Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 02 Res Design Review 2014-15 APN 379-090-022Text File City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake-elsinore.org File Number: TMP-1600 Agenda Date: 8/9/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: ReportIn Control: City Council Agenda Number: 2) Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 8/4/2016 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:Grant Yates, City Manager DATE:August 9, 2016 PROJECT: Residential Design Review 2014-05: A proposed 150-unit multi- family development with associated recreational amenities tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site located at APN: 379-090-022 APPLICANT:Steve Rawlings, Integris Development Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2016-01 FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW (RDR 2014-05); AND, ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPT FINDING THAT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP); AND, ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014-05 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS FOR A 150 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, WITH ASSOCIATED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPING LOCATED AT APN: 379-090-022. Background On August 2, 3016, the Planning Commission took action to recommend that the City Council adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-01, finding that RDR 2014-05 was consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and approving Page 2 Residential Design Review 2014-05 with the following revisions to the Conditions of Approval: Deletion of Conditions of Approval 16 and 101 Modification of Condition of Approval 47 removing references to paying in lieu fees for Railroad Canyon Road Benefit District and Stephens Kangaroo Habitat Fee (K- Rat) as they are not applicable to this project Added two new Conditions of Approval 25 and 26 o Condition of Approval #25 requires revised architectural plans to be submitted prior to building plan check which add addition architectural treatment to buildings facing Riverside Dr. and adding additional color schemes. o Condition of Approval #26 requires revised landscape plans to be submitted prior to landscape plan check, requiring additional landscape to be installed along Riverside Dr. to screen the detention basin and increase the size of plant selection to ensure viability of plants in the near and long term future. Project Request The applicant is requesting approval to implement a 150-unit multi-family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, for an overall Project density of approximately 18.14 dwelling units per acre. Project Location The proposed project is generally located northerly of Riverside Dr., southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School, and more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090-022. Environmental Setting EXISTING LAND USE General Plan ZONING Project Site Vacant Land Residential Mixed Use (RMU)RMU North Vacant Land RMU RMU South Right of Way N/A N/A East Shopping Center RMU RMU West High School Public and Institutional (P&I)P&I Project Description A total of 150 units are proposed within ten (10) individual buildings. The proposed Project will be a gated complex. Access to the proposed Project will be via the proposed street Page 3 on the north side of the Project site, which will be a cul-de-sac. The proposed street will initially be a private street with an irrevocable offer of dedication, which the City will accept as development occurs on the vacant lots to the north, thus making the street public. The street has been designed to City standards for a local street, pursuant to the City’s General Plan. A secondary, gated emergency access will be provided on the west side of the Project site, exiting onto Riverside Drive. A drive lane is proposed in the middle of the proposed Project and the units will encircle the central parking areas. All structures will be internal to the proposed Project site. There will be ten residential buildings total. Buildings will range from 8,986 square feet (sq. ft.) to 22,100 sq. ft. The building/unit breakdowns are as follows: Building Number Square Feet 1 Bedroom Units 2 Bedroom Units 3 Bedroom Units Total Units 1 22,100 18 0 4 22 2 17,276 8 0 8 16 3 17,276 8 0 8 16 4 8,986 0 8 0 8 5 17,921 0 16 0 16 6 17,921 0 16 0 16 7 17,921 0 16 0 16 8 15,975 0 8 8 16 9 17,921 0 16 0 16 10 8,986 0 8 0 8 Totals 162,283 34 88 28 150 The proposed project has a total area of approximately 335,847 square feet and proposes the following site coverage: Buildings: approximately 22% or 75,965 square feet Hardscape/pavement/parking: approximately 54% or 181,357 square feet Landscaping/open space: approximately 24% or 80,525 square feet On-site recreational amenities will be located in both the north and south portions of the proposed Project site. On the north part of the Project site, adjacent to the main entry, there will be a 1,619 square foot clubhouse that will house the leasing office, a conference room, multi-purpose room, kitchen, pool equipment, and utility area. The proposed pool area is west of the clubhouse and includes a b-b-q counter, cabanas, and a fireplace. A tot lot is provided on the south side of the Project site between buildings 6 and 7. Drive lane widths internal to the proposed Project will be a minimum of 28’. The proposed project incorporates a total of 339 parking spaces 150 are covered parking spaces and 189 are uncovered spaces. Building Architecture and Materials Buildings 2 through 10 are two-stories, approximately 28’ tall. Building 1 is three-stories and is 38’ tall. The clubhouse is one-story and is 17’ 4” tall. The buildings are to be Page 4 designed with stucco exterior walls in 2 colors with decorative window surrounds and a stone wainscot. Concrete tile roofing is proposed. Building colors and finishes are: Stucco Color 1: Frazee “Cheer” Stucco Color 2: Frazee “Arizona White” Roof Tile: American Eagle Ponderosa 5530 Weathered Adobe Stone: El Dorado Pacific Ledge (Cordovan Color) Analysis The subject project is located in the Residential Mixed Use General Plan designation and is located within the Lake View district. The General Plan identifies densities of development for the Residential Mixed Use designation between 19-24 dwelling units (DUs) per acre, the proposed project has a density of approximately 18.14 DUs per acre. The primary goal of the Lake View District is to provide a revitalized and healthy mixed- use corridor along Riverside Drive with connections to the lake; to ensure adequate public facilities and services to meet the needs of existing and new development and City- adopted specific plans; and to establish policies that create strong links between existing and future residential communities and supporting commercial, entertainment, or recreational uses. The proposed project furthers this goal by providing for the infill development of a currently vacant lot in an area which has not seen recent development. Furthermore, the proposed development provides for a diversification of residential units within the community. The proposed project is located in the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning designation. Apartment units are identified as a permitted use within the RMU zoning designation. The proposed project complies with all development standards of the RMU zoning designation as detailed below: Development Standard Required Proposed Building Height Varied rooflines Varied rooflines Front Setback 10’-0”15’-0” Side Setback (Interior)0’-0”15’-0” Side Setback (Interior)0’-0”15’-0” Rear Setback (N/A)0’-0”17’-0” Density1 18 DUs per acre 18.14 DUs per acre One Bedroom Area 600 SF Approximately 643 SF Two Bedroom Area 700 SF Approximately 876 SF Three Bedroom Area 800 SF Approximately 1,020 SF Minimum Lot Area Total Development2 363,000 SF 335,847 SF Separation between buildings 10’-0”10’-0” 1 As an incentive program to protect and enhance the environment, create valuable public amenities, and encourage improved public health, a density bonus which would permit residential development to a maximum density of 35 dwellings per acre in accordance with the City’s Housing Element may be requested by those developers who design a project with eligible amenities or improvements. The City shall not be obligated to approve a density bonus solely because a project includes one or more eligible amenities or improvements. 2 The minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit is 2,420 square feet of net lot area per unit. Page 5 While the project exceeds the maximum DUs per acre, it does qualify for the density bonus as the project is located within 1500’-0” of a bus stop and 1 mile of a school. Due to the project qualifying for the density bonus, it also is permitted to exceed the minimum lot area per unit as the resultant density bonus creates development which inherently exceeds this requirement. Per the LEMC, 150 covered parking spaces and 178 open parking spaces are required; 150 covered parking spaces and 189 uncovered spaces are provided. There are 339 spaces total, including 17 ADA spaces. In addition all parking lot areas adjacent to Public Right of Ways have been designed to incorporate a minimum of a 15’-0” landscape area. Adequate mail facilities and trash enclosure have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the requirements of the LEMC. The applicant will be required to submit a photometric study for the project which demonstrates consistency with the Municipal Code, this has been included as a mitigation measure to the MND. The applicant has not submitted a fence and wall plan at this time, however a condition of approval has been added that requires a fence and wall plan be submitted which is consistent with section 17.44.140 of the LEMC. The proposed recreational amenities have been reviewed and have found to be consistent with the LEMC. Overall the proposed project as designed and conditioned will provide a high quality and complimentary housing option. Building, Engineering, and Fire staff have reviewed the requested Design Review application and have conditioned the project so as to mitigate any concerns. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Environmental Determination A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration “MND” was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project. The City transmitted a MND to the State Clearing House which commenced the public review period which started on July 1, 2016 and was completed on August 1, 2016. Notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the MND was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. A total of four comment letters were received by the City as summarized below: Flood Control District: The District provided general comments on the project and recommended in the inclusion of two Conditions of Approval, which were incorporated into the standard Conditions of Approval. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians: Agreed with the Mitigation Measures and requested if changes are made to further discuss prior to City Council Approval. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians: Requested replacement of cultural resources mitigation measures. Page 6 William Seers: Expressed concerns about the loss of access to his three parcels to the north via a prescriptive easement across the subject property and concerns with the compliance with the Circulation element of the City’s General Plan. Due to the submittal of the comment letter from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians just prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Planning Commission took no action to recommend replacement of the proposed mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration which reduce potential significant impacts to cultural resources to levels below the level of significance. Due to the proposed mitigation measures and the requested replacement mitigation measures accomplishing the mitigation, no defect was found in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff is continuing to work towards resolution on the replacement Mitigation Measures and if necessary will present any modifications to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration at the City Council meeting. With respect to the letter from Mr. Seers, the issue raised were not environmentally oriented and are civil matters that would need to be resolved between the two property owners. The three properties to the north of the subject site have legal access via a public street (Cherbourg Ave.) and there was no documentation of an easement being executed in favor of Mr. Seer’s property granting access to Riverside Dr. across the subject property, thereby making any easement prescriptive in nature. The City prior to the August 2, 2016, Planning Commission Public Hearing met with Mr. Seer’s representative and discussed potential development options that would not require secondary access to be provided, a letter memorializing this discussion was provided to Mr. Seers. The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with all elements of the City of Lake Elsinore’s General Plan and it was found to be consistent. Fiscal Impact All costs associated with the processing of this application have been paid by the Applicant. No City funds or budgets have been used in the processing of this application. Prepared By: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner Approved By:Grant Taylor, Community Development Director Exhibits: A. CEQA Resolution B. MSHCP Resolution C. RDR Resolution D. Conditions of Approval E. Vicinity Maps F. Aerial Maps Page 7 G. Draft MND H. Draft MMRP I. Comment Letters J. Design Review Package JASON E. UHLEY General Manager -Chief Engineer City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Attention: Justin Kirk Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT July 21, 2016 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 FAX 951.788.9965 www.reflood.org Re: Residential Design Review 2014-05 (Lakepointe Apartments) The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: 1. If this project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional then the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection- will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. 2. This project is located within the limits of the District's West Elsinore Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, - and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a - Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, N LIVO Engineering Project Manager c: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Kristi Lovelady SKM:mcv P8\205926 Justin Kirk From: Anna Hoover <ahoover@pechanga-nsn.gov> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:55 PM To: Justin Kirk Cc: Ebru Ozdil; Andrea Fernandez Subject: RE: Public Hearing for Eisenhower Drive, RDR2014-05 - Villages at Lakeshore Justin, These comments are submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (the Tribe), a Federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, in response to receipt of the July 2016 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above named project. The Tribe is in agreement with the proposed mitigation measures for cultural resources as presented in the IS/ MND. Lake Elsinore is a culturally significant area and the Tribe appreciates the opportunity to preserve and protect our sensitive cultural resources and to monitor earthmoving activities in the area. The Tribe thanks the City for including measures which address the potential impacts to cultural resources and requests that the measures, as provided below and included in the IS/ MND, be included in all final documents. Please forward us a copy of the IS/ MND when it is finalized. The Tribe would like the City to be aware that should additional measures or conditions be applied/deleted/modified that could impact cultural and archaeological resources during the public hearing(s), the Tribe and the City should meet and discuss the revisions, prior to going to City Council. The Pechanga Band thanks the City of Lake Elsinore for the opportunity to review and comment on this Project and work together to successfully complete the mandates of CEQA. We look forward to continuing our good working relationship on future projects. -- - Sincerely, .Anna -%I. Hoover Cultural Analyst/Assistant THPO Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 951-770-8104 (0) 951-694-0446 (F) 951-757-6139 (C) ahoover(@,pechanga-nsn.gov This message, and any documents or files attached to it contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. Recipients should not file copies of this message and/or attachments with publicly accessible records. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent for the intended recipient, you have received this message and attachments in error, and any review, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please immediately notify me by reply email or by telephone at (951) 770-8104, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them. From: Justin Kirk [mailto:jkirk@Lake-Elsinore.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 1:25 PM To: Anna Hoover <ahoover@pechanga-nsn.gov> collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. 3. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. 4. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontologic resources. Let me know if you need any additional information. Regards, Justin Kirk Principal Planner City of Lake Elsinore 951-674-3124 EXT 284 Jkrk _ lake-elsinore.org From: Anna Hoover [inailto:ahoover aechanga-nsn.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:18 PM To: Justin Kirk <0k� irk�7a Lake-Elsinore.org> Cc: Ebru Ozdil <eozdil@pechanga-nsn,gov> Subject: Public Hearing for Eisenhower Drive, RDR2014-05 Hi Justin, We received the attached public hearing notice for the Eisenhower Drive project. The notice says we can download the environmental documents from the City's website but I cant find them online. Can you please email us the MND and archaeological study (if you haven't already)? NoJuun L6oviq (Thank you), Anna M. 9loover Cultural Analyst/Assistant THPO Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 951-770-8104 (0) 951-694-0446 (F) 951-757-6139 (C) ahoQver(c,pechanga-nsn. goes This message, and any documents or files attached to it contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. Recipients should not file copies of this message and/or attachments with publicly accessible records. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent for the intended recipient, you have received this message and attachments in error, and any review, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by reply email or by telephone at (951) 770-8104, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them. Justin Kirk From: Joseph Ontiveros <jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 4:30 PM To: Justin Kirk Subject: Residential Design Review 2014-05 (Lakepointe Apartments) Attachments: Lakepointe MND.docx Justin, Our office is in receipt of your Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion letter, dated July 1, 2016, regarding the Lakepointe Apartments Project (Residential Design Review 2014-05). The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration clearly states that you held informal consultation with another interested tribe; it is apparent that you neglected to offer the same opportunity to the Soboba Band. I have reviewed the proposed mitigation measures and have some recommended changes. We are proposing measures that would give all interested and consulting tribes the opportunity to have an equal involvement in the process without having to place an agency in a position where they would have to determine who is the "appropriate tribe," since both consulting tribes hold the same status with the Federal Government. Please see the recommended changes attached. If any of the language is not accepted, please provide in writing the reasons why. I look forward to a quick response from you. I can be reached via cell phone or email 24 hours a day. Joseph Ontiveros Cultural Resource Director Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians PO BOX 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 0:(951)-654-5544 ext.4137 C.-(951)-663-5279 jontiveros&oboba-n sn. Zo ti= CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is also legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and immediately destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. CUL 3: Prior to grading permit issuance: If there are any changes to project site design and/or proposed grades, the Applicant shall contact interested tribes to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, Applicant and interested tribes to discuss the proposed changes and to review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the Project. CULArchaeological`Monitoring:=Afleast30=days:priorto=application for a grading;permit,and before any„grading; excavation and/or ground' disturbing activities :on the site take place, the _Project' Applicant -shall nretain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified archaeological monitor-to:monitarall ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown -archaeological>resources. 1. The Project, Archaeologist, -in -consultation with=interested tribes,.the Developer and the City, shall, develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan to -address the details, -timing,and responsibility of alFarchaeological and cultural activities that wilI�occur omthe;project-site. Details in the Plan shalPinclude; a. Project gradingand development scheduling; b. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the_appficant and the Project Archeologist for designated Native American -Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading; excavation and, ground disturbing activities on the site: including the scheduling, safety requirements; duties, scope of work, and Native American .Tribal Monitors' authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all Project archaeologists; c. The protocols and stipulations that the Developer, City, Tribes and Project archaeologist will, follow in the -event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation -- UL 5: reatrient,and Disposition of Cultural Resources_ In the event that Native American ..... --`----------- _. - cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for this Project. The following; procedures will be -carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries: Commented [u 1]: The previous conditions for LUL 4 and 6 have been combined in order to address the concern of both tribes. The requirement for a treatment and disposition agreement has also been removed and conditions for treatment and disposition have been Included Into CUL 6. The would now only require the developer to enter into a monitoring agroa mens with rho tribes. Commented [u2]: The language In the previous CUL 5was removed became tepatdation Is not an option when you have, mare than one interested consulting tribe. Tha:Wacdon cannot by cut In half I . (Avoidance: All sacred=sites; should they be encountered within the pro'ect area, shall be avoided and preserved as preferred mitigation, if feasible Commented [0]: This is the previous CUL5 1 2. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly- inventoried with tribalamonitor- oversite=of the process; and 3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred' items, burial goods; and zlY archaeological artifacts and non -human remains as part of the requiredimitigation for impacts to cultural, resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City=of Lake Elsinore with evidence of same.-- a. ame: a. Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing andbasic recordation havebeen completed; b. A Curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository, within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied'by payment,of the fees necessary for permanent curation: c. por-purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center or Riverside Metropolitan Museumby default; and. d. At the completion of grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring,activities conducted by the project Archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre -grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore; Eastern Information Center and interested tribes: Commented [uQ: In the event that there Is a disagreement between consulting tribes as to the location for final disposition, this option provides a conflict resolution. Bothe the western center and riverside municipal are Independent facilities free from outside influence. CGmmented [USI: This provide the developer the option of either curating in a federally approved facility of-rebudng on site. Curation In facilities does come at a cost, butfaclllties that receive federal funding also provide consulting tribe the option to repatnato curated items thruagh.the nabra process. William C. Seers 26287 Sage Grass Ct., Murrieta, Ca. 92562 bill_seers@yahoo.com Justin Kirk, Principle Planner July 25, 2016 City of Lake Elsinore, Planning Department 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Dear Mr. Kirk, I am writing in response to the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the property identified by assessor's parcel number 379-090-022. This project as currently designed will result in significant and negative impacts to my property immediately to the north (APN 379090012-7, APN 379090013-8, APN 379090023-7). Those impacts include but are not limited to the following: 1. Loss of access/easement from Riverside Drive to my property. 2. Loss of secondary access necessary required by Fire that would limit, if not preclude any development on my property. 3. It is unclear that this project as currently designed complies with the city's circulation element. As to #1, access to my property from Riverside 'Drive has been via a dirt road for decades. This project as currently designed removes that access. Due to the barrier erected on the road for the project immediately to the north of my property in 1983, this dirt road has been the only access to my property since that time. As such, it is my understanding that I have a legal easement that I cannot be deprived of. As to #2, while my property can take access via Cherbourg Ave. once the permanent structure (not K -rails) that has been in place since 1983 is removed, this project as currently designed not only eliminates my access to Riverside Drive, but in so doing eliminates the only possible secondary access required by Fire, potentially making my property more difficult, if not impossible to develop. For these reasons and more I am submitting this comment letter. It is my sincere hope that a solution can be arrived at that will work for all concerned, the project proponent, the city and me. But as designed now, this project will substantially damage my property's viability by eliminating essential access that has previously existed for decades. I am hoping that this can be resolved prior to any approvals of the current plan. Sincerely, William C. Seers PS. Please note that I am in receipt of a notice post marked July 22nd for this project to go before the Planning Commission on July 19th —three days before the notice was sent. Can this be clarified? 1 ------- -- -------- ------- -------- ----------- V. r rn rn r Z O' rn n W N D 00rn 0z0> 0���� 0-1—A - (� � m m M 0 co D D D rn� > p p p --- -- o®o®oo r 0 r707070rn N �z _ te rn>- a� D r �„'�' rn rn > O O O n C3� M;Kz>> m p 0 W mz �0= a�� q�yq Z m 0 0 0 0m, mmo p� .a o0 0 n rn� D p 0 M > 0 Cf) ;u U) D n m > > D --a --a - m o� rn D m D Z Z D D D ----__ < cnm n m D m . . Z - o � �' 70 D � � C) r — z u- Un o --a m m m D D D z z zn C/) C/) C/) ------- ---_- _- O m 00 cn = 7�C �� - ----- - ------- (r m r ----N00 CA)CEJN 00 w C Z EJ O CEJ CEJ 00 C)-,Cn 00 00 � 0 *.-0Ccn C) -,*.-011-0O O - m 00 N 00__-- 09 cn -t�, ID cn � CD Cn o m„ N go p> `0 — 0 c� o C o (7N W NNNNNNN� >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>O �? C/7 ���= o000000� o X= C Cn Cs M� O D 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I = N ��WWWwwUD (D0000�IMCii�CAC,jN� O — m on -m D /ZJ CD —n < cn (./) C � � z C) C) n � n U� r C1� f Tl C� 0 N O rn c» DDDDDDD /Z7 �D ^ I'Tl Z rn rD r rrrrrrr0 r Cn — J` / __ cr, 0 70 rTl m m >"'wz o000000M fl1 > iC7 V m 70 C D z m r - on m m m m m m n ---- (� C� 0 — mDzN ������� C (Q 00 � M Z m m I D /� /� C1 C) (/) C) l I �F-F-F-F-zF-(./)CnC/)C/)C/) zzzzzzz — CO W D -n ^ C/1 0 n �7 F- ZD�fTlfTlfTlfT mF(=�-d-1�---1 <(/) Z mzWo DDDDDDD= (D CA) �I rn Z l / D O HT1 C < < < < < D pp CO ?1 rT1 G� 0o D r� n — r z (� D 0 pfTl D DDD n 0 oo�D cpm-0MC, N iC7 GJ c7 Z C �7 (/) — �7 D D D D D �7 = N �7 �7 n r r- m n c m (� N N D Z/^� ^^z r� r O 7 G� C� fTl �_ �_ _� �_ O D Z 0 0 0 F- x mzor ��D°0�z0zno N N `� 0 V/ n VJ r D x z > M>000000071 C 0 D C/) X om* �ozz-WO0 N N 0� �zzzzz0Cf) z= o o�c)>c N Z — _ 7 r f Tl (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) -7 m z z z z o m a z m r n r- n r (D f l� CJ1 m O� r0� m X CT D Z D D N C� C� D m 0 0 0 0 ozN ::):E R) >G N D Z r � F I F- 0 F m0D 0 omooD= n N � n m OD z�D�D�0Or0�r� oz� m m ocn� N N fl1 ` J — cnz z�z moo 00o W-j� 0D� rn N "' C = C) ON000N770 0-q 0 �m� C) mem C 00 r�ao���ao���ot�� _ter z �N rn �7 MOpppp�ZD-O -u -u� m>� oco� N rn <�mCAm��zDDDD m� Cl) mzo N00 00 >ODD00 z�zzz o= D Cn D O�7Z�UO \ F- � z z OHO O� D "= z 000 1 Z I I I �m X ^� �\ 0 oD o \� ��CD O r I CA N D z- C\�\0 ��DD� D� aoz 0 0 zz �z C��7�7Z7�1 F- 00 �D 000 Daoz��oo m \00CD zm m z q�� 0 �co0 C -u -u \��mm O m0 000 U) r\r F-O��J�JO m0D D I" K 00� C) < (./) � 0 0 (/) -m 0 D^0�� 0E- O0 O�0C/)C/) C,Oz F- � z cn D — z cn (� cn D D rn T cn N cn Om Cn Cn �7 w O 1j rn z o ° LAKEPOINTE 0o 0o APARTMENTS �m�rn 90 0> x m a�5 X �� F,y �'LJ m cD N rN n m r I w � C /C m 0 N N rn m o -p LAKE ELSINORE W N D D_ I rn o o n o a = ,D O z� T A N m y D O X N z z 1 N i � Nrn D z m i o N < i1 a� G) D N m G7 rn z 67 N 1 J w � Arn m y 00 00 GO GO � a� w w w `o oo � ao � o � �o � N n. � � �o N 00 w O 00 00 00 � N N O o �' o s w 00 o O O o O O O O O O o0 � p 0 0 0 -s � b 0 � td C � o �, � o d� � � o td � � o 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 � � o w o � y VA CQ N T RESIDEN TIA L PQ RCEL (NO T Q PQ R T) g fi L9 ZL `46 f L 2/' 000000❑❑ ❑❑000000 ('d) 008 'ON 0-dVONVIS I za-z Yw1 m 0 b 6 YELL ll -B N r ,, 31W0 dkldV :A9 'AM 3iVO a.adV :AS 'AaN SNOIS�k! I o (� � CA" tj OVS-3a-ins I ,,,,...,,, 8Z£Zv 3Oa 'N0 H0r 'd 3Jafl3� '+ NOUVIWd 1 JO a0 ala 135 J0 ° ° ° o =+aaasmrr` 1ofW90 :3lda I 4 2BDR ❑ ❑ 3 BDR 1 BDR ❑❑ I T rn 301Sa3AN =10 kLNnoo ;a. :AS 03NOUddtl rn rn D I ---- L.- L./ � 31VOS Ol ION I ❑ ❑ ❑ I — ° ° I--I--I A n _m 89 l01N NO i=131 aaH1ia o o rn Q 031tl00138 AM 13S3:10 M kj s N i ii MON (W :4;WW+ Qo pAppp Cu (w� N p -n CONCRETE CONCRETE • • 017 C7 [J1 A GC 3 ------------------ ------------------------------ LTAw�_ _ �' GNO ti s s TA%.i_, - A m - - -------------- I o ro ti I O O i O —W* GNO W 06, fNTI V y o 0 2 p N 0 t d N W� N ❑ m } &r5r cid0 rn8' In 0 0 mv, 4 fy 4 c ---- - _ n� i%3 6 r�m 12 0 , I O 18' 22 Z m 3� 000000❑ El ❑ 00000 N vN o 277 o Q 000000❑❑ ,• ❑❑000 0o I I N nV°7 \ I 28' — — — — m mto r- ® A- i i i i i i s Q j W N , a adOIS MHO W 4 n 1� I -a V W N GSC N N111 SZ Q w o$ r ' 4 S 0000°°❑❑ 0000°°°° 28' ' N N N N to C y o f t44 ca > . /5 c Asn � I8, ti v 0 m C2 m w m w p oho s S; Q r I I W 0 0 0 W i W 0) SC y� X Gt FAY 0 o N ✓° w w Y D o u, Z o \a0 y V 31� ST. HIGHWAY 74 m 1pAr I 0 0 m m m 0 0 Z cn m O /0' ITURE HT OF NAY 'CATION a LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS LAKE ELSINORE P (Q 1010CmCn Cn Cn p �o10 O0mc,� W W - m O V V D T CQ N ND n N rn wfND O x N Z CD N N G m D A 900 -0I r _ Z zm Z ^ 0 G) Il J C7 C Am m NC/) o o L- 70 O m m m m m D W fl� ZZ � r D � F- m 0o Z rn 0 W i W 0) SC y� X Gt FAY 0 o N ✓° w w Y D o u, Z o \a0 y V 31� ST. HIGHWAY 74 m 1pAr I 0 0 m m m 0 0 Z cn m O /0' ITURE HT OF NAY 'CATION a LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS LAKE ELSINORE P (Q 1010CmCn Cn Cn p �o10 O0mc,� W W - m O V V D T CQ N ND n N rn wfND O x N Z CD N N G m D A 900 -0I r _ Z zm Z ^ 0 G) Il J C7 C Am m G) R) A mm D a� R) D W 00 a z n N� 713 w nmA �A TSA An GZ)� y O n o C/) to O cc c� Cpi )O O AAA A A\ C y m �o i om W z �] 00 0 0 0 0\ O 0 0 0 A 0 8 8 0 0 O a O g g cc 0 ? C)Z A ~ EO -10 T C m o ti C O y a a mo o "' can .- tail .- ITl o m O za � 'zn � ITIv mm T= T= A O A O A A D A ^ ^ O z 1\ 1 1\ 1 G) 0 0 0 rn A n o n o51 D I� Oo �o a� r o i cn .- o O O O Cl) z o O O o 0 0 0 0 °J 0 0 co co CA ccn can cn lis,N coy O a I� mommru A o m~ N a m omam m� 0 m oD ' co �' O W k co tO y to y n � y O A Ln vzi cn w co b O O A O o n o ti O � co O � O O m- m- N J 00 0co mo mo pp my my T= T� W no no A �1 A �1 CJ1 z z o cin ` 1 l 1 -n :D Do Do AmAm Li r o A A r r n � n o Q V) ZO g z0 n cn nonz inn �n� m 30,ZA) co 30 � u oZo mcC/) o 0 Ul O �TnO z c)�nm m m z o o T o m I�—�n OT z Dt. ��A z L° cnOAp /V z n Zz ❑ IF c A y m mo mo W OZD M v O 0cn = m-0 m W G) z m Giti Om pOp1p G)0T mOT OOD p1 AO A G7 W OOA 00 �® 00 ODA 08 I o o T 0 T co m � o > y y fl)010 no no D fU C,J W o O O o FO Cj 0 o W viz C� o O O o v a o 0 0 0 ti co C� CDC i 0 0 cz W CDN Eu, cin ° jell, nyA - I c� C"op mommO0°D () ZxoDcoN mA N y~ Of N v0 A O OOD pp� m OOJ m O DODO O 9.9 00 (n D N y N D fU A N A O QD ODA OD C1 O O C C R w O O O O O O O c.n .