HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 15 Planning App. No. 2017-37 The Cottages Civic Partners Develop. of 143 Afford Multifamily Residential UnitsText File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 17-393
Agenda Date: 10/24/2017 Status: Public HearingVersion: 1
File Type: ReportIn Control: City Council / Successor Agency
Agenda Number: 15)
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 10/19/2017
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:Grant Yates, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Kirk, Principal Planner
DATE:October 24, 2017
PROJECT: Planning Application No. 2017-37 (The Cottages):A request by Civic Partners
for the approval of a development of 143 affordable multifamily residential units
and related on and offsite improvements.
APPLICANT: Jeff Pomeroy, Civic Partners
Recommendation
adopt, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
APPROVING ADDENDUM #1 TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH
2008011082) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 2017-37 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW
2017-00014 and TTM 37393); AND,
adopt, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, FINDINGS TAT PLANNING APPLICATION 2017-37 IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN (MSHCP); AND,
adopt, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37393 FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF
23 PARCELS AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY
LOCATED AT ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APNs) 365-030-004 THROUGH -007, -016
THROUGH -023, and -027 THROUGH -037; AND,
adopt, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA,APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2016-103 FOR 143
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APNs) 365-030-004 THROUGH -007, -016 THROUGH -
023, and -027 THROUGH -037.
Project Request/Location
The applicant is proposing to build 143 unit affordable multifamily development with associated
features and facilities including 333 resident/visitor parking, a leasing/management office, a
community center, onsite laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on 23
Page 2 of 9
parcels totaling 19.43 acre. TTM 37393 is also a part of the project, which proposes to
consolidate the 23 parcels into one parcel and reconfigure the adjacent right of way.
The 19.43-acre project site is generally located on vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of
Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south of Stoneman Street and is more specifically
referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-030-004 through -007, -016 through -
023, and -027 through -037.
Environmental Setting
EXISTING LAND USE EAST LAKE SP GENERAL PLAN
Project Site Vacant Medium Residential Specific Plan
North Vacant Medium Residential Specific Plan
South Vacant Medium Residential Specific Plan
East ROW ROW ROW
West Vacant Low-Medium Residential Specific Plan
Background
The East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) was adopted by the City in 1993 and originally included
3,000 acres that would allow for a total of up to 9,000 residential units. There have been 10
subsequent amendments to the Specific Plan that were approved and adopted which have
modified the land-uses of the plan area. The currently adopted East Lake Specific Plan covers
2,977 acres and allows approximately 1,563,804 square feet of commercial development
(without industrial uses), one golf course, one hotel, 199.6 acres of active recreation uses (and
parks), 7,121 dwelling units, 7,500 square feet for restaurants, one airport, and approximately
792.6 acres of preservation/mitigation areas. The approved zoning of medium density
residential has not changed since the original approval of the ELSP.
An 11th amendment has been proposed by the City and is currently going through the
entitlement process. The proposed ELSP Amendment #11 would potentially allow 458,000 of
commercial/light industrial development, one golf course, up to four hotels, 36.4 acres of parks,
3,640 dwelling units, 67,500 square feet for restaurants, one airport, and potentially up to 815.2
acres of preservation/mitigation areas. Additionally, the proposed ELSPA 11 allows up to four
active recreation uses and two action sports uses.
On June 25, 2008, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approved the Colony Project.
The approved project for the site included development and operation of 211 attached senior
condominiums and a community recreation facility on the 12.20-acres in the eastern portion of
the site. The residential buildings were proposed to be four complexes of condominiums with an
average density of 11.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The 211 dwelling units were designed to
range from 992 to 1,527 square feet. The total building square footage for the project was
271,193. Entitlements associated with this project expired on June 25, 2012.
On October 17, 2017, the Planning Commission took unanimous action to recommend approval
of the proposed project to the City Council.
Page 3 of 9
Description of Residential Design Review No. 2016-103
The proposed project includes construction and operation of 143 for-rent affordable residential
units in detached and attached duplex structures and related onsite improvements. Table 1,
provides a breakdown of the proposed uses.
The residential buildings would be two-stories, would provide either two or three bedrooms, and
range from approximately 750 to 1,250 square feet in size. The project also includes an
approximately 55,000-square-foot (or 1.26-acre) park/recreation area in the center of the site
that would include a 2,200-square foot recreation building, children’s tot lot, open lawn, picnic
area, and meandering walkways. Additionally, the project includes a 6.97-acre open
space/detention basin area in the western portion of the project site, which would include a
1,312-foot circular path made of decomposed granite for walking/running.
Table 1: Project Development Summary
Site Summary Units
Gross Site Area 19.43 acres
Residential Development Area 11.20 acres
Park Area 1.26 acres
Open Space Area 6.97 acres
Dwelling Units 143 units
Residential Density 7.4 units per acre
Unit Summary Number and Percentage of Units
2-Bedroom Units 39 = 27%
3-Bedroom Units 104 = 73%
Total Residential Units 143 = 100%
Park Recreation Building 2,200 square feet
Parking Spaces Number of Spaces
Garage Spaces 143
Driveway Spaces 87
Open Spaces 103
Total Parking Spaces 333
Architectural Features
The building architecture would feature Spanish style architecture with various white, tan, and
drown stucco buildings with red and terracotta blend concrete barrel tile roofs. Additional
architectural features include
Sand Finish
Foam Trim
Window Grids
Decorative Shutters
Coach Light
Address Plaque
Page 4 of 9
The applicant has proposed three-color treatments as follows:
1 2 3
STUCCO BODY SW 7042 SHOJI
WHITE
SW 7541 GRECIAN
IVORY
SW 7005 PURE
WHITE
FASCIA / EAVES /
CLAY DÉCOR PIPES
AT GABLES/ GARAGE
SW 7510 CHATEAU
BROWN
SW 9115 COWBOY
BOOTS
SW 7034 STATUS
BRONZE
ALL TRIM SW 7535 SANDY
RIDGE
SW 7549 STUDIO
TAUPE
SW 7550
RESORT TAN
ENTRY DRS/
SHUTTERS
SW 2838 POLISHED
MAHAGONY
SW 7625 MUONT
ETNA
SW 6068
BREVITY BROWN
ROOF MATERIAL
FULL S
3816 SAN RAMON
RANGE
37646 DESERT
CLAY BLEND
SMC 8402 SANTA
CRUZ BLEND
Landscaping
Trees, shrubs, and ground cover located in the perimeter landscaping areas provide effective
screening of the project. Interior landscaping will provide foreground softening of the buildings.
The landscape will be drip irrigated and controlled by an ET based smart controller. Plant
selection by hydro-zone will reduce overall irrigation requirements. A condition of approval has
been added to require additional screening landscape adjacent to the drainage basin/walking
trail.
Fencing
Site fencing would primarily consist of a 6’-0” high concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall. Along the
westerly project boundary a 6-0” tubular steel fence will is proposed with a gate to open up onto
a drainage basin/walking trail.
Community Amenities
The proposed project offers both active and passive recreational opportunities. The main
community open space area is the focal point of the project’s entrance and includes two tot lots,
picnic tables, basketball court, benches, and an open turf area. The project’s detention basin
also incorporates a walking trail around the perimeter. The project also features a 2,200 square
foot recreation building that would feature multipurpose recreational amenities.
Site Access and Parking
Access to the project site would be provided by one full-access driveway from Mission Trail and
one right-in/right-out access only driveway. An onsite circulation system, with 333 parking
spaces provided near the residences throughout the site. The project would install sidewalks
along Mission Trail and selected internal streets within the project site. In addition, the project
would install (or accommodate for future installation, at the City’s discretion) a Class II bicycle
lane along Mission Trail.
Analysis
Page 5 of 9
The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP).
General Plan
The ESLP and the subsequent amendments were subject to a consistency finding with the
General Plan prior to adoption. The proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the
ESLP and is therefore consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed
development helps the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals by providing
additional affordable housing stocks that furthers the goals and objectives of the Housing
Element.
ELSP/LEMC
The Project has a zoning designation of Specific Plan and is governed by the East Lake Specific
Plan and the LEMC. Under the ELSP, the project has a designation of Medium Density
Residential (Res 2), Table 2 details the Project’s consistency with the ELSP.
Table 2
Development Standard Required/Limit Proposed
Building Height 45’-0”Varies, Min 26’-0”
Front Setback 20’-0”26’-0”
Side Setback (North PL)0’-0”17’-0”
Side Setback (South PL)0’-0”26’-0”
Rear Setback 0’-0”103’-0”
Building Separation 10’-0”Varies, Min 10’-0”
Maximum Lot Coverage 70%18.6%
Density 14 DU/Acre 7.4 DU/Acre
As detailed in Table 2, the proposed project is consistent with all development standards of the
applicable specific plan requirements. In most instances, the project demonstrates that it
exceeds the minimum standard applied. The proposed development has a parking requirement
of one (2.2) covered space, plus one point two (1.2) open spaces per dwelling unit, which
translates to 143 covered spaces and 172 uncovered spaces for a total of 315 parking spaces.
The project proposes 143 covered spaces in single car garages and 190 uncovered spaces for
a total of 333 parking spaces, thus exceeding the minimum requirements.
Findings for Approval
The LEMC specifies three specific findings for approving design review projects:
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.
As previously detailed, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, LEMC, and the
ELSP.
The project complies with the design directives contained in LEMC 17.184.060 and all other
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
Page 6 of 9
The proposed project has been designed in a manner consistent with other residential
communities within the ELSP. In addition, the project has incorporated design criteria as
identified in the City’s Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) elements of
this program include:
Natural Surveillance: Natural surveillance is a CPTED principle directed at keeping
legitimate users and potential intruders under passive observation. It utilizes design
features to increase the visibility of a property or building by human activity. For
example, the proper placement and design of windows, lighting, and landscaping
increases the ability to allow for maximum visibility.
Natural Access Control: Natural access control is a CPTED principle used to decrease
the opportunity for criminal activity by creating physical elements and cues in the design
to keep unauthorized persons out of a particular place if they do not have a legitimate
reason for being there. Natural Access Control can be accomplished by the placement of
entrances, exits, fencing, landscaping and lighting to provide a physical guidance to
people coming and going from one space to another.
Territorial Reinforcement: People naturally protect a territory that they feel is their own,
and have a certain respect for the territory of others; clear boundaries between public
and private areas achieved by using physical elements to “personalize” a space. Such
elements as fences, 5 February 19, 2013 Resolution No. 2013-01 pavement treatment,
art, signs, gardens, proper maintenance, and landscaping are ways to express
ownership.
Maintenance and Management: Lastly, care and maintenance allows for the continued
use of a space for its intended purpose. Deterioration and blight indicate less concern
and control by the intended users of a site and indicate a greater tolerance of disorder.
The more dilapidated an area, the more likely it is to attract unwanted activities.
Conditions and safeguards pursuant to LEMC 17.184.070, including guarantees and evidence
of compliance with conditions, have been incorporated into the approval of the subject project to
ensure development of the property in accordance with the objectives of this chapter and the
planning district in which the site is located.
Building, Engineering, and Fire staff has reviewed the requested Design Review application and
have conditioned the project to mitigate any concerns. Furthermore, specific Conditions of
Approval have been added that require the project to be a part of the Crime Free Multi Family
Program, annexation into CFDs, and meeting all State and Federal permit requirements.
Findings for Denial
AB 678 (Bocanegra) and SB 167 (Skinner) increases the standard of proof required for a local
government to justify its denial of low- to moderate-income housing development projects.
These bills were signed into law by Governor Brown on October 2, 2017. This new state law
asserts that “A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, including
farmworker housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety
Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition
approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development
for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter,
Page 7 of 9
including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based
upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:”
The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in
accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction
has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section
65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development
project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the
reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of
income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional
housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to
disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional
housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and
definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development
pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met
or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of
subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this
paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
The City’s RHNA establishes that the City allocated number of low-income residential units is
801 units. The current housing element established that the City has supplied 16% or 128 units
of this allocation. Subsequent project approvals of affordable housing developments have
increased this number to 27% or 216 well below the required 801. Because the City has not met
its RHNA requirement, this finding for denial cannot be made.
(2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to
low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter
financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written
public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land
use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
The proposed project has been designed in a manner consistent with the residential fire code.
In addition the project has been designed with CPTED standards. As designed the proposed
project does not create any potential adverse impacts to public health or safety. Lastly, the
project has been designed to meet all water quality permit requirements specifically the
treatment of nuisance water and the handling of storm event conditions. Due to the negative
impact, any residential unit has the City’s financial ability to maintain current public safety
standards the project has been conditioned to annex into Community Facility District 2015-01,
which establishes an additional property tax levy to ensure that the project’s impact is reduced
to levels of less than significance. Because the project has been designed in, a manner to
minimize significant impacts to public health and safety and the project has been conditioned to
annex into a Community Facility District to offset potential adverse financial impacts this finding
for denial cannot be made.
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order
to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without
Page 8 of 9
rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering
the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
The proposed project has been designed and conditioned in manner to comply with state or
federal law. Specifically, studies have been prepared that assert jurisdictional delineation for any
potential permits required in order to construct the project, compliance with state and federal law
regarding the Clean Water Act, Endangered species Act, and other applicable regulation.
(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for
agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used
for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or
wastewater facilities to serve the project.
The proposed project is not located adjacent to any property zoned for agriculture or resource
preservation. Current zoning surrounding the property is residential. Future land uses
contemplated in the ELSP Amendment #11 include commercial and industrial uses. The
applicant has obtained a will serve letter from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
establishing the district’s ability to provide drinking water and handle the increase of wastewater.
Because current and future zoning is not either agricultural or resource preservation and the
district has demonstrated adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project this finding
of denial cannot be made.
(5) The housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent with both the
jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any
element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and
the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is
in substantial compliance with this article. For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning
ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was
deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the
housing development project or emergency shelter.
As previously stated in this report the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan,
LEMC, and the ELSP. Table 2 identifies specific development standards, which have been met.
Because this project is consistent with the General Plan, LEMC, and the ELSP this finding
cannot be made.
Conclusion
Overall, the proposed development is of a high quality and is consistent with all applicable
governing documents. The proposed architecture effectively employs horizontal and vertical
elements to break up the massing of the buildings. The uses of arches, shutters, and other
architectural treatments reinforce the high quality of the proposed design. In order to minimize
potential visual and/or privacy impacts to the adjacent residential community, building one (1)
has been designed to feature a single story element on the northerly facing building frontage
and transitions to a two (2) story building that does not incorporate any windows adjacent to the
residential community. Adequate recreational amenities have been provided and are consistent
with other multi-family residential projects. In addition, the proposed project provides additional
affordable housing, which helps the City meet its RHNA in a different manner than traditional
affordable apartment complexes. Overall, the proposed project as designed and conditioned will
provide a high quality and complimentary housing option to the Summerly Development.
Page 9 of 9
Environmental Determination
On June 25, 2008, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approved the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND (SCH #2008011082) and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) to reduce the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the
Colony project to a less than significant level. The Colony project was a previously approved
project for the site that included development and operation of 211 attached senior
condominiums and a community recreation facility on the 12.20-acres site. The residential
buildings were proposed to be four complexes of condominiums with an average density of 11.1
dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The 211 dwelling units were designed to range from 992 to
1,527 square feet. The total building square footage for the project was 271,193. The
community recreation park was to include a putting green and a community pool. In addition, the
western 7.2-acre portion of the project site was an open space area with a storm water
detention basin. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified five environmental impact areas
for which mitigation would reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level
(air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and transportation and traffic). The
modified project will implement applicable mitigation measures included in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. In addition, the Colony project included various Project Design Features
(PDFs) that were included in the project to reduce potential impacts, which would also be
implemented with the modified project. No substantial changes are proposed in the project and
there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be
undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified
EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of
substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). The
addendum has been included as an attachment to the agenda and all technical studies are on
file and available for public at the planning counter at City Hall.
Fiscal Impact
The time and costs related to processing this extension of time request have been covered by
the Developer Deposit paid for by the applicant. No General Fund budgets have been allocated
or used in the processing of this application. The approval of the project does not fiscally impact
the City’s General Fund. Mitigation Measures to protect the City fiscally have already been
included in the Conditions of Approval.
