _ In¢CA Adeslxlru 911 121,24 0'11, n.... Ill— 'sRn[a11c 3* Of ,It san OIAO' Mane 9O 1 C Cx _ All Ison _ SAID 4f S111n14, PmP-nq 911 26,m4 IiIi 00, 11cd RCLma A, RCrmWS III 1z 154 lsea - - Lnd 011:m ucul oll5 911 4- 191111 (SCGnarl _ - _ 1w111YAS _ 111sam1a Cllnln AS 011x1 to _ - Pw2pe 911 IC _ l-I _ Gmu,MlrcRmcnlu 910 z9.11m WY lit, _ All lso1 0x11 iAG hm 'Pecs- L'11P105'ce, 90 50 - - nel ilea _ ( cvnc 91 13,04,1 111111 1% - _ 11m I1sd _ SR:a:d Dludneclllu 911 SB54919 - _ _ lwlmtd - sxlcOfnnlmllIHIS,,CO 911 250011 Wi _ lwl lacn _ C01n,dnldnn FGry Ode, C1n11y Pa1dx 911 10 "1 0 ^6 _ lmllocd 'r I'Ilr in, Snm'em I nnlcole Rnluir, 1, TINA IlnmlwH,,,O,(.I) (1) 126 .10,14 +J1+ IdliHi 14125.415 2,214,117 12,06 WICnPOmP 5HCA aOVlelCC QOAll m1m15' 929 II 2@ 'TLMA; C,msi011 GA-1 IBS - 11'M - - ASCU TLMA:'I'mmp+e0n...A'AAll (CIA AC) 126 332,]9I 0°, - - 11e11ucd ILMA'. TA..... ....... 1 CC1nm149nu 11 ltt1 CO 124 111IS7On2 u., - - lmuucd ll fall'1 11,14 Rul lnrinen,n 1 <c2Rte 4a1A FOOAAA tilrtpLn / (DI ill 14 r11rn�an911.111 1.111 s 19 (S) I'll me caI1111, 1n1ixcl,m4l .I111 A cIr 2110 -14 1111.1116; =1mm n1d;c1. (I,) Ifn,ca 01( I 12 271167 ,),,111 .-I ( 0 1, um 1 -x.5901osmc x III All AnII lod _s s0FIl, -cil ( AAt,N 11AdoE'I %I''Dgxn Of I ALkIII J,11111,111 1 2014. 121169,0111 ASIA G11111dc Al 1 ulAH -ftl6s r Im2ees= In Clx - LOCI .w r4rtI ,Ca Imo (, Inrl Cuff1 `Lptl0)'IC Du'Jnn .IDxlxn lsl M.11 21A a - And O3,I ,o 9105. ,,x ell .m F,'ill 111gv1,al fo lAa.Yllnulclllrs, GCgaA1111sc o[m,mlr 9nblic sniccz br anylClncv Ilan l(Siaans_ (1) SC, CfI1II Lxaa U, Ass0....I. a. Ill All of l he MCaaroA s'Iles All is IIInurNCd Of, NOO m -nmilg CAJ,Aa 9lolecu 6=r roil cis,limu%I11L am T F,Aid AdAll C0ffil R) L—d I IstI A.- At... M14111 to] l -Il J'69:r 1111 'OIL llw'II SAKIIII IA aNnL'Ialnc Offil V) At I ()I ISS CIS I'.'. nvk If Ill! ssl* . Wit, 0111110111 1111 11 1 A111SISAI I 11JO 0 F Iffill 9d oeLRec C)' 11. t I MA Trn11Cd11e .1 "Is.- IIAII,1 11II .I III u. IIISIe Sit ,Jl's Sd , c CS9. e0s'd l-d S Will wSI S l ,—ASS, 6 .1» sc 111111 _ r'n1 m,1..1 - -1 - ,dm v1. 'I 11.11RI I i raldnl :, -r,,r Olrm_ 00 'IO,'ILMA: 1).0."( mdP Jcq gP;lm a"Alat 0111) CAJA] W, cx9aucs Rr]hot rtenrlaP Oynlal Pm)ca,. ID hmll '.I: All 'Al d StAl I H and it, A; II 1 0 nm.. ..... d ilalcm,f k .... .idcofd C0Os," 1.l, A..,.n.mrve,Earo. r1.N.m1I, 1 Page 60 of 67 Exhibit 13 -2 Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 2: Proposed Project Use Fable 13 - Riverside County Fiscal Impact to Flood Control Zone 3 Operations Fund Nichols Road Annexation December 5, 2014 Flood Control Zone 3 Oprrations Fund Financing Seances Table Marginal Project Ad Valorem Tax Ref. Increase Impact Residential and Non - Residential BasicTax Adj. lot Deflation 4 $ 753,216 Flood Control Zone 3 Post -ERAF Share of Basic "Fax 3.26336% Total Flood Control Zone 3 Fix $ 24.580 100% $ 24,580 Budget Comity Project Page Budget Marginal Net Equivalent Equivalent Project Ret. Amount (a) Increase Amount Units (b) Facto c Measure Units (b) Inpact Use of Money & Property 408 $ 265.800 0% $ - - .$ - not used - $ - Intergovernmeriod 408 157,000 0% - - - not used - - Charges lot Services 408 141,000 0% - - - not used - Miscellaneous Revenue 408 1,405,000 0% - - - not used - - TotllFinancingSources .S_ ...:24,580 1'. Financing Requirements (d) $ 24,580 Total Financing Requirements S :24,589. Net Annual Surplus/ (Deficit) S - Per Development Unit Footnotes'. (a) Pat the County of Riverside Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Recommended Budget. (b) Based on (1) 2,279,967 total Riverside County residents and 363,590 residents in the unincorporated sections of Riverside County per the California Department of Finance, January 1. 20147 (2) 869,600 total Riverside County employees and 116,500 employees in the ar incuaporated sections ofRiverside County per the California Employment Development Department, May 2014, and (3) county employment was reduced by 50% to account for the estimated less frcquent use of-county public services by employees than residents. (c) See Table 3 - land Use Assumptions. (d) Per the Recommended Budget, Flood Control Zone 3 Operations appear to be funded using It reserve approach. Each yem a portion al the revenues are allocated to fund Current year expenditures, with the remainder allocated to the Fund Balance_ In years when expendittu'es exceed revenues, the Fund Balance IS used to pay the difference, maintaining a balanced fund. As such, DPPG assmnes this fund remains balanced, with financial requirements equaling financing Sources. RCt,werre,ESao, atynntR nontEislaoreFiARenortTe,,I, ,e Page 61 of 67 0 N N m - o E J E 0 N N m li i 0 0 M (6 IL _ UE v� - �6 u S CiF .O Di 0 0 v a) 0 0 LO 0 m rn c� r o c s P t E Exhibit C Riverside County Fiscal Impact Analysis Nichols Road Annexation Area Boundaries Nichols Road Annexation December 5. 2014 399 -210 -035 (El;iuore P-niou H23h) 0,81 AC' Per the Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, dated July 2014. Page 67 of 67 ryt 390- 2J0- W %(BLbf} qs _ 120 AC �.ww 009 ct" $fl (RCA) ` 68 08 " - _ 390-216-007 39u- 280-005 5 9�3pLL (RCA) _ (liehel: Rd, n ASS S33 AC PaO..re, LLC) +' 3 €, 160AC s m jcity o ,k, a Lake E101664 ._. 389 - 210 -008 . -_. a , Vii: >� .1� l 389-11D-032 (Akholc Rd. Rd, Pe�aoeas, LLC) , - r Pnrtnerc.. LLG'1 3+ AC `_.- -... NK,YS�SR -- 8.77 AC Z v 189210036 {�ichaL fid. �� ' � •-'. Puioerz, LLC1 ., ss Zln e r9 01AC d� _. 380-21"34 �" x High) lNkh.1,Rd t {, 43.04 &C _ Riverside CountyTLIAtAGISs LLi'j 0.8130`, 399 -210 -035 (El;iuore P-niou H23h) 0,81 AC' Per the Plan of Services for Nichols Road Annexation to the City of Lake Elsinore, dated July 2014. Page 67 of 67 Cl't'Y o , LA�L LSIIoI�L ,v DR AM EXFRrnaL NICHOLS ROAD ANNEXATION (ANNEXATION NO. 83, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014 -02) INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2015121019) Prepared By: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Applicant: ERIC WERNER Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC P.O. Box 92877 -0122 Corona, CA 92877 -0122 Environmental Consultant: T&B PLANNING 17542 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 February 7, 2015 (DRAFT) City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ ..............................6 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... ..............................6 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) ................................................. ..............................6 1.3 Intended Uses of this Addendum and Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2005121019)....8 1.4 Contents of Initial Study /Addendum .............................................................. ..............................8 1.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis .................................................................... ..............................9 1.6 Actions Required for Project Approval ........................................................... ..............................9 1.7 Tiered Documents, Incorporation by Reference, and Technical Studies ....... .............................10 2.0 Project Description ............................................................................................. .............................13 2.1 Project Location and Setting... .................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Project Description ......................................................................................... .............................13 3.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................... .............................18 3.1 Background .................................................................................................... .............................18 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................ ............................... 19 3.3 Determination ................................................................................................ .............................20 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ .............................21 4.0 Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................... .............................32 4.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... .............................32 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................... .............................36 4.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... .............................40 4.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................... .............................46 4.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... .............................54 4.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... .............................61 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ .............................69 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................. .............................71 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................ .............................78 4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................... .............................88 4.11 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................... .............................93 4.12 Noise .............................................................................................................. .............................95 4.13 Population and Housing ................................................. ............................... ............................102 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 1 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page 4.14 Public Services ................................................................ ............................... ............................104 4.15 Recreation ...................................................................... ............................... ............................110 4.16 Transportation/ Traffic .................................................... ............................... ............................111 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................... ............................... ............................118 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................... ............................... ............................123 5.0 References ......................................................................... ............................... ............................127 Appendix A: GPU EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program .................. ............................... ............................128 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 2 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure Name and Number Page Figure1 Regional Map ............................................................................................. .............................14 Figure 2 Project Boundary Map ............................................................................... .............................15 LIST OF TABLES Figure Name and Number Page Table 1 Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations ............... .............................16 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 3 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ELM Bureau of Land Management BP Business Park CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Climate Action Plan CBC California Building Code CDC California Department of Conservation CDD Community Development Director CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Specific Act CH Conservation Habitat CIVIL) Commercial Mixed Use CO Carbon Dioxide DIF Development Impact Fee EIR Environmental Impact Report EVMWD Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIA Fiscal Impact Analysis FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GPU General Plan Update HCP Habitat Conservation Plan I Interstate IS Initial Study LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOP Master Drainage Plan MHDR Medium High Density Residential MM Mitigation Measure MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 4 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition N -A Natural Assets No. Number Nox Nitrogen Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 Ozone O -S Open Space PF Public Facilities P -1 Public Institutional PM Paticulate Matter R -A Residential Agricultural RCA Regional Conservation Authority RCHWMP Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan R -H Hillside Single Family Residential ROG Reactive Organic Gases RUR Rural SCAB South Coast Air Quality Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCH State Clearinghouse Number SKR Stephens' Kangaroo Rat SOz Sulfur Dioxide SOI Sphere of Influence SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 5 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 1`.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study for evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from annexation of approximately 666.66 acres from unincorporated Riverside County into the City of Lake Elsinore (Annexation No. 83) and a proposed Zone Change (ZC, Zone Change No. 2014 -02), which collectively will be referred to herein as the "Project" or "proposed Project." Specifically, the Project proposes the annexation into the City of Lake Elsinore and rezoning of eight (8) undeveloped parcels and two (2) parcels that are developed with the Temescal Canyon High School. This Initial Study has been prepared to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Project in relation to the impacts that were identified, disclosed, and mitigated as part of the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update (GPU) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019) (referred to herein as "GPU EIR "), which was certified by the Lake Elsinore City Council on December 13, 2011. The GPU EIR included an evaluation of impacts resulting from buildout of the General Plan, as well as future annexation and development within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which encompasses the Project site. Because impacts associated with the proposed annexation and rezoning of the Project site were fully evaluated and disclosed as part of the GPU EIR, this Initial Study provides an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project and compares those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR. 1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CEQA, a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code § §21000- 21177, applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment. To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies inform themselves of the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the general public an opportunity to comment on the information. If significant adverse impacts would occur that cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an EIR and balance the project's environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of overriding considerations. The CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and use of a previously certified EIR or adopted MIND for projects that have changed or are different from the previous project or conditions analyzed in the certified EIR or adopted MIND. In cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or adopted MND may be prepared. See CEQA Guidelines § 15164. The following describes the requirements of an Addendum, as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15164: a. The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in § 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 6 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation b. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. c. The decision - making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. d. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15162 should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, CEQA Guidelines § 15164(a) allows for the preparation of an Addendum if none of the conditions described in § 15162 are met. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 describes the conditions under which a Subsequent EIR must be prepared, as follows: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: 1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or MIND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR or previously adopted MND, an Addendum may be prepared. See CEQA Guidelines 4 15164. As demonstrated in the analysis presented in Section 4.0, none of the above circumstances that warrant the preparation of a Subsequent MIND or Subsequent EIR are present. Initial Study form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 7 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 1.3 INTENDED USES OF THIS ADDENDUM AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2005121019) This Initial Study (IS) /Addendum is an informational document intended to inform the City of Lake Elsinore decision- makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals (CEQA Guidelines Section 15021). The City of Lake Elsinore, as the Lead Agency, has determined that environmental clearance for the Project can be provided by the GPU EIR. Pursuant to Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, tiering from the GPU EIR will be used in this IS /Addendum for the analysis of the Project's environmental effects. 1.4 CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM This IS /Addendum is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project. Section 1.0, Introduction, identifies the purpose of this IS /Addendum, provides an overview of relevant CEQA requirements, identifies the intended use of this IS /Addendum, provides an overview of the organizational format of this IS /Addendum, identifies the scope of environmental analysis, and discloses the actions needed for Project approval. Section 2.0, Project Description, describes the proposed Project and provides a description of proposed discretionary actions required for Project implementation. Section3.0, Environmental Checklist, presents a summary of the results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed Project, and identifies whether the Project would result in any new or more severe environmental effects. Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, evaluates each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked is briefly discussed and supported by substantial evidence. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific effects anticipated with Project implementation, compares those effects against the conclusions of the GPU EIR, and provides a conclusion as to whether the Project would result in any new or more severe impacts to the environment not previously identified. Section 5.0, References, provides a list of references that were consulted in preparation of this document. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 8 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 1.5 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The City of Lake Elsinore prepared the proposed Project's IS Checklist as suggested by CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(d)(3) and 15168(c)(4). The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether the conditions set forth in § 15162, which would require a subsequent EIR or MND, are met and whether there would be new significant impacts resulting from the project not examined in the GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019). The checklist is found in IS Section 3.4. Following the checklist, Section 4.0 includes an explanation and discussion of each answer on the form. There are four possible responses to each of the environmental issues included on the checklist: 1. New Significant Impact. This response is used to indicate when the Project has changed to such an extent that major revisions of the GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019) are required due to the presence of new significant environmental effects. 2. More Severe Impacts. This response is used to indicate when the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions of the GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019) are required due to the fact that the severity of previously identified significant effects would substantially increase. 3. New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact. This response is used to indicate when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019) was adopted, indicates that there are new mitigation measures or alternatives available to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts of the Project, but the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative. 4. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. This response is used to indicate when the GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019) found an environmental impact to not occur or to be less than significant, and the proposed Project would not create a new impact or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified environmental impact. The Initial Study Checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses (see Sections 3.4 and 4.0) provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the current Project in the context of environmental impacts addressed in the previously adopted GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019). In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the current Project. 1.6 ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT APPROVAL The proposed Project consists of applications for Annexation (Annexation No. 83) and a Zone Change (Zone Change No. 2014 -02) to allow for the incorporation of 666.66 acres, currently located within unincorporated Riverside County, into the City of Lake Elsinore. Zone Change No. 2014 -002 seeks to establish the zoning designations for each of the ten (10) parcels proposed for annexation. Additionally, the City of Lake Elsinore will be initiating the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) Act annexation approval process with the Riverside LAFCO. As such, the City must adopt a resolution approving Initial Study Form No. PD 2000-32- Revised May 2012 Page 9 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation initiation of annexation and must submit an application to LAFCO requesting approval of the annexation (pursuant to Government Code § 56652). If after a preliminary review of the annexation resolution of application LAFCO determines that the annexation process should continue, LAFCO may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the proposal. Pursuant to California Government Code § 56663, if no written demand for a protest hearing from an affected agency, land owner, or occupant is received within ten (10) days of mailed notice, LAFCO may waive protest proceedings. 1.7 TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION By REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on the incorporation by reference of tiered documentation and technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed Project, which are discussed in the following section. 1. Tiered Documents As permitted in Section 15152(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, information and discussions from other documents can be included into this document. Tiering is defined as follows: "Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as the one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project." For this document, the City of Lake Elsinore GPU EIR (SCH NO. 2005121019) certified on December 13, 2011 serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area and the City's SOI, which includes the Project site. However, as discussed, site - specific impacts, which the GPU EIR cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This document, therefore, evaluates each environmental issue alone and will rely upon the analysis contained within the GPU EIR with respect to remaining issue areas. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which discourages redundant analyses, as follows: "Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses which they prepare for separate but related projects including the general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussion of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an FIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site - specific EIR or negative declaration." Further, Section 15152(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "Where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 10 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the EIR or negative declaration on the later project to effects which: (1) Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior FIR; or (2) Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions or other means." 2. Incorporation by Reference Incorporation by reference is a procedure for reducing the size of CEQA compliance documents and is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background information, but do not contribute directly to the specific analysis of the project itself. This procedure is particularly useful when a CEQA compliance document relies on a broadly- drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles 11986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If a CEQA compliance document relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the CEQA compliance document cannot be deemed unsupported by evidence or analysis (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco [1975, 48 Ca.3d 584, 595]). This document incorporates by reference the document from which it is tiered, the Lake Elsinore GPU EIR, certified December 13, 2011. This document will be referred to as the GPU EIR. This document also incorporates by reference the City of Lake Elsinore GPU (2011). When a CEQA compliance document incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with § 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: • The incorporated document must be available to the public or be a matter of public record (CEQA Guidelines § 15150[a]). The GPU EIR shall be made available, along with this IS /Addendum, at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124. • This document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency (CEQA Guidelines § 15150[b]). This document is available at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124. • This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference or briefly describe the information that cannot be summarized. Furthermore, this document must describe the relationship between the incorporated information and the analysis in the GPU EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15150[c]). As discussed above, the GPU EIR addresses the City of Lake Elsinore and its SO[ and provides background and inventory information and data which apply to the Project site. Incorporated information and /or data will be cited in the appropriate sections. • This document must include the State identification number of the incorporated document (CEQA Guidelines § 15150[d)). The State Clearinghouse Number for the GPU FIR is 2005121019. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 11 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information (CEQA Guidelines § 15150[f]). 3. Technical Studies The following documents are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15150 et seq., and are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. • Fiscal Impact Analysis (for the Nichols Road Annexation, prepared by Development Planning and Financing Group, Inc. (DPFG) and dated December 5, 2014. • City of Lake Elsinore Nichols Road Annexation (Annexation No. 83) Plan of Services, prepared by Nichols Road Partners, LLC and dated October 2014. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 12 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The proposed Project site comprises 666.66 acres located within the City of Lake Elsinore SCI along the northern border of the City of Lake Elsinore (Figure 1, Regional Map, and Figure 2, Project Boundary Map). Specifically, the Project area is located within the North Central Sphere of the City's SOI. The Project site is generally bounded by Interstate 15 (Corona Freeway) to the west and south, and El Toro Road to the east. Nichols Road and an existing mining operation (Nichols Canyon Mine) bisects the Project site, with approximately 596.21 acres of the Project site occurring to the north of the mine, and approximately 70.45 acres (inclusive of the Temescal Canyon High School) occurring to the south. The Project site is located on the Lake Elsinore, California, United States Geologic Survey 7.5- minute quadrangle map, Range 5 West, Township 5 South, Sections 24 and 25 (Latitude 33 °42'26" North; Longitude 117 °21'5" West). A summary of the annexation parcels and proposed pre- zoning designations is provided in Table 1, Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations, while the individual parcels are depicted on Figure 2. For purposes of description herein, the Project site comprises the following assemblages of parcels, which are categorized based on ownership and /or location: 1) Harbor Lounge, BLM, and RCA Parcels (APNs 390 - 230 -005, 390 - 230 -008, 390 - 270 -007, and 390 - 270 -009), which comprise approximately 596.21 acres located north of Nichols Road; 2) Bowtie Parcels (APNs 389 - 210 -032, 389- 210 -036, 389 - 210 -008, and 389 - 210 -034), which comprise approximately 26.6 acres north of and abutting the Temescal Canyon High School; and 3) the Temescal Canyon High School Parcels (APNs 389- 210 -037 and 389 - 210 -039), which comprise approximately 43.85 acres and encompasses the existing high school. Under existing conditions, the Harbor Lounge, BLM, and RCA parcels consist of natural open space with large hillsides and several dirt trails. The Bow Tie Parcels consist of relatively level land that is regularly disced, with a natural drainage (Stovepipe Creek) traversing the western portions of the parcels. The Temescal Canyon High School Parcels are improved with buildings, athletic facilities (including a baseball field, softball fields, and a football stadium), and parking lots. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Purpose The proposed Project would consolidate service areas and promote consistency with the City of Lake Elsinore's SCI, redrawing City Limits in a more logical and consistent manner. The new boundaries, as shown in Figure 2, Project Boundary Map, accomplish these goals without any environmental impacts, and eliminate the pockets of intermixed City and County serviced residences and uses under the current configuration. The Nichols Road annexation area is anticipated to generate a recurring fiscal gain of approximately $138,220 on the Harbor Lounge, RCA, and Bowtie Parcels once these properties are fully developed. In the future, the annexation area is projected to provide the City of Lake Elsinore a net surplus of revenue from future mining and commercial mixed land uses. These proposed land uses would produce a net surplus based on historical economic data from the City. (DPFG, 2014, p. 5) Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 13 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Figure 1 Regional Map lCity of Lake Elsinore TO a 1 — ttrmum� z i r u'. ei ilf qA -- Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 14 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Figure 2 Project Boundary Map FQ � 390 - 230- 008(BLM) 360 AC 390 - 270 -007 - i Y "1111 390 -230 -005 W atRSO ' NAB' (RCA) `{ f� (Nichols Rd. _ r,A2C7)1 Y FQ � 390 - 230- 008(BLM) 360 AC 390 - 270 -007 - i Y "1111 390 -230 -005 W atRSO ' NAB' (RCA) `{ f� (Nichols Rd. _ 8.13 AC Y Partners, LLC) r § 160 AC C Yr 5' i rl S__ �f �y { f �city:o Sii {"' Lake Elsinore, 389 - 210 -008 F 389 - 210 -032 (Nichols Rd. I' Y '� �;', ! (Nichols Rd. Partners, L-C) -' -` -- ` _ Partners, LLC) 15 AC t ( 8.77 AC FS i � 389 - 210 -036 (Nichols Rd. 389 - 210 -039 Partners, L-C) 2.02 AC� --- Union 389 - 210 -034 High) = (Nichols Rd ' r ` �' 43 04 AC irside County 1LMA GI S` Partners, L-C) .. 0.81 AC , 389 - 210 -037 (Elsinore Union High) Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 15 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Table 1 Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations Assessor's wrier (AC) Current County Current County Current City Proposed City Parcel Zoning General Plan Land General Land Zoning Number Use Designation Use Designation 389 - 210 -032;. Nichols Rd. Residential Business 'Park (BP)/ { General Commercial Mixed %. Partners, CLC Agricultural (R ': Medium High Density Commercial .: Use (CMU) "Bowtie" (8.77 AC) A 20,000) Residential (MHDR) 389-210-036 : Nichols Rd. Residential Business Park (BP)/ General Commercial Mixed Partners, LLC Agricultural (R Medium High Density Commercial Use (CMU) "Bowtie" (2.02 AC) A 20,000) Residential (MHDR) 389210 -008 Nichols Rd, Residential '. Business Park (BP) General Commercial Mixed Partners, LLC Agricultural (R Commercial !. Use (CMU) "Bowtie" (15 AC)': A.20,000) 389 -210 030. Nichols Rd. Residential Business Park (8P) General Commercial Mixed Partners, LLC Agricultural (R Commercial Use (CMU) "Bowtie" (0.81 AC) A 20,000) 390 -270 -009 RCA Natural Assets ;Open Space Rural (OS- s Open Space/ Open Space (0.5) (N -A) RUR) Extractive Overlay (68,08 AC) ---Natural 39q- 270.007 - RCA Open Space Rural (OS- Open Space/ Open Space (O S) (8.13 AC) IN-A) RUR) " Extractive Overlay 80 23ti O,vB - ; , Nataral Assets ' Opgn SPdc& Cip�ncef t3pgn�tapac2.AF8) : -: r , �(Bi,(Vl) (N AJ Conserva'ooh Natutat , �EktraeNye liyet'iay ' `� ti i l f � 1ti � V } 390. 230 -005 Nichols Rd. Natural Assets ;Open Space Rural (OS- -� Hillside Hillside Single Family s Partners, LLC (N A) RUR) Residential/ Residential (R -H)/ "Harbor ;Extractive Overlay Extractive Overlay Lounge' (160 AC)y 389- 210 -039 -. Elsinore Union Residential ? Public Facilities (PF) Public Public Institutional High .Agricultural (R- Institutional A 20,000) (P -I) (43.04 AC) 389 -210 037 '.Elsinore Union Residential Public Facilities (PF) Public Public Institutional High.. Agricultural (R -.' Institutional A 20,000) (PI) (0.81 AC) Initial Study form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 16 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Analysis Under CEQA While the annexation and rezoning of the Project site lays the foundation for future development, no site - specific development plans are being processed concurrent with the proposed Project. As such, precise land use intensity and acreage subject to impact is not known at this time. Accordingly, this Addendum to the GPU EIR makes assumptions about future land uses that are consistent with what was assumed by the GPU EIR. Furthermore, because the proposed Project merely applies the City General Plan's land use designations to the affected property, there would be no intensification of use as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed in the City of Lake Elsinore GPU EIR. Should site - specific development applications be filed with the City in the future, such site - specific applications would be subject to further CEQA compliance and would be evaluated based on the level of intensity and areas subject to impact as identified in the application(s). At that time, technical studies that evaluate the site - specific applications) would be required by the City, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: air quality impact analysis, general biological assessment, cultural resources (historical/ archaeological /paleontological), geotechnical report, greenhouse gas analysis, hydrology and water quality technical reports, noise impact analysis, traffic studies, etc. Any impacts and mitigation related to the site - specific applications' environmental impacts would be identified and mitigated as required per CEQA. The City would invite review and comments by the Regulatory Agencies and the public for all future development proposals, including landowners within and around the annexation boundary, as appropriate. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 17 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Nichols Road Annexation 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore; 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Richard MacHott, LEED Green Associate, Planning Manager, (951) 674 -3124, ext. 209. 4. Project Location: The proposed annexation area is a collection of parcels located within the unincorporated area of western Riverside County, California and within the SOI of the City of Lake Elsinore. The Nichols Road annexation comprises ten (10) parcels totaling 666.66 acres located on the north and south side of Nichols Road east of and near the 1 -15 freeway. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore, Planning Department, 130 Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 6. General Plan Designation: Riverside County General Plan Designation: "Bowtie" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) - Business Park (BP)/ Medium High Density Residential (MHDR); (RCA) -Open Space Rural (OS -RUl (BLM) - Open Space- Conservation Habitat (OS -CH); "Harbor Lounge" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) - Open Space Rural (OS -RUR); (Elsinore Union High) - Public Facilities (PF) City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Designation: "Bowtie" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) — General Commercial; (RCA) - Open Space/ Extractive Overlay; (BLM) - Open Space/ Extractive Overlay; "Harbor Lounge" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) - Hillside Residential /Extractive Overlay; (Elsinore Union High) — Public Institutional 7. Zoning: Riverside County Zoning Designation: "Bowtie" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) — Residential Agricultural (R -A 20,000); (RCA) - Natural Assets (N -A); (BLM) - Natural Assets (N-A); "Harbor Lounge" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) - Natural Assets (N -A); (Elsinore Union High) — Residential Agricultural (R -A 20,000). City of Lake Elsinore Proposed Zoning: "Bowtie" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) — Commercial Mixed Use (CMU); (RCA) - Open Space (0 -S); (BLM) - Open Space (O -S); "Harbor Lounge" (Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC) - Hillside Single Family Residential (R-H)/ Extractive Overlay; (Elsinore Union High) — Public Institutional (P -1). Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 18 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Description of Project: The proposed Project comprises ten (10) parcels totaling 666.66 acres located on the north and south side of Nichols Road east of and adjacent to the 1 -15 freeway. South of Nichols Road includes the annexation of Temescal Canyon High School Parcels and the Bowtie Parcels. North of Nichols are the Harbor Lounge, BLM, and RCA Parcels. Annexation of the RCA's 76.21 acres for conservation open space would increase the City's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) open space conservation land allotment. "Harbor Lounge," 160 acres, lies adjacent to and just northeast of Nichols Road and is owned by Nichols Rd. Partners, LLC. Land uses in the annexation area are currently subject to the land use designations and policies outlined in the Riverside County General Plan. Currently, the approximately 666.66 -acre area is designated by the County General Plan for Business Park, Medium High Density Residential, Open Space Rural, Conservation Habitat, and Public Facilities. County zoning for the property includes Residential Agricultural (R -A 20,000) and Natural Assets (N -A). 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the west of the Project site is Interstate 15 (1 -15), beyond which are undeveloped lands and an existing outlet mall. To the north of the Project site is undeveloped open space with variable topography. To the east of the Project site are rural residential land uses (north of Nichols Road) and medium to low density residential land uses (south of Nichols Road). To the south of the Project site is 1 -15, beyond which is an outlet mall and several light industrial land uses. Between the northern and southern portions of the Project site is the existing Nichols Canyon Mine, open space, and Nichols Road. 9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): Approval of annexation request. 10. Incorporation by Reference: As permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, environmental documents can incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that are a matter of public record. The information presented in this document is based upon other environmental documents. Information and data from the following documents are incorporated by reference. These documents are available for review at the Lake Elsinore City Hall, Planning Division; 130 South Main Street: Lake Elsinore, California 92530; ph. (951) 674 -3124. • GPU, City of Lake Elsinore, December 13, 2011 • GPU EIR; City of Lake Elsinore, December 13, 2011 Several additional reference sources also are identified in Section 5.0, References, which are either available on -line at the web address listed, or are available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils Initial Study Form No. PO 2000-32- Revised May 2012 Page 19 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning Materials ❑ Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Mineral Resources E] Recreation ❑ IYansportation /'Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Mandatory Findings of ❑ Utilities /Service Systems Significance 3.3 DETERMINATION ` On the basis of the initial evaluation ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have asignificant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. O I find that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2005121019), and that none of the determinations set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established and, thus, an Addendum to City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update EIR shall be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By: Name and Title: Richard b1loc'Hott, Planning Manager Initial Study Form No. PO 2000 -32- Revised May 20.12 Page 20 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 3.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist is for projects with previously certified/ approved environmental documents. This checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document, such as an FIR or MIND, prepared at an earlier stage of a proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. This IS /Addendum is tiered off of the City of Lake Elsinore GPU EIR (SCH No. 2005121019). Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 21 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial t significant Severe Substantially Change Impact '; Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ED but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ❑ N or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as on optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including', the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon'.. measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ O Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x or a Williamson Act contract? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 21 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 22 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial. Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact 1. Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x forest land to non - forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result ❑ ❑ ❑ [x] in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ p federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ p concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ p number of people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ❑ ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species =1i'X identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 22 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 23 of 127 New Ability No New More ': to.. Substantial Significant Severe. Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? In. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ M identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 23 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 24 of 127 New Ability No New More I to Substantial Significant Severe ,' Substantially Change 1 Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis r geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ O interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the El ❑ ❑ State Geologist for the area or based on other O substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. H. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑O iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ z b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a El ❑ E-1 result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (since ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x renamed as the California Building Code), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ O use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 24 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 25 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial: ` Significant Severe. Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis for the disposal of wastewater? 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ 11 ❑x regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, ❑ ❑ ❑ O within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ E ❑x airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 25 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 26 of 127 New Ability No New More ! to Substantial!. "Significant Severe Substantially Change " Impact Impacts ' Reduce from Significant Previous - Impact Analysis '. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere El El [E] with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, 11 F] El including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ❑ ❑ El the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ O increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -or off - site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm ❑ ❑ ❑ O water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ n o Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 26 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 27 of 327 New Ability No New More to Substantial. Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Z plan or natural community conservation plan? 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 27 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 28 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial': Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from significant Previous Impact Analysis a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El D ❑ ❑ ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ❑ L1 ❑ ❑x or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new ❑ ❑ ❑ homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C, Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 28 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 29 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial Significant Severe < Substantially Change impact',. Impacts'. Reduce from Significant ..Previous Impact Analysis 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 C. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x e. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such ❑ ❑ ❑ O that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including ❑ ❑ ❑ mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 29 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 30 of 127 New Ability No New More ! to - Substantial: - Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact ! Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g,, sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? 11 ❑ El O f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities)? 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ O Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 30 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 31 of 127 New Ability No to Substantial New More Substantially Change Significant Severe Reduce from Impact '. Impacts'. Significant Previous Impact Analysis treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x regulations related to solid waste. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, ❑ ❑ ❑ threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C. Have environmental effects that will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 31 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A complete list of the reference sources applicable to the following source abbreviations is contained in Section 5.0, References, of this document. 4.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU, which included the City's S01, would potentially result in significant impacts to views of Lake Elsinore and other scenic resources within and surrounding the City. However, the GPU FIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas would be reduced to below a level of significance, assuming compliance with applicable goals and policies of the GPU's District Plans, including the North Central Sphere District Plan, and Mitigation Measure (MM) Aesthetics 1, which requires future development projects located within scenic viewsheds along the 1 -15 corridor to prepare visual simulations that demonstrate compliance with the applicable GPU goals and policies. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical change in the Project site. Any future applications for projects that would result in a physical impact to the environment would be subject to CEQA and impacts associated with such projects cannot be evaluated at this time, and are therefore speculative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 32 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR that were designed to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with the North Central Sphere District Plan that protect view corridors, and GPU EIR MM Aesthetics 1, which requires individual projects to provide visual simulations that demonstrate compliance with applicable GPU goals and policies pertaining to aesthetic and scenic resources within and surrounding the City. Due to mandatory compliance with MM Aesthetics 1, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU Mitigation Measure MM Aesthetics 1 was identified to reduce potential impacts to scenic vistas to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Aesthetics 1 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical change to the environment, and would ensure that impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant. MM Aesthetics 1: Future development projects will be required to prepare visual simulations demonstrating compliance with applicable GPU goals and policies. Preparation of visual simulations demonstrating compliance with GPU goals and policies would be required for future development projects located in scenic viewsheds along the 1 -15 corridor and other areas at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.3, Aesthetics, p. 3.3 -27 — p. 3.3 -40 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that there were no officially designated state scenic highways within the GPU area; however, the GPU EIR identified State Route (SR)- 74 and Interstate (1)- 15 as highways that were eligible for official designation. The GPU FIR found that implementation of the MSHCP and GPU Land Use Plan, including the western half of the central portion of the North Central Sphere, would protect views of valuable open space land from development. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that GPU policies preserve views of these areas. Therefore, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts to scenic resources within views from scenic highway corridors would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to annex approximately 666.66 acres of unincorporated land into the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical change in the Project site. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 33 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to CEQA review and required to demonstrate that visual effects to scenic resources viewed from a state scenic highway would either not occur, would be less than significant, or would be reduced to the maximum feasible extent with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Additionally, future development projects would be subject to the GPU policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to scenic highways to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with the dedication of open space in hillside development to preserve view opportunities from SR -74 and 1 -15, which were identified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as being eligible for official state scenic highways designation (Caltrans, 2011). Further, future projects would be required to provide visual simulation(s) demonstrating compliance with GPU goals and policies per MM Aesthetics 1; therefore any potential impacts to scenic resources within views from scenic highway corridors would be identified and mitigated accordingly. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and MM Aesthetics 1, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts to scenic resources within views from scenic highway corridors would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Aesthetics 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.3, Aesthetics, p. 3.3 -40— p. 3.3 -41 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would result in major changes to the visual character of the City and surrounding area due to the conversion of vacant land to developed land. However, assuming compliance with goals and policies of the GPU and individual District Plans, including the North Central Sphere District Plan, the GPU FIR concluded that impacts to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings through converting vacant land to developed land would be reduced to below a level of significance with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical change in the Project site. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with the North Central Sphere District Plan, which protect view corridors of the lake and canyons and incorporate visual resources into a set of design standards for new construction. Further, Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 34 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation future projects would be required to provide visual simulation demonstrating compliance with GPU goals and policies per MM Aesthetics 1; therefore any potential impacts to scenic resources within views from scenic highway corridors would be identified and mitigated accordingly. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the Project area and its surroundings would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Aesthetics 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.3, Aesthetics, p. 3.3 -41— p. 3.3 -45 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would create new sources of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU could result in potential impacts on the Palomar Observatory. However, assuming compliance with applicable light and glare policies of the City's GPU and Zoning Code, the GPU EIR concluded that potential impacts from light or glare would be reduced to a less -than- significant level with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical change in the Project site. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and City's Zoning Code that were adopted to reduce potential impacts due to light or glare to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU Policy 12.2, which discourages uses or development that produce excessive light and glare, and Sections 17.112.040 and 17.148.110 of the City's Zoning Code, which preclude light shining into the sky above a horizontal plane and encourage the use of low sodium lighting in non - residential development. Due to mandatory compliance with GPU Policy 12.2 and the City's Zoning Code, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts from light and glare would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 35 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.3, Aesthetics, p. 3.3-45 — p. 3.3 -49 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 35 of 127 New Ability No New More to ?, Substantial: Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact `' Impacts Reduce from significant Previous Impact! Analysis '. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? L. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Williamson Act contract? Fc. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 forest land to non - forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 35 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR noted that the GPU contains 25 acres of Unique Farmland within the City; however, because the GPU does not identify Unique Farmland to be "Important Farmland," the GPU EIR determined that the GPU area does not contain significant viable farmland. Therefore, the implementation of the GPU would not cause the loss of access to or permanent loss of any significant agricultural resources. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts to viable farmland would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, according to mapping information available from the California Department of Conservation's (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Project area is identified as "Grazing Land," "Farmland of Local Importance," and "Urban -Built Up Land;" thus, the Project site does not contain any "Important Farmland" and future projects within the Project area would have no potential to convert viable farmland to non - agricultural use. (CDC, 2012a) Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to the conversion of viable farmland would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning, p. 3.1 -41— p. 3.1 -42 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR did not identify any impacts due to a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that with the exception of one agricultural preserve subject to a Williamson Act contract within the northwestern portion of the City's SOI, there were no additional Williamson Act contracted lands within the City or 5OL The GPU EIR determined that the acreage of land used for agricultural purposes within the City and SO] represent less than one percent of the City's total acreage and that the GPU does not designate land for agricultural use; therefore the GPU EIR concluded that conversion of this land to non - agricultural uses would result in less- than - significant impacts with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 37 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation However, the Project area and surrounding areas are all zoned for residential, public institutional, commercial, and open space /recreational land uses. (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2.1A). Accordingly, future projects within the Project area would not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, the Williamson Act contracted land identified in the GPU EIR is not located within the Project area (CDC, 2012b). Thus, future development projects within the Project area would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; thus impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to the conversion of agricultural lands would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning, p. 3.1 -41— 3.1 -42 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? GPU EIR Finding: Although the GPU FIR did not address this subject, the GPU EIR contained enough information that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the project's impacts associated with conflicting with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland was readily available to the public. The GPU EIR did not evaluate impacts associated with conflicting with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, the Project area and surrounding areas are all zoned for residential, public institutional, commercial, and open space /recreational land uses (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2.1A). Accordingly, future projects within the Project area would not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8)), and no impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2AA Initial Study form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 38 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR forthe Nichols Road Annexation d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest uses? GPU EIR Finding: Although the GPU EIR did not address this subject, the GPU EIR contained enough information that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the project's impacts associated with the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest uses was readily available to the public. The GPU EIR did not evaluate impacts associated with the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest uses. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, the Project area and surrounding areas are not part of a forest. The areas surrounding the Project area consist of undeveloped lands and do not contain dense stands of trees that would be considered forest resources. (Google Earth, 2013) Accordingly, future projects within the Project area would not have the potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non - forest use, and no impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: Google Earth, 2013 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR did not identify any additional impacts involving changes to the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, as indicated under the discussion and analysis of Threshold 42a), there are no "Important Farmland" designations applied to land within the Project site; therefore, future projects would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of "important farmland" to non - agricultural use. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to the conversion of "Important Farmland" would be less than significant and Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 39 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 31, Land Use and Planning, p. 3.1 -41— p. 3.1 -42 4.3 AIR QUALITY a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that construction of the GPU land uses for the City and SOI would have the potential to exceed emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and that exceeding these thresholds would conflict with the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), thereby resulting in a significant impact. However, the GPU EIR concluded that construction - related air quality impacts could not be determined because the GPU did not identify specific development proposals to implement the GPU Land Use Plan. Additionally, the Initial Study form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 40 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial: Significant': Severe Substantially Change Impact + Impacts Reduce; from Significant Previous Impact : Analysis -: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ O substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that construction of the GPU land uses for the City and SOI would have the potential to exceed emissions thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and that exceeding these thresholds would conflict with the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), thereby resulting in a significant impact. However, the GPU EIR concluded that construction - related air quality impacts could not be determined because the GPU did not identify specific development proposals to implement the GPU Land Use Plan. Additionally, the Initial Study form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 40 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR found that long -term operations associated with buildout of the GPU would have significant impacts after mitigation because emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (Nox), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ, and Particulate Matter (PMloand PM,,) would exceed daily significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. By exceeding the SCAQMD emissions thresholds during long -term operations, the GPU's conflict with the 2007 AQMP was disclosed in the GPU FIR as a significant and unavoidable impact for which no additional mitigation was available. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new sources of air quality pollutants. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Future discretionary projects within the Project area would contribute to the construction and operational emission levels estimated from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software, which was used during the GPU EIR's evaluation of air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the GPU. As disclosed in the GPU EIR, the daily air pollutant emissions estimates for buildout of the GPU were projected to exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD (refer to GPU EIR Table 3.6 -10), and would therefore conflict with the 2007 AQMP and result in a significant impact. However, future projects within the Project area would be subject to mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce construction- and operational related air quality impacts to maximum feasible extent. Specifically, future projects in the Project area would be subject to GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 1, which requires project- specific analysis to determine if air quality standards would be exceeded and to mitigate for such impacts accordingly. Future discretionary projects within the Project area also would be subject to GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Air Quality 2 through 3, which require individual projects to comply with AQMP control measures and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions to the greatest extent possible. However, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, although compliance with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Air Quality 1 through 3 would reduce future emissions to the maximum feasible extent, it is possible that future implementing projects within the Project area may result in operational or construction - related emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds after mitigation, thereby resulting in a significant impact due to a conflict with the AQMP. However, there are no components of the proposed Project that would result in any new or more severe impacts to air quality beyond what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR as a significant unavoidable impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified unavoidable significant impact previously disclosed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Air Quality 1 through MM Air Quality 3, were identified in the GPU EIR to help reduce potential air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the Project area involving discretionary approvals that could result in a physical impact to the environment. However, the GPU EIR determined that although implementation of MM Air Quality 2 through MM Air Quality 3 would reduce operational emissions, no mitigation was available to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 41 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation MM Air Quality 1 Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts on air quality from construction activities through implementation of regulatory requirements and the goals and policies set forth in the proposed GPU. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable. MM Air Quality 2 Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate a reduction in impacts on air quality from operational emissions through implementation of goals and policies listed within the General Plan. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable. All applicants for future development shall comply with AQMP control measures so as to reduce this impact to the greatest extent possible. MM Air Quality 3 Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan within each District Plan will be required to demonstrate a reduction in impacts on air quality from operational emissions through implementation of the General Plan's goals and policies. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality standards may be exceeded, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent practicable. All applicants for future development shall comply with AQMP control measures so as to reduce this impact to the greatest extent possible. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.6, Air Quality, p. 3.6 -24— p. 3.6 -33 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR determined the buildout of the GPU would result in emissions that exceed air quality standards set by the SCAQMD during long -term operations. Specifically, long -term operation of the GPU land uses were determined to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG, NO, CO, S02, Mir, and PM2s. Although mitigation measures were identified, the mitigation measures were found to be insufficient at reducing long -term air quality emissions to a level below significant. Thus, impacts due to a violation of air quality standards and contributions to existing or projected air quality violations were disclosed in the GPU EIR as a significant and unavoidable impact of the GPU. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new sources of air quality pollutants. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 42 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Future projects within the Project area would contribute to the construction and operational emission levels that were determined by the GPU EIR to exceed air quality thresholds established by the SCAQMD (see GPU EIR Table 3.6 -10). However, and as discussed under Threshold 4.3.a), future projects within the Project area would be subject to mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce construction related air quality impacts to the maximum feasible extent, including Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 1. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Air Quality 2 through 3, which require individual projects to comply with AQMP control measures and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions to the greatest extent possible. While it is unknown at this time whether future implementing projects within the Project area would result in significant impacts due to violations of air quality standards or contributions to an existing or projected violation, any such impacts would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in any new or more severe impacts due to air quality emissions beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified unavoidable significant impact previously disclosed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU Mitigation Measures MM Air Quality 1 through 3 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.6, Air Quality, p. 3.6 -24 —p. 3.6 -33 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? GPU EIR Finding: The City of Lake Elsinore and its S01 occur within the South Coast Air Quality Basin (SCAB). At the time the GPU EIR was certified, the SCAB was considered to be non - attainment for CO, ozone (03), NOx, PMlo, and PM2.5. The GPU EIR concluded that the policies set forth in the GPU would decrease impacts regarding construction - related air quality emissions to a level below significance. However, the GPU EIR found that emissions of these criteria pollutants during long -term operations would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase before and after mitigation. The GPU EIR concluded that the GPU would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants for which the region is non - attainment during operation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for which additional mitigation was not available. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new sources of air quality pollutants. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 43 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation As discussed under Threshold 4.1a), future projects within the Project area would contribute to the net increase of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non - attainment, including 03, PMlo, and PM2.5, as well as ozone precursors, during both construction and long -term operation. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the GPU FIR, mandatory compliance with CPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 1 would ensure that near -term emissions associated with future construction within the Project site would be reduced to below a level of significance. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in an increase of construction - related air quality effects beyond what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR; accordingly, near -term construction - related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Future projects within the Project area also have the potential to result in operational emissions that would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non - attainment. Although future projects within the Project area associated with buildout of the GPU would be subject to GPU Mitigation Measures MM Air Quality 2 through 3, which require individual projects to comply with AQMP control measures and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce operational emissions to the greatest extent possible, it is not known at this time whether future air quality impacts associated with future implementing projects on the Project site would be significant, or reduced to a level below significance with implementation of the required mitigation. However, there are no components of the proposed Project that would result in new or more severe impacts to air quality beyond what was already identified and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Accordingly, and assuming mandatory compliance with the GPU EIR mitigation measures, impacts would less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified unavoidable significant impact previously disclosed in the GPU FIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Air Quality 1 through MM Air Quality 3 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.6, Air Quality, p. 3.6 -24 — p. 3.6 -33 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations before and after mitigation, although such impacts would be reduced by policies set forth in the GPU. Nonetheless, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations were concluded to comprise significant and unavoidable impacts of the GPU. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the emissions of any air quality pollutants. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 44 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation However, as concluded by the GPU FIR, future projects within the Bowtie Parcels would allow commercial development near sensitive receptors, such as residential and public facilities (school) land uses; therefore, future implementing projects on the Bowtie Parcels would have the potential to expose people to substantial pollutant concentrations. Such future projects would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 5, which requires individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts on air quality emissions associated with sensitive land uses and mitigate potential impacts to the maximum feasible extent. At this time, it is not known whether mitigation measures that may be imposed on future implementing projects within the Project site would reduce impacts due to substantial pollutant concentrations to below a level of significance. However, there are no components of the proposed Project that would result in new or more severe impacts associated with the emission of substantial pollutant concentrations beyond what is evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Accordingly, Project - related impacts due to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified unavoidable significant impact previously disclosed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 5 was identified in the GPU EIR to help reduce potential air quality impacts associated with the emission of substantial pollutant concentrations to the greatest extent feasible, and would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, consistent with the conclusion reached in the GPU EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 5 may not be sufficient to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. MM Air Quality 5: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts on air quality emissions associated with sensitive land uses. Where project- specific analysis determines that air quality emissions will adversely affect sensitive receptors, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce emissions to the greatest extent practicable. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.6, Air Quality, p. 3.6 -34 —p. 3.6 -35 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that the potential of the GPU to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people could not be determined because odor sensation is a personal response that cannot be quantified. However, because the GPU allows land uses that have the potential to create objectionable odors, the GPU EIR determined that the GPU had the potential to result in a significant impact and mitigation would be required. The GPU EIR concluded that with mitigation, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the creation of any new source of objectionable odors. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 45 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEO,A, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in the emission of objectionable odors. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to a site - specific analysis to determine whether objectionable odor impacts would occur. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 6, which requires individual projects to identify the potential for objectionable odors that could impact a substantial number of people, and to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce odor impacts to the greatest extent practical. Because future implementing projects within the Project area would be required to comply with MM Air Quality 1, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following GPU EIR Mitigation Measure, MM Air Quality 6, would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that could result in substantial odor impacts. Consistent with the conclusion of the GPU EIR, required compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Air Quality 6 would ensure that impacts associated with objectionable odors would remain below a level of significance. MM Air Quality 6: Through the City's project review process, individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be evaluated to determine their potential for creating objectionable odors that would potentially impact a substantial number of persons. Where project - specific analysis determines that objectionable odors will occur, the City shall require mitigation measures that will reduce the emissions to the greatest extent possible. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.6, Air Quality, p. 3.6 -35 — p. 3.6 -35 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species ❑ ❑ ❑ O identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 46 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? GPU EIR Finding: The CPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would have significant, but mitigable impacts to the various habitats present throughout the City and S01 that support candidate, sensitive, or specific status species. Additionally, the GPU EIR identified significant, but mitigable impacts to the several special- status species that reside within the City and SOL Specifically, the buildout of the North Central Sphere District would have an adverse effect on habitats within the undeveloped, northern portion of the district and network of blueline streams that transverse the district. The GPU EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Biological Resources 1, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 47 of 127 New Ability No New '. More to !. Substantial Significant Severe.; Substantially Change Impact '. Impacts. Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? GPU EIR Finding: The CPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would have significant, but mitigable impacts to the various habitats present throughout the City and S01 that support candidate, sensitive, or specific status species. Additionally, the GPU EIR identified significant, but mitigable impacts to the several special- status species that reside within the City and SOL Specifically, the buildout of the North Central Sphere District would have an adverse effect on habitats within the undeveloped, northern portion of the district and network of blueline streams that transverse the district. The GPU EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Biological Resources 1, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 47 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in impacts to any candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 4 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with the North Central Sphere District Plan, which discourage development in conservation areas and require applicants to consider impacts on plant and wildlife species. Additionally, future implementing projects within the Project site would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1, which requires individual projects within District Plan areas to complete site - specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat impacts in accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) to determine impacts and mitigate accordingly to reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels. Because future implementing projects would be required to comply with MM Biological Resources 1, potential impacts would be less than significant. There are no components of the Project that would result in new or more severe impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species beyond what is already identified and disclosed in the GPU EIR. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less- than - significant impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species following mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Biological Resources 1, was identified in the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Biological Resources 1 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1 would ensure that impacts related to special status species and /or their habitats would remain less than significant. MM Biological Resources 1: Project- specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat impacts completed in accordance with the MSHCP will be required to determine the significance of impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of future developments on plant and wildlife species and vegetation communities to less- than - significant levels. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.8, Biological Resources, p. 3.8 -46 — p. 3.8 -48 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 48 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would have significant, but mitigable impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Assuming compliance with federal, state, and local regulations of the GPU and the MSHCP, and implementation of the required mitigation set forth in the GPU EIR, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies contained in Chapter 4 (Resource Protection and Preservation) of the GPU, which encourage the conservation of important biological habitats where feasible and require individual projects to demonstrate reduction in impacts on wetlands. Additionally, future implementing projects would be subject to GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1, which requires a site - specific analysis of impacts to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP. GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 3 also would apply, which requires individual development projects to identify impacts on riparian areas and mitigate accordingly to preserve the viability of these biological resources. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable policies of the GPU, the MSHCP, and Mitigation Measures MM Biological Resources 1 and MM Biological Resources 3, potential impacts associated with future implementing projects within the Project area would be less than significant, and impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure M Biological Resources 1 shall apply. Additionally, the following mitigation measure, MM Biological Resources 3, was identified in the GPU EIR to further reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Biological Resources 3 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Biological Resources 1 and MM Biological Resources 3 would ensure that impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would remain less than significant. MM Biological Resources 3: Individual environmental review conducted for future development projects will be required to identify any impacts on riparian areas and wetlands and, in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies and applicable regional plans, must ensure incorporation of adequate mitigation to preserve the viability of these important biological resources. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 49 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Source: GPU EIR Section 3.8, Biological Resources, p. 3.8 -48 — p. 3.8 -50 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would have significant, but mitigable impacts on federally protected wetlands. Assuming compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and implementation of the required mitigation, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in impacts to federally protected wetlands. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with the provisions of Sections 401 and 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, which require future projects that identify potential impacts on wetlands to obtain permits from the proper authorities before the City could issue development permits. Future development projects within the Project area also would be subject to the requirements of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), GPU policies contained in Chapter 4 (Resource Protection and Preservation) of the GPU, and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 3. Additionally, the Project area is located within an MSHCP; therefore future development projects within the Project area would be required to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP's riparian /riverine requirements, and impacts to riparian /riverine resources would be subject to Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Review. Due to mandatory compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 3, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts to federally protected wetlands would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 3 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.8, Biological Resources, p. 3.8 -48 — p. 3.8 -50 (i) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 50 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would potentially result in significant impacts to migratory avian species that use available habitat in GPU area for nesting during the breeding season (August 15 through February 15). Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that if construction activities for future projects were to occur during breeding season, mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with applicable provisions of the MSHCP and implementation of required mitigation, potential impacts to migratory birds and wildlife corridors would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in impacts to wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations and mitigation measures identified by the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with the provisions of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the California Fish and Game Code, and CESA. Further, future development projects within the Project area occurring during breeding season (between August 15 and February 15) would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Biological Resources 4 and MM Biological Resources 5, which require surveys for META species and other special status species to be performed during the appropriate time of year and, if necessary, establish buffer zones to protect nesting species. Additionally, the Project area is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP; therefore, future development projects within the Project area would be required to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP and would be subject to Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Review. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Biological Resources 4 and MM Biological Resources 5, potential impacts associated with future implementing projects would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts to migratory birds and wildlife corridors would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Biological Resources 4 and MM Biological Resources 5, were identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Biological Resources 4 and MM Biological Resources 5 would ensure that impacts related to migratory birds and wildlife corridors would remain less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 51 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation MM Biological Resources 4: Not more than thirty days prior to construction activities that occur between February 1 and August 15 of any year, surveys for nesting bird species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist selected by the developer and approval by the City. If no active avian nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the limits of the construction area, up to the limits of the project site, no further mitigation is necessary. Alternatively, to avoid impacts, the City may allow individual projects the option of beginning construction after the previous breeding season for bird species has ended (after August 15) and before the next breeding season begins (before February 15). MM Biological Resources 5: If active nests for avian species are found within the construction footprint of any future project, construction activities shall be delayed within a minimum 250 -foot buffer zone surrounding nests of other special- status avian species until the young have fledged. This buffer zone shall not extend beyond the project site. No action other than avoidance shall be taken without CDFG consultation. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.8, Biological Resources, p. 3.8 -51— p. 3.8 -52 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would potentially result in significant impacts to MSHCP protected trees, including the native California oak tree, and locally important heritage trees, including the significant palm tree as defined by Chapter 5.116 of the City's Municipal Code,.which is present throughout the City and SOL The GPU EIR concluded that through compliance with provisions of the City's Municipal Code and requirements of the MSHCP, and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to provisions of the City's Municipal Code, requirements of the MSHCP, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Chapter 5.116 of the City's Municipal Code, which requires all projects that involve the removal of a significant palm tree exceeding five feet in height to obtain a removal permit. Additionally, the Project area is located within the MSHCP criteria area; therefore future development projects within the Project area would be subject to provisions of the MSHCP related to the conservation of native California oaks. Further, future projects within the Project Initial Study Farm No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 52 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation area would be required to complete a project- specific analysis of plant and wildlife impacts and habitat impacts as set forth by GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1; thus, future implementing projects would be required to identify potential impacts to native California oaks and mitigate accordingly. Due to mandatory compliance with local regulations of the MSHCP and City's Municipal Code, and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts to MSHCP protected trees and locally important heritage trees would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. As such, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Biological Resources 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.8, Biological Resources, p. 3.8 -52 — p. 3.8 -53 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that GPU is consistent with implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP); therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant without mitigation. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in any impacts due to a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to all applicable GPU policies, provisions of the City's Municipal Code, and requirements of the MSHCP, all of which were cited by the GPU EIR in its conclusion that impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Title 19.04 of the City's Municipal Code, which requires all projects to identify their impacts to habitat conservation and provide appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts. Additionally, the Project area is located within an MSHCP criteria area; therefore future development projects within the Project area would be required to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP and would be subject to Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Review. The Project area is not located within the SKR HCP area; therefore future development projects within the Project area would not be subject to the provisions of the SKR HCP. Further, future projects within the Project area would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable GPU goals and policies. Due to mandatory compliance with local regulations of the City's Municipal Code, MSCHP, and GPU policies, potential impacts would be less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 53 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts to conflict with an adopted conservation plan would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU FIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.8, Biological Resources, p. 3.8 -53 — p. 3.8 -55 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would potentially result in significant impacts to historical resources present throughout the City and 5OL The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant assuming compliance with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to historic resources and implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 1, which require individual projects to comply with GPU and applicable District Plan policies related to cultural and paleontological resources. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. Any future discretionary Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 54 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, according to GPU EIR Figure 3.2 -2, the Project area and surrounding areas do not contain historic resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, future projects within the Project area would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historical resource. Although there are no known historical resources located within the Project area, it is possible for site - specific development to uncover the presence of significant subsurface historical resources within the Project area. Thus, future projects within the Project area would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and GPU policies pertaining to the preservation of historical resources. Further, future projects that would have the potential to cause a significant impact to historical resources would be required to reduce such impacts to less- than - significant levels with implementation of GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural/ Paleontological Resources 1. Due to mandatory compliance with MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 1, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU FIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact to historic resources following mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 1, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 1 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 1 would ensure that impacts related to historic resources would remain less than significant. MM Cultural /Paleontological Individual projects implemented in accordance with the [GPU] Land Resources 1: Use Plan shall also demonstrate compliance with Land Use Policies 4.1 -4.4, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Policy 6.1, and Historic Preservation Policies related to cultural and paleontological resources. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, p. 3.2 -36 — p. 3.2 -41 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would potentially result in significant impacts to archaeological resources present throughout the City and SCI. Specifically, the GPU FIR found that the North Central Sphere District contained areas of archaeological sensitivity; therefore, potential impacts on significant resources were identified in association with future development within this area. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant assuming compliance with Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 55 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU policies pertaining to archaeological resources and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 2 through MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 8. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals have the potential to result in impacts to archaeological resources. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with the North Central Sphere District Plan, including Cultural Resources Policies 7.1 — 7.5, which require survey and study of potential impacts on archaeological resources, consultation with Native American tribes, and implementation of necessary measures to minimize project impacts on archaeological resources prior to project approval. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 2 through MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 8, which establish the appropriate protocol for future projects to follow during ground- disturbing activities to ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources, if discovered, would be less than significant. Due to mandatory compliance with GPU policies associated with the North Central District Plan and implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 2 through MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 8, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact to archaeological resources following compliance with applicable GPU policies and GPU EIR mitigation measures. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 2 through MM Cultural /Paleontological 8, were identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 2 through MM Cultural /Paleontological 8 would ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources would remain less than significant. MM Cultural /Paleontological Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) for the project, the project Resources 2: applicant shall retain an archaeological monitor to monitor all ground- disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 56 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation MM Cultural /Paleontological At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Resources 3: applicant shall contact the appropriate tribe to notify that Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. MM Cultural /Paleontological Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project archaeologist Resources 4: shall file a pre - grading report with the City and County (if required) to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 2, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the appropriate tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project archeologist. MM Cultural /Paleontological The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, Resources S: including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate tribe for proper treatment and disposition. MM Cultural /Paleontological All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, Resources 6: shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. MM Cultural /Paleontological If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological /cultural Resources 7: resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the appropriate tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious Initial Study Form No. PO 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 57 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. MM Cultural /Paleontological Individual projects implemented in accordance with the Land Use Resources 8: Plan shall also demonstrate compliance with Cultural and Paleontological Resources Policies 6.2, 6.4, 7.1, and 7.5. As well as compliance with applicable District Plan Policies related to cultural and paleontological resources. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, p. 3.2 -41— p. 3.2 -48 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources present throughout the City and 5O]. Specifically, GPU EIR Figure 3.2 -3 shows that the North Central Sphere District contains areas of low paleontological sensitivity; therefore, although unlikely, the GPU EIR concluded that potential impacts on significant resources could result from future development within this area. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant assuming compliance with GPU policies pertaining to paleontological resources and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural/ Paleontological Resources 9, which requires individual projects to comply with applicable GPU and District Plan policies related to cultural and paleontological resources. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, according to maps prepared by the Riverside County Integrated Project, the Project area and surrounding areas have "low" and "undetermined" paleontological sensitivity. As such, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, it possible, though unlikely, for site - specific development to uncover the presence of paleontological resources within the Project area. Therefore, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Cultural Resources Policy 8.1, which requires survey and study of project impacts on paleontological resources for projects within "High" and "Undetermined" areas and implementation of proper measures to reduce impacts. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 9, which requires individual projects to demonstrate compliance with Cultural and Paleontological Resources Policy 8.1 and applicable District Plan policies related to cultural and paleontological resources, which would include Cultural Resources Policies 7.1 — 7.5 as discussed under Threshold 4.5.c). Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 9, impacts would be less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 58 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact to paleontological resources following compliance with applicable GPU policies and mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 9, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 9 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 9 would ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources would remain less than significant. MM Cultural /Paleontological Individual projects implemented in accordance with the Land Use Resources 9: Plan shall also demonstrate compliance with Cultural and Paleontological Resources Policies 8.1. As well as compliance with applicable District Plan Policies related to cultural and paleontological resources. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, p. 3.2 -48 — p. 3.2 -49 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, assuming compliance with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to Native American Resources and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 10, which requires the termination of grading activities and contact with to the appropriate parties if any human remains are encountered. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to result in impacts to human remains. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, consultation with Native American tribes revealed that the City and S01, which includes the Project area, is within areas that were traditionally used by Native American tribes and therefore has the potential to contain undiscovered human remains. As such, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU Cultural Resources Policy 6.2, 6.3, and 7.1, which establish the appropriate protocol to follow during ground- disturbing activities to ensure that potential impacts to human remains, if discovered, would be less than significant. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural/ Paleontological Resources 10, which requires individual projects to comply with California Health and Initial Study Farm No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 59 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Safety Code 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code 5097.98(b) in the event that human remains are discovered during ground- disturbing activities. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to Native American resources and human remains, including applicable GPU policies and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 10, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact to discovered human remains following mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 10, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 10 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Cultural /Paleontological Resources 10 would ensure that impacts related to the discovery of human remains would remain less than significant. MM Cultural /Paleontological If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Resources 10: Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant may then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, p. 3.2 -49 — p. 3.2 -50 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 60 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 61 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial. `. Significant Severe ,! Substantially Change Impact'.. Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous '. Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ❑ ❑ ❑ N State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ O liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ N b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ N topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a ❑ ❑ ❑ N result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (since ❑ ❑ ❑ N renamed as the California Building Code), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ N disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 61 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: L Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42) ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR identified potentially significant, but mitigable impacts to geological hazards and constraints. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, assuming compliance with GPU policies, standard requirements set forth in the City's Development Code, and 2010 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that could result in the exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving earthquake faults or strong seismic ground shaking. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. According to the California Geological Survey, portions of the City and SCI are affected by the Elsinore Fault Earthquake Fault Zone (CDC, 1980); however the Project area is not located within a fault zone. Thus, there is no potential for a rupture of a known earthquake fault within the Project area and no impact would occur. However, the Project area is within a seismically active region containing three major faults (Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults), and the potential rupture of any of these faults could result in significant structural damage and human injury or casualty. Future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the minimum standards of the CBC and local regulations set forth by the City's Municipal Code and GPU policies, which require development projects to prepare site - specific studies to evaluate the potential for geologic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, which require individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts associated with seismic hazards, including ground shaking, and compliance with seismic design provisions for all new construction in the City. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact involving the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault and /or strong seismic safety following compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation. Therefore, Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 62 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, were identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2 would ensure that impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault and or /strong seismic safety would remain less than significant. MM Geology and Soils 1: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the proposed [GPU] project will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with seismic hazards including ground- shaking, liquefaction, landslides, subsidence and collapse through implementation of all goals and policies under the Land Use section of the Community Form Chapter and the Seismic Activity section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU. MM Geology and Soils 2: The City shall continue to enforce the seismic design provisions for Seismic Zone 4 of the California Building Code, including near - source seismic conditions for all new construction in the City. Source: GPU EIR Section 3. 11, Geology and Soils, p. 3.11 -26 — p. 3.11 -32 iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR identified potentially significant, but mitigable impacts due to seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. The GPU EIR determined that portions of the North Central Sphere were subject to low to moderate hazards associated with liquefaction, and that development within the S01 could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction. However, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to less -than- significant levels through mandatory compliance with Chapters 17.28 and 17.32 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, which require site specific studies for liquefaction potential and the imposition of site - and project- specific conditions as required mitigating any identified hazard and in accordance with the 2010 CBC, and adherence to GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that could result in the exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction hazards. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 63 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation However, GPU FIR Figure 3.11 -3 indicates that the Project area is located within a seismically active region and within portions of the S01 determined to have moderate and low liquefaction susceptibility. Thus, future development projects within the Project area would have the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction. Therefore, individual projects within the Project area would be subject to Chapters 17.28 and 17.32 of the City's Municipal Code, which require projects to prepare site specific studies for liquefaction potential and mitigate accordingly in accordance with CBC requirements. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, which require individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts associated with seismic hazards, including liquefaction, and compliance with seismic design provisions for all new construction in the City. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact involving the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction, following compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation measures contained in the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.11, Geology and Soils, p. 3.11 -26 — p. 3.11 -32 iv. Landslides? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR determined that substantial portions of the S01 is located on slopes of 30 percent or steeper that can potentially cause a significant risk of slope failure, and the development is planned within areas of steep slopes. However, the GPU EIR determined that impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through mandatory compliance with GPU Policies 3.1 and 6.2, which require the consideration of environmental and geologic features in the planning process, establishment of hillside grading standards, and identification of potential hazards in areas of new development and site - specific remediation if necessary. Impacts were found to further be reduced through compliance with the CBC as well as GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the exposure of people or structures to potential landslide hazards. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 64 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation However, the Project area is located within a seismically active region and within areas of S01 indicated to have slopes greater than 30 percent (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 3.5) Thus, future development projects within the Project area would have the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. Individual projects within the Project area would be subject to applicable zoning regulations, which incorporate CBC requirements, and GPU policies 3.1 of the Community Form chapter and 6.2 of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter, which require the consideration of environmental and geologic features in the planning process, establishment of hillside grading standards, and identification of potential hazards in areas of new development and site - specific remediation if necessary. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, which require individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts associated with seismic hazards, including landslide hazards, and compliance with seismic design provisions for all new construction in the City. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and implementation of GPU Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact involving the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides following compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.11, Geology and Sails, p. 3.11 -26 — p. 3.11 -32; GPU Figure 3.5 b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout associated with implementation of the GPU would help reduce erosion impacts due to development of vacant land within the City and S01. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required, assuming compliance with GPU policies, the City's Municipal Code, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to regulatory requirements contained in the City's Municipal Code and NPDES and applicable GPU policies that were identified to reduce potential impacts associated with erosion to less than significant levels. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Chapter 14.08 of the City's Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 65 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Municipal Code, which requires that development be designed and constructed to provide facilities for proper conveyance, treatment, and disposal of storm water, and GPU policies associated with controlling erosion and the protection of surface and groundwater from the adverse effects of construction activities. Additionally, future projects with a project size exceeding one acre would be required to comply with a NPDES permit, which requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Due to mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of applicable GPU policies, impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3. 11, Geology and Soils, p. 3.11 -32 — p. 3.11 -33 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR identified potentially significant, but mitigable impacts to geological hazards and constraints. The GPU FIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, assuming implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2 and compliance with GPU policies, standard requirements set forth in the City's Development Code, and 2010 California Building Code (CBC) requirements. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, the Project area is located within a seismically active region and within areas of SOI indicated to have moderate and low liquefaction susceptibility (GPU EIR Figure 3.11 -3) and slopes greater than 30 percent (GPU Figure 3.5). Thus, future development projects within the Project area would have the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction, lateral spreading, and landslide. As discussed under Threshold 4.6.a).iii and Threshold 4.6.a).iv, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code and GPU policies associated with geologic hazards. Additionally, the Project area is located within an area that subsidence could occur; therefore, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with applicable GPU policies, zoning requirements, and provisions of the 2010 CBC. Further, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, which require individual projects to demonstrate Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 66 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation avoidance of significant impacts associated with seismic hazards and compliance with seismic design provisions for all new construction in the City. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and implementation of MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2, impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact involving the exposure of people or structures to geologic hazards associated with unstable soils that could result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, following compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM Geology and Soils 1 and MM Geology and Soils 2. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.11, Geology and Soils, p. 3.11 -26 — p. 3.11 -32 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that impacts due to expansive soils would be less than significant with project -level compliance with GPU policies, applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, and 2010 CBC requirements, as well as implementation of GPU Mitigation Measure MM Geology and Soils 3, which requires individual projects to comply with policies contained in the Seismic Activity section of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare chapter. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in impacts associated with expansive soils. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to applicable regulatory requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Policy 6.2 of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU, which requires applicants for future development within the Project area to prepare geological and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Geology and Soils 3, which requires individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts associated with expansive or corrosive soils. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Geology and Soils 3, impacts would be less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 67 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact involving the exposure of people or structures to geologic hazards associated with expansive soil, following compliance with applicable state and local requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Geology and Soils 3, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Geology and Soils 3 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of MM Geology and Soils 3 would ensure that impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to geologic hazards associated with expansive soil would remain less than significant. MM Geology and Soils 3: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the proposed project will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with expansive or corrosive soils through implementation of the policies under the Seismic Activity section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.11, Geology and Soils, p. 3.11 -33 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required, assuming compliance with applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area that are not currently supported by water or wastewater infrastructure would be required to install septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As noted in the GPU EIR, project applicants seeking to install such systems would be required to comply applicable City requirements that prevent the installation of septic tanks in soils incapable of supporting such systems. Where sewer service is available, projects would be subject to applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code, including Chapters 16.24, 16.34, and 16.56, which identify requirements for installation of sanitary sewer systems. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting such systems would Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 68 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.11, Geology and Soils, p. 3.11 -34 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant with no mitigation required, assuming implementation of the strategies and measures set forth in the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and applicable GPU policies. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new emissions of greenhouse gases. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the City's CAP and GPU policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. As disclosed in the GPU FIR, the state -level measures and local strategies and measures identified in the City's CAP would exceed target reductions for the years 2020 and 2030, and would therefore reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions to below a level of significance. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's CAP and applicable GPU policies, impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 69 of 127 New Ability No New More to '.: Substantial' significant Severe ; Substantially Change Impact ` Impacts` Reduce from Significant previous Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or 11 El 11 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant with no mitigation required, assuming implementation of the strategies and measures set forth in the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and applicable GPU policies. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new emissions of greenhouse gases. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the City's CAP and GPU policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. As disclosed in the GPU FIR, the state -level measures and local strategies and measures identified in the City's CAP would exceed target reductions for the years 2020 and 2030, and would therefore reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions to below a level of significance. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's CAP and applicable GPU policies, impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 69 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 3.7 -26 — p. 3.7 -32 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that the City's CAP was consistent with the applicable GPU policies; therefore, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be required to demonstrate consistency with the City's CAP and GPU policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's CAP and applicable GPU policies, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 3.7 -32 — p. 3.7 -34 Initial Study Form No. PO 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 70 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 73 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial. Significant Severe:`. Substantially Change Impact ". Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous ; Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable ❑ ❑ ❑ M upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 73 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that bulldout of the GPU could expose people to potentially significant hazards from use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to a level below significant assuming compliance with applicable GPU policies and provisions of the Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (RCHWMP), and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 through MM Hazards 3, which require individual projects to comply with applicable policies of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare Chapter. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area could result in increased generation, storage, and use of hazardous materials; thus, these future implementing projects would be subject to the applicable local regulations, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future development projects would be required to comply with policies under Goal 3 of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU, which provide measures to ensure that safe collection, use, and storage practices are in place for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with provisions of the RCHWMP, which require hazardous waste generators to implement a waste reduction program. Further, future development projects would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, which require individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of applicable GPU policies. Due to mandatory compliance with local regulations, GPU policies, and of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, were identified in the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2 would ensure that impacts related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material would remain less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 72 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation MM Hazards 1: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with use and storage of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste through implementation of Policies 3.1 through 3.4 of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. MM Hazards 2: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan within the District Plans will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials through implementation of Policy 3.5 of the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. Proposed development projects on or adjacent to the SARI line in these districts would be required to analyze risks specific to sensitive land uses and the extent of the subsurface components involved with buildings in these locations. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -20 — p. 3.10 -23 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU could expose people to potentially significant hazards from use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to a level below significant assuming compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and GPU policies, and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, which require individual projects to comply with applicable policies of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare Chapter. The GPU EIR also identified Mitigation Measure MM Hazards 3, which addresses hazardous materials within the 3rd Street Annexation area. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Construction of future development projects within the Project area could increase the amount of pipelines and underground storage tanks, or could uncover existing pipelines and tanks, thereby increasing the risk of a pipeline break or storage tank leak resulting in groundwater and /or soil contamination within the Project area. However, such development projects within the Project area would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future development projects would be subject applicable federal, state, and local regulations that reduce the risk for contamination, and Policies 3.1, 3.3, and 3.5 of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter of the GPU, which provide measures to detect leaks when they occur and mitigate contamination. Further, future projects would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 73 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, which require individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of applicable GPU policies. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, GPU policies, and GPU FIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2 shall apply Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -20— p. 3.10 -23 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU could expose people to potentially significant hazards from use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste. The GPU FIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to a level below significant assuming compliance with applicable GPU policies and provisions of the Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (RCHWMP), and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 through MM Hazards 3, which require individual projects to comply with applicable policies of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare Chapter. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would involve the emission or handling of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. The Project site encompasses the Temescal Canyon High School; thus, future development within the Project area has the potential to introduce new sources of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing school. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the applicable local regulations, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance, as discussed under Threshold 4.8.a). Due to mandatory compliance with local regulations, GPU policies, and GPU Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts related to hazardous emissions or hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 74 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU FIR Mitigation Measures MM Hazards 1 and MM Hazards 2 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -20 — p. 3.10 -23 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? GPU EIR Finding: At the time the GPU FIR was certified, there were 28 hazardous materials sites located within the City and SOL The GPU FIR found that individual projects associated with buildout of the GPU could be affected by these sites or future hazardous material sites; however the GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the implementation program under Goal 3 of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare chapter, impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, GPU EIR Figure 3.10 -1, Hazardous Materials Site & SARI Line, indicates that there may be a hazardous materials site located south of Nichols Road (either north of or within the Bowtie Parcel). As such, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to applicable provisions of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare chapter identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future development projects affected by hazardous materials sites would be required to comply with the implementation program identified under GPU Public Safety and Welfare Goal 3, which requires the City to assess new development and use applications for potential hazards and compliance with the RCHWMP, as well as collaboration with the Department of Public Health. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the GPU EIR, due to mandatory compliance with the implementation program set forth by the GPU, potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -23 — p. 3.10 -24 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Initial Study Farm No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 75 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU within the Skylark Airport Influence Area could result in potential inconsistencies with the densities recommended by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to a level below significant assuming compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hazards 4 (requiring individual projects within the Skylark Airport Influence Area to be consistent with continued operations at the airport and comply with applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]). No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that could introduce new workers or residents into areas subject to airport - related hazards. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, the Project area is not located within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2.7); therefore, future development projects within the Project area would not result in an airport - related safety hazard for people residing or working within the Project area and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, potential impacts associated with airport - related hazards would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -24 — p. 3.10 -25 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -24 — p. 3.10 -25 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that new developments associated with the buildout of the GPU would be required to comply with all applicable local and state regulatory standards for adequate emergency access, and as such would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 76 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, and consistent with the analysis and conclusion within the GPU EIR, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site. Additionally, individual projects proposing modifications to existing roadways would be reviewed by the City Engineer and City Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access and response would be maintained with implementation of future projects. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, impacts due to impairment in the implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU FIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -25 — p. 3.10 -26 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that buildout of the City and SCI could expose more people and development to potentially significant hazards from wildfires. Specifically, the North Central Sphere District is located within an area that has a moderate to high susceptibility to wildfires. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with GPU policies and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hazards 5 (requiring individual projects to comply with all policies under the Wildfire Hazards section of the GPU Public Safety and Welfare chapter) would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would expose new residents or structures to wildland fire hazards. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. As depicted on GUPU EIR Figure 3.10 -2, the Project area is located within an area identified to be a moderate to high wildfire susceptibility area. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts related to wildfires to below a level of significance. Specifically, the future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies that reduce the threat of loss and damage from wildfires, including brush clearance, the establishment of low -fuel landscaping, fuel modification zones surrounding structures, fire resistant building techniques, and education programs for the public on prevention strategies. Further, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hazards 5, which requires individual Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 77 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of GPU policies associated with Wildfire Hazards. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hazards 5, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts related to wildfire hazards would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Hazards 5, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Hazards 5 would apply to all future development projects within the Project area involving discretionary approvals that would involve the introduction of people or structures within moderate or high fire hazard areas. Implementation of MM Hazards 5 would ensure that impacts related to wildfire hazards would remain less than significant. MM Hazards 5: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan in each District and within the 3`d Street Annexation Area will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with wildfire hazards through implementation of all policies under the Wildfire Hazards section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, p. 3.10 -26 — p. 3.10 -27 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 78 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 79 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial: Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact Impacts: Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -or off - site? e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? g. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ h. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ IZ Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 79 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU could result in increased non -point source and point source contamination from urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use resulting in a potentially significant impact to water quality due to increased pollution. The GPU FIR concluded that compliance with GPU goals and implementation of GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 (requiring implementation of applicable GPU policies as part of future development to mitigate potential impacts associated with alteration of drainage patterns and associated erosion; development within the 100 year floodplain; and water quality), would reduce impacts to less -than- significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU FIR to reduce potential water quality impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with water quality control, including Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2, which require development projects to obtain an NPDES permit and implement best management practices (BMPs). Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1, which requires individual projects to comply with GPU policies associated with water quality. Due to mandatory compliance with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1, future projects would meet federal NPDES requirements and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to violations of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR, Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Hydrology 1, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 would apply to all future development projects within the Project area involving discretionary approvals that could result in impacts to water quality. Implementation of MM Hydrology 1 would ensure that impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would remain less than significant. MM Hydrology 1: The following goals and policies of the GPU must be implemented as a part of future development to mitigate potential impacts associated with 1) alteration of drainage patterns and associated erosion; 2) development within the 100 year floodplain and 3) water quality: Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 80 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation • Flooding and Floodplains Policies 5.1 -5.2 • Water Resources Policies 4.1 -4.4 • Biological Resources Policies 1.1 -1.8 and 2.1 -2.2 Source: GPU FIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -19 — p. 3.9 -33 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there could be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR indicates that the Project site is located within the Warm Springs Valley Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ), and indicates that it is likely that substantial changes in existing recharge systems would occur from development under the GPU. The GPU EIR concludes that project level assessment must be prepared for any future development for hydrology or groundwater and surface water quality impacts. Additionally, groundwater quality management is considered as a part of the General Plan policies. With implementation of the policies of the General Plan, future projects would be required by the City to address degradation of groundwater hydrology and incorporate measures necessary to minimize impacts to water courses and receiving waters to the extent required by Federal NPDES requirements and that required by the Open Space and Biological Resources preservation policies of the General Plan. As such, the GPU EIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, it is likely that future development within the Project area would connect to existing water lines available in the area, and that no well sites would be proposed because the Warm Springs Valley is not identified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as having any beneficial uses, such as municipal and domestic water supplies (refer to GPU EIR Table 3.9 -2). Thus, future projects in the Project area would have no potential to directly result in depletion of groundwater supplies. The proposed Project would be served with domestic water through the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District ( EVMWD). According to the EVMWD's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which was adopted by the EVMWD in July 2011, the EVWMD relies on imported water from Metropolitan Water District, local surface water from Canyon Lake, and local groundwater from the Elsinore Basin. The EVWMD does not rely on any groundwater resources within the Warm Springs Valley GMZ. As such, future development within the Project area has no potential to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge that could affect water supplies relied upon by the EVWMD. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 81 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Additionally, the EVMWD UWMP provides a long -range assessment of water supply and water demand for its service area, which includes the City and its S01. In developing its UWMP, EVMWD used a 2030 service area population, household, and employment projections developed by the Riverside County Center for Demographics Research (RCCDR). These projections estimate a population of 174,579 within the EVMWD service area by 2030. As concluded in the GPU EIR, the EVMWD UWMP indicates that there are sufficient water supplies and water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water needs within its service area. As such, although future development within the Project area would result in increased demand for water resources (including groundwater), due to long -range planning efforts by the EVWMD impacts due to depleted groundwater resources would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to groundwater withdrawal and recharge would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required Source: GPU FIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -19 — p. 3.9 -33; GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -21 through p. 3.16 -25; Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, July 2011. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that buildout of the GPU would alter existing drainage patterns located throughout the City and S01 and that this alteration could result in substantial erosion within the City, especially in areas such as the North Central Sphere where hillsides would be developed with residential uses. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with applicable GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 would reduce impacts to less -than- significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to alter drainage patterns in such a way as to result in substantial soil erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. As shown on GPU Figure 3.9 -1, there are existing blue line streams that provide drainage within the Project area. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts associated with altering existing drainage patterns to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies associated with protecting natural drainage patterns from alteration, including Biological Resources Policies 1.1 -1.4, which require the City to adhere to MSHCP policies and encourage barriers between development and conservation Initial Study Form No, PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 82 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation areas. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Biological Resources Policy 2.2, which discourages development in riparian areas, thereby helping protect natural drainage patterns from alteration. Further, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to altering existing drainage patterns would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 shall apply. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -33 — p. 3.9 -34 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would alter existing drainage patterns located throughout the City and SO[. The GPU EIR determined that new development located within the 100 -year floodplain would be subject to potentially significant flooding impacts. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with applicable GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result an increase to flood potential on- or off -site. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. As discussed under Threshold 4.9.c), there are existing blue line streams that provide drainage within the Project area; however, the Project area is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. Accordingly, future development projects within the Project area that result in alteration of existing drainage patterns would not result in flooding on -site. Due to the close proximity of 100 -year floodplain areas located west and south of the Project area, future development projects within the Project area that result in alteration of existing drainage patterns could potentially result in flooding off -site by increasing the rate of flood flows from the Project area. However, such projects would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels, including GPU Flooding and Floodplains Policies 5.1 -5.2 (see Threshold 4.9.i)) and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1, potential impacts would be less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 83 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to increased flood hazards on- or off - site would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -34 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? GPU EIR Finding: At the time the GPU EIR was certified, the City and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) maintained the storm drains within the City and SOL The GPU EIR concluded that implementation of master drainage plans (MDP) developed by the City and RCFCWCD would provide adequate drainage outlets to handle future development. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with required improvements and drainage district fees, runoff created by future development projects associated with the buildout of the GPU would not exceed the capacity of stormwater facilities. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that GPU Water Resources Policies 4.1, and 4.2, which require development projects to obtain an NPDES permit and implement BMPS, in conjunction with Biological Resources Policies 1.1 through 1.4, which call for implementation of the MSHCP to preserve wetlands and natural drainages would reduce potential sources of polluted runoff. Additionally, the GPU FIR imposed Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 to reduce impacts to water quality. As such, the GPU FIR determined would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to produce runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing storrwater drainage systems, nor would the Project result in additional sources of polluted runoff. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code, including Chapter 16.34 and Chapter 16.72, which require development projects to comply with the required improvements and drainage district fees needed to provide adequate storm drainage facilities. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's Municipal Code, potential impacts associated with stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant. Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2, Biological Resources Policies 1.1 through 1.4, and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1, which would ensure that future development does not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts associated with the capacity of stormwater drainage facilities and water quality would be less than significant and would be within the scope of Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 84 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -19 — p. 3.9 -33 f) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the planned drainage facilities in the MDPs serving the City and SO1 would relieve flooding issues and provide adequate drainage outlets; however, the GPU FIR also determined that the construction of such facilities could not be quantified on a programmatic level. Thus, the GPU FIR concluded that the analysis of potential impacts associated with the construction of individual drainage facilities would occur on a project- specific basis and such projects would be subject to CEQA and impacts would be less than significant on a programmatic level. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the construction of new storm drainage systems that could have adverse environmental effects Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Similar to the findings and conclusions of the GPU EIR, because no new drainage facilities are proposed as part of the Project, no impact associated with the construction of such facilities would occur. As site - specific development proposals are proposed within the Project area, the City of Lake Elsinore would require an evaluation of the impacts resulting from such facilities as part of future CEQA analysis of the site - specific impacts. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts associated with the construction of stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -19 — p. 3.9 -33 g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU could result in increased non -point source and point source contamination from urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use; thus water quality could be impacted from additional pollution. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with GPU goals and implementation of GPU Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 (requiring implementation of applicable GPU policies as part of future development to mitigate potential impacts associated with Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 85 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation alteration of drainage patterns and associated erosion, development within the 100 year floodplain, and water quality), would reduce impacts to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in impacts to water quality. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, as discussed and analyzed under Threshold 4.9.a), future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies and mitigation measures associated with water quality control, including Water Resources Policies 4.1 and 4.2 and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1. Due to mandatory compliance with MM Hydrology 1, potential impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to water quality would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -19 — p. 3.9 -33 h) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would allow urban development within the 100 -year floodplain; however, the GPU EIR concluded that compliance with applicable GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new housing or structures within flood plains. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. According to GPU EIR Figure 3.9 -1, the Project area is not located within a 100 -year flood zone. However, according to mapping information available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), portions of the Bowtie Parcel occur within a 100 -year flood zone (Flood Zone A; FEMA 2008). However, future development within the Project area would be required to comply with applicable GPU Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 86 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation policies, including Flooding and Floodplains Policies 5.1 and 5.2, and also would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1. Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, compliance with applicable GPU policies and the GPUY FIR Mitigation Measure MM Hydrology 1 would reduce impacts due to flood hazards to below a level of significance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Figure 3.9 -1 through p. 3.9 -34 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would increase the number of persons residing and the amount of construction within the high inundation zone of the Railroad Canyon Dam; however, in the case of dam failure, emergency evacuations would preclude injury or death. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU did not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan; therefore, concluded that impacts associated with potential dam failure would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. The Project area is not located within a dam inundation zone; therefore failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam would not expose people or structures within the Project are to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Nonetheless, in the unlikely case flooding as a result of dam failure occurs and evacuation of the Project area is necessary, future projects within the Project area would be subject to comply with an adopted emergency response plan. Due to mandatory compliance with an adopted emergency response plan, impacts associated with potential dam failure would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to dam failure would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -35 — p. 3.9 -37 Initial Study Farm No. PO 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 87 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Io Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that inundation by seiche or tsunami was unlikely given the shallow conditions of Lake Elsinore and location of the City and SO1 relative to the Pacific Ocean. The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would increase the number of persons residing and the amount of construction within areas that have the potential for mudflows. The GPU FIR determined that the GPU did not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan; therefore, concluded that the ability for residents to evacuate would preclude injury and loss of life, but not property damage. The feasibility of evacuation and the improbability of dam failure support the conclusion that the potential for injury from mudflows /debris flows will be less than significant. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the placement of new residents or structures within areas subject to mudflow hazards. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, given the location of the Project area and as disclosed in the GPU EIR, the potential for a seiche or tsunami to affect the Project area is very low; therefore future development projects within the Project area would have no impacts related to a seiche or tsunami. However, the Project area is within a sloped area that is susceptible to wildfires; thus, there is potential for mudflows to occur within the Project area. Thus, future projects within the Project area would be subject to comply with an adopted emergency response plan. The Project area also is not located within a dam inundation zone; therefore failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam would not expose people or structures within the Project area to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Nonetheless, in the unlikely case flooding as a result of dam failure occurs and evacuation of the Project area is necessary, future projects within the Project area would be subject to comply with adopted emergency response plan(s). Due to mandatory compliance with an adopted emergency response plan, and consistent with the conclusions of the GPU EIR, impacts associated with potential for injury from mudflows would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, p. 3.9 -35 — p. 3.9 -37 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 88 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Physically divide an established community? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU and District Plans would have the potential to introduce incompatible land uses that could disrupt the arrangement of an established community. The GPU EIR identified GPU goals and policies for each District Plan (including the North Central Sphere District) and mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. With implementation of the applicable GPU goals and policies and GPU FIR Mitigation Measures MM Land Use 3 and MM Land Use 4, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to physically divide any established communities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, the Project area is situated adjacent to 1 -15 and would have no potential to physically divide any existing communities located east of the Project area. Furthermore, and consistent with the conclusions of the GPU EIR, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU goals and policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU goals and policies of the North Central Sphere District, which preserve hillside residential areas and ensure land use compatibility by requiring the protection of open space areas, compliance with development standards for hillside residential uses, and the integration commercial uses with surrounding areas. As disclosed in the GPU EIR, the East Lake District Plan was the only district plan that Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 89 of 327 New Ability No New More to Substantial: Significant Severe : Substantially Change Impact ` impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ O plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU and District Plans would have the potential to introduce incompatible land uses that could disrupt the arrangement of an established community. The GPU EIR identified GPU goals and policies for each District Plan (including the North Central Sphere District) and mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. With implementation of the applicable GPU goals and policies and GPU FIR Mitigation Measures MM Land Use 3 and MM Land Use 4, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to physically divide any established communities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, the Project area is situated adjacent to 1 -15 and would have no potential to physically divide any existing communities located east of the Project area. Furthermore, and consistent with the conclusions of the GPU EIR, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU goals and policies identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU goals and policies of the North Central Sphere District, which preserve hillside residential areas and ensure land use compatibility by requiring the protection of open space areas, compliance with development standards for hillside residential uses, and the integration commercial uses with surrounding areas. As disclosed in the GPU EIR, the East Lake District Plan was the only district plan that Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 89 of 327 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation would require mitigation to reduce impacts to below a level of significance; thus future development projects within the Project area would not be subject to GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Land Use 3 and MM Land Use 4. Due to compliance with GPU goals and policies of the North Central Sphere District, as well as applicable GPU EIR Mitigation Measures, potential impacts related to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning, p. 3.1 -14 — p. 3.1 -41 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that the GPU provides a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan to better respond to the current and projected future conditions of the City and SCI; therefore, the GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the GPU was not considered to be a significant inconsistency with the existing General Plan. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would have the potential to conflict with regional planning efforts identified in the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan, including regional population growth and conversion of agricultural land. The GPU EIR concluded that with implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 1, impacts related to population and housing forecasts would be reduced to below a level of significance. The GPU FIR also concluded that due to the small percentage of land within the City and SCI dedicated to agricultural uses, the conversion of agricultural land would not be significant; therefore the GPU's inconsistency with SCAG's agricultural land policies were found to be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and would rezone the Project area in a manner consistent with the GPU's pre - zoning designations. Thus, the Project would be fully consistent with the GPU Land Use Plan. There are no components of the proposed Project that have the potential to conflict with any General Plan or SCAG policies. Additionally, future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Such future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 1, which requires future development to comply with the development pattern established in the City's Growth Management Program and implement GPU policies from the Growth Management Section of the Community Form chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 1, impacts related to the population and housing forecasts would be less than Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 90 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation significant; thus, impacts related to the Project's consistency with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Land Use 1, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, MM Land Use 1 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 1 would ensure that impacts related to conflicting with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would remain less than significant. MM Land Use 1: The Growth Management Program developed by the City provides a strategy for developing a pattern and rate of growth to ensure that adequate public facilities and infrastructure can be provided to meet the rate of new construction and population growth. The goals and policies under the Growth Management section of the Community Form chapter provide principles for a growth management section. Implementation of the development pattern provided in the Growth Management Program and implementation of policies from the Growth Management Section of the Community Form chapter, in association with future development, would reduce impacts related to the population and housing forecasts. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning, p. 3.1 -14 — p. 3.1 -41 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU Land Use Plan would have the potential to conflict with the biological resources preservation goals set forth in the MSHCP. However, the GPU EIR determined that with implementation of GPU Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 2 and the goals and policies identified in the Biological Resources section of the GPU Resource Protection chapter, potential impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to conflict with the MSHCP, which is the only applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applicable to the Project area. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 91 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with policies identified in the Biological Resources section of the Resources Protection Chapter of the GPU, which promote the protection of biological habitats and long -term survival of plant and animal wildlife species. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 2, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts on areas described for conservation in the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 2, impacts related to the Project's consistency with the MSHCP would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Land Use 2, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 2 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Land Use 2 would ensure that impacts due to a conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan would remain less than significant. MM Land Use 2: Implementation of the GPU, the Land Use Plan, and District Plans could result in significant impacts related to disturbance of areas described for conservation in the MSHCP. Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan and District Plans in accordance with the Resource Protection and Preservation Chapter, Biological Resources Section, Goal 1, Policies 1.1— 1.11 will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with areas described for conservation in the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Future projects may be allowed to alter Conservation Area boundaries through criteria refinement, minor amendments, or other means, but would be required to do so in conformance with all regulations and mitigation requirements of the MSHCP. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.1, Land Use and Planning, p. 3.1 -14 — p. 3.1 -41 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 92 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? GPU EIR Finding: At the time the GPU EIR was certified, mineral activity within mineral resource zones located throughout the City and SOI was planned to be phased out over time as lands in these areas were converted to other land uses. Although these land use changes had been approved at the time the GPU EIR, the GPU provided policies associated with the conservation of mineral resources and included an Extractive Overlay designation, which encompasses the North Central Sphere District, to provide for continued operations of extractive uses. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with GPU policies and implementation of the Extractive Overlay designation would ensure impacts to important mineral resources would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the loss of a known mineral resource. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Furthermore, and as depicted on GPU EIR Figure 3.12 -1, Mineral Resource Zones, the Project site is located in an area that is classified by the California Department of Conservation as MRZ -3, which is defined as "areas of undetermined mineral resource significance" (CDC n.d., p. 3). As such, future development within the Project area has no potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur. Accordingly, impacts to important mineral resources would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 93 of 127 New Ability No New More to'.. Substantial Significant Severe..' Substantially Change Impact - Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑x mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑O delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? GPU EIR Finding: At the time the GPU EIR was certified, mineral activity within mineral resource zones located throughout the City and SOI was planned to be phased out over time as lands in these areas were converted to other land uses. Although these land use changes had been approved at the time the GPU EIR, the GPU provided policies associated with the conservation of mineral resources and included an Extractive Overlay designation, which encompasses the North Central Sphere District, to provide for continued operations of extractive uses. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with GPU policies and implementation of the Extractive Overlay designation would ensure impacts to important mineral resources would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the loss of a known mineral resource. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Furthermore, and as depicted on GPU EIR Figure 3.12 -1, Mineral Resource Zones, the Project site is located in an area that is classified by the California Department of Conservation as MRZ -3, which is defined as "areas of undetermined mineral resource significance" (CDC n.d., p. 3). As such, future development within the Project area has no potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur. Accordingly, impacts to important mineral resources would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 93 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.12, Mineral Resources, p. 3.12 -10 — p. 3.12 11 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with GPU policies, including the implementation of the Extractive Overlay designation, would ensure impacts to important mineral resources would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. As indicated on GPU Figure NCS -1, North Central Sphere Land Use Plan, the northern portions of the Project area are included within an Extractive Overlay, which allows for mineral resource extraction until such a time the sites are ultimately developed. However, any future development within these areas would require compliance with GPU policies guiding the Extractive Overlay designation, including Policy NCS 1.4, which requires an analysis of land use compatibility between mining activities and surrounding uses. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and provisions associated with the Extractive Overlay designation, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, impacts related to the loss of important mineral resources would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.12, Mineral Resources, p. 3.12 -10— p. 3.12 -11 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 94 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 4.12 NOISE a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that buildout of the CPU would increase noise levels and noise sensitive uses within the City and SOL The GPU EIR determined that noise levels could potentially exceed standards established in the City's Zoning Code; however, policies set forth in the GPU and MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 6 would ensure that individual projects be required to implement mitigation to reduce noise to acceptable levels. The GPU EIR concluded that on a programmatic level, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. However, the GPU FIR concluded that noise - related Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 95 of 127 New Ability No New More to ': Substantial'. Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact ' Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ❑ local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? J. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ N ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that buildout of the CPU would increase noise levels and noise sensitive uses within the City and SOL The GPU EIR determined that noise levels could potentially exceed standards established in the City's Zoning Code; however, policies set forth in the GPU and MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 6 would ensure that individual projects be required to implement mitigation to reduce noise to acceptable levels. The GPU EIR concluded that on a programmatic level, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. However, the GPU FIR concluded that noise - related Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 95 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation impacts associated with increased traffic on existing land uses and future development projects could result in significant impacts after mitigation. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new sources of noise. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU Policy 7.1 of Section 3.4 (Noise) of GPU Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), which requires individual projects to evaluate projected noise impacts associated with traffic, commercial uses, schools, recreational uses, and industrial and mining operations, and mitigate accordingly to comply with allowable levels established in the City's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and interior /exterior noise standards. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 5, which implement GPU Policy 7.1 of Section 3.4 (Noise) of GPU Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare). Although it is possible that future implementing projects within the Project area could contribute noise to roadways within the City and surrounding areas that would exceed the City's noise standards, any such impact would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR, which concluded that such impacts may remain significant and unavoidable even after the application of mitigation measures. There is no component of the proposed Project that has the potential to increase or create new noise impacts beyond what is already evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR; accordingly, Project - related impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified unavoidable significant impact previously disclosed in the GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 5, were identified in the GPU FIR to help reduce potential noise impacts to the greatest extent feasible; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals subject to CEQA. However, the GPU FIR determined that although implementation of MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 5 would reduce noise levels associated with traffic, commercial uses, schools, recreational noise, and industrial and mining operations noise, no mitigation was available to reduce potential noise impacts associated with traffic along certain roadways affecting to below a level of significance. MM Noise 1 (Traffic Noise): In accordance with the policies of the Lake Elsinore General Plan Update and the City's Zoning Code, the City shall require the applicant for any future development to analyze the impacts of increased traffic volume on noise conditions along affected roadways. Where project- specific analysis concludes that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the traffic noise to acceptable levels. For projects placing noise- sensitive land uses adjacent to or in the Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 96 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation vicinity of a major roadway, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City standards regarding traffic noise received on the site. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, then the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels. However, in some cases where realignments or upgrades of roadways are proposed or traffic levels will increase substantially like that anticipated for 1 -15, SR -74, Riverside Drive, Grand Avenue, Lakeshore Drive, and Lake Street there may be no mitigation that would adequately reduce future traffic noise as experienced by existing land uses or future development projects, resulting in significant and unmitigated impacts at the project level. MM Noise 2 (Commercial For projects proposing new commercial uses in the vicinity of Noise): sensitive receptors, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City noise standards. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels. MM Noise 3 (School Noise): For residential projects proposed adjacent to schools, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City noise standards. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels. The City shall require all school projects to conduct site - specific noise analysis in accordance with state requirements. MM Noise 4 (Recreational For projects proposing new recreational uses or increased intensity Noise): of recreational activity in proximity to sensitive receptors, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the recreation use's compliance with City noise standards. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels. For projects proposing new residential uses in proximity to recreational uses, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the residential use's compliance with City noise standards with respect to the existing recreational areas. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, then the City shall require binding mitigation measures Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 97 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels. MM Noise 5 (Industrial and For projects proposing new industrial /mining operations in the Mining Operations Noise): vicinity of sensitive receptors or projects that propose new sensitive uses in the vicinity of industrial /mining operations, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City noise standards. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the noise received to acceptable levels. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.5, Noise, p. 3.5 -25 — p. 3.5 -46 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that construction activities and long -term industrial and mining operations associated with buildout of the GPU would increase groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels within the City and 5OL The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the City's Municipal Code and applicable GPU policies and implementation GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Noise 7 and MM Noise 8, potential groundborne vibration and noise impacts associated with construction activities, industrial, and mining operations would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new sources of groundborne vibration or noise, nor would the Project result in the introduction of sensitive receptors to the Project area. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. The Project site is designated for Open Space, Hillside Residential, General Commercial, and Public Institutional (school) land uses. These land uses would not result in the creation of groundborne vibration or noise under long -term conditions. Although buildout of these areas as part of future implementing projects would result in construction - related groundborne noise and /or vibration, such construction activities would be subject to compliance with the City's Municipal Code requirements for construction noise. Specifically, future projects within the Project area involving construction activities would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code Section 17.176.080(F), which prohibits construction and demolition activities within areas that would create a disturbance to residential or commercial uses during weekends or holidays, and between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Such implementing projects also would be required to adhere to GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Noise 7 during construction. As such, construction - related groundborne noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant. Although the land uses identified above would not produce groundborne noise or vibration under long- term operating conditions, the northern portions of the Project site (north of Nichols Road) are included Initial Study Farm No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 98 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation within an Extractive Overlay zone, which would allow for mining activities, subject to approval of a Reclamation Plan. Additionally, an existing mining operation (Nichols Canyon Mine) occurs between the northern and southern portions of the Project site, and development of the northern portions of the site with Hillside Residential land uses has the potential to expose future sensitive receptors (residents) to excessive groundborne noise and /or vibration impacts associated with this existing mine. However, prior to development of these areas with mining or Hillside Residential land uses, and pursuant to GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM 8, the City would require such implementing projects to demonstrate compliance with the City noise standards. Where the site - specific analysis determines there is a potential for significant vibration - related impacts, the City would require mitigation measures to reduce vibration to acceptable levels. Additionally, future projects within the Project area involving mining operations would be subject to GPU Policy 7.1 of Section 3.4 (Noise) of GPU Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare), which requires individual projects to evaluate projected noise impacts associated with industrial and mining operations, and mitigate accordingly to comply with allowable levels established in the City's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix and interior /exterior noise standards. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's Municipal Code, applicable GPU policies, and GPU FIR Mitigation Measures MM Noise 7 and MM Noise 8, potential impacts associated with construction activities and mining operations would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Noise 7 and MM Noise 8, were identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of GPU FIR Mitigation Measures MM Noise 7 and MM Noise 8 would ensure that potential groundborne vibration and noise impacts associated with construction activities and mining operations would remain less than significant. MM Noise 7 (Vibration from For projects that have a potential to generate construction - related Construction Activities): groundborne vibration (e.g., use of pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers), the City shall require the project applicant to submit a construction - related vibration mitigation plan to the City for review and approval. The mitigation plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and activities and how the vibration from this equipment and activity would be mitigated during construction of the project. The City shall require binding mitigation measures implementing the approved mitigation plan. MM Noise 8 (Vibration from For projects proposing new industrial /mining operations in the Industrial and Mining vicinity of sensitive receptors or projects that propose new sensitive Operations): uses in the vicinity of industrial /mining operations, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate the new use's compliance with City noise standards. Where project- specific analysis determines there is a potential for significant vibration - related impacts, the City shall require binding mitigation measures Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 99 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation that will reduce the vibration received to acceptable levels. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.5, Noise, p. 3.5 -46 — P. 3.5 -49 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would increase noise levels within the City and SOL The GPU EIR concluded that on a programmatic level, compliance with GPU policies would reduce noise impacts to a level below significant. However, the GPU EIR concluded that noise - related impacts associated with increased traffic on existing land uses and future development projects could result in significant impacts after mitigation. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Future development projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, as discussed and analyzed under Threshold 4.12.a), future projects within the Project area would be subject to GPU Policy 7.1 of Section 3.4 (Noise) of GPU Chapter 3.0 (Public Safety and Welfare) and GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 5. However, as concluded by the GPU EIR, future development projects within the Project area may contribute to increased traffic levels along certain roadways anticipated by the GPU FIR, including 1 -15, thereby resulting in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed the City's noise standards after mitigation. However, there are no components of the Project that have the potential to result in new or more severe impacts due to noise beyond what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR as a significant unavoidable impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified unavoidable significant impact previously disclosed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures MM Noise 1 through MM Noise 5 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.5, Noise, p. 3.5 -25 — p. 3.5 -46 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that construction activities associated with buildout of the GPU would increase noise levels within the City and S01 on a temporary basis. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the City's Zoning Code and GPU policies and implementation of MM Noise 9, potential impacts would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 100 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in new sources of temporary or periodic noise increases. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CECA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Future development projects within the Project area would have the potential to create temporary noise impacts during construction. Additionally, should the northern portions of the Project area be subject to future mining activities, temporary increases in ambient noise levels also could occur. However, future development within the Project area would be subject to the City's regulatory requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, as discussed and analyzed under Threshold 4.12.b), future projects within the Project area involving construction activities would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code Section 17.176.080(F). Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Noise 9, which requires project applicants to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise standards for standards regarding construction noise and in the case potential impacts would exceed City standards, the project applicant would be required to mitigate accordingly. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's Zoning Code, applicable GPU policies, and Mitigation Measure MM Noise 9, potential impacts associated with potential temporary or periodic construction - related noise impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would result in a less - than- significant impact following mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Noise 9, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Noise 9 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Noise 9 would ensure that potential temporary or periodic construction - related noise impacts would remain less than significant. MM Noise 9: The City shall require project applicants to demonstrate their compliance with City standards regarding construction noise. Where project- specific analysis determines that noise standards may be exceeded, the City shall require binding mitigation measures that will reduce the construction noise to acceptable levels. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.5, Noise, p. 3.5 -49 — E. 3.5 -51 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 101 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would allow development within the vicinity of the Skylark Airport and identified the potential to expose people to excessive airport - related noise levels. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Noise 10 (requiring individual projects to implement mitigation to reduce noise to acceptable levels noise levels) would ensure compliance with relevant standards set forth in the City's Zoning Code and GPU. Thus, the GPU FIR concluded that impacts from airport - related noise would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the introduction of new sensitive receptors. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, the Project area is not located within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2.7); therefore, future development projects within the Project area would not expose people residing or working within the Project area to excessive airport - related noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts associated with airport - related noise would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.5, Noise, p. 3.5 -51 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a . Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, El El through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 102 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would induce substantial population growth within the City and S01; however, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with applicable GPU policies and regulatory requirements would assure that the necessary services and infrastructure would be sufficient to serve the anticipated growth. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in population growth that would have potential indirect impacts related to specific environmental issues that were discussed, analyzed, and mitigated in the appropriate sections of the GPU EIR. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that environmental impacts associated with population growth due to implementation of the GPU would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in substantial population growth. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies and GPU EIR mitigation measures associated with reducing impacts resulting from population growth to below a level of significance (Refer to the analysis provided under thresholds for Sections 4.1- 4.17). Due to mandatory compliance with applicable regulations, GPU policies, and GPU EIR mitigation measures discussed in Sections 4.1 -4.17 of this IS /Addendum, potential impacts related to population growth would be less than significant and within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required Source: GPU FIR Section 3.13, Population and Housing, p. 3.13 -20 — P. 3.13 -22 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 103 of 127 New Ability No New More to ` Substantial Significant Severe ' Substantially Change Impact ` Impacts. Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis C. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ Ox necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would induce substantial population growth within the City and S01; however, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with applicable GPU policies and regulatory requirements would assure that the necessary services and infrastructure would be sufficient to serve the anticipated growth. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in population growth that would have potential indirect impacts related to specific environmental issues that were discussed, analyzed, and mitigated in the appropriate sections of the GPU EIR. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that environmental impacts associated with population growth due to implementation of the GPU would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in substantial population growth. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies and GPU EIR mitigation measures associated with reducing impacts resulting from population growth to below a level of significance (Refer to the analysis provided under thresholds for Sections 4.1- 4.17). Due to mandatory compliance with applicable regulations, GPU policies, and GPU EIR mitigation measures discussed in Sections 4.1 -4.17 of this IS /Addendum, potential impacts related to population growth would be less than significant and within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required Source: GPU FIR Section 3.13, Population and Housing, p. 3.13 -20 — P. 3.13 -22 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 103 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would provide a total of 94,616 residential units within the City and 5OL The GPU EIR concluded that development of vacant land would not displace existing housing or people; therefore, no impact would occur and mitigation would not be required. Additionally, the GPU EIR concluded that future development projects involving the redevelopment of existing development would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the provision of replacement housing; therefore potential impacts associated with the displacement of housing would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the displacement of existing housing or people. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, there are no existing homes or residents within the Project area under existing conditions. As such, the Project would have no potential to displace people or housing, and no impact would occur. Accordingly, potential impacts related to the displacement of housing would not occur and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required Source: GPU EIR Section 3.13, Population and Housing, p. 3.13 -22 — p. 3.13 -23 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 104 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Fire protection? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would increase resident and daytime population within the City and 5O1, thereby resulting in an increased demand for fire protection services. In addition, the GPU EIR found that the response time may increase due to increased traffic within the service area. Thus, the GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would potentially result in the need for additional or expanded fire protection facilities to maintain required service ratios. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts on fire protection services would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in an increased demand for fire protection services. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services related to fire protection through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Fire and Police /Law Enforcement heading of the Community Facilities and Services section of the Community Form chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Public Services 1, was identified in the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 105 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial: Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis C. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑x d. Parks? ❑ ❑ 0 e. Other public facilities? El ❑ ❑ ❑x a) Fire protection? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would increase resident and daytime population within the City and 5O1, thereby resulting in an increased demand for fire protection services. In addition, the GPU EIR found that the response time may increase due to increased traffic within the service area. Thus, the GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would potentially result in the need for additional or expanded fire protection facilities to maintain required service ratios. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts on fire protection services would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in an increased demand for fire protection services. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services related to fire protection through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Fire and Police /Law Enforcement heading of the Community Facilities and Services section of the Community Form chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Public Services 1, was identified in the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 105 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Public Services 1 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1 would ensure that impacts related to fire protection services would remain less than significant. MM Public Services 1: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services related to 1) police service, 2) fire protection, 3) schools, 4) libraries, and 5) animal control through implementation of the following: • Compliance with applicable State and local laws and regulations; • Policy of 1.6 of the Community Form chapter, Land Use section; and • Policies 8.1 through 8.4 under Goal 8 of the Community Facilities and Protection Services section of the Public Safety and Welfare chapter addressing schools, libraries, and animal control services Source: GPU EIR Section 3.14, Public Services, p. 3.14 -15 — p. 3.14 -22 b) Police protection? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would increase resident population within the City and S01, thereby requiring an increase in the number of sworn officers to maintain acceptable service ratios. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would potentially result in environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded governmental facilities that would be required to maintain acceptable service ratios. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts on police protection services would be reduced to less -than- significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for police protection. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and Mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services related to police through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Fire and Police /Law Enforcement heading of the Community Facilities and Services section of the Community Form chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, and consistent with the findings of Initial Study Form No. PD 2000-32- Revised May 2012 Page 106 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation the CPU EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the CPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1 shall apply. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.14, Public Services, p. 3.14 -15 — p. 3.14 -22 c) Schools? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would increase resident population within the City and S01, thereby impacting the school district's ability to provide adequate school facilities for students. The GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would potentially result in environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded governmental facilities that would be required to maintain acceptable service ratios. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU policies and implementation of GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts on schools would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for school facilities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services related to schools through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Community Facilities and Protection Services section in the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts would be less than significant and within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.14, Public Services, p. 3.14 -15 — p. 3.14 -22 d) Parks? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that the population increase within the City and S01 could potentially result in significant impacts associated with the increase in use of existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the GPU Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 107 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation FIR found that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU could potentially result in significant impacts to community services associated with parks and recreation. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the applicable City requirements and GPU policies and implementation of GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1, potential impacts would be considered less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for parkland. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the City requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Section 16.12.050 and Section 16.34.060 of the City's Municipal Code, which require the dedication of parkland and /or payment of in -lieu fees and Park Capital Improvement Fund fees to fund park and recreation facility improvements. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with GPU policies pertaining to park and recreational facilities within the North Central Sphere District, which promote open space and recreational opportunities within the district and encourage a joint -use program with the high school facility located adjacent to Interstate -15. Further, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with community services related to parks and recreation through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Parks and Recreation and Land Use sections of the Community Form chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's Municipal Code and Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1, impacts would be less than significant and within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Parks and Recreation 1, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1 would ensure that impacts related to parks and recreation would remain less than significant. MM Parks and Recreation 1: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with community services related to parks and recreation through implementation of the following: • Policies under Goals 8 and 9 of the Parks and Recreation section of the Community Form chapter. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 108 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation • Policies 1.1 and 2.1 of the Community Form chapter, Land Use section. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.15, Parks and Recreation, p. 3.15 -18 — p. 3.15 -23 e) Other public services /facilities? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR evaluated potential impacts associated with the provision of library services and animal control services in the City and 5O1. The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would increase resident population within the City and SOI, thereby impacting library and animal control services. The GPU FIR determined that implementation of the GPU would potentially result in environmental impacts associated with the construction of new or improved governmental facilities that would be required to maintain acceptable service ratios. The GPU FIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU policies and implementation of GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts on library and animal control services would be reduced to less- than - significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for library or animal control services. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CE0,A, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the GPU policies and mitigation measures identified by the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with public services related to library and animal control services through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Community Facilities and Protection Services section in the Public Safety and Welfare chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1, impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Public Services 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.14, Public Services, p. 3.14 -15 — p. 3.14 -22 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 109 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 4.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that the population increase within the City and SO1 could potentially result in significant impacts associated with the increase in use of existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the GPU FIR found that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU could potentially result in significant impacts to community services associated with parks and recreation. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the applicable City requirements and GPU policies and implementation of MM Parks and Recreation 1, potential impacts would be considered less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for parks or recreation facilities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. As indicate previously under the discussion and analysis of Threshold 4.14(d), future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the City requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Section 16.12.050 and Section 16.34.060 of the City's Municipal Code, which require the dedication of parkland and /or Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 110 of 121 New Ability No New More to Substantial Significant. Severe Substantially Change '. Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous f Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such ❑ ❑ ❑ D that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ I] that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that the population increase within the City and SO1 could potentially result in significant impacts associated with the increase in use of existing parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the GPU FIR found that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU could potentially result in significant impacts to community services associated with parks and recreation. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the applicable City requirements and GPU policies and implementation of MM Parks and Recreation 1, potential impacts would be considered less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for parks or recreation facilities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. As indicate previously under the discussion and analysis of Threshold 4.14(d), future development projects within the Project area would be subject to the City requirements, GPU policies, and mitigation measures identified by the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Specifically, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with Section 16.12.050 and Section 16.34.060 of the City's Municipal Code, which require the dedication of parkland and /or Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 110 of 121 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation payment of in -lieu fees and Park Capital Improvement Fund fees to fund park and recreation facility improvements. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with GPU policies pertaining to park and recreational facilities within the North Central Sphere District, which promote open space and recreational opportunities within the district and encourage a joint -use program with the high school facility located adjacent to Interstate -15. Further, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU FIR Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1, which requires individual projects to demonstrate their avoidance of significant impacts associated with community services related to parks and recreation through implementation of applicable GPU policies included in the Parks and Recreation and Land Use sections of the Community Form chapter. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's Municipal Code and MM Parks and Recreation 1, impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Parks and Recreation 1 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.15, Parks and Recreation, p. 3.15 -18 — p. 3.15 -23 Source: GPU EIR Section 3.15, Parks and Recreation, p. 3.15 -18 — p. 3.15 -23 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 111 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial 1 Significant Severe = Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ N either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 111 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in significant impacts on travel levels within the City and SOL The GPU EIR identified GPU policies, planned improvements contained in the Capital Improvements Program, and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. However, due to the uncertainty associated with the timing of constructed improvements, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts on travel levels would remain significant after mitigation. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in an increase of traffic within the City. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future projects within the Project area associated with buildout of the GPU Land Use Plan would contribute to the traffic volumes estimated by the GPU EIR Traffic Study. As disclosed in the GPU EIR, all study intersections near the Project area were projected to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) with implementation of planned roadway improvements, the GPU Circulation Element, and the Capital Improvements Program. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2, which requires individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of the ultimate roadway and intersection classifications and improvements in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 112 of 127 New Ability No New More to ? Substantial:'. Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact Impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact Analysis d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ p intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ D f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian ❑ ❑ ❑ D facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities)? a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in significant impacts on travel levels within the City and SOL The GPU EIR identified GPU policies, planned improvements contained in the Capital Improvements Program, and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. However, due to the uncertainty associated with the timing of constructed improvements, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts on travel levels would remain significant after mitigation. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in an increase of traffic within the City. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, future projects within the Project area associated with buildout of the GPU Land Use Plan would contribute to the traffic volumes estimated by the GPU EIR Traffic Study. As disclosed in the GPU EIR, all study intersections near the Project area were projected to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) with implementation of planned roadway improvements, the GPU Circulation Element, and the Capital Improvements Program. Additionally, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2, which requires individual projects to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of the ultimate roadway and intersection classifications and improvements in accordance with the Land Use Plan and Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 112 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Capital Improvement Program. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2, potential impacts would be reduced to the maximum feasible extent. There are no components of the proposed Project that would increase traffic levels beyond what was assumed in the GPU EIR. Furthermore, future discretionary projects within the Project area would be subject to CEQA compliance, which would require the preparation of traffic studies for any projects with a potential to result in significant impacts to traffic. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, traffic and circulation impacts would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, MM Transportation 2, was identified in the GPU FIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2 would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2 would ensure that impacts related to traffic and circulation would remain less than significant. MM Transportation 2: Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of the ultimate roadway and intersection classifications and improvements shown on the Land Use Plan and Capital Improvement Program as well as the goals and policies set forth by the Circulation Section of the Community Form Chapter. With implementation of these goals and policies, individual projects implemented in accordance with the GPU and Land Use Plan would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts on traffic levels. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, p. 3.4 -64— p. 3.4 -109 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in significant impacts traffic levels on Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities, including State Route 74 (SR -74) and 1 -15. The GPU EIR identified GPU policies, planned improvements contained in the Capital Improvements Program, and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. However, due to the uncertainty associated with the timing of constructed improvements, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant after mitigation. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have a potential to conflict with the CMP. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 113 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Future development within the Project area would have the potential to contribute to significant impacts to SR -74 and /or 1 -15, which are the only two CMP facilities within the Project area. As discussed under Threshold 4.16.a), future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2. Due to mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2, potential impacts would be reduced to the maximum feasible extent. There are no components of the proposed Project that would increase traffic levels beyond what was assumed in the GPU EIR. Furthermore, future discretionary projects within the Project area would be subject to CEQA compliance, which would require the preparation of traffic studies for any projects with a potential to result in significant impacts to traffic. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, traffic and circulation impacts would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: GPU EIR Mitigation Measure MM Transportation 2 shall apply. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, p. 3.4 -64 — p. 3.4 -109 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU FIR found that implementation of the GPU would not conflict with FAA requirements for development proposed within proximity to airports. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that the GPU would not result in significant impacts related to air traffic patterns, assuming mandatory compliance with FAA regulations. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to affect air traffic patterns. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, the Project area is not located within the Skylark Airport Influence Area (City of Lake Elsinore, 2011a, Figure 2.7). Future development within the Project area also would be required to comply with applicable FAA regulations. Therefore, future development projects within the Project area would not result in a change in air traffic patterns and impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, p. 3.4 -109 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 114 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use; thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant on a programmatic level with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development within the Project area would be required to make site - adjacent roadway improvements in conformance with the GPU standards, and also would be required to demonstrate the Project area would be served by efficient access. Additionally, the land uses proposed by the Project would be consistent with and fully compatible with surrounding land uses. Due to mandatory project -level review of future projects within the Project area and implementation of planned roadway improvements, potential impacts related to hazards from a design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, p. 3.4 -109 — p. 3.4 -110 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that individual development projects associated with implementation of the GPU would be required to comply with provisions for emergency access set forth in the City's Zoning Code; therefore, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would affect emergency access in the area. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Consistent with the finding of the GPU EIR, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with the City's development review process including review for compliance with the City's Zoning Code, including all applicable fire code requirements. Additionally, future projects would be subject to review by the City Engineer and City Fire Department, thereby ensuring that any proposed modification to the existing roadway system would maintain adequate emergency access or response. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable City requirements, potential impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 115 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, p. 3.4 -110 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that the GPU does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Complete Streets Act. Additionally, the GPU EIR determined that future development projects associated with the implementation of the GPU would need to implement GPU goals and policies related to implementing complete streets within the City and S01. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Transportation 4 and MM Transportation 5 (requiring individual projects to comply with GPU goals and policies associated with planned bikeways and truck routes within the City and SCI), potential impacts resulting from individual projects would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs related to non - vehicular transportation. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, and consistent with the finding of the GPU EIR, future projects within the Project area would be required to comply with the GPU goals and policies of the Community Form chapter, which include policies that encourage alternate forms of transportation, including bikeways and walkways. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and GPU EIR Mitigation Measures MM Transportation 4 and MM Transportation 5, potential impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU FIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, MM Transportation 4 and MM Transportation 5, was identified in the GPU EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance; therefore, these mitigation measures would apply to all future development projects within the annexation area involving discretionary approvals that would result in a physical impact to the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Transportation 4 and MM Transportation 5 would ensure that impacts related to bikeways and truck routes would remain less than significant. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 115 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation MM Transportation 4 Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be (Bikeways): required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of the ultimate roadway and intersection classifications and improvements shown on the Land Use Plan and Capital Improvement Program as well as the goals and policies set forth by the Circulation Section of the Community Form Chapter. MM Transportation 5 (Truck Individual projects implemented pursuant to the Land Use Plan will be Routes): required to demonstrate avoidance of significant impacts through implementation of the ultimate roadway and intersection classifications and improvements shown on the Land Use Plan and Capital Improvement Program as well as the goals and policies set forth by the Circulation Section of the Community Form Chapter. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation, p. 3.4 -111 — p. 3.4 -121 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 117 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 118 of 127 '. New Ability No New More to Substantiali Significant Severe Substantially Change impact impacts Reduce from Significant Previous Impact. Analysis Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of El ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ O resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? d. Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ C7 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve El 11 11 the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted El El 1-1 0 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ regulations related to solid waste. In. Require or result in the construction of new electrical, natural gas or telecommunication El facilities facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 118 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? GPU EIR Finding: The CPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in an increased population throughout the City and SOI; thus, would result in increased wastewater flows that would require treatment at Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District ( EVMWD) facilities. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with EVMWD's Wastewater Master Plan, payment of established utility rates and connection fees, and compliance with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code, potential significant impacts related to wastewater treatment would be reduced to a level below significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would have the potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Future development projects would be subject to City review to ensure that adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to serve the project. Additionally, such projects would be required to pay EVMWD connection fees and comply with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code, which requires future projects to install sanitary sewer facilities in accordance with City standards. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's regulatory requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -18 — p. 3.16 -20 b) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in an increased population throughout the City and SOI, thereby resulting in increased wastewater flows that would require treatment at EVMWD facilities. Further, the GPU EIR determined that increased wastewater flows would result in potential impacts to wastewater treatment facilities, including the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, the GPU FIR concluded that assuming compliance with EVMWD's Wastewater Master Plan, payment of established utility rates and connection fees, and compliance with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code, potential significant impacts related to wastewater capacity would be reduced to a level below significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for wastewater treatment facilities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of Initial Study Form No. PD 2000-32- Revised May 2012 Page 119 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, as discussed and analyzed under Threshold 4.17.a), future development projects would be subject to City review to ensure that adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to serve the project and would be required to comply with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's regulatory requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -18 — p. 3.16 -20 c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? d) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in an increased population throughout the City and SOI, thereby resulting in an increased demand for water. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that the projected supply determined in the EVMWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and improvements identified in the EVMWD Water Distribution System Master Plan were sufficient to meet the projected demand of the GPU through 2030. Thus, the GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with the EVMWD's UWMP and Water Distribution System Master Plan, payment of established utility rates and connection fees, and compliance with the City's Municipal Code, potential impacts related to water supply would be reduced to a level below significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for water. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects would be subject to City review to ensure that sufficient water supply would be available to serve the project. Further, such projects would be required to pay EVMWD connection fees and comply with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code, which requires future projects to install water storage and distribution facilities in accordance with City standards. In addition, the EVMWD UWMP provides a long -range assessment of water supply and water demand for its service area, which includes the City and its S01. In developing its UWMP, EVMWD used a 2030 service area population, household, and employment projections developed by the Riverside County Center for Demographics Research (RCCDR). These projections estimate a population of 174,579 within the EVMWD service area by 2030. As concluded in the GPU EIR, the EVMWD UWMP indicates that there are sufficient water supplies and water shortage contingency plans to protect existing and future water Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 120 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation needs within its service area (which includes the S01). As such, although future development within the Project area would result in increased demand for water resources, due to long -range planning efforts by the EVWMD impacts due to water demand would be less than significant. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -21— p. 3.16 -28 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in an increased population throughout the City and SCI, thereby resulting in increased wastewater flows that would require treatment at EVMWD facilities. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with EVMWD's Wastewater Master Plan, payment of established utility rates and connection fees, and compliance with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code, potential impacts related to wastewater capacity would be reduced to a level below significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in increased demand for wastewater treatment facilities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, as discussed and analyzed under Threshold 4.17.a), future development projects would be subject to City review to ensure that adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to serve the project and would be required to comply with Chapter 16 of the City's Municipal Code. Due to mandatory compliance with the City's regulatory requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -18 — p. 3.16 -20 f) Be served by a landfill system with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Initial Study Form No. PD 2000-32- Revised May 2012 Page 121 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in an increased population throughout the City and SCI, thereby resulting in increased demand for landfill capacity. The GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with City and County waste reduction programs and compliance with applicable state and local laws, potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of the GPU would be reduced to a level below significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the generation of solid waste. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects would be required to comply with City and County waste reduction programs pursuant to the State's Integrated Waste Management Act, which requires a 50 percent waste reduction rate for all cities. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with Chapter 14.12 of the City Municipal Code, which requires a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris to be diverted from landfills. Due to mandatory compliance with State and local regulatory requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -29 — p. 3.16 -33 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with City and County waste reduction programs and compliance with applicable state and local laws would ensure that potential impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would result in the generation of solid waste. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. However, as discussed and analyzed under Threshold 4.17.f), future development projects would be required to comply with City and County waste reduction programs pursuant to the State's Integrated Waste Management Act and Chapter 14.12 of the City Municipal Code. Due to mandatory compliance with State and local regulatory requirements, potential impacts would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project Initial Study Forrn No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 122 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU FIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -29 — p. 3.16 -33 h) Require or result in the construction of new electrical, natural gas or telecommunication facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? GPU EIR Finding: The GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU would result in an increased population throughout the City and S01, thereby resulting in increased demand for electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services. Further, the GPU EIR determined that increased demand for these services would result in potential impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded facilities. However, the GPU EIR concluded that assuming compliance with GPU policies, potential impacts would be less than significant at a programmatic level. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project seeks to expand the City's boundary and does not involve discretionary approvals that would involve the construction of utilities. Any future discretionary applications within the Project area with a potential to result in significant environmental effects would be subject to CEQA, and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with such future projects would be speculative at this time pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Additionally, future development projects within the Project area would be required to comply with GPU policies from the Safety and Welfare chapter, including Policies 12.1 through 12.3, which ensure adequate services are available to meet future demands. Such future development also would be subject to CEQA, and mitigation measures would be required for any utility - related impact determined to be potentially significant. Due to mandatory compliance with applicable GPU policies and future site - specific CEQA review, potential impacts would be less than significant on a programmatic level. Accordingly, and based on the foregoing analysis, impacts associated with the construction of new electrical, natural gas or telecommunication facilities would be less than significant on a programmatic level and would be within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Source: GPU EIR Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, p. 3.16 -33 — p. 3.16 -34 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 21053 of CEQA and Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. Initial Study Form No. PO 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 123 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As indicated throughout the analysis presented herein, the proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, and for the reasons discussed under Issue 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Furthermore, and for the reasons identified under the discussion and analysis of Issue 4.5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 124 of 127 New Ability No New More to Substantial Significant Severe Substantially Change Impact ,: Impacts :: Reduce, from Significant Previous Impact. Analysis 1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects ❑ El ❑ x❑ of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C. Have environmental effects that will cause 0 ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As indicated throughout the analysis presented herein, the proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, and for the reasons discussed under Issue 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Furthermore, and for the reasons identified under the discussion and analysis of Issue 4.5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not contain any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 124 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Source: GPU EIR Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.8, Biological Resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementation of the proposed Project would have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable, but mitigable impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, public services, and recreation. Additionally, the proposed Project would have the potential to result in cumulative considerable impacts associated with air quality and noise after mitigation. These potentially significant effects have been evaluated and disclosed throughout applicable sections in this IS /Addendum. There are no other cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the proposed Project that are not already evaluated and disclosed throughout this IS /MND. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Source: GPU EIR Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. The Project would allow for the annexation of 666.66 acres into the City of Lake Elsinore, which would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly (refer also to the discussion and analysis of Issue 0, Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 125 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the GPU EIR. Source: Project Application Materials; GPU EIR Section 3.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 126 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan FIR for the Nichols Road Annexation 5.0 REFERENCES The following documents were used as information sources during preparation of this document. As noted in Subsection 1.7, Tiered Documents, Incorporation by Reference, and Technical Studies, the City of Lake Elsinore GPU and GPU EIR are available for public review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, ph. (951) 674 -3124. Cited As Reference Caltrans, California Department of Transportation. Officially Designated State Scenic Highway (Map). 2011 2011. Available online at: http:[ /www__dot.ca.gov F>g /La ndArch_scenic_highwa s_. Accessed January 28, 2015. CDC, 1980 California Department of Conservation. Special Studies Zones Elsinore Quadrangle Map. 1980. Available online at: http: mw. consrv. ca. Rpv /shmpfdown load /quua�LA_KE_ELSINORE� s ELSNORE.PDF. Accessed January 28, 2015. CDC, 2012a California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Important Farmland 2010 (Map). January, 2012. Available online at: ftp: / /ftp.cons v ca vJp ub dIr- FMMP_pdf[2Mriv10 west df. Accessed January 28, 2015. CDC, 2012b California Department of Conservation. Riverside County Williamson Act FY200812009. 2012. Available online at: ftp: //f1jp. cons rv.ca.Rov /pub dlrpJww� riverside w 08 09 WA.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2015. CDC, n.d. California Department of Conservation. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Available on -line at: hp1[www consrv— .ca.gov/sm gbGuid elinesi kocumewts/ClassDesig.p f. Accessed February 5, 2014. City of Lake City of Lake Elsinore. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. December 13, 2011. Elsinore, 2011a City of Lake City of Lake Elsinore. City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Elsinore, Impact Report SCH # 2005121019. December 13, 2011. 2011b FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Pone] 2028 of 3085, Map No. 05065C2028G. August 28, 2008. Available on -line at: https: / /msc.fema.gou[portal/search ?Address Query= lal<e %20elsi_nore %2C %20ca. Accessed February 5, 2014. Google Google Earth. Aerial Photo of the Nichols Road Annexation Project Area. 2013. Earth, 2013 Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 Page 127 of 127 City of Lake Elsinore Addendum to the Lake Elsinore General Plan EIR for the Nichols Road Annexation Initial Study Form No. PD 2000 -32- Revised May 2012 O r Ox W W � x �l t' C v C U U i! (si 0 C O N 41 O bA .w .H V P PLO d 0 0 W W �O+ R N O V] v h U C y z z V wQ w ro o U U V ¢ w 7 ° 0 O„ '� v W a o GO i u w w in" N ti O G v .�' c� G S m •a v; G b R a > P" 'ti �' y ti v bri o o a O C R �. F. '� G �` a .j r•Y.+ v v v .� p0. R � R CO FJ v O C y T, Ci,.C.7 .4^u, N Z •� O v p� v G m �'? p y� p '� P. � '� r O v a'� „ o '� � o o V '•�' M G� ° °G, C7 � aGi .v. p. y m Oy L`]. O y F. 09 FL Ti pq -. 'O 0 o v m u w v C W C y z Z ro o U U V ¢ w 7 ° 0 O„ '� v W � GO oGq ao 4 Z tp in" in in O G v .�' c� G S m •a v; G b R > P" F eD m m O C R �. F. '� G �` a .j r•Y.+ v v v .� p0. R � .4^u, ° o w is b v ro mG,F. ti 7 o v o m v o� H i w° .C. °� F ro N v✓ 7to P. ,w N� .,u ,l r' rr v� C y 7 ° 0 O„ '� v GO G O G v .�' c� G S m •a v; G b R > P" F eD m m ❑ R v y p. � p,, ❑ R �. F. '� G �` a .j r•Y.+ v v v .� p0. R � .4^u, ° o w is b v ro mG,F. ti 7 o v o m v o� H i w° .C. °� F ro N v✓ 7to P. ,w N� .,u ,l r' rr v� t� ro u 0 u k W 0 c O i+ u W d O � H Q "N Q cti�I /1 F U � u Z z o U Fr V u W Q z u o w y 75 w w w Q v a a a H V .o m 'y°' o Qo u E G .v. G C, y y ° o, Gmw u z z u O C v v w FO a U b u � N G O � G i o ;• cu � � G M G v � N G N �i' ti ti tZil b M � FI° A f }v 1 l ra �7 _ 7 r r� i !f F W d O w O t r _h V � t, R p Lam. U Y4 W C) a O U v G� W U z � C N O C > w w v v r..l O h Z 0 '80 w '3 � a� N � m C o r b ya ,� a; Z .''� G v '�J o� ��• w � G w ° z ro ro U ti U Q U C G 2 CA oA U LA° w w v v a H V C G, v ..• .� o .0 C G v .p D v 7 o y m °A m •a ., v �t T w W W r l .F e� a U U k w O O u u O w � Q H U w V Z O (J V V Z � p0 Op w � FO w y w w t-1 y w m G p9 id G b O v y E d y K y CA N � b G p w C9 S op w FC" ,y •+I GO �i i o fY ° " C� b`V v `, rv. z o Q w G C O C G G .a G m 0 _ o � o D o D ° ° �n Q ,'p9Ggti m roy ���'�V� '�'NR�C3i�K�bN '� r^ v b ✓ R G N � v vvi O .v. P,'Z 0.0 y o v P. y W ry w� M ri f l w �w a w •v } F U � t' O 0 u u W 0 v� c 0 u u z u z u cn 0 w W w 5 w O Q C7 E w U z Q u w z O in w O a w W n.l H U Q c. H z w z z 0 z w a F z rw- z 0 a c? F w LF4 Q z 0 Q u H_ w O w w P� N N N G Q v vTi '+�' 0.v G'c5 GLO G O R Go R 'd '6❑c F1 � i '.. � '6 G � i N� y N O v a ✓ p H �� Ti v '� A O� �• F G a R � ry N u N O C ro o O V O R V N N O O G m G.° �UUQ b V z v oDU o O d 'G O b E y> R • R ,� O ' ? v v a v o G v+ •.r] v o R rv��N r I �s ii !A L� b cE G J' 0 u u x W 0 vl c 0 u N 2 O� r � ---111 H U � w U Z Q � V F {L Q z �? v � m � w o � w w w a ro OA O CL O w0 7 N N '.�1 41 N Q A .O wp F ro v Q N aG. v ,lOi N N O N bO v G O O G O �.. O O s. ' �, p� ❑v v O 2' v� C1 v 2 h oA a v c%i v G ti :^�.% ❑� � ,G `d qv G v� '� v ❑" o� G G C v G N � aG G o C o .� v v ON Orow P. C m K v itl ro w U Z _ z Q o U C w O w � v O w W H U Q c. i H Z w z Z O C Z W ..1 Q H z w H c°. vM w f y V „ u� ry i- i d Ji K w O _F V OX ua i W � a cd d U k W O O u N w V Z O m m V ^ASV v w w v � v v 2' p 4 o G N o b G in O v o m v in yIn 09 C O Ui id p m M o y N C. o v n v 71 O 7 k O M a y G V j Pr P• V ro � ,Gj �� U1 .� p .� .O G v O r N 00 Q w N P. e�++ � �N. ro rt V O W' G .G-i r0. ,4 .G. N iG .� b Li W � z z Q o V m 5 ' O � O v v a w P] H � w, b I F C. m� µ w' f y v ro c� G U U Y. W C1 O i+ v F-4 � O w' Q r F U 1� w l v ^t Sn M' f Y v tN prt z R R c R W ¢ � G G Z (7 H Oq iin Oq in 09 W Oa � W W W N F-� 75 F a1 N ti v 'V' •r7 '~ 3-i M' N W' .�. CL 'a V '.1' .G! '6 H• bA 75 Gr G. 0 y ti R R V 'G O �' wR+ 00 ry _O O � ..R, OO ✓ N � N � .N. V " N V In '.% N in G ..ri N F" O �^ � paj iy N � e-� •.�. ti 0 u 0 . W u a _ R � O C o v It C v o ai o CL b '�' ;� '� ✓ v R. v in 1� w l v ^t Sn M' f Y v tN prt WJ L FN4 a yO w Q W 2 r Q, F' U i' td .J. d a k iTa O C 0 i7 u u ,v N w ,s s x l U Z z O G C G R R R G •a C7 H in in in `�° g Z v A p v P O v nR. OM N R v y 09 � O 5 O ti F; p O CA N w U Z w w v v v v � � .O 4 N O G V O J R v W G G U C✓ b W X G u �' ^ a "" K Fj .r "" C •R-1 a O � ai p y v i ai ✓ �C a C a @ n' FW '�' F-i v � v P. 0. .� w P❑. ,�, R. v m v O^ vCi X09 o � .� a b � x m � ,v N w ,s s x l i.� C 0 u u k W O C O i+ a yO w' �l O t T F- U � V z O U w d z � u � w O � w � w t-1 V ~ V � O N O �'�Nc z0 bymyC�orroo�G.°�' bY3vC oo" Y.G 2 OO P� P•'C R m O v 0 P+ G� G ,1, v v y .v- p w u z s o v a u z H cn � w O w C w O w w w N �-1 H V Q w r�+ Q H 2 z 0 5 z w Q H o N Z .d �w, G m U fn" �A �2 X. w w 5 H � r CJ O v �l 4� cR G U? U 7 u r W O U7 G O U U c� d " YI w " h z z o �f W 4 V G ti G V V V G Z O 09 a9 G c9 G 09 09 t7 � in �n in in in Q' w a ~0 '5 v u 'vii o v <n v u, o v 09'a,,I. o 09 :�7 o v b9 o v o to.a� N v .� v G O a G A 0.'O � � ,� N .y N a.C„ N �-'✓ N � U O [Vtl .dC ,+ � a,Y. y .M It 0 o o o N o9 m v 09 3 0 0 N@ a v G C a v N O N O It o O v O p v O 0 v y v v N 0.Y a' N 7 G 0 o F o o f v a~Gi C]. O kw 01 � 0.. w ❑P❑' n .� GRG. N � fqqi v � v �n @ � 5 � P. vpi v ..G pro o W v z 0 V It U > w a a a o 0 ..1 c w v 3 boa 09 N ro N V y iC Q' v N R. +O. It v .5 It N 'O R. b0 r'� F � o9 ,v, o � ❑ .5 o v. s .5 o v.d N V G O 5' It h v m 0. eG9 IZ oG9 Z v0 yo O 0. c� d " YI w " h a E E a U a U k W 0 v� O ^ w Q A u z o v u O V O w � a R c .o ° m m o°A o ai .oq � p, � cn m •a on .q �n v y p n u ?o v 7 � Oq `,� '� R' O � •GO _ R P. '�" G Q, R. � 0. � '� v R •dC o w w m .d o a' .vy' ' u z 0 � � z v C w v W W P] N v b y v v O `(ti° 7 v � a •c m ° a :° 4� � G ,�_ z P. G 7 v v v •� 7 ,N „^ tk �h r I; O h m a' O w O Ste. O G a d 7 U N �rG O G O U rn u z o w Q C U w O w, w w w v w � a i- N •C � OR.A N V ° N G v � N A OGtip ° N � N'd .'.` m K �0.� :� .� .G ,G ,G .N N Op G 0.m G v� C m a:� i.i [q ❑ P� m �� G 'p � y � � O .G v> ,� N roN Py O v N v ^ i yO v 0.i CI a N i� '6 N ro ti G .� vOi O v ^Q°j OroA G y sro. N i O C G ro v� ti„ V y G .5 0 w z O y0 y v M 'o rob p; Lr; M H o o^ cvi b U z z o b u � w w i O � O u v a O A ro ° v C7 5 ti F F. m o '� m�� .d v vGi vCi o v o o v v m❑ 'a °: �� hd v .x i N W � c� G r7 m 0 U U bC W 0 U? C O u d a O w O _F U ry w he r �f ^: 11 rS m u z o V V F V w c a a a v N 'd O u u o�n 0 v v G C M rn y v N Tim .v_ v� � Off" Z rG C7 .'G v .y. G „ n � w C � G ti ❑ N GR N �• '0 .� G� W vOi � U Cl w y U .O 'O C`b p v CL v o v M G z , ..v, v N v b❑ O O'cC G O" RC 'C❑ p o' u u v if-' .�❑❑ 'O 0.'^ X Cv c"i .G .v. rc�. ;vH( V z o � Oq OO � F N w O C a O v y W W G w W PO. a eq Q v v O A v v N ;� R• `n � E v: � �Gtl � N � O ry w he r �f ^: 11 rS m [L Ox w i Cn d F V F� L' O v u k W I O Cn G 0 U d w U _ Z w d cis G W � y W h-� .� .. w � 0.b P � P. O O".• tC � ti .� O cVi .�' N � vi G N v 00 0 .j9 0 '(�• G CGA G �0. .� �V..VG "' G G v v v 0...V. � C m� 7 CC �-. -'� p' o v 78 P. . .'CV• e0 .N. .C. R. Y ,Ati" w U Z d O V V V F d , � V F_ in W W m ca O e4 W ¢i W W Co- Fo. F o v C Z. N •o, m o 3 m 5 v G G y G D X y Fw v ti _ C O U cn m> v x < if A �E G k L� O C O i+ `z d w' W Q O H l V 1--i u z e o_ y Q iG z u � w O C F w � w a Vl v. � ;� Gi O > O G � N ti O ..�. N N � N N .✓. N TS � Y .�, rv. w ,7 H v Oq � N' 0�9 0 R� N R G V M aF- N b R N 0.':. >• � N' N '� v N r v y Z y O tai a '0 v .� H v U 4 G G G :cy v '+G G vn v ,,YYV t-� OM .� O+."r7 � b w � Q, <C G '9 � u � O � � h 'C y U v " N F " v .� .�• G4 v z X :- U R v y y 0. CC w V 2 � O r Q u z o o � � o w Q w W G ti w .v. G � � V r+ V ✓ C(J n. T: r rt F� v 4 O h A a O X Y� t' ro E i U N x W Ci Q C♦ N w z z o � G R w ? G C w w v v a b b •a C v� �, 3 .� m :� O G v a O b in '> o C G v� y v V v N ., o9 v v v io w N. v GO O o � � G •° .� R •. R v "'C v bhp Rte' o C N Q. � � Oq rv. v O G O O zi N Pr. .G w N F w N N 0 to F+ V v .Zi to u 'Cti F C ,C o o R'.oC p o z h,,'^..> C A > to o p C m to > a a > Z O V U w � o � w w w W �.1 b v V G v o v v y C .�. a. 'o o .� v W O v 'O E pi .C. y � V av N c � +f l ,v ;w �1° ro O d O v k W 0 vi O d W d OX �y �Q O T �y _H �4 ry '� P 1 F R. fj v r'w v ffi"" f. v� a -- u H' G UCC1 _U w W H y N a y W w y a G O R v ie 2J C G .G G� G N N b rv. 'S O V pq ti G O v G Ti O b m o pA. o 0 M v m u p� v vCi G G C o lw G � o 'Q N O � a.� V U2 axi o I vm A C� R P '� z a .R✓ F4 N '^ '� 'G .p, GaG R GQG-''m '' V pV ti w � w Y pV R Pr V� .O R C4 LL y A C H R F4 F H r-Gi R CL � W V Q � v V G C G z � o v v v 0 L p m G p v b o v G j F] O� N m O O >, n p v y R b0 � �• o > a v N U o ry '� P 1 F R. fj v r'w v ffi"" f. v� a O U 2 O w 5 (� Q 7 d U W O V1 G O U N w V z Z Z V w Q 9 � l7 m m G b W o � G w w w � O y G O 61 .M v Q r G P. w0 .G- N" 0 G ai .V. a (7 G y v p v N f- y � 'N' O U F .p .7 'N L' "� L . .F.. G O O R .� "� :� ❑�" r6" av�v UUX N b N 'p O C O"' p" V N �tl b O" lG,q'+. O" N CJ' ❑❑'' N v . U Z U � Q 7 to u �F Ti O c' O v v w w u�i Pa Cp, ..1 •o j v O to, c V t t G 0 '^ Ln Q 2 0 gon�CvvU' Ca$bav povy Go G N G v G r N N y N N Q .� to G in .0 C L C9.0 V a .: m rt v P. ,� 0 � G N e~v9 AO 0 p 4 v V � C O' ~C � o .� "v' qqR' T' A O ❑0.❑ O .� .G j L`�• .. � � � N f: f ^s K ,r a a f .N r: � t, ro A 7 v a k W 0 v� C O U V-w d O w � d a ❑n C\ Ci u z o z V O V O w � a asib g a v. P, Z C9 u P. '.0 "' w � V F., ��, ❑ R R. '.� ti ❑P❑,',P p y O N 'CY O F .`'� p' v j R p ,� ic4 -� pPp 'd N ''� pRj w eRi v�y '6❑ p. — w U _ Z O C R G m v v a w O U� ti� .�. =C G a .vu P. �� N .v✓ � vi S O a N G N a � cn ✓ .G A v .0 F" p� K R C, a K� C• � ovn R o G' R O 'O R b C .� � rvn G � V; O U (Y� a O w H w L� b E E 7 d r 7 U N R W I O C O u d � h! ry 1 n. 4 k� r � C i7 M M, W � U Z 4 p b v W W a W Fa O flOi ttdd 78 o O G .0 OAb b m m o C o o m w b v, ai cG a o W U z p V u U F' Z s o� W W� W G CEO. a v Q Y O G' N G y y (p N O Y � a•a � v v .y Z b 5 G c Fa. 7 C N � h! ry 1 n. 4 k� r � C i7 M M, W � L� E a U V U k GTa 1 0 v1 r 0 U d O w i � I � O r � H w U — z o LL_ C. Fry p z u G b w W Q' ,.w.7 G G �. ., p ,y N ti b ,CV, o . y G V b G a 0.'c1 o — N w U Z a u u w � ti z u w w O � a O G v j � o w P] w+ f-7 m u G in A l N G C ro o � 7 X R r: s f a fi A �W Ox t, d1 7 U v x W I 0 C O u d U z Z O U_ V U V C7 F' cn cn inp O w N h y G G �" ov01iGC"(�� ov°JiN'"N�c�. ov°ii�E z pNF"n.v .vo°"ab .o`°c.a r pmp vo,o '•a mv� `.a mvb� y ,R�, o o :� ❑❑ o o :� R m R R. 00 9 z�arb zwa�� z�ay V z o � W w v v a o Rid v •� v p> G m V •-1 ' O Cw N `� O v° v v' .a 7 a° G v `° v y P. � F. v P v° m s, J � L w N y9 M f f I �y �r CI L ro a d k GTa O C O i7 u u O w ♦ � Q r � e U � W u G z Q O NU c U � vC. •a .�' V w Q G ^w Q i o w w w o a o � h Cy V e/Nj v o v w � V O � .a O vCi A U1 v N« F G v i rtf � G b •6 'C' N •O v 04 m � W ti OOA P, G ro S N y •6 K 0 w Cp $ W b O 09 N w h O C O O V V N OV9 O v M F " .vroi V Fo0 p P' .S W xi � V v •� °' � � .d � v V '� .S eA Q' G ,O •O � � b AN p '% O � •p � �O h � � ' VO^ � d` h Ti O C0.C' a •c q � "n.m N t �" ro.� 3.�� 3 w U G Z z NU c Q o vC. •a .�' ^w Q i o H � cn o a o v o v w � � .a ' � G ro 3 o y v V v U V H u �. G •o �n v 0.• n u N ro V vii N V G v� N m +F- v� .y v� z v ri � •� ro G G o� �n A w u a .v. v C azj ro S " v � m C C 09 O o Qr p v C v w O v � G v u O a v c �n v c a ro ioG N � 7 b V 5 G w o v v u a7 o O v ' V g w V •�' V v v� G v ro w x v o � vCC b •O > v v N b O m N •-, R^ F bw b O R C 'Jr' U1 C i F• Ca � U .G Si .S W r a. � w l � G U NU c v•C vC. •a .�' w b w o v V G b •6 'C' N •O G b '� GVh. � v� y ti OOA P, G ro S N y •6 K � ,� w .N. .v..� O v M F " .vroi V Fo0 p P' .S W xi '� ,G � R eA Q' C ,O •O � � � AN p '% O � •p � �O h � � ' VO^ � d` h Ti O C0.C' a N t M G G o� �n A w u a .v. v C azj ro S " v � m C C 09 O o Qr p v C v w O v � G v u O a v c �n v c a ro ioG N � 7 b V 5 G w o v v u a7 o O v ' V g w V •�' V v v� G v ro w x v o � vCC b •O > v v N b O m N •-, R^ F bw b O R C 'Jr' U1 C i F• Ca � U .G Si .S W r a. � w l w O F}- �a O W w F 7 V x W O C O V V w e; F V; i P. V � U w F 2 7 () G eo (z7 H in w O � y H� v v y N o y y) G vi O N O ai O N m N xy O W� O N ro �'..�. � A V v Off✓ O� .,�., p i Fi G .. ..V. .'G.. N H ' +� CKl .� .Y. ✓. N N i K 0 G O O b O g 'a v U � O U F Q l7 on 7 � F cn LL O yI � yJ w � O H.1 O m �• +' O O N O i O � � .P Si r'�-. Oh � p (_✓ p .w�. .-. � 'y R ro N � O � 4G � P. R 7 � O 0. vVi .� �n �n � R. � off^ � O O '� .0 N M .. C N > P N `ar� Ell v ti A 0 G A .� HO O V � > .O .,�Y G> up G m v '� a; .`9 °' F .� � m� `0 ti '� ao a�'. P, Q v ✓ ro v '.0 C b C G G� v H r r w e; F V; i P. It° ro s e d 0 V U k LTa I 0 v1 G O U U w 6 � x � o O r � r- �a W _ �o w� z '? u � W o � W W W > Q' rW-1 v � v vi ro W y h .G N � •.�. A ti OG9 � v y G 0 N eOp R. ,.o i .� v t Q0 O ep�b ro N O` F U v Oq N.i 'C O ro y K F .O Gv^ P. v a v v G 0.l v• -CC, uy� W U 2 � U H a z H W µ1 �w a O > W {sl Q7 la C Q W H a H z z 0 > w a Q H z W 0 a. m h ri f� t W d V-4 d O W w W� F' V1i1 G 7 v 7 V W O G O U V w U Z 7 O V U_ V V 7 U an eo 04 O � in in in W y N N w r7 W ¢ N a N a N a a OD w aUi N v p^ U GPe�'.d o a, 0 p Ti O p 'O o R b O v D U Q O m m m 2 on cn w O w C w W v v v a 0.A R. .G'•ty G N v > G ="d N •"• •�'• O i v C � v R N by v; G R •q C G .'G. ti ti o .� � .�. p o Z, �' m v w 0 0. C� p Z o ti v � N P'd❑❑ y 0� N G q 'G C E O P. O y u r"� o '" u m O .] O '.' � �n N '`�nJ' vi v O .O w R• G �n O 'C Fn � '� � G v vpi R -ti-ff V S� W ry N N V xa t° a a k W O V1 O U a O � F O Q r_ V ra tt !� Su V 1. 6j N F`S t: n r QZ o ?� OA Op Cp U M w W W v v ai v C °^ � ° G r O � i• Z .� � O '� C. vii vii 44, bJD ti9 � V ro � • • • v � N � � .y � 0. 'O o~ Z (f] w - U w O w m ro O w P7 a v U O G m P F m v G G v 00 ra tt !� Su V 1. 6j N F`S t: n r 4 O r F_ V O x W-i w t, pro+ G O U U U i� W I O 0 U v U Z W Q l7 t%� C W W W N N v v '6 ' eRp N 'c3 w ^ 0 v e°4 v G .dp o � •a❑❑ o v m 'o U z O Nr W W W v a O N C O Q Z O V C .d V :� e� N m ° '� o '", v ° ? o :o o o� P o ,� o ;y •o oo Z u 0 G 0 r r J P '� E t° s e O x W 0 vi 0 U W W C y�+ w U 1� u z so w Q z �? u H cn � w O � w w w a .b '� v y � v � ° '� � � •y � v, y a vii M � y w, s 0 °b✓^ 'yv" v S G VI Y y 'L1 X b G No > +J y 4. (Ntl w m 0 o o v v cn wGVI ❑ o V v a x o v Q Cy � � ❑❑may° g3 G�.��b ro °��G bGVw�.���v °a, °>: x? ° x o o v _°•' N .� N C b � ,� N� v' v� y h G b :n ro .� � N w u z o u � u �5 w w O C w J w w w LO a H U � N ..1 z vG% o a o a y � W O N i N Q x X m Ti b W 7 N m G G aV+ �C pq t3 VI A VI G ✓ F7 Y' r ( V w vi it J: 0 '< F—i w O r �H l U I� d C U W O C O Y m J, f Mf in w . vu W P W � z Z � t0 Op R M W v� w O lei• v C v .v v� Cum � �. Fl 'N i v � .b ..•L, N .Op O .6 .� � p G TJ � « � � � � C � � •O w0 Tiv�i Q G �Iee-++' g N Q' ep G N p 'm O C7 C� ��' O Ga. C5 aGi C Gu v C v rN n•'� w v� Nm 71 C v .: "G.. W _ z u h Q R p C O c' W O ti N v PP Q G G N p y G rC 3 w rt v GO O. Z O 'C 2 i 'w R sv. • v' R. rv- W N P4 R O G W Ri C1 C4p � � G p .S w � G � E L~' .N .Z ✓ H .O '� � P' "' O � v Q .� v G � ,'✓ " G p � w O iy � O P � y � 0 m >, ..-i v .T'..G "' > W p, •^..� O O .� O Z R p G V a rG 'd rC XVi i O 09Q .G y F� y a N N ✓ N j 00•'.� v v ,GVi � 'Y `� a N O y w b v v� v .� � TS O C� v v a '� N ,G�. a C N 'J Qr'� V\ N> N G N G' +'�" VGi N •. a". G N v .0 N Ri S M G J, f Mf in w . vu W P W � L� N V V x W 0 vi C O V V w C OK w. H w O O F- A r � iw �{ N { i r a µ d V Z O a G W U � N cn W w W N N v �.CAw v•a v P.G � � bra Cv vo c..Q 3 � •c G � o'o °A 'x 'o .. � a o v G $O v G G G m v r 3 r+ y0 C 0 o o .y w u a o G V w � (7 ?o Z oaq w O W � Y N w �d v A O u v N O L t b G w m p N o N p U w V R 'WZ" P R. � � +�i 'fl C P• n„j .,rJ- ti N .� ;C '^ G N N iJ v � w 'O W N N$ GO v '� ,y v' C p'•O a v@ N 'S ^ ° ~r✓ � '� v � .J .C.9 N .0 y C ^a°j � iC C " �N�,, Q. °'�.. F. .a v r°. T, '" 'e0 a 'Cep •d y � 0.G ,� Cq b N a w ^mom vo•��� .CV- va. v Ga cc.. °v •v %� C N R. R .