- a cn .- cn y A Cl) m� m-10 coo C) 0 O �= r zm m0 m0 m T =a oT a oT UW1 �O G)O 5:0o N mom „ �, - ��orn m „ a w n u n u N w r o O O CC aD n r � n '] oD n 0 o 0 0 rl o � o y y z z O O C C 00 DO 0 0 0 0 0 Ll��g 0 0 0 O O O mA D D oom �� m iz OD .-. N Orn Amm tim 2y n A� mm� orn wz zm 18,_ 4„ m 10„ ,_10 ° m A m 18,_ 4„ �o -8" 50,_4„ ,_8„ i o 3'-8„ n o� D � A cn OD cn 0 0 ` m -n�/j Cn Cn Z7 O /v m m m y co< ooCmU, Z z LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS ���rno� Z Z C�wwi m Q° `/ 0 �4 �4 ?> m m ��S * G(F,y X7/1, CD N rN n I o o N LAKE ELSINORE w� > o z a my y D x cNn Z 10 9i u N N D Z /� D G) �o o a° D N m G) " c)c r o A mrn W N A lq T 12T AAA A� D D A A r � n O � O rri P QD 0 A C� O O 0 w O O D D En cn F 1 � O � O D D 1 1L: -:j O � O O 0 cn O 0 A 0 0 0 0 Ocn 13 O Z Z V7 0 0 0 cn N N coL rn V7 P O � � mOao�i tOOy 0 0 0 cn n Z y co co 0 W m O o m n co co mm a N c N Oo O Mrn N Oo co 0 0 D cn n y p E:l ❑� w A 1 1 O p Co0 cn co N O o bo ao z u w z o O O o c v-� e.-..,-- 00 O C3 ti ti Ln w Z A a 0 0 c 0 o n cn C) O 0 z m y 0 �r O 0 0 O �70 O � D �N :70 D �N o 0 o o O 0 o 0 0 00 D 1 /^\ N U7D N N 90 �10 O O N N II j 1 II ( 1 0 0 0 T 0 0 O Lo ❑ o� rn o � 00 op ao ti n AA ao � � nOZy o0 � n 000 N Opo t0/1 cD.� A _ y 00 _ W A �1 nazA omnm �� �cn OD n v z y V O W A y 00 D W A rpEl p� N N Z OCD O /v D ti w p � O yCi �w z 0 0 O A O cn - a O O 0 � O o OO O O Aw O O to A w O O A W � O Ov y z 00 o 0 0 c cn v, m �77 D A02m20 rn p w �= TaAA �m mA �O Arn r. � T m AAA mo A� D D W W N A A D w N A N W D O mTI� CnN m C m D w < (Q 'o 'o C m Ui i Zm N Cli Cn 0 p z m z LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS � ���-n � Cod m F ti N N n N r m s x �� LAKE ELSINORE N N m I o o oo �G'i`'10 O z�— T w w v D D x_ Z Z_ n N � o � i� � N NN � z P1 m G) m Z �C� Arn m mm vcnm rn im 56 p '10? A A O O oyU) m nn m AAA A� 0 �O �O u°v rcl 00 rim °m p�� �.om� n°O °O °mom om m o0 y� rn o ED n �0 °�om om moT "< ^ < �o -aOn Fill o o o z � o ono oa ciomo y z 0 0 0 0 0 j D O rn -uZ A Z -nl A O n -IA O n x A �nA x i �0 i 0 O 0rT-O GZi ,.A GZi a m 0, Z, m °� o p 0 O � I or 00 �O br I a 'O �2 im'-� A C z O 0 z C m p Z T Z p T O �Z �Z ° r=Z �Z 47 O a ° 47 ~ U O 2 0 A z o O T mAft o© o © 2 0 A 0 Aft T 0 A Z = = Om ° O O O ~ m °FO m < HALL HALL rtTi O HALL 7'-8"CEILING T-8" CEILING LA O T-8" CEILING \7� LING m �o 0 m 0 pn pn O a 0 m m �p A O2 O� A �p (i rx ED �x (i 36 O p O ? 0 m m 0 O O bd r o 2 Z Z Z Z r O C �A A _ mZ Zg °W 0 0 °Wn c) z� 0 m �Z �Z r0 O � °\00 zx o x �0 00 Lo � O 0 m y m o A 2 x o A T 0 0 D C O Z A O � cDii m O ?aZA O �Oulm �N <n m y O 00 0p I Oy O y P-11 O O O O O � N � N p� �p O O ❑� r130 1 IO O O 1 O O O O O tz w c� ti C cl y co co m 8 I--+ � S I--► oo O O 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 Q: 0 O cn y Ta m CDC 1—Fc-7 0 0 NC CDO 00 C Z Z O O O o OO 0 0 W oJ o J O O O O C O Z Z O O cn cn C O O O O 0 T W N 07 y '/BVI �N �N o0o m O O � y V Do �c0 a Vw g a OD � C7 (�O/,OOo N C -- CID cn Cpy O A b b A 000 jn .p om ry2 O m m�mA o r -CDC O �rx m W brtWi o OT. 4) O om = <n m = om [n In pn pn Fp C O z ox oT. Z O O A 0 �2 ED EDx O a O -I °A O 0A Z� m m z� m 0n a rm'-O O a ZZ ZZ .p 47 O O OO HALL HALL OO O HALL HALL T-8" CEILING 7'-8" CEILING O �O T-8" CEILING 7'-8"CEILING m L7 Z D 2 r z y ZO G) F: -Ti O L7 G7 O I ZO < G) I cmi m -o m AONn cmi o Wn� o mo Wn� A A O N -I O m O m y A A y ,°-A �°-A ZOO ZOO D TO TEb n O 000 000 O O n00 n00 O cZi G n 1) c� G O O O O �m bm o m I (n� Ty OA c; ° rn mo°°W ° 0n= m0C) OZ� om r!mCan O�UGticn rn OH°oZp�I mmCOW O CO m o�-� O m Z2" °mr°op OrA 00 Oc-AtiI rn 00 0 A~ O`O\ G) 00 ARi Zmrn 2cmi 00 Orin 3�m nA �m mo m oAA Ao A� n cn cn OD v> O m T � cn N rn r rn m y w < (D 'o 'o m p N p z m z LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS ����T90 0 Gi * / 0 D -U]: rn a mrn N G( DN� rm LAKE ELSINORE > zN N� ooN m y D :3x N Z z a� o N CA)m G� G) D rn n 0-ir C1l m m co Tfy co 110 Tly co ryl °Am 6m 6m °Am ryl opo° o� mA IFA rm� �D o00 `"00 '0 o0, nD arm A2 A m 2� 2� m ZpA 8nU op OAp p nm OQ mgn Ayzz ='o ='o zz yo y I czi i = czi OL J a ❑ o o � a � n y T y O nyA n -al A O ? T� ?TOA r0 r0 T T y 0202 y mSAG) O I Sr b0 r b0 Sr I to 02 p 02 A m b ® T L L Sm r z�z AI Im Az z� y O p Oa o0 ti m O m L Q a ❑ r CO c `�" 'z Ac 'z< m o IIIIIIIII II oN cpo oN II IIIIIIIII A' LJ 1 L11J 1 U J-1 A L L L1 L 1 L1 W N 00 Vl Co rs, 0°0 0°0 a m z z m I OC� z O 0 o o v' _cDi, ru r pmrtAi Acmi nn m m ASA 2y CX A2 omm n0 O m n A A r W O g g z z � � O 0 0 f ]/� co m CDN xO � � �y m �J o °Am 6m bm oAm o OOOO rm O O rm p2O bm nn ?pm /�A\J Ay0 2O mA p p ZmA 20 OJ yTon 0 0 0 0 a t n � O O nyA n-alA O T T N N ti y o T 0 o T O r0 r0 O A T !0Z T N W o a °o 'z oI n O O ; O SAO � � m � � SAG) O �L] ❑J I Sr bo bo Sr I o2 O o v2 O � IN r� A �'� r� m O N O f0/! b T AZT o kn. ROGnTrrnTnrl 00 m co rrnTrnTn _ _ ��l IIIIIIIII II �� bo $� IIIIIIIIIIII I I I m I � o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1©l L cn ro a bx bx v O bm cry cjy bm w ti z o mo a rm AI IT r" o0 O rp Az v, I I ti oc m .0 Q 13 T 89 m 2< 2 A m O I ~ I D IIIIIIIII II �� in 1111 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 co x A' L L L1 LI L U U -LLL U L L1 m C/) I o o 0 0 z 0 O 0 0 c y y 0 C 1 1o I I y O :70I oOD [� I r z 0 0 ,z W 0 0 0 0 Ell � z z 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 z �W 0 oA y y O O O co co CD cn co N nTrrnTnTlJ mmm ��' LIU rTnTrrnTIZ IIIIIIIII II �� 0 W o ti nA oc 0 nnmm � mmmk � I I o N �1 I� o°O O°o 0 o I o �► o '—' o 31 Ell Q m C O O ' 1 O ❑ � 00 T m TTA n am ohm m s DO AyuA, mrm mn %� om °Az vAicmi 'z� rnW z z 0 00 ^ uco o ^ � I I o I I o O o � Z Ln W O o 0 Co bo O N O N Z T � nnmm co mmm�' oUlu I I ba O �o O 0j ®, 0 o � c o c 0 I o O �► I o � � I � I o O 0 0 o z a 0 0 c c cn 00 v 0 0 m -n cn ry *j A � m cn CJCJn�WC) y/v m C m D D W < (Q 1010(-- m cn 7 C) z m z LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS � ���m 90 0 ❑o 0 * / O D -n a m F ti 0 N�N(i r N N m I rn o �s o LAKE ELSINORE W N> o z x ti s I T A N m y D N Z Z J N rn D z m i o ap \ N N f` o G) mrn m 01, w i 03 co N v D D 1-1 a W a ro �. nm n"'m2cmi a W o � � rn a '" ry a A0= TnA A �y n AAA A� m o rrl 00 �o 8 8 0 0 o cn .- cn ti ' vz A w v mo c ocz 6t3 0�j co m o _� .- can �. m m m m y m y c> o c) o AoA� ncT„ ncco zifia � G) b zn zn C) �1 A z �1 47 G7 r o r o CII .- � •- A A 1> �1 r a o oco 00 O 0ZD 0 0 II � � a � �_can cn� � O mN mN O NN NN cn cn 0 °° a s o 0 J T o a s A O rn O8 y O m o N O m y m N m N o k m y N I En N m k N fll T p N y y c N RI— _ _ 11 El co cn ro � 10 1D 0 r**- O O a O O C C ti O O O 0 w ` N Cn y (n y mo 4 m� curio O m� �o �7 T nco oo > zm o zn G) cry �n T= A n II p A -i r o 1 cn° O O 1..1— Z Z C C C m � � O O O T W y 17 CST �mrn A 2n N .- RaJ •- �= -n N A A m AAA urn A� D D F)-) o Cl) W W a ru R, A m -n --i L/) N rn C rn D < (Q 'o 'o C m rn r rn rn L O m z C/) LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS �°°°°��m 90 0 (0 SVD T -v]: a m F ti (D N �N n r rn x G` �`�� LAKE ELSINORE N N m I o o n o a - n wN� O z T A N m y > X N Z7. cn z _ N Nz m G) ()G) C1l m m 0--, O i 0 i 2 m z -i ---- m m � II Cf) C-) D _ o O Q C C o c �p Q y r r rn :70z m oA rn �� o rn m rn rn co zC STORAGE Q n Q � o o r z m m < m z m T In rn :70 C/) ; ------------ n n m � � II II w C I LI ---------j � I I II I� Q rn C � I I I 1 I I rnI I r y rnI I -- ------------ - E: ----------- /\ --------- j C 0 c I I I I y� O I I c I O Cry I I � I I _ I s T7 FT = Z7 p In = D D m -n --A m O rn r m D y < 1ocmu, A O> W m U cn Cn T w p r O m N LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS Tm 90 z Oz m a�5 * G� F,y F'LJ CSD N �N Ci 1 LAKE ELSINORE5. I T O o r ✓O Q n Cl) N `D O Z A N m y D (D N Z z N N i No Dz (2 m m CrI 0 N OG) ti ' 3,9��' D C r� z 0-1n Arn m -8" 25'-43„ 4 K) rf) m om 22'- rt� rt�) 1„1„ 72 10'-7"-20'-102 14,_14 „ 5,_81 5,_74„ o m -91-0 3„ 1„ 5 -02 2'-73„ 2'-111„ 4 2 y y z 0 1> 0 rte o C/) C) A _n co °m o `' m oo Om com o z� °~ ° O �m C°00 oC) c) �, rn C/) O J ; o o01W zc° ° -� O �mz �m o0 C) �� m m �� 0D0 X00 O r m °oma z _H o _ m - -I z o v, _ m z _H ° �)-I m O O~ zz �° �p o O o�� �-IO Oo C) zz �O O \ rn J L—►❑ P 00 031u] I 11D RAI— s r I 11 O rf) _ CN - fU (m) O Z O) A Col-` ` J W � O N ��o �m goo C''� o o�� m m o��� m Q) o ° C7 m � �< mz o �) O �� � rn mz :R °o ro- � /� D i�lm m i=ce z zG) Q y� m O ZO G) \ -Q O G7 o o Z r0 OF co n z O - O m - m C) U1 O I` co n mC') �(r ri D W � Ln L D V ti W m � L ~ro rvl- �N I O O J J I II O :1) m J rE� - p0 FN I cfl o� z - I K) 41FO td co o m Cl o ,- z o� Cl n -O w Zz rn coiui 41 �O w o r m m g r �z RJ1- u O o0 �' - O o ry co CD 001 W m0 CO O vOW A o� O n K, w O p� C ,I7 me W I mo m co 4 ° ° z�o m 0 z z C/)co O 12'-11" 5'-O8" 3'-2" 2'-52" '-6" K) ° R I-1'-65„ 8 = m m co 46'-6"-17/-79.- 16 32'-04„ m0 o rt� G) Z `� m O 4'-12„ m N �O 32'-04" O O 23'-2" 8'-104„ CD C co co -a r0 O -93„ 4 16'-41 „ 4 00 C/) 0 c �o a �I co �n O = O � mn m m o °m zm o m G) T m �> jo C) �I� o V W o � C/)J �� � J C/) cn c I p Co J y r ftT, m o 301G) O 1 z 7'-2 „ 16 G7 r0 v° o I O J� O O I co Z CO o m J FU- y C) y -0 zm ° O C)00 I O c r o rn r cc H O G7 n O O m v, � N O°° 30'-716" 10'-62" 10'-7° K) W) 1 16 „ 15„1„ 1„ 13 -816-5'-34 5 -32 54'-102" K) r -8"25'-44„ 1 -116„ cn m M r cn m O D oOo m < M -n - N 'o 'o c m cn D rn m z LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS �00 Cn Cn �7 00 m�rn (,) O 1j W O'�'�?> N N rn I 0 ��s X x G`c0`�� F,y '�s LAKE ELSINORE CD N tN C� r r O o n O O (� W N10 DI O z O O ' A N N m D T (�j D X N N N Z D z z m G) �J i o dp y N rn (7 0 m zC/) r� Arn m h ATTI( SEE PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS LAK OINT APARTMENTS .s. I IU7i I I rii I I 1 0 Flfll I MI NMI III will 01111 mcm�m rig 4=44 ITS ELI in, lyu. I 331i 3 REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" DOWNSPOUTS 4 LEFT ELEVATION LDOWNSPOUTS GLASS SCREEN STUCCO— TILE TUCCO—TILE ROOF (TYP.) — ATTIC VENT (TYP.) SEE ROOF PLAN 11111111110 LAKE ELSINORE 10 EISENHOWER DR 02 MONROE ST ® GARDFIELD ST ® CLEVELAND CT ® MCKINLEY ST THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 865, H5 © CHERBOURG AVE VICINITY MAP TILE ROOF (TYP.) ---I �' RIGHT ELEVATION mill Ll 1 11 Ll U�l � Vol r 010 Fm- 001 IF.F.=101.001 2 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 1 " = 40'-0'' 1., I I LDOWNSPOUTS 0 0 NOT TO SCALE O STUCCO - COLOR TO MATCH TILE ROOF R FRAZEE 'ARIZONA WHITE" OSTUCCO mmiiiIs SHEET NUMBER LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS --- LAKE E LS I N O RE, CA 92530 DOWNSPOUTS 4 LEFT ELEVATION LDOWNSPOUTS GLASS SCREEN STUCCO— TILE TUCCO—TILE ROOF (TYP.) — ATTIC VENT (TYP.) SEE ROOF PLAN 11111111110 LAKE ELSINORE 10 EISENHOWER DR 02 MONROE ST ® GARDFIELD ST ® CLEVELAND CT ® MCKINLEY ST THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 865, H5 © CHERBOURG AVE VICINITY MAP TILE ROOF (TYP.) ---I �' RIGHT ELEVATION mill Ll 1 11 Ll U�l � Vol r 010 Fm- 001 IF.F.=101.001 2 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 1 " = 40'-0'' 1., I I LDOWNSPOUTS 0 0 NOT TO SCALE O STUCCO - COLOR TO MATCH INTEGRIS DEVELOPMENT FRAZEE 'ARIZONA WHITE" OSTUCCO - COLOR TO MATCH SHEET NUMBER LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS --- LAKE E LS I N O RE, CA 92530 FRAZEE "CHEER" O STUCCO - COLOR TO MATCH FRAZEE "CHEER" ATTIC VENT (TYP.) rSEE ROOF PLAN GLASS SCREEN DAIGLE ARCH ITECTU Fl I—= & PLANNING INC 25109 JEFFERSON AVE STE. 225 MURRIETA, CA 92562 2 T: 951F: 951.837-2223 ext 2213 E: glen@ogeinc.net PROJECT: INTEGRIS DEVELOPMENT STAMP REVISIONS DATE JOB #: DRAWN: DATE: 8/28/2015 SHEET NUMBER LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS --- LAKE E LS I N O RE, CA 92530 n 00 m C %%Wft 4 Z C/) ran m Z 0 00 � �rTlrn D) CIO o rri rri � C D rn � � y 0 0 G) o� om n � � 9 , r n, _ � 0 11 oz m 0 n w 0 � :70 o rn o �- C/) M rn rn C/)o C rn � 0 o — z N or- C/) Q� Z r -I om _ pO � n m C m 0 Zm ZDm /mom 0o V/ 0 _ m m c) 0 >1 y ccoo z /C� < N LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS mT���N CO %0%0 C m (,I CZ Cl Cn WO p 0 —n -,n 1j 0 GC d�S X F,y �iJ o o N �o LAKE ELSINORE Co N N CD N �N n N W N> o -0 I r z— O 7C Z z C/) w w v D D - o D ( X� Z N < N0 m Z z m G) mrn r D m rn z W O N O np= D D r r C Tmm O m = Z m � D � � �1 m D � Z D D r r � Cn U U G7 G7 G7 DDD rrr ZJ C v ' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' (n •'a �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1,1, _ • r•�• Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir 70 S ;' • �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�11111111111111111111111111111111 O •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •, P r 111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Z 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 i•..•' �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1111111111111111 C) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O X N N 0) O 0 mD-=-<-DmmnDO-m>>>r-on Cr-n<WK=COmomm<CzEEn=<_ 4o n 0 n n co CnDC=CDOWmn�C,�mZD�Nm ��C(/)C 3 rz�D�C-uC��N.-D mil �DZr mr. C/)OD K Ti m D—K—DDZ r Dr m > lM N rrC 0<Z—m T9 m ;;o- WOZ7 �TI� O 0 p Z0C CZr frOX T1.Zu r N C ND C Cf) O C C- LA rn D Z CD (o to 0 a 1p I I (D � 3 co o 5D np= D D r r C Tmm O m = Z m � D � � �1 m D � Z D D r r � Cn U U G7 G7 G7 DDD rrr 0>0m-0CnZ�0m�K�a*pmpDD< m C 0 < m0Dn;;op0F*D*r03> ��rm�n<-<r=D�npD�DODx KCp; AZO-mr_Z� t mmX zzz;UK W XM Zo—mmm o m 29 0 0 0 D � D C Z m O D D D Z O m n g mem=�om0 D m pp rp � n 70 � a) � < _ CMC O D C N Zl N `2 U) m = 70 O F- 00000000000000000000 WMMKKKnD >oECCDDn Kwm===M= cDNfrT m-;-Zxr nnwZZ— m CDmwwDW> cnrmmmZ.0 �00C)C)< X Z N D D Z m DD �D G1 00 r D z� C Z) Cn K:0 -Ti pmZLI) � mDcm Z—mmD xr-wm<Om c 00 r D r C/) m cFM c] 70 M Z �0 Amo O Cn m _ m cyl— — — — —- P� -P� c')c)c)c)c)G) >>>>>> O O O r r p r r r r r OOm00000 m RiVcRS%CE DRIVE S;. HiG,tiWAY74 V4 CANT RESIDENTIAL FA RCEL (NO T A FA R T) ZJ C • .'�� ' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' (n •'a �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1,1, _ • r•�• Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir Ir 70 S ;' • �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�11111111111111111111111111111111 O •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •, P r 111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Z 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 i•..•' �1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1111111111111111 C) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O m N �(nZ7Z7���=mmpnnnnn=DDD � O 0 mD-=-<-DmmnDO-m>>>r-on Cr-n<WK=COmomm<CzEEn=<_ p CnDC=CDOWmn�C,�mZD�Nm ��C(/)C C rz�D�C-uC��N.-D mil �DZr mr. C/)OD K Ti =oCm7m<NDDQw WZ07 r D—K—DDZ r Dr m > lM N rrC 0<Z—m T9 m ;;o- WOZ7 �TI� O p Z0C CZr frOX T1.Zu r N C ND C Cf) O C C- K r = D � D Z Z 0>0m-0CnZ�0m�K�a*pmpDD< m C 0 < m0Dn;;op0F*D*r03> ��rm�n<-<r=D�npD�DODx KCp; AZO-mr_Z� t mmX zzz;UK W XM Zo—mmm o m 29 0 0 0 D � D C Z m O D D D Z O m n g mem=�om0 D m pp rp � n 70 � a) � < _ CMC O D C N Zl N `2 U) m = 70 O F- 00000000000000000000 WMMKKKnD >oECCDDn Kwm===M= cDNfrT m-;-Zxr nnwZZ— m CDmwwDW> cnrmmmZ.0 �00C)C)< X Z N D D Z m DD �D G1 00 r D z� C Z) Cn K:0 -Ti pmZLI) � mDcm Z—mmD xr-wm<Om c 00 r D r C/) m cFM c] 70 M Z �0 Amo O Cn m _ m cyl— — — — —- P� -P� c')c)c)c)c)G) >>>>>> O O O r r p r r r r r OOm00000 m RiVcRS%CE DRIVE S;. HiG,tiWAY74 V4 CANT RESIDENTIAL FA RCEL (NO T A FA R T) r D m rTi 0 z rmI i v r z rn z N 0 0 LJ N= d--1 n 2w 0 C v X N Ul OCL n n 3 W O M M D ca (o co 0 a 1p I I co m 3 too 0 o r D m u N= n 2w 0 C rn z N 0 0 y r y k k k k k k k k k 'I IN J 71 m INHIL NINT7 I F F F F F F F k k k F F F F F I F F Fk Fk k Fk Fk Fk o F. k k k k k k k k k k k I Fk�Fk�Fk�Fk� k k FkF �F F �Fk k k k k k k k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k r k k k k k k k Fk k� k k k k Fk � k k� FF Fk Fk I I I' k k� F k� F k� F k F k I Fk Fk Fk Fk k F Fk k Fk Fk k k k k k k k F F F F F HINHINIH HININT71 I I k I F F F F F F F I k k k k k k k k k k k I F F F F F F F F F F Fk k� k Fk� tFk�Fk�Fk�F �F �F4Fk I F FF' F F F FFF F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k I t t F t F F FD -17-70V 6 F Foq, 6 F p tj F F� F F F F F t tF ` k v< F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 0 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F I ` F F F F F F F F F I F F = F � k k r r � k F F F k k k k k k k I F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F FIL F k k k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I F F F F F FOb FOb F FObFO F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F I kFF k F m FFkFkF FFFk F F F00F F F F F F F F k F k F k F k O k F k F k F k F k F k F k � I k k k k k k k k Fk k � F k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F k Fk Fk Fk Fk k Fk Fk k k Fk F k k k k k k k k k k�Fk�Fk�F Fk F F �F I F F F F F F F F 0 k k k k k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k F F F k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k Fk F F F F F F FE FE FE t FE F k IDFk F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k I� I� F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k E 4-1 HINIH HININT71 k k k k k k k k k k k F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I I k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I F F F F F F F F F F F I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k o f ' F. F. F. F. F. F F F ' Vl to n 0 n to n co to 3 �' W .i O 77 M M D col to f0 0 d 3 to O OD p r y k k k k k k k k k 'I IN J 71 m INHIL NINT7 I F F F F F F F k k k F F F F F I F F Fk Fk k Fk Fk Fk o F. k k k k k k k k k k k I Fk�Fk�Fk�Fk� k k FkF �F F �Fk k k k k k k k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k r k k k k k k k Fk k� k k k k Fk � k k� FF Fk Fk I I I' k k� F k� F k� F k F k I Fk Fk Fk Fk k F Fk k Fk Fk k k k k k k k F F F F F HINHINIH HININT71 I I k I F F F F F F F I k k k k k k k k k k k I F F F F F F F F F F Fk k� k Fk� tFk�Fk�Fk�F �F �F4Fk I F FF' F F F FFF F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k I t t F t F F FD -17-70V 6 F Foq, 6 F p tj F F� F F F F F t tF ` k v< F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 0 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F I ` F F F F F F F F F I F F = F � k k r r � k F F F k k k k k k k I F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F FIL F k k k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I F F F F F FOb FOb F FObFO F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F I kFF k F m FFkFkF FFFk F F F00F F F F F F F F k F k F k F k O k F k F k F k F k F k F k � I k k k k k k k k Fk k � F k k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F k Fk Fk Fk Fk k Fk Fk k k Fk F k k k k k k k k k k�Fk�Fk�F Fk F F �F I F F F F F F F F 0 k k k k k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k F F F k k k k k k k k k F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k Fk F F F F F F FE FE FE t FE F k IDFk F F F F F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k I� I� F F F F F F F F k k k k k k k k k k E 4-1 HINIH HININT71 k k k k k k k k k k k F F F k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I I k k k I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k I F F F F F F F F F F F I k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k o f ' F. F. F. F. F. F F F ' EXISTING RETAIL PARCEL (NOT A PART) TREES EXISTING LAi(t5'lUt HIGH S'CHUUL (NOT APART) - PLAMING LEGEND: PLANTING LEGEND: PLANTING LEGEND: BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE t SPACING WUCOLS AGONIS FLEXUOSA CERCI S OCCIDENTALIS COTINUS COGGYGRIA KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA PARKINSONIA'DESERT MUSEUM' ROBINIA PSEUDOACACIA'PURPLE ROBE' G L EDITS I A TRI ACANTHOS ' I N E RM I S' QUERCUS ILEX RHUSLANCEA ALBIZIAJULIBRISSIN QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA ULMUS PARVIFOLIA'TRUE GREEN' STREET TREE PER CITY BRAHEA ARMATA PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA WASHINTONIA FILIFERA PEPPERMINT WILLOW WESTERN REDBUD SMOKETREE GOLDEN RAIN TREE DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE BLACK LOCUST THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST HOLLY OAK AFRICAN SUMAC SILKTREE COAST LIVE OAK EVERGREEN ELM BLUE HESPER PALM DATE PALM CALIFORNIA FAN PALM 24" BOX 24" BOX 24" BOX 36" BOX 36" BOX 36" BOX 24" BOX 24" BOX 24" BOX IS GAL IS GAL IS GAL IS GAL IS GAL IS GAL LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE 1 SPACING WUCOLS SHRUBSIGROUNDCOVERS ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM YARROW 4" POTS LOW AGAVE SP. AGAVE S GAL LOW ALOE SP. ALOE 1 GAL LOW BACCHARIS PILULARIS DWARF COYOTE BUSH 1 GAL LOW CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA BAJA FAIRY DUSTER S GAL LOW CA LLI STEMON 'LITTLE JOH N' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH S GAL LOW CEANOTHUS SP WILD LILAC S GAL LOW CISTUS SP. ROCKROSE S GAL LOW CONVOLVULUS SP. MORNING GLORY 1 GAL LOW DALEA GREGGII TRAILING INDIGO BUSH 1 GAL LOW ECHEVERIA'AFTERGLOW' ECHEVERIA 1 GAL LOW EPILOBIUM CALIFORNICUM CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA 1 GAL LOW HETEROM ELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON S GAL LOW MAHONIA NEVINII NEVIN'S BARBERRY S GAL LOW MIMULUS AURIANTICUS STICKY MONKEY FLOWER 1 GAL LOW MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM 'PINK' PINK MYOPORUM 1 GAL LOW RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA EVERGREEN ELM S GAL LOW RIBES AUREUM GOLDEN CURRANT S GAL LOW SALVIA GREGGII AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL LOW TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDER 1 GAL LOW SODDEDTURF PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 91: 09: 1LlIIIQLI=%F91►1 BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE/SPACING WUCOLS ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM YARROW 4" POTS LOW CARER SP. SEDGE 4" POTS LOW MAHONIA NEVINII NEVIN'S BARBERRY 1 GAL LOW MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MUHLY 1 GAL LOW MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEERGRASS 1 GAL LOW RIBES SPECIOSUM FUSCHIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY 1 GAL MODERATE ROSA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE 1 GAL LOW SAMBUCUS MEXICANA MEXICAN ELDERBERRY S GAL LOW 3" MINIMUM DEPTH STABILIZED D.G. NOTES: ALL TREES WITHIN 6' OF HARDSCAPETO RECEIVE ROOTBARRIER ALL PLANTER AREAS TO RECEIVE A 3" MINIMUM DEPTH LAYER OF SHREDDED WOOD BARK MULCH PLANT WATER USE VALUES ARE PER WUCOLS IV PLANT LIST DATE: 111312016 PROJECT #: 151177 `JORy DUKH 00up 4649 Brockton Ave. Riverside, CA 92506 (951 ) 369-0700 Fax (951) 369-4039 http://www.comworksdg.com RESOLUTION NO. 2016-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2016- 01 FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW (RDR 2014-05) WHEREAS, Steve Rawlings (Applicant) has requested approval of Residential Design Review, CDR 2014-05 as the Project 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, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study revealed that the Project would have potentially significant environmental impacts, but those potentially significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, WHEREAS,based upon the results of the Initial Study, and based upon the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, it was determined that it was appropriate to prepare and circulate Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2016-01 for the Project (Mitigated Negative Declaration); and, WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, on February 16, 2016, the City duly issued a notice of intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS,in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review and comment for a minimum of thirty days beginning on July 1, 2016, and ending on August 1, 2016, and, WHEREAS,a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project has been prepared in accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Chapter 17.184 (Design Review) the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to Design Review of residential projects; and, WHEREAS,on August 2, 2016, 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 Resolution 2016-58 recommending that the Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration 2016-01; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), Section 17.184.090 of the LEMC the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning Commission for commercial design review applications; and, Reso. No 2016-____ PAGE 2 OF 3 WHEREAS,on August 9, 2016, at a duly noticed public meeting, the 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 foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference. Section 2. The Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that all public comments have been addressed. Section 3. The Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s procedures for implementation of CEQA; and recommends to the Council that it make the same finding. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment of the City. Section 4. The Council further finds and determines that none of the circumstances listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 requiring recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are present and that it would be appropriate to recommend adoption the Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed to the Council. Section 5. The Council hereby makes, adopts, and incorporates the following findings regarding the lack of potential environmental impacts of the Project and the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1.Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was released for public review and mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the Initial Study conducted for the Project, there is substantial evidence suggesting that all potential impacts to the environment resulting from the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels. All appropriate and feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project design. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan contains an implementation program for each mitigation measure. After implementation of the mitigation contained in the MMRP, potential environmental impacts are effectively reduced to less than significant levels. 2.There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency including the initial study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received, including comment letters, and in the light of the whole record presented, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Reso. No 2016-____ PAGE 3 OF 3 Section 7. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached Conditions of Approval, the Council adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2016-01 and the MMRP for Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, held on August 9, 2016. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of August 9, 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2016-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Steve Rawlings (Applicant) has requested approval of Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05), as the Project; and, WHEREAS,Section 6.0 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) requires that all projects which are proposed on land covered by an MSHCP Criteria Cell and which require discretionary approval by the legislative body undergo the Lake Elsinore Acquisition Process (LEAP) and a Joint Project Review (JPR) between the City and the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) prior to public review of the Project applications; and, WHEREAS, Section 6.0 further requires that development projects not within an MSHCP criteria cell must be analyzed pursuant to the MSHCP “Plan Wide Requirements”; and, WHEREAS, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or Council; and, WHEREAS,the Project is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Core or Linkage, but is within the Lake Elsinore Plan Area of the MSHCP, and therefore, the Project was reviewed pursuant to the MSHCP “Plan Wide Requirements”; and, WHEREAS, Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires that the City adopt consistency findings prior to approving any discretionary project entitlements for development of Property that is subject to the MSHCP; and, WHEREAS,on August 2, 2016, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and adopted Resolution No. 2016-59 recommending that the Council find the project consistent with MSHCP requirements; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning Commission for residential design review applications; and, WHEREAS,on August 9, 2016, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the 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, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.The Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed applications and their consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to adopt findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Reso. No.2016-____ Page 2 of 4 Section 2. That in accordance with the LEMC, and the MSHCP, Findings for adoption have been made as follows: 1. The proposed project is a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City must make an MSHCP Consistency Finding before approval. The proposed project includes a commercial design review, conditional use permit, temporary parcel map requests that require a number of discretionary approvals from the City, including CEQA review. Pursuant to the City’s MSHCP Resolution, the Project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with “Other Plan Requirements.” These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, Section 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, Section 6.5.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, Section 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, Section 4). 2. The proposed project is not subject to the City’s LEAP and the County’s Joint Project Review processes. The proposed project is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell area, therefore, no formal LEAP submittal was required. However, the Project is still required to demonstrate compliance with “Other Plan Requirements.” The Project is in compliance as described further below. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Approximately 0.06 acres of disturbed non-native vegetation habitat associated with the lake will be impacted. This habitat is considered a riparian/riverine area, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, which defines riparian/riverine areas as “… lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (MSHCP 2003). Although the Project would result in impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas, as defined by the MSHCP, the disturbed, non-native habitat to be impacted does not provide suitable habitat for covered species. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the riparian/riverine and vernal pool requirements of the MSHCP. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. The Project site is not within the MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) or Criteria Area Species (CAS) survey areas. There were no rare plants found within the project area and there is no suitable habitat for rare plants. Thus, the project is consistent with the Narrow Endemic Plant Species requirements of the MSHCP. Reso. No.2016-____ Page 3 of 4 5.The proposed Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the Project is located in Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Amphibian Species Survey Area with Critical Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area, and Mammal Species Survey Areas with Criteria Areas of the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within any of these MSHCP Additional Survey Areas. No surveys are required and the proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area and is not located adjacent to any Criteria Cell describing areas of conservation. The proposed Project is not expected to result in significant indirect impacts to special-status biological resources. Thus, the proposed Project is consistent with the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland Interface. 7. The proposed Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. No vegetation mapping requirements apply to the proposed project. 8. The proposed Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. The proposed Project site is separated from nearby criteria cells by other properties. Therefore, the fuels management guidelines set forth in the MSHCP are not applicable. 9. The proposed Project is conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. The developer will be required to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 10. The proposed Project overall is consistent with the MSHCP. The Project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the MSHCP. No further actions related to the MSHCP are required. Section 3. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached conditions of approval, the Council hereby adopts findings that that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, held on August 9, 2016. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Pro Tem Reso. No.2016-____ Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of August 9, 2016 and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2014-05 PROVIDING BUILDING DESIGNS FOR A 150 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, WITH ASSOCIATED ON-SITE AND OFF- SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPING LOCATED AT APN: 379-090-022 WHEREAS, Steve Rawlings, (applicant), has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore requesting approval of Residential Design Review No. 2014-05 for the construction of a 150 unit apartment complex and associated improvements for property located at APN: 379-090-022 (Project); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”), public agencies are expressly encouraged to reduce delay and paperwork associated with the implementation of CEQA by using previously prepared environmental documents when those previously prepared documents adequately address the potential impacts of the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15006); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.184 (Design Review) the Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Council pertaining to the residential design review; and, WHEREAS,on August 2, 2016, 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 and adopting Resolution 2016-60 recommending that the Council approve the project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.184 of the LEMC the Council has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning Commission for residential design review applications; and, WHEREAS,on August 9, 2016, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the 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 Council has considered the proposed design for the 150 unit apartment homes and has found it acceptable. The Council has reviewed and analyzed the proposed Project pursuant to the California Planning and Zoning Laws (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan and the LEMC and finds and determines that the proposed Residential Design Review No. 2014-05 is consistent with the requirements of California Planning and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the Lake Elsinore General Plan and the LEMC. Section 2. On August 9, 2016, after consideration and evaluation of all written reports and comments and oral testimony presented by the Community Development Department and other City departments, property owners, residents and other interested parties and such other matters as are reflected in the record of the noticed Public Hearing on the Project, the Council adopted Reso. No. 2016-____ Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. 2016-__ finding and determining that that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2016-01 is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA; that a 30-day public review period ran from July 1, 2016, to August 1, 2016. Based upon those findings and determinations, the Council by Resolution No. 2016-__ approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Section 3. That in accordance with LEMC Chapter 17.184, the Council makes the following findings regarding Residential Design Review No. 2015-06: 1.The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the zoning district in which the Project is located. The proposed multifamily residential development has been found consistent with the General Plan because the proposed Project does not exceed the maximum density of 19-24 dwelling units per acre and complies with all the goals and objectives of the Laveview District. In addition, the Project has been found consistent with the LEMC as the project complies with all applicable sections of the LEMC including but not limited to development standards, parking requirements, residential development standards, and permitted uses. 2.The multifamily residential development complies with the design directives contained in the applicable provisions of the LEMC. The proposed development incorporates a high quality design that includes window surrounds, stone wainscoting, and concrete roof tile. Furthermore, the proposed site plan incorporates adequate setbacks and building separation to create an effective design. The proposed Project features a well-designed internal circulation which provides for the safe path of travel for various modes of transportation. 3.Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Chapter 17.184.070 of the LEMC, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the Project to ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of Chapter 17.184 of the LEMC. Pursuant to Section 17.184.070 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Project has been considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing on August 9, 2016. The proposed project, as reviewed and conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, appropriate Conditions of Approval have been included that would mitigate any potential issues associated with the future development and establishment of use. Section 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of Approval imposed upon the Project, the Council hereby approves Residential Design Review No. 2014-05. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Reso. No. 2016-____ Page 3 of 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, held on August 9, 2016. Robert E. Magee, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2016-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of August 9, 2016, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk Applicants Initials: _____Page 1 of 24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS: PROJECT: 2016-XX, 2016-XX & 2016-XX RDR 2014-05 PROJECT LOCATION:APN 379-090-022 APPROVAL DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.Residential Design Review No. 2014-05, herein referred to as the project is approved for a 150-unit multi-family development with associated recreational amenities tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site. The proposed project is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School, and more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090-022. 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 attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the project attached hereto. 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 $_________ 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 project’s approval. PLANNING DIVISION 5.Residential Design Review No. 2014-05 will lapse and be void unless a building permit is issued within two (2) years of the approval date and construction commenced and diligently pursued to completion. The Community Development Director may grant an extension of time for up to one (1) year prior to the expiration of the initial Design Review. An application for a time extension and required fee shall be submitted a minimum of one (1) month prior to the expiration date. 6.The applicant shall provide all project-related on-site and off-site improvements as required by these Conditions of Approval. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 2 of 24 7.All Conditions of Approval shall be reproduced on page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Building and Safety Division, Community Development Department. All Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8.All future development proposals shall be reviewed by the City on a project by project basis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director or designee, additional environmental analysis will be required. 9.Any proposed minor revisions to approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. Any proposed substantial revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed according to the provisions of the Municipal Code in a similar manner as a new application. 10.Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. 11.For multiple-family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 12.For multiple-family development, provide exterior lockable storage space as required by the California Green Building Code. 13.If any of the conditions of approval set forth herein fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits/Building Permits 14.Submit a photometric plan of the proposed project for review and approval. 15.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary State and Federal permits, approvals, or other entitlements, including obtaining the necessary authorizations from the regulatory agencies for proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters. Authorizations may include a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a Section 401 RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 3 of 24 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16.Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall prepare a Final Wall and Fence Plan addressing the following: Show that a masonry or decorative block wall will be constructed along the entire tract boundary. Show materials, colors, and heights of rear, side and front walls/fences for proposed lots. Show the location of all wood, vinyl or steel (wrought iron or aluminum) gates placed within the front return walls. Show that side walls for corner lots shall be decorative masonry block walls. Show that those materials provided along the front elevations (i.e. brick, stone, etc.) will wrap around the side elevation and be flush with the front return walls. 17.Signs are not part of this project approval. All signage shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review and approval prior to installation. 18.Provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance (LEMC Chapter 17.176) shall be satisfied during all site preparation and construction activity. The applicant shall place a weatherproof 3’ X 3’ sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of construction activity. Site preparation activity and construction shall not commence before 7:00 AM and shall cease no later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Only finish work and similar interior construction may be conducted on Saturdays and may commence no earlier than 8:00 am and shall cease no later than 4:00 p.m. Construction activity shall not take place on Sunday, or any Legal Holidays. The sign shall identify the name and phone number of the development manager to address any complaints. 19.Construction phasing shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan which avoids construction traffic from entering occupied neighborhoods within the tract. 20.A cash bond shall be required for any construction trailers used during construction. Bonds will be released after removal of trailers, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or designee. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 4 of 24 21.The applicant shall pay school fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District prior to issuance of each building permit. 22.The project shall connect to water and sewer and meet all requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The applicant shall submit water and sewer plans to the EVMWD and shall incorporate all district conditions and standards. 23.All mechanical and electrical equipment associated with the residences shall be ground mounted. All outdoor ground or wall mounted utility equipment shall be consolidated in a central location and architecturally screened behind fence returns, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permit. 24.All yards shall be properly landscaped with automatic (manual or electric) irrigation systems to provide 100 percent planting coverage using a combination of drip and conventional irrigation methods. Construction Landscape & Irrigation drawings shall be prepared, reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect Consultant and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. A Cost Estimate for materials and labor shall also be submitted for review and approval. A Landscape Plan Check fee will be charged prior to final landscape approval based on the Consultant's fee, inspection, permits and administration fees. The applicant shall replace any street trees harmed during construction, in conformance with the City's Street Tree List, at a maximum of 30 feet apart and at least 24-inch box in size. Perimeter walls shall be protected by shrubs and other plantings that discourage graffiti. The applicant shall ensure a clear line of sight at ingress/egress points by providing plantings within 15 feet of ingress/egress points whose height does not exceed two (2) feet and whose canopy does not fall below six feet. The landscape plan shall provide for California native drought-tolerant ground cover, shrubs, and trees. Special attention shall be given to use of Xeriscape or drought resistant plantings with combination drip irrigation system to prevent excessive watering. No front-yard grass turf landscaping will be installed. All landscape improvements shall be bonded with a ten percent (10%) Faithful Performance Bond of the approved estimated labor and materials RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 5 of 24 cost for all planting. The bond shall remain in effect for one year from Certificate of Occupancy. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed within an affected portion of any phase at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested for any building. All Model Homes shall be Xeriscaped and signage provided identifying Xeriscape landscaping. Xeriscape is a method of landscape design that minimizes water use by: 1)Implementing hydrozones; 2)Eliminating high and medium water-use plant material as identified by Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) (such as turf) and incorporates low to very low water-efficient (“drought-tolerant” / climate-appropriate) plants; 3)Requires an efficient irrigation system that includes: a.ET-Based (“Smart irrigation”) controller(s) with weather-sensing, automatic shut-off and seasonal adjustment capabilities; b.Efficient irrigation water application through use of: i. Low-volume point-source irrigation (such as drip irrigation and bubblers) for all shrub planter areas (maximum of 3:1 slope) with a minimum irrigation efficiency of 0.90 ; and/or ii. Rotor-type nozzles for areas greater than ten (10) feet wide, for slopes 3:1 and greater, AND with a minimum irrigation efficiency of 0.71. 4)Improvement of soil structure for better water retention; and 5)Application of mulch to hinder evaporation. The Final landscape plan shall be consistent with any approved site and/or plot plan. The Final landscape plan shall include planting and irrigation details. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet in height within the subject tract and within private lots shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, as approved by the Planning Division, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 6 of 24 All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the water-efficient landscaping requirements set forth in LEMC Chapter 19.08 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements), as adopted and any amendments thereto. 25.Prior to the submission of building plans for building plan check the applicant shall submit revised architectural plans for review and approval by the Community Development Director, or their designee. Specific improvements shall be incorporated into those plans that include enhanced architectural treatment on all buildings along Riverside Dr. and additional color option for the buildings. 26.Prior to the submission of Landscape plans for landscape plan check, the applicant shall add additional plantings which provide effective screening of the detention basin and increased plant sizes in those areas adjacent to Riverside Dr. BUILDING DIVISION General Conditions 27.Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 28.Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2013 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2013 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2013 California Energy Codes, 2013 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. 29.Green Measures. The application shall provide 10% voluntary green measures on the project, as stipulated by the 2013 California Green Building Standards. 30.Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as club house, trach enclosure tot lots and picnic areas. 31.Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 7 of 24 or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single- family residential projects. 32.Clearance from LEUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Lake Elsinore School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 33.Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 34.Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 35.Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 36.House Electrical Meter. Applicant shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal 37.Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for the persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit (s) 38.Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 39.Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 8 of 24 Prior to Issuance of Building Permit (s) 40.Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 41.Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. ENGINEERING DIVISION General: 42.All slopes and landscaping within public right-of-way shall be maintained by the property owner or property owner’s association or another maintenance entity approved by the City Council. 43.All open space, landscaping and slopes except for public parks, schools and flood control district facilities, outside the public right-of-way shall be owned and maintained by property owner or property owner’s association. 44.In accordance with the City’s Franchise Agreement for waste disposal & recycling, the developer shall be required to contract with CR&R Inc. for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 45.Developer shall mitigate to prevent any flooding and/or erosion downstream caused by development of the site and or diversion of drainage. 46.Any grading that affects “waters of the United States”, wetlands or jurisdictional streambeds, shall require approval and necessary permits from respective Federal and/or State agencies. 47.The developer shall provide a copy of an encroachment permit and approved plans from the Riverside County Flood Control District and/or Caltrans for encroaching, maintenance, grading, or discharging into County flood control facilities or Caltrans right of way. 48.All required soils, geology, hydrology and hydraulic, and seismic reports shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Fees 49.The developer shall pay all Engineering Division assessed, Development Impact RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 9 of 24 Fees, Plan Check and Permit fees (LEMC 16.34). Applicable Development Impact Fees include: Railroad Canyon Road Benefit District, Stephens Kangaroo Habitat Fee (K-Rat), Traffic Infrastructure Fee (TIF), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and Area Drainage Fee. 50.Mitigation Fees will be assessed at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES Design: 51.The project is responsible for complying with the Santa Ana Region NPDES Permits as warranted based on the nature of development and/or activity. These Permits include: a.General Permit -Construction b.General Permit – Industrial c.Scrap Metal d.Deminimus Discharges e.MS4 52.The project shall complete and submit for review and approval to the Engineering Division BOTH a preliminary and final WQMP, incorporating the LID Principles and Stormwater BMPs. 53.The preliminary WQMP shall be approved prior to scheduling for Planning Commission; the final WQMP shall be approved prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. 54.Water Quality Facilities that service more than one parcel shall be placed in an easement to provide for maintenance and prevent obstruction. 55.The applicant shall use the Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County guidance document and template for WQMP preparation. 56.WQMP – The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used onsite to control identified pollutants of concern. The applicant shall utilize the MS4 Permittee Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), Model WQMP, and LID Guidance Manual for reference, and the MS4 Permittee’s WQMP template for submittal. This WQMP shall include the following: Detailed site and project description Potential stormwater pollutants Post-development drainage characteristics Low Impact Development (LID) BMP selection and analysis RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 10 of 24 Structural and Non-Structural source control BMPs Site design and drainage plan (BMP Exhibit) Vector issues are addressed in the BMP design, operation and maintenance. GIS coordinates for all LID and Treatment Control BMPs HCOC - demonstrate that discharge flow rates, velocities, duration and volume for the post construction condition from a 2 year and 10 year 24 hour rainfall event will not cause significant adverse impacts on downstream erosion and receiving waters, or measures are implemented to mitigate significant adverse impacts to downstream public facilities and water bodies. Design goal to replicate pre-development hydrologic regime. 57.The 2010 SAR MS4 Permit requires implementation of LID Principles and LID Site Design, where feasible, to treat the pollutants of concern identified for the project, in the following manner (from highest to lowest priority) : (Section XII.E.2, XII.E.3,and XII.E.7) Evaluation of highest and best use for sites discharging to Lake Elsinore. Preventative measures (these are mostly non-structural measures, e.g., preservation of natural features to a level consistent with the MEP standard; minimization of Urban Runoff through clustering, reducing impervious areas, etc.) The Project shall ‘Infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire and/or bio- treat the 85th percentile storm event also known as the Design Capture Volume (DCV). The Project shall consider a properly engineered and maintained bio- treatment system only if infiltration, harvesting and use and evapotranspiration cannot be feasibly implemented at the project site. Any portion of [the DCV] that is not infiltrated, harvested and used, evapotranspired, and/or biotreated shall be treated and discharged in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section XII.G. 58.Parking lot landscaping shall be designed to with concave landscape grading and provide for treatment, retention or infiltration of runoff. 59.Project hardscape areas shall be designed and constructed to provide for drainage into adjacent landscape and permeable surfaces in low traffic roads and parking lots. 60.Hydromodification / Hydraulic Conditions of Concern – The project shall identify potential Hydraulic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) and implement measures to limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; conserve natural areas; protect slopes, channels and minimize significant impacts from urban runoff. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 11 of 24 61.CEQA – If CEQA identifies resources requiring Clean Water Act Section 401 Permitting, the applicant shall obtain certification through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and provide a copy to the Engineering Division. 62.The project shall use either volume-based and/or flow-based criteria for sizing BMPs in accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4. Construction: 63.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this project. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request. 64.Erosion & Sediment Control -Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as a separate sheet of the grading plan submittal to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES Program, California Building Code, and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be property covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or waters by wind, rain, tracking, or dispersion. The plan shall also describe how the project will ensure that all BMPs will be maintained during construction of any future right of ways. Post Construction: 65.Recorded Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that (1) describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for BMPs identified in the BMP Exhibit; (2) identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs; (3) describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the referenced BMPs, and (4) provides for annual certification of water quality facilities by a registered civil engineer and/or the City for a fee if the service is available. 66.All storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked “Only Rain in the Storm Drain” using the City authorized marker to prevent illegal dumping in the drain system. 67.Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable NPDES permits for construction, industrial/commercial, MS4, etc. to include: Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMP’s) RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 12 of 24 described in the BMP Exhibit from the project’s approved WQMP have been implemented, constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Demonstrate that the project has complied with all non-structural BMPs described in the project’s WQMP. Provide signed, notarized certification from the engineer of work that the structural BMP’s identified in the project’s WQMP are installed and operational. Submit a copy of the fully executed, recorded Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. Demonstrate that copies of the project’s approved WQMP (with recorded O&M Plan attached) are available for each of the initial occupants (commercial/industrial) or Owner’s Association as appropriate. Agree to pay for a Special Investigation from the City of Lake Elsinore for a date twelve (12) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Use and/or Occupancy for the project to verify compliance with the approved WQMP and O&M Plan. A signed/sealed certification from the engineer of work dated 12 months after C of O will be considered in lieu of a Special Investigation by the City. Provide a recorded copy of one of the following: 1. CC&R’s (they must include the approved WQMP and O&M Plan) for the project’s Owners Association. 2. A water quality implementation agreement with the approved WQMP and O&M Plan attached; or 3. The final approved Water Quality Management Plan and Operations and Maintenance Plan. UTILITIES: 68.All arrangements for relocation of utility company facilities (power poles, vaults, etc.) out of the roadway shall be the responsibility of the property owner or his agent. 69.All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded in accordance with Chapter 12.16 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) 70.Underground water rights shall be dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.52.030 (LEMC), and consistent with the City’s agreement with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 71.The developer shall apply for, obtain and submit to the City Engineering Division a letter from Southern California Edison (SCE) indicating that the construction activity will not interfere with existing SCE facilities (aka SCE NIL). RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 13 of 24 72.The developer shall submit a copy of the "Will Serve" letter to the City Engineering Division from the applicable water agency stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project and specify the technical data for the water service at the location, such as water pressure and volume etc. IMPROVEMENTS Design 73.Sight distance into and out of the project location shall comply with CALTRANS Standards. 74.The developer shall install permanent bench marks per City of Lake Elsinore Standards at the intersection of the centerline of Riverside and the project entrance. 75.The developer shall install blue dot markers in the roadway at a right angle to Fire Hydrant locations per Lake Elsinore Standards. 76.The developer shall coordinate with Riverside Transit Authority for location and installation of bus transit facilities. 77.10 year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm runoff shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, drainage facilities shall be provided. 78.All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District Standards. 79.A drainage study shall be provided. The study shall identify the following: identify storm water runoff from and upstream of the site; show existing and proposed off- site and onsite drainage facilities; and include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff from a 10-yr storm of 6 hours or 24 hours duration under developed condition is equal or less than the runoff under existing conditions of the same storm frequency. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm duration shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 80.All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected and conveyed by a method approved by the City Engineer. All off- site drainage, if different from historic flow, shall be conveyed to a public facility, accepted by adjacent property owners by a letter of drainage acceptance, or RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 14 of 24 conveyed to a drainage easement. 81.Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs should drain to a landscaped area. 82.The site shall be planned and developed to keep surface water from entering buildings (California Green Building Standards Code 4.106.3). 83.All Public Works requirements shall be complied with as a condition of development as specified in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) and Lake Elsinore Public Works Standard Plans. 84.The owner shall dedicate in fee title to the City right-of-way along Riverside Drive adjacent to the property frontage for a total right-of-way of 60’ wide from centerline to the project property line. 85.The developer shall construct street improvements on Riverside Drive such that the ultimate right-of-way width conforms to General Plan cross section of Urban Arterial. The cross section of roadway improvements with a raised median (if applicable and if applicable, developer shall pay cash-in-lieu of construction of ½ the raised median), parkway, sidewalk, and street lights shall be consistent with other proposed development on Riverside Drive, as recommended by the City. 86.The developer shall construct half width Local Street improvements, with Riverside County Culdesac Standard, and City of Lake Elsinore Commercial Driveway Approach standard, and offer for irrevocable dedication the right of way on the proposed access street as shown on the site plan. The proposed access street shall be signed No Parking. 87.The developer shall stripe the EB approach to the Riverside Drive/Lincoln Avenue intersection to provide a dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane. 88.Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and the plans shall include curb and gutter, sidewalk, parkway, ac pavement, street lighting, signal modification, median, and drainage improvements. Plans shall be approved by Caltrans, and a Caltrans encroachment permit obtained. 89.The developer shall provide signing and striping plans for the required improvements of this project. The plans shall also incorporate traffic calming measures on local streets. 90.If existing improvements are to be modified, the existing improvement plans on file shall be modified accordingly and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 15 of 24 Permitting/Construction 91.An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to any work on City and/or State right-of-way. The developer shall submit the permit application, required fees and executed agreements, security and other required documentation prior to issuance. 92.All compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½" x 11" Mylar) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division before final inspection of public works improvements will be scheduled and approved. 93.All streets shall be constructed per Lake Elsinore City Standards and/or applicable specific plan. Any deviation from City standards shall be approved by the City Engineer. 94.The developer shall participate in “fair share” payment of offsite improvements for Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue as described in Section 6 of the Traffic Analysis dated December 14th, 2015 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 95.A portion of the required improvements for this development may be covered under the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Request for reimbursement or credits shall be approved by the City Engineer and based on allowable costs in the fee program and availability of funds. A TUMF Credit Agreement shall be approved and completed prior to building permit. Acceptance of Improvements 96.The developer shall submit a written request for acceptance to the City Engineer. 97.As-built plans shall be completed and signed by the City Engineer. GRADING Design: 98.A grading plan signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for City review and approval for all addition and/or movement of soil (grading) on the site. The plan shall include separate sheets for erosion control, haul route and traffic control. The grading submittal shall include all supporting documentation and be prepared using City standard title block, standard drawings and design manual (available at www.lake-elsinore.org). 