Exhibits:
A. CEQA Resolution
B. MSHCP Resolution
C. TTM Resolution
D. RDR Resolution
E. Conditions of Approval
F. Addendum
G. Vicinity Map
H. Aerial Map
I.Tentative Map
J. Design Review Package
123487659101112161514131718192024232221252627283231302933343536373839434241404445464751504948525354555958575660616263676665646869707175747372767778798382818084858687919089889293949599989796100101102103107106105104108109110111112113114115116117118119122121120125124123128127126131130129132133134135136137138139140141142143//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Open Space±53,000sfWATER & SEWERELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATERDISTRICT EVMWD)P.O. BOX 300031315 CHANEY STREETLAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531P: 951-674-3146ELECTRICSOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEDISONP.O. BOX 800ROSEMEAD, CA 91770P: 1-800-655-4555GASTHE GAS COMPANYP.O. BOX 3150MONTEREY PARK, CA 91756P: 1-800-427-2200CABLE & BROADBANDTIME WARNERONE TIME WARNER CENTERNEW YORK, NY 10019-8016P: 1-888-892-2253TELEPHONESOUTHERN CALIFORNIATELEPHONE & ENERGY27515 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE W.TEMECULA, CA 92590-4864P: 1-800-840-6673ASSESSOR PARCELSNUMBERS:365-030-004 thru 365-030-007365-030-016 thru 365-030-023365-030-027 thru 365-030-037CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMILAKE ELSINORE, CACIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.8000THE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILTENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37393OPEN SPACE6.97 ACNOT A PARTMISSION TRAILPROJECT LOCATIONVICINITY MAPSite SummaryGross Site Area19.43 ACResidential Area 11.25 ACPark Area 1.21 ACOpen Space 6.97 ACDwelling Units 143 DUResidential Density7.4 DU/ACResidential Plan SummarybedNet Area#%8-PackP229692725%P331,2222725%P431,2192322%P531,2032725%P6393733%Total107100%6-PackP127701233%P331,2221233%P639371233%Total36100%MixTypeNo. UnitsMix2 bedroom total3927%3 bedroom total10473%Total143100%Recreation Building2,200 SFResidential Parking SummaryParking ProvidedSpaces/UnitSpaceGarage Spaces143Driveway Spaces87Open Spaces103Total parking spaces2.33333Site SummaryUnitNo. of UnitsNet AreaTotal BedsP1129,240P22726,163P33947,658P42328,037P52732,481P61514,055Total:143157,634390(VACANT)PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(EXISTING)VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALPARCEL 1
THE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILSHEET INDEXSHEET INDEXC.1 Conceptual Site PlanC.2Preliminary Grading and Drainage PlanC.3Wall and Fence PlanA1.1Site PerspectivesA2.1Exterior Elevations - SpanishA2.2Exterior Elevations - SpanishA3.1Floor Plans 1 & 2A3.2Floor Plans 3, 4 & 5A4.1Interior Cluster PlansA4.2Exterior Cluster PlansL1.1Conceptual Landscape PlanL1.2Conceptual Open Space PlanCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.8000
123487659101112161514131718192024232221252627283231302933343536373839434241404445464751504948525354555958575660616263676665646869707175747372767778798382818084858687919089889293949599989796100101102103107106105104108109110111112113114115116117118119122121120125124123128127126131130129132133134135136137138139140141142143//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDWATER & SEWERELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATERDISTRICT EVMWD)P.O. BOX 300031315 CHANEY STREETLAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531P: 951-674-3146ELECTRICSOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEDISONP.O. BOX 800ROSEMEAD, CA 91770P: 1-800-655-4555GASTHE GAS COMPANYP.O. BOX 3150MONTEREY PARK, CA 91756P: 1-800-427-2200CABLE & BROADBANDTIME WARNERONE TIME WARNER CENTERNEW YORK, NY 10019-8016P: 1-888-892-2253TELEPHONESOUTHERN CALIFORNIATELEPHONE & ENERGY27515 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE W.TEMECULA, CA 92590-4864P: 1-800-840-6673ASSESSOR PARCELSNUMBERS:365-030-004 thru 365-030-007365-030-016 thru 365-030-023365-030-027 thru 365-030-037CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMILAKE ELSINORE, CACIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.8000THE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILCONCEPTUAL SITE PLANC.1OPEN SPACE6.97 ACNOT A PARTMISSION TRAILPROJECT LOCATIONVICINITY MAPSite SummaryGross Site Area19.43 ACResidential Area 11.25 ACPark Area 1.21 ACOpen Space 6.97 ACDwelling Units 143 DUResidential Density7.4 DU/ACResidential Plan SummarybedNet Area#%8-PackP229692725%P331,2222725%P431,2192322%P531,2032725%P6393733%Total107100%6-PackP127701233%P331,2221233%P639371233%Total36100%MixTypeNo. UnitsMix2 bedroom total3927%3 bedroom total10473%Total143100%Recreation Building2,200 SFResidential Parking SummaryParking ProvidedSpaces/UnitSpaceGarage Spaces143Driveway Spaces87Open Spaces103Total parking spaces2.33333Site SummaryUnitNo. of UnitsNet AreaTotal BedsP1129,240P22726,163P33947,658P42328,037P52732,481P61514,055Total:143157,634390(VACANT)PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(EXISTING)VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMILAKE ELSINORE, CACIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.8000THE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILGRADING AND DRAINAGEC.2OPEN SPACE6.97 ACNOT A PARTMISSION TRAIL(VACANT)PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(EXISTING)VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
OPEN SPACE6.8 ACMISSION TRAIL123487659101112161514131718192024232221252627283231302933343536373839434241404445464751504948525354555958575660616263676665646869707175747372767778798382818084858687919089889293949599989796100101102103107106105104108109110111112113114115116117118119122121120125124123128127126131130129132133134135136137138139140141142143CORPORATIONWILSON MIKAMILAKE ELSINORE, CACIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.8000THE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILWALL AND FENCE PLAN C.3NOT A PARTNOT A PART
Park Cluster View
±25'-0"
±26'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SPANISH0482017-08-02LAKE ELSINORE, CATHE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILKTGY # 130213KTGY Group, Inc.Architecture+Planning17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.80002Plan 2/3Plan 1/6RightRearLeftFrontRightRearLeftFront-Spanish Tile Roof-Stucco 16/20 Sand Finish-Foam Trim-Window Grids-Metal Awning-Gable End Detail-Coach Light-Address Plaque-Spanish Tile Roof-Stucco 16/20 Sand Finish-Foam Trim-Window Grids-Decorative Shutters-Gable End Detail-Coach Light-Address Plaque A2.1
±25'-6"
±25'-0"
±25'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SPANISH0482017-06-21LAKE ELSINORE, CATHE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILKTGY # 130213KTGY Group, Inc.Architecture+Planning17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.80002Plan 4Plan 3RightRearLeftFrontRightRearLeftFrontPlan 5RightRearLeftFront-Spanish Tile Roof-Stucco 16/20 Sand Finish-Foam Trim-Window Grids-Metal Awning-Gable End Detail-Coach Light-Address Plaque-Spanish Tile Roof-Stucco 16/20 Sand Finish-Foam Trim-Window Grids-Decorative Shutters-Coach Light-Address Plaque-Spanish Tile Roof-Stucco 16/20 Sand Finish-Foam Trim-Window Grids-Decorative Shutters-Gable End Detail-Coach Light-Address Plaques A2.2
DININGLIVINGBED 210' -0 1/2" x 10' - 10"BED 111' -3" x 13' -9 1/2"BATH 1KITCHENPLAN 1 (OVER GARAGES)2 BED / 1 BATOTAL - 770 SQ. FT.KITCHENDININGPOWDERPLAN 2GARAGE10' -1" x 26' -1"ENTRYPATIO6' x 10' MIN60 S.F. MINPLAN 22 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 526 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 442 SQ. FT.TOTAL -968 SQ. FT.LIVINGBED 210' -0" x 10' -6 1/2"DNUPDNBED 110' -0" x 10' -7"BATH 1SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOOR23'-0"35'-0"30'-0"18'-0"10'-7"PLAN 3 GARAGE11' -1" x 22' -1"PLAN 4 GARAGE11' -1" x 22' -1"PLAN 1 GARAGE11' -0" x 22' -1"STOR.UP TOPLAN 1FIRST FLOOR23'-0"35'-0"PLAN 4PLAN 4PLAN 4PLAN 3PLAN 3GARAGEPLAN 3PLAN 3GARAGEDOOR TOPLAN 3ROOF PLANROOF PLAN4050 SL4050 SL4050 SL2040 SH 2040 SH
2040 SH 2040 SH
4046 SL4050 SL4050 SL3050 SH2026 FG TEMP 2026 FG 2026 FG
2040 SH 2040 SH 4050 SL2040 SH6080 SL. GL. DR. TEMP 2040 SH12' -2 1/2" x 14' -1"13' -7" x 17' -1"PLAN 3GARAGE10' -1" x 26 -1"2040 SH
10'-6"39'-1"CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOFROOF PITCH 4:12EAVE - 12" TYPRAKE - 12" TYPNO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTPLAN 2CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOFROOF PITCH 4:12EAVE - 12" TYPRAKE - 12" TYPNO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTPLAN 1FLOOR PLANS 1 & 20482017-06-21LAKE ELSINORE, CATHE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILKTGY # 130213KTGY Group, Inc.Architecture+Planning17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.80002 A3.1
PLAN 33 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 650 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 572 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1222 SQ. FT.PLAN 5GARAGE10' -1" x 24' -1"BATH 2ENTRYNOOKBED 310' -1" x 11' -0 1/2"KITCHENLIVINGPLAN 43 BED / 2 BA1ST FLOOR - 675 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 544 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1219 SQ. FT.ENTRYKITCHENNOOKLIVING12' -4" x 16' -11 1/2"POWDERPATIO10' -0" X 6' -0"60 S.F. MIN.BED 110' -1 1/2" x 10' -6 1/2"BED 310' -9 1/2" x 10' x 0"BATH 1BED 112' -2" x 11' -0 1/2"BATH 1UPUPDNDNBED 210' -8" x 10' -0"BED 212' -3" x 11' -1 1/2"PLAN 6GARAGE10' -1" x 24' -4"KITCHENNOOKLIVINGENTRYPLAN 53 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 645 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 558 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1203 SQ. FT.UPDNBATH 1POWDERBED 210' -2" x 11' -1"BED 110' -1 1/2" x 11' -1 1/2"BED 310' -2" x 11' -0"SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORFIRST FLOORSECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR25'-0"26'-0"27'-2"25'-0"27'-0"30'-0"21'-6"10'-7"10'-7"PLAN 2GARAGEPLAN 2PLAN 2GARAGEPLAN 2PLAN 2GARAGEPLAN 2ROOF PLANROOF PLANROOF PLAN2040 SH2040 SH2040 SH 4046 SL4050 SL2040 FGTEMP2040 FG2040 FG2040 SH2040 FG 3050 SH 4050 SL4050 SL2040 SH 2040 SH
4050 SL4050 SL4050 SL4050 SL4046 SL2040 FG2040 FG2040 SH2040 SH2040 SH 3040 SH 2040 SH 2040 SH 3010 SH
2040 SHTEMP4050 SL2040 FG4050 SL2040 SH2040 SH 2040 FG 2040 FG 2040 FG 2040 SH
2040 SH 2040 FG TEMP 2040 FG
4046 SL4050 SL4050 SL2040 SH2040 SH8080 SL. GL. DR. TEMP13' -4 1/2" x 14' -1"15' -3" x 15' -8"PLAN 3GARAGECONCRETE "S" TILE ROOFROOF PITCH 4:12EAVE - 12" TYPRAKE - 12" TYPNO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTPLAN 5PLAN 4CONCRETE "S" TILE ROOFROOF PITCH 4:12EAVE - 12" TYPRAKE - 12" TYPNO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTPLAN 3PATIO10' -0" X 6' -0"60 S.F. MIN.PATIO10' -0" X 6' -0"60 S.F. MIN.PLAN 62 BED / 1 BATOTAL - 937 SQ. FT.FIRST FLOORROOF PLANCONCRETE "S" TILE ROOFROOF PITCH 4:12EAVE - 12" TYPRAKE - 12" TYPNO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTPLAN 6PLAN 1GARAGEGARAGEGARAGECONCRETE "S" TILE ROOFROOF PITCH 4:12EAVE - 12" TYPRAKE - 12" TYPNO ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENTFLOOR PLANS 3, 4 & 50482017-08-09LAKE ELSINORE, CATHE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILKTGY # 130213KTGY Group, Inc.Architecture+Planning17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.80002 A3.2
PLAN 1 (OVER GARAGES)2 BED / 1 BATOTAL - 770 SQ. FT.PLAN 33 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 650 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 572 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1222 SQ. FT.PLAN 63 BED / 1 BATOTAL - 937 SQ. FT.8'-0"DININGLIVINGBED 2BED 1BATH 1KITCHENDN25'-0"10'-0"8'-0"10'-0"UP17RPATIOPDR90CLG.H.S.UP17RPATIOPDR90CLG.H.S.UP17R8070 SECTIONAL GAR. DR.8070 SECTIONAL GAR. DR.8070 SECTIONAL GAR. DR.UP17R8070 SECTIONAL GAR. DR.8070 SECTIONAL GAR. DR.8070 SECTIONAL GAR. DR.10'-0"INTERIOR CLUSTER PLANS 0482017-08-09LAKE ELSINORE, CATHE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILKTGY # 130213KTGY Group, Inc.Architecture+Planning17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.80002 A4.1
24'-0"KITCHENDININGPOWDERPLAN 2GARAGEENTRYPATIOLIVINGENTRYKITCHENNOOKLIVINGPOWDERPLAN 3GARAGEPATIOUPUPPLAN 43 BED / 2 BA1ST FLOOR - 675 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 544 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1219 SQ. FT.PLAN 33 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 650 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 572 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1222 SQ. FT.PLAN 22 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 526 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 442 SQ. FT.TOTAL -968 SQ. FT.GARAGEKITCHENNOOKLIVINGENTRYPATIOUPPOWDERGARAGEKITCHENNOOKLIVINGENTRYPATIOUPPOWDERGARAGEBATH 2ENTRYNOOKBED 3KITCHENLIVINGPATIOUPGARAGEBATH 2ENTRYNOOKBED 3KITCHENLIVINGPATIOUPKITCHENDININGPOWDERPLAN 2GARAGEENTRYPATIOLIVINGENTRYKITCHENNOOKLIVINGPOWDERPLAN 3GARAGEPATIOUPUPPLAN 53 BED / 1.5 BA1ST FLOOR - 645 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR - 558 SQ. FT.TOTAL - 1203 SQ. FT.8'-9"8'-0"38'-0"8'-9"8'-0"10'-9"18'-0"MIN18'-0"MINEXTERIOR CLUSTER PLANS0482017-06-21LAKE ELSINORE, CATHE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILKTGY # 130213KTGY Group, Inc.Architecture+Planning17911 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comCIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.80002A4.2
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (SCH 2008011082) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 2017-37
(RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2017-00014 and TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37393)
Whereas, Jeff Pomeroy, on behalf of Civic Partners, has submitted an application for the
development of 143-unit affordable multifamily development with associated features and
facilities including 333 resident/visitor parking, a leasing/management office, a community center,
onsite laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on 23 parcels totaling 19.43
acre. TTM 37393 is also a part of the Project, which proposes to consolidate the 23 parcels into
one parcel and reconfigure the adjacent right of way. The 19.43-acre Project site is generally
located on vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and
south of Stoneham Street and is more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 365-030-004 through - 007, - 016 through - 023, and - 027 through - 037; and,
Whereas, the Project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.: “CEQA”) and the State Implementation Guidelines
for CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: “CEQA Guidelines”)
because the Project involves an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and
involves the issuance of a lease, permit license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or
more public agencies (Public Resources Code Section 21065); and,
Whereas, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No.
2008011082: the “MND”) to address the potential environmental impacts of the Colony Project
pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Procedures for Implementing the CEQA
Guidelines and its other procedures relating to environmental evaluation of public and private
projects; and,
Whereas, June 25, 2008, the City Council (Council) of the City of Lake Elsinore (City) approved
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND (SCH #2008011082) and its Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP); and,
Whereas, the potential environmental impacts of the Colony Project were evaluated in the
approved MND; and,
Whereas, an Initial Study/Addendum to the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082) was prepared to
provide an evaluation of potential site-specific environmental effects that could result from the
proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the MND and concluded that
the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in the earlier
approved MND; and,
Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the Initial Study/Addendum provides
some changes and additions to the approved MND and therefore constitutes Addendum 1 to the
Colony MND; and,
Whereas, pursuant to LEMC Chapters 16.24 (Tentative Maps) and 17.184 (Design Review) the
Planning Commission has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to
the Council pertaining to Tentative Maps and Design Review of residential projects; and,
CC Reso No. 2017-_______
Page 2 of 4
Whereas, on October 17, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item; and,
Whereas, pursuant to LEMC Chapters 16.24 (Tentative Maps) and 17.184 (Design Review) the
Council of the City has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove
recommendations of the Commission for Design Review applications; and,
Whereas,on October 24, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the City Council has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into these
findings by this reference.
Section 2. The Council, based upon a thorough review of the proposed Addendum 1 to the
Colony MND (SCH 2008011082), the CEQA documents, and the evidence received to date, does
determine as follows:
1.In accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project does not
present substantial changes or reveal new information that would require subsequent or
supplemental MND analysis. However, some changes or additions to the information
contained in the certified MND is necessary in order to approve the proposed project. For
this reason, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial
Study/Addendum to the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082) was prepared to provide an
evaluation of potential site-specific environmental effects that could result from the
proposed Project, compared those effects to what was disclosed by the MND and
concluded that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been
addressed in the earlier approved MND. The Initial Study/Addendum constitutes
Addendum 1 to the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082).
2.That Addendum 1 was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
3.That, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included
in the Addendum 1, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the
CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
Environmental Impact Report have occurred; specifically:
a.There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the proposed Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the CEQA
documents due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
b.There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Colony
MND (SCH 2008011082) was adopted, that shows any of the following: (a) the Project will
have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082);
CC Reso No. 2017-_______
Page 3 of 4
(b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in Colony MND (SCH 2008011082); (c) mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082) would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Section 3. The Council has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who
have reviewed Addendum 1 to the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082 The Council hereby finds and
determines that all public comments have been addressed.
Section 4. The Council hereby finds that Addendum 1 to the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082)
for the Project is adequate and has been completed in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City’s procedures for implementation of CEQA.
Section 5. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings the Council of the City adopts
Addendum 1 to the Colony MND (SCH 2008011082) for Planning Application 2017-37 (Tentative
Tract Map 37393 and Residential Design Review 2017-00014).
Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 24
th day of October 2017.
___________________
Robert E. Magee
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
CC Reso No. 2017-_______
Page 4 of 4
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. 2017-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the Regular meeting of October 24, 2017, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT PLANNING APPLICATION 2017-37 IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
Whereas, Jeff Pomeroy, on behalf of Civic Partners, has submitted an application for the
development of 143 unit affordable multifamily development with associated features and facilities
including 333 resident/visitor parking, a leasing/management office, a community center, onsite
laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on 23 parcels totaling 19.43 acre.
TTM 37393 is also a part of the project, which proposes to consolidate the 23 parcels into one
parcel and reconfigure the adjacent right of way. The 19.43-acre project site is generally located
on vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south of
Stoneham Street and is more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-
030-004 through -007, -016 through -023, and -027 through -037; 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 discretionary development projects be analyzed
pursuant to the MSHCP “Plan Wide Requirements” even if not within an MSHCP criteria cell; and,
Whereas, the Project is discretionary in nature and requires review and approval by the Planning
Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council); and,
Whereas,a portion of the Project is within MSHCP Criteria Cell 4743 and the entire Project is
within the 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, pursuant to LEMC Chapter 16.24 (17.184 (Design Review) the Commission has been
delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Council pertaining to Design
Review of residential projects; and,
Whereas,on October 17, 2017, 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,
Whereas, pursuant to.184 (Design Review) the Council of the City has the responsibility of
making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove recommendations of the Planning
Commission for Design Review applications; and;
Whereas,on October 24, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Council has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
CC Reso No. 2017-___
Page 2 Of 4
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 of Consistency with the
MSHCP for the Project.
Section 2. That in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), and the
MSHCP, Findings for adoption have been made as follows:
Section 3. The Commission has reviewed and analyzed the proposed applications and their
consistency with the MSHCP prior to making a decision to recommend that the Council adopt
Findings of Consistency with the MSHCP for the Project.
Section 4. That in accordance with the City of 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.
Pursuant to the City's MSHCP Implementing Resolution, prior to approving any
discretionary entitlement, the City is required to review the Project to ensure
consistency with the MSHCP criteria and other "Plan Wide Requirements." The
Project, as proposed, was found to be consistent with the MSHCP criteria. In
addition, the Project was reviewed and found consistent with the following "Plan
Wide Requirements". Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP § 6.2), 1.Protection of Narrow Endemic
Species (NEPS) MSHCP § 6.3), 1.Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP §
6.4), 1.Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP § 6.1), 3.Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures (MSHCP § 6.2), 3. Fuels Management (MSHCP § 6.4), and payment of
the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance § 4.0).
2.The proposed Project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the County’s JPR processes.
The Project is not located within a Criteria Cell and therefore was not required to go
through the LEAP and JPR processes.
3.The proposed Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal
Pools Guidelines.
Section 6.21.of the MSHCP focuses on protection of riparian/riverine areas and
vernal pool habitat types based upon their value in the conservation of a number of
MSHCP covered species. There are no vernal pools or fairy shrimp habitat on the
Project Site, and therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.21.of the MSHCP.
4.The proposed Project is consistent with the Protection of NEPS Guidelines.
CC Reso No. 2017-___
Page 3 Of 4
The site does not fall within any NEPS Survey Areas. Neither a habitat assessment
nor further focused surveys were required for the Project. Therefore, Protection of
NEPS Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP are not applicable to
the Project.
5.The proposed Project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures.
The MSHCP only requires additional surveys for certain species if the Project is
located in Criteria Area Species Survey Areas, Amphibian Species Survey Areas,
Burrowing Owl Survey Areas, and Mammal Species Survey Areas of the MSHCP.
The Project site is not located within any of the Critical Species Survey Areas.
Therefore, the provisions of MSHCP Section 6.3.2 are not applicable.
6.The Project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation
areas. Therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.1.4
are not applicable.
7.The Project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements.
The Project consists of the establishment of a Recreational Vehicle (RV) sales facility
within an existing building on a fully developed site. There are no resources located
on the Project site requiring mapping as set forth in MSCHP Section 6.3.1.
8.The Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines.
The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation
areas. Therefore, the Fuels Management Guidelines of MSHCP Section 6.4 are not
applicable.
9.The Project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation
areas. The Project does not propose any construction as such no permits are
required.
10.The Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
The Project site is not within or adjacent to any MSHCP Criteria Cell or conservation
areas. As described above, the Project complies with all application MSHCP
requirements.
Section 5.Based upon the evidence presented and the above findings, the Council of the City
adopts findings that the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.
Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 24
th day of October 2017.
CC Reso No. 2017-___
Page 4 Of 4
___________________
Robert E. Magee
Mayor
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. 2017-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the Regular meeting of October 24, 2017, 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, APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 37393 FOR THE
CONSOLIDATION OF 23 TRACTS AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE
ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED AT ASSESOR TRACT NUMBERS (APNS)
365-030-004 THROUGH -007, -016 THROUGH -023, AND -027 THROUGH -037
Whereas, Jeff Pomeroy, on behalf of Civic Partners, has submitted an application for the
development of 143 unit affordable multifamily development with associated features and facilities
including 333 resident/visitor parking, a leasing/management office, a community center, onsite
laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on 23 Tracts totaling 19.43 acre. TTM
37393 is also a part of the Project, which proposes to consolidate the 23 Tracts into one Tract
and reconfigure the adjacent right of way. The 19.43-acre Project site is generally located on
vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south of
Stoneham Street and is more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Tract Numbers (APNs) 365-
030-004 through -007, -016 through -023, and -027 through -037; and,
Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Map) the
Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making
recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the tentative map; and,
Whereas, on October 17, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Commission considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item.
Whereas, pursuant to LEMC Chapter 16.24 (Tentative Maps) the Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore (City) has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove
recommendations of the Commission for Design Review applications; and,
Whereas,on October 24, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Council has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Prior to making taking action, the Council has reviewed and analyzed Tentative Parcel
Map No. 37393 pursuant to the appropriate Planning and Zoning Laws, Chapter 16 (Subdivisions)
of the LEMC, and Section 6.2.3.
Section 2. On October 24, 2017, 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
Resolution No. 2017-___ finding and determining that that Addendum #1 to the Colony MND
(SCH 2008011082) is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 3. That in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law and the LEMC, the Council
makes the following findings for approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37393:
CC Reso No. 2017-_______
Page 2 of 3
1.The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements,
is consistent with the City’s General Plan (GP) and with the Diamond Specific Plan Amendment
#1. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the GP (Government Code Section 66473.5).
The GP designates the site for Specific Plan (SP); the SP in turn designates the site for Mixed
Use. Consistent with that designation, the proposed Tentative Tract Map can accommodate future
residential land uses. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the designated land use,
development and design standards, and all other appropriate requirements contained in the GP,
East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP), and the Subdivision Map Act.
2.The site of the proposed subdivision of land is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development in accordance with the GP and the ELSP.
The Project site is vacant and is relatively flat. The proposed Tentative Tract Map, which will
consolidate 23 lots into a single 19.43 acre lot and will reconfigure the adjacent right of will allow
for the development with a maximum 7.4 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the limitation of
the ELSP maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre.
3.The effects that this Project are likely to have upon the housing needs of the region, the
public service requirements of its residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources
have been considered and balanced.
The Project site has a GP land use designation SP, with a Specific Plan Land Use Designation of
Low Medium Residential and will have a direct impact on housing. The proposed Tentative Tract
Map will accommodate the development of 143 affordable residential dwelling units, consistent
with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation. The Project has been
conditioned to annex into Community Facilities districts to defray the costs of public services as
a result of the development of the Project. The Project has been conditioned to implement the
mitigation measures adopted for the Project, which will reduce the potential impacts on the
environment to the levels of less than significance.
4.The design of the proposed division of land or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The Project has been adequately conditioned by all applicable departments and agencies and
will not therefore result in any significant environmental impacts. The proposed use, together with
the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Section 4. Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached Conditions
of Approval, the recommends that the Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 37393.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 24th day of October 2017.
CC Reso No. 2017-_______
Page 3 of 3
___________________
Robert E. Magee
Mayor
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. 2017-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the Regular meeting of October 24, 2017, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan M. Domen, MMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW 2017-14 FOR 143
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED
AT ASSESOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APNs) 365-030-004 THROUGH -007, -016
THROUGH -023, and -027 THROUGH -037.