�G ti' b •� 4. T, v v CO rt �' H u b m CL N G G m V ri ,G v � .�' r � iw �{ N { i r a µ d O F U t, G u a+ O u k w O G O a: u u a W M L N ss u z o o � z w w � v a .Wd o o ^ 2 ti V N G v 'ij G o W 'C v C wp ai G O i' ro ro Uto 0 •'�• o� y� U R '� R G �, y o '� G o o ti o F± on � a � P, � O v Y p 'v U w G � C i0 n' "' qPp� .S G .7 p ❑P❑.' m bG9 W 'C •G 0. v W A u F G O N O p 0 O O' N OG^A O u� 7 U O C 7 i � O m w w W Co, u�i 0 v iC a O % O Q C9 •Gn N .'�'. � w O w @ N W4 v b O7 p b9 rte. ro 0 9 G v tai vvi o O v W O9 C9 S W N CVi G N v. O v 0 yyaak� h M L N ss b O k W O A O u v W OX ti � O } H V u 2 z t.l v c +^ o v Y '" m � � 0. w •d � a R o � .� C4 'o � G •a o ro b o v w o '° o u z a o O eo Z eo ao w O w x ra w w v v � O u z ���N� y roy�vY� o@ro.�GOroa❑.ry ��o� fi °F. o" 1'"' ° a b '� �' 3 � v 2 o a .6 " � � ° 5 m a v°, ;� oA� w o � •n 00 y G M GR G O M O w0 U G N N v F. U P' `•'�• v G N a F CNNi 'G O N Y .G VG°i N w` y v N P< d w f. N v t2 u; „u 0 r F W d w � o L, G C U C U U W C O i+ Ct u z o v F u " o C z w w a v a� �b v C v � i v �b o � O R mfr" Ufa v o p G o z m w m u z z o u w u ro o w O � C z a O w P] a O 4f, G y o R o G bC r 0 .. G p (y 'y J ti GL v a v v O y L7 p� O � :' v � ❑ v a o � [-� vVi v a�-' '��- .� � >, v v .� s � y v '6 p R' c°n.� .d .o b ° G v ro v W v w' G 'd o y G v O v v y O G G �D � .v. .r ❑ i6 v 0 G a r J t° ro E V V k W 0 v1 G 0 U V P' O w w �l 0 1---1 } H U r � s i u 2 z Q O � C7 G� V_ H rr W � W � a a v v o� R. vi � 009 � W y N ^ RY Z N b fl CA � Q 0 p F O z�a W u z z u o u z F ;o O O C � w a pa C .rl N u C v N to ~Z to G 0.O o O? 9 P. O O GC F 0. NO b O .0 09 i A ro 09 to m W ..t "'7 C b9 �+ .C9 P. qqp" u O. .� m C ❑P❑. m N v m p� .� ' ❑d❑ �tl '�J G qq0.' O v 'O OA ,., f3. 7 G N .- ,y w 70 5 °C .0. v Ha3H 09mm amF 2.. 3� .�qp $ o r � s i O r v y�1 w cn a t, ctl i O d re W O 0 oo Y °'vw �?r f� ;u >p; �uw r wn N i w L) z Q ti o � � w w ai ai N FL � rt G p O v G cj] O � $ N d P� v 0.'d � O � 0 -H v .� ,i"• � v W V z O m � U F Q G C � twit W ai o � 'c5 'O � .✓. h ° m N G+ z N G N G R ro O G w Oa W C a v � ti ,G v w0 i o W .G .m v 0 p, P. O ❑ F m Q A ti .G a +v- G .v. r m C T � .G C°. m .n � 'o o > ,• 3 3 '.. ro o m � E p a � � a > ° � a a .$ ° � P: ca Y °'vw �?r f� ;u >p; �uw r wn N i w L, td P 0 i! G� O V� c O V N W C O w ~f W Cn Q H V � m u` .. w P n1s 1 C °' V Z C Q O m G m w Q O w w Q a a �7 � G G ro P. U ' R v v '� v "d 'may � 'd ro �C ❑R❑ eyi C m P. C m U z O m� m G w � u C Rte, T] m .0 v .0 a c a ci .� 0 .z '3 m G P, o> m b ��' b w v d F• p N p, C G o ,� p G v ..C. w 'C P 'G C..- " c ^N ai v .�-i ,`_�, m u` .. w P n1s 1 C °' O r F U yO w Vl p G N N k iTa I 0 vi C O u u C O d�err /y Z O d O H � G « O O U rn y � o � O .r G � G ti G V x G G G 0 U y v v C .7 H b (mil N c R v r! p. ti R J rVr Vi M FG. w v % V. N N O' « v o 0 O yN i0. ti R y ro R ro G G � U OGti a v w � R C4 4i U) N a d N tiOp+« vi m v boo � v « v G y O v` b � w w m v en P. v U b V z o ro U F w_ Q Z � v V� V � H Q � N v O � � W W Q N ra a C O d�err /y Z O d O H � G « O O U rn y � o � O .r G � G ti G V x G G G 0 U y v v C .7 H b (mil N c R v r! p. ti R J rVr Vi M FG. w v % V. N N O' « v o 0 O yN i0. ti R y ro R ro G G � U OGti a v w � R C4 4i U) N a d N tiOp+« vi m v boo � v « v G y O v` b � w w m v en P. v U b V V G � v V� C O Q N v V V o v F N p o m LL R o v � H 5 v° in in « « O c4 juWi a � W 0. N R G N ti a U b V V G � G R v V� C O PQr w v v O r,7 v o v m N p o m LL R o v a H 5 v° y tit G p' � a ti O v v N R G N ti a Cv w v m v C v rG,o H G V b O m �a F�. f. vn r w v l N W H v .n b V V G � G R o v m N p o m LL R o v a H 5 v° �a F�. f. vn r w v l N W H v .n t° ro e a a U U x W 0 v� 0 u U a ,O k. Vl Q O _F U z � Q :J _u H O C N N � N wO N N Z m G @ a v v G � ov. �' on C v O G v p a v O z�a v v N � o v ao v v b C A ep v hi'i s0. � O N N A G v � O � V m u � o z @0. u z o � Q :J O C N N � N wO N N Z m G @ G o GL @ ti v N G N GG G � G Ri v� 0 0 ✓G V (y ;� v F� r« f ry N i°`i v N Q b @ Z m G @ N b .5 t O � G o GL @ ti v N G N GG G � G Ri v� 0 0 ✓G V (y ;� v F� r« f ry N i°`i v O r U W cL �Oj1 W t, ttt O V k W O O V W u Z W W N v N v a v v N U W G N G N A e9 � A e9 v OZ m m v m v W U y U C U Z cG9 oG9 a O N N W ..1 H w u c v v 09 !^� W G� N N G N N� V � E N .•V• G ❑P' bg G b J� G C O G C rt N W a� G K m ro F' `� N G N N i y F•-0 .� N CGi ti �.�v�aavP:BF"Oa 3�"o,vc..�an" tF- rry .... 1 f. iY F CITY OF i/h LAKE LSIIYO UE 1JREAM EXTREME. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Honorable Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate Planning Manager DATE: April 21, 2015 PROJECT: Annexation No. 83 (Nichols Road) — An Application to Annex Eight (8) Undeveloped Parcels and Temescal Canyon High School Into the City of Lake Elsinore. The Proposed Annexation totals 666.66 Acres and is Located North and South of Nichols Road and is Generally Bounded by Interstate 15 (Corona Freeway) to the West and South, and El Toro Road to the East. Zone Change No. 2014 -02 - An Application to Pre -Zone the Subject 666.66 Acres to be in Conformance with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan's Land Use Designations on the Subject Property. APPLICANT/ Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC, P. O. Box 77850, OWNER Corona, CA 92877 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2015 - _; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Adoption of Addendum #1 to General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for Annexation No. 83 and Zone Change No. 2014- 02. Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 5 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2015-; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Approval of Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 Subject To Completion of the Annexation No. 83. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2015-; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Recommending to the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Commencement of Annexation No. 83. Project Location The proposed Annexation Area is generally bounded by Interstate 15 (Corona Freeway) to the west and south, and El Toro Road to the east. Nichols Road and an existing mining operation (Nichols Canyon Mine) bisects the Project site, with approximately 596.21 acres of the Project site occurring to the north of the mine, and approximately 70.45 acres (inclusive of the Temescal Canyon High School) occurring to the south. Project Description Annexation No. 83 Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC has submitted an application to annex 666.66 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence generally located north and south of Nichols Road and generally bounded by Interstate 15 to the west and south and El Toro Road to the east into the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore. The annexation area comprises the following assemblages of parcels, which are categorized based on ownership and /or location: 1) Harbor Lounge, BLM, and RCA Parcels (APNs 390 - 230 -005, 390 - 230 -008, 390 - 270 -007, and 390 - 270 -009), which comprise approximately 596.21 acres located north of Nichols Road; 2) Bowtie Parcels (APNs 389 - 210 -032, 389 - 210 -036, 389- 210 -008, and 389 -210 -034), which comprise approximately 26.6 acres north of and abutting the Temescal Canyon High School; and 3) the Temescal Canyon High School Parcels (APNs 389 - 210 -037 and 389 - 210 -039), which comprise approximately 43.85 acres and encompasses the existing high school. Under existing conditions, the Harbor Lounge, BLM, and RCA parcels consist of natural open space with large hillsides and several dirt trails. The Bow Tie Parcels consist of relatively level land that is regularly disced, with a natural drainage (Stovepipe Creek) traversing the western portions of the parcels. The Temescal Canyon High School Parcels are improved with buildings, athletic facilities (including a baseball field, softball fields, and a football stadium), and parking lots. Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 5 To the west of the Project site is Interstate 15 (1 -15), beyond which are undeveloped lands and an existing outlet mall. To the north of the Project site is undeveloped open space with variable topography. To the east of the Project site are rural residential land uses (north of Nichols Road) and medium to low density residential land uses (south of Nichols Road). To the south of the Project site is 1 -15, beyond which is an outlet mall and several light industrial land uses. Between the northern and southern portions of the Project site is the existing Nichols Canyon Mine, open space, and Nichols Road. Zone Change No. 2014 -02 The Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Sections 56000 et seq.) requires that territory be "pre- zoned" prior to annexation. The pre- zoning process identifies any intended zoning changes and informs property owners and other interested parties of permitted land uses prior to finalization of the proposed action. As shown on Exhibit "A" (Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map), pre- annexation zoning that is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Plan has been identified for each property within the annexation area. The proposed pre- annexation zoning includes a mixture of the following zoning districts: CMU (Commercial Mixed -Use), O -S (Open Space), R -H (Hillside Single - Family Residential) and P -1 (Public Institutional). Discussion & Analysis As part of the new General Plan, the City of Lake Elsinore divided the City into eleven Planning Districts and the City's Sphere of Influence into five sphere districts. The proposed Annexation Area is located within the identified North Central Sphere District. The land use designations (see Exhibit "B ": City General Plan Land Use Designations Map) adopted for the Annexation No. 83 area are: • Open Space • Hillside Residential (1 dwelling unit per lot with 1/2 acre to 10 acre lot sizes depending on slope and utilities) • Commercial Mixed Use (Commercial uses with subordinate residential densities of 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre) • Public Institutional (Interstate 15 right -of -way) The subject Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 addresses the proposed zoning designations on the within the Annexation No. 83 area. Pre- zoning the property establishes a regulatory procedure to be followed for future development within the annexation area, subject to future City of Lake Elsinore approvals and environmental reviews. Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Appendix B of the City's General Plan is a General Plan /Zoning Compatibility Matrix (see Exhibit "C ") which identifies those zoning districts that are considered to be compatible with each of the General Plan's land use designations. The zoning districts proposed for each General Plan land use designation for property within the Annexation area are listed in the following table: CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CITY PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING General Commercial CMU Commercial Mixed -Usk) __ Hillside Residential HR Hillside Single-Family Residential Open Space OS (Open Space)_ Public Institutional PI Public Institutional As shown in the General Plan /Zoning Compatibility Matrix, the proposed pre- annexation zoning is considered to be compatible with the area's General Plan land use designations. The Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requires the preparation of a Plan of Services and a Fiscal Impact Analysis as documentation in support of an annexation. These documents have been prepared and are attached to this staff report for informational purposes. Environmental Determination On December 13, 2011, the City Council certified a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (RP -EIR) ") to address the potential environmental impacts of a comprehensive update of its General Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The potential environmental impacts of the General Plan's land use designations for property within the City limits and within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence were evaluated in the certified RP -EIR. In accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed annexation and zone change do not present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require Subsequent or Supplemental EIR analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information contained in the certified EIR is necessary in order to approve the proposed project. For this reason, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR)(SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR. The Initial Study /Addendum constitutes Addendum # 1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015121019) Annexation No. 83, ZC 2014 -02 April 21, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Prepared By: Richard J. MacHott, LEED Green Associate Planning Manager Approved By: Grant Taylor, Community Development Director Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Planning Commission Resolutions 2. Exhibit "A ": Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map 3. Exhibit "B ": City General Plan Land Use Designations Map 4. Exhibit "C ": City of Lake General Plan, Appendix B — General Plan /Zoning Compatibility Matrix 5. Plan of Services 6. Fiscal Impact Analyses 7. Initial Study /Addendum AERIAL MAP ANNEXATION NO. 83 & ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014 -02 CITY OF �� LADE C L S i I10P L -V? DREAM AERIAL MAP ANNEXATION NO. 83 & ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014 -02 CITY or L A K Lsl _ -? Dltmm LXrRE&AL RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTING ADDENDUM #1 TO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 83 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014 -02 WHEREAS, Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC has submitted an application to annex 666.66 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence generally located north and south of Nichols Road and generally bounded by Interstate 15 to the west and south and El Toro Road to the east into the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore, and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation consists of properties owned by Nichols Road Partner's LLC (APN 389 -210 -008, 389 - 210 -032, 389 - 210 -036, 389 - 210 -034 and 390 - 230 -005); the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) (APN 390 - 270 -007 and 390 - 270 -009); the Bureau of Land Management (APN 390 -230- 008; and, Elsinore Valley Unified School District (APN 389 - 210 -037, 389 -210 -039); and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019: the "RP -EIR ") to address the potential environmental impacts of a comprehensive update of its General Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA "), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2011 the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore certified the RP -EIR with Errata and Responses to Comments, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan's land use designations for property within the City limits and within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence were evaluated in the certified RP -EIR; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - PAGE 2 OF 5 WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR) (SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the Initial Study /Addendum provides some changes and additions to the certified EIR and therefore constitutes Addendum #1 to Environmental Impact Report No. 2007 -01; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.188.040 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ( "LEMC ") the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for changes to the official zoning map; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015 at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -34 recommending that the City Council adopt Addendum #1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for Annexation No. 83 and Zone Change No. 2014 -02; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.188.050 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the City Council has the authority to approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding zone changes; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council, based upon a thorough review of the proposed Addendum #1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report, the CEQA documents, and the evidence received to date, does determine as follows: 1. In accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed annexation and zone change do not present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require Subsequent or Supplemental EIR analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information contained in the certified EIR is necessary in order to approve the proposed project. For this reason, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015-. PAGE 3 OF 5 Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR)(SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR. The Initial Study /Addendum constitutes Addendum # 1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015121019). 2. That Addendum #1 was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. 3. That, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum #1, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report have occurred; specifically: a. There have not been any changes to the General Plan land use designations that require major revisions of the CEQA documents because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Proposed Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the CEQA documents due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report was adopted, that shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - PAGE 4 OF 5 SECTION 2. The City Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed Addendum #1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that Addendum #1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's procedures for implementation of CEQA; and recommends to the City Council that it make the same finding. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report and Addendum #1 and finds that the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report and Addendum #1 represent the independent judgment of the City. SECTION 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore hereby adopts Addendum #1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report for Annexation No. 83 and Zone Change No. 2014 -02, SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of May 2015, by the following vote: Steve Manos, Mayor City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Leibold, City Attorney CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - PAGE 5 OF 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2015 - was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 2015- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PRE - ANNEXATION ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014 -02 CHANGING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF ANNEXATION NO. 83 WHEREAS, Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC has submitted an application to annex 666.66 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence generally located north and south of Nichols Road and generally bounded by Interstate 15 to the west and south and El Toro Road to the east into the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation consists of properties owned by Nichols Road Partner's LLC (APN 389 - 210 -008, 389 - 210 -032, 389 - 210 -036, 389 - 210 -034 and 390 - 230 -005); the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) (APN 390 - 270 -007 and 390 - 270 -009); the Bureau of Land Management (APN 390 -230- 008; and, Elsinore Valley Unified School District (APN 389 - 210 -037, 389 - 210 -039); and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56375 requires that as a condition to annexation, a city shall pre -zone the territory to be annexed or present evidence satisfactory to the Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO ") that the existing development entitlements on the territory are vested or built out, and are consistent with the City's general plan; and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019: the "RP -EIR ") to address the potential environmental impacts of a comprehensive update of its General Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA "), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2011 the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore certified the RP -EIR with Errata and Responses to Comments, the Findings of Fact and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2015-. PAGE 2 OF 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan's land use designations for property within the City limits and within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence were evaluated in the certified RP -EIR; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR) (SCH No. 201 51 21 01 9) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.188.040 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ( "LEMC ") the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council for changes to the official zoning map, and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015 at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -35 recommending that the City Council approve Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 by ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.188.050 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the City Council has the authority to approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding zone changes; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and analyzed Zone Change No. 2014 -02 pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq.) and Chapter 17.188 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ( "LEMC "). SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, State Planning and Zoning law and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ( "LEMC "), the City Council makes the following findings for the approval of Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02: 1. The proposed zone change will not be: a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the .... „„ .,caz k . CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2015 - PAGE 3 OF 5 neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, or b) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City. The proposed pre- annexation zoning will not be detrimental, but will be beneficial to the public health, safety, comfort and welfare and will improve the property in the neighborhood and the City by allowing a variety of residential, commercial, public /institutional and open space uses to be established within the Annexation Area consistent with the General Plan and providing for future improvement and development of infrastructure improvements such as water and sewer lines, lighting and paving of existing dirt right of ways. 2. The proposed action will be consistent with the latest General Plan. a. The proposed action will be consistent with the Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs of the General Plan and the development standards established with the LEMC. The pre- annexation zoning is consistent with Goal 1 of Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) of the General Plan in that this pre- annexation zoning will assist in achieving the City's goal to "create a diverse and integrated balance of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" and the related Implementation Program to update the Official Zoning Map "to provide consistency between zoning requirements and General Plan land use designations." b. The proposed pre- annexation zoning designations conform to and are consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed CMU (Commercial Mixed -Use), O -S (Open Space), R -H (Hillside Single- Family Residential) and P -1 (Public Institutional) zoning districts are consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan's General Commercial, Open Space, Hillside Residential, and Public Institutional land use designations adopted for the annexation area by the Lake Elsinore City Council on December 13, 2011. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level, or in the case where impacts remain, a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted to justify the merits of project implementation. On December 11, 2011, the City Council approved and certified a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report which analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the development of the General Plan land use designations for the City and its Sphere of Influence (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019). CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2015-. PAGE 4 OF 5 In accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed amendments to previously approved projects do not present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require Subsequent or Supplemental EIR analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information contained in the certified EIR is necessary in order to approve the proposed project. For this reason, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR)(SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR. The Initial Study /Addendum constitutes Addendum # 1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015121019). SECTION 3. The City Council has considered the proposed Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 and based upon the evidence presented the City Council hereby adopts Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 and amendment to the Zoning Map with the City's pre- zoning designations shown on the pre- annexation zoning map attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "A ". SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. APPROVED AND INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, on the 26th day of May 2015; and Adopted at the regular City Council meeting of , 2015. Steve Manos, Mayor City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2015 - PAGE 5 OF 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Leibold, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2015 -_ was introduced at the regular City Council meeting of May 26, 2015, and adopted at the regular meeting of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX THE TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 83 INTO THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE WHEREAS, Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC has submitted an application to annex 666.66 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence ( "Annexation Area ") generally located north and south of Nichols Road and generally bounded by Interstate 15 to the west and south and El Toro Road to the east into the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation consists of properties owned by Nichols Road Partner's LLC (APN 389 -210 -008, 389 - 210 -032, 389 - 210 -036, 389 - 210 -034 and 390 - 230 -005); the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) (APN 390 - 270 -007 and 390 - 270 -009); the Bureau of Land Management (APN 390 -230- 008; and, Elsinore Valley Unified School District (APN 389 - 210 -037, 389 - 210 -039); and WHEREAS, the annexation proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Sections 56000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 56375 and 65859, Eric Werner, Nichols Road Partners, LLC, has initiated Pre - Annexation Zone Change No. 2014 -02 to determine the zoning that will apply to the Property upon annexation into the City; and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: "CEQA ") and the State Implementation Guidelines for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines ") because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019: the "RP -EIR ") to address the potential environmental impacts of a comprehensive update of its General Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.: "CEQA "), the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.: the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Procedures for Implementing the State CEQA Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private projects; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - PAGE 2 OF 5 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2011 the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore certified the RP -EIR with Errata and Responses to Comments, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan's land use designations for property within the City limits and within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence were evaluated in the certified RP -EIR; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR) (SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council pertaining to annexations; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015 at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item; and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -36 recommending that the City Council commence annexation proceedings for the Annexation Area of Annexation No. 83; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with respect to this item. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and analyzed the request for annexation pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq.), the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. SECTION 2. That in accordance with the Cortese -Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, State Planning and Zoning law, the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan and the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ( "LEMC "), the City Council makes the following findings for the approval of Annexation No. 83: 1. The proposed annexation is contiguous to the City of Lake Elsinore, is within the City of Lake Elsinore Sphere of Influence, and will not create pockets or islands. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - PAGE 3 OF 5 The Annexation Area borders the City of Lake Elsinore, is within the City of Lake Elsinore's Sphere of Influence and is adjacent to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The annexation proposes a reasonable and desirable extension of the city boundary area and includes public property, owned by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the Lake Elsinore Unified School District and the Bureau of Land Management in order to avoid creating pockets of County property adjacent to the City limits. 2. The proposed action will be consistent with the latest General Plan. a. The proposed action will be consistent with the Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs of the General Plan and the development standards established with the LEMC. The pre- annexation zoning is consistent with Goal 1 of Chapter 2.0 (Community Form) of the General Plan in that this annexation will assist in achieving the City's goal to "create a diverse and integrated balance of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses." b. The proposed annexation will retain the land use designations shown on the City of Lake Elsinore's General Plan Land Use Map. The Annexation Area is designated for General Commercial, Open Space, Hillside Residential, and Public Institutional land uses as adopted for the annexation area by the Lake Elsinore City Council on December 13, 2011. 3. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level, or in the case where impacts remain, a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted to justify the merits of project implementation. On December 11, 2011, the City Council approved and certified a Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report which analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the development of the General Plan land use designations for the City and its Sphere of Influence (State Clearinghouse No. 2005121019). In accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed amendments to previously approved projects do not present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require Subsequent or Supplemental EIR analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information contained in the certified EIR is necessary in order to approve the proposed project. For this reason, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015-. PAGE 4 OF 5 Study /Addendum to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR)(SCH No. 2015121019) was prepared to provide an evaluation of potential site - specific environmental effects that could result from the proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the GPU EIR and concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier certified GPU EIR. The Initial Study /Addendum constitutes Addendum #1 to the General Plan Update Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015121019), SECTION 3. The City Council has considered the proposed Annexation No. 83 and based upon the evidence presented and the attached conditions of approval, the City Council hereby commences annexation proceedings for the Annexation Area of Annexation No. 83. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of May 2015, by the following vote: Steve Manos, Mayor City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Leibold, City Attorney CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - PAGE 5 OF 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE I, VIRGINIA J. BLOOM, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2015 -_ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ANNEXATION NO. 83 (NICHOLS ROAD) GENERAL The proposed project (Annexation No. 83) is a proposal to annex 666.66 acres of land within the City's Sphere of Influence properties [owned by Nichols Road Partner's LLC (APN 389 - 210 -008, 389 - 210 -032, 389 - 210 -036, 389 - 210 -034 and 390 - 230 -005); the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) (APN 390 - 270 -007 and 390 - 270 -009); the Bureau of Land Management (APN 390 - 230 -008; and, Elsinore Valley Unified School District (APN 389 - 210 -037, 389 -210 -039)] generally located north and south of Nichols Road and generally bounded by Interstate 15 to the west and south and El Toro Road to the east into the corporate boundaries of the City of Lake Elsinore. 2. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Annexation No. 83. 3, Within 30 days of project approval, the applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgment of Conditions" and shall return the executed original to the Community Development Department for inclusion in the case records. 4. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $50.00 made payable to the County of Riverside for the filing of a Notice of Determination. The check shall be submitted to the Planning Division for processing within 48 hours of the City Council commencement of annexation proceedings for the Annexation Area of Annexation No. 83. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all application fees required at the time of annexation application submittal to LAFCO, as well as any and all fees that might be required subsequent to LAFCO approval of the annexation. 6. The applicant shall cooperate with the City and shall prepare at its own expense any and all documents required by LAFCO for completion of Annexation No. 83, including but not limited to Maps and Legal descriptions prepared in accordance with LAFCO requirements. Page 1 of 1 City Council May 26, 2015 LEGEND EM City Boundary ImAnnexation 83 Boundaries CITY PRE - ZONING PI - Public Institutional ,. HR - Hillside Single - Family Residential CMU - Commercial Mixed Use !. OS - Open Space Q)I TQCI6o C-1 FV nc I AEI FI aKlf)QI MI ('ni Lni TV nn Rl of ea n v(1 IC r V T_ 7 T T) T T n A 11 `'T'" °' ZONE CHANGE NO. 2014 -02 L,A1stl W ANNEXATION 83 - PRE - ZONING .\J DREAM 1XIMMP. rm repo nv ', V ti w �ma31m�� rrl �., Q Za'ti V &Vary i C c '. L 7` °yar U vGi N ;r C na a se`vr, 2 A�.rt loo AN t n 3ni evrlsoa ¢S °�)t h (N try V �baKNOP - 1 � Z Imo, 1 ar nvowr f by µ0 �M 1 l O 1JQPlP (V ' Y\ a�ti: O j � V U 0 c^.suvicsxxs ams � G U Vl i� v1 W G Li L S J O G T S O G W � 1