99.All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50 feet beyond property lines to indicate existing drainage pattern. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 16 of 24 100.The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located near the project entrances that could reduce sight distance. 101.If the grading plan identifies alterations in the existing drainage patterns as they exit the site, a Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for review and approval by City Engineer shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. All grading that modifies the existing flow patterns and/or topography shall be approved by the City Engineer. 102.A seismic study shall be performed on the site to identify any hidden earthquake faults, liquefaction and/or subsidence zones present on-site. A certified letter from a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be submitted confirming the absence of this hazard. 103.The developer shall obtain all necessary off-site easements and/or permits for off- site grading and the applicant shall accept drainage from the adjacent property owners. Permit/Construction: 104.Developer shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post grading security and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance. 105.A preconstruction meeting with the City Public Works Inspector (Engineering Division) is required prior to commencement of ANY grading activity. 106.Developer shall provide the city with a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) letter issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program 107.Prior to commencement of grading operations, developer is to provide to the City with a map of all proposed haul routes to be used for movement of export material. All such routes shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Haul route shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit. Hauling in excess of 5,000 cy shall be approved by City Council. (LEMC 15.72.065) 108.Export sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have an active grading permit. 109.Applicant to provide to the City a video record of the condition of all proposed public City haul roads. In the event of damage to such roads, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. A bond may be required to ensure payment of damages to the public right-of-way, subject to the RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 17 of 24 approval of the City Engineer. 110.All grading shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be evaluated for stability and proper erosion control and approved by the City. 111.Review of the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and sediment and erosion control plan shall be completed. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon request. 112.Approval of the project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit. 113.Submit an approved environmental clearance document to the Engineering Division. This approval shall identify and clear all proposed grading activity anticipated for this project. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 114.Provide final soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls prior to building permit. 115.All required public right-of-way dedications and easements shall be prepared by the developer or his agent and shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permit. 116.All street improvement plans, traffic signal modification plans, signing and striping plans shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer. 117.All street improvement plans, traffic signal modification plans, signing and striping plans on Caltrans right of way shall be completed and approved by Caltrans, with an encroachment permit issued. 118.The developer shall pay all Capital Improvement TIF and Master Drainage Fees and Plan Check fees (LEMC 16.34). Prior to Occupancy 119.The traffic signals shall be relocated /operational to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 120.All signing and striping and traffic control devices for the required improvements of this development shall be installed. 121.All public improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 18 of 24 plans or as condition of this development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 122.The fair share cost of future improvements as a condition of this development shall be paid. 123.All water and sewer improvements shall be completed in accordance with Water District requirements. 124.Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, landscape areas, and drainage facilities shall be provided. 125.TUMF fees shall be paid. The TUMF fees shall be the effective rate at the time of payment in full in accordance with the LEMC. 126.As-built plans for all approved plan sets shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. The developer/developer/owner is responsible for revising the original mylar plans. 127.In the event of damage to City roads from hauling or other construction related activity, applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. 128.All final studies and reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ x 11” mylar) shall be submitted in .tif format on a CD/DVD. Studies and reports include, Soils, Seismic, Hydrology, Hydraulics, Grading, SWPPP, WQMP, etc. 129.All plan sets and recorded maps shall be digitized and provided on CD/DVD as follows: Final Map(s) - GIS Shape files* and .tif of recorded map. Improvement Plans – GIS Shape files* and .tif of approved as built mylar. Grading Plans - .tif of approved as built mylar. *GIS Shape files must be in projected Coordinate System: NAD 83 State Plane California Zone VI U.S. Fleet. 130.Final soil report showing compliance with recommendations, compaction reports, grade certifications, monument certifications (with tie notes delineated on 8 ½ x 11” mylar) shall be submitted in .tif format on CD to the Engineering Division before final inspection will be scheduled. 131.All required public right-of-way dedications shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City. 132.The developer shall pay fee in-lieu of construction of future median improvements RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 19 of 24 on Riverside Drive. The fee shall be equal to current cost estimate for improvements (including contingency) plus an additional 15% of the total construction cost estimate to cover design and administrative costs. The cost estimate shall be approved by City staff. 133.Prior to grading or building permit close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, developer shall: 134.Demonstrate that all structural BMPs have been constructed, installed and are functioning in conformance with approved plans and specifications and the WQMP; 135.Demonstrate that they are prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs included in the conditions of approval or building/grading permit conditions; 136.Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved project specific WQMP are available for the future owners/occupants; and 137.The developer shall provide all education guidelines for Water Quality Management Practices to the tenants, operators and owners of the businesses of the development, regarding the environmental awareness on good housekeeping practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality and meet the goals of the approved WQMP in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. Contact the City NPDES Coordinator for handout/guideline information. 138.The property owner (aka Legally Responsible Party) shall execute and cause to be recorded a “Covenant and Agreement” in the form provided by the City to inform future property owners of the requirement to implement the approved final project-specific WQMP. 139.Developer shall pay all outstanding applicable processing and development fees including but not all inclusive: TUMF, MSHCP, TIF, Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat and area drainage prior to occupancy/final approval. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL General Conditions 140.Lake Elsinore Fire Protection Planning Office Responsibility- It is the responsibility of the recipient of these Fire Department conditions to forward them to all interested parties. The permit number (as it is noted above) is required on all correspondence. Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Lake Elsinore Fire Protection Planning Division at 130 S. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 20 of 24 92530. Phone: (951) 674-3124 Ext. 225. The following fire department conditions shall be implemented in accordance with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the adopted codes at the time of project building plan submittal, these conditions are in addition to the adopted code requirements. 141.Blue Dot Reflectors - Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Dept. 142.Minimum Hydrant Fire Flow - Minimum required fire flow shall be 1,000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Average spacing between hydrants 500' and 250' maximum distance from any point on the street or road frontage to hydrant. 143.Super Fire Hydrants- Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2"), shall be located not less than 25 feet or more than 250 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant (s) in the system. 144.Hazardous Fire Area - The proposed project is located in a high or very high fire zone as adopted in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The project shall adhere to all high fire requirements as prescribed in the Title 24 Codes, any applicable state and local codes pertaining to high fire. The structures shall comply with Chapter 7 A of the Building Code and or Section R327 of the California Residential Code. Roofing Materials shall be classified at not less than class "A". 145.Minimum Access Standards-The following access requirements are required to be implemented to ensure fire department and emergency vehicular access. All roadways shall conform to the City of Lake Elsinore approved roadway standards but in no case shall the minimum fire department vehicular access be less the following provisions: 1.Twenty-four feet (24') clear width. Where parking is to be provided, each parking side shall be provided with eight (8') additional feet on each side of the fire department access. Where buildings exceed thirty feet (30') in height Fire Department access shall be increased to thirty feet (30') in unobstructed width along the building. 2. The required all weather vehicular access shall be able to support no less than 60,000 lbs. over 2 axles. 3. Roadway gradient shall not exceed 15% on any access road, driveways, and perimeter roads. 4. Turning Radius shall be 45' outside for all access roads. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 21 of 24 146.Secondary Access-In the interest of Public Safety, this project shall provide an Alternate or Secondary Access. Said access shall be constructed in accordance to the City of Lake Elsinore Engineering Department standards to accommodate full fire response and community evacuation. 147.Automatic I Manual Gates-Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lane (s) serving that gate and no less than 20 feet wide. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 40 foot turning radius shall be used. Gate access shall be equipped with a rapid entry system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic/manual gate pins shall be rated with shear pin force, not to exceed 30 foot pounds. Automatic gates shall be equipped with emergency backup power. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. Contact the Fire Planning office for current plan check fees system. Contact the Fire Planning office for current plan check fees. Prior to Building Permit Issuance 148.Plan Check Fee-Building plan check fees shall be made payable to the “City of Lake Elsinore”, and shall be submitted to the Fire Department at the time of plan submittal. 149.Water System Plans-Applicant and/or developer shall submit 2 sets of water system plans to the Fire Department for review. The plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and/or water purveyor prior to Fire Department review and approval. Mylars will be signed by the Fire Department after review and approval. Two (2) copies of the signed and approved water plans shall be returned to the Fire Department before release of a building permit. 150.Prior to Building Construction Verification-This project shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Marshal or designee prior to bringing combustible materials on site. During said inspection all permanent road signs shall be in place, all hydrants shall on operating and approved for use by the water purveyor, and all permanent road surfaces shall be completed including primary and secondary access circulation. Prior to Building Final Inspection 151.Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems for Multi-family 13R- Install a complete fire sprinkler system designed in accordance with California Residential Code, California Fire Code and adopted standards. A C-16 licensed contractor must RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 22 of 24 submit plans, along with the current fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 152.Designated Fire Lanes- The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/ or signs. 153.Display Boards- Display Boards will be as follows: Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit members, and fire hydrant locations within dimension and located next to roadway access. 154.Multi-family Residential Knox Rapid Entry Box-A rapid entry Knox Box shall be installed on the outside of the building.Key(s)shall have durable and legible tags affixed for identification of the correlating common space/electrical rooms.Special forms are available from this office for ordering the Knox Box.If the building /facility is protected with a fire alarm or burglar alarm system,it is recommended that the lock box be "tamper"monitored. 155.Fire Extinguishers (Multi-Family)-Minimum Install portable fire extinguishers complying with Section 906 of the 2013 California Fire Code with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC and signage. Fire Extinguishers located in public areas shall be in recessed cabinets mounted 48" (inches) to center above floor level with maximum 4" projection from the wall.Contact Fire Dept.for proper placement of equipment prior to installation. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services CFD 156.Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, or Conditional Use Permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 (Safety) the Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations and maintenance issues in the City. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Public Safety services. Applicant shall make a seven thousand five hundred dollar ($7,500) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. Annex into the City of Lake Elsinore Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 23 of 24 157.Prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, Residential Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or building permit (as applicable), the applicant shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Maintenance Services) to fund the on-going operation and maintenance of the public right-of-way landscaped areas and neighborhood parks to be maintained by the City and for street lights in the public right-of-way for which the City will pay for electricity and a maintenance fee to Southern California Edison, including parkways, open space and public storm drains constructed within the development and federal NPDES requirements to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project. Alternatively, the applicant may propose alternative financing mechanisms to fund the annual negative fiscal impacts of the project with respect to Maintenance Services. Applicant shall make a seven thousand five hundred dollar ($7,500) non-refundable deposit to cover the cost of the annexation, formation or other mitigation process, as applicable. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 158.The Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program ((MMRP) for (EIR or MND), which was adopted for this project. RDR 2014-05 PC: 08/02/2016 Conditions of Approval CC: 08/09/2016 Applicants Initials: _____Page 24 of 24 I hereby state that I acknowledge receipt of the approved Conditions of Approval for the above named project and do hereby agree to accept and abide by all Conditions of Approval as approved by the City of Lake Elsinore . I also acknowledge that all Conditions shall be met as indicated. Date: Applicant’s Signature: Print Name: Address: Phone Number: RIVERSIDE DRGRAND AVEMACHADO STJOY STLINCOLN ST MACY STQUAIL DRLEHR DR ULLA LN LAKE CREST DR HILL STTEAKWOOD ST MIMOSA DR MICHELE DRLE HARVE AVE HIGHLANDS RDDO LLY DRROBIN DRLARSON RD LE GAYE ST KEEL DRDEBERA DREISENHOWER DR RIVERSIDE DRGRAND AVEMACHADO STJOY STLINCOLN ST MACY STQUAIL DRLEHR DR ULLA LN LAKE CREST DR HILL STTEAKWOOD ST MIMOSA DR MICHELE DRLE HARVE AVE HIGHLANDS RDDO LLY DRROBIN DRLARSON RD LE GAYE ST KEEL DRDEBERA DREISENHOWER DR Residential Design Review No. 2014-05 PR OJECT SITE ´ RIVERSIDE DRGRAND AVEMACHADO STJOY STLINCOLN ST MACY STQUAIL DRLEHR DR ULLA LN LAKE CREST DR HILL STTEAKWOOD ST MIMOSA DR MICHELE DRLE HARVE AVE HIGHLANDS RDDO LLY DRROBIN DRLARSON RD LE GAYE ST KEEL DRDEBERA DREISENHOWER DR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityRIVERSIDE DRGRAND AVEMACHADO STJOY STLINCOLN ST MACY STQUAIL DRLEHR DR ULLA LN LAKE CREST DR HILL STTEAKWOOD ST MIMOSA DR MICHELE DRLE HARVE AVE HIGHLANDS RDDO LLY DRROBIN DRLARSON RD LE GAYE ST KEEL DRDEBERA DREISENHOWER DR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity Residential Design Review No. 2014-05 PR OJECT SITE ´ SINITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAKEPOINTE APARTMENTS Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 2016-01) Lead Agency: City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 951.674.3124 Ext. 284 Point of Contact: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner Jkirk@lake-elsinore.org Prepared By: Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 951.265.5428 Point of Contact: Matthew Fagan, Owner matthewfagan@roadrunner.com Applicant: Lakeside Pointe, LLC 43414 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 951.551.5433 Point of Contact: Steve Rawlings ser@rawlingspm.com July 2016 Lakepointe Apartments Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 1 C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................. 2 D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 2 E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 3 F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES ............ 4 G. TECHNICAL STUDIES ................................................................................................................................................... 5 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 6 A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 6 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................................. 10 A. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 11 C. DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 12 A. AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................................................... 20 B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 22 C. AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 TABLE C-1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ............................................................ 25 TABLE C-2 LOCAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AT THE NEAREST RECEPTORS ........... 26 TABLE C-3 OPERATIONAL REGIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ..................................................... 27 TABLE C-4 LOCAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS AT THE NEAREST RECEPTORS ............. 28 TABLE C-5 PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS ANNUAL EMISSIONS .............................................................. 31 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 33 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................ 36 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................................... 39 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................................... 42 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................ 45 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................................... 49 J. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................... 50 K. NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 TABLE K-1 WORST-CASE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ......................................... 52 TABLE K-2 PROPOSED EXTERIOR PATIO/BALCONY NOISE LEVELS PRIOR TO MITIGATION ........................... 53 TABLE K-3 PROPOSED MITIGATED EXTERIOR PATIO/BALCONY NOISE LEVELS................................................ 53 TABLE K-4 EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION RATES. ........................................................................... 54 TABLE K-5 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 56 L. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................................ 58 M. PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 N. RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 61 O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE O-1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 63 TABLE O-1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 64 FIGURE O-2 OPENING YEAR (2017) PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................ 65 TABLE O-2 OPENING YEAR PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ........................................................... 66 FIGURE O-3 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................................ 67 TABLE O-3 CUMULATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 68 P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................... 71 Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................. 74 V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED .................................................................. 75 A. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ......................................................................................................................................... 75 Lakepointe Apartments B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ..................................................................................................................... 75 C. OTHER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ................................................................................................................ 75 ATTACHMENT A - FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 77 FIGURES – ATTACHMENT A FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 SITE PLAN FIGURE 3A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3B RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4 PRELIMINARY WQMP SITE PLAN FIGURE 5 GENERAL PLAN MAP FIGURE 6 ZONING MAP FIGURE 7 AERIAL PHOTO FIGURE 8 GEOTRACKER SITE FIGURE 9 ENVIROSTOR SITE FIGURE 10 FARMLAND FIGURE 11 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES/WILLIAMSON ACT FIGURE 12 FAULT ZONE TECHNICAL APPENDICES (Located in the CD in a pocket at the back of this IS/MND) • Appendix A: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 19, 2015. • Appendix B: Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Report, accessed on June 13, 2016. • Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005. • Appendix D: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive, southwest of Eisenhower Drive Lake Elsinore, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, January 3, 2006. • Appendix E: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments, prepared by MLB Engineering, January 12, 2016. • Appendix F: Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 25, 2015. • Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California, prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc., October 22, 2015. • Appendix H: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Pre-Planning Letter No. CRS# 1767, May 15, 2014. • Appendix I: Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt. • Appendix J: Notice of Completion. • Appendix K: IS/MND Distribution List. Lakepointe Apartments 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE. This document is an Initial Study and Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of a 150-unit multi-family development, on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090-022 (“Project”). Reference Figure 1, Vicinity Map. One (1) application has been submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore in association with the Project: • Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. As defined by Section 15063, Initial Study, of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. According to Section 15065(a), Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur: • The project has the potential to: substantially 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; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. • The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals. • The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. • The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. According to Section 15070(a), Decision to Prepare a Negative of Mitigated Negative Declaration, of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. According to Section 15070(b), Decision to Prepare a Negative of Mitigated Negative Declaration, of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if identifies potentially significant effects, but: • Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and Lakepointe Apartments 2 • There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. This IS/MND has determined that the Project will result in potentially significant environmental impacts; however, mitigation measures are proposed that will reduce any potentially significant impact to less than significance levels. As such, a MND is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance. This IS/MND has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law. The City of Lake Elsinore City Council is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050, Lead Agency Concept, of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have significant effects upon the environment. C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. This IS/MND is an informational document which is intended to inform City of Lake Elsinore decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the Project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt prepared for the MND will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document will be considered by the Lead Agency before it acts on the proposed applications. D. CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. This IS/MND is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed applications. I. INTRODUCTION presents an introduction to the entire report. This section identifies City of Lake Elsinore contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the Project, a description of discretionary approvals and permits required for Project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM contains the City's Environmental Checklist Form. The checklist form presents the results of the environmental evaluation for the Project and those issue areas that would have either a significant impact, potentially significant impact, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS evaluates each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked in the checklist form is discussed and supported with sufficient data and Lakepointe Apartments 3 analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with Project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also recommended, as appropriate, to reduce adverse impacts to levels of less than significance. This Section also includes the Mandatory Findings of Significance, in accordance with Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the State CEQA Guidelines. V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those persons consulted and involved in preparation of this IS/MND. E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses will take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: • No Impact: A “No Impact” response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply as a result of implementation of the Project. • Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with Project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and explain how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • Potentially Significant Impact: Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis and possibly an EIR are required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. This environmental document evaluates impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project during the construction and operational phases. Regarding mitigation measures, it is not the intent of this document to “overlap” or restate conditions of approval or standard Project design features that are established for the Project. Additionally, those other standard requirements and regulations that any development must comply with, that are outside the City’s jurisdiction, are also not considered mitigation measures and therefore, may or may not be identified in this document. Lakepointe Apartments 4 F. TIERED DOCUMENTS, INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, AND TECHNICAL STUDIES. Information, findings, and conclusions contained in this document are based on incorporation by reference of tiered documentation, and technical studies that have been prepared for the Project, which are discussed in the following section. a) Tiered Documents. As permitted in Section 15152(a), Tiering, of the State 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 General Plan Update Final EIR” (adopted in 2011) serves as the broader document, since it analyzes the entire City area, which includes the Project site. However, as discussed, site-specific impacts which the broader document (City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final EIR) cannot adequately address, may occur for certain issue areas. This IS/MND evaluates each of those specific environmental issue area sand will rely upon analysis contained within the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Update Final EIR (General Plan EIR) with respect to remaining issue areas. Tiering also allows this document to comply with Section 15152(b), Tiering, of the State 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 EIR 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), Tiering, of the State 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 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 EIR; 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 EIRs 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 Lakepointe Apartments 5 useful when an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on a broadly-drafted EIR for its evaluation of cumulative impacts of related projects (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation v. County of Los Angeles [1986, 177 Ca.3d 300]). If an EIR or Negative Declaration relies on information from a supporting study that is available to the public, the EIR or Negative Declaration 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 General Plan EIR, prepared in 2011. When an EIR or Negative Declaration incorporates a document by reference, the incorporation must comply with Section 15150, Incorporation By Reference, of the State CEQA Guidelines as follows: • The incorporated document must be available to the public or be a matter of public record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[a]), Incorporation By Reference. The General Plan EIR shall be made available, along with this document, at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. • This document must be available for inspection by the public at an office of the lead agency (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[b]), Incorporation By Reference. This document is available at the City of Lake Elsinore, Community Development Department, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. • This document must summarize the portion of the document being incorporated by reference or briefly describe information that cannot be summarized. Furthermore, this document must describe the relationship between the incorporated information and the analysis in the General Plan EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[c]), Incorporation By Reference. As discussed above, the General Plan EIR addresses the entire City of Lake Elsinore 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 (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[d]), Incorporation By Reference. The State Clearinghouse Number for the General Plan EIR is 2005121019. • The material to be incorporated in this document will include general background information (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150[f]), Incorporation By Reference. G. TECHNICAL STUDIES. The following technical studies were prepared for the Project and are available on the CD located in a pocket at the back of this IS/MND: • Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 19, 2015. • Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive, southwest of Eisenhower Drive Lake Elsinore, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, January 3, 2006. • Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments, prepared by MLB Engineering, January 12, 2016. • Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 25, 2015. • Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California, prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc., October 22, 2015. Lakepointe Apartments 6 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING. The Project site is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School. Refer to Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The site is contained within portions of Sections 11, 2, and 3, Township 6 South and Range 5 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, 7.5 Minute Series, Alberhill, California Quadrangle and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090- 022. The proposed Project site totals approximately 8.27 acres. The proposed Project site is located west of Riverside Drive and north of Grand Avenue and Lakeside High School. It is bordered on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a small commercial center. There is a single-family development west of the vacant land and north of the commercial center. The proposed Project site has elevations ranging from about 1,268 - 1,284 feet above mean sea level (MSL). An unimproved dirt road trending roughly northwest/southeast traverses the Project site from Riverside Drive to the northwesterly adjacent residential neighborhood. A small walnut grove is present in the north corner of the Project site. The ground surface cover consists of exposed soil with moderate native grass and weed growth over the majority of the Project site and exposed soil with sparse native grass and weed growth in the walnut grove area. There are no water resources on the proposed Project site; however, it is approximately 0.26 miles west of Lake Elsinore, across Riverside Drive. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Introduction Lakeside Pointe, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi-family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located within the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County, California. Residential Design Review 2014-05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the entire approximately 8.27-acre proposed Project site, for an overall Project density of approximately 18.14 dwelling units per acre. A more detailed Project description is provided in the following text. 2. Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05) The City of Lake Elsinore has deemed a quality physical environment as being necessary for the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare and has therefore enacted Chapter 17.184, Design Review, of the City’s Municipal Code in order to establish a design review process for development proposals and design concepts in order to ensure that new development, or the alteration of existing development, occurs in a manner which enhances the character and quality of surrounding properties and that the scale, special relationships and architectural treatment of structures including materials, colors, and design, visually contribute to the area and environment in which they are located. The design review process is also intended to apply to the ancillary elements of projects such as signs and landscaping in order to ensure that the overall development maintains the same integrity of design as approved for the primary structure(s). 3. Overall Description A total of 150 units are proposed within ten (10) individual buildings. The proposed Project will be a gated complex. Access to the proposed Project will be via the proposed street on the north side of the Project site, which will be a cul-de-sac. A secondary, gated emergency access will be provided on the west side of the Project Lakepointe Apartments 7 site, exiting onto Riverside Drive. A drive lane is proposed in the middle of the proposed Project and the units will encircle the central parking areas. All structures will be internal to the proposed Project site. There will be ten residential buildings total. Buildings will range from 8,986 square feet (sq. ft.) to 22,100 sq. ft. Refer to Figure 2, Residential Design Review 2014-05 Site Plan. The building/unit breakdowns are as follows: Building Number Square Feet 1 Bedroom Units 2 Bedroom Units 3 Bedroom Units Total Units 1 22,100 18 0 4 22 2 17,276 8 0 8 16 3 17,276 8 0 8 16 4 8,986 0 8 0 8 5 17,921 0 16 0 16 6 17,921 0 16 0 16 7 17,921 0 16 0 16 8 15,975 0 8 8 16 9 17,921 0 16 0 16 10 8,986 0 8 0 8 Totals 162,283 34 88 28 150 Site breakdowns (by overall site percentage of the Project site) are as follows: • Buildings: approximately 22.5%; • Hardscape/pavement/parking: approximately 53.6%; and • Landscaping/open space: approximately 23.9%. On-site recreational amenities will be located in both the north and south portions of the proposed Project site. On the north part of the Project site, adjacent to the main entry, there will be a 1,619 square foot clubhouse that will house the leasing office, a conference room, multi-purpose room, kitchen, pool equipment, and utility area. The proposed pool area is west of the clubhouse and includes a b-b-q counter, cabanas, and a fireplace. A tot lot is provided on the south side of the Project site between buildings 6 and 7. Drive lane widths internal to the proposed Project will be a minimum of 28’. Per the City’s Development Code, 150 covered parking spaces and 178 open parking spaces are required; 150 covered parking spaces and 189 uncovered spaces are provided. There are 339 spaces total, including 17 ADA spaces. Building Architecture and Materials Buildings 2 through 10 are two-stories, approximately 28’ tall. Building 1 is three-stories and is 38’ tall. The clubhouse is one-story and is 17’ 4” tall. The buildings are to be designed with stucco exterior walls in 2 colors with decorative window surrounds and a stone wainscot. Concrete tile roofing is proposed. Building colors and finishes are: • Stucco Color 1: Frazee “Cheer” • Stucco Color 2: Frazee “Arizona White” • Roof Tile: American Eagle Ponderosa 5530 Weathered Adobe • Stone: El Dorado Pacific Ledge Stone Color: Cordovan Lakepointe Apartments 8 Refer to Figures 3a and 3b, Residential Design Review 2014-05 Elevations. Circulation The Project proposes one primary access point from to be taken from the proposed cul-de-sac at the north of the site. The roadway will be built to City standards and offered for dedication to the City. Until the City accepts the dedication, it will be maintained by the apartment owner. A secondary, gated, emergency access will be provided on to Riverside Drive. No daily traffic will utilize this access. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue for the Cumulative condition. The Caltrans Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) Analysis shows that the minor street approach (Grand Avenue) meets and exceeds the volume required to warrant a traffic signal (354 AM peak hour vehicles and 442 PM peak hour vehicles), regardless of the through traffic on Riverside Drive. Drainage / Hydrology / Water Quality Drainage will be channeled from the buildings and imperious surfaces into storm drain facilities, bio retention landscape areas, flowing into a bioretention swale, as depicted on Figure 4, Preliminary WQMP Site Plan, through a system of roof drains and storm drains, respectively. Flows will be released into the exiting curb and gutter on Riverside Avenue, and will be picked up by existing Caltrans facilities. Sewer and Water Facilities The proposed Project will tie into existing water Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) facilities. An existing 8” water line is located to the north of the proposed Project access street and continues into Riverside Drive. Wastewater treatment will also be handled by EVMWD facilities. The Project will have to construct an 8” sewer line that will tie into the existing sewer on the SE side of Riverside Drive, along the Project’s frontage. Utilities All utilities and public services are currently available on, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site. Utility and Service providers are as follows: •Electricity:Southern California Edison •Water:Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District •Sewer:Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District •Cable:Verizon/Time Warner •Gas:Southern California Gas Company •Telephone:Verizon/Time Warner Construction Scenario The Project is expected to begin construction in December 2016 and take approximately eleven (11) months to complete. The phases of the construction activities described below are as outlined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report prepared for the Project and is provided as Appendix A of this IS/MND. Site Preparation The site preparation phase would consist of removing any vegetation, tree stumps, and stones onsite prior to Lakepointe Apartments 9 grading. The site preparation phase was anticipated to start around June 2016 and was modeled as occurring over two weeks. The site preparation activities would require up to 18 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, six vendor truck emissions were added to the site preparation phase. The onsite equipment would consist of three rubber tired dozers and four of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default equipment mix. The mitigation of water all exposed areas three times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Grading The grading phase would occur after the completion of the site preparation phase and is anticipated to take approximately four weeks to complete. The proposed grading is balanced, which would result in no dirt being imported or exported from the Project site. The grading activities would require up to 15 worker trips per day. In order to account for water truck emissions, six vendor truck emissions were added to the grading phase. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one excavator, one grader, one rubber tired dozer, and three of either a tractor, loader or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. The mitigation of water all exposed areas three times per day was chosen in order to account for the fugitive dust reduction that would occur through adhering to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that the Best Available Control Measures be utilized to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Building Construction The building construction would occur after the completion of the grading phase. The building construction phase was modeled based on occurring over 11 months. The building construction would require up to 112 worker trips and 17 vendor trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of one crane, three forklifts, one generator set, one welder, and three of either a tractor, loader, or backhoe, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Paving The paving would occur after the completion of the building construction phase. The paving phase was modeled based on the paving of the onsite roads and parking spaces that would require paving approximately two acres of the Project site. The paving activities would occur over four weeks and would require up to 15 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of the simultaneous operation of two pavers, two paving equipment, and two rollers, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Architectural Coating The application of architectural coatings would occur after the completion of the paving phase. The architectural coating phase was modeled based on covering 307,800 square feet of residential interior area, 102,600 square feet of residential exterior area, and 325 square feet of non-residential area. The architectural coating phase would occur over two months and would require approximately 22 worker trips per day. The onsite equipment would consist of one air compressor, which is based on the CalEEMod default equipment mix. Lakepointe Apartments 10 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND. 1. Project Title: Lakepointe Apartments: Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Lake Elsinore; 130 South Main Street; Lake Elsinore, CA.92530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner, (951) 674-3124, extension 284. 4. Project Location: Northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022 (“Project”). Reference Figure 1, Vicinity Map. 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Lakeside Pointe, LLC, 43414 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. 6. General Plan Designation: • Residential Mixed-Use (RMU), Reference Figure 5, General Plan Map 7. Zoning: • Residential Mixed-Use (RMU), Reference Figure 6, Zoning Map 8. Description of Project: Lakeside Pointe, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi-family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located within the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County, California. Residential Design Review 2014- 05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the entire approximately 8.27-acre proposed Project site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed Project site is located west of Riverside Drive and north of Grand Avenue and Lakeside High School. It is bordered on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a small commercial center. There is a single-family development west of the vacant land and north of the commercial center. Figure 7, Aerial Photo. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: • Department of Transportation, District 8. Lakepointe Apartments 11 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality & GHG Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Matl’s. Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this 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 a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the incorporated mitigation measures and 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. 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. 7-1-16 Justin Kirk for Grant Taylor, Director of Community Development Date Lakepointe Apartments 12 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A. AESTHETICS. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?  c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?  d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?  B. 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 an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: 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?  b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?  c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?  C. AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS. 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 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 federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?  d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  Lakepointe Apartments 13 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?  f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?  g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?  D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 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, 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 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 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?  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?  E. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?  b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?  Lakepointe Apartments 14 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonto- logical resource or site or unique geologic feature?  d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?  e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?  F. 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 State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?  ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?  iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?  iv) Landslides?  b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  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?  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?  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?  G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?  b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?  Lakepointe Apartments 15 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste 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, within two miles or 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?  g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere 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, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?  H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?  b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?  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?  Lakepointe Apartments 16 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?  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?  f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?  g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?  h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?  i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?  j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?  I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?  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?  c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?  J. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?  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?  K. NOISE. Would the Project result in: Lakepointe Apartments 17 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 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 or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?  L. 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?  M. 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?  c) Schools?  d) Parks?  Lakepointe Apartments 18 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Other public facilities?  N. RECREATION. Would the Project: a) 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) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?  b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?  c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?  d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  e) Result in inadequate emergency access?  f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?  g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?  P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?  b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?  Lakepointe Apartments 19 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?  d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?  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?  f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?  g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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?  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.)  c) Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?  Lakepointe Apartments 20 This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. A. AESTHETICS a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is located in the northwestern corner of Lake Elsinore (Lake View District) and will be visible from the lake, from the west, and from some parts of the community on the eastside of Lake Elsinore. The views of Lake Elsinore and the escarpments of the Santa Ana Mountains (to the west) constitute the most prominent scenic features of the community. According to the General Plan, the greatest variety of residential and commercial opportunities exists within the southeastern areas of the Lake View District particularly along Riverside Drive. (reference Figure LV-1, Lake View District, of the General Plan). As the mixed-use corridor along Riverside Drive transitions into a neighborhood commercial district, additional opportunities will increase and provide a catalyst for redevelopment and development of the entire area. It will be important to maintain and enhance pedestrian paths to these areas and recreational camping areas just south of Riverside Drive. As the northwestern and northeastern portions of the Lake View District are developed, it will be important to integrate these more remote areas to the central and southeastern areas of the Lake View District. As such, the Lake View District will result in a transition from a higher density and mixed-use area in the southeast to the lower density uses in the central, northern and western areas with strong pedestrian oriented ties throughout. Development of the Project will not affect the scenic views of the Santa Ana Mountains because the site is adjacent to the Lake and the proposed structures are not tall enough to visually intrude into the face of the mountain escarpment which tower more than 1,500 feet above the area (the highest elevation of structures on the site is 1,315 feet while, the mountain escarpments behind the lake range between 2,800 and 3,000 feet in height.). The colors and materials of the Project are similar to the other new development along Riverside Avenue. Because the visual backdrop of the community is not being affected by the Project, the Project will not have a significant impact on any scenic vista. At a Project level, the Project sites will be visible from Riverside Avenue, adjacent residents, and by the high school. The view from Riverside Avenue will be of the landscaped frontage and building fronts. Views of the Project from adjacent uses will be mitigated by the required site landscaping and the architectural details and building colors. Any Project-level visual impacts will be addressed through the City’s design review process which will ensure compliance with City zoning and design standards regulating building design, mass, bulk, height, colors, etc. In addition, the City has a policy to require that the principles of four-sided architecture be applied to all projects. Project architecture consists of the inclusion of appropriate architectural detailing on all exterior elevations of the building. Implementing four-sided architecture means that the Project will be compatible on all sides with the surrounding area. Based upon this discussion of the large and small-scale aesthetic issues, the Project will have a less than significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. As a result, any scenic impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 21 b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No Impact The Project is located adjacent to State Route 74 (Riverside Avenue). Riverside Avenue has not been designated a scenic highway where it is adjacent to the Project site. There are no scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings on the Project site. Therefore, the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. c) Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact The development of the Project site is not expected to degrade the existing visual character of the area. The proposed Project site is located west of Riverside Drive and north of Grand Avenue and Lakeside High School. It is bordered on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a small commercial center. There is a single-family development west of the vacant land and north of the commercial center. Given the current General Plan land use designation and the overall visual character of the surrounding area, the aesthetic character of the area will not be compromised by the Project. This aesthetic and design consistency is ensured through the City’s design review process. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are required. d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Light and glare from new street lights, vehicles, and the future land uses will be generated and will contribute to the amount of light and glare experienced in the Project vicinity. The Project sites are located within an urbanized area which already experiences some levels of light and/or glare from the existing development. Development of the Project will require design review approval by the City of Lake Elsinore. The City’s design review process is intended to ensure that future development will be designed to ensure design compatibility and to alleviate light and/or glare disturbances outside of the Project boundary. With the implementation of the Mitigation Measure AES-1, below, any impacts will remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES AES-1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Building Department shall ensure that all exterior light fixtures and outside area lighting is directed away from off-site residences and uses to comply with City design standards and building codes. Lakepointe Apartments 22 B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a) Would the Project Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact According to the Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), located at the following web address that contains information specific to the Project APN, the Project site is designated as “Urban-Built Up Land” and “Local Importance”: http://tzvmag01.rivcoit.org/Riverside_Report/PublicAPN_Report.aspx?APN=379090022&Lat=2189933.56 751812&Long=6217827.93264567&MapURL=http%3a%2f%2ftzvmag01.rivcoit.org%2fGeocortex%2fEssen tials%2fREST%2fTempFiles%2fExport.png%3fguid%3d13a3305f-1317-46ec-860e- d30033f9213d%26contentType%3dimage%252Fpng&ImageryURL=http%3a%2f%2ftzvmag01.rivcoit.org%2 fGeocortex%2fEssentials%2fREST%2fTempFiles%2fExport.png%3fguid%3dc7db395a-c503-42e9-adc0- abea43a2e50c%26contentType%3dimage%252Fpng&st= No farming is currently being conducted on the Project site, or in the immediate area. Therefore, development of the Project will not 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 (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/riv12_w.pdf), to non-agricultural use. Reference Figure 10, Farmland. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact According to the RCIT, located at the aforementioned web address that contains information specific to the Project APN, the Project site is not with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Reference Figure 11, Agricultural Preserves/Williamson Act. Therefore, implementation of the Project (both Project sites) will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact According to a site visit and review of an aerial photo, the Project site, and adjacent parcels are not being utilized for agricultural cultivation. Based on this information, implementation of the Project will not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 23 C. AIR QUALITY The following technical study was prepared to address issues related to air quality, and is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Air Quality and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 19, 2015 (AQ/GHG Analysis). Please refer to Section 1.0 (Introduction), Section 2.0 (Pollutants), Section 3.0 (Air Quality Management), Section 4.0 (Atmospheric Setting), Section 5.0 (Modeling Parameters and Assumptions), and 6.0 (Thresholds of Significance) of the AQ/GHG Study, for additional details utilized for the impact analysis below. a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, Environmental Setting, requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans (GPs) and regional plans. The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project includes the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Master Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key criteria of consistency: • Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and/or, • Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated below. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the AQ/GHG Analysis, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance. The long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts. The analysis in the AQ/GHG Analysis found that the operation of the proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not be projected to exceed the local thresholds of significance. Therefore, no long-term impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Based on the information provided above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion. Lakepointe Apartments 24 Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2012-2035 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this Project, the City of Lake Elsinore Lake View District Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The Project site is currently designated as Residential Mixed Use in the General Plan and is zoned Residential/Mixed-Use (RMU). The proposed Project would consist of the development of 150 apartment units on 8.27-acres, which would result in a density of 18.14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project is not consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.86.040, that limits projects with only residential units in the RMU zone to a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. However, Riverside Transit Bus Route 8 has a bus stop that is located approximately 210 feet northeast of the Project site and Municipal Code Section 17.86.060(B)(7) allows projects that are located within 1,500 feet of the Project site a density bonus up to 35 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed Project would be within the allowable density that is allowed for RMU and would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact Construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts as well as potential toxic air impacts. Construction-Related Regional Impacts The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from the proposed Project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Section 5.1 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. The worst-case daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table C-1, Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The CalEEMod daily printouts are shown in Appendix A of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Lakepointe Apartments 25 Table C-1 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation1 Onsite2 5.08 54.63 41.11 0.04 9.98 6.58 Offsite3 0.12 0.60 1.55 0.00 0.25 0.07 Total 5.20 55.23 42.66 0.04 10.23 6.65 Grading1 Onsite 3.67 38.45 26.08 0.03 4.75 3.34 Offsite 0.10 0.59 1.38 0.00 0.22 0.07 Total 3.77 39.04 27.46 0.03 4.97 3.41 Building Construction Onsite 3.41 28.51 18.51 0.03 1.97 1.85 Offsite 0.56 2.00 7.85 0.02 1.39 0.40 Total 3.97 30.51 26.36 0.05 3.36 2.25 Paving Onsite 2.17 20.30 14.73 0.02 1.14 1.05 Offsite 0.05 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.17 0.05 Total 2.22 20.37 15.49 0.02 1.31 1.10 Architectural Coatings Onsite 26.83 2.19 1.87 0.00 0.17 0.17 Offsite 0.08 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.25 0.07 Total 26.91 2.29 2.99 0.00 0.42 0.24 SCQAMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Site preparation and grading emissions based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Onsite emissions from equipment not operated on public roads. 3 Offsite emissions from vehicles operating on public roads. Table C-1 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Construction-Related Local Impacts Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local criteria pollutant impacts created from construction-related fugitive dust and construction equipment and from toxic air contaminants created from diesel emissions. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The local air quality emissions from Project construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). In order to determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Lakepointe Apartments 26 Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table C-2, Local Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases. Table C-2 Local Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation1 54.63 41.11 9.98 6.58 Grading1 38.45 26.08 4.75 3.34 Building Construction 28.51 18.51 1.97 1.85 Paving 20.30 14.73 1.14 1.05 Architectural Coatings 2.19 1.87 0.17 0.17 SCAQMD Thresholds for 150 feet (46 meters)2 408 2,586 35 10 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Site preparation and grading emissions based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is Lakeside High School with structures as near as 150 feet (46 meters) from the Project site. The data provided in Table C-2 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed Project. According to SCAQMD’s methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk.” “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk- assessment methodology. Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Operational Emissions The on-going operation of the proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the Project-generated vehicle trips and through operational emissions from the on-going use of the proposed Project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to: regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on- going operations of the proposed Project. The potential operations-related air emissions have been analyzed below for the regional and local criteria pollutant emissions and cumulative impacts. Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations-related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in Section 5.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. The worst-case summer or winter volatile organic compound (VOC), NOx, CO, Sulfur Dioxode (SO2), PM10, and PM2.5 daily criteria pollutant emissions created from the proposed Project’s long-term Lakepointe Apartments 27 operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table C-3, Operational Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. The CalEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix A of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Table C-3 Operational Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources1 3.83 0.15 12.70 0.00 0.07 0.07 Energy Usage2 0.06 0.53 0.22 0.00 0.04 0.04 Mobile Sources3 3.90 12.85 43.64 0.12 8.06 2.27 Total Emissions 7.79 13.53 56.56 0.12 8.17 2.38 SCQAMD Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: 1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of emissions from natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. The data provided in Table C-3, above shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the Project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analysis analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts from onsite diesel trucks. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with Project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. The locations selected for microscaling modeling in the CO Plan were the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the proposed Project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 28 Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from on-site operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table C-4, Local Criteria Pollutant Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, and vehicles operating on-site and the calculated emissions thresholds. Table C-4 Local Criteria Pollutant Operational Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) On-Site Emission Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.07 6.40 0.03 0.03 Energy Usage 0.66 0.28 0.05 0.05 Onsite Vehicle Emissions1 1.13 4.11 0.72 0.20 Total Emissions 1.86 10.79 0.80 0.28 SCAQMD Thresholds for 150 feet (46 meters)2 270 1,746 4 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Onsite vehicle emissions based on 1/8 of the gross vehicular emissions, which is the estimated portion of vehicle emissions occurring within a quarter mile of the Project site. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is Lakeside High School with structures as near as 150 feet (46 meters) from the Project site. The data provided in Table C-4 shows that the on-going operations of the proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance discussed above in Section 6.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed Project would create a less than significant operations-related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions. No mitigation is required. Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips generated by the proposed residential Project, a less than significant toxic air contaminant impact would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Based on the information above, implementation of the Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts will remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 29 c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the Project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel throughout the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature. The Project area is out of attainment with Federal and/or State standards for ozone and PM10, and PM2.5. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts incorporates a three-tiered approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts. • Consistency with the SCAQMD project specific thresholds for construction and operations; • Project consistency with existing air quality plans; and • Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants. Consistency with Project Specific Thresholds Construction-Related Impacts The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently designated by the EPA as a non- attainment area for ozone and PM2.5. Development of the proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emissions of the precursors to ozone and PM2.5 during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur from construction of the proposed Project. No mitigation is required. Operational-Related Impacts The greatest cumulative operational impact on the air quality to the Air Basin will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. On-going operations activities for the proposed Project, the VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. With respect to long-term emissions, the proposed Project would create a less than significant cumulative impact. No mitigation is required. Consistency with Air Quality Plans The Project site is currently designated as Residential Mixed Use in the General Plan and is zoned Residential/Mixed-Use (RMU). The proposed Project would consist of the development of 150 apartment units on 8.27-acres, which would result in a density of 18.14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Project is not consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.86.040, that limits projects with only residential units in the RMU zone to a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. However, Riverside Transit Bus Route 8 has a bus stop that is located approximately 210 feet northeast of the Project site and Municipal Code Section 17.86.060(B)(7) allows projects that are located within 1,500 feet of the project site a density bonus up to 35 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed Project would be within the allowable density that is allowed for RMU and would not result in an inconsistency with the current land use designation. Therefore, the Lakepointe Apartments 30 proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMPs for the Air Basin. Cumulative Health Impacts The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (elderly, children, and the sick). Therefore, when the concentrations of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience health effects. The regional analysis found that the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx (ozone precursors), PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulative health impact. Based on the information above, implementation of the Project will not 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). Impacts will remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact Construction-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Potential Operations-Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would primarily occur from odor emissions from the trash storage areas. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed Project. Impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. e) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The City of Lake Elsinore adopted the City of Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (CAP), on December 13, 2011 that requires a 22.3 percent reduction in GHG emissions between years 2007 and 2020. In order to determine if the proposed Project would comply with the Climate Action Plan’s Standards, the GHG emissions from the proposed Project were analyzed for both year 2010, (nearest year available in CalEEMod to 2007) and year 2020. Using year 2010 versus 2007 provides a worst-case scenario; since the State has enacted several laws that took effect between 2007 and 2010 that reduce GHG emissions, and using the latter date means that less GHG reductions can be accounted for from the State measures. A summary of the results is shown below in Lakepointe Apartments 31 Table C-5, Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions. The CalEEMod model run for the year 2010 and the year 2020 are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C of the AQ/GHG Analysis, respectively. Table C-5 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Category Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year 2010 Emissions Area Sources1 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 0.00 2.64 Energy Usage2 0.00 289.94 289.94 0.01 0.00 291.31 Mobile Sources3 0.00 1,634.27 1,634.27 0.09 0.00 1,636.14 Solid Waste4 14.19 0.00 14.19 0.84 0.00 31.81 Water and Wastewater5 3.14 56.75 59.89 0.33 0.01 69.25 Construction6 0.00 17.13 17.13 0.00 0.00 17.20 Total 2010 Emissions 17.33 2,000.66 2,017.99 1.27 0.01 2,048.35 Year 2020 Emissions Area Sources 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 0.00 2.62 Energy Usage 0.00 260.26 260.26 0.01 0.00 261.47 Mobile Sources 0.00 1,148.04 1,148.04 0.03 0.00 1,148.76 Solid Waste 7.10 0.00 7.10 0.42 0.00 15.90 Water and Wastewater 2.51 48.16 50.67 0.26 0.01 58.17 Construction 0.00 17.13 17.13 0.00 0.00 17.20 Vegetation7 -2.12 Total 2020 Emissions 9.61 1,476.16 1,485.77 0.72 0.01 1,501.99 Percent Reduction between 2010 and 2020 26.7% City of Lake Elsinore Reduction Threshold 22.3% SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance for Residential Uses 3,500 Notes: 1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage (not including hearths). 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 6 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years. 7 Vegetation sequestration amortized over 30 years. The data provided in Table C-5 above shows that the proposed Project would create 2,048.35 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year based on the default year 2010 GHG emissions rates and in year 2020 would produce 1,501.99 MTCO2e per year that is based on approved Statewide GHG reduction regulations that would be fully implemented by year 2020 as well as from GHG emission reduction design features that have been incorporated into the proposed site plan. Table C-5 shows that through implementation of Executive Order (EO) S-1-07, that establishes performance standards for the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, Assembly Bill (AB) 149, which limits GHG emissions from new vehicles sold in California, implementation of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24 Part 11 2013 CalGreen Standards that improves the energy efficiency of the proposed Project, and Project design features such as providing sidewalks, locating the Project site near a transit station, and meeting the Climate Action Plan’s minimum tree planting requirements, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by 26.7 percent and would meet the City of Lake Elsinore’s minimum 22.3 percent GHG reduction standard. In addition, the proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD draft residential significance threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e per year for both the year 2010 Lakepointe Apartments 32 and year 2020 GHG emissions. Based on the analysis and conclusions above, impacts from GHG emissions as a result of development and operation of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. f) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact The applicable plan for the proposed Project is the CAP, adopted December 13, 2011. The CAP provides specific measures to be implemented in new developments to reduce GHG emissions as well as a GHG emissions reduction target based on a community-wide emissions reduction to 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year by 2020. This is a 22.3 percent reduction from the 2008 rate of 8.5 MTCO2e per service population. These efficiency-based targets were derived by dividing the statewide AB 32 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and statewide EO S-3-05 targeted emissions level for 2030 by the 2020 and 2030 statewide service population respectively. These targets represent the maximum quantity of emissions each resident and employee in the State of California could emit in 2020 and 2030 based on emissions levels necessary to achieve the statewide AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 GHG emissions reduction goals. Therefore, the proposed Project would be considered to be inconsistent with the CAP if the proposed Project did not implement all applicable measures identified in the Climate Action Plan and if the proposed Project’s GHG emissions are not 22.3 percent less than GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions for a similar size project in year 2008. The CAP applicable measures to the proposed Project have been detailed above in Section 3.1 of the AQ/GHG Analysis, and the method of adherence to each measure has been detailed above in Section 5.2 of the AQ/GHG Analysis. Section 5.2 found that through implementation of required statewide regulations and implementation of Project Design Features, that the proposed Project would conform to the applicable measures in the CAP. In addition, through implementation of the statewide regulations and Project Design Features, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be reduced by 26.7 percent and would exceed the 22.3 percent reduction in GHG emissions required by the Climate Action Plan. Finally, the GHG emissions calculations show that both the year 2010 business-as-usual GHG emissions and the year 2020 GHG emissions would be below the SCAQMD draft residential significance threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None. Lakepointe Apartments 33 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No technical study was required for the proposed Project for biological resources. According to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Report for the Project site (APN 379-090-022) (Appendix B), the Project site is not located in a criteria cell. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. The Project site is not within or adjacent to any Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) criteria or conservation areas. Appendix B is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: a) Would the Project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Report for the Project site (APN 379-090-022) (Appendix B), the Project site is not located in a criteria cell. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. The Project will be required to pay the applicable MSCHP Mitigation Fee pursuant to Chapter 16.85, Local Development Mitigation Fee for Funding the Preservation of Natural Ecosystems of the Municipal Code. The current fee is $1,015 for residential density greater than 14.0 dwelling units per acre. According to Chapter 16.85.010, the use of the development impact fees to mitigate the impacts to the City’s and the region’s natural ecosystems is reasonably related to the type and extent of impacts caused by development within the City. This is a standard condition, and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, with the payment of the MSCHP Mitigation Fee, implementation of the proposed Project will not 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion in D.a, above. A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. Therefore, with the payment of the MSCHP Mitigation Fee, implementation of the proposed Project will not 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 34 c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project will not 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. Therefore, the Project will not interfere 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. No impacts are anticipated. d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact A site reconnaissance survey by City Staff revealed that no riparian, riverine, vernal pool/fairy shrimp habitat or other aquatic resources exist on the site. Based upon mapped information, the Project site is not located within any Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas or Critical Species Survey Areas. Therefore, the Project will not interfere 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. No impacts are anticipated. e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact Section 3.8, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR analyzed biological resources. The General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan 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, Significant Palm Trees, of the City’s Municipal Code, which are present throughout the City and Sphere of Influence (SOI). No California oak tree, and locally important heritage trees, including the significant palm trees are located on the Project site. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact The Project is located within the adopted Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on conservation of species and associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP will serve as a HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act of 2001. The overall goal of the MSHCP is the conservation of 500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 plant and animal species. Lakepointe Apartments 35 The City is required to collect local development impact fees for all projects within the MSHCP area. As such, the applicant will be required to pay these fees as mitigation for impacts to species and habitat covered under the MSHCP. With the payment of these fees, the Project is consistent with this section of the MSHCP. Payment of these standard fees are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The Project site is not located within the Fee Area Boundary of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP). As a result, the Project is not in conflict with the requirements of the HCP (and is not required to pay the mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a grading permit). Based upon the information provided, the Project implements, and is consistent with, the requirements of the MSHCP, and the Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. MITIGATION MEASURES None. Lakepointe Apartments 36 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES No technical study was required for the proposed Project for cultural resources. The City has had informal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Tribe) to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. The Tribe has indicated that their standard mitigation measures would be sufficient as part of this IS/MND. a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation There are no known historical resources located within the Project site. However, it is possible to uncover the presence of subsurface historical resources within the Project site during ground disturbance(s). The Project will need to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires on-going monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during ground disturbing activities. With mandatory compliance to Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation Archaeological resources are known to exist in the general area. As part of the informal consultation, the City has met with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 have been added to address the concerns raised by the Pechanga Tribe. With the incorporation of these Mitigation Measures, Project impacts will remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to Figure 3.2-3, City of Lake Elsinore Paleontological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, the Project site has a “Low” potential for paleontological resources. However, since these resources are located below the surface, any excavation or other ground-disturbing activities will require paleontological monitoring to ensure that no important, nonrenewable vertebrate fossils are adversely affected. Based on these findings, all earth- moving operations shall be monitored shall be required for paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 has been included, requiring the development and implementation of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program, prior to any ground disturbing activity, to prevent adverse effects on important, nonrenewable vertebrate fossils, or to reduce such effects to a level less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation Development of this Project is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. If during Project grading any human remains are discovered, the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall apply. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, any impacts will be Lakepointe Apartments 37 reduced to a less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation According to Section 21080.3.1, Consultation with Responsible Agencies; Assistance By Office of Planning and Research, of the Public Resources Code, prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed. For purposes of this section and Section 21080.3.2, Consultation with Responsible Agencies; Assistance By Office of Planning and Research, of the Public Resources Code, “consultation” shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 65352.4 of the Government Code. Section 6552.4 of the Government Code states: “For purposes of Section 65351, 65352.3, and 65562.5, "consultation" means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties' cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party's sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes' potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance.” The City has had informal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to discuss the Project, potential Project impacts, avoidance methods and potential mitigation. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6 have been added to address the concerns raised by the Pechanga Tribe. Based on this information, the City concludes that this prior consultation, as well as the circulation of a portion of current environmental document, along with the proposed mitigation measures, will ensure that there will not be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 21074. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-6, impacts will remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES CUL-1 An archeological monitor shall be present during all earthmoving to insure protection of any accidentally discovered potentially significant resources. All cultural resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist. Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared. The report shall include a list of the resources recovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. The City shall designate repositories in the event the significant resources are recovered. CUL-2 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. CUL-3 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the Lakepointe Apartments 38 appropriate Tribe 1 to notify the 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. CUL-4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CUL-5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. CUL-6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological 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 CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. CUL-7 Prior to any ground disturbing activity, a mitigation program shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Said mitigation program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Excavations in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. 2. Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. 3. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. 4. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontologic resources. 1 It is anticipated that the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians will be the “appropriate” Tribe due to their prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Lakepointe Apartments 39 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following technical studies were prepared to address issues related to geology and soils, and are available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California,” prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005 (Geo Investigation, Appendix C). a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation The Project is located within seismically active Southern California and is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes caused by both local and regional faults. According to the Geo Investigation, research of available maps indicates that the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, there was no evidence of faulting revealed during the geotechnical investigation. The potential impacts related to the closest fault zone, the County Fault Zone, which is located approximately 434 feet to the south of the Project site (reference Figure 12, Fault Zone), as well as other regional faults are addressed through compliance with standard measures contained in the most recent Uniform Building Code (UBC) and City Municipal Code and the recommended mitigation contained in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the geotechnical recommendations contained in the Geo Investigation be implemented. With the implementation of the standard code provisions and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the anticipated impacts from regional ground shaking shall be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Project site is located in an area of high regional seismicity and may experience horizontal ground acceleration during an earthquake along the Elsinore/Wildomar Fault Zone, or other fault zones throughout the region. Because of this, the Project site has been and will continue to be directly affected by seismic activity to some degree. Given that the Project site is not located immediately adjacent to a seismic study area, the Project will not be affected by ground shaking any more than any other area in seismically active Southern California. Compliance with standard measures contained in the most recent UBC and City Municipal Code regarding structures and construction and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 ensures that any impacts will be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to the Geo Investigation, a review of the Riverside County Geographic Information Systems (GIS Lakepointe Apartments 40 website indicates that the Project site is located within a mapped zone of high to very high liquefaction susceptibility. The results of the liquefaction evaluation in the Geo Investigation identified liquefiable soils at three boring locations on the Project site. The Geo Investigation contains a number of recommendations are expected to minimize the actual liquefaction hazard once the Project is constructed. Compliance with specific recommendations identified in Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and the standard requirements contained in the most recent UBC and City Municipal Code are expected to reduce the impacts associated with ground failure hazards, including liquefaction, to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. iv) Landslides? No Impact The Project site and surrounding environs are relatively flat. There is no evidence of landslides occurring on Project site, or at the immediate surrounding environs. The Project is not expected expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from landslides. As a result, no impacts are anticipated; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact As with any development, soil erosion can result during construction, as grading and construction can loosen surface soils and make soils susceptible to effects of wind and water movement across the surface. According to the geotechnical report, the on-site soils have a moderate to high erosions potential unless specific erosion control measures are implemented. The City routinely requires the submittal of detailed Erosion Control Plans with any grading plans. The implementation of this standard requirement is expected to address any erosional issues associated with the grading of the site. As a result, these impacts are not considered to be significant with the implementation of the necessary erosion and runoff control measures required as part of the approval of a grading plan. No additional mitigation measures are required. c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Geo Investigation did not indicate any concerns regarding slope stability with respect to the Project site. Landslides were determined not to be a design consideration for the Project (reference discussion in F.a.iv, above). Due to the lack of natural slopes near the site, the potential for rock fall hazard is also not a design consideration. With the implementation of the standard code provisions and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the anticipated impacts from being 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, are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 41 d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to pp. 14 and 15 of the Geo Investigation, the Project is located in an area with “non-expansive) soil as defined in the most recent UBC. However, the site development recommendations to address the potential liquefaction hazard would also address any issues related to highly expansive soils. As a result, to significant impacts are anticipated and specific mitigation measures are required. Any potential impacts are addressed through compliance with standard measures contained in the most recent UBC and City Municipal Code and the recommended mitigation contained in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Specific recommendations within said report shall apply to all structures on site. With the implementation of the standard code provisions and the mitigation measure identified below, the anticipated impacts from being located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property, are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact The Project will be connected to the existing public wastewater treatment system and will not be serviced by septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES GEO-1 The Project shall comply with the recommendations to address geology and soils impacts within the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005 (Geo Investigation, Appendix C), including, but not limited to: seismic ground shaking, subsidence, liquefaction, expansive soils, and corrosive soils, for all structures on site. Lakepointe Apartments 42 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following technical studies have been prepared to address issues related to hazards and hazardous materials, and are available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Riverside Drive, southwest of Eisenhower Drive Lake Elsinore, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, January 3, 2006. a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Project may create an additional possible hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; however, due to the quantity and nature of these materials, these impacts will be considered less than significant. During construction and operational phases there is a potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a hazard to people and the environment. Prior to initiating construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be approved by the City to address any construction-related spills or accidents. This requirement is included in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. With Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the Project is not expected to result in a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the Project is located immediately adjacent to, or in immediate proximity to, State Route 74 (Riverside Avenue). It is possible that an accident or spill may expose future building occupants to hazardous materials. However, the likelihood of this type of event is rare and it is not considered to be significant. In addition, some hazardous materials will be stored on the premises; however, those used are commonly associated with typical residential development. No impacts are anticipated beyond those commonly associated with this type of development. b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The Project may create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; however, due to the quantity and nature of these materials, these impacts will be considered less than significant. An additional discussion is found in Section G.a. above. No impacts are anticipated beyond those commonly associated with residential development. No additional mitigation measures are required. c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact The Project is not expected to result in the release of any hazardous emissions. Lakeside High School is located immediately west of the Project site. Due to the residential nature of the Project, as the fact that the only hazardous materials associated with residential