Whereas, Jeff Pomeroy, on behalf of Civic Partners, has submitted an application for the
development of 143 unit affordable multifamily development with associated features and facilities
including 333 resident/visitor parking, a leasing/management office, a community center, onsite
laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on 23 parcels totaling 19.43 acre.
TTM 37393 is also a part of the project, which proposes to consolidate the 23 parcels into one
parcel and reconfigure the adjacent right of way. The 19.43-acre project site is generally located
on vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south of
Stoneham Street and is more specifically referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-
030-004 through -007, -016 through -023, and -027 through -037; and,
Whereas, pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 17.184 (Design Review)
the Planning Commission (Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making
recommendations to the City Council (Council) pertaining to the residential design review; 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, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 establishes the standard to be used when
determining whether subsequent environmental documentation is necessary and says that when
an environmental document has already been adopted for a project, no subsequent
environmental documentation is needed for subsequent entitlements which comprise the whole
of the action unless substantial changes or new information are presented by the Project; and,
Whereas,on October 17, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item; and,
Whereas, pursuant to LEMC Chapter 17.184 (Design Review) the Council of the City of Lake
Elsinore (City) has the responsibility of making decisions to approve, modify or disapprove
recommendations of the Commission for Design Review applications; and,
Whereas,on October 24, 2017, at a duly noticed Public Hearing the Council has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
CC Reso No. 2017-
Page 2 of 3
Section 1. The Council has considered the proposed design for the 81 apartment units and
associated features 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 §§ 59000
et seq.), the Lake Elsinore General Plan (GP), the ESLP No. 6, and the LEMC and finds and
determines that the proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of California Planning
and Zoning Law and with the goals and policies of the GP, ESLP No. 6, and the LEMC.
Section 2. On October 24, 2017, 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
Resolution No. 2017-___ finding and determining that that Addendum #1 to the Colony MND
(SCH 2008011082) is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 3. That in accordance with LEMC Chapter 17.184, the Commission makes the following
findings regarding Residential Design Review No. 2017-03:
1.The Project, as approved, will comply with the goals and objectives of the GP and the
zoning district in which the Project is located.
The ESLP and the subsequent amendments were subject to a consistency finding with
the General Plan prior to adoption. The proposed Project is consistent with the provisions
of the ESLP and is therefore consistent with the GP. Furthermore, the proposed
development helps the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals by
providing additional affordable housing stocks that furthers the goals and objectives of the
Housing Element. The proposed Project meets all development standards and is identified
as a permitted use.
2.The multi-family residential development complies with the design directives contained in
the ELSP No. 6 and all applicable provisions of the LEMC.
The proposed architecture effectively employs horizontal and vertical elements to break
up the massing of the buildings. The uses of arches, shutters, and other architectural
treatments reinforce the high quality of the proposed design. Sufficient setbacks and
onsite landscaping have been provided thereby creating interest and varying vistas. In
addition, safe and efficient circulation has been achieved onsite.
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.
Pursuant to Section 17.184.070 of the LEMC, the Project was considered by the Council
at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on October 24, 2017. The Project, as reviewed and
conditioned by all applicable City divisions, departments and agencies to protect against
any potential negative impacts.
Section 4. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the above findings, and the Conditions of
Approval imposed upon the Project, the Council approves Residential Design Review No. 2017-
14.
CC Reso No. 2017-
Page 3 of 3
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.
Passed of Adopted on this 24
th day of October 2017, by the following vote:
___________________
Robert E. Magee
Mayor
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. 2017-____ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at the Regular meeting of October 24, 2017, 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 19
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTIONS:
PROJECT:PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)
PROJECT LOCATION:APNs) 365-030-004 through -007, -016 through -
023, and -027 through -037
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03), herein referred to as the project is
approved to build 143 unit affordable multifamily development with associated features
and facilities including 333 resident/visitor parking, a leasing/management office, a
community center, onsite laundry facility and active and passive open spaces located on
23 Tracts totaling 19.43 acre. TTM 37393 is also a part of the project, which proposes to
consolidate the 23 Tracts into one Tract and reconfigure the adjacent right of way. The
19.43-acre project site is generally located on vacant land north of Corydon Road, east of
Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south of Stoneham Street and is more
specifically referred to as Assessor’s Tract Numbers (APNs) 365-030-004 through -007, -
016 through -023, and -027 through -037; and
2.The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, Agents, and Consultants agents
(collectively referred to individually and collectively as "Indemnities") from any claim,
action, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by Indemnitees
concerning approval of the project, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations
taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or
validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant's indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by
Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys' fees,
penalties and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection
with such proceeding. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action,
or proceeding against the City. If the project is challenged in court, the City and the
applicant shall enter into formal defense and indemnity agreement, consistent with this
condition.
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 $2,266.25 for the Fish & Game MND
fee and for County Clerk filing fee 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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 2 of 19
FEES
5.The applicant shall pay school fees to the Lake Elsinore Unified School District prior to
issuance of each building permit.
6.The developer shall pay all Development Impact 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) (If applicable), and Area Drainage Fee.
7.Mitigation Fees will be assessed at the prevalent rate at time of payment in full.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
8.All mitigation measures as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum #1
are hereby adopted and made conditions of approval for this project, and shall be
implemented as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PLANNING DIVISION
9.Tentative Parcel Map No. 37284 will expire two years from date of approval unless within
that period of time a Final Map has been filed with the County Recorder, or an extension of
time is granted by the City of Lake Elsinore City Council in accordance with the State of
California Subdivision Map Act and applicable requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal
Code.
10.Tentative Parcel Map No. 37284 shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map
Act and applicable requirements contained in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC),
unless modified by approved Conditions of Approval.
11.Residential Design Review No. 2017-14 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.
12.The applicant shall provide all project-related on-site and off-site improvements as required
by these Conditions of Approval.
13.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.
14.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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 3 of 19
15.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.
16.For multiple-family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
17.For multiple-family development, provide exterior lockable storage space as required by
the California Green Building Code.
18.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.
19.Project shall participate in the City of Lake Elsinore’s Crime Free Multi-Housing Program.
20.To the maximum extent permitted by law and provided that the applicants meet standard
applicant screening standards for the Development: (a) Borrower shall also give a
preference in the rental of any Units to residents of, or persons employed or that have
been offered employment in, the City and/or County. The preferences stated in this
Section apply to the rentals of Units throughout the Term. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, nothing in this Section shall require that the preference be based on a
minimum duration for residency or employment. To the extent the preferences required
under this Section are in conflict with the requirements of applicable fair housing laws or
Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and implementing guidelines, the requirements
of fair housing laws and Section 42 will supersede.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits/Building Permits
21.Submit a photometric plan of the proposed project for review and approval.
22.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 Water Quality Certification/Waste
Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
23.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.
24.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’
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 4 of 19
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 and 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.
(Modified by Planning Commission action on 6/6/17).
25.Construction phasing shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan
which avoids construction traffic from entering occupied neighborhoods within the tract.
26.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.
27.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.
28.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.
29.All landscaped areas shall include 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 and approved by the Community Development Director or designee. A Cost
Estimate for materials and labor shall also be submitted for review and approval.
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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 5 of 19
All landscape improvements shall be bonded with a ten percent (10%) Faithful
Performance Bond of the approved estimated labor and materials 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.
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.
30.Perimeter landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter and on the slopes of the
water quality basin.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 6 of 19
31.The water quality basin shall be fenced.
BUILDING DIVISION
General Conditions
32.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.
33.Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of
the 2016 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: 2016
California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2016 California Energy Codes,
2016 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
34.Green Measures. The application shall provide 10% voluntary green measures on the
project, as stipulated by the 2013 California Green Building Standards.
35.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, trash enclosure tot lots and picnic areas.
36.Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by
requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family
residential projects or a recorded final map for single- family residential projects.
37.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.
38.Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit
approvals prior to commencement of any construction work.
39.Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light
standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits.
40.Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate
approvals and permits.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 7 of 19
41.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
42.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 2016 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)
43.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.
44.Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure
to be removed as part of the project.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit (s)
45.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
46.Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building
inspector prior to the start of the building construction.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
General:
47.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.
48.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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 8 of 19
49.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.
50.Developer shall implement the improvements identified in the drainage study required by
Condition 84. These improvements shall prevent any flooding and/or erosion downstream
caused by development of the site and or diversion of drainage.
51.All required soils, geology, hydrology and hydraulic, and seismic reports shall be prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer.
FLOOD PLAIN
52.Project lies within a FEMA mapped special flood hazard zone and within the Floodplain
Management area as defined at LEMC 15.68.
53.Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.68 regarding floodplain management. Finish floor
elevation of all existing non-permitted (buildings put in place subsequent to the original
CUP) and future buildings shall be a minimum of 1267 ft. Any fill placed in the 100-year
flood plain for the purposes of elevating the building floor out of the flood plain shall require
a CLOMR/CLOMR-F and LOMR/LOMR-F to be processed with FEMA.
54.No improvement shall be made upon all lands below the 1265 ft elevation level in the
FEMA mapped Lake Elsinore flood plain southeasterly of the Lake levee and no artificial
change in the topography in the surface of said lands shall be made (except terracing and
soil conservation measures) without first complying with all applicable local, State and
Federal laws, rules and regulations and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. LEMC
15.68.052
55.Projects proposed in the back basin (elevation below 1260 ft) that the developer deems
non-jurisdictional shall receive a non-jurisdictional confirmation from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers prior to any commencement of work.
56.Meet all requirements of LEMC 15.64 regarding flood hazard regulations.
Projects in the back basin shall comply with the special conditions to Permit No. 88-00215-
00-RRS (Lake Elsinore Management Project)
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT / POLLUTION PREVENTION / NPDES
Design:
57.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.Deminimus Discharges
c.MS4
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 9 of 19
58.The project shall complete and submit for plan check review and approval to the
Engineering Division BOTH a preliminary and final WQMP, incorporating Stormwater
BMPs.
59.The applicant shall use the Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana Region of
Riverside County guidance document and template for WQMP preparation.
60.Prior to or concurrent with any submittal for land use (i.e. Final Map, Design Review,
Grading Permit, etc.), the applicant shall have prepared and submitted to the City
Engineering Department for review and approval a Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan (PWQMP). The PWQMP shall be prepared and designed in
accordance with the requirements in effect at the time of its submittal. Approval of the
PWQMP shall be required prior to scheduling the land use application for action by
Planning Commission.
61.Water Quality Facilities that service more than one parcel shall be placed in an easement
to provide for maintenance and prevent obstruction.
62.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
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.
63.The project qualifies for the “highest and best use exemption” in the 2010 SAR MS4
Permit. The project is required to treat the pollutants of concern identified to a medium
to high removal level prior to discharge to the MS4.The project shall also implement
where feasible the following: (Section XII.E.2, XII.E.3,and XII.E.7)
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 ‘bio-treat the 85th percentile storm event also known as the
Design Capture Volume (DCV prior to discharge in accordance with the
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 10 of 19
requirements set forth in Section XII.G.
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.
64.Parking lot landscaping shall be designed with concave landscape grading and provide
for treatment of runoff
65.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.
66.Trash enclosures shall be covered, bermed and plumbed to provide drainage to the
sewer system.
67.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.
68.The project shall use either volume-based and/or flow-based criteria for sizing BMPs in
accordance with NPDES Permit Provision XII.D.4.
69.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.
Construction:
70.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.
71.The project NOI and WDID shall be provided as proof of compliance with the General
Construction Permit prior to ANY permit issuance.
72.The Final WQMP shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of ANY permit for
construction.
73.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.
Post Construction:
74.Using either the City provided form or the project CC&R’s, compile an 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
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 11 of 19
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.
75.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.
76.All catch basins receiving runoff from the project shall be equipped with a State and City
approved trash full capture device.
77.Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and/or occupancy, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with applicable NPDES permits. to include:
Provide a signed certification from the engineer of work (using City form) to
demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMP’s) described in
the BMP Exhibit from the project’s approved WQMP have been constructed
pursuant to plan and are operational. Any deviations from the approved plan shall
be as built and the FWQMP updated.
Demonstrate that the project has complied with all non-structural BMPs described
in the project’s WQMP.
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. The final approved Water Quality Management Plan and Operations and
Maintenance Plan.
UTILITIES
78.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.
79.All overhead utilities shall be undergrounded in accordance with Chapter 12.16 of the
Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC)
80.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.
81.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
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 12 of 19
interfere with existing SCE facilities (aka SCE NIL).
82.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:
83.Sight distance into and out of the project location shall comply with CALTRANS
Standards.
84.The developer shall install permanent bench marks per City of Lake Elsinore Standards
at the intersection of the centerline of Mission Trail and the project entrance.
85.The developer shall coordinate with Riverside Transit Authority for location and
installation of bus transit facilities.
86.10-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.
87.All drainage facilities in this project shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control
District Standards. The Improvement Plans for the 60” pipe and associated
appurtenances shall be approved by the Riverside County Flood Control District. An
agreement with RCFCD will be obtained for the future maintenance.
88.A drainage study shall be provided prior to grading permit issuance to the Engineering
Department. 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.
89.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 conveyed to a drainage easement.
90.Roof drains shall not be allowed to outlet directly through coring in the street curb. Roofs
should drain to a landscaped area.
91.The site shall be planned and developed to keep surface water from entering buildings
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 13 of 19
(California Green Building Standards Code 4.106.3).
92.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.
93.The developer shall construct half width street improvements and dedicate right-of-way
on Mission Trail such that the ultimate right-of-way width conforms to General Plan and
East Lake Specific Plan right-of-way cross sections. The cross section of roadway
improvements with a raised median (developer shall pay cash-in-lieu of construction of
½ the raised median), parkway, and street lights, shall be consistent with other
development on Mission Trail, as recommended by the City. The road improvements for
Mission Trail shall be consistent with the Traffic Analysis dated
September 20, 2017, and the General Plan Circulation Plan.
94.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.
95.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.
96.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.
Permitting/Construction:
97.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.
98.
A Grading Permit is required for ANY project related soil disturbance to include stockpiles.
99.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.
100.The developer shall be responsible for acquiring right-of-ways in which the developer or
the City has no legal title or interest.
101.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.
Acceptance of Improvements:
102.The developer shall submit a written request for acceptance to the City Engineer. The
written request shall be accompanied by all required documentation.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 14 of 19
103.As-built plans shall be completed and signed by the City Engineer.
GRADING
Design:
104.Prior to grading permit issuance, compliance with IS/MND Mitigation Measures shall be
achieved, with confirmation received in writing from the Planning Department/Project
Planner. This approval shall identify and clear all proposed grading activity anticipated
for this project.
105.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).
106.All grading plan contours shall extend to minimum of 50-feet beyond property lines to
indicate existing drainage pattern.
107.The grading plan shall show that no structures, landscaping, or equipment are located
near the project entrances that could reduce sight distance.
108.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.
109.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:
110.A FEMA approved CLOMR-F is required prior to ANY grading permit.
111.Developer shall execute and submit grading and erosion control agreement, post grading
security and pay permit fees as a condition of grading permit issuance.
112.A preconstruction meeting with the City Public Works Inspector (Engineering Division) is
required prior to commencement of ANY grading activity.
113.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)
114.Export sites located within the Lake Elsinore City limits must have an active grading
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 15 of 19
permit.
115.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 approval of the City Engineer.
116.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.
117.Approval of the project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post construction
shall be received prior to issuance of a grading permit.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
118.Provide final soils, geology and seismic report, including recommendations for
parameters for seismic design of buildings, and walls prior to building permit.
119.Approval of a letter of map revision (LOMR) or letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-
F) must be received from FEMA.
120.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.
121.All street improvement plans, traffic signal modification plans, signing and striping plans
shall be completed and approved by the City Engineer.
122.The developer shall pay all Capital Improvement TIF and Master Drainage Fees and Plan
Check fees (LEMC 16.34).
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY
123.All signing and striping and traffic control devices for the required improvements of this
development shall be installed.
124.All public improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or as
condition of this development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
125.All water and sewer improvements shall be completed in accordance with Water District
requirements.
126.Proof of acceptance of maintenance responsibility of slopes, open spaces, landscape
areas, and drainage facilities shall be provided.
127.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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 16 of 19
128.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.
129.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, WQMP, etc.
130.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.
131.Developer shall provide FEMA elevation certificates for all buildings (includes trailers and
storage facilities) prior to final approvals. If a LOMR-F has been processed and approved
by FEMA, the letter of determination and certification may be in the form of a letter signed
and sealed by a licensed civil engineer.
132.All required public right-of-way dedications, easements, dedications and vacations and
easement agreement(s) not processed on the final map for ingress and egress through
adjacent property(ies)shall be recorded with a recorded copy provided to the City prior to
first certificate of occupancy.
133.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.
134.All required public right-of-way dedications shall be recorded with a recorded copy
provided to the City.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FIRE MARSHAL
General Conditions
135.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 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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 17 of 19
136.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.
137.Minimum Hydrant Fire Flow - Minimum required fire flow shall be 1,500 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.
138.Standard 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.
139.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 or
as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal.
2. The required all weather vehicular access shall be able to support no less than 75,000
lbs. over 2 axles.
3. Roadway gradient shall not exceed 15% on any access road, driveways, and
perimeter roads.
4. Turning Radius shall be 24' inside and 48’ outside for all access roads.
140.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
141.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.
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 18 of 19
142.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.
143.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
144.Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems for Single-family/Duplex 13D- 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 submit plans, along
with the current fee, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation.
145.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.
146.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.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Annex into CFD 2015-1 (Safety) Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services CFD
147.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)
148.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
PA 2017-37 (RDR 2017-14 and TTM 2017-03)PC: 10/17/17
Conditions of Approval CC: 10/24/17
Applicants Initials: _____Page 19 of 19
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.
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:
f
COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAIL
INITIAL STUDY/MND ADDENDUM
SCH No. 2008011082
Lead Agency:
City of Lake Elsinore
Justin Kirk, Principal Planner
130 S. Main Street
Lake Elsinore CA 92530
Project Sponsor:
Civic Partners – Elsinore, LLC
7777 Center Avenue, Suite 230
Huntington Beach CA 92647
September 2017
2
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................... 6
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 EXISTING LAND USES .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES ........................................................................................................................ 7
3 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 10
3.1 PROPOSED LAND USE & SITE LAYOUT ................................................................................................... 10
3.2 PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................. 13
4 COMPARISON WITH PRIOR APPROVAL ...................................................................................... 13
4.1 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND APPLICBALE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................ 14
4.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUESTED ................................................................................................... 16
5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................... 18
5.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 18
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................................ 18
5.3 DETERMINATION: ........................................................................................................................................ 19
5.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 21
Terminology Used in the Checklist .................................................................................................... 21
6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 23
6.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 27
6.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................. 29
6.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 34
6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 39
6.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................... 42
6.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 48
6.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 54
6.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 59
6.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 66
6.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 69
6.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................. 71
6.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 82
6.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 85
6.15 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................. 89
6.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................ 91
6.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 97
6.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................... 100
6.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................... 105
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
3
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Regional Map .............................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2-2. Local Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3-1. Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-2. Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................................................................................... 12
Figure N-1: Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................ 76
Figure N-2: Construction Activity and Receiver Locations ....................................................................... 77
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Development Summary .................................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Modified Project Construction Activities ..................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Project Comparison Summary ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 4: Project Design Features ................................................................................................................. 14
Table AQ-1: Construction Emissions Summary ........................................................................................... 30
Table AQ-2: Operational Emissions Summary .......................................................................................... 31
Table AQ-3: Construction Localized Emissions Summary ........................................................................ 32
Table GHG-1: Comparison of GHG Emissions from the Approved and Modified Projects ............ 49
Table GHG-2: Modified Project Consistency with City CAP .................................................................. 50
Table GHG-3: Modified Project Consistency with Scoping Plan ........................................................... 52
Table N-1: Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................................................................ 72
Table N-2: Construction Noise Levels (dBA Lmax) ................................................................................... 75
Table N-3: Off Site Traffic Noise Level Increases in 2019 with Ambient and Cumulative Noise ... 76
Table N-4: Off Site Traffic Noise Level Increases in 2040 .................................................................... 76
Table N-5: On Site Exterior Traffic Noise ................................................................................................. 77
Table N-6: First Floor Interior Noise with Standard Windows (dBA CNEL) ......................................... 77
Table N-7: Second Floor Interior Noise with Standard and Upgraded Windows (dBA CNEL) ...... 77
Table N-8: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ............................................................................... 79
Table TR-1: Trip Comparison Table ............................................................................................................ 92
Table TR-2: Existing Plus Project Intersection Conditions ......................................................................... 93
Table TR-3: Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Intersection Conditions ............................................... 93
Table TR-4: 2040 Plus Project and Planned Improvement Intersection Conditions ............................ 94
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix B: Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix D: Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
This document states the basis for the City of Lake Elsinore’s determination that the Cottages at
Mission Trail affordable residential project proposed by Civic Partners – Elsinore, LLC falls within
the scope of the previously approved Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for The
Colony project (SCH #2008011082) and that no supplemental or subsequent MND may be
required pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. While the project differs in some
minor respects from the project description in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, those changes
will not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than those that have already been
analyzed. Further, no new or substantially more severe impacts will result from any changes in
circumstances surrounding the proposed project (“modified project,” as further described herein),
and there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was adopted by the City, that would affect the analysis of the potential significant
impact, or mitigation measures that were analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Therefore, as explained in greater detail below, no subsequent or supplemental Initial Study/MND
is required because all potential effects of the modified project have been analyzed in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND and this Addendum.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Civic Partners – Elsinore, LLC seeks City approval to construct and operate the “modified project,”
consisting of 143 residential units on 19.43 acres in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County,
California. This environmental checklist provides the basis for an Addendum to the previously
approved Colony Project Initial Study/MND and serves as the environmental review of the
proposed modified project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines.
This Addendum augments the analysis in the Initial Study/MND as provided in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164 and provides the basis for the City’s determination that no supplemental or
subsequent Initial Study/MND is required to evaluate the project. Environmental analysis and
mitigation measures and Project Design Features from the Colony Project Initial Study/MND have
been incorporated into this Addendum and modified as necessary to address the site-specific
conditions of the project.
Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lake Elsinore is the
Lead Agency, charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed
modified project. As part of the decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider
the potential environmental effects that could result from construction and operation of the modified
project. The analysis in this document discusses the adequacy of the approved Colony Project Initial
Study/MND related to the approval of the modified project.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s review of the proposed environmental
checklist and Addendum will determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
5
subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment or cause a change in
the conclusions of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and disclose any change in circumstances
or new information of substantial importance that would substantially change the conclusions of the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND. This environmental checklist and Addendum will provide the City
of Lake Elsinore with information to document potential impacts of the proposed modified project.
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an
EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or MND
shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted
shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
MND.
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified
in the previous EIR or MND.
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR or MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR or MND shall be
prepared if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR/MND have occurred.
This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the modified project and any changes to the
existing conditions that have occurred since the Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted. It
also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was adopted. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new
information, a subsequent MND may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the
provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
6
applicability to the proposed modified project. This Addendum relies on use of the attached
Environmental Analysis, which addresses environmental checklist issues on a section-by-section basis.
An Environmental Checklist is included in Sections 4 and 5. The Environmental Checklist is marked
with the findings of the Community Development Director as to the environmental effects of the
proposed modified project in comparison with the findings of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
approved in 2008. The Checklist has been prepared pursuant to Section 15168(c)(4) which states
that “[w]here the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a
written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine
whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the” Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
On the basis of the findings of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the provisions of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lake Elsinore, as the Lead Agency, determined that, as documented
in this Addendum to the previously approved Colony Project Initial Study/MND, no supplemental
or subsequent MND is required to review the modified project application.
1.4 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
As explained above, on June 25, 2008, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore approved the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to
reduce the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Colony project to
a less than significant level. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified five environmental
impact areas for which mitigation would reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than
significant level (air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and transportation and
traffic). The modified project will implement applicable mitigation measures included in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND. In addition, the Colony project included various Project Design Features
(PDFs) that were included in the project to reduce potential impacts, which would also be
implemented with the modified project.
This Addendum incorporates by reference the Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the technical
documents that relate to the proposed modified project or provide additional information
concerning the environmental setting of the proposed project. The information disclosed in this
Addendum is based on the following technical studies and/or planning documents:
City of Lake Elsinore General Plan
City of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code
Colony Project Initial Study/MND and adopted resolutions
Technical studies, personal communications, and web sites listed in Section IV, References and
Organizations Consulted of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The documents are available for review at the Community Development Department, located at
130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, Calif. 92530.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
7
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the City of Lake Elsinore, which is in the southwestern portion of Riverside
County. Figure 2-1, Regional Map, shows the project in its regional context. The project site is project
site is located west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and south of Highway 74 (Hwy 74) within the central
portion of the 3,000-acre East Lake Specific Plan area. Regional access to the project site is
provided via I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road and Bundy Canyon Road interchanges. Specifically,
the site is located north of Corydon Road, east of Grand Avenue, west of Mission Trail, and south
of Stoneham Street. Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity Map, shows the modified project in its local context.
The project site is also identified as being within the southeast corner of Section 16, Township 5
South, Range 4 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Lake Elsinore, California
topographic quadrangle map. The project site consists of 23 parcels that includes Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (APNs) 365-030-004 through -007, -016 through -023, and -027 through -037.
2.2 EXISTING LAND USES
The 19.43-acre project site is a vacant and undeveloped rectangular parcel measuring
approximately 650 feet wide by 1,250 feet long. The existing topography within the project
boundary is relatively flat with a mild slope descending to the southwest corner of the boundary
from an elevation of approximately 1,270 to an elevation of 1,250.7 at the southwestern project
boundary.
The site has a General Plan Land Use designation of East Lake Specific Plan (PA 51, 95) and is
zoned a combination of Residential-2 and Residential-3.
2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land to the north and south. The Lake Elsinore
Motorsports Park is located approximately 260 feet to the southwest of the site; however, it is
planned to be relocated to approximately 4,000 feet southwest of the project site. Mission Trail (a
four-lane arterial roadway) is located to the east; and the existing uses across from Mission Trail
include commercial and single-family residential uses.
The currently vacant lands that surround the project site are proposed for development. The areas
to the north are proposed for medium density residential; lands to the west are proposed for high
density residential; and lands to the south of the project site are proposed for low-medium density
residential.
COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAIL
Initial Study/Addendum
City of Lake Elsinore
FIGURE 2-1
Regional Map
PROJECT
SITE
COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAIL
Initial Study/Addendum
City of Lake Elsinore
FIGURE 2-2
Local Vicinity Map
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
10
3 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROPOSED LAND USE & SITE LAYOUT
The modified project includes construction and operation of 143 for-rent affordable residential
units in detached and attached duplex structures. The residential buildings would be two-stories,
would provide either two or three bedrooms, and range from approximately 750 to 1,250 square
feet in size.
As shown in Figures 3-1, Site Plan, and 3-2, Conceptual Landscape Plan, the project also includes an
approximately 55,000-square-foot (or 1.26-acre) park/recreation area in the center of the site
that would include a 2,200-square foot recreation building, children’s tot lot, open lawn, picnic
area, and meandering walkways. Additionally, the project includes a 6.97-acre open
space/detention basin area in the western portion of the project site, which would include a 1,312-
foot circular path made of decomposed granite for walking/running.
Table 1, Project Development Summary, provides a breakdown of the proposed uses. The site plan
shows the conceptual arrangement of buildings and parking areas, the size and location of the
pedestrian spaces and landscaping, and how the features relate to one another.
Table 1: Project Development Summary
Site Summary Units
Gross Site Area 19.43 acres
Residential Development Area 11.20 acres
Park Area 1.26 acres
Open Space Area 6.97 acres
Dwelling Units 143 units
Residential Density 7.4 units per acre
Unit Summary Number and Percentage of Units
2-Bedroom Units 39 = 27%
3-Bedroom Units 104 = 73%
Total Residential Units 143 = 100%
Park Recreation Building 2,200 square feet
Parking Spaces Number of Spaces
Garage Spaces 143
Driveway Spaces 87
Open Spaces 103
Total Parking Spaces 333
Access to the project site would be provided by one full-access driveway from Mission Trail and
one right-in/right-out access only driveway. An onsite circulation system, with 333 parking spaces
provided near the residences throughout the site. The project would install sidewalks along Mission
Trail and selected internal streets within the project site. In addition, the project would install (or
accommodate for future installation, at the City’s discretion) a Class II bicycle lane along Mission
Trail.
The proposed residential area would be bound by a 6-foot high masonry block wall on the north,
south, and east sides of the project site. The western boundary between the residential area and
the open space area would be bound by a 6-foot high tubular steel fence.
COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAIL
Initial Study/Addendum
City of Lake Elsinore
FIGURE 3-1
Site PlanWATER & SEWERELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATERDISTRICT EVMWD)P.O. BOX 300031315 CHANEY STREETLAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531P: 951-674-3146ELECTRICSOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEDISONP.O. BOX 800ROSEMEAD, CA 91770P: 1-800-655-4555GASTHE GAS COMPANYP.O. BOX 3150MONTEREY PARK, CA 91756P: 1-800-427-2200CABLE & BROADBANDTIME WARNERONE TIME WARNER CENTERNEW YORK, NY 10019-8016P: 1-888-892-2253TELEPHONESOUTHERN CALIFORNIATELEPHONE & ENERGY27515 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE W.TEMECULA, CA 92590-4864P: 1-800-840-6673ASSESSOR PARCELSNUMBERS:365-030-004 thru 365-030-007365-030-016 thru 365-030-023365-030-027 thru 365-030-037LAKE ELSINORE, CACIVIC PARTNERS7777 Center Ave., Suite 230Huntington Beach, CA 92647714.230.8000THE COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAILCONCEPTUAL SITE PLANC.1OPEN SPACE6.97 ACNOT A PARTMISSION TRA
I
L PROJECT LOCATIONVICINITY MAPSite SummaryGross Site Area19.43 ACResidential Area 11.25 ACPark Area 1.21 ACOpen Space 6.97 ACDwelling Units 143 DUResidential Density7.4 DU/ACResidential Plan SummarybedNet Area#%8-PackP229692725%P331,2222725%P431,2192322%P531,2032725%P6393733%Total107100%6-PackP127701233%P331,2221233%P639371233%Total36100%MixTypeNo. UnitsMix2 bedroom total3927%3 bedroom total10473%Total143100%Recreation Building2,200 SFResidential Parking SummaryParking ProvidedSpaces/UnitSpaceGarage Spaces143Driveway Spaces87Open Spaces103Total parking spaces2.33333Site SummaryUnitNo. of UnitsNet AreaTotal BedsP1129,240P22726,163P33947,658P42328,037P52732,481P61514,055Total:143157,634390(VACANT)PROPOSED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(VACANT)PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(EXISTING)
VERY HIGH D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
COTTAGES AT MISSION TRAIL
Initial Study/Addendum
City of Lake Elsinore
FIGURE 3-2
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
13
The drainage system proposed for the project includes two drainage areas (one in the northern
portion of the site and one in the southern portion of the site) that would each contain a storm drain
line that would convey runoff to the proposed 6.97-acre open space/detention basin that would
be located on the western portion of the project site.
Landscaping proposed for the project includes a variety of 15-gallon trees, including: Palo Verde
Desert Museum (Parkinsonia), Eldarica Pine (Pinus eldarica), Fern Pine (Podocarpus gracilior), Long-
Leafed Yellow Wood (Podocarpus henkeii), African Sumac (Rhus lancea), California Pepper Tree
(Schinus molle), and Tipu tree (Tipuana tipu). In addition, the landscaping proposes a large variety
of 1-gallon shrubs and grass ground covers.
3.2 PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION
The total construction period is expected to be approximately 24 months. The phasing of project
construction is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Modified Project Construction Activities
Activity Number of Days
Grading 75 days
Building Construction 370 days
Architectural Coatings 40 days
Paving 40 days
4 Comparison with Prior Approval
The previously approved project for the site included development and operation of 211 attached
senior condominiums and a community recreation facility on the 12.20-acres in the eastern portion
of the site. The residential buildings were proposed to be four complexes of condominiums with an
average density of 11.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The 211 dwelling units were designed to
range from 992 to 1,527 square feet. The total building square footage for the project was
271,193. The community recreation park was to include a putting green and a community pool. In
addition, the western 7.2-acre portion of the project site was an open space area with a storm
water detention basin.
Two access points on Mission Trail were provided. The northerly driveway was the main access, and
was designed to be a gate-controlled right-in/right-out access with a deceleration lane. The
southerly driveway was an emergency access and also a project exit.
Construction of the approved project was similar to that of the modified project, and the grading
was to take place over a two-month period, with approximately 211,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut
and 211,000 cy of fill. Therefore, no import or export of material was anticipated.
As shown on Table 3, the modified project would develop 68 fewer dwelling units that would be
developed in less dense residential structures. In addition, the modified project would develop a
smaller area of the project site (0.95 acre less) than the approved project.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
14
Table 3: Project Comparison Summary
Site Summary Approved Project Proposed Modified
Project
Change
Gross Site Area 19.43 acres 19.43 acres No change
Residential
Development Area
12.20 acres 11.25 acres 0.95 acre less
developed area
Open Space Area 7.20 acres 6.97 acres 0.23 acre less west
side open space
Dwelling Units 211 attached
condominium units
143 detached and
duplex units
68 fewer dwelling
units
Residential Density 11.10 units per acre 7.4 units per acre 3.7 fewer dwelling
units per acre
4.1 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND APPLICBALE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Project Design Features were included in the adopted project to reduce potential impacts that could
occur from the project. These features would also be included in the modified project, and are listed
in Table 4.
Table 4: Project Design Features
Aesthetics
Lighting and Glare. All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting ordinance (Municipal
Code Section 17.112.040 Lighting) including the siting and direction of light fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in
excess of 60 watts shall be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto adjacent properties or
streets. Lighting in accordance with the Mount Palomar Observatory lighting standards is required. Individual lighting
for residential structures for front porch and side garage entrances shall be restricted to small wall mounted fixtures
that use low wattage (60 watts or less) incandescent or equivalent lighting.
Air Quality
Construction. As a condition of project approval, the project shall adhere to South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Rules; 401(Visible Emissions); 403 (Fugitive Dust Control); 1113 (Architectural Coatings); 431.2
(Low Sulfur Fuel); and 1186/1186.1 (Street Sweepers) during construction-related activities.
Contractors shall utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary
generators where feasible.
Operation. All residential buildings shall be equipped with ENERGY STAR qualified appliances, where applicable,
and shall exceed California Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for water heating and space heating and cooling
to the extent feasible.
Energy efficient lighting, which exceeds the California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, shall be installed to
satisfy interior lighting requirements within all buildings to the extent feasible.
Shade producing trees shall be planted at the project site to the extent feasible.
Residential buildings shall incorporate fans to assist natural ventilation, centralized water and space conditioning
systems, high efficiency individual heating and cooling units, and automatic setback thermostats to the extent feasible.
Biological Resources
The project shall comply with the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore Palm Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The project shall pay appropriate Multiple Species Habitat Conservation fees, including Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat
fees.
Cultural Resources
If human remains are encountered during project grading, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states
that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and
free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
15
Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted
within a reasonable timeframe. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the “most
likely descendant.” The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations
concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
Geology and Soils
Construction. All earthwork and grading at the project site shall be performed in accordance with all applicable
building code requirements, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and the
Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore (Section 17.10.070 of the Zoning Code).
Ground Shaking. The project shall implement recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the
proposed project in accordance with the California Building Code requirements for resistance to seismic shaking.
Erosion. During construction, soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant impact through the
implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in
accordance with the current California State Water Resources Control Board Order and NPDES General Permit. The
SWPPP shall comply with Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology to
reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project would comply with existing federal and state standards in place for the handling, storage and transport
of hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrology. The project shall implement a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the current California State Water Resources Control Board Order and
NPDES General Permit. The SWPPP shall comply with Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
The project shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for both the Lake and Sedco Hills Creek floodplains prior to any grading, building or map
recordation. The CLOMR shall show that all proposed structures will be eligible for removal from the existing Flood-
Zone A to a Zone X. The project developer shall be bonded until all structures are officially removed from the Flood-
Zone A designation by FEMA.
The project shall obtain a FEMA Letter of Map Report (LOMR) prior to final inspection showing that all structures
have been officially removed from the Flood-Zone A and placed into a Zone X.
Water Quality. In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Drainage Area Management Plan (SAR-DAMP) and NPDES
requirements, an applicant for a project encompassing more than five acres is required to develop and implement
a SWPPP. Regulations [December 1999 Phase II Rule] expanded the NPDES program to include sites that disturb
land equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres. In addition, the City shall ensure that construction
activity is in compliance with the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities administered by the California
RWQCB, located in Riverside (Santa Ana, Region 8). One condition of this permit is the development and
implementation of a site-specific SWPPP that identifies BMPs to reduce/eliminate erosion and sedimentation
associated with construction.
The objective of the SWPPP is to identify and control storm water discharges due to construction activity and to
identify and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water, both before and after construction. Discharges
associated with construction activity are covered under one statewide General Permit. Coverage under the General
Permit requires submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB prior to construction, and development and
implementation of a defensible SWPPP prior to disturbing a site and for the duration of construction. All construction
period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater
Best Management Handbook for Construction.
The State’s General Permit for Construction Activities regulates construction-related activities, and requires that
pollutant discharges into receiving waters be minimized and/or eliminated. This permit also requires that
management measures be incorporated into new development to ensure that once construction is completed, the
residential land use does not contribute substantially to water quality problems in water bodies that receive storm
water and non-storm water runoff from the projects. The proposed project would address post-construction
(operational) water quality impacts on a parcel by parcel basis, through construction of underground bio-treatment
facilities. These facilities would filter the storm water and convey it into the proposed project’s storm drain system
before leaving the property. The design features for each parcel’s water quality facility shall be outlined in the
required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
16
The project will be required to comply with all County regulations as they relate to groundwater monitoring, including
the provision of additional monitoring wells which would permit the Riverside County Waste Management District
(RCWMD) and SARWCQB to fully evaluate potential groundwater impacts. To facilitate monitoring, a buffer zone
(greenbelt or roadway) will be planned along the eastern border of the project site such that monitoring well
locations would not be located within residential lot property lines. RCWMD will also be required to notify the
adjoining landowners of any potential impacts.
Noise
City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance. The City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary source noise impacts does
not permit operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work
between the weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The project shall adhere to the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance governing construction hours.
Public Services
Fire. During construction and operation of the proposed project, compliance with all applicable fire code and
ordinance requirements would be required and conditioned to the proposed project. The project would comply with
the California fire and building codes, and Riverside Fire Department requirements and standards for construction,
access, water mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants.
In addition, all new development projects are required to contribute to the City’s applicable Community Facilities
District (CFD) for law enforcement, fire, and paramedic services.
Police. The project shall contribute to the City’s CFD for law enforcement, fire, and paramedic services.
Schools. The project shall pay applicable development fees levied by Lake Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD)
pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998, c.407) to offset impacts on school facilities
resulting from new development.
Libraries. The project shall participate in the Riverside County Uniform Mitigation Fee program that collects fees on
new residential housing developments to support future facility development and library material purchases.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water. Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the
City and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD).
The project shall incorporate drought-tolerant plants into the landscaping palette and use water-efficient irrigation
techniques.
The project shall install U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Certified WaterSense labeled or equivalent faucets
and high-efficiency toilets and water-conserving shower heads in residences to the extent feasible.
Wastewater.
Sewer-related infrastructure will be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City,
EVMWD, Riverside County Department of Health, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Solid Waste.
The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to
solid waste, including the County’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE).
Gas.
Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities Commission under existing roads and rights-of-way.
4.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUESTED
The modified project would require a number of local and state permits and approvals from various
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. These include, but may not be limited to the permits and
approvals described below.
City of Lake Elsinore
Approval of Residential Design Review
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
17
Approval of Addendum to The Colony Project MND
Other Public Agencies
Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
18
5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
5.1 BACKGROUND
Date: September 5, 2017
Project Title:
Cottages at Mission Trail
Lead Agency:
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, Calif. 92530
Lead Agency Contact:
Justin Kirk, Principal Planner
(951) 674-3124 x284
Project Location:
19.43-acre site on the west side of Mission Trail at Olive Street, Lake Elsinore
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Civic Partners – Elsinore, LLC
c/o Jeff Pomeroy
7777 Center Avenue, Suite 230
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647
General Plan and Zoning Designation:
General Plan: East Lake Specific Plan (PA 51, 95)
Zoning: Residential-2 and Residential-3
Project Description:
The modified project includes the development of 143 for-rent (including 142 affordable)
residential units in detached and attached duplex structures. A more detailed description of the
modified project is provided in Section 3, Modified Project Description.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land to the north and south, an off-road motocross
track to the west, and Mission Trail to the east. The existing uses across from Mission Trail include
commercial and single-family residential uses.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
Ministerial permits are required from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System compliance, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District, and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or
to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
19
in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by
the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
5.3 DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes
in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance"
as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously
adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential
impacts of the project without modification.
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes
in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance"
as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously
adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts
of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
20
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions
to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental
effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects
are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of
mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND
is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions
to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term
is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or
additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the
project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions
to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term
is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name and Title
City of Lake Elsinore
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
21
5.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section is intended to provide evidence to substantiate the conclusions set forth in the
Environmental Checklist. The section briefly summarizes conclusions in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND, and discusses the consistency of the Cottages at Mission Trail modified project with the
findings contained in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. Mitigation measures referenced are
from the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program adopted as part of the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
In Section 4 and 5, the Environmental Checklist identifies the environmental effects of the modified
project in comparison with the development contemplated in the approved Colony Project Initial
Study/MND. This comparative analysis has been undertaken, pursuant to the provisions of the
CEQA, to provide the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the project, any changes
in the circumstances, or any new information requires additional environmental review or
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND. Some changes and additions to the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND are required for the modified project, but such changes and additions
do not involve new significant environmental impacts, a substantial increase in severity of significant
impacts previously identified, substantial changes to the circumstances under which the modified
project is undertaken involving such new impacts or such a substantial increase in the severity of
significant impacts, or new information of substantial importance as meant by CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162. As such this Addendum is the appropriate means to document these textual changes.
The basis for the findings listed in the Environmental Checklist are explained in Section 6,
Environmental Analysis.