uses are those associated with typical residential households, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 43 d) Would the Project 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? No Impact The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with CEQA. According to the California State Waterboards GEOTRACKER site (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=java+hut), which provides information regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, the Project site is not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. There are two permitted underground storage tanks within one mile of the Project site. Refer to Figure 11, Geotracker Site. The Department of Toxic Substances Control's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) site (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=- 119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=True&city=32397%20Riverside%20Dr,%20Lake%20 Elsinore,%20CA%2092530&zip=&county=&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&voluntary_clean up=true&school_cleanup=true&ca_site=true&tiered_permit=true&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=tru e&school_investigation=true&operating=true&post_closure=true&non_operating=true) does not show any Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites currently located on the Project sites. Refer to Figure 12, Envirostor Site. Based upon the available data, there is no evidence to support that hazardous wastes or contamination would be present on the sites. No additional mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact According to Figure 2.7, City of Lake Elsinore Airport Influence Areas, of the General Plan, the Project sites is not located within the Skylark Airport Influence Areas. The public airport closest to the Project sites is Skylark Field. Skylark Field is located at the south end of Lake Elsinore, approximately five miles south southeast of the Project sites. There is no approved airport land use plan for this facility. The Project sites are not located within two miles of this public airport. Based on this information, no impacts are anticipated from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact According to Figure 2.7, City of Lake Elsinore Airport Influence Areas, of the General Plan, the Project sites are not located in proximity to a private airstrip. The closest airport is a public airport, Skylark Field, located at the south end of Lake Elsinore, approximately five miles south southeast of the Project sites (see discussion in G.e., above). The Project sites are not located within two miles of a private airstrip. Based on this information, no impacts are anticipated from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 44 g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact Section 3.10, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” of the General Plan EIR analyzed a variety of hazardous materials and public safety issues related to the implementation of the General Plan. The GPEIR determined that new developments associated with the buildout of the General Plan 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 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. The Project, as proposed is a new development associated with the buildout of the General Plan, and as designed and developed, is consistent with the General Plan. The Project will include an access point off improved roadways, and include site access sufficient for fire apparatus turning radius. Based on this information, implementation of the Project has no potential to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation is required. h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The Project site is located within a substantially built up area about a mile east of the eastern escarpment of the Santa Ana Mountains. This eastern escarpment area has been classified as a high wildland fire hazard area. According to Figure 3.10-2, Wildfire Susceptibility, of the General Plan EIR, the Project site has a moderate potential to be impacted by a wildland fires. Per the General Plan EIR, new development under the General Plan Update (GPU) would extend into areas of the SOI that are considered highly susceptible to wildfires. A fire that ignites in these areas has the potential to spread to areas within the SOI. Therefore, a substantial risk of loss and damage exists to new developments in these areas. However, with prevention strategies and response programs, these risks can be reduced greatly. Nevertheless, increased development throughout the City and SOI in accordance with the proposed Land Use Plan could expose more people and additional development to potentially significant hazards from wildfires. As indicated, the Project site is not in a Moderate, High, or Very High designation. This moderate designation does not create a potentially significant impact because of the layout of the sites, and the proposed building materials are expected to reduce or minimize any the potential hazards. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. MITIGATION MEASURES HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction and operational activities shall be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the Project development. Lakepointe Apartments 45 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The following technical studies were prepared to address issues related to hydrology and water quality, and are available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • “Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Lakepointe Apartments, prepared by MLB Engineering, January 12, 2016. a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation According to the General Plan EIR (p. 3.9-19), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within its region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives). The 1995 Water Quality Control Plan Santa Ana River Basin documents the water quality standards for all ground and surface waters overseen by the SARWQCB. Beneficial uses consist of all the various ways that water can be used for the benefit of people and/or wildlife. Twenty beneficial uses are recognized within the Santa Ana Region. Nine of these beneficial uses have been designated for surface water bodies and groundwater in the vicinity of the City (reference Table 3.9-2, Beneficial Uses for Water Bodies within City and Sphere of Influence-SOI). All listed water quality objectives governing water quality in inland surface waters were evaluated for potential impacts from development within the City; however, only those numeric and narrative water quality objectives that are most likely to be relevant to the implementation of the General Plan are listed in Table 3.9-3, Water Quality Objectives for Water Bodies within City and SOI, Table 3.9-4, Applicable Narrative Surface Water Quality Objectives, and Table 3.9-5, Applicable Narrative Groundwater Quality Objectives, of the General Plan EIR, respectively. Water quality standards are attained when designated beneficial uses are achieved and water quality objectives are being met. The regulatory program of the SARWQCB is designed to minimize and control discharges to surface and groundwater within the region, largely through permitting, such that water quality standards are effectively attained. The General Plan EIR indicates that development consistent with the GPU could result in increased non– point source and point source contamination from common urban sources, construction activity, and vehicle use. In general, increased development and population growth in the City and SOI may be expected to result in increased generation of urban water contaminants. In addition to increased sediment related to construction activities, development in the City could increase other types of non–point source pollution. Runoff from residential, commercial, and institutional urban uses typically includes sediment, herbicides, pesticides, nutrients from fertilizers, organic debris, coloform, trash, grease, solvents, metals, salts, and other contaminants. Runoff from streets and parking lots contains typical urban pollutants including oil, grease, fuel, rubber, heavy metals, solvents, coloform, and trash. Motor vehicle exhaust also generates lead and particulates that could be picked up by runoff and carried into nearby surface water bodies such as Lake Elsinore. The increased pollutants carried in runoff into the streams, rivers, and lake in and around the City is a potentially significant impact of the implementation of the GPU. The proposed Project has been reviewed and conditioned by the City, to mitigate any potential impacts as listed above through site design and the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and adherence to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Project does drain into an existing Caltrans facility. Approvals will be required from Caltrans as part of the permitting process. These are standards condition and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Lakepointe Apartments 46 With the inclusion of these standard conditions, any impacts from implementation of the proposed Project that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. The implementation of these practices is expected to minimize or eliminate any impacts to water quality. The requirements to obtain City approval of the Final WQMP is incorporated into Mitigation Measure HYD-1. As a result of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) (site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs), and other measures contained in the Preliminary WQMP, the Project will not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or have a significant impact on the environment. b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact The Project does not propose to drill any wells or extract ground water. the historic high groundwater level for the Project site is considered to be about 18± feet (p. 7 of the Geo Investigation). This depth will not expose any groundwater during future site development, including grading onsite and installation of offsite infrastructure. Under present conditions the Project site has no impervious surfaces within its boundaries. Some unquantifiable amount of the precipitation and sheet flow that currently enters the property will percolate through the onsite soils. The proposed Project will retain rainfall onsite by directing flows to the bioretention planters and basins where the first increment of each storm will be captured and percolated, and then the stored runoff will add additional percolation. Thus, a small portion of the runoff that would have left the site historically would be captured and percolated. The small reduction will not cause significant adverse impacts to groundwater supplies. Based on this information, implementation of the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). No mitigation is required. c) Would the Project 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 flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project site’s existing drainage pattern will be altered, but the proposed Project engineering plans have taken considerable care to ensure that future runoff patterns are maintained, and that the volume of water discharged will not exceed the current volumes as required by the City and the SARWQCB. The Project, as proposed, will result in minimal changes in the onsite drainage pattern, as the flow patterns will be consistent with the existing topography of the Project site. The proposed Project will alter the drainage pattern; however, it will not alter the course of a stream or river and it will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that will cause any significant flooding on-site, or off-site. Based on this information, impacts are considered less than significant from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 47 d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion in Sections H.a., and c. (above), and H.e. (below), of this IS/MND. The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site. None of the proposed facilities will increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Based on this information, impacts are considered less than significant from implementation of the Project. No mitigation measures are required. e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The requirements of the urban runoff program for the Santa Ana River Basin require that post-development flows be similar to the pre-development flows. As a result, the final Project design shall be required to reduce run-off volumes to pre-development levels by a combination of reductions in impervious area, on-site detention, or other methods identified in the Preliminary WQMP, and implemented with the Final WQMP, as approved by the City of Lake Elsinore. This requirement is contained in Mitigation Measure HYD-1. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The Project as proposed will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Compliance with the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (Mitigation Measures HAZ-1), Preliminary WQMP (Mitigation Measure HYD-1), and the City’s erosion control requirements will ensure that significant water quality impacts and violations of standards and requirements do not occur. With these mitigation measures and standard requirements, any water quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. g) Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact The Project will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Because the proposed structures are not located within the 100-year flood hazard area, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 48 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact The Project will not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures and will not place materials within the lake area, which would impede or redirect flood flows. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. i) Would the Project 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? No Impact The Project will not construct habitable structures within a designated flood area or within an identified dam inundation area. According to pp. 3.9-6 and 3.9-7 of the General Plan EIR, inundation of property (City) and the potential loss of life due to failure of the Railroad Canyon Dam is a hazard in the Railroad Canyon Road area and the eastern floodplain of the lake. The Project site is located on the western floodplain of the lake; therefore, it is not in proximity to inundation. Consequently, the Project will not 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. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation required. j) Would the Project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact The Project is located along near the northwest corner of Lake Elsinore and is not located in an area that is subject to mudflows or tsunamis. A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water (similar to the sloshing of water in a bathtub). Seiches have been observed on larger lakes, reservoirs, harbors and bays, and in smaller ocean areas that are substantially surrounded by land (such as the Gulf of California or the Adriatic Sea). In contrast to these larger bodies of water, Lake Elsinore is relatively small rectangular lake (less than 2 miles in width and about 3 miles in length). Because the Project site is not located along the shore of Lake Elsinore, there is no potential that a seismic event could result in a seiche that could affect the Project. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES HYD-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Final Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at that time. The Final Water Quality Management Plan shall further demonstrate that post-development runoff flows are no greater that pre-development run-off flows. Lakepointe Apartments 49 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact The Project represents an in-fill development which is consistent with the scale of development of their type and generally consistent with the development that is found in the area. The Project will neither physically divide nor improve connections within the surrounding neighborhood. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project 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? No Impact The Project sites are identified for residential uses on the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Map. These are the same types of land uses proposed with the Project. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact The Project will not conflict with the provisions of the adopted MSHCP. A more detailed discussion on the Project’s compliance and consistency with the MSHCP is found in Section D.f. of this IS/MND. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required over and above the payment of MSHCP fees, discussed in Section D.f above. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 50 J. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact According to Figure 3.12-1, City of Lake Elsinore Mineral Resource Zones, of the General Plan EIR (GP EIR), the Project site is located in an area designated MRZ3. According to the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into the MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown in Table 3.12-1 of the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is divided on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of the resources. MRZ-3a areas are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits. MRZ-3b is applied to land where geologic evidence leads to the conclusion that it is plausible that economic mineral deposits are present. Consequently, the Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation required. b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact According to Figure 3.12-1, City of Lake Elsinore Mineral Resource Zones, of the GP EIR, the Project sites are located in an area designated MRZ3. According to the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing known mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into the MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown in Table 3.12-1 of the GP EIR, MRZ-3 is divided on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of the resources. MRZ-3a areas are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits. MRZ-3b is applied to land where geologic evidence leads to the conclusion that it is plausible that economic mineral deposits are present. The Project will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 51 K. NOISE The following technical study was prepared to address issues related to noise, and is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Noise Impact Analysis, Lakepointe Apartments Project, City of Lake Elsinore, prepared by Vista Environmental, November 25, 2015 (NIA). Please refer to Section 1.0 (Introduction), Section 2.0 (Noise Fundamentals), Section 3.0 (Ground-Bourne Vibration Fundamentals), Section 4.0 (Regulatory Setting), Section 5.0 (Existing Noise Conditions), and 6.0 (Modeling Parameters and Assumptions) of the NIA, for additional details utilized for the impact analysis below. a) Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Construction-Related Noise The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the 8.27-acre project site, building construction of the 150 apartment units, paving of the onsite roads and parking areas, and application of architectural coatings. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of the structures at Lakeside High School as near as 150 feet southwest of the Project site, Recreational Vehicle (RV) campsites as near as 230 feet southeast of the Project site, and single-family homes as near as 350 feet northwest of the Project site. Section 17.176.080(F)(1) of the City’s Municipal Code restricts construction activities from occurring between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays. Section 17.176.080(F)(2) of the City’s Municipal Code limits construction noise that occurs during the allowable times for construction activities to occur to 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) for mobile equipment and 70 dBA for stationary equipment, which are based on the Type III areas that are classified as semi-residential/commercial. Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated through use of the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and the parameters and assumptions detailed in Section 6.1 of the NIA, including Table H – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors. The results are shown below in Table K-1, Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors. The RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix C of the NIA. Lakepointe Apartments 52 Table K-1 Worst-Case Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors 1 City construction noise threshold from Section 17.176.080(F)(2) of the Municipal Code for Type III Areas. Table K-1 shows that greatest noise impacts would occur during the site preparation, grading and building construction phases of construction, with a noise level as high as 73 A-weighted equivalent sound level (dBA Leq) at the nearest classroom at Lakeside High School. Table K-1 also shows that none of the construction phases would exceed the City’s mobile equipment threshold, however the site preparation, grading, and building construction phases would have the potential to exceed the City’s stationary equipment threshold. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is provided that would require any stationary construction equipment that is used within 50 feet of the project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced to within the City noise standards. Operational-Related Noise The proposed Project would consist of the development of 150 residential apartment units. The proposed Project would be adjacent to Riverside Drive, which may create noise levels in excess of City standards at the proposed residential uses. The City’s General Plan Policy 7.1 requires that new multi-family residential development limit the exterior noise impacts to all proposed private patios and balconies to 60 A-weighted day-night equivalent level (dBA Ldn) and limit the interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn. The exterior and interior noise impacts to the proposed apartment units have been analyzed separately below. Exterior Patio and Balcony Noise All residential buildings are anticipated to have either a private patio or balcony. These private patios and balconies have the potential to exceed the City’s 60 dB Ldn noise standard. The anticipated noise levels have been calculated for the nearest patios and balconies on proposed Building 8 to Riverside Drive. This analysis has been limited to Building 8 as that is the only building where the balconies and patios have an unobstructed view of Riverside Drive. The noise levels were calculated three feet in from the proposed walls and five feet above ground level for the patios and 3 feet above floor level for the balconies. A summary of the results are shown below in Table K-2, Proposed Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels Prior to Mitigation. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) model printouts of the proposed patio/balcony noise calculations are provided in Appendix D of the NIA. Lakepointe Apartments 53 Table K-2 Proposed Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels Prior to Mitigation Table K-2 shows that the proposed first floor patios on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive would exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn residential exterior noise standard. Table K-2 also shows that the second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive would be within the City’s 60 dBA Ldn residential exterior standard, provided that the proposed 3.5-foot high balcony wall is made of a solid material that is free of any cutouts or openings. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is provided that would require the applicant to construct a minimum 5.0-foot high solid wall around the perimeter of any first floor patios that are constructed on the Riverside Drive side of Building 8 and require all second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive to have 3.5-foot high perimeter walls that are constructed of a solid material (e.g., glass, wood or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. The exterior patio and balcony noise levels have been recalculated based on construction of the 5.0-foot high solid walls for the first floor patios detailed in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and the results are shown in Table K-3, Proposed Mitigated Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels. Table K-3 Proposed Mitigated Exterior Patio/Balcony Noise Levels Table K-3 shows that with application of the proposed 5.0-foot high first floor patio sound walls specified in Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the noise levels at the proposed patios and balconies would be reduced to within the City’s exterior residential noise standard. Impacts would be less than significant after implementation of the recommended mitigation. Interior Noise To assess the interior noise levels related to the compliance with the City’s 45 dBA Ldn criteria, the exterior to interior attenuation rates of the units facing Riverside Drive were calculated and compared to the calculated exterior noise levels at the first and second floor building facades in order to calculate the interior noise levels within the future on-site residential units. The architectural plans were utilized to calculate the exterior to interior attenuation rates of each style interior room that is anticipated to face Riverside Drive. For each room the floor area covered by carpet or linoleum was calculated along with the total square footage of the ceilings and walls, in order to determine the sound Lakepointe Apartments 54 absorption rate of the room. The area of exterior walls, windows, and exterior doors were also calculated in order to determine the exterior transmission levels. The windows were based on standard dual pane windows that have a 26 Sound Transmission Class (STC) Rating, standard doors that have a 26 STC Rating, and standard stucco walls that have a 46 STC Rating. Dual pane windows and doors are required due to California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6). The exterior to interior noise reduction was then determined by combining the calculated room absorption rate to the exterior to interior transmission calculations. Table K-4, Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction Rates. Appendix E of the NIA shows the calculated exterior to interior noise reduction rates for standard dual pane windows and doors. Table K-4 Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction Rates Table K-4 shows that the minimum exterior to interior attenuation rate with standard dual pane windows would be 31 dBA. According to Table K-2, the exterior noise levels at the facades of the proposed structures that face Riverside Drive would be as high as 64 dBA Ldn. Based on a 31 dBA attenuation rate, this would result in an interior noise level of 33 dBA Ldn and would be within the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior residential standard. Impacts would be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. b) Would the Project result in an exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact Construction-Related Vibration Impacts The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of the structures at Lakeside High School as near as 150 feet southwest of the Project site, RV campsites as near as 230 feet southeast of the Project site, and single-family homes as near as 350 feet northwest of the Project site. Section 17.176.080(G) of the City’s Municipal Code restricts the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration threshold of any individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source. Since the City’s Municipal does not provide a quantifiable vibration level, Caltrans guidance has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. From Table L of the NIA, a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite receptor (150 feet away) would be 0.01 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite receptor would be within the 0.25 inch per Lakepointe Apartments 55 second PPV threshold detailed above. Impacts would be less than significant. Operations-Related Vibration Impacts The on-going operation of the proposed Project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources. Therefore, impacts from the operation of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Based on the analysis above, the Project will not result in an exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less Than Significant Impact Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. Therefore, the proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project. Neither the General Plan nor the CEQA Guidelines define what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels”, as such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the Federal Transit Administration for a moderate impact that has been detailed in Table A of the NIA. The potential offsite traffic noise impacts created by the on-going operations of the proposed project have been analyzed through utilization of the FHWA model and parameters. The FHWA model noise calculation spreadsheets are provided in Appendix F of the NIA. The proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the without Project scenario to the with Project scenarios for existing year, opening year 2017, and year 2017 with cumulative projects conditions. The results of this comparison are shown in Table K-5, Project-Related Traffic Noise Contributions. Lakepointe Apartments 56 Table K-5 Project-Related Traffic Noise Contributions 1 Distance to nearest residential use shown in Table I of the NIA, does not take into account existing noise barriers. Table K-5 shows that for all scenarios analyzed, the proposed Project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The greatest noise impacts would occur during the site preparation, grading and building construction phases of construction, with a noise level as high as 73 dBA Leq at the nearest classroom at Lakeside High School. None of the construction phases would exceed the City’s mobile equipment threshold, however the site preparation, grading, and building construction phases would have the potential to exceed the City’s stationary equipment threshold. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is provided that would require any stationary construction equipment that is used within 50 feet of the Project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the proposed Project would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would remain less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. Lakepointe Apartments 57 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The Project site is not located within the influence area for any airport. The closest airfield is a private airstrip, Skylark Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles to the southeast of the site. Skylark Airport is use primarily by skydiving aircraft. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 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? No Impact Skylark Field is located approximately 5 miles to the southeast of the Project sites. Skylark Airport is used primarily by skydiving aircraft. Given the type of aircraft that routinely use the airfield and the distance to the Project sites, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES NOI-1 The Project applicant shall require any construction contractor that needs to use stationary construction equipment within 50 feet of the Project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. NOI-2 The Project applicant shall construct a minimum 5.0-foot high solid wall around the perimeter of any first floor patios that are constructed on the Riverside Drive side of Building 8 and require all second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive to have 3.5-foot high perimeter walls that are constructed of a solid material (e.g., glass, wood or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. Lakepointe Apartments 58 L. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will add permanent people to the City’s population. The existing General Plan designation for the Project site anticipated population growth from the residential uses that would ultimately be constructed on the Project site. The proposed Project will result in an additional increment of area-wide population growth consistent with the adopted General Plan. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are required. b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The Project site is currently vacant. As a result, the Project will not displace any existing housing or residents. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Because the Project site is vacant, the Project will not displace a substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As a result, no impacts are anticipated; and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 59 M. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection and safety services to the City. The nearest fire station is Station No. 85, located at 29405 Grand Ave, northwest of the Project site. Ambulance and paramedic services are provided by Goodhew Ambulance Service. The Project will participate in the Development Impact Fee Program as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore to mitigate impacts to fire protection resources. This will provide funding for capital improvements such as land, equipment purchases, and fire station equipment. As a result, the Project will not result in activities that create significant impacts. Any impacts will be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate Development Impact Fee. This is a standard condition, and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact Police protection services are provided by the City’s Police Department as part of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The nearest sheriff's station is located at 333 Limited Street in Lake Elsinore. Traffic enforcement is provided for Riverside County in this area by the California Highway Patrol with additional support from the local County Sheriff's Department. The Project shall participate in the Development Impact Fee Program as adopted by the City of Lake Elsinore to mitigate impacts to police protection resources. As a result, the Project will not result in activities that create significant impacts. Any impacts will be considered incremental and can be offset through the payment of the appropriate Development Impact Fee. This is a standard condition, and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is residential in nature and will directly increase student enrollment at schools within the Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD). Based upon its current enrollment pattern, LEUSD has calculated typical student enrollment factors for elementary, middle and high schools within the District. To offset any potential impacts, the Project is required to pay appropriate school. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant level after the payment of school mitigation fees. No other mitigation measures are required. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will increase the areas permanent population and associated burden on parks in the area; thereby, Lakepointe Apartments 60 resulting in the demand for parks and recreational facilities. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $1,400 per unit. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant level after the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. No other mitigation is required. e) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will permanently increase the local population and will subsequently result in an increase for the demand for other governmental services such as the library and the other community support services commonly provided by the City of Lake Elsinore. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $150 per unit. In addition, the Project will be required to pay City Hall & Public Works fees (currently $404/unit), Community Center Fees (currently $272 per unit), Marina Facilities Fees (currently $389/unit), and Animal Shelter Facility Fees (currently $174/unit). These fees, which are considered standard conditions, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts are considered less than significant level after the payment of these fees. No other mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 61 N. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will provide on-site recreational uses for use by residents at the site. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $1,400 per unit. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts from the Project that will result in an 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 are considered less than significant level after the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. No other mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The Project includes recreational amenities that are intended to meet a portion of the recreational demands of the residents. The Project will be required to pay the applicable Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees, which have been established to mitigate impacts from Projects to existing and proposed park facilities. At the current time, the fee is $1,400 per unit. These fees, which are considered a standard condition, are payable prior to building permit issuance. As a result, any impacts from the Project that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, are considered less than significant level after the payment of Park Capital Improvement Fund Fees. No other mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 62 O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The following technical study was prepared to address issues related to traffic, and is available on the CD located in the back pocket of this IS/MND: • Traffic Impact Analysis, Lakeshore Pointe, Lake Elsinore California, prepared by Infrastructure Group, Inc., October 22, 2015 (TIA). Please refer to Section 1.0 (Introduction), Section 2.0 (Area Conditions), Section 3.0 (Project Future Traffic), and Section 4.0 (Cumulative Traffic), of the TIA, for additional details utilized for the impact analysis below. a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Traffic generated by the proposed Project was added to the existing traffic volumes (with two growth factor) to determine the existing plus Project condition. Figure O-1, Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes illustrates the existing plus Project traffic volumes and daily traffic on roadway segments. Lakepointe Apartments 63 Figure O-1 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Lakepointe Apartments 64 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Table O-1, Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary, provides the results of the existing plus Project Level of Service (LOS) analysis during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table O-1, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of Riverside Drive/Lincoln Street (LOS E in the AM peak hour) Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours). Table O-1 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary Existing with Ambient Growth Rate (Opening Year 2017) Plus Project Traffic Conditions Traffic generated by the proposed Project was added to the existing traffic volumes plus a six (6) percent growth factor to determine the Opening Year plus Project condition. Figure O-2, Opening Year (2017) Plus Project Traffic Volumes, illustrates the Opening Year plus Project traffic volumes and daily traffic on roadway segments. Lakepointe Apartments 65 Figure O-2 Opening Year (2017) Plus Project Traffic Volumes Lakepointe Apartments 66 Opening Year 2017 Plus Project Level of Service Table O-2, Opening Year Plus Project Level of Service Summary, provides the results of the existing plus Project LOS analysis during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table O-2, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of Riverside Drive/Lincoln Street (LOS E in the AM peak hour) Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours). Table O-2 Opening Year plus Project Level of Service Summary Cumulative Traffic Conditions Project trips from the three cumulative projects were added to the existing traffic volumes, along with a four percent growth rate, to determine the cumulative traffic volumes. Figure O-3, Cumulative Traffic Volumes, illustrates the cumulative AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study area intersections, and the cumulative daily traffic on roadway segments. Lakepointe Apartments 67 Figure O-3 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Lakepointe Apartments 68 Cumulative Level of Service Table O-3, Cumulative Level of Service Summary, provides the results of the existing plus Project LOS analysis during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table O-3, all study area intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) with the exception of Riverside Drive/Lincoln Street (LOS F in the AM peak hour) Riverside Drive/ Grand Avenue (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours). Table O-3 Cumulative Level of Service Summary Prior to occupancy, the Project developer shall pay fair share contributions as outlined on page 29 of the Project TIA. The fair share contributions should be collected and used to construct the offsite improvements to maintain the acceptable LOS. In addition, the developer will be required to mitigate any Project impacts by paying its fair share toward the City of Lake Elsinore’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program and the regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. These are standard conditions, and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measure TR-1, and payment of TUMF and DIF, any impacts are anticipated to remain at a less than significant level. b) Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will not exceed, when analyzed cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Please reference the discussion under Item O.a. above. Riverside Avenue in front of the Project site is not designated as a Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway. Consequently, the Project will not significantly affect the designated CMP road network. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. No additional mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact The Project will not 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. None exist on-site or are proximate to this site. No impacts are foreseen; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 69 d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation The Project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Access and roadway improvements will be designed to comply with design criteria contained in the Caltrans Design Manual and other City requirements and standards. Sight distance and signing and pavement striping to and at the Project driveways will be reviewed at the time of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. Mitigation Measure TR-2 requires street improvements, signing and striping on Riverside Avenue along the Project frontage shall be installed as directed by Caltrans and the City Prior to occupancy. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, Project impacts will be considered less than. No additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact The Project has no potential to result in inadequate emergency access. Access to and from the site will be provided via Riverside Avenue (State Route 74). The potential for inadequate emergency access is considered to be minimal and non-significant. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact On-site parking spaces will be required in accordance with the City’s Zoning Code requirements for the proposed uses. Therefore, the Project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. g) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact The General Plan (Figure 2.5, City of Lake Elsinore Bikeway Plan) requires that a Class II bikeway be provided along Riverside Avenue in front of the Project. The Class II bikeway is incorporated into the standard street cross-section for Urban Arterial roadways (Figure 2.2, City of Lake Elsinore Roadway Cross Sections). In addition, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 8 bus travels along this section of Riverside Avenue as part of its route around the west side of Lake Elsinore between Outlet Center and the community of Wildomar. (www.riversidetransit.com/home/images/stories/DOWNLOADS/ROUTES/008.pdf) This route offers daily services between the hours of 5:45 a.m. and approximately 7:45 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of approximately 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekends. The Project is not in conflict with other transit policies or programs. As a result, no significant impacts are expected and no mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES TR-1 Prior to occupancy, the Project developer shall pay fair share contributions as outlined on page 29 of Lakepointe Apartments 70 the Project TIA. TR-2 Prior to occupancy, street improvements, signing and striping for Riverside Avenue shall be installed as directed by Caltrans and the City. Lakepointe Apartments 71 P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates wastewater discharges within the drainage area around Lake Elsinore. The proposed residential Project will be connecting to the wastewater treatment system operated by the EVMWD. As discussed in Sections P.b. and P.e, the sewer services provided by EVMWD are currently available in Riverside Avenue adjacent to the Project site and the Project site is within the anticipated service area for the District. The development of the Project is not expected to create any exceedances in wastewater treatment standards. While the Project will contribute an additional increment of wastewater flow to EVMWD’s wastewater treatment facilities, the Project will also contribute connection fees to address infrastructure impacts and monthly service charges to address operational impacts. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. (Urban runoff-related water quality impacts associated with Project construction and operations are discussed in Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND). b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is within the service boundary for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), which shall provide water and wastewater service to the Project. Pre-Planning Letter No. CRS# 1767 (Appendix H) dated May 15, 2014 indicates that the applicant needs to complete and submit a District Plan Check Application Package, as well as obtain a Will Serve/Service Commitment Letter from EVMWD. The letter states that the developer will be required to pay all applicable District Plan Check, Inspection & Sewer Capacity Fees prior to development. Based on this letter, EVWMD has the capacity and intent to service the water and wastewater needs of the Project. Therefore, the Project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As a result, any potential impacts are considered incremental and less than significant. Other than the standard requirements to connect to the District’s water supply and wastewater treatment networks and the payment of connection fees, no additional mitigation is required. c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will not result in the construction or expansion of new area-wide storm drainage facilities. The Project will connect to the existing drainage facility located immediately adjacent to the site. These connections would convey on-site runoff into the existing drainage system after treatment by the best management practices identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (and discussed in in Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND). Since no new or expanded storm drain facilities are proposed, no significant impacts are anticipated and mitigation measures are required. Lakepointe Apartments 72 d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact Reference Response P.B. The Project will create additional demand for potable water supplies, however this additional increment is considered to be less than significant, as EVWMD has the capacity and intent to service the water and wastewater needs of the Project. Other than the standard mandatory connection and services fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no additional mitigation is required. e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact As described above, the Project will result in an additional increment of demand for wastewater treatment capacity. According to the best available data, there is expected to be sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to handle the additional increment generated by this Project within the existing system. The collection and treatment systems are also addressed in responses P.a and P.b above. Because impacts are minor and incremental, they are considered to be less than significant. Other than the standard mandatory connection and services fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, no additional mitigation is required. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity and has a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on the solid waste system. The proposed Project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity. According to the Section 3.16, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of the GP EIR, implementation of the General Plan will result in population increases and increases in commercial, industrial and other non-residential uses which would potentially impact solid waste disposal services and the capacity of landfill facilities that serve the City. As shown in Table 3.16-12, Projected Increase in Solid Waste Generation – General Plan Buildout – 2030, of the GPEIR, implementation of the General Plan would generate an additional 719 tons per day of solid waste, or 175,493 tons of solid waste per year at buildout. However, pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act, the State of California has established 50 percent as the minimum waste reduction rate for all cities. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s “Jurisdictional Profile for City of Lake Elsinore”, the City had a diversion rate of 50 percent in 2006. Compliance with State law will result in a minimum of 50 percent of the estimated increase in City’s generated solid waste being diverted from landfills. Therefore, the maximum estimated increase in solid waste that would be placed into landfills at General Plan buildout (2030) would be 87,747 tons per year. This represents approximately 2.1 percent of the current combined daily permitted capacity (25,054 tons per day) of all landfills currently serving the City. Although buildout of the General Plan will result in an increase in the amount of solid waste that is sent to landfills, the remaining combined capacity at the landfills is sufficient to accommodate buildout of the General Plan. The Project is not expected to create solid wastes other than typical municipal solid waste consistent with the General Plan expectations for the area. Combined with the City's mandatory source reduction and recycling program, the Project is not forecast to cause any significant adverse impact to the solid waste management Lakepointe Apartments 73 system. Impacts, while incremental, are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact The Project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Please refer to Response P.f., above. The Project does not any propose activities that would conflict with the any applicable programmatic requirements. In addition, any future development shall comply with construction and debris removal and recycling requirements and shall contract with the City’s waste hauler/franchisee for all bins and their removal in accordance with City Ordinance. As a result, the Project will comply with all of the applicable requirements and any impacts will be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. MITIGATION MEASURES None required. Lakepointe Apartments 74 Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the State CEQA Guidelines. a-c) 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; 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.); and/or, have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation The proposed Project has been determined to be consistent with the City's General Plan. It can be implemented without causing significant adverse environmental effects with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the preceding evaluation of environmental issues. The City will require the implementation of mitigation to ensure that potentially significant impacts do not occur to any of the following resource values or physical conditions that occur within the proposed improvements area: aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation/traffic. Based on the data contained in this document and supporting technical studies, the City proposes to issue a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental determination to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Lakepointe Apartments 75 V. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129, Organizations and Persons Consulted, of the State CEQA Guidelines. A. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE • Justin Kirk, Principal Planner B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS • Vista Environmental (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gasses, and Noise) • Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (Geotechnical and Phase 1 Environmental) • MLB Engineering (Hydrology, Water Quality Management Plan) • Infrastructure Group, Inc. (Traffic) C. OTHER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES None. Lakepointe Apartments 76 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2016-01– City of Lake Elsinore The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project Name: Lakepointe Apartments: Residential Design Review (RDR 2014-05). Project Applicant: Lakeside Pointe, LLC, 43414 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. Project Locations: Northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 379-090-022. Project Description: Lakeside Pointe, LLC (Project proponent) is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi- family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site, located within the City of Lake Elsinore, western Riverside County, California. Residential Design Review 2014-05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the entire approximately 8.27-acre proposed Project site, for an overall Project density of approximately 18.14 dwelling units per acre. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Lake Elsinore, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environmental and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following findings: The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but: (1) Proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. (3) Mitigation measures are required to ensure all potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less than significance level. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The Project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Lake Elsinore, Planning Division, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. 7-1-16 Date of Determination Justin Kirk for Grant Taylor, Director of Community Development Lakepointe Apartments 77 ATTACHMENT A - FIGURES FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 SITE PLAN FIGURE 3a RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3b RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2014-05 ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4 PRELIMINARY WQMP POST-CONSTRUCTION BMP SITE PLAN FIGURE 5 GENERAL PLAN MAP SITE FIGURE 6 ZONING MAP SITE FIGURE 7 AERIAL PHOTO FIGURE 8 GEOTRACKER SITE FIGURE 9 ENVIROSTOR SITE *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County RCIT GIS 4,259 Feet Legend Notes 2,1300 REPORT PRINTED ON...6/27/2016 10:57:46 AM Airports Farmland <all other values> GRAZING LAND LOCAL IMPORTANCE NOT MAPPED OTHER LANDS PRIME FARMLAND STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE UNIQUE FARMLAND URBAN-BUILT UP LAND WATERBODIES Intake Boundaries <all other values> NO UNKNOWN YES Historic Preservation Districts Boundary City Boundaries Cities roadsanno highways HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE OFFRAMP ONRAMP USHWY roads Major Roads Arterial Collector Residential counties FIGURE 10 FARMLAND *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County RCIT GIS 17,037 Feet Legend Notes 8,5190 REPORT PRINTED ON...6/27/2016 10:53:44 AM FIGURE 11 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE/WILLIAMSON ACT Agricultural Preserve Airports Intake Boundaries <all other values> NO UNKNOWN YES Historic Preservation Districts Boundary City Boundaries Cities adjacent_highways Interstate Interstate 3 State Highways; 60 State Highways 3 US HWY OUT highways_large HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE USHWY counties cities *IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County RCIT GIS 17,037 Feet Legend Notes 8,5190 REPORT PRINTED ON...6/28/2016 11:49:56 AM Faults <all other values> ALQUIST-PRIOLO RIVERSIDE COUNTY Fault Zones <all other values> COUNTY FAULT ZONE ELSINORE FAULT ZONE SAN ANDREAS FAULT ZONE SAN JACINTO FAULT ZONE adjacent_highways Interstate Interstate 3 State Highways; 60 State Highways 3 US HWY OUT highways_large HWY INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE USHWY counties cities FIGURE 12 FAULT ZONE 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME:Lakepointe Apartments: Residential Design Review 2014-05. DATE:August 2016. PROJECT MANAGER:Justin Kirk, Principal Planner. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Lakeside Pointe, LLC is proposing to implement a 150-unit multi-family Project with associated recreational amenities – tot lot, swimming pool, and clubhouse on an approximate 8.27-acre site. Residential Design Review 2014-05 allows for 150 multi-family units, associated landscaping, parking, as well as recreational uses on the Project site. PROJECT LOCATION:The Project site is generally located northerly of Grand Avenue, southwesterly of Eisenhower Drive, adjacent to Lakeside High School. The Project site is contained within portions of Sections 11, 2, and 3, Township 6 South and Range 5 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map, 7.5 Minute Series, Alberhill, California Quadrangle and known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 379-090-022. IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS A. AESTHETICS AES-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Building Department shall ensure that all exterior light fixtures and outside area lighting is directed away from off-site residences and uses to comply with City design standards and building codes. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Building & Safety Department. Prior to building permit issuance, the City Building & Safety Department shall review building plans to verify compliance. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 An archeological monitor shall be present during all earthmoving to insure protection of any accidentally discovered potentially significant resources. All cultural resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist. Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared. The report shall include a list of the resources recovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of resources recovered. The City shall designate repositories in the event the significant resources are recovered. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR Prior to grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance. After grading is completed, City Planning Department shall verify receipt of appropriate report. 2 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS CUL-2 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department. During site grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance. CUL-3 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project applicant shall contact the appropriate Tribe1 to notify the 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. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department. During site grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance. CUL-4 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area to the appropriate Tribe for CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department. During site grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance, if applicable. 1 It is anticipated that the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians will be the “appropriate” Tribe due to their prior and extensive coordination with the City in determining potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. 3 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS proper treatment and disposition. CUL-5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department. During site grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance, if applicable. CUL-6 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological 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 CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department. During site grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance, if applicable. CUL-7 Prior to any ground disturbing activity, a mitigation program shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Said mitigation program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1.Excavations in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Planning Department Department. Prior to grading, the City Planning Department shall verify compliance with the mitigation program. At completion of 4 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS should be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. 2.Samples of sediments should be collected and washed to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. 3.Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. 4.A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontologic resources. grading, the Planning Department shall review the report. F. GEOLOGY & SOILS GEO-1 The Project shall comply with the recommendations to address geology and soils impacts within the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation. Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Riverside Drive SW of Eisenhower Drive. Lake Elsinore. California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, December 8, 2005 (Geo Investigation, Appendix C), including, but not limited to: seismic ground shaking, subsidence, liquefaction, expansive soils, and corrosive soils, for all structures on site. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department. During grading plan check, the City Public Works - Engineering Department shall verify compliance with design parameters. 5 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS G. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction and operational activities shall be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the Project development. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department. During grading, the City Public Works Department shall verify developers employment of qualified remediation professional, if applicable. H. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY HYD-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Final Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at that time. The Final Water Quality Management Plan shall further demonstrate that post-development runoff flows are no greater that pre-development run-off flows. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department. Prior to grading City Public Works - Engineering Department shall review and approve the Final WQMP. K. NOISE NOI-1 The Project applicant shall require any construction contractor that needs to use stationary construction equipment within 50 feet of the Project’s southwest property line to place a temporary sound barrier between the stationary equipment and Lakeside High School. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department, and Building & Safety Department. During grading and construction activities, City Public Works - Engineering Department, and Building & Safety Department inspectors shall verify compliance. NOI-2 The Project applicant shall construct a minimum 5.0-foot high solid wall around the perimeter of any first floor patios that are constructed on the Riverside Drive side of Building 8 and require all second floor balconies on Building 8 that face Riverside Drive to have 3.5-foot high perimeter walls that are constructed of a solid material (e.g., CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department, and Building & Safety Department. During building construction plan review, the City Public Works - Engineering Department, and Building & Safety Department 6 IS SECTION MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION COMMENTS glass, wood or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. inspectors shall verify compliance. O. TRANS./ TRAFFIC TR-1 Prior to occupancy, the Project developer shall pay fair share contributions as outlined on page 29 of the Project TIA. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department, and Building & Safety Department. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the City Public Works - Engineering Department, staff shall verify payment of fair share contributions. TR-2 Prior to occupancy, street improvements, signing and striping for Riverside Avenue shall be installed as directed by Caltrans and the City. CEQA INITIAL STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Public Works - Engineering Department. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the City Public Works - Engineering Department staff shall verify installation of required improvements.