Terminology Used in the Checklist
For each question listed in the Environmental Checklist, a determination of the level of significance
of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:
Substantial Change in Project or Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Effects. A
Subsequent MND is required when 1) substantial project changes are proposed or substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and 2) those changes result in
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects, and 3) project changes require major revisions of the MND.1
New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than Previous MND. A Subsequent MND
is required if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MND was adopted, shows 1)
the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND; or 2) significant
effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the MND.2
New Information Identifying New Mitigation or Alternative to Reduce Significant Effect is
Declined. A Subsequent MND is required if new information of substantial importance, which was
not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
MND was adopted shows 1) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible (or new mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different)
and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project
1 CEQA Guidelines. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15162, as amended.
2 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
22
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.3
With regard to the foregoing three categories, a Supplement to an MND can be prepared if the
criterion for a Subsequent MND is met, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to
make the MND adequately apply to the modified project.4
Minor Technical Changes or Additions. An Addendum to the MND is required if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the criteria for a subsequent MND is met.5
No Impact. A designation of no impact is given when the modified project would have no changes
in the environment as compared to the original project analyzed in the MND.
3 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
4 CEQA Guidelines. § 15163.
5 CEQA Guidelines. § 15164.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
23
6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The
section will briefly summarize the conclusions of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and then
discuss whether or not the impacts that could result from the modified project are consistent with the
findings contained in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, or if further analysis is required in a
subsequent MND. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
6.1 AESTHETICS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, 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?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified that there are no known scenic vistas within or
adjacent to the East Lake Specific Plan area; and determined that the Colony project would not
result in any changes that would affect scenic vistas. This impact was considered less than significant.
in addition, it was identified that all development within the East Lake Specific Plan area would not
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes two-story residential structures that are consistent
with the residential requirements within the East Lake Specific Plan area. Similar to the approved
project, the modified project would develop residential units on the project site; however, the
proposed project would limit building heights to two stories, and would reduce the number and
density of the residential units on the project site, and would develop a smaller portion of the project
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
24
site (a 11.25-acre proposed development area versus a 12.20-acre approved development area).
Due to the reduction in development on the project site, views of, from, or around the project site
would be reduced in comparison to the approved 211-unit condominium development.
The modified project would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista and no mitigation would
be required. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that cited
in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project would result in similar visual changes
to those previously analyzed.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no designated scenic highways in the project
vicinity; I-15, located 0.5 mile east of the site, is identified as being eligible for scenic designation.
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND also found no rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the
site. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that development of the project site would
not result any blocking of views of natural features along the eligible scenic highway segment. The
impact was considered less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes residential development that would be less dense
that the approved development. Instead of providing larger structures that would provide numerous
residential units, the modified project would provide one or two-unit residential structures throughout
a smaller portion of the project site (a 11.25-acre development area versus a 12.20-acre
development area). Like the approved project, the modified project would continue to provide
onsite recreation and a large area of open space. There are no new project features that would
increase impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway from those reviewed in
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the project was consistent with the design
standards outlined in the adopted East Lake Specific Plan and it would blend with future
development adjacent to the parcels within the East Lake Specific Plan. The Initial Study/MND also
determined that adherence to the Specific Plan design criteria would assure potential visual impacts
associated with the development of the project are less than significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
25
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
As described previously in Response 6.1.a, the modified project would limit building heights to two
stories, and would reduce the number and density of the residential units on the project site, and
would develop a smaller portion of the project site in comparison to the approved project. Because
the approved project would develop four large residential buildings, the scale, bulk, and size of
the modified project would be reduced in comparison to the approved 211-unit condominium
development. In addition, the scale of the modified project would be consistent with the proposed
low-medium density residential located south of the project site. Therefore, impacts related to
character of the currently undeveloped project site would not increase from the modified project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that the implementation of the project would
increase lighting in the area by replacing undeveloped land with residential land uses. However,
the implementation of Municipal Code requirements, particularly related to orientation and
shielding of light fixtures to reduce glare and avoid direct illumination, was considered adequate
to reduce lighting impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the project would not include
architectural treatments or finishes that would be glare-inducing.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
As described previously in Response 6.1.a, the modified project would result in a reduced scale of
development than analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. There are no new architectural
elements or other design features that would significantly increase lighting or glare levels beyond
those that were previously expected on the site. The modified project’s lighting plan includes LED
fixtures that are appropriately shielded and directed to avoid unnecessary or excessive off-site
lighting. Standards to minimize lighting and glare impacts, including compliance with Municipal
Code Section 17.112.040 Lighting, are incorporated into the Project Design Features.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
26
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have
not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony Project Initial
Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or
alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was approved.
Project Design Feature
The following Project Design Feature (as revised) included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
is applicable to the modified project:
Lighting and Glare. All lighting is required to comply with the City of Lake Elsinore lighting
ordinance including the siting and direction of light fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures in
excess of 60 watts shall be oriented and shielded to reduce glare or direct illumination onto
adjacent properties or streets. Lighting in accordance with the Mount Palomar Observatory
lighting standards is required. Individual lighting for residential structures for front porch
and side garage entrances shall be restricted to small wall mounted fixtures that use low
wattage (60 watts or less) incandescent or equivalent lighting.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and
implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are
required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the modified project are
necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
27
6.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
28
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the site is not mapped as Important
Farmland, does not have any Williamson Act contracts, or zoned for agricultural uses. The site also
contains no forest land or zoning for forests or timberland. No impacts related to agricultural
resources, farmland, or timberland were identified.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same site analyzed in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. No new agricultural activity has been initiated on the site since the Initial
Study/MND was adopted. The site continues to lack any agricultural resources, including mapped
Farmland, Williamson Act contracts, or agricultural zoning. In addition, the site has no forest land,
is not zoned forest land or timberland, and there are no nearby forest land properties that would
have the potential to be converted to non-forest use as a result of the project. There is no impact to
agriculture or forest resources resulting from the modified project.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate modified project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding agriculture
and forest resources. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that
require major revisions of the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant
effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known
when the Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND did not include any Project Design Features applicable to
agriculture and forest resources.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe agriculture and forest resources impacts would result
from the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised
mitigation measures are required for agriculture and forest resources. No refinements related to
the modified project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures
and no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
29
6.3 AIR QUALITY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
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:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
The analysis below contains information from the Cottages at Mission Trail Air Quality Impact
Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated August 31, 2017 (see Appendix A).
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that development of the project site for residential
density of 11.1 units per acre is consistent with the land use and zoning regulations for the site and
the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). The impact associated with a conflict of the applicable air quality plan was found to be
less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes the same land uses; however, at a lower intensity
of development than previously analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified
project would result in development of 68 fewer residential units on the project site, and a reduced
density of 7.4 dwelling units per acre. This reduced level of development on the project site would
also be consistent with the SCAQMD AQMP. In addition, the modified project would not result
exceedance of any air quality emissions thresholds (as described in the response below). Thus, the
modified project would be consistent with the AQMP, and the level of impact (less than significant
impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
30
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that construction and operational-related emissions
would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact related to violation of an air quality standard or substantially contributing to an existing or
proposed air quality violation. Additionally, the project would not contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, the approved project would result in a less
than significant impact related to air quality emissions.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project includes construction and operation of 68 fewer residences
than the approved project, and would also result in a less than significant impact related to an air
quality violation, as detailed below.
The SCAQMD Rules that are applicable to construction activity includes the following, which have
been assumed in the air quality emissions modeling: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 431.2
(Low Sulfur Fuel), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers). The
estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized in Table AQ-1. As shown, emissions
generated from construction of the modified project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD
thresholds for any criteria pollutants.
Table AQ-1: Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2017 6.63 80.47 40.63 0.0739 23.77 13.32
2018 5.96 71.36 36.64 0.0738 12.86 6.44
2019 40.67 24.61 20.84 0.0382 2.06 1.49
Maximum Daily Emissions 40.67 80.47 40.63 0.0739 23.77 13.32
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Air Quality Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
In regards to operational emissions, most would be generated by vehicular trips. Area source
emissions that include use of various consumer products and onsite equipment such as heating and
air conditioning units and landscape maintenance equipment would generate lesser volumes of
emissions. Additionally, emissions associated with natural gas use (identified as energy) would also
be generated by the proposed project. The estimated maximum daily operational emissions are
summarized in Table AQ-2. As shown, emissions generated from operation of the modified project
would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutants.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
31
Table AQ-2: Operational Emissions Summary
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer Scenario
Area Source 43.37 3.10 84.58 0.19 10.99 10.99
Energy Source 0.16 1.34 0.57 8.56E-03 0.11 0.11
Mobile 3.13 15.67 42.21 0.14 10.45 2.90
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 46.66 20.11 127.36 0.34 21.55 14.00
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter Scenario
Area Source 43.37 3.10 84.58 0.19 10.99 10.99
Energy Source 0.16 1.34 0.57 8.56E-03 0.11 0.11
Mobile 2.99 16.06 39.56 0.13 10.45 2.90
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 46.52 20.50 124.71 0.33 21.55 14.00
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Air Quality Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Because emissions from the modified project would not exceed construction or operational
thresholds, no new impact would occur and the modified project would not require any changes to
the findings of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND related to air pollutant emissions. The modified
project would have the same level of impact (less than significant) as that identified in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND.
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)?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that the approved project would not contribute to
an incremental cumulative related to air quality conditions because the estimated emissions would
be lower than the regional SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Thus, implementation of the
approved project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to air quality.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As described in Response 6.3b), the modified project includes 68 fewer residences
than the approved project, and emissions from the modified project would not exceed construction
or operational thresholds. Thus, the modified project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant, and would therefore not contribute to cumulative air quality
impacts beyond the prior analysis. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND related to cumulative air pollutant emissions. The modified
project would have the same level of impact (less than significant) as that identified in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
32
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that construction activities associated would result
in exceedances of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for particulate matter (PM10). In addition,
it was determined that implementation of mitigation that would implement SCAQMD required dust
suppression activities would reduce emissions below the threshold, and reduce this impact to below
a level of significance.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The project proposes the same type of onsite grading and construction activities
that would generate local emissions; thus, emissions have been evaluated against Localized
Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for the Lake Elsinore Source Receptor Area (SRA 25). LSTs apply to
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter ≤ 10 microns (PM10), and
particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns (PM2.5). As shown in Table AQ-3, Localized construction emissions
would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs, and impacts would be less than significant. The
level of impact related to LSTs from the modified project would be similar to that generated from
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Table AQ-3: Construction Localized Emissions Summary
On-Site Grading Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 80.37 39.60 7.12 4.50
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 266 1,961 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Air Quality Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that the residential uses do not typically create
objectionable odors. Any objectionable odors from the project would occur during construction
activities that involve architectural coating (painting) and asphalt-paving, as well as diesel exhaust
during construction of the project, which would be short-term in nature and would not affect a
substantial number of people. The impact associated with the generation of objectionable odors
was found to be less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project also includes residential uses, and does not contain land uses
typically associated with emitting objectionable odors, and the construction and operational
characteristics of the modified project are consistent with those analyzed in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the
modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and
the level of impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
33
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate modified project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality.
There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony
Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
Construction
As a condition of project approval, the project shall adhere to South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rules; 401(Visible Emissions); 403 (Fugitive Dust Control); 1113
Architectural Coatings); 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel); and 1186/1186.1 (Street Sweepers) during
construction-related activities.
Contractors shall utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators
rather than temporary generators where feasible.
Operation
All residential buildings shall be equipped with ENERGY STAR qualified appliances, where
applicable, and shall exceed California Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for water heating
and space heating and cooling to the extent feasible.
Energy efficient lighting, which exceeds the California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards,
shall be installed to satisfy interior lighting requirements within all buildings to the extent
feasible.
Shade producing trees shall be planted at the project site to the extent feasible.
Residential buildings shall incorporate fans to assist natural ventilation, centralized water and
space conditioning systems, high efficiency individual heating and cooling units, and automatic
setback thermostats to the extent feasible.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe air quality impacts would result from the adoption
and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are
required for air quality. No refinements related to the modified project are necessary to the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
34
6.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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 US 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?
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 Wildlife 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, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
35
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified sensitive vegetation communities within the project
site to include ruderal, disturbed, disturbed/ruderal, eucalyptus stand, eucalyptus stand/disturbed,
non-native grassland/ruderal, tamarisk stand/non-native grassland, and tamarisk stand/mule fat
scrub. Potential sensitive plant species in the project area included the following, which are covered
and mitigated through implementation of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP): San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Davidson’s saltscale, smooth tarplant,
Coulter’s goldfields, Wright’s trichocoronis, and prostrate navarretia. However, the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND determined that potential for a large population of any of these species to occur
on-site is low due to the lack of identification onsite, the disturbed nature of the project site, and
dominance of ornamental and non-native plant species. Therefore, the Initial Study/MND
determined that potential impacts to special status plant species was less than significant.
Various sensitive wildlife species were identified to have the potential to exist based on California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) listings and field survey data for the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND. It was determined that the site has the potential to support burrowing owls. Therefore,
Mitigation Measure BI-1 was included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND to ensure that the
potential impacts to burrowing owl would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The other species with the potential to exist included: Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk,
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and northern red-diamond rattlesnake. Potential impacts to
these species were fully mitigated through payment of mandatory Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. In addition, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND included
Mitigation Measure BI-2 to ensure that potential impacts to Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk
would be less than significant.
In addition, the project site supports 3.3 acres of tamarisk stand/non-native grassland and 0.8 acre
of tamarisk stand/mule fat scrub. However, due to the disturbed nature of the project site, the
vegetation supporting tamarisk stand/non-native grassland and tamarisk scrub/mule fat scrub is
not considered suitable riparian habitat for plant and wildlife species protected under the MSHCP.
Nonetheless, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND included Mitigation Measure BI-3, which requires
the creation of 4.1-acres of habitat on the project site to ensure that potential impacts to
riparian/riverine habitat would be less than significant. Furthermore, the project site does not
contain wetlands as identified by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and no wetlands, as defined
by Army Corps of Engineers, would be impacted by development of the project site.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same site and would have the same extent
of impacts as analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The amount of land converted to
developed uses as a result of the modified project would be similar to that of the approved project.
As a result, there would be no increase in the degree of impacts to sensitive plant or wildlife species,
vegetation, or natural communities or to jurisdictional wetlands or drainages. In addition,
implementation of the Project Design Features that would require payment of the MSHCP fees
would reduce indirect impacts to biological resources, and like the approved project Mitigation
Measure BI-1 would reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl and Mitigation Measure BI-2 would
reduce potential impacts to sensitive avian species.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
36
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant with mitigation incorporated) remains unchanged from that identified in the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Applicable Mitigation Measures Adopted by the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Mitigation Measure BI-1: Burrowing Owl. Due to the presence of suitable habitat onsite for the
western burrowing owl, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction focused species surveys
within 30-days prior to any ground-disturbing activities at the project site where suitable habitat is
present. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the project site during pre-construction surveys,
CDFW shall be consulted and a passive relocation program shall be undertaken to relocate owls
to an area outside the impact zone. The relocation shall be conducted following accepted protocols
and would occur outside of the breeding season for the burrowing owl. Existing burrows shall be
destroyed once they are vacated.
Mitigation Measure BI-2: Nesting Birds and Raptors. To avoid impacts to nesting raptors, the
removal of potential nesting vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) supporting raptors
should be avoided during the nesting season, recognized from February 15 through August 31. If
vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would not impact any active nests.
Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are
identified during nesting bird surveys, then the vegetation used for nesting shall be avoided until
the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The
biologist shall flag the occupied vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer (e.g.,
construction fencing) around the occupied vegetation. The size of the buffer would be based on the
type bird nesting (i.e., raptors shall be afforded larger buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur
within the buffer until the nesting event has completed.
Mitigation Measure BI-3: CDFW Jurisdiction. Impacts to 3.3 acres of tamarisk stand/non-native
grassland and 0.8 acres of tamarisk stand/mule fat scrub shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. This
shall be accomplished by planting 4.1 acres of native riparian species within the proposed flood
storage area on the project site prior to the first certificate of occupancy.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND describes that the project site has the potential to support
nesting bird and raptor species due to the presence of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Nesting
activity typically occurs from mid-February to mid-August. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a
violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under
Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BI-2 was included to require
preconstruction nesting bird surveys, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
37
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same site and would have the same extent
of potential impacts to wildlife movement and nursery sites as analyzed in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND. Compliance with Mitigation Measure BI-2 would reduce any impacts related to nesting
birds to below a level of significance.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant with mitigation incorporated) remains unchanged from that identified in the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Applicable Mitigation Measures Adopted by the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Mitigation Measure BI-2: Nesting Birds and Raptors. Listed previously.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The only local policy or ordinance to protect biological resources of local concern in the City of Lake
Elsinore is the Palm Tree Preservation Ordinance, No. 1044. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND
determined that eight Mexican fan palms on the project site are protected by this ordinance, and
the removal of protected palm trees would be conducted in accordance with Ordinance No. 1044,
and that adherence to the ordinance would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would not affect any biological resources protected by local
ordinance. The modified project would implement the requirements of Ordinance No. 1044, and
would not increase impacts related to the removal of protected palm trees beyond that which has
already been analyzed.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The applicable Habitat Conservation Plans for the Colony Project Initial Study/MND is the MSHCP.
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the project is consistent with the MSHCP and
that it would not conflict with the MCHCP.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
38
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop a smaller portion of the project site and
would provide fewer residential units than the approved project, there is no potential for the
modified project to conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate modified project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological
resources. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was approved.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
The project shall comply with the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore Palm Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
The project shall pay appropriate Multiple Species Habitat Conservation fees, including
Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat fees.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe biological resources impacts would result from the
adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required for biological resources. No refinements related to the modified project are
necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
39
6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
e) Disturb a tribal cultural resource?
The analysis below is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Cottages at Mission Trail
Project (2017 Cultural Report), prepared by Material Culture Consulting and dated July 18, 2017
(see Appendix B).
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?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND included a Cultural Resources Survey (2006 Cultural Report)
prepared by Harris Archaeological Consultants, dated August 27, 2006. Based on this study, the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that ground disturbance during development of the
project site could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources. No significant impacts
related to historical resources, paleontological resources, and human remains were identified. The
implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 was determined to reduce potential
impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
40
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same site and would have a similar extent
of impacts as analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The construction process of the
modified project is consistent with that of the approved project. The 2017 Cultural Report identifies
no new records or other information indicating a change in circumstances or the availability of new
information of substantial importance related to cultural resources. The 2017 Cultural Report, like
the 2006 Cultural Report, does not recommend any mitigation measures; nonetheless, mitigation
measures CR-1 through CR-4 are incorporated into the project.
Thus, the modified project does not have the potential to increase impacts to cultural resources
beyond those that were analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated, as identified in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND.
Applicable Mitigation Measures Adopted by the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Mitigation Measure CR-1: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project applicant
shall contact the appropriate Tribe1 to provide notification 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.
1It is anticipated that the Pechanga Tribe will be the “appropriate” Tribe due to its prior and extensive
coordination with the City and due to its demonstrated cultural affiliation with the project area.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project archaeologist shall
file a pre-grading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity
observation. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor
to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with
the agreement required in Mitigation Measure CR-1, the archaeological monitor's authority to stop
and redirect grading would be exercised in consultation with the appropriate Tribe in order to
evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal
monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and
shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in consultation with the project
archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: If unexpected 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 would be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD)
for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the
religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the appropriate Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be appealable to the City of Lake Elsinore.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
41
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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources.
There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony
Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Feature included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND is applicable
to the modified project:
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during project grading, California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until
the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant
to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and
free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been
made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timeframe.
Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the “most likely
descendant.” The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations, and engage in
consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code
5097.98.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe cultural resources impacts would result from the
adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required for cultural resources. No refinements related to the modified project are
necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
42
6.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42?
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 waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that no active faults are known to traverse the
project site and vicinity. The closest known zoned active fault is the Elsinore fault zone (Glen Ivy
segment), which is located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the project site. The site, like
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
43
virtually all of Southern California, is susceptible to strong seismic ground shaking; these impacts
were found to be less than significant following implementation of standard construction
requirements in the California Building Code (CBC), including compliance with the recommendations
of a Geotechnical Investigation completed for the project.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project includes construction of a smaller scale, residential
development, which is similar to that analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The seismic
risks related to development of the project site are the same under either the approved project or
the modified project. The construction process of the modified project is consistent with that of the
approved project, and would comply with the CBC, as incorporated into the Project Design Features.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined the project site had a low potential for
liquefaction. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that appropriate building foundations
and/or improvement of the soils in compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation would be adequate to reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project includes residential development on the same project site,
which has a low potential for liquefaction. In addition, the modified project would be required to
comply with the CBC regulations, as implemented by the City, and comply with the recommendations
of a Geotechnical Investigation.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
iv. Landslides?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND found that landslides are unlikely due to the relatively flat
topography of the project site and surrounding area, and concluded that the site is therefore at
low risk of landslides; the impact was determined to be less than significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
44
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project includes residential development on the same site with
relatively flat topography, where hazards of landslides are unlikely.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND found that erosion would be reduced to below a level of
significance through the implementation of standard requirements, including preparation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with an Erosion Control Plan, in compliance with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements. The SWPPP would contain Best
Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to reduce or
eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes residential development of the project site that
would utilize the same construction methods as the previously-analyzed project, and would be
required to comply with the same regulations that would limit the potential of erosion. Adherence
to the BATs and BCTs in the SWPPP, as required by the Project Description Features would reduce,
prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project-related grading and construction activities. After
project completion, the project site would be developed pursuant to the City approved Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with residential uses, paved parking areas, and landscape
improvements, and would not contain exposed soil. Upon project completion, the potential for soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil would be expected to be extremely low.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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 offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND established that the soils on the project site have a low
potential for expansion, and is subject to compliance with CBC standards and the recommendations
of the Geotechnical Investigation, which would further reduce potential impacts related to expansive
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
45
soils. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that implementation of the modified project
would result in less than significant impacts related to expansive soils.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes residential development of the project site that
would utilize the same construction methods as the previously-analyzed project, and would be
required to comply with the same regulations that would limit the potential of impacts related to
expansive soils.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that, with a connection to local wastewater service
provided by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), there would be no impact
related to the use of septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The modified project would connect to EVMWD wastewater service. No septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems are proposed. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur
with implementation of the modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project
Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils.
There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony
Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
46
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
All earthwork and grading at the project site shall be performed in accordance with all
applicable building code requirements, the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA), and the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore (Section
17.10.070 of the Zoning Code).
The project shall implement recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation for the
proposed project in accordance with the California Building Code requirements for
resistance to seismic shaking.
During construction, soil erosion shall be controlled and reduced to a less than significant
impact through the implementation of a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the current California State
Water Resources Control Board Order and NPDES General Permit. The SWPPP shall comply
with Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
Hydrology. The project shall implement a project-specific Erosion Control Plan and a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the current California State
Water Resources Control Board Order and NPDES General Permit. The SWPPP shall comply
with Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
(BCT) to reduce or eliminate soil erosion from areas of construction activity.
The project shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for both the Lake and Sedco Hills Creek
floodplains prior to any grading, building or map recordation. The CLOMR shall show that
all proposed structures will be eligible for removal from the existing Flood-Zone A to a Zone
X. The project developer shall be bonded until all structures are officially removed from the
Flood-Zone A designation by FEMA.
The project shall obtain a FEMA Letter of Map Report (LOMR) prior to final inspection
showing that all structures have been officially removed from the Flood-Zone A and placed
into a Zone X.
Water Quality. In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Drainage Area Management Plan
(SAR-DAMP) and NPDES requirements, an applicant for a project encompassing more than
five acres is required to develop and implement a SWPPP. Regulations [December 1999
Phase II Rule] expanded the NPDES program to include sites that disturb land equal to or
greater than one acre and less than five acres. In addition, the City shall ensure that
construction activity is in compliance with the State’s General Permit for Construction
Activities administered by the California RWQCB, located in Riverside (Santa Ana, Region
8). One condition of this permit is the development and implementation of a site-specific
SWPPP that identifies BMPs to reduce/eliminate erosion and sedimentation associated with
construction.
The objective of the SWPPP is to identify and control storm water discharges due to
construction activity and to identify and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water,
both before and after construction. Discharges associated with construction activity are
covered under one statewide General Permit. Coverage under the General Permit requires
submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB prior to construction, and development
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
47
and implementation of a defensible SWPPP prior to disturbing a site and for the duration
of construction. All construction period non-storm and storm water BMPs shall adhere to the
California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook for
Construction.
The State’s General Permit for Construction Activities regulates construction-related
activities, and requires that pollutant discharges into receiving waters be minimized and/or
eliminated. This permit also requires that management measures be incorporated into new
development to ensure that once construction is completed, the residential land use does not
contribute substantially to water quality problems in water bodies that receive storm water
and non-storm water runoff from the projects. The proposed project would address post-
construction (operational) water quality impacts on a parcel by parcel basis, through
construction of underground bio-treatment facilities. These facilities would filter the storm
water and convey it into the proposed project’s storm drain system before leaving the
property. The design features for each parcel’s water quality facility shall be outlined in
the required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project.
The project will be required to comply with all County regulations as they relate to
groundwater monitoring, including the provision of additional monitoring wells which would
permit the Riverside County Waste Management District (RCWMD) and SARWCQB to fully
evaluate potential groundwater impacts. To facilitate monitoring, a buffer zone (greenbelt
or roadway) will be planned along the eastern border of the project site such that
monitoring well locations would not be located within residential lot property lines. RCWMD
will also be required to notify the adjoining landowners of any potential impacts.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe geology and soils impacts would result from the
adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required for geology and soils. No refinements related to the modified project are
necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
48
6.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The analysis below is based on the Cottages at Mission Trail Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared
by Urban Crossroads and dated August 30, 2017 (see Appendix C).
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND was prepared in 2008, and did not quantitively evaluate
the potential of the approved project to result in impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions
because the existing CEQA criteria and thresholds for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions did not
exist at the time.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Since approval of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND numerous state and City regulations related
to greenhouse gas emissions have been implemented, including the City of Lake Elsinore Climate
Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is a comprehensive plan that ensures the City reduces community-wide
GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 (current state regulation). The
CAP includes a “Project-Level CAP Consistency Worksheet” to determine the GHG analysis required
for land use development projects. As such, project consistency with the CAP is identified in the
analysis below.
No New Impact.
Construction
Similar to the approved project, the modified project construction activities would be temporary,
but could contribute to greenhouse gas impacts. Construction activities would result in the emission
of GHGs from equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker
automobile trips. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and
type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
49
Construction GHG emissions are quantified and amortized per the SCAQMD methodology and
divided by a 30-years, and then added to the annual operational GHG emissions.
Operation
Like the approved project, operational GHG emissions associated with the modified project would
primarily result from motor vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport
(the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity
consumed by the residences would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity
provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy
required to transport water from its source.
The total estimated GHG emissions that would be generated from the approved and modified
projects are shown in Table GHG-1. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from the modified
project would be 315.52 MTCO2e less per year than the approved project.
Table GHG-1: Comparison of GHG Emissions from the Approved and Modified Projects
Emission Source CO2e Emissions
(metric tons per year)
Approved Project
Mobile Sources 2,166.14
Natural Gas 552.86
Electricity Related 473.18
Water Related 142.97
Approved Project Total Emissions 3,335.15
Modified Project
Construction Emissions
amortized over 30 years 18.56
Area 48.29
Energy 713.31
Mobile Sources 2,082.80
Waste 84.33
Water Usage 72.34
Modified Project Total Emissions 3,019.63
Net Change
(Modified Project – Approved Project) -315.52
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Therefore, the GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the modified project would be less
than what would occur from the approved project, and the modified project would not result in any
new or more severe GHG related impacts than what would have been generated by the approved
project. Therefore, there would be no new significant impacts as a result of development of the
modified project.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
As described in the previous response, greenhouse gas impacts were not analyzed in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
50
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. Since approval the adopted Colony Project Initial Study/MND, new regulations
related to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases have been adopted, including the City of
Lake Elsinore CAP, which ensures that current state regulations including (AB 32 and Executive Order
S-3-05) are implemented. The modified project would not conflict with the CAP, as shown in Table
GHG-2.
Table GHG-2: Modified Project Consistency with City CAP
CAP Measure Consistency
Measure T-1.2:
Pedestrian
Infrastructure
This measure requires the installation of sidewalks along new and reconstructed streets and
sidewalks or paths to internally link all uses and provide connections to neighborhood
activity centers, major destinations, and transit facilities contiguous with the project site. The
project would install sidewalks along Nichols Road, El Toro Road, and all internal streets.
The proposed project would implement, and not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.4: Bicycle
Infrastructure
This measure requires new development to implement and connect to the network of Class
I, II and III bikeways, trails and safety features identified in the General Plan, Bike Lane
Master Plan, Trails Master Plan and Western Riverside County Non-Motorized
Transportation plan. Consistent with the City’s General Plan a Class II bicycle lane would
be constructed by the modified project along Nichols Road. As such, the proposed project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-1.5: Bicycle
Parking Standards
This measure requires the City to enforce short-term and long-term bicycle parking
standards for new developments. This measure is implemented by the Department of Public
Works and Building Department through the development review and permitting process.
The modified project would be required to comply with the City’s bicycle standards as
part of the permitting process. As such, the modified project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure T-2.1:
Designated Parking
for Fuel Efficient
Vehicles
This measure requires new non-residential developments to designate 10% of total
parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles. This measure is implemented by the
Department of Planning, Public Works and Building through development review and
conditions of approval.
The modified project is a residential development and would be required to comply with
the City’s applicable parking standards, as required through the development review and
permitting process. As such, the modified project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure T-4.1:
Commute Trip
Reduction Program
This measure requires the City to institute a commute trip reduction program for employers
with fewer than 100 employees. The proposed project is a residential development and is
not subject to this measure. As such, the modified project would not conflict with this
measure.
Measure E-1.1: Tree
Planting Requirements
This measure requires new developments to plant at minimum one 15-gallon nondeciduous,
umbrella-form tree per 30 linear feet of boundary length near buildings. This measure is
implemented by the Department of Public Works and Building Department through the
development review and permitting process. The modified project landscape plan complies
with these requirements, which would be verified during project permitting by with the City.
As such, the modified project would not conflict with this measure.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
51
CAP Measure Consistency
Measure E-1.2: Cool
Roof Requirements
This measure requires new non-residential development to use roofing materials having
solar reflectance, thermal emittance or Solar Reflectance Index consistent with CalGreen
Tier 1 values. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning and Building
through City ordinance, development review process, and the permitting process. The
modified project compliance with this requirement would be verified by the City through
the permitting process. As such, the modified project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-1.3: Energy
Efficient Building
Standards
This measure requires that new construction exceed the California Energy Code
requirements, based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards by 15% by 2020, through
either the performance based or prescriptive approach described in the California Green
Building Code. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Planning, Public Works,
and Building through City ordinance and development review process. Compliance with
this requirement would be verified by the City through the permitting process. As such, the
modified project would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-3.2: Energy
Efficient Street and
Traffic Signal Lights
This measure requires the City to work with Southern California Edison to replace existing
high pressure sodium street lights and traffic lights with high efficiency alternatives, such as
Low Emitting Diode (LED) lights; replace existing City owned traffic lights with LED lights;
require any new street and traffic lights to be LED. This measure is currently being
implemented by the Department of Public Works through renovation. The modified project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-4.1:
Landscaping
Ordinance
This measure requires the City to enforce the City’s AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance, which
requires that landscaping be water efficient, thereby consuming less energy and reducing
emissions. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Building and Planning
through City ordinance and the development review process. The modified project would
implement the City’s landscape requirements, and the modified project would not conflict
with this measure.
Measure E-4.2: Indoor
Water Conservation
Requirements
This measure requires that development projects reduce indoor water consumption by 30%
by 2020. This measure is implemented by the Departments of Building and Planning
through amendments to the Municipal Code and development review process. The
modified project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code and the modified project
would not conflict with this measure.
Measure E-5.1:
Renewable Energy
Incentives
This measure facilitates the voluntary installation of small-scale renewable energy systems,
such as solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems, by connecting residents and
businesses with technical and financial assistance through the City website. This measure is
implemented by the Departments of Building and Planning through outreach and
incentive programs. No elements of the modified project would conflict with this measure.
Measure S-1.4:
Construction and
Demolition Waste
Diversion
This measure requires development projects to divert, recycle or salvage at least 65% of
nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated at the site by 2020 and
requires all construction and demolition projects to be accompanied by a waste
management plan for the project. This measure is implemented by the Departments of
Planning and Building through City contracts and the development review process. The
modified project would be required to comply with these requirements. As such, the
modified project would not conflict with this measure.
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified reduction measures to achieve the
statewide GHG emission goals set forth by AB 32, which are set forth in the CARB Scoping Plan.
Thus, projects that are consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan are also consistent with the
requirements of AB 32.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
52
As described in the previous response, like the approved project, the modified project would
generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. However, the modified project would be
consistent with the applicable measures of the CARB Scoping Plan, as described in Table GHG-3.
Table GHG-3: Modified Project Consistency with Scoping Plan
Number Scoping Plan Measure Consistency
T-1 Pavley Motor Vehicle
Standards (AB 1493)
Residents would purchase vehicles in compliance with incumbent CARB
vehicle standards. The modified project would not conflict with this measure.
H-4 Limit High GWP Use in
Consumer Products
Residents would use consumer products that would comply with the
incumbent regulations. The modified project would not conflict with this
measure.
H-1 Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Systems –
Reduction from Non-
Professional Servicing
Residents would be prohibited from performing air conditioning repairs
and required to use professional servicing. The modified project would not
conflict with this measure.
T-4 Tire Pressure Program Motor vehicles driven by residents would maintain proper tire pressure
when vehicles are serviced. The modified project would not conflict with this
measure.
T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard Motor vehicles driven by residents would use fuels that are compliant with
incumbent standards. The modified project would not conflict with this
measure.
W-1 Water Use Efficiency The modified project will be required to show consistency with the City of
Lake Elsinore’s municipal code requiring efficient landscape requirements
(Chapter 19.08 of the City’s Municipal Code / consistency with the City’s
AB 1881 Landscaping Ordinance). The modified project would not conflict
with this measure.
GB-1 Green Buildings The modified project would be constructed in compliance with incumbent
state or local green building standards. The modified project would not
conflict with this measure.
H-5 Air Conditioning
Refrigerant Leak Test
During Vehicle Smog
Check
Motor vehicles driven by residents would comply with the leak test
requirements during smog checks. The modified project would not conflict
with this measure.
E-1 Energy Efficiency
Measures (Electricity)
The modified project would comply with incumbent electrical energy
efficiency standards, which are the Title 24 standards and applicable
green building standards. The modified project would not conflict with this
measure.
CR-1 Energy Efficiency (Natural
Gas)
The modified project would comply with incumbent gas energy efficiency
standards, which are the Title 24 standards and applicable green building
standards. The modified project would not conflict with this measure.
GB-1 Greening New Residential
and Commercial
Construction
The modified project would comply with incumbent energy efficiency
standards, which are the Title 24 standards and applicable green building
standards. The modified project would not conflict with this measure.
GB-1 Greening Existing Homes
and Commercial Buildings
There are no existing residences on the project site. This measure is not
applicable to the modified project, and the modified project would not
conflict with this measure.
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
As described in Tables GHG-2 and GHG-3, implementation of the modified project would not
conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts
would be less than significant. Furthermore, the modified project would not result in any new or
more severe GHG related impacts than would have been generated by the approved project.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
53
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding GHG emissions. There
have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony Project
Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or
alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
Refer to Section 6.3, Air Quality.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe GHG emissions impacts would result from the
adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures with respect to greenhouse gas emissions impacts are required. No refinements related
to the modified project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures
and no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
54
6.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste 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 of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
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?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
55
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified the potential use of various hazardous materials,
including fuels, lubricants, cleaning solutions and solvents, and others, during construction and
operation of the residences, and determined that existing federal, State, County, and municipal
regulations would reduce any potential for impacts to below a level of significance. A Project
Description Feature is incorporated into the project to ensure these regulations are followed.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes residential development that would use hazardous
materials in manners consistent with those analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. There
are no new features that would significantly expand the use of or increase the hazard associated
with either the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified that the nearest school to the site is Hayman
Elementary, which is 0.5 mile from the project site. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND found no
impact associated with the risk of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is still 0.5 mile from the closest school, and proposes
residential development that is consistent the potential hazards analyzed in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND. The modified project does not increase the amount of hazardous substances being
handled or reduce the distance of such substances from nearby schools. The modified project would
not emit hazardous emissions or result in hazardous materials, substances, or wastes being handled
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
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?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
56
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the project site was not located on any
hazardous materials site designated by Government Code Section 65962.5. Any hazardous
materials such as lead based paint and batteries would be required to be properly disposed of
per applicable state and federal regulations. In addition, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
stated that the project site may contain a private septic system. During construction activities, should
a septic system be encountered, it would be required to be removed per City and County Health
Code requirements.
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that incorporation of requirements would ensure
that impacts from potentially hazardous materials and septic systems would be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located within an area that was fully analyzed for
hazardous materials impacts by the Colony Project Initial Study/MND; it was concluded the area
of the modified project did not contain any identified hazardous materials sites. Like the approved
project, the modified project would be required to comply with existing regulations related to the
disposal of any hazardous materials or septic systems encountered on the project site.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
would result in a less than significant impact related to being located on a hazardous materials site,
and no mitigation is required.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified the nearest public airport as the Perris Valley
Airport, 9.3 miles northeast of the site, and determined that due to distance, the project would have
a less than significant impact on the airport.
The nearest private airstrip was identified to be Skylark Airfield, 3,200-feet south of the site. The
project site is not within the Airport Operation zones or flight paths for this facility, and is planned
to be relocated further away from the project site. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND
determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the airstrip.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same project site that is 9.3 miles from the
Perris Valley Airport, and 3,200 feet north of Skylark Airfield. However, Skylark Field is planned
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
57
to be relocated further south, where it would not affect the project site (Urban Crossroads 2017).
The modified project would develop two-story residential structures that are not within the Airport
Operation zones or flight paths. The modified project does not include any new project features
that could create new impacts related to airports or airstrips.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
g) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that the Colony Project would not have the
potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with Lake Elsinore’s Emergency
Operations Plan.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes fewer residences, and a less dense development.
The modified project does not involve modifying, closing, rerouting, or otherwise impeding any
emergency access or evacuation routes. The modified project would provide driveway and
circulation access consistent with the City’s public works standards.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the project site is not within a wildland fire
risk area or a high fire hazard severity zone, and development of the project site would not expose
people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As the project site is not within a fire hazard zone, and contains no unique features
that would increase wildfire risks. Impacts related to fire hazards would not result from
implementation of the modified project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
58
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and
hazardous materials. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that
require major revisions of the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant
effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known
when the Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Feature included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND is applicable
to the modified project:
The project would comply with existing federal and state standards in place for the
handling, storage and transport of hazardous materials.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe hazards and hazardous materials impacts would
result from the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised
mitigation measures with respect to hazards and hazardous materials impacts are required. No
refinements related to the modified project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
59
6.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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?
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 or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 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) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
60
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified the potential for operational-period impacts to
water quality due to the addition of pollutants from urban runoff, such as motor oil and other fluids
from cars; oil, paint, and household cleaners; soap and dirt from car washing; litter; animal wastes;
and other pollutants. As a standard permitting requirement, the project would be required to
implement a construction-period SWPPP and an operational-period Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) to ensure compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The
SWPPP and WQMP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize water quality
impacts. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that standard permitting requirements
would reduce potential impacts related to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements to a less than significant level.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop the site with fewer and less dense structures
than the project analyzed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project’s
construction- and operational-period water quality impacts would not be greater than those
previously analyzed. The modified project will continue to be subject to standard permitting
requirements, including implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP. In addition, standard permitting
requirements are incorporated into the project through Project Description Features, which would
ensure that impacts are less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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)?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identifies that groundwater is a minimal water source for the
local water purveyor, EVMWD, and that the approved project would not use groundwater as its
water supply. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND further notes that while development of the
project site would increase site imperviousness; minimal effect would occur because the onsite soils
have limited infiltration rates, and the project was found to not significantly modify regional
absorption and infiltration rates. For these reasons, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded
the project’s impacts on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than
significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
61
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes fewer residential dwelling units than analyzed in
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and would result in an increase in pervious surfaces compared
to the approved project, as 0.95-acre less would be developed by the modified project and
infiltration into the groundwater basin would not be reduced by the modified project. As described
in the project description, the western 6.97-acre portion of the project site would be utilized for a
detention basin, which would provide natural infiltration into the groundwater basin. In addition, the
modified project would continue to rely on water supplied from EVMWD and would not utilize local
groundwater.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND proposed development of an infiltration basin in the western
portion of the project site to provide onsite storm water drainage, and was designed to not result
in erosion or siltation. The adopted Initial Study/MND found that the storm drainage system that
would efficiently transport stormwater with minimal erosion or siltation on- or off-site. To minimize
impacts during construction, standard permitting requirements mandate the implementation of a
SWPPP with BMPs to reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation during construction and a
WQMP during operation that would ensure that the drainage pattern of the site would not result
in siltation or erosion. With the implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP, the impacts related to
erosion or siltation resulting from an alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site were
found to be less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As described in the project description, the modified project includes a drainage
system similar to the approved project, which consists of two onsite drainage systems that would
capture runoff from impervious areas and building structures on the project site and convey it to the
open space/detention center in the western portion of the site. The proposed drainage has been
designed to accommodate runoff from the project site, as required by Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and City requirements, which has been verified by a Hydrology Study
that was prepared for the modified project (Wilson Mikami, 2017). In addition, as described in the
previous response, the modified project includes fewer residential dwelling units than analyzed in
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and would result in an increase in pervious surfaces compared
to the approved project, as 0.95-acre less would be developed by the modified project. The
modified project would include onsite runoff and storm drainage system in a manner that is
consistent with RWQCB requirements, and implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP with BMPs
would continue to be required on the site. The modified project would not alter the course of a
stream or river or result in substantial erosion/siltation.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
62
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND described that flood protection in the back basin of Lake
Elsinore, which includes the project site, is controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the City of Lake Elsinore,
and the approved project was required to demonstrate that it does not adversely impact the flood
storage capacity of the back basin.
To allow for regional flood storage in compliance with the Lake Elsinore Management Plan, the
approved project included grading the western 7.2 acres of the site to an elevation of
approximately 1,236 feet above sea level. The project was designed such that stormwater was
routed to the detention basin, and discharged via sump pumps located at the southwestern portion
of the project site. It was determined that under this drainage plan, off-site surface runoff flows
would be discharged at a rate of 1.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) as opposed to 29.3 cfs under
existing conditions. As such, it was determined that the approved project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, and impacts were
determined to be less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. Refer to the previous response. The modified project would develop a slightly
smaller portion of the project site, and the storm water drainage system design is consistent with the
approved project and has been hydrologically evaluated to ensure it would accommodate runoff
from the modified project. As a result, the modified project would not result in greater flooding
impacts than the approved project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
63
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Related to the capacity of stormwater drainage systems, see response to Section 6.9c), above.
Related to runoff water quality, see response to Section 6.9a), above.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. See responses to Sections 6.9a) and d), above. Development of the modified
project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems. The project includes an onsite stormwater drainage system
and detention basin, which would accommodate runoff from the project site. No new or substantially
greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project when compared to those
identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts
identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact)
remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
See response to Section 6.9a), above. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that impacts
to water quality would be less than significant with the implementation of standard permitting
requirements, including a SWPPP and WQMP.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. See response to Section 6.9a), above. Development of the modified project would
not substantially degrade water quality. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with
implementation of the modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project
Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from
that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND found that, the majority of the project site is located within a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year Special Flood Hazard Zone. However,
as required by the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.68.010, all finished floor elevations for the
project was set at 1,267 feet above MLS, which is 3.7 feet above the 100-year flood water surface
elevation of Lake Elsinore. In summary, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that
elevation of the building pads and adherence to City guidelines would ensure that impacts related
to housing within a 100-year Special Flood Hazard Zone would be less than significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
64
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. Consistent with the approved project the modified project would be required to
have all finished floor elevations for the project was set at 1,267 feet (NAVD29) above MLS, which
is 3.7 feet above the 100-year flood water surface elevation of Lake Elsinore, in compliance with
the City’s Municipal Code Section 15.68.010 and compliance with Army Corps regulations related
to flooding at Lake Elsinore.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND found the project site is within a high inundation zone for the
Railroad Canyon Dam, located three miles from the site, which holds 12,000 acre-feet of water.
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND analyzed the flood hazards associated with a failure of this
dam and determined that in the worst-case scenario of a dam failure when Lake Elsinore is at its
highest level of 1,263.3 feet, would be 3.7 feet below the minimum finished floor elevation of
1,267 feet required by Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 15.68.010.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. Like the approved project, the modified project would comply with the Municipal
Code’s requirement for the finished floor to be at a minimum elevation of 1,267 feet. This would
avoid a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving a catastrophic failure of Railroad Canyon
Dam.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND evaluated the potential for seiche impacts due to the project
site’s location near Lake Elsinore. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that due to the
height of the residential structures, shallow water depths in the lake, and with the presence of flood
control devices constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, seiche hazards on the site are less
than significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
65
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no impact associated with tsunami due to the site’s
inland location, and a less-than-significant impact associated with mudflows due to the flat
topography of the site.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same project site that was previously
analyzed for seiche, tsunami, and mudflow hazards, and is therefore subject to the same degree
of impact as described in the prior analysis. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur
with implementation of the modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project
Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from
that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hydrology and water
quality. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
Refer to Section 6.6, Geology and Soils.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe hydrology and water quality impacts would result
from the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised
mitigation measures are required for hydrology and water quality. No refinements related to the
modified project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and
no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
66
6.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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?
a) Physically divide an established community?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that development of the project site would not
cause the physical dividing of any established community. The impact was considered less than
significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located on the same development site that was analyzed
in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND for impacts to established communities. The modified project
would not expand the area of impact, and the same site would be developed for similar residential
uses as previously approved. The modified project does not impact the roadway system;
connectivity between uses would remain as evaluated in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. No
design element of the modified project would result in an established community being physical
divided.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
67
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND describes that the approved project was consistent with the
General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the project site, and the approved project is
consistent with all related plans and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop a residential development on the project site
that is less dense than the approved project. The modified project would provide 7.4 units per acre,
which is within the requirements of the Residential-2 and Residential-3 zoning districts. The modified
project would not result in an inconsistency with applicable plans, policies, or regulations.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The Modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The applicable Habitat Conservation Plans for the Colony Project Initial Study/MND is the MSHCP.
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the project is consistent with the MSHCP and
that it would not conflict with the MCHCP.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop a smaller portion of the project site and
would provide fewer residential units than the approved project, there is no potential for the
modified project to conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning.
There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony
Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
68
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND did not include any Project Design Features applicable to
land use and planning.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe land use and planning impacts would result from the
adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required regarding land use and planning. No refinements related to the modified
project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new
mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
69
6.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Initial Study to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that the project area did not
have any known mineral resources that may be of value to the region or state, and that the project
site was not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by any plan.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located within the area of analysis of the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. No additional impacts associated with mineral resources would result from
implementation of the modified project. The modified project would have no impact on mineral
resources.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mineral resources.
There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony
Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
70
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was approved.
Project Design Features
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND did not include any Project Design Features applicable to
mineral resources.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe mineral resources impacts would result from the
adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required regarding mineral resources. No refinements related to the modified project
are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
71
6.12 NOISE Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
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?
The analysis below is based on the Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by
Urban Crossroads and dated September 1, 2017 (see Appendix D).
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) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified potential significant operational-period noise
impacts at residential land uses due to increased traffic on roadways, and from the off-highway
vehicle noise from the adjacent Lake Elsinore Motocross Park. To reduce operational noise impacts
to a less than significant level, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND required residential
development to implement Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-8.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
72
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop 68 less residential units than the approved
project. Operations of the modified project would be similar to those analyzed in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND because they are both residential projects. Because the modified project would
develop 68 fewer residences, it would result in reduced noise, which would not exceed City
thresholds of significance, as detailed below. In addition, Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 of the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND required enclosures for balconies, which would not be required
for the modified project because no exterior balconies are proposed for the residential structures.
To characterize the existing ambient noise in the project area, the Noise Impact Study prepared
for the modified project (included as Appendix C), conducted six 24-hour noise measurements on
and around the project site as shown in Table N-1 and Figure N-1. As shown, the existing onsite
ambient noise is approximately 58.8 to 62.3 dBA CNEL.
Table N-1: Ambient Noise Levels
Location
Distance
to Project
Boundary
(Feet)
Description
Energy Average
Hourly Noise Level
(dBA Leq) CNEL
Daytime Nighttime
L1 1,380' Located north of the site near existing residences south of
Hidden Trail. 64.5 59.6 67.7
L2 On site Located near the western site boundary and the existing
Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park. 49.2 43.7 52.1
L3 705' Located southeast of the site on Mission Trail near existing
residences. 63.1 56.9 65.7
L4 1,525' Located south of the site, west of Mission Trail, between the
Lake Elsinore Motorsports Park and existing residences. 69.2 62.7 71.6
L5 On site Located on site approximately 400-feet from the western
boundary. 56.1 51.0 58.8
L6 On site Located on site at the southwest corner adjacent to the Lake
Elsinore Motorsport Park. 61.2 52.9 62.3
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Construction
The City of Lake Elsinore has set restrictions to control construction noise. Section 17.176.080 (F),
Construction/Demolition states that operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment
used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the weekday hours of
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom
creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for
emergency work by public service utilities or by variance issued by the City is prohibited. The
Municipal code further requires construction activities to be conducted in such a manner that the
maximum (Lmax) noise levels at affected residential and commercial properties will not exceed 85
dBA Lmax from mobile equipment, and 75 dBA Lmax from stationary equipment at nearby business
properties at any time.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
73
The closest noise sensitive receptor to the modified project’s construction area are the residences
located adjacent to the project site. As shown on Figure N-2, the closest receiver (R3) is 93-feet
from the proposed construction area.
Figure N-1: Noise Measurement Locations
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
74
Figure N-2: Construction Activity and Receiver Locations
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
75
As detailed by the Noise Impact Study prepared for the modified project (included as Appendix
C), the modified project-related construction noise levels would range from 49.0 to 71.4 dBA Lmax
at the sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Table N-2. Thus, the modified project would not
exceed the City’s noise limit of 85 dBA Lmax from mobile equipment and 75 dBA Lmax from
stationary equipment. In addition, construction activity would comply with the City’s construction
hours. Therefore, construction noise would not exceed the City’s noise standard and construction
impacts related to noise standards would be less than significant.
Table N-2: Construction Noise Levels (dBA Lmax)
Mobile Equipment Stationary Equipment Highest Noise Levels
Grading Paving
Building
Construction
Architectural
Coatings
Mobile
Equipment
Stationary
Equipment
R1 49.0 47.9 40.5 40.5 49.0 40.5
R2 69.7 68.5 57.7 57.7 69.7 57.7
R3 71.4 70.2 59.8 59.8 71.4 59.8
R4 67.9 66.7 58.7 58.7 67.9 58.7
R5 58.9 57.7 50.0 50.0 58.9 50.0
R6 49.9 48.7 41.5 41.5 49.9 41.5
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
In addition, the construction noise levels that is anticipated to peak at 71.4 dBA Lmax at the sensitive
receiver location on Mission Trail 93-feet from the project boundary. The existing ambient noise
along mission trail is approximately 71.6 dBA CNEL, as shown on Table N-1. Thus, the temporary
and intermittent noise that would be generated by construction equipment would not result in a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project. Overall, construction related noise impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
Traffic Noise. To quantify the modified project's traffic noise impacts, the changes in traffic noise
levels on roadway segments surrounding the project were calculated based on the changes in the
average daily traffic volumes. Based on the noise impact significance criteria described in the Noise
Impact Study (Appendix C), a significant off-site traffic noise level impact occurs when noise levels
at noise-sensitive land uses:
are less than 60 dBA and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-
related noise level increase; or
range from 60 to 65 dBA and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA or greater
Project-related noise level increase; or
already exceed 65 dBA, and the project creates a community noise level impact of greater
than 1.5 dBA.
Table N-3 shows the background noise conditions in 2019 without and with the modified project
plus ambient growth and cumulative projects identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which
represents the greatest potential noise with operation of the modified project in its opening year.
As shown in Table N-3, the modified project is anticipated to generate a noise level increase of up
to 0.2 dBA CNEL on roadway segments closest to the project site, which would be impacted the
greatest by project traffic noise. Based on the significance criteria listed previously, the noise level
increases that would be generated by the modified project would be less than significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
76
Table N-3: Off Site Traffic Noise Level Increases in 2019 with Ambient and Cumulative Noise
ID Road Segment
Adjacent
Planned
(Existing)
Land Use
CNEL at Adjacent
Land Use (dBA)
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase
1 Mission Trail n/o Malaga Rd. Commercial 68.9 69.1 0.2
2 Mission Trail s/o Malaga Rd. Residential 70.9 71.0 0.1
3 Mission Trail s/o Elberta Rd. Residential 71.7 71.8 0.1
4 Mission Trail n/o Olive St. Residential 70.8 71.0 0.2
5 Mission Trail s/o Olive St. Residential 71.9 72.0 0.1
6 Mission Trail s/o Lemon St. Residential 71.2 71.4 0.2
7 Mission Trail s/o Corydon St. Commercial 67.9 68.0 0.1
8 Mission Trail s/o Bundy Canyon Rd. Light Industrial 65.8 65.8 0.0
9 Malaga Rd. e/o Mission Trail Residential 57.7 57.9 0.2
10 Lemon St. e/o Mission Trail Residential 59.0 59.1 0.1
12 Bundy Canyon Rd. e/o Mission Trail Commercial
(Residential) 67.5 67.6 0.1
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Exterior Noise. In addition, Table N-4 shows that the modified project-related off-site traffic noise
level increase in year 2040 conditions would be an increase of up to 0.1 dBA CNEL on the study
area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria listed previously, the 0.1 dBA CNEL
noise level increase would be less than significant.
Table N-4: Off Site Traffic Noise Level Increases in 2040
ID Road Segment
Adjacent
Planned
(Existing)
Land Use
CNEL at Adjacent
Land Use (dBA)
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase
1 Mission Trail n/o Malaga Rd. Commercial 71.6 71.7 0.1
2 Mission Trail s/o Malaga Rd. Residential 73.0 73.1 0.1
3 Mission Trail s/o Elberta Rd. Residential 73.1 73.2 0.1
4 Mission Trail n/o Olive St. Residential 73.0 73.1 0.1
5 Mission Trail s/o Olive St. Residential 73.1 73.2 0.1
6 Mission Trail s/o Lemon St. Residential 73.1 73.2 0.1
7 Mission Trail s/o Corydon St. Commercial 69.7 69.8 0.1
8 Mission Trail s/o Bundy
Canyon Rd. Light Industrial 67.7 67.8 0.1
9 Malaga Rd. e/o Mission Trail Residential 57.6 57.7 0.1
10 Lemon St. e/o Mission Trail Residential 62.1 62.2 0.1
12 Bundy Canyon Rd. e/o Mission Trail Commercial
(Residential) 68.4 68.5 0.1
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
The City has a 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for residential areas. The project includes
a 6-foot high masonry block wall on the north, south, and east sides of the site, which would reduce
exterior noise from traffic on Mission Trail to approximately 59.4 to 59.8 dBA CNEL at the outdoor
living areas, as shown on Table N-5, which would be less than the City’s exterior noise level standard
for residential land uses. Therefore, the exterior on site traffic noise would be less than significant.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
77
Table N-5: On Site Exterior Traffic Noise
Receiver Location Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Northeast Units 59.4
East Units 59.8
Southeast Units 59.6
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Interior Noise. The City of Lake Elsinore requires residential units be developed to achieve a
maximum interior noise of 45 dBA CNEL. Standard windows that have the ability to reduce exterior
noise by 27 dBA would reduce exterior noise at the first floor units to below 45 dBA CNEL. Thus,
interior noise impacts to first floor units would be less than significant.
Table N-6: First Floor Interior Noise with Standard Windows (dBA CNEL)
Receiver
Location
Noise Level
at Façade1
Required Interior
Noise Reduction2
With Standard
Window NR
Interior
Noise Level3
Northeast Units 61.9 16.9 27 34.9
East Units 62.2 17.2 27 35.2
Southeast Units 62.0 17.0 27 35.0
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with windows closed condition and mechanical ventilation (e.g. air
conditioning).
2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.
3 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows.
"NR" = Noise Reduction
Table N-7 shows that noise levels at the second-floor buildings that face Mission Trail are expected
to be 72.3 dBA CNEL, which would require windows with STC ratings of 31 to reduce interior noise
levels below 45 dBA.
Table N-7: Second Floor Interior Noise with Standard and Upgraded Windows (dBA CNEL)
Receiver
Location
Noise Level
at Façade1
Required Interior
Noise Reduction2
Noise Level with
Standard Window
NR of 27
Noise Level with
Upgraded
Window NR of 31
Northeast Units 72.3 27.3 45.3 41.3
East Units 72.3 27.3 45.3 41.3
Southeast Units 72.3 27.3 45.3 41.3
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with windows closed condition and mechanical ventilation (e.g. air
conditioning).
2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.
3 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows.
"NR" = Noise Reduction
Mitigation Measure N-6 from the approved Colony Project Initial Study/MND states that the project
shall provide upgraded windows with a South Transmission Class (STC) rating of 31 or higher for
all residential units facing Mission Trail. This architectural upgrade shall achieve an interior noise
level of 45 dBA Ldn or lower for the interior residential spaces. With Implementation of this measure,
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
78
the modified project would also result in less than significant interior noise levels; the same as the
approved Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND. While the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND identified a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for both
construction- and operational-period impacts, only construction-period mitigations are required for
the modified project; operational-period mitigations are not applicable as no residential
component is included in the modified project. As the modified project is proposed on parcels that
were fully assessed, the modified project would result in a less than significant impact related to
being located on a hazardous materials site, and no mitigation is required.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant with mitigation incorporated) remains unchanged from that cited in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND.
Applicable Mitigation Measures Adopted by the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The following mitigation measures, as revised per strikeout/underline, shall apply to the modified
project and are incorporated as a part of this noise study which satisfies the final noise study
evaluation required in Mitigation Measure N-6 below:
N-3 In the event that the Lake Elsinore Motocross Facility has not relocated prior to the
issuance of building permit the project applicant shall provide mechanical ventilation
(e.g., air conditioning) for all residential units facing the Lake Elsinore Motocross
Park.
N-4 The project applicant shall provide mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning) for
all residential units facing Mission Trail.
N-5 The project proponent shall provide upgraded windows with a South Transmission
Class (STC) rating of 31 or higher for all residential units facing Mission Trail. This
architectural upgrade shall achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn or lower
for the interior residential spaces. Verification of these requirements shall be
provided in a final noise study that shall be completed when precise grading and
architectural plans are available. The final noise study shall be subject to review
and approval as verified by the City Engineer.
N-6 In the event that the Lake Elsinore Motocross Facility has not relocated prior to the
issuance of building permits, the condominium residential units located at the
western-most boundary facing the Lake Elsinore Motocross Park shall require
upgraded construction materials. This architectural upgrade shall achieve an interior
noise level of 45 dBA Ldn or lower for the interior residential spaces. Verification of
these requirements shall be provided in a final noise study that shall be completed
when precise grading and architectural plans are available. The final noise study
shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
79
N-8 In the event that the Lake Elsinore Motocross Facility has not relocated prior to the
issuance of building permits, all residential units facing the Lake Elsinore Motocross
Park shall be provided with weather-stripped core exterior doors and exterior
wall/roof assemblies shall be free of cut outs and openings.
d) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that construction and operation of residential uses
on the project site would not result in excessive ground borne vibrations, and a less than significant
impact was identified.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Construction
The Noise Impact Study (included as Appendix C) uses the vibration assessment methodology
published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which indicates that a large bulldozer
represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec (PPV) at 25 feet.
At the sensitive receiver locations that are between 141 to 1,675 feet from construction activities,
construction vibration velocity levels are expected to approach 0.005 in/sec (RMS) at the nearby
receiver locations, as shown on Table N-8.
Based on the City of Lake Elsinore vibration threshold of 0.01 in/sec, the construction-related
vibration impacts would be less than significant. In addition, vibration levels would only occur when
heavy construction equipment is operating at the boundary of the project site, and would only occur
during the City’s allowable construction hours. Thus, impacts related to construction vibration would
be less than significant.
Table N-8: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver
Location
Distance
To Const.
Activity
(Feet)
Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec) RMS
Velocity
Levels
(in/sec)
Small
Bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Peak
Vibration
(PPV)
R1 1,038' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R2 171' 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004
R3 141' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.005
R4 210' 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003
R5 595' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
R6 1,675' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
80
Operation
The proposed project would involve development of a residential project that does not include any
equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large industrial
projects. While groundborne vibration within and surrounding the project site may result from
heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and delivery trucks) on the nearby local roadways,
this would not result in significant vibration impacts to the modified project. As such, vibration impacts
associated with operation of the modified project would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no potential for noise impacts related to airports
or airstrips because the nearest public airport (Perris Valley Airport) is 9.3 miles northeast of the
site, and project site is not within the Airport Operation zones or flight paths of Skylark Airfield,
which is 3,200 feet south of the site. Skylark Field is planned to be relocated south of its current
location, where it would not affect the project site (Urban Crossroads 2017).
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The modified project is located within an area that was analyzed for airport and airstrip noise as
part of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project does not include development
within a closer proximity to an airport or airstrip than previously analyzed.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not
been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony Project Initial
Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
81
in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or
alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was approved.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
City of Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance. The City of Lake Elsinore standards for stationary
source noise impacts does not permit operation of any tools or equipment used in
construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the weekday hours of
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The project shall adhere to the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance governing construction hours.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe noise impacts would result from the adoption and
implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new mitigation measures with respect to noise
impacts are required. No refinements related to the modified project are necessary to the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
82
6.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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?
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND estimated that the 211 condominiums at an average 3.27
people per household would result in approximately 690 new residents, which would not be
considered a substantial population increase.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop 143 residential units, 68 fewer dwelling units
than included in the approved project. This would result in approximately 222 fewer residents
(based on 3.27 people per household) than the approved project. Therefore, the modified project
would result in a reduced population in comparison to the approved project. No new or substantially
greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project when compared to those
identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and the level of impact (less than significant
impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that no displacement of existing housing would
occur, as the project area is vacant and undeveloped.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
83
No New Impact. The site affected by the modified project is vacant; therefore, development would
not displace any housing. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation
of the modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND
and the level of impact (no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that no displacement of substantial numbers of
people would occur, as no housing was present within the project site.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The site affected by the modified project is vacant and unoccupied; therefore,
development would not displace any residents. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur
with implementation of the modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project
Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from
that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and
housing. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND did not include any Project Design Features applicable to
population and housing.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe population and housing impacts would result from
the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required for population and housing. No refinements related to the modified project
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
84
are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
85
6.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
a) 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:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Fire Protection
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that development of the project site would result
in a less than significant impact related to fire protection facilities. The Colony Project Initial
Study/MND further concluded that with the application of standard code and ordinance
requirements and payment of impact fees to the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2015-
1 (Law Enforcement, Fire, and Paramedic Services), impacts related to fire protection would be less
than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located within the same area analyzed in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND, and contains fewer residences and a smaller development than
previously analyzed. Because the modified project would develop the project site for residential
uses, the modified project would increase demand for fire services to a similar or slightly less
demand than already anticipated for the project site. In addition, contribution to the City’s CFD No.
2015-1 to reduce potential impacts on fire services would be required to further reduce potential
impacts. Because the modified project would be consistent with the provisions of CFD No. 2015-1
and because the proposed development less than the development intensity already approved for
the project site, potential impacts would remain less than significant and no substantial change from
the previous analysis would occur. Additionally, the modified project would continue to be subject
to standard code and ordinance requirements, which are incorporated into the project through the
Project Description Features, listed below.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
86
(less than significant impact) would be the same as identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
b) Police Protection
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Based on communications with the Lake Elsinore Police Department, the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND determined that no additional officers or facilities would be required to service the
additional population generated from development of the project site. With the required payment
of impact fees to CFD No. 2015-1, impacts related to police protection would be less than
significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project is located within the same area analyzed in the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND, and contains fewer residences and a smaller development than
previously analyzed.
The modified project would increase demand for police services at a slightly less rate, due to the
development if 68 fewer residences than previously approved. Additionally, fees to the City’s CFD
No. 2015-1 to reduce potential impacts on police services would be required. Because the modified
project would be consistent with the provisions of CFD No. 2015-1 and because the proposed
development is less than the development intensity already approved for the project site, potential
impacts would remain less than significant and no substantial change from the previous analysis
would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) would be the same as identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
c) School Services
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND described that the senior-oriented community would be age
restricted (age 55 plus), and is not expected to generate any students that would attend the Lake
Elsinore Unified School District (LEUSD). None the less, the project would be required to pay
applicable development fees levied by LEUSD pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB]
50, Stats. 1998, c.407), which would ensure that impacts to schools are less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. While the modified project is not age-restricted, and would therefore likely
generate a greater number of students than the approved project, following payment of school
impact fees under SB 50 there would be no impact on school facilities. This standard requirement is
incorporated into the project through the Project Design Features, listed below. Therefore, no new
significant impacts are anticipated.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
87
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) the same as that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
d) Parks
Parks are addressed in Section 6.15, below.
e) Other Public Facilities
Library Services
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded local libraries have adequate capacity and
facilities to service the local population, including the resident population that would be added by
the approved project. Residential development is subject to the Riverside County Uniform Mitigation
Fee to fund library facility development and material purchases.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The modified project would reduce the total resident population of the project site compared to the
approved project, and would therefore have no impact on libraries. The Colony Project Initial
Study/MND included a Project Description Feature requiring residential development to pay library
impact fees; which would also be implemented by the modified project. No new or substantially
greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project when compared to those
identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts
identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact)
would be the same as identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding public services. There
have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony Project
Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or
alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was adopted.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
88
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
Fire. During construction and operation of the proposed project, compliance with all
applicable fire code and ordinance requirements would be required and conditioned to the
proposed project. The project would comply with the California fire and building codes,
and Riverside Fire Department requirements and standards for construction, access, water
mains, fire flow, and fire hydrants.
In addition, all new development projects are required to contribute to the City’s Community
Facilities District (CFD) for law enforcement, fire, and paramedic services.
Police. The project shall contribute to the City’s CFD for law enforcement, fire, and
paramedic services.
Schools. The project shall pay applicable development fees levied by Lake Elsinore Unified
School District (LEUSD) pursuant to the School Facilities Act (Senate Bill [SB] 50, Stats. 1998,
c.407) to offset impacts on school facilities resulting from new development.
Libraries. The project shall participate, as required, in the Riverside County Uniform
Mitigation Fee program that collects fees on new residential housing developments to
support future facility development and library material purchases.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe public services impacts would result from the adoption
and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are
required for public services. No refinements related to the modified project are necessary to the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are
required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
89
6.15 RECREATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?
b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the recreational and open space areas
provided on the project site, in combination with the limited increase in population that would result
from the project, would result in a less than significant impact related to the increase in use of park
or recreational facilities. In addition, the Colony Project Initial Study/MND described that the
required payment of park impact fees would further reduce potential impacts. Overall, impacts to
parks were found to be less than significant.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop 68 fewer dwelling units than the approved
project, and would result in a reduced demand for recreational facilities compared to the approved
project. Payment of park fees under the Quimby Act is not expected as no subdivision would occur
on the site; however, the modified project would provide onsite recreation and open space areas
that would serve the resident population. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with
implementation of the modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project
Initial Study/MND and the level of impact (less than significant impact) is the same as identified in
the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
90
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have
not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous Colony Project Initial
Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or
alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
There are no Project Description Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND that are
applicable to recreation.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe recreation impacts would result from the adoption
and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are
required for recreation. No refinements related to the modified project are necessary to the Colony
Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
91
6.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The analysis below is based on the Cottages at Mission Trail Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by
Urban Crossroads and dated August 23, 2017 (see Appendix E).
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components
of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
92
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that documented the
following information: (1) existing conditions in the vicinity of the project site without and with the
project; (2) opening year conditions (2010) without and with the project; and General Plan build
out without and with the project. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) concluded that the approved
project would result in the need for traffic signals at two intersections on Mission Trail (at Olive
Street and Lemon Street), which was included as Mitigation Measure TR-1, which would reduce
traffic impacts to below a level of significance.
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no other conflicts between the project and
applicable plans, ordinances, and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, including the congestion management program.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As described previously, the modified project would develop 68 less residential
units than the approved project, which would generate less traffic than the approved project. Table
TR-1 provides a comparison of the trips that were determined would be generated by the
approved project (1,236 daily trips) and the trips generated by the modified project (838 daily
trips). As shown, trips would be reduced by 398 trips per day; with a reduction of 30 trips in the
a.m. peak hour and a reduction of 36 trips in the p.m. peak hour. This comparison uses the trip
generation rates (condo/for townhouses) that was utilized in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Table TR-1: Trip Comparison Table
Units
Peak Hour Daily
AM PM
In Out Total In Out Total
Rate per Dwelling Unit
(ITE Land Use Code 230)
0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 5.86
211 Units (Approved Project) 15 78 93 74 36 110 1,236
143 Units (Modified Project) 10 53 63 50 24 74 838
To provide a conservative analysis of potential traffic impacts that could occur from development
of the project site, and because the design of the residential units changed from multi-family
structures to detached and duplex structures, the Traffic Impact Analysis for the modified project
utilized the trip generation rate for single family detached residential (ITE Land Use Code 210),
which is higher than those assumed for the ITE condo/townhouse generation factor (ITE Land Use
Code 230), and evaluated potential impacts out to year 2040 that includes evaluation of the
project with the anticipated ambient population growth.
The City identifies that the minimum allowable Level of Service (LOS) is LOS D. As described in the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the modified project, the addition of traffic from the modified
project is not anticipated to result in any LOS deficiencies. As shown in Tables TR-2 and TR-3, all of
the traffic study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better)
in the existing plus project and the year 2019 plus project conditions.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
93
Table TR-2: Existing Plus Project Intersection Conditions
Intersection
Existing Existing + Project
Delay
(Seconds) LOS
Delay
(Seconds) LOS
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Mission Tr. & Malaga Rd. 11.1 16.9 B B 11.1 17.1 B B
2 Mission Tr. & Hidden Tr./Elberta Rd. 9.8 8.9 A A 9.8 8.9 A A
3 Mission Tr. & Sedco Bl. 14.0 14.8 B B 14.4 15.1 B C
4 Mission Tr. & Driveway 1 Future Driveway Intersection 12.8
5 Mission Tr. & Driveway 2 Future Driveway Intersection 10.4
6 Mission Tr. & Olive St. 7.6 8.6 A A 7.7 8.6 A A
7 Mission Tr. & Lemon St. 8.7 8.8 A A 8.7 9.0 A A
8 Mission Tr. & Corydon St. 14.0 15.3 B B 14.2 15.5 B B
9 Mission Tr. & Bundy Canyon Rd. 15.0 16.5 B B 15.5 17.3 B B
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
Table TR-3: Opening Year (2019) Plus Project Intersection Conditions
Intersection
2019 + Project
Delay
(Seconds) LOS
AM PM AM PM
1 Mission Tr. & Malaga Rd. 12.3 20.3 B C
2 Mission Tr. & Hidden Tr./Elberta Rd. 10.4 10.3 B B
3 Mission Tr. & Sedco Bl. 16.4 16.8 C C
4 Mission Tr. & Driveway 1 13.6 19.1 B C
5 Mission Tr. & Driveway 2 10.6 12.9 B B
6 Mission Tr. & Olive St. 9.2 9.9 A A
7 Mission Tr. & Lemon St. 9.2 9.3 A A
8 Mission Tr. & Corydon St. 15.2 17.1 B B
9 Mission Tr. & Bundy Canyon Rd. 36.1 51.7 D D
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
The intersection of Mission Trail and Bundy Canyon Road is to operate at a deficient LOS of F for
Horizon Year (2040) in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours without project traffic conditions. As a
result of this projected future deficiency, the City of Wildomar has planned improvements at this
intersection that would occur before the year 2040. Hence, Table TR-4 includes the planned
improvements at this intersection.
As shown, with the planned improvements in the 2040 condition, the addition of traffic from the
modified project would not result in any LOS deficiencies. As shown in Table TR-4, all study area
intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) in the year 2040 plus
project condition. Therefore, significant traffic impacts would not result and the mitigation required
for the approved project would not be required for the modified project.
With the reduction in residential units, the modified project would not result in any increase in traffic
or reduction in levels of service beyond that previously analyzed in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the
modified project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The
modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
94
the level of impact (less than significant impact) is less than described in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
Table TR-4: 2040 Plus Project and Planned Improvement Intersection Conditions
Intersection
2040 without Project 2040 + Project
Delay
(Seconds) LOS
Delay
(Seconds) LOS
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Mission Tr. & Malaga Rd. 14.8 28.8 B C 14.9 30.3 B C
2 Mission Tr. & Hidden Tr./Elberta Rd. 11.9 11.8 B B 11.9 11.9 B B
3 Mission Tr. & Sedco Bl. 29.3 28.2 D D 30.5 28.9 D D
4 Mission Tr. & Driveway 1 Future Driveway Intersection 19.1 24.4 C C
5 Mission Tr. & Driveway 2 Future Driveway Intersection 12.3 19.1 B B
6 Mission Tr. & Olive St. 22.4 18.0 C B 22.5 20.2 C C
7 Mission Tr. & Lemon St. 16.1 16.8 B B 16.7 18.4 B B
8 Mission Tr. & Corydon St. 15.8 16.4 B B 16.0 16.8 B B
9 Mission Tr. & Bundy Canyon Rd. 39.9 46.6 D D 41.0 48.2 D D
Source: Cottages at Mission Trail Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2017.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no potential for impacts to air traffic patterns
because the nearest public airport (Perris Valley Airport) is 9.3 miles northeast of the site, and
project site is not within the Airport Operation zones or flight paths of Skylark Airfield, which is
3,200-feet south of the site and planned to be relocated further south.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project proposes two-story residential development that would have
no effect on air traffic. There are no new project features that differ significantly from those
reviewed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND that could cause a change in air traffic patterns.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(no impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no hazardous design features or incompatible uses
associated with the project, nor did it identify inadequate emergency access to the project area.
With implementation of the City’s required circulation design standards, that are reviewed prior to
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
95
permit approval, a less than significant impact is identified related to hazardous design features
or incompatible uses.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would not include any new design features that could be
hazardous, or introduce uses that would be incompatible with residential uses. The on-site circulation
and access would be required to meet City and Fire Department standards, as evaluated through
the building permit process. Additionally, the modified project continues to provide two points for
emergency service access.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified no conflicts between the development of the project
site for residential uses with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, nor did it identify a decrease in the performance or safety of such facilities
resulting from the project.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop fewer residential units, and provide on-site
walkways within the project site connecting various uses. The modified project would also provide
a sidewalk and a Class II bike lane (or make accommodation for future installation of a bike lane,
at the City’s discretion) along Mission Trail. The modified project not change any existing public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. As fewer residential units would be developed by the
modified project, and fewer persons would reside onsite, less demand for public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities would result from the modified project, in comparison to the approved project,
and impacts to the performance of such features would not occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation and
traffic. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
96
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
There are no Project Description Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND that are
applicable to traffic and transportation.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe transportation and traffic impacts would result from
the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required for transportation and traffic. No refinements related to the modified project
are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
97
6.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
The analysis below is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Cottages at Mission Trail
Project (2017 Cultural Report), prepared by Material Culture Consulting and dated July 18, 2017
(see Appendix B).
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND included a Cultural Resources Survey (2006 Cultural Report)
prepared by Harris Archaeological Consultants, dated August 27, 2006. As the Colony project
included a Specific Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment, the project was subject to
American Indian consultation requirements under SB 18. Consultation was conducted by the City of
Lake Elsinore in September 2006. The 2006 Cultural Report did not identify the potential for
significant impacts related to cultural resources and did not recommend archaeological or tribal
monitoring of the site during grading activities. Nonetheless, the Initial Study/MND included
mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4 requiring notification of an appropriate tribe prior to the
initiation of grading, preparation of a Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement,
submission a pre-grading report, assessment of any subsurface archaeological discoveries, and the
relinquishment of ownership of any found cultural resources.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
98
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The project site covers the same land area as analyzed in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND. The 2017 Cultural Report identifies no new records or other information
indicating a change in circumstances or the availability of new information of substantial importance
related to tribal cultural resources. The 2017 Cultural Report, like the 2006 Cultural Report, does
not recommend any mitigation measures; nonetheless, mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4 are
incorporated into the project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project is
consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant with mitigation incorporated) remains unchanged from that identified in the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Applicable Mitigation Measures Adopted by the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
Mitigation Measure CR-1 through CR-4: Refer to Section 6.5.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding tribal cultural
resources. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Feature included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND is applicable
to the modified project:
Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during project grading, California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until
the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant
to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and
free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been
made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timeframe.
Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the “most likely
descendant.” The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations, and engage in
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
99
consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code
5097.98.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe tribal cultural resources impacts would result from
the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required for tribal cultural resources. No refinements related to the modified
project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and no new
mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
100
6.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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?
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?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND describes that the wastewater service provider for the project
site is EVMWD. The site is in the service area of the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
(WRF), which was operating at 50 percent of capacity. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND
concluded that with adherence to the RWQCB’s NPDES permit for the Regional WRF, the project
would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements for the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
The modified project proposes fewer residential units than the approved project, and would result
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
101
in less wastewater flows than the approved project. There are no new project features that differ
significantly from those reviewed in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, which could create new
impacts related to wastewater treatment.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND determined that the existing water and wastewater
infrastructure would be adequate to service the project, and that adherence to City and EVMWD
regulations would ensure that less than significant impacts would result from the installation of the
onsite water lines and utility improvements required to serve water to the project. Per EVMWD,
adequate capacity exists to serve the projected increase in wastewater service. In addition, onsite
sewer-related infrastructure would be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements
and specifications of the City, EVMWD, Riverside County Department of Health, and RWQCB.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project includes development fewer residential units than analyzed
in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project’s overall water use and wastewater
generation would be less than that which was previously analyzed. Like the approved project, the
modified project would include installation of onsite infrastructure to service the new development.
Project Description Features are incorporated into the project to ensure compliance with City and
EVMWD requirements for water and wastewater service, respectively.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that the infrastructure plans for storm drainage
improvements included in the project would adequately service the project, and that construction of
on- and off-site storm drains to the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore and the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District would result in less-than-significant impacts.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
102
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As described in the project description, the modified project includes a drainage
system similar to the approved project, which consists of two onsite drainage systems that would
capture runoff from impervious areas and building structures on the project site and convey it to
the open space/detention center in the western portion of the site. The proposed drainage has
been designed to accommodate runoff from the project site, as required by RWCB and City
requirements, which has been verified by a Hydrology Study that was prepared for the modified
project (Wilson Mikami, 2017). The modified project would not require changes to the offsite storm
drain system, and impacts would remain less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified project
is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of impact
(less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project Initial
Study/MND.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND included a determination by EVMWD that adequate water
supply is available to serve the project. The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded, that the
project would be adequately served by existing entitlements from the EVMWD.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop 68 fewer residences than the approved
project and would generate a lower demand for water, compared to the approved project. Thus,
like the approved project, there would be less-than-significant impacts associated with the
availability of sufficient water supplies for the modified project.
Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified
project when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND. The modified
project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND and the level of
impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the Colony Project
Initial Study/MND.
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
See discussion in Section 6.17a) and b).
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. See discussion in Section 6.17a) and b).
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
103
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND identified the local solid waste disposal site as the El Sobrante
Landfill, which is permitted to receive 10,000 tons per day of waste. The Colony Project Initial
Study/MND identified that the approved project would generate 87 tons per year, an amount
which would be adequately served by the existing landfill capacity.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. The modified project would develop 68 fewer residences than the approved
project and would generate a lower demand for landfill capacity, compared to the approved
project. The decrease of 68 residential units would result in an annual solid waste decrease of
27.88 tons per year (0.41 tons per dwelling unit per year). Due to the decrease in solid waste
generation, it is assured that the modified project would be adequately served by El Sobrante
Landfill.
The El Sobrante Landfill is required to comply with existing landfill regulations from federal, state,
and local regulatory agencies. They are subject to regular inspections by CalRecycle, the Local
Enforcement Agency (RWQCB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The modified project would be required to comply with the waste diversion requirements of AB
939, and with the construction and demolition waste recycling requirements of Chapter 14.12 of
the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Project Description Features related to solid waste incorporated
into the project to ensure compliance with construction waste recycling requirements.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the modified project
when compared to those identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND related to solid waste.
The modified project is consistent with the impacts identified in Colony Project Initial Study/MND
and the level of impact (less than significant impact) remains unchanged from that identified in the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental MND or other environmental
document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding utilities and service
systems. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the previous
Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Colony Project Initial Study/MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
104
mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND was adopted.
Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features included in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND are
applicable to the modified project:
Water lines and connections would be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD).
The project shall incorporate drought-tolerant plants into the landscaping palette and use
water-efficient irrigation techniques.
The project shall install U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Certified WaterSense labeled
or equivalent faucets and high-efficiency toilets and water-conserving shower heads in
residences to the extent feasible.
Sewer-related infrastructure will be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, EVMWD, Riverside County Department of Health, and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes
and regulation related to solid waste, including the County’s Source Reduction and Recycling
Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE).
Gas-related infrastructure and necessary extensions would be installed in accordance with
the requirements and specifications of the City and the California Public Utilities Commission
under existing roads and rights-of-way.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe utilities and service systems impacts would result from
the adoption and implementation of the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation
measures are required regarding utilities and service systems. No refinements related to the
modified project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation measures and
no new mitigation measures are required.
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
105
6.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
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, substantially 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?
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND found that, with the application of Mitigation Measures BI-1
through BI-3, impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, habitat, and nesting birds would be
less than significant. To further reduce impacts, biological resource related Project Design Features
have been incorporated into the project.
The application of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 were determined to reduce all impacts
to cultural and archaeological resources to below a level of significance. Additionally, to further
reduce impacts, cultural resource related Project Design Features have been incorporated into the
project.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As described in Sections 6.4 and 6.5, the modified project is located within the
analysis area of the Colony Project Initial Study/MND, and the proposed development is smaller
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
106
than previously analyzed. There are no new design features or impact areas that could result in
increased effects to biological or cultural resources. The applicable mitigation measures of the
Colony Project Initial Study/MND—for biological resources, Mitigation Measures BI-1 through BI-
3, and for cultural resources, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4—are required to be applied
to the modified project. As a result, impacts to biological and cultural resources are less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
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)?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND did not identify cumulatively considerable impacts for any of
the environmental topic areas evaluated.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when
considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts.
The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period.
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) and (b), states:
(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is
cumulatively considerable.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their
likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is
provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by
the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
As discussed above, the modified project would result in development of 68 fewer residential units
at a lower intensity of development than the approved project. Therefore, the severity of impacts
would be reduced with the implementation of the modified project. The reduced scale of overall
development would also result in no new cumulatively considerable impacts under other impact
areas. With implementation of existing regulations, Project Design Features, and the applicable
mitigation measures, the modified project would not result in any new potentially cumulatively
considerable significant impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Cottages at Mission Trail
City of Lake Elsinore Addendum
107
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Colony Project Initial Study/MND
The Colony Project Initial Study/MND concluded that all impacts that could result in substantial
adverse effects on human beings were mitigated to below a level of significance.
Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
No New Impact. As described in Sections 6.1 through 6.17, above, the modified project has no
new potentially significant impacts and no new mitigation measures would be required. The
implementation of applicable mitigation measures, Project Design Features, City standards, and
City guidelines would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly. There would be no new impacts.
Project Design Features
Refer to Project Design Features in Table 4.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more adverse impacts would result from the implementation of
the modified project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. No refinements
related to the modified project are necessary to the Colony Project Initial Study/MND mitigation
measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
DIAMOND DRI 1
5
MALAGA RD MI
SSI
ON TRLCASIN
O DR
VILLAGE PKWYG
R
A
P
E
S
T
H I D D E N T R L LINE DRBASEBALL MASCOT PETE LEHR DR
MEADOW
STADIUM
M A LA G A R D
H I D D E N T R LDIAMOND DRI 1
5
MALAGA RD MI
SSI
ON TRLCASIN
O DR
VILLAGE PKWYG
R
A
P
E
S
T
H I D D E N T R L LINE DRBASEBALL MASCOT PETE LEHR DR
MEADOW
STADIUM
M A LA G A R D
H I D D E N T R L
PLANNING APPLICATION 2017-37VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
´
I 1
5 MI
SSI
ON TRLDIAMOND DRMILL ST
LAKESHORE DR
G
R
A
P
E S
T
MALAGA RD
CASIN
O DR
CORYDON STVILLAGE PKWYELM STPA RK WA Y
H I D D E N T R LHIGH STBASEBALL I 1
5
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
I 1
5 MI
SSI
ON TRLDIAMOND DRMILL ST
LAKESHORE DR
G
R
A
P
E S
T
MALAGA RD
CASIN
O DR
CORYDON STVILLAGE PKWYELM STPA RK WA Y
H I D D E N T R LHIGH STBASEBALL I 1
5
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
PLANNING APPLICATION 2017-37AERIAL MAP
PROJECT